7 ms·

$33 per MWh for solar. What is it for coal or natural gas? Maybe half that?

Panino 10mo ago
Why would you think that? Solar and wind are both far cheaper than fossil fuels even ignoring the problems caused by coal and methane. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cost_of_electricity_by_source https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cost_of_electricity_by_source
- mikeyouse 10mo ago
  Fuel cost for gas/coal can be rounded to $2/MWH - so then you need to amortize the cost of the plant over all the energy produced and you get to roughly 2x fuel cost for nat gas plants and 3x - 5x for coal ones. See page 10 here for sensitivity to fuel costs though; https://www.lazard.com/news-announcements/lazard-releases-2025-levelized-cost-of-energyplus-report-pr/ https://www.lazard.com/news-announcements/lazard-releases-20...
  - mlwiese 10mo ago
    No, Lazard estimates the fuel cost is $22-$23/MWh for Gas Combined Cycle, and $13-$18/MWh for Coal. See pages 39-40 of https://www.lazard.com/media/0sopmth5/lazard-releases-2025-levelized-cost-of-energyplus-report.pdf https://www.lazard.com/media/0sopmth5/lazard-releases-2025-l...
fyrn_ 10mo ago
In the US as of June 2024: Gas peaker plants are: $110-228 And Gas combined cycle: $45-108 PV in the US is also more expensive than globally however: $38-171 for Utility scale with storage, when including subsidies, $60-210 when not. Coal is so much worse in every cost metric than gas combined cycle it's not worth considering, even leaving the pollution aside. https://www.energy.gov/sites/default/files/2024-12/34-%20Exh.%20FF-%20Lazard%27s.pdf https://www.energy.gov/sites/default/files/2024-12/34-%20Exh...
xbmcuser 10mo ago
$100+ meh for natural gas. Solar and battery is so cheap that arab countries are now building large solar and battery systems to save money instead of burning oil and gas. Where as in the US the other big oil and gas producer wholesale electricity prices for Natural Gas is around $100-150 mwh which is cheaper than coal and the major reason coal got pushed out. Then we have China and India where coal is around $40-50 mwh. So solar and batteries are now cheaper than all other forms of energy/electricity the only problem is finance for poor countries as you need to spend for all the 15-20 years of electricity in one go where as for coal and gas you will spend the same amount over 10-15 years. For rich countries the problem is mostly protectionism as cheap energy would destroy a lot of wealth of people in power.
- pfdietz 10mo ago
  When we get to the point where resistive heat from PV is cheaper than burning fossil fuels, the revolution will truly shift into high gear.
toomuchtodo 10mo ago
Solar and storage is the cheapest form of power now. Prices for both will continue to decline. Battery storage hits $65/MWh – a tipping point for solar - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=46251705 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=46251705 - December 2025
mullingitover 10mo ago
It's already cheaper to demolish an existing coal plant that's already paid for and replace it with solar + battery. Solar and battery brand new buildout, plus their maintenance overhead, dominates coal even when you only count coal's maintenance cost. People have it in their heads that this is some bleeding heart, don't ruin the planet thing, but it's plain economics. Non-renewable energy is simply inferior, and will only become more so.
- luqtas 10mo ago
  > Non-renewable energy is simply inferior, and will only become more so. you simply can't say this. despite the lobby against it, solar and wind energy have lifespans of around 20 years and afterwards, it's a freaking mess to deal with recycling and often times, garbage we don't know what to do. not even counting the amount of NASTY chemicals going into the production of solar panels. these are sometimes permanent and will have a great long term impact on ecology if we just start destroying plants to substitute with "green" alternatives mindlessly one can also make a point that despite wind generators metals and batteries being almost to 100% recyclable, it's heck expensive to do and we don't have infrastructure. a comparison cosidering everything involved may show that hydroelectrics, nuclear, geo-thermal and heck even gas may have a similar or better impact depending on location
  - deleted 10mo ago
    [deleted]
  - ceejayoz 10mo ago
    > it's a freaking mess to deal with recycling and often times, garbage we don't know what to do I love that this is followed by “so go nuclear!”
    - deleted 10mo ago
      [deleted]
    - luqtas 10mo ago
      i recommend you starting with something easy to digest like this: https://www.amazon.com/Energy-Society-David-Pimentel-Ph-D/dp/1420046675 https://www.amazon.com/Energy-Society-David-Pimentel-Ph-D/dp... then you can move on and judge what't the panorama of closed/paywalled science found out there (Nature) that evaluates impacts of solar panel not even considering numbers of last batches of thrash from ~ 2010 (which still have 10-15 years till they start filling the world with chemicals like lead)... then may dive into electricity security and distribution and recycling technology to bring up a single ignorant phrase comment downsizing nuclear generation, despite it being safer and ecological on the long-term compared to photovoltaics in LOTS of places, for example
aoeusnth1 10mo ago
Curious, where do you get your news? What gives you the impression that coal or gas would possibly be cheaper than solar?
- ceejayoz 10mo ago
  Doesn't matter; they'll keep up with the same talking points. They're still flogging the "vast areas of the earth" one nearly two years after someone debunked it and they said "very encouraging!" to that info. Now: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=46259179 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=46259179 Early 2024: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=39415988 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=39415988

