Quote:
Originally Posted by RedDevil
I think it is the other way round. Raising the cost of electricity, in combination with subsidies for renewable power generation, made building those profitable in an economic sense for the owners.
|
Unforunately this a very common misconception and is knowingly put forward in the green press. But it is unmistakable that developed markets that attempt to install a high percentage of solar or wind ends up with increased price to the consumer since most of the original thermal capacity must be retained and occasionally sits idle on standby. There is also added expense from the additional transmission that is required. And the rate payers are also on the hokk for some of the added incentives for rebuildables in the form of rebates on cap cost and feed in rate bonuses.
.
Look at Germany, California and the worst case secenario in South Australia where they are constantly on the edge of a brown out all summer long due to installing a substantial percentage of wind and prematurely retiring some of the thermal generation. They are unfortunately now stuck with the most volatile wholesale pricing in the world with pricing sometims as high as $2,000/ MWh.
.
Rebuildable electricity is only cheaper on paper. When you look at the real world effects, it is always more expensive.
.
But whatever solar we can build out will be much better than nothing in 100 years.