Solar panels life span is less than 20 yrs On Wed, Mar 8, 2023, 7:41 PM Jed Rothwell <jedrothw...@gmail.com> wrote:
> 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 > >