Panino 10mo ago

Why would you think that? Solar and wind are both far cheaper than fossil fuels even ignoring the problems caused by coal and methane. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cost_of_electricity_by_source https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cost_of_electricity_by_source

mikeyouse 10mo ago
Fuel cost for gas/coal can be rounded to $2/MWH - so then you need to amortize the cost of the plant over all the energy produced and you get to roughly 2x fuel cost for nat gas plants and 3x - 5x for coal ones. See page 10 here for sensitivity to fuel costs though; https://www.lazard.com/news-announcements/lazard-releases-2025-levelized-cost-of-energyplus-report-pr/ https://www.lazard.com/news-announcements/lazard-releases-20...
- mlwiese 10mo ago
  No, Lazard estimates the fuel cost is $22-$23/MWh for Gas Combined Cycle, and $13-$18/MWh for Coal. See pages 39-40 of https://www.lazard.com/media/0sopmth5/lazard-releases-2025-levelized-cost-of-energyplus-report.pdf https://www.lazard.com/media/0sopmth5/lazard-releases-2025-l...

fyrn_ 10mo ago

In the US as of June 2024: Gas peaker plants are: $110-228 And Gas combined cycle: $45-108 PV in the US is also more expensive than globally however: $38-171 for Utility scale with storage, when including subsidies, $60-210 when not. Coal is so much worse in every cost metric than gas combined cycle it's not worth considering, even leaving the pollution aside. https://www.energy.gov/sites/default/files/2024-12/34-%20Exh.%20FF-%20Lazard%27s.pdf https://www.energy.gov/sites/default/files/2024-12/34-%20Exh...

xbmcuser 10mo ago

$100+ meh for natural gas. Solar and battery is so cheap that arab countries are now building large solar and battery systems to save money instead of burning oil and gas. Where as in the US the other big oil and gas producer wholesale electricity prices for Natural Gas is around $100-150 mwh which is cheaper than coal and the major reason coal got pushed out. Then we have China and India where coal is around $40-50 mwh. So solar and batteries are now cheaper than all other forms of energy/electricity the only problem is finance for poor countries as you need to spend for all the 15-20 years of electricity in one go where as for coal and gas you will spend the same amount over 10-15 years. For rich countries the problem is mostly protectionism as cheap energy would destroy a lot of wealth of people in power.

pfdietz 10mo ago
When we get to the point where resistive heat from PV is cheaper than burning fossil fuels, the revolution will truly shift into high gear.

toomuchtodo 10mo ago

Solar and storage is the cheapest form of power now. Prices for both will continue to decline. Battery storage hits $65/MWh – a tipping point for solar - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=46251705 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=46251705 - December 2025

mullingitover 10mo ago

It's already cheaper to demolish an existing coal plant that's already paid for and replace it with solar + battery. Solar and battery brand new buildout, plus their maintenance overhead, dominates coal even when you only count coal's maintenance cost. People have it in their heads that this is some bleeding heart, don't ruin the planet thing, but it's plain economics. Non-renewable energy is simply inferior, and will only become more so.

luqtas 10mo ago
> Non-renewable energy is simply inferior, and will only become more so. you simply can't say this. despite the lobby against it, solar and wind energy have lifespans of around 20 years and afterwards, it's a freaking mess to deal with recycling and often times, garbage we don't know what to do. not even counting the amount of NASTY chemicals going into the production of solar panels. these are sometimes permanent and will have a great long term impact on ecology if we just start destroying plants to substitute with "green" alternatives mindlessly one can also make a point that despite wind generators metals and batteries being almost to 100% recyclable, it's heck expensive to do and we don't have infrastructure. a comparison cosidering everything involved may show that hydroelectrics, nuclear, geo-thermal and heck even gas may have a similar or better impact depending on location
- deleted 10mo ago
  [deleted]
- ceejayoz 10mo ago
  > it's a freaking mess to deal with recycling and often times, garbage we don't know what to do I love that this is followed by “so go nuclear!”
  - deleted 10mo ago
    [deleted]
  - luqtas 10mo ago
    i recommend you starting with something easy to digest like this: https://www.amazon.com/Energy-Society-David-Pimentel-Ph-D/dp/1420046675 https://www.amazon.com/Energy-Society-David-Pimentel-Ph-D/dp... then you can move on and judge what't the panorama of closed/paywalled science found out there (Nature) that evaluates impacts of solar panel not even considering numbers of last batches of thrash from ~ 2010 (which still have 10-15 years till they start filling the world with chemicals like lead)... then may dive into electricity security and distribution and recycling technology to bring up a single ignorant phrase comment downsizing nuclear generation, despite it being safer and ecological on the long-term compared to photovoltaics in LOTS of places, for example

aoeusnth1 10mo ago

Curious, where do you get your news? What gives you the impression that coal or gas would possibly be cheaper than solar?

ceejayoz 10mo ago
Doesn't matter; they'll keep up with the same talking points. They're still flogging the "vast areas of the earth" one nearly two years after someone debunked it and they said "very encouraging!" to that info. Now: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=46259179 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=46259179 Early 2024: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=39415988 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=39415988