2 ms·
This logic does apply to fossil fuels because fossil fuel plants cannot compete on cost with renewables when they’re running at full capacity. In terms of actua
by jncfhnb 2y ago
This logic does apply to fossil fuels because fossil fuel plants cannot compete on cost with renewables when they’re running at full capacity. In terms of actual production, many fossil fuel plants are running at lower than their potential production.
- XorNot 2y agoThat's the entire point: a proportional increase in renewables isn't a 1:1 reduction in thermals. You don't replace 1GW of thermal plant capacity with 1GW of solar. You replace some fraction of its output, but it still runs overnight, or at times of low production or whatever. So installed capacity increasing doesn't directly tell you much about the future composition of the grid, particularly in the absence of significant storage or overnight capable sources like wind (which after still variable).
- jncfhnb 2y agoWell, sort of. You’re likely going to use 100% of possible production for wind and solar. That’s much lower than “capacity”, true. But you’re going to use it. Fossil fuel sources on the other hand are being rapidly downscaled. And if it’s not operationally profitable to run a gas plant at reduced capacity, the plant will have to shut down entirely. This is happening to peaker plants due to battery power coming online. the economics of gas plants become much, much worse quickly. The cost of energy from a gas plant that’s run a small portion of its planned output is much higher due to the fixed costs. This should push up the price of off-renewable time power, which will increase the business case for batteries. It’s a bit of a death loop. Gas will be here for a long time yet but I predict mainstream forecasts are underestimating how quickly the tides will turn to the share of renewables