4 ms·
"I’m particularly struck by our findings on the diseconomies of scale, with projects exceeding 1,561 megawatts in capacity demonstrating significantly higher ri
by amai 1y ago
"I’m particularly struck by our findings on the diseconomies of scale, with projects exceeding 1,561 megawatts in capacity demonstrating significantly higher risk of cost escalation,” says Hanee Ryu, second and corresponding author and a visiting researcher at IGS...
What this could mean, Ryu explains, is that smaller, modular renewable projects might not only bring environmental benefits, but also potentially reduce financial risk and offer better budget predictability."
The diseconomy of scale is something I don't read very often. Interesting!
- johnea 1y agoI agree that smaller is better. I would take it even further, and say that storage, as well as generation, should be down-scaled as much as possible. On-building scale generation, and per building storage, being the ultimate embodiment. This also minimizes large scale distribution infrastructure needs. Like with other comments regarding why nuclear is still built in spite of its extreme cost and schedule overruns: utilities want the infrastructure to be organized in a way that can only be operated and maintained by large utilities. We should put our subsidies into individual building storage, and the technology to distribute the energy in that storage onto the local grid. What we're seeing is the exact opposite, very large scale solar and storage projects that are specifically architected to produce profit, not power.