These efforts to cost wind and solar production by themselves miss the point - it is the SYSTEM cost that matter. Wind and solar cannot provide continuous input due to nights with little or no wind and there is no feasible or affordable storage in sight to cover the gaps.
So we have to keep conventional capacity available to provide dispatchable energy to fill the gaps and the cost of that firming or backup has to be taken into account because we are stuck with hybrid power systems.
Agreed! The more general LCOEs have hidden system costs that aren't shown in more general LCOE calculations. We show those system costs in other posts (like this one: https://energybadboys.substack.com/p/how-to-destroy-the-myth-of-cheap), which are specific to each area and to the portfolio of capacity additions/retirements and hard to replicate in a week. The ones in the Substack show the point, that there is a huge gap in cost per MWh between NREL and EIA.
I haven't checked recently, but for years the LCOE tables on EIA had a caveat next to them which stated that LCOE does not account for the costs of transmission or firming.
But every time the Wind/Solar advocates used the numbers, they ignored the caveat and certainly never passed it along in their quotations of the figures.
This is one of the things that convinced me that wind/solar advocates are unreformable liars.
Yup… and the system expansion costs. CAISO just approved $6 billion in ratepayer dollars to build transmission lines to remote areas of the coast to collect non-existent, floating off shore wind. The only peak residential rate in San Diego is now $0.66 per kWh. Toss in this new $6b and see what happens. 30% of people in CA are behind on their power bill
The capital cost and LCOE cost comparison between wind and solar vs. fossil fuels is like comparing apples and bananas. It may cost $1,500/Kw to build a wind or solar project but that Kw of nameplate capacity only produces 300 watts and 200 watts of output on average respectively. You would have to spend $5,000/Kw for wind and $7,500/Kw for solar to get the same total average output as an equivalent base load gas, coal or nuke plant. And, as they say on the late night infomercials "But wait, there's more!", the land usage would be obscene for wind (1.3 square meters per watt) and solar (0.3 square meters per watt) versus combined cycle gas (0.002 square meters per watt) and nuclear (0.0002 square meters per watt). Also the wind and solar would have to be entirely backed up by batteries or fossil fuels due to periods of no wind or no sunshine. Try running the 4.6 million square foot Meta Platforms data center in Prineville Oregon (the largest in the US) on wind or solar (pro tip: take a look at NREL's maps on average wind speeds and solar irradiance and Prineville OR isn't exactly a great place to put wind mills or solar panels).
Exactly right. That's why EIA recommends not doing it, and keep in mind that there is a difference in value between dispatchable and non-dispatchable resources. People usually skip that part.
Therefore, as you say, some think just build twice as many wind and solar plantations. The flaw there is that even with double the wind turbines, for example, if the wind stops, 2X0 still =0.
I did a study of FB's Prineville data center ( https://alchristie.substack.com/p/oregons-mighty-data-centers ) and you're right - Prineville is not a particularly windy area. FB/Meta tries to make up for their need for huge fossil fuel power needs by buying carbon credits from other areas, which is nothing but a sleight of hand.
You are correct that battery backup at the scale needed for wind and solar will never make economic sense. Lithium-ion batteries are currently the most cost effective storage technology with a claimed LCOE of around $120/MWh. Folks like NREL claim that the cost is expected to drop as technology improves and economies of scale are realized. The current gravimetric energy density of lithium-ion batteries is less than 0.2 KWh/kg. The basic limits of chemistry and physics would limit densities to below 0.35 KWh/kg. Some diehard battery fans argue that densities greater than 1 KWh/kg are achievable, but the assumptions required to get there are completely unrealistic (50% increase in cell voltage, elimination of the anode, doubling the charge density of the cathode, reducing the electrolyte by 90%, and eliminating 50% of the collectors and separators). Cost reduction through economies of scale are also unlikely based on the shear volume of material inputs that would be required to achieve the envisioned scale. Current production capacity of the rare earth minerals is concentrated in the cheapest locales with the least permitting and is inadequate to meet this scale. New mines would need to be developed in much costlier locales with much more restrictive permitting regimes. Given these limits, is it realistic to assume that utility scale battery storage is anywhere near meeting the significant backup requirements of intermittent wind and solar? I think it is pure fantasy.
Good point that mining rare earth minerals can't be scaled up without new mines which will almost surely be more expensive in the permitting process and in labor costs. Actually, if there's a price increase in any one of the essentials needed - like lithium, cobalt, rare earths, etc, the price of batteries will go up. I also did a study on ESS Tech Inc - they make iron flow batteries, which don't have the supply sourcing or environmental problems of lithium batteries, but they're even more expensive per kWh.
