4 ms·
> As of today it's not enough to have positive net return, but to have a LCOE of maybe $60/MWh If you don't count externalities (see cost of firming intermiten
by pyrale 2y ago
> As of today it's not enough to have positive net return, but to have a LCOE of maybe $60/MWh
If you don't count externalities (see cost of firming intermitency [1]).
> (and going down).
Not the last two years according to LCOE+ 2024. the main culprit is inflation, but the curve was nearing flat anyway.
[1]: https://www.lazard.com/media/gjyffoqd/lazards-lcoeplus-june-2024.pdf https://www.lazard.com/media/gjyffoqd/lazards-lcoeplus-june-...
- pfdietz 2y agoWhen I go to https://model.energy/ https://model.energy/ and solve for the cost of energy from renewables + storage in the US, using 2030 cost assumptions, the cost is less than $0.05/kWh. This is providing synthetic 24/7/365 baseload power, so all intermittency has been taken care of.
- pyrale 2y agoProblem solved then? We should give the folks at model.energy the next peace prize for their effort.
- pfdietz 2y agoYou don't have to go that far, but you could at least listen honestly to what that model, and what more complex models, are telling you.
- pyrale 2y agoYou're answering to a post I made saying that prices that were quoted from the Lazard report don't reflect all that's writen in the report. Your answer gives a model unrelated to the figures I was discussing, with extremely agressive prices [1] set as hypotheses and zero network costs factored in. Sure, I can accept it as a minimum limit for the cost of a system, but that's not a very useful information, and you're not quoting this price as a lower limit either. I don't see an honesty issue here, just someone believing that spherical cows are going to produce milk tomorrow. [1]: e.g. the Lazard report quotes utility PV at $29-92/MWh, while your tool quotes it at 21.7€/MWh.