|
> hydrogen is contributing just 5.9 euro/MWh I'm afraid I don't trust those numbers, or rather, the calculations. For instance, if I select only Wind + Battery, and keep raising the storage cost for battery, the battery cost of the calculations go down, and are replaced by 100% wind plant costs. (Battery capacity is only enough for 1 hour of storage in such a scenario.) On the other hand, if I drop the cost of battery to almost zero, the battery fraction of production goes to about 30-40%, and storage capacity is about 20 days. In other words, it seems that the model is optimizing for an extreme overprovisioning of windmills when storage capacity is expensive, compared to when storage is cheap. (Basically, it "constructs" 10x or more windmills than what is needed from a pure energy production perspective.) I suspect that there are some issues with doing that is not taken into account by the model, such as available space at that level of density, risk calculations for completely dead winds, etc. > Nuclear will do best in more northerly places that are away from coasts. Poland, for example. Solar in dry, sunny places will likely be able to fully replace fossil fuels way before wind will be, since you do get some sunlight every day, while the wind may be gone for a week at a time. (And you have to plan for the worst case, in terms of available storage.) |
You may object that this seems fragile, but it is in fact how we live now. People are importing fuel from dodgy countries all the damn time.