7 Comments
User's avatar
Henry Clark's avatar

The plants producing dispatchable electricity provide a share of utility electricity to the grid according to their output. This energy is required to energize the grid and maintain required conditions and runs from a low of about 6% for compact grids like the northeastern United States. Neither wind nor solar can generate dispatchable electricity to power their own utility power needs.

Shouldn’t the cost of utility power be calculated for the “renewables”?

Expand full comment
John B's avatar

Unreliables can harm the grid in other ways. When they are dispatched because they have the lowest marginal cost, they crowd out more reliable sources, which makes the RTO/ISO create bandaids (such as capacity markets) to “fix” the problems they cause.

Treating wind and solar the same as other sources would he like treating all cars the same and only paying attention to price. A Ford Pinto would he treated the same as a Toyota Camry, a very nice SUV, a Lamborghini, or even a pickup truck. All of these other vehicles have qualities that are important to their consumers. Under LCOE all those other qualities are ignored. that would not be an apples to apples comparison.

Expand full comment
Jeff Chestnut's avatar

As I have said since tte introduction of LCOE - it’s the Liars Cist of Energy.

Expand full comment
david duncan's avatar

"While it may be true that sunshine and wind are “free,” converting them to a form of energy that works with modern power grids and integrating them into the 24-hour operation of electrical systems supplying millions of customers is difficult and expensive."

Oil is also free. A gift of Nature. It's everything necessary to pull it out of the ground and convert it into power that imposes costs.

Expand full comment
Adrian Foley's avatar

And there is contest when calculating their cost benefits analysis

Expand full comment
Al Christie's avatar

I think you meant "no" contest, and I agree.

Expand full comment
Adrian Foley's avatar

Thanks for the correction

Expand full comment