[CogentHedgehog]

This is... really off base for 2020. Solar and wind in the US are incredibly cheap sources of energy. Literally the cheapest options: https://www.lazard.com/media/451445/grphx_lcoe-02-02.jpg

Residential solar is expensive because you don't have the same economy of scale you see in utility-scale deployments. Also something like 1/3 of the cost is "soft costs" such as marketing and the crazy red tape associated with permitting.

The latest academic modelling shows that we can meet 70-80% of energy demand from renewable energy alone, even without storage. All it requires is building a modest excess of capacity and a 50/50 wind/solar mix. When it comes time to add storage, battery storage costs have been plummeting and already dropped 75% over the last 6 years: https://www.greentechmedia.com/articles/read/report-levelize...

[StillBored]

But if its truly cheaper than all the worlds CO2 production problems are solved!!

Energy is sufficiently deregulated in enough of the US that they will sell to the areas that aren't, just like France was doing with all its "old dirty" nukes, to the countries around it building "green".

I can't tell from your graph, but I saw an actual cost estimate a couple months ago that points out what has been true for the past 10 years of "wind is cheaper" metrics.

Which is that its not, because its not continuous (or controllable) power delivery. Nor does it account for the fact that it also needs to be overbuilt if its going to supply an energy storage system either. Nor does it account for the energy storage costs.

So, yes in absolute KW produced its cheaper, but that does little but create an oversupply problem. Which is why in places like TX the power costs frequently go to zero when the wind is blowing and spike at other times. Making cheap power when you don't need it doesn't help. What TX needs is lots of power at 3PM (when in theory solar would be useful, but the existing smaller plants aren't making money either).

The net result in TX has been lots of wind install, but even more gas install. Because the gas plants are actually making money. If big battery plants are economically workable then we would also see a lot of companies arbitraging the free wind energy into $ when the price spikes but we don't see that either.

So its not a simple/sure bet like is being claimed.

(for those that don't know, TX is one of the largest green energy systems in the world https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wind_power_in_Texas)

[epistasis]

It's not solved yet, because energy is not deregulated enough, and entrenched financial interests won't go down without a legislative fight.

For example, in Ohio several state legislators were purchased, and passed regulation claiming to "save" nuclear but what it really did was bail out coal and prevent the cheapest source of energy from competing in the market. The most surprising is that this corruption is actually resulting in prosecutions, and the top regulator has now resigned too:

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2020-11-20/firstener...

Funny you should bring up Texas, it actually is installing massive batteries, with 17GW in the pipeline last time I heard. And natural gas is dwindling to nothing, getting replaced with solar. ERCOT is one of the very very very few places where cheapest cost can actually win, and it's where we are going to see natural gas die first because of that.

[StillBored]

I live in tx, and have a bit of knowledge about this.

Gas plants are still being constructed, and there are more in planning. There is 0 indication its going anywhere anytime soon.

[CogentHedgehog]

Gas plants are replacing coal plants: https://www.power-eng.com/2019/04/11/eia-gas-fired-combined-...

They're generally cheaper to run and better at load-following.

Coal has been on the way out for a decade or so, long before renewable energy started to be a big player in the US.

[StillBored]

Right, but its the NG that enables the wind because of said load following. That combined with the fact that they are super cheap to build, and the US has a huge glut in NG due to fracking and regulation on how much we can sell internationally.

But, that isn't the point. The point is that even if we go to a ~70% wind model, we will _STILL_BE_WORSE_OFF_THAN_FRANCE_WAS_40_YEARS_AGO_.

The "Green energy" movement there is _INCREASING_ their CO2 production.

https://www.worldometers.info/co2-emissions/france-co2-emiss...

I don't get why this is so hard to understand for all those down voters. Worse, at the current rates, we won't get there for decades.

[nicoffeine]

> The point is that even if we go to a ~70% wind model, we will _STILL_BE_WORSE_OFF_THAN_FRANCE_WAS_40_YEARS_AGO_.