Arguably, another important part of using these lower costs is that it helps maintain the narrative, which is what gets funding, as opposed to reality, which is what we all pay.
To me, the real issue is the level of socialized costs that wind and solar impose on the system that are generally ignored by green energy promoters. These include transmission capital and line losses, lower efficiency of dispatchable power sources due to the up-and-down operation required to let highly variable wind/solar into the grid whenever it is available, and the cost of underutilized capacity required for back-up power. Countries that have a higher percentage of renewable power have higher power costs. Why? Because they must have two power systems, one that sometimes works and and one that you can depend on. Renewables don't displace dispatchable power, but are additive. So are costs.
Those are valid concerns, as well. The costs associated with transmission/distribution buildouts and providing backup power are hardly ever attributed to the cost of wind and solar, and they need to be in order to grasp the real cost.
"Models aren’t prophets. They merely tell the story of their inputs. Bad inputs will yield bad outputs." That is the money quote in this essay, guys.
Yes, the near religious belief that wind/solar energy is cheap continues to distort policy, planning, and performance. As you guys argue, it will continue to do so for years even if everyone were to wake up suddenly tomorrow.
Rocky Mountain Power came by here in May to answer community questions in an effort to head-off public opposition to this year's rate increases. Since almost no one showed up, I got to have a 30 minute conversation with President Dick Garlich and some other executives. At one point a VP, I wish I could recall his name, told me that if his network needed more power, the cheapest source would be to "call up" wind power. I pointed out that this is true only under very restricted set of circumstances. Yet, you can see that the utilities labor under this myth. Even pointing out that he isn't including costs imposed on the system, as Rafe says above, appeared to have no impact.
Just to make a point, if only to myself, I went home and estimated the first year cost of the Rock Creek I and II wind plant (590 MW namepalte) that Rocky Mountain Power has decided to purchase, as opposed to just purchasing power from coal plants.
I figured this from the standpoint of cost to rate payers that would end up in some future rate hearing.
In millions of dollars at CF=39% which I think is generous, and not including leases and system costs the results are:
Operations: $15.9
Local Taxes: $4.0
Depreciation $48.0
Rate Base ROI $68.0 (at 7.6%)
Total $135.9 million/2 million MWhr = 6.8 cents per kWhr
Now by comparison Dry Fork Station, WY (just under supercritical) and Longview WV (supercritical) both produce power for a bit over 2 cents per kWhr and I'll bet Turk in Arkansas (ultrasupercritical) does about the same. When the utility owns the wind plant, its costs to rate payers is not low. The utilities must know this, but when I brought this topic up the execs all seemed puzzled. Is it possible that knowledge is so siloed and out of date that few people recognize this full issue?
Glad someone there was able to ask the right questions. I think part of it is that people are trying to grandfather in the traditional system and ways of doing things to the transition to renewables. LCOEs were fine before intermittent resources were added to the mix. Choosing the "least cost option" under this system no longer works, as you've pointed out. Grid operators can only play the game you laid out until resources start getting really get tight, and we've been skimming away at our reserve margins for years.
This is an interesting essay, and philosophically I agree with its conclusions (for what that’s worth!). It does, however, raise serious questions which I ask here.
1. Have EBB made any attempts to contact the ATB authors at NREL to discuss these issues? If so, was NREL open to your suggestions, or even provide a valid defense for their assumptions? If not, why haven’t you challenged them on this? No offense intended, gentlemen, but that does seem to be the more ethical approach.
2. Your conclusions state that “utility companies and other groups” argue wind and solar are the cheapest, and that the grid can “transition…cost-effectively.” Do you believe that a utility would base it’s future planning on one model, or one source for costs? As a former consultant, for me to recommend an action based on one model would be an egregious error not only of math, but also of ethics. Thus, the question becomes, does it matter if NREL is low or high, so long as it’s model results are couched in the appropriate caveats?
3. Finally, I’m surprised you still use LCOE to compare costs. Hasn’t it been fairly well-documented that LCOE CANNOT be used to compare costs of dispatchable sources with non-dispatchable sources? LCOE incorporates capacity factor in its calculations, but that value alone is insufficient to reflect the utility’s obligation for reliability. Instead, a comparison based on normalized costs offers a much more accurate comparison, for planning purposes. That said, the difference in cost estimate accuracy required between planning and design is such that again, an engineer would be remiss to use one, theoretical model to base his cost estimate projections for purposes of establishing a construction cost.
