Chuck2 has accused of me of lacking integrity because the only time I post the production performance of wind is when it is not producing. Chuck2 maintains that wind and solar are the cheapest forms of new generation. My point has been and still is that on its own wind and solar may be the cheapest on their own to install but to produce electrical generation 24 hours a day a third form of generation must be built and capitalized to fill the gaps when the wind doesn’t blow and the the sun doesn’t shine. The last 24 hours is a perfect micro study in the limitations of wind. We had an Arctic high blow in over the last few days. Yesterday morning the 5700 megawatts of wind turbines were producing at 1950 megawatts or roughly 35%. By noon as the Arctic high settled in that was down to 396 megawatts or rough 7% of nameplate production. This morning that is back up to 600 megawatts or roughly 10.5%. Of course days are short so Solar produces from 8:30 to 4:30, peaked out at about 45% of capacity yesterday.
Undoubtedly those who build and install wind and solar accept the production and capacity factor limitations. But what I am curious about is how much more the companies that build gas plants have to charge to back up wind and solar due to the requirement for their generation is determined by the weather. If they are only required say 50% of the time instead of say 80% of the time capital costs have to be spread over less kilowatts of production. Plus you have to build 3 power lines from 3 different locations to reach one consumer, again increasing the capital cost against the produced kilowatt. It is odd that organizations like IEA don’t factor this in when they look at generational costs from different sources. Certainly plenty of examples around the world of electricity costs in a constant upward trajectory contrary to predictions by those like Chuck2 who say wind and solar lower electrical costs. When you look at the total picture it is easy to see why that isn’t the case.
Undoubtedly those who build and install wind and solar accept the production and capacity factor limitations. But what I am curious about is how much more the companies that build gas plants have to charge to back up wind and solar due to the requirement for their generation is determined by the weather. If they are only required say 50% of the time instead of say 80% of the time capital costs have to be spread over less kilowatts of production. Plus you have to build 3 power lines from 3 different locations to reach one consumer, again increasing the capital cost against the produced kilowatt. It is odd that organizations like IEA don’t factor this in when they look at generational costs from different sources. Certainly plenty of examples around the world of electricity costs in a constant upward trajectory contrary to predictions by those like Chuck2 who say wind and solar lower electrical costs. When you look at the total picture it is easy to see why that isn’t the case.
Comment