[rewmie]

> The latest report from Lazard on LCOE also gives similar numbers:

I'm not convinced you read the doc you cited.

In it, it clearly states that the levelized cost of energy for solar PV rooftop residential ranges from $115/MWH while gas peaking is $114/MWH and nuclear is $141.

Your source also states quite clearly that these costs depend on the circumstances (i.e., each case is a case) and it points to unsubsidized costs.

If I get a quote from a rooftop vendor that sells gold plated PV panels to install in a cave, that does not mean that residential PV panels have an expensive energy cost.

[opo]

>I'm not convinced you read the doc you cited.

I guess I should point out these kind of insults are against the site guidelines.

>In it, it clearly states that the levelized cost of energy for solar PV rooftop residential ranges from $115/MWH while gas peaking is $114/MWH and nuclear is $141.

You are quoting the lowest value in each range, you need to consider the entire range:

$117 to $282 Rooftop residential $115 to $221 Gas Peaking $141 to $221 Nuclear

If you take the average from the range, the most expensive is rooftop solar. As the Statista web site states:

>Rooftop solar photovoltaic installations on residential buildings have the highest unsubsidized levelized costs of energy generation in the United States.

The LCOE of course also undercounts some of the costs associated with consumer rooftop solar. There is real value in having an energy source that isn’t so intermittent. With a low capacity factor, you need to spend money to deal with that. This might be through adding new power lines to bring in power from somewhere else, over building, adding gas peakers, adding energy storage etc. Obviously none of this is free and none of these extra costs are included as part of the LCOE of solar. You can see some estimates of this on page 11 of the report.

>Your source also states quite clearly that these costs depend on the circumstances (i.e., each case is a case)

Yes that is why there is a range. But if your point is that sometimes rooftop solar won’t be the most expensive form of power, that seems like moving the goal posts from your original response:

>>Care to show the basis of your personal assertion? It's an extraordinary and unbelievable claim.

>...and it points to unsubsidized costs.

Yes, that was actually my point. The real question is why is consumer rooftop solar so heavily subsidized? It really is sort of a reverse Robinhood scenario where less well off consumers subsidize their wealthier neighbors. The money available for energy subsidies is not unlimited and this money is fungible. A dollar going to subsidize an extremely expensive rooftop solar installation could have gone much, much farther if it had gone to support a utility grade solar installation.

>If I get a quote from a rooftop vendor that sells gold plated PV panels to install in a cave, that does not mean that residential PV panels have an expensive energy cost.

That isn’t the right way to look at LCOE. Here is some background info: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Levelized_cost_of_electricity

[rewmie]

> I guess I should point out these kind of insults are against the site guidelines.

It's not an insult. It's a clear reference to the fact that your source does not support your claim, and it actually rejects it.

> You are quoting the lowest value in each range, you need to consider the entire range:

I'm actually not. If you read the source you cited, you'll notice that they provide a range of values for their estimates of what would be the levelized cost for energy from multiple sources.

The observed real world cases fall within the whole range. This means that they report real world examples of residential rooftop PV panels costing well below alternatives such as Nuclear.

If your thesis was that residential rooftop PV panels were the most expensive source of energy, your own reference refutes your baseless claim. You have to intentionally ignore all the cheapest real world examples of PV installations to proceed to argue they are the most expensive.

If you insist in arguing about statistical nonsense such as "I can find a PV panel that is both terribly expensive and generates no energy at all" then go right ahead, but cherrypicking that as your absolute reference would be disingenuous.

> Yes that is why there is a range.

The range does not exist so that people could lie and misrepresent the data. If the range covers examples of residential PV panels generating cheaper energy than nuclear or even gas, you should not discard them either because you either failed to read the data or tried to misrepresent it.

[opo]

>>> I guess I should point out these kind of insults are against the site guidelines.

>It's not an insult. It's a clear reference to the fact that your source does not support your claim, and it actually rejects it.

If you are unfamiliar with them, the Hacker News guidelines are here:

https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html

In particular, check the section on commenting - for example:

>Please don't comment on whether someone read an article. "Did you even read the article? It mentions that" can be shortened to "The article mentions that".

>>> You are quoting the lowest value in each range, you need to consider the entire range:

>I'm actually not. If you read the source you cited, you'll notice that they provide a range of values for their estimates of what would be the levelized cost for energy from multiple sources. The observed real world cases fall within the whole range. This means that they report real world examples of residential rooftop PV panels costing well below alternatives such as Nuclear. If your thesis was that residential rooftop PV panels were the most expensive source of energy, your own reference refutes your baseless claim. You have to intentionally ignore all the cheapest real world examples of PV installations to proceed to argue they are the most expensive.

There would be no reason to estimate a range if we only consider the lowest possible LCOE.

As the Statista.com article states:

>>Rooftop solar photovoltaic installations on residential buildings have the highest unsubsidized levelized costs of energy generation in the United States. If not for federal and state subsidies, rooftop solar PV would come with a price tag between 147 and 221 U.S. dollars per megawatt hour.

At any rate, the LCOE comparison between residential rooftop solar and nuclear is irrelevant to the main issue. The main issue is that if we want to subsidize a renewable energy source, why should we subsidize rooftop solar when we could subsidize utility grade solar or wind? Look at those costs - literally the highest cost estimates for both utility grade solar and wind are lower than the lowest cost estimate for residential rooftop solar. Money is fungible and not unlimited - a dollar that goes to subsidize residential rooftop solar is a dollar that would go much, much further if it was used to subsidize utility grade solar or wind. These residential rooftop solar subsidies are also unusual in that much of the subsidy is often paid by less well-off households to subsidize their wealthier neighbors.