My personal research on these matters is limited (high-school thesis level), but from what I’ve seen Conca’s analysis presented in his paper “How to compare energy sources—Apples to apples,” as presented in the 15 June 2023 edition of Nuclear News, is far and away the best method of comparing costs. More importantly, I agree with others in this comment thread that cost is not the most important parameter – that distinction belongs to reliability.
Thanks again for your efforts on this. It highlights the inconsistencies across the literature of comparing energy sources, and what is needed to reduce the gaps.
Thanks for your comment, Barry! Here are some answers to your questions:
1. No, we didn’t reach out to NREL. We understand what you’re saying, though.
2. We know that Xcel often provides two different models, but as far as we know they use NREL costs for them both. Here’s how Xcel put it: “Xcel developed its Initial Plan using the Strategist capacity expansion model, and calculated the cost of electricity from renewable sources on the basis of 2018 data from the National (NREL ATB) report.” Our point here is that NREL cost inputs have been used in reports that argue that transitioning to wind and solar can be done cost effectively, and have swayed people’s opinions, but the projections were wrong and shouldn’t be taken as gospel.
3. We agree that basic LCOE values are limited, but we didn’t use them here to compare to dispatchable resources. We argue against doing this, as does EIA. The ones used in the Substack show the point that there is a wide gap in cost per kWh from NREL and EIA. We show the full system costs of wind and solar in other posts, like this one https://energybadboys.substack.com/p/how-to-destroy-the-myth-of-cheap. They’re hard to replicate on short notice, so we had to go basic.
Reliability is very important! And cost is actually tied into reliability. If cost wasn’t a thing, we could theoretically build a system that keeps the lights on with wind, solar, and batteries, but it would take a heck of a lot of money and far more than one made up of dispatchable resources.
Thank you very much for your response. Agree with you on the relationship between reliability and cost. Personally, I think energy density is a critical feature. Enviro's worldwide are harping that we are not a world of unlimited resources. If that is true, the we must advance civilization by providing 99.99 percent reliable energy that minimizes resource need and use per unit of energy produced. Wind, solar, tidal, do not meet those standards. Resource use/demand also plays into cost.
I'll tinker with the math to see if I can get a meaningful relationship between reliability, energy density, and cost.
I do think you should reach out to NREL. Granted, it may be a gesture similar to pissing into the wind, but we cannot allow ourselves to become jaded. At least your conscience can say you made the effort. In his March 2024 paper, Buntgen said "The notion of science to be explanatory rather than exploratory is a naïve overestimation that can fuel the complex field of global climate change to become a dogmatic ersatz religion for the wider public." (Büntgen, U. The importance of distinguishing climate science from climate activism. npj Clim. Action 3, 36 (2024). https://doi.org/10.1038/s44168-024-00126-0)
We should not feed that religion, but rather disarm it with mutual respect and logical, reasoned discussion. In disagreement, there is learning.
Again, no disrespect intended here! Just my view of the world, syrupy though it may be. And please, keep the good work coming! Thanks again.
Thank you EBBs. Your piece coincided with news on David Turver's substack, here in the UK, that the Advertising Standards Authority has upheld a complaint by Mr Turver about an advertorial by National Grid, which appeared some weeks ago in the Guardian, making claims about the low cost of wind and solar. The Guardian disagreed, but the advertorial has been withdrawn nonetheless.
I endorse Mr Champion's comment about the additional costs of coping with Dunkelflaute, as I'm sure you do, though I'm not sure hard figures are easy to come by.
It's my (faint) hope that energy developments will ultimately be supported by honesty and arithmetic such as you demonstrate. That noted, I suspect the main enemy is not so much plain dishonesty (liars after all know what they are doing), but wishful thinking.
This seems to take Levelized Cost of Energy (LCOE) for granted as an accurate measure of cost. But it's not! That tell only part of the picture and makes a massive difference for wind and solar.
We agree that LCOE measurements don't show the full system cost of wind and solar resources. We show those system costs in other posts, like this one https://energybadboys.substack.com/p/how-to-destroy-the-myth-of-cheap. Since they're modeled and specific to the region/capacity buildout, they're hard to replicate in short notice. The ones in the post merely show the point, that there is a wide gap between NREL projections and EIA.
Isn’t the cost difference also underestimating the IRA tax payer funding costs since they are a percentage (30-40%) of the investment$? Is there an accounting required for the tax credits that is available to the public and would expose the true cost?
GHE theory fails because of two erroneous assumptions: 1. near Earth space is cold & w/o GHE would become 255 K, -18 C, ball of ice & 2. radiating as a 16 C BB the surface produces “extra” GHE energy aka radiative forcing (caloric).
