Renewables are absolutely not the cheapest form of new energy.
Show me a solar + batteries facility that operates 24x365 at sub 0.05 USD/kWh and I'll concede they're cheaper, but you can't because no such facility exists.
If you average the low and high estimate, onshore wind is almost exactly 50USD/MWh, and nothing else is that cheap.
(Yes, you said batteries and 24×365. But the "24×365 capable" fossil sources are nowhere near 50USD/MWh either. And power consumption is not flat across days, the week, and seasons. Particularly solar can be predicted and worked with in adjusting load to match availability.)
First, you already moved the goal posts given how many poor countries (which you were talking about in the comment I responded to) do not have 24/365 electricity. Also: where does the magic number of 0.05 USD/kWh come from? That number is lower than the LCOE for all the items on this graph except wind which is almost exactly that number: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Electricity_costs_in_doll...
Second, natural gas plants don't operate 24x365; the figures I see say 27%(!) to 71%. Even nuclear varies between low 70s and low 80s percentages: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Capacity_factor
Third, even if batteries were as expensive as you think, PV is cheaper than the running cost of a fossil fuel plant, so all the poor countries would still want to install them even if they also used natural gas at night, and that's still a win-win over using natural gas 24/7.
Fourth, given I can't use the statista.com link without an account:
> Today the LCOE of hybrid PV-battery systems ranges from 5.24 to 19.72 €Cent /kWh. This wide cost range is due to the large price difference of the various battery systems.
Which is US$ 56/MWh to US$ 197.2/MWh at current exchange rates.
For comparison, €500/MWh would be the cost of building a storage system from the kinds of battery packs supermarkets around here sell for use in off-grid caravans, and then assuming they last exactly 1000 cycles before being discarded entirely.
> Second, natural gas plants don't operate 24x365; the figures I see say 27%(!) to 71%. Even nuclear varies between low 70s and low 80s percentages:
This is because gas plants are commonly used as peaking power plants because they can respond to load changes very quickly; cf. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peaking_power_plant "Peaker plants are generally gas turbines or gas engines that burn natural gas. A few burn biogas or petroleum-derived liquids, […]"
A nuclear power plant is the diametral opposite, it's slow as a behemoth to change output power — it's essentially required to run at those high capacity factors.
(That said, gas power plants designed and built as peaker plants may not in fact even be able to run 24×365 since they're not engineered for that; planning for frequent idle or shutdown cycles certainly eases some constraints.)
Either way discussing a "$50/MWh 24x365" requirement is not even wrong, just ?.
No household can buy electricity at USD$0.05. If the generators are selling it at USD$0.05, the households are buying it at maybe USD$0.15.
In Australia I can right now install a home solar battery system that supplies power at about USD$0.13 when amortised over 10 years. I hear the USA isn't efficient at solar installations as Australia, but you will get there.
Show me a solar + batteries facility that operates 24x365 at sub 0.05 USD/kWh and I'll concede they're cheaper, but you can't because no such facility exists.
reply