4 ms·
entirely valid point except the assumption that solar can't be delivered at 10c/kWh. I see no reason it couldn't be.
by niels_olson 11y ago
entirely valid point except the assumption that solar can't be delivered at 10c/kWh. I see no reason it couldn't be.
- toomuchtodo 11y agohttp://cleantechnica.com/2015/04/13/solar-wind-power-prices-often-lower-fossil-fuel-power-prices/ http://cleantechnica.com/2015/04/13/solar-wind-power-prices-... > Wind power, on average, sold for 2.5¢ per kilowatt-hour in the US in 2013, when looking at PPA prices (2014 numbers are due to come out this week). That’s the average for all reported PPAs, which means they’re a bit under 4¢ per kilowatt-hour without subsidies. These super-low prices are extremely hard to beat, and demonstrate why so much of the electricity generation capacity added in the past few years has come from wind power plants. The article also has several examples of utility scale solar already producing power below 6 cents/KwH.
- brc 11y agoBecause it's not 10c/kWh overnight, baseload. Fridges and lighting and waterpumps need 24/7 power. Solar with battery raises these costs considerably and are not suitable for the type of power needed. Solar in-fill is great at low cost. It doesn't scale out like that when you need to make power 24/7. I have nothing against solar power and battery tech. I just try and keep things in perspective of the bigger picture for the majority of the world.
- lotsofmangos 11y agoRefrigeration and water pumping would seem to be examples of systems where it is very easy to design for intermittent power. For the former you need a storage tank after the compressor and for the latter you need a water tower. For lighting, you are correct, but that needs very little capacity.