Without the atmosphere, water vapor and its 30% albedo Earth would become much like the Moon, a barren rock, hot^3 400 K on the lit side, cold^3 100 K on the dark.
“TFK_bams09” GHE heat balance graphic & its legion of clones uses bad math and badder physics. 63 W/m^2 appears twice (once from Sun & second from a BB calculation) violating both LoT 1 and GAAP. 396 W/m^2 upwelling is a BB calc for a 16 C surface for denominator of the emissivity ratio, 63/396=0.16, “extra” & not real. 333 W/m^2 “back” radiating from cold to warm violates LoT 1 & 2. Remove 396/333/63 from the graphic and the solar balance still works.
Kinetic heat transfer processes of the contiguous atmospheric molecules (60%) render a terrestrial BB (100%) impossible as demonstrated by experiment, the gold standard of classical science.
Since both GHE & CAGW climate “science” are indefensible rubbish alarmists must resort to fear mongering, lies, lawsuits, censorship and violence.
If you haven't read it already, would strongly suggest you read and study Kehr's "The Inconvenient Skeptic." Best "plain-language" description of climate I've read.
Chapters 11 and 12 contain serious errors and misconceptions.
288 K – 255 K = 33 C cooler is rubbish.
Nobody agrees 288 K (390 W/m^2) is the GMST plus it was 15 C in 1896.
255 K (240 W/m^2) is the spherical ToA (not surface) equilibrium OLR with a 30% albedo not a GHE.
Without the “GHE” there is no 30% albedo and the equilibrium OLR becomes 278 K (342 W/m^2) 23 C warmer than the 30% case. (And w 30% more Q GMST would also rise by 23 C to 311 K.)
The Earth is 23 C cooler (278-255, 311-288) with the atmosphere/water vapor/30% albedo not warmer.
396 upwelling LWIR is the BB calculation for a 16 C surface that fills the denominator of the emissivity ratio. (emissivity=radiation from system/radiation from system as BB at temp) This 396 up/333 “back”/duplicate 63 GHE radiative forcing loop is “extra”, not real and has no business even being on the GHE balance graphics.
And, no, it is not measured.
IR instruments do not measure flux directly. They are designed, fabricated and calibrated to deliver a relative, comparative, referenced temperature assuming the target is a black body. If the target is not a BB the operator is advised to paint it or tape it black to mimic such or insert the known emissivity. In the case of the K-T graphic: 63/396=0.16. SURFRAD & USCRN also do this wrong.
There is no such thing as “air flux.” This requires energy flow from cool to warm w/o work violating LoT 2. (page 229 “radiative fluxes” is LoT nonsense!)
This apparent cooling is actually produced by the kinetic heat transfer processes of the contiguous air molecules. (conduction+convection+advection+latent)
More kinetic action produces cooler temperatures and less radiation and less kinetic action produces higher temperatures and more radiation.
Temperature is a function of the kinetic processes, radiation is a function of temperature, radiation is a function (inverse) of the kinetic processes.
The kinetic and radiative heat transfer processes are inversely joined at the hip as demonstrated by experiment, the gold standard of classical science.
He acknowledges it, but argues conclusively that it is a bit player in the grand scheme of climate. He also argues that water vapor is far more important.
Appreciate the argument here, but would note the following:
(1) Are the EIA costs accurate and reflective of the costs underlying bids in response to RFPs? Different firms will bid different prices based on their underlying costs, which do vary firm, including cost of capital.
(2) Your argument assumes that the preferred scenario in a utility IRP necessarily means that’s what the utility will procure. That is not necessarily the case, except in the handful of states where that may be required. Fixing it in those states is an easy policy solution. In most cases, the utilities have the flexibility to procure the resources based on their bids into RFPs such that only bid costs matter, not forecasted costs from 5 years before.
(3) LCOE doesn’t account for capacity value / ELCC. This feels like a topic you could hone in to make a more robust argument about as it relates to IRPs, utility procurement, efficient use of transmission capacity, and the comparison thereof to thermal.
These efforts to cost wind and solar production by themselves miss the point - it is the SYSTEM cost that matter. Wind and solar cannot provide continuous input due to nights with little or no wind and there is no feasible or affordable storage in sight to cover the gaps.
So we have to keep conventional capacity available to provide dispatchable energy to fill the gaps and the cost of that firming or backup has to be taken into account because we are stuck with hybrid power systems.
