4 ms·

> But that means the cost of building all those natural gas peaker plants is part of the cost of solar (it's never included in the LCOE). This is a weird posit

by hvb2 1y ago

> But that means the cost of building all those natural gas peaker plants is part of the cost of solar (it's never included in the LCOE). This is a weird position to take. How would you price out nuclear then? As that cannot respond to changes in demand quickly either? Should every power source's cost have some gas tacked on to it? Or can we just assume that for now we have a mix of sources where different sources have different pros and cons. And as said in many other places here, fossils don't have their externalities priced in either. I wouldn't be surprised if future generations scold us for burning so much natural gas that can also be used for many other things than burning

Leherenn 1y ago
Not the GP, but I think it's fairly reasonable, yes. Ultimately, what we care about, from a grid policy perspective, is the cost to provide 99% (or whatever) guaranteed 24/7/365 power. Each energy source will have its own challenges in order to do that, and for solar availablity it clearly one of them. And yes, externalities should be factored in. > Or can we just assume that for now we have a mix of sources where different sources have different pros and cons. Of course, but the question is: what is the right mix for the right place. And saying "solar + storage" is cheaper than gas means very different things if it can only guarantee 60% availability like in England, or 95+% in the sunniest regions of the world. The figures reported here come from (among others) Lazard' LCOE analysis. (https://www.lazard.com/media/xemfey0k/lazards-lcoeplus-june-2024-_vf.pdf https://www.lazard.com/media/xemfey0k/lazards-lcoeplus-june-...) If you have a look at how it's calculated, "solar + storage" only has enough storage for 4h for instance. You cannot really meaningfully compare it directly with nuclear which is much more reliable in itself. What LCOE says is that the system will produce X amount of energy at cost of Y. It says nothing about when that energy will be produced. An energy source that produces 365 MWh on January 1st only, and another that produces 1 MWh every day, for the same cost, will have the same LCOE. The latter is, provided you can scale it, much more useful in practice. Look, I'm not saying that solar is bad or we shouldn't do it. It's just that the "solar is cheap" thing which is regularly reported is a bit misleading. We've heard it for years now, and yet electricity prices around the world are mostly increasing. Clearly there's a mismatch, but where does it come from? And I think part of the reason is that the "ancillary" costs of solar have been underestimated. Sure, the energy straight out of the panel is very cheap, but if you need 10s of billions in grid upgrades and storage/backup to make it work in practice, then it should definitely be included in the comparison! Just like the externalities of fossil fuels should be.
- hvb2 1y ago
  > yet electricity prices around the world are mostly increasing Part of that is a result of not pricing in externalities so we've never paid the actual cost. On the other hand, demand is going up a lot which means a lot more investment on the grid side as well. If you have a level 2 charger for your ev for example, that can draw 20kW... If you asked an electrician in the 80s what the peak power a residential home could consume is, you would probably get 1 maybe 2kW at best. So all of that infra is very undersized if we stop burning stuff. And finally, recently there's been a few disruptions in main sources of fossil fuels (looking at you, Russia)

by hvb2 1y ago

Leherenn 1y ago

Not the GP, but I think it's fairly reasonable, yes. Ultimately, what we care about, from a grid policy perspective, is the cost to provide 99% (or whatever) guaranteed 24/7/365 power. Each energy source will have its own challenges in order to do that, and for solar availablity it clearly one of them. And yes, externalities should be factored in. > Or can we just assume that for now we have a mix of sources where different sources have different pros and cons. Of course, but the question is: what is the right mix for the right place. And saying "solar + storage" is cheaper than gas means very different things if it can only guarantee 60% availability like in England, or 95+% in the sunniest regions of the world. The figures reported here come from (among others) Lazard' LCOE analysis. (https://www.lazard.com/media/xemfey0k/lazards-lcoeplus-june-2024-_vf.pdf https://www.lazard.com/media/xemfey0k/lazards-lcoeplus-june-...) If you have a look at how it's calculated, "solar + storage" only has enough storage for 4h for instance. You cannot really meaningfully compare it directly with nuclear which is much more reliable in itself. What LCOE says is that the system will produce X amount of energy at cost of Y. It says nothing about when that energy will be produced. An energy source that produces 365 MWh on January 1st only, and another that produces 1 MWh every day, for the same cost, will have the same LCOE. The latter is, provided you can scale it, much more useful in practice. Look, I'm not saying that solar is bad or we shouldn't do it. It's just that the "solar is cheap" thing which is regularly reported is a bit misleading. We've heard it for years now, and yet electricity prices around the world are mostly increasing. Clearly there's a mismatch, but where does it come from? And I think part of the reason is that the "ancillary" costs of solar have been underestimated. Sure, the energy straight out of the panel is very cheap, but if you need 10s of billions in grid upgrades and storage/backup to make it work in practice, then it should definitely be included in the comparison! Just like the externalities of fossil fuels should be.

hvb2 1y ago
> yet electricity prices around the world are mostly increasing Part of that is a result of not pricing in externalities so we've never paid the actual cost. On the other hand, demand is going up a lot which means a lot more investment on the grid side as well. If you have a level 2 charger for your ev for example, that can draw 20kW... If you asked an electrician in the 80s what the peak power a residential home could consume is, you would probably get 1 maybe 2kW at best. So all of that infra is very undersized if we stop burning stuff. And finally, recently there's been a few disruptions in main sources of fossil fuels (looking at you, Russia)