Renewables remain cheapest, but cost reductions on hold
1–10 of 55 posts
Re: Renewables remain cheapest, but cost reductions on hold
#2* in Australia
Re: Renewables remain cheapest, but cost reductions on hold
#3>The status of nuclear SMR has not changed. Following extensive consultation with the Australian electricity industry, report findings do not see any prospect of domestic projects this decade, given the technology’s commercial immaturity and high cost.
Similar to Germany's assessment.
Re: Renewables remain cheapest, but cost reductions on hold
#4While this is for Australia, the same is true in 1H2022 for every country Bloomberg NEF tracks except Russia (where NG is cheapest) and Japan, Malaysia and the Philippines (where Coal is cheapest): https://about.bnef.com/blog/cost-of-new-renewables-temporari...
Re: Renewables remain cheapest, but cost reductions on hold
#5* Does this study only look at generation costs? What about storage costs?
* Does this study look at the fact that the "traditional" grid and energy production technologies will always be necessary, because renewable energy production can drop to zero? This is what increases energy prices in countries that have both renewable and fossil fuel energy production. You are paying for two grids, so to speak
Re: Renewables remain cheapest, but cost reductions on hold
#6Future cost reductions predicted to possibly be on hold for 12 months, before resuming. Actual real factual prices still reduced in the last 12 months.
Re: Renewables remain cheapest, but cost reductions on hold
#7* Does this study only look at generation costs? What about storage costs? * Does this study look at the fact that the "traditional" grid and energy production technologies will always be necessary, because renewable energy production can drop to zero? This is what increases energy prices in countries that have both renewable and fossil fuel energy production. You are paying for two grids, so to speak
Did you read down to the 4th paragraph? It absolutely does.
I'd be curious to know if it also includes a "true" nuclear catastrophe insurance price or (as is more common) if theyre assuming the taxpayer will fund 99.5% of a Fukushima-type $800 billion cleanup bill like in US/Europe.
Re: Renewables remain cheapest, but cost reductions on hold
#8No post body was provided.
Re: Renewables remain cheapest, but cost reductions on hold
#9* Does this study only look at generation costs? What about storage costs? * Does this study look at the fact that the "traditional" grid and energy production technologies will always be necessary, because renewable energy production can drop to zero? This is what increases energy prices in countries that have both renewable and fossil fuel energy production. You are paying for two grids, so to speak
Storage and transmission costs were included in this study as you could have easily found out yourself by reading down to the fourth sentence of this media release which says:
“The 2021-22 report confirms past years’ findings that wind and solar are the cheapest source of electricity generation and storage in Australia, even when considering additional integration costs arising due to the variable output of renewables, such as energy storage and transmission.”
Re: Renewables remain cheapest, but cost reductions on hold
#10Great, we can stop all incentives for renewable energy now that it is the cheapest way to generate energy.
More seriously, where's the catch?