2 ms·
That's assuming energy is the only marginal/variable cost. But, I guess we are playing with contrived examples either way. Anyway, if inconsistency is an inher
by netcan 12y ago
That's assuming energy is the only marginal/variable cost. But, I guess we are playing with contrived examples either way.
Anyway, if inconsistency is an inherent cost of solar it needs to be treated as such in comparisons. Even if storage gets "solved" it won't be free. There will be energy costs to it and other costs. To have consistent capacity of X, you will need a peak capacity of several times X. If peak grid usage is completely covered by solar, there will be wasted capacity at the coal plants at this times.
- Retric 12y agoStorage an issue based on the % of solar adoption. At say 1% solar you don't need any storage and it's cost effective in most countries today. At say 80%+ you’re going to need a lot of storage. Worst case is basically 100% solar which is how many home systems are designed. At which point storage basically doubles your costs now and it only gets worse as solar gets cheaper. Granted there are low cost utility scale solutions, but PV is still at low enough levels in most areas that it's cheaper to simply store nothing and vary occasionally let excess power go to waste. PS: The important thing to note is solar is cheap enough that even without any subsides the market is going to stick with a solar component anyway simply because that's what's cost effective. And solar is only getting cheaper so that % is going to slowly rise over time without any intervention. The issue is people want solar to make a large percentage of the grid power and that's where there are problems.