H L V <hveeder...@gmail.com> wrote:
> those costs don't include energy storage. > True. But: 1. The cost of storage is falling rapidly. 2. In most parts of the U.S. where solar is widely used and most needed, such as Nevada, solar does not need storage. It peaks right when demand is highest. Especially for air conditioning in summer. The power companies would not be installing solar as 46% of new capacity if it were not the cheapest source of electricity, including storage. Solar is not subsidized much. The Lazard numbers do not include subsidies. Storage is a problem with wind. Both wind and solar would become more expensive if they exceeded ~60% of capacity, because they would need extensive storage, rather than the occasional use of standby gas turbine or Diesel generators. I think ~60% is what they say now. Iowa gets 57% of its electricity from wind, but they may be on a network sharing it with other states. Not sure. In most places nuclear power would not be economical if it were 60%. That is more than people use at night. So what do the French do with their nukes at night? Apparently they use pumped storage. See: https://www.laka.org/nieuws/2022/so-how-flexible-is-nuclear-power-in-france-now-really-17421