Agreed! The more general LCOEs have hidden system costs that aren't shown in more general LCOE calculations. We show those system costs in other posts (like this one: https://energybadboys.substack.com/p/how-to-destroy-the-myth-of-cheap), which are specific to each area and to the portfolio of capacity additions/retirements and hard to replicate in a week. The ones in the Substack show the point, that there is a huge gap in cost per MWh between NREL and EIA.
I haven't checked recently, but for years the LCOE tables on EIA had a caveat next to them which stated that LCOE does not account for the costs of transmission or firming.
But every time the Wind/Solar advocates used the numbers, they ignored the caveat and certainly never passed it along in their quotations of the figures.
This is one of the things that convinced me that wind/solar advocates are unreformable liars.
Yup… and the system expansion costs. CAISO just approved $6 billion in ratepayer dollars to build transmission lines to remote areas of the coast to collect non-existent, floating off shore wind. The only peak residential rate in San Diego is now $0.66 per kWh. Toss in this new $6b and see what happens. 30% of people in CA are behind on their power bill
The capital cost and LCOE cost comparison between wind and solar vs. fossil fuels is like comparing apples and bananas. It may cost $1,500/Kw to build a wind or solar project but that Kw of nameplate capacity only produces 300 watts and 200 watts of output on average respectively. You would have to spend $5,000/Kw for wind and $7,500/Kw for solar to get the same total average output as an equivalent base load gas, coal or nuke plant. And, as they say on the late night infomercials "But wait, there's more!", the land usage would be obscene for wind (1.3 square meters per watt) and solar (0.3 square meters per watt) versus combined cycle gas (0.002 square meters per watt) and nuclear (0.0002 square meters per watt). Also the wind and solar would have to be entirely backed up by batteries or fossil fuels due to periods of no wind or no sunshine. Try running the 4.6 million square foot Meta Platforms data center in Prineville Oregon (the largest in the US) on wind or solar (pro tip: take a look at NREL's maps on average wind speeds and solar irradiance and Prineville OR isn't exactly a great place to put wind mills or solar panels).
Exactly right. That's why EIA recommends not doing it, and keep in mind that there is a difference in value between dispatchable and non-dispatchable resources. People usually skip that part.
All good points. Battery backup for wind and solar is never going to be anywhere near sufficient. See https://alchristie.substack.com/p/solar-plantations-need-backup-at
Therefore, as you say, some think just build twice as many wind and solar plantations. The flaw there is that even with double the wind turbines, for example, if the wind stops, 2X0 still =0.
I did a study of FB's Prineville data center ( https://alchristie.substack.com/p/oregons-mighty-data-centers ) and you're right - Prineville is not a particularly windy area. FB/Meta tries to make up for their need for huge fossil fuel power needs by buying carbon credits from other areas, which is nothing but a sleight of hand.
You are correct that battery backup at the scale needed for wind and solar will never make economic sense. Lithium-ion batteries are currently the most cost effective storage technology with a claimed LCOE of around $120/MWh. Folks like NREL claim that the cost is expected to drop as technology improves and economies of scale are realized. The current gravimetric energy density of lithium-ion batteries is less than 0.2 KWh/kg. The basic limits of chemistry and physics would limit densities to below 0.35 KWh/kg. Some diehard battery fans argue that densities greater than 1 KWh/kg are achievable, but the assumptions required to get there are completely unrealistic (50% increase in cell voltage, elimination of the anode, doubling the charge density of the cathode, reducing the electrolyte by 90%, and eliminating 50% of the collectors and separators). Cost reduction through economies of scale are also unlikely based on the shear volume of material inputs that would be required to achieve the envisioned scale. Current production capacity of the rare earth minerals is concentrated in the cheapest locales with the least permitting and is inadequate to meet this scale. New mines would need to be developed in much costlier locales with much more restrictive permitting regimes. Given these limits, is it realistic to assume that utility scale battery storage is anywhere near meeting the significant backup requirements of intermittent wind and solar? I think it is pure fantasy.
Good point that mining rare earth minerals can't be scaled up without new mines which will almost surely be more expensive in the permitting process and in labor costs. Actually, if there's a price increase in any one of the essentials needed - like lithium, cobalt, rare earths, etc, the price of batteries will go up. I also did a study on ESS Tech Inc - they make iron flow batteries, which don't have the supply sourcing or environmental problems of lithium batteries, but they're even more expensive per kWh.
Arguably, another important part of using these lower costs is that it helps maintain the narrative, which is what gets funding, as opposed to reality, which is what we all pay.
