Why should we be surprised at all the gas capacity being built. Even if we do build a lot of wind and solar, we need gas for firming to replace retiring coal, and to provide firming for new demand.
Something on the order of ~100 hrs is about the minimum needed to call storage firm, and that is with quite significant wind and solar overbuilds to fill it. We are nowhere close to that, other than by gas currently…
Global CO2 emissions will never go down, they'll only get bigger. Any strategy to deal with climate change that isn't "let's figure out how to adapt to it" is truly ridiculous. And paying multiple times more for electricity that is derived from intermittent sources is literally the dumbest strategy possible because it can't possibly work and just makes everything more expensive.
1) You appear to assume that offshore wind is the only energy source that has gone up significantly in price since the bars were charted. This is doubtful.
2) Your definition of “’true’ PPA price” is idiosyncratic, to say the least. For the actual buyers of this or any project, who are the only people signing a PPA, the subsidized price is the true price and determines the rationality of the purchase. The margin between the subsidized and unsubsidized costs is of course covered by federal dollars, but whether a given subsidy is rational is a matter of energy policy (nukes, fossil fuels, and renewables are all subsidized); it’s not a factor for making decisions in the market as-is.
"I’ve often heard it said that solar have gotten so inexpensive it makes nonsense of building nuclear energy. Many of the same people who make that statement will then often turn around to support another source of energy that is just as expensive and uncertain . . ." This rhetorical inconsistency may exist, but if so, it does not show that the original claim -- that "solar has gotten so inexpensive it makes nonsense of building nuclear energy" -- is false. And if nuclear is a dead technology walking because of solar (and onshore wind), whether offshore wind could kill it is moot. The Lazard chart you reproduce shows the LCOE of utility-scale solar plus storage as only a little higher than utility-scale solar itself, and far below the cost of nuclear. If even battery-firmed solar --- with storage and panels both getting cheaper rapidly -- beats newbuild nuclear today so handily, only pretzel-shaped arguments that evade nuclear's stubbornly high LCOE can preserve a case for it. Not to mention its agonizingly slow deployment time, an order of magnitude larger than for wind or solar . .
Why should we be surprised at all the gas capacity being built. Even if we do build a lot of wind and solar, we need gas for firming to replace retiring coal, and to provide firming for new demand.
Something on the order of ~100 hrs is about the minimum needed to call storage firm, and that is with quite significant wind and solar overbuilds to fill it. We are nowhere close to that, other than by gas currently…
Global CO2 emissions will never go down, they'll only get bigger. Any strategy to deal with climate change that isn't "let's figure out how to adapt to it" is truly ridiculous. And paying multiple times more for electricity that is derived from intermittent sources is literally the dumbest strategy possible because it can't possibly work and just makes everything more expensive.
https://www.msn.com/en-au/weather/topstories/global-energy-related-co2-emissions-hit-record-high-in-2023-iea/ar-BB1j9n1G
1. Earth is cooler w the atmos/WV/30% albedo not warmer.
YouTube: Greenhouse Effect Theory Goes Kerbluey
2. Ubiquitous GHE heat balance graphics use bad math and badder physics.
YouTube: Atmospheric Heat Balances That Don't
3. Kinetic heat transfer modes of contiguous atmos molecules render a BB surface model impossible.
Search: “Bruges group kerbluey”
GHE & CAGW climate “science” are indefensible rubbish so alarmists must resort to fear mongering, lies, lawsuits, censorship and violence.
Followup:
1) You appear to assume that offshore wind is the only energy source that has gone up significantly in price since the bars were charted. This is doubtful.
2) Your definition of “’true’ PPA price” is idiosyncratic, to say the least. For the actual buyers of this or any project, who are the only people signing a PPA, the subsidized price is the true price and determines the rationality of the purchase. The margin between the subsidized and unsubsidized costs is of course covered by federal dollars, but whether a given subsidy is rational is a matter of energy policy (nukes, fossil fuels, and renewables are all subsidized); it’s not a factor for making decisions in the market as-is.
Respectfully,
Larry
"I’ve often heard it said that solar have gotten so inexpensive it makes nonsense of building nuclear energy. Many of the same people who make that statement will then often turn around to support another source of energy that is just as expensive and uncertain . . ." This rhetorical inconsistency may exist, but if so, it does not show that the original claim -- that "solar has gotten so inexpensive it makes nonsense of building nuclear energy" -- is false. And if nuclear is a dead technology walking because of solar (and onshore wind), whether offshore wind could kill it is moot. The Lazard chart you reproduce shows the LCOE of utility-scale solar plus storage as only a little higher than utility-scale solar itself, and far below the cost of nuclear. If even battery-firmed solar --- with storage and panels both getting cheaper rapidly -- beats newbuild nuclear today so handily, only pretzel-shaped arguments that evade nuclear's stubbornly high LCOE can preserve a case for it. Not to mention its agonizingly slow deployment time, an order of magnitude larger than for wind or solar . .
200$/mWh! Sheesh, at those prices diesel generators are almost on par. Why bother attaching to a grid at all if it is going to be that expensive…