No.[1]

Denmark has about 48% of their energy from wind, and their per capita carbon emissions are at the same level as in 1960.[2] Ireland with 33% is at the same level as in 1980.[3] Portugal with 27% now has the same emissions as 1990.[4]

There is a trend here.

> I don't get why this is so hard to understand for all those down voters.

You are ignoring data that doesn't agree with your hypothesis.

[1] https://www.statista.com/statistics/217804/wind-energy-penet...

[2] https://data.worldbank.org/indicator/EN.ATM.CO2E.PC?location...

[3] https://data.worldbank.org/indicator/EN.ATM.CO2E.PC?location...

[4] https://data.worldbank.org/indicator/EN.ATM.CO2E.PC?location...

[CogentHedgehog]

Click the link and look at the graph in my parent comment. Gas started rising in 2002, when wind and solar had an invisibly small presence in the US market.

It sure sounds like you were arguing that renewable energy had a time-travel effect causing the construction of gas before the renewables were added?

People are downvoting because what you're saying makes no sense.

You realize that the natural gas plants sit mostly idle when renewables are producing enough power, right? And the more renewable capacity we build, the more often that happens?

> Worse, at the current rates, we won't get there for decades.

So, about the same timespan it took to execute the Messmer plan in France, and at a fraction of the cost? (The Messmer plan was France's big nuclear buildout from the 70s through the 90s.)

On a side note, even if we started building reactors today they probably wouldn't be operational for a decade or more (including planning time).

[epistasis]

Since 2019/early 2020, the data disagrees with your assessment. Gas plants are leaving the interconnection queue, and massive amounts of solar and wind are coming in:

https://rmi.org/clean-energy-is-canceling-gas-plants/

The market is responding to the inflection point, where renewables are clearly the lowest cost energy.

The switch is happening right now!

[CogentHedgehog]

> But if its truly cheaper than all the worlds CO2 production problems are solved!!

I mean, the International Panel on Climate Change certainly thinks renewable energy is a core part of solving carbon emissions. Their special Report on 1.5C AKA SR15 (https://www.ipcc.ch/sr15/chapter/spm/) says:

> In 1.5°C pathways with no or limited overshoot, renewables are projected to supply 70–85% (interquartile range) of electricity in 2050 (high confidence).

For the 3 scenarios where we achieve needed emissions reductions, renewables are 48-60% of electricity generation in 2030, and 63-77% in 2050.

> Energy is sufficiently deregulated in enough of the US that they will sell to the areas that aren't

In the US in 2020 the majority of new generating capacity being added is from solar or wind: https://www.eia.gov/todayinenergy/detail.php?id=42495# -- and if you do the math for capacity factors (around 40% for wind, 25%ish for solar, 60% is for natural gas) then you'll find that solar and wind capacity generates more electricity than the gas.

If the US grid operators and utilities are building all this renewable energy capacity, perhaps they know something...??

> in places like TX the power costs frequently go to zero when the wind is blowing and spike at other times.

Isn't that what a free market is supposed to do -- respond to supply and demand? Last I checked, we don't say that the stock market is broken because it goes up and down.

> that does little but create an oversupply problem

Are you saying free excess power is a BAD thing? I can think of a TON of ways to take advantage of a temporary oversupply; capturing it in storage is only one of them.

> If big battery plants are economically workable then we would also see a lot of companies arbitraging the free wind energy into $ when the price spikes but we don't see that either

Hold your horses -- they're literally starting to do this in Australia. Batteries were pretty expensive up until a couple years ago: https://arstechnica.com/science/2020/10/us-grid-battery-cost...

Now we're seeing a race to install batteries. Energy arbitrage is only one of the possible income streams -- grid services such as frequency regulation are an even bigger source of funds. The "Big Battery" in Australia has already paid for itself after just a couple year and they've already increased capacity by 50% and are installing a second one in Victoria.

> balancing with gas

In the US, gas capacity is mostly replacing dirtier, more expensive coal powerplants. I don't see a problem with using spare gas capacity to help balance the grid while storage gets ramped up -- the renewable generation is directly replacing fossil fuels except when they need an extra boost.