To me, the real issue is the level of socialized costs that wind and solar impose on the system that are generally ignored by green energy promoters. These include transmission capital and line losses, lower efficiency of dispatchable power sources due to the up-and-down operation required to let highly variable wind/solar into the grid whenever it is available, and the cost of underutilized capacity required for back-up power. Countries that have a higher percentage of renewable power have higher power costs. Why? Because they must have two power systems, one that sometimes works and and one that you can depend on. Renewables don't displace dispatchable power, but are additive. So are costs.
Those are valid concerns, as well. The costs associated with transmission/distribution buildouts and providing backup power are hardly ever attributed to the cost of wind and solar, and they need to be in order to grasp the real cost.
"Models aren’t prophets. They merely tell the story of their inputs. Bad inputs will yield bad outputs." That is the money quote in this essay, guys.
Yes, the near religious belief that wind/solar energy is cheap continues to distort policy, planning, and performance. As you guys argue, it will continue to do so for years even if everyone were to wake up suddenly tomorrow.
Rocky Mountain Power came by here in May to answer community questions in an effort to head-off public opposition to this year's rate increases. Since almost no one showed up, I got to have a 30 minute conversation with President Dick Garlich and some other executives. At one point a VP, I wish I could recall his name, told me that if his network needed more power, the cheapest source would be to "call up" wind power. I pointed out that this is true only under very restricted set of circumstances. Yet, you can see that the utilities labor under this myth. Even pointing out that he isn't including costs imposed on the system, as Rafe says above, appeared to have no impact.
Just to make a point, if only to myself, I went home and estimated the first year cost of the Rock Creek I and II wind plant (590 MW namepalte) that Rocky Mountain Power has decided to purchase, as opposed to just purchasing power from coal plants.
I figured this from the standpoint of cost to rate payers that would end up in some future rate hearing.
In millions of dollars at CF=39% which I think is generous, and not including leases and system costs the results are:
Operations: $15.9
Local Taxes: $4.0
Depreciation $48.0
Rate Base ROI $68.0 (at 7.6%)
Total $135.9 million/2 million MWhr = 6.8 cents per kWhr
Now by comparison Dry Fork Station, WY (just under supercritical) and Longview WV (supercritical) both produce power for a bit over 2 cents per kWhr and I'll bet Turk in Arkansas (ultrasupercritical) does about the same. When the utility owns the wind plant, its costs to rate payers is not low. The utilities must know this, but when I brought this topic up the execs all seemed puzzled. Is it possible that knowledge is so siloed and out of date that few people recognize this full issue?
Glad someone there was able to ask the right questions. I think part of it is that people are trying to grandfather in the traditional system and ways of doing things to the transition to renewables. LCOEs were fine before intermittent resources were added to the mix. Choosing the "least cost option" under this system no longer works, as you've pointed out. Grid operators can only play the game you laid out until resources start getting really get tight, and we've been skimming away at our reserve margins for years.
Good stuff. Thanks for posting.
This is an interesting essay, and philosophically I agree with its conclusions (for what that’s worth!). It does, however, raise serious questions which I ask here.
1. Have EBB made any attempts to contact the ATB authors at NREL to discuss these issues? If so, was NREL open to your suggestions, or even provide a valid defense for their assumptions? If not, why haven’t you challenged them on this? No offense intended, gentlemen, but that does seem to be the more ethical approach.
2. Your conclusions state that “utility companies and other groups” argue wind and solar are the cheapest, and that the grid can “transition…cost-effectively.” Do you believe that a utility would base it’s future planning on one model, or one source for costs? As a former consultant, for me to recommend an action based on one model would be an egregious error not only of math, but also of ethics. Thus, the question becomes, does it matter if NREL is low or high, so long as it’s model results are couched in the appropriate caveats?
3. Finally, I’m surprised you still use LCOE to compare costs. Hasn’t it been fairly well-documented that LCOE CANNOT be used to compare costs of dispatchable sources with non-dispatchable sources? LCOE incorporates capacity factor in its calculations, but that value alone is insufficient to reflect the utility’s obligation for reliability. Instead, a comparison based on normalized costs offers a much more accurate comparison, for planning purposes. That said, the difference in cost estimate accuracy required between planning and design is such that again, an engineer would be remiss to use one, theoretical model to base his cost estimate projections for purposes of establishing a construction cost.
My personal research on these matters is limited (high-school thesis level), but from what I’ve seen Conca’s analysis presented in his paper “How to compare energy sources—Apples to apples,” as presented in the 15 June 2023 edition of Nuclear News, is far and away the best method of comparing costs. More importantly, I agree with others in this comment thread that cost is not the most important parameter – that distinction belongs to reliability.
Thanks again for your efforts on this. It highlights the inconsistencies across the literature of comparing energy sources, and what is needed to reduce the gaps.
