4 ms·

I'd like to see that overwhelming evidence. Everything I've been able to find suggests that renewables, since they have a ~zero marginal energy cost, displace

I'd like to see that overwhelming evidence. Everything I've been able to find suggests that renewables, since they have a ~zero marginal energy cost, displace the most expensive dispatchable alternatives. But wholesale pricing seems to be heavily influenced more by the highest priced energy source in the mix than the lowest, so at this point the wholesale price drop is modest (but still a drop). Retail pricing has to include all sorts of extra stuff, like paying for the local grid infrastructure, subsidies, etc, and this makes what the consumer sees on their bill have only a passing relationship to the wholesale cost. If you have a good source for something that says otherwise, I'd be genuinely interested to see it. Not that I would probably change my opinion on renewables, since I personally think cutting pollution of the air I breathe is worth paying a little extra for, but I like to be informed nonetheless.

perpetuallunch 2mo ago
> Everything I've been able to find suggests that renewables, since they have a ~zero marginal energy cost, displace the most expensive dispatchable alternatives Renewables aren’t dispatchable, so the two aren’t comparable. Any increase in renewables in a grid, beyond a small and insignificant fraction, requires a significant increase in dispatchable electricity generation to match. Coal can load follow to a limited extent because steam can be vented and base load is very predictable. Gas turbines are very dispatchable, and combined cycle gas turbine can load follow well. The argument against renewables being cheaper than the other options is that there isn’t any example anywhere to date where renewables have gone and electricity has become cheaper. It’s a fact that anywhere renewables have penetrated the market to any extent worth mentioning, electricity has become much more expensive. Countries that haven’t conducted the renewables experiment haven’t experienced anywhere near the same rise in electricity prices. Wind and solar, especially in a place like Australia which is extremely geographically dispersed, requires massive infrastructure investment to get the electricity to the grid. Complete with the destruction of vast swaths of land through national parks, parks environmental types would have previously nailed themselves to trees to defend.

perpetuallunch 2mo ago

> Everything I've been able to find suggests that renewables, since they have a ~zero marginal energy cost, displace the most expensive dispatchable alternatives Renewables aren’t dispatchable, so the two aren’t comparable. Any increase in renewables in a grid, beyond a small and insignificant fraction, requires a significant increase in dispatchable electricity generation to match. Coal can load follow to a limited extent because steam can be vented and base load is very predictable. Gas turbines are very dispatchable, and combined cycle gas turbine can load follow well. The argument against renewables being cheaper than the other options is that there isn’t any example anywhere to date where renewables have gone and electricity has become cheaper. It’s a fact that anywhere renewables have penetrated the market to any extent worth mentioning, electricity has become much more expensive. Countries that haven’t conducted the renewables experiment haven’t experienced anywhere near the same rise in electricity prices. Wind and solar, especially in a place like Australia which is extremely geographically dispersed, requires massive infrastructure investment to get the electricity to the grid. Complete with the destruction of vast swaths of land through national parks, parks environmental types would have previously nailed themselves to trees to defend.