3 ms·
Nice talking points. And they work, if you ignore realities around nuclear built out or assume the low numbers are due to some kind of conspiracy. And storage,
by hef19898 3y ago
Nice talking points. And they work, if you ignore realities around nuclear built out or assume the low numbers are due to some kind of conspiracy. And storage, well, you'd be surprise how much storage you actually need in modern grids.
The prices I refer to so, are real world costs and feed prices for real world projects. Unless you believe people calculating those professionally don't know what they do, I hope we can agree that the are correct and can serve as valid basis for comparisons and discusion.
- vlovich123 3y agoPlease show me a single wind/solar installation that has storage priced in. These projects are being priced without storage nor are any that I’m aware of being constructed to supply baseload power precisely because grid scale storage for intermittent renewables is expensive and unsolved. So no, I don’t agree that evaluating the price of non-baseload power projects tells us anything about the costs involved with baseload power plants.
- hef19898 3y agoThat's the point: they don't need storage. If you believe that, read up on electricity generation and grid balancing, beyond popular talking points.
- vlovich123 3y agoLet me know of a place without baseload generation / with it replaced by renewables. These are interesting claims to make but there’s no existence proof. Almost every place that goes all in on renewables inevitably uses fossil fuels, nuclear, or hydro to backfill the baseload demand (and usually fossil fuels since nuclear has very few projects and hydro is very regional and maxed out wherever practical).