Thanks for your comment, Barry! Here are some answers to your questions:
1. No, we didn’t reach out to NREL. We understand what you’re saying, though.
2. We know that Xcel often provides two different models, but as far as we know they use NREL costs for them both. Here’s how Xcel put it: “Xcel developed its Initial Plan using the Strategist capacity expansion model, and calculated the cost of electricity from renewable sources on the basis of 2018 data from the National (NREL ATB) report.” Our point here is that NREL cost inputs have been used in reports that argue that transitioning to wind and solar can be done cost effectively, and have swayed people’s opinions, but the projections were wrong and shouldn’t be taken as gospel.
3. We agree that basic LCOE values are limited, but we didn’t use them here to compare to dispatchable resources. We argue against doing this, as does EIA. The ones used in the Substack show the point that there is a wide gap in cost per kWh from NREL and EIA. We show the full system costs of wind and solar in other posts, like this one https://energybadboys.substack.com/p/how-to-destroy-the-myth-of-cheap. They’re hard to replicate on short notice, so we had to go basic.
Reliability is very important! And cost is actually tied into reliability. If cost wasn’t a thing, we could theoretically build a system that keeps the lights on with wind, solar, and batteries, but it would take a heck of a lot of money and far more than one made up of dispatchable resources.
We appreciate your input!
Thank you very much for your response. Agree with you on the relationship between reliability and cost. Personally, I think energy density is a critical feature. Enviro's worldwide are harping that we are not a world of unlimited resources. If that is true, the we must advance civilization by providing 99.99 percent reliable energy that minimizes resource need and use per unit of energy produced. Wind, solar, tidal, do not meet those standards. Resource use/demand also plays into cost.
I'll tinker with the math to see if I can get a meaningful relationship between reliability, energy density, and cost.
I do think you should reach out to NREL. Granted, it may be a gesture similar to pissing into the wind, but we cannot allow ourselves to become jaded. At least your conscience can say you made the effort. In his March 2024 paper, Buntgen said "The notion of science to be explanatory rather than exploratory is a naïve overestimation that can fuel the complex field of global climate change to become a dogmatic ersatz religion for the wider public." (Büntgen, U. The importance of distinguishing climate science from climate activism. npj Clim. Action 3, 36 (2024). https://doi.org/10.1038/s44168-024-00126-0)
We should not feed that religion, but rather disarm it with mutual respect and logical, reasoned discussion. In disagreement, there is learning.
Again, no disrespect intended here! Just my view of the world, syrupy though it may be. And please, keep the good work coming! Thanks again.
Thank you EBBs. Your piece coincided with news on David Turver's substack, here in the UK, that the Advertising Standards Authority has upheld a complaint by Mr Turver about an advertorial by National Grid, which appeared some weeks ago in the Guardian, making claims about the low cost of wind and solar. The Guardian disagreed, but the advertorial has been withdrawn nonetheless.
I endorse Mr Champion's comment about the additional costs of coping with Dunkelflaute, as I'm sure you do, though I'm not sure hard figures are easy to come by.
It's my (faint) hope that energy developments will ultimately be supported by honesty and arithmetic such as you demonstrate. That noted, I suspect the main enemy is not so much plain dishonesty (liars after all know what they are doing), but wishful thinking.
Thank you, hard to find info.
This seems to take Levelized Cost of Energy (LCOE) for granted as an accurate measure of cost. But it's not! That tell only part of the picture and makes a massive difference for wind and solar.
I see that other comments also make this point.
We agree that LCOE measurements don't show the full system cost of wind and solar resources. We show those system costs in other posts, like this one https://energybadboys.substack.com/p/how-to-destroy-the-myth-of-cheap. Since they're modeled and specific to the region/capacity buildout, they're hard to replicate in short notice. The ones in the post merely show the point, that there is a wide gap between NREL projections and EIA.
Thanks for clarifying. You might mention that in such a post, if only not to have people like me bug you!
Thanks for the dose of reality.
Isn’t the cost difference also underestimating the IRA tax payer funding costs since they are a percentage (30-40%) of the investment$? Is there an accounting required for the tax credits that is available to the public and would expose the true cost?
Moving to buy AMERICAN and the incoming tariffs, higher inflation, and interest cost add cost pressure in the upward direction.
GHE theory fails because of two erroneous assumptions: 1. near Earth space is cold & w/o GHE would become 255 K, -18 C, ball of ice & 2. radiating as a 16 C BB the surface produces “extra” GHE energy aka radiative forcing (caloric).
