Hacker News Reader

Comment by pedroma | Hacker News Reader

My answer applies to both cases actually.

For example, if one wanted to maximize profits, energy wise, there are better options than wind turbines and batteries. The choice to go with wind seems politically motivated due to optics of the alternatives.

View on HN

Maybe 20 years ago. On-shore wind and solar are currently the cheapest practical way to make electricity based on LCOE.

https://www.eia.gov/outlooks/aeo/electricity_generation/pdf/...

I'm not familiar with this metric but does it at least account for the cost that non-wind sources must incur to keep their facilities running? For example, if you have a wind farm you will prioritize using that energy when available, but the natural gas facility still needs to employ people for low wind situations right?

So the natural gas facility is not generating very much most of the year, but still needs quite a bit of people with the expertise to keep it operational despite that in addition to land lease costs, equipment maintenance etc. Does LCOE turn the cost of the natural gas facility cost into $0 during those situations to be fair?

Edit: Just glanced at the Wikipedia article and the variables involved in the LCOE equation. Seems to unfairly benefit wind and solar.

"One of the most important potential limitations of LCOE is that it may not control for time effects associated with matching electricity production to demand."

"In particular, if the costs of matching grid energy storage are not included in projects for variable renewable energy sources such as solar and wind, they may produce electricity when it is not needed in the grid without storage. The value of this electricity may be lower than if it was produced at another time, or even negative."

I thought wind was often quoted as the cheapest per MWh compared to everything else?

(I realise that profit in $ might differ in that the wind doesn’t blow on demand while eg gas might - but even then businesses will spring up to fill every profitable niche).

It's not either or, it's both and. Of course there are different options that have better results in some axes. Building wind does not mean not building nuclear, solar, hydro, tidal, biomass pyrolysis, etc.

Yes, but due to the nature of wind being fickle, we have to keep these other energy facilities running and people employed. This adds to the costs of these other energy solutions while they are doing very little while wind is blowing. This messes all these metrics up.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com