Without the atmosphere, water vapor and its 30% albedo Earth would become much like the Moon, a barren rock, hot^3 400 K on the lit side, cold^3 100 K on the dark.
“TFK_bams09” GHE heat balance graphic & its legion of clones uses bad math and badder physics. 63 W/m^2 appears twice (once from Sun & second from a BB calculation) violating both LoT 1 and GAAP. 396 W/m^2 upwelling is a BB calc for a 16 C surface for denominator of the emissivity ratio, 63/396=0.16, “extra” & not real. 333 W/m^2 “back” radiating from cold to warm violates LoT 1 & 2. Remove 396/333/63 from the graphic and the solar balance still works.
Kinetic heat transfer processes of the contiguous atmospheric molecules (60%) render a terrestrial BB (100%) impossible as demonstrated by experiment, the gold standard of classical science.
Since both GHE & CAGW climate “science” are indefensible rubbish alarmists must resort to fear mongering, lies, lawsuits, censorship and violence.
If you haven't read it already, would strongly suggest you read and study Kehr's "The Inconvenient Skeptic." Best "plain-language" description of climate I've read.
“the Inconvenient Skeptic”
John Kehr
Chapters 11 and 12 contain serious errors and misconceptions.
288 K – 255 K = 33 C cooler is rubbish.
Nobody agrees 288 K (390 W/m^2) is the GMST plus it was 15 C in 1896.
255 K (240 W/m^2) is the spherical ToA (not surface) equilibrium OLR with a 30% albedo not a GHE.
Without the “GHE” there is no 30% albedo and the equilibrium OLR becomes 278 K (342 W/m^2) 23 C warmer than the 30% case. (And w 30% more Q GMST would also rise by 23 C to 311 K.)
The Earth is 23 C cooler (278-255, 311-288) with the atmosphere/water vapor/30% albedo not warmer.
396 upwelling LWIR is the BB calculation for a 16 C surface that fills the denominator of the emissivity ratio. (emissivity=radiation from system/radiation from system as BB at temp) This 396 up/333 “back”/duplicate 63 GHE radiative forcing loop is “extra”, not real and has no business even being on the GHE balance graphics.
And, no, it is not measured.
IR instruments do not measure flux directly. They are designed, fabricated and calibrated to deliver a relative, comparative, referenced temperature assuming the target is a black body. If the target is not a BB the operator is advised to paint it or tape it black to mimic such or insert the known emissivity. In the case of the K-T graphic: 63/396=0.16. SURFRAD & USCRN also do this wrong.
There is no such thing as “air flux.” This requires energy flow from cool to warm w/o work violating LoT 2. (page 229 “radiative fluxes” is LoT nonsense!)
This apparent cooling is actually produced by the kinetic heat transfer processes of the contiguous air molecules. (conduction+convection+advection+latent)
More kinetic action produces cooler temperatures and less radiation and less kinetic action produces higher temperatures and more radiation.
Temperature is a function of the kinetic processes, radiation is a function of temperature, radiation is a function (inverse) of the kinetic processes.
The kinetic and radiative heat transfer processes are inversely joined at the hip as demonstrated by experiment, the gold standard of classical science.
https://principia-scientific.org/debunking-the-greenhouse-gas-theory-with-a-boiling-water-pot/
There is no GHE, no GHG warming and no CAGW.
I'll order a copy from B&N, but if it acknowledges the GHE as valid it's useless.
The GHE is all that matters.
Without GHE the entire CAGW house of cards collapses.
There
Is
No
GHE
!!!!
He acknowledges it, but argues conclusively that it is a bit player in the grand scheme of climate. He also argues that water vapor is far more important.
Water vapor is critical, but not from a GHE.
It is water’s simple kinetic latent properties.
The elliptical orbit, tilted axis and albedo (water) that run the climate.
Thank you for the excellent post.
What are the real costs minus the taxpayer subsidies?
Appreciate the argument here, but would note the following:
(1) Are the EIA costs accurate and reflective of the costs underlying bids in response to RFPs? Different firms will bid different prices based on their underlying costs, which do vary firm, including cost of capital.
(2) Your argument assumes that the preferred scenario in a utility IRP necessarily means that’s what the utility will procure. That is not necessarily the case, except in the handful of states where that may be required. Fixing it in those states is an easy policy solution. In most cases, the utilities have the flexibility to procure the resources based on their bids into RFPs such that only bid costs matter, not forecasted costs from 5 years before.
(3) LCOE doesn’t account for capacity value / ELCC. This feels like a topic you could hone in to make a more robust argument about as it relates to IRPs, utility procurement, efficient use of transmission capacity, and the comparison thereof to thermal.