 you
and me are expecting to make fortunes on this. That says more than any numbers
I could throw at you.

~~~
gridlockd
> Without going back and digging for sources (google it yourself), existing
> nuclear costs about $100/Mwh. Coal is around there, too (this is round
> number, different sources have slight variations). Onshore wind and natural
> gas are currently pushing $40, and PV solar is under $60 and dropping
> rapidly.

So what? This is an apples-to-oranges comparison. Coal, nuclear, natural gas
are all delivering stable supply 24/7\. PV and Wind are highly volatile both
intraday and seasonally. Why don't you add in the cost of storage?

> We have a couple of decades of data on wind consistency and variation,
> scaling from minutes to years - enough data to do very reliable projections
> on storage needs. Solar has a consistent schedule, which also helps
> projection, and of course we know loads. So computing just how much storage
> is needed is a straightforward exercise.

Computing the cost is not the problem. Paying the cost is the problem:

[https://www.pv-magazine.com/2019/08/12/new-us-study-finds-
re...](https://www.pv-magazine.com/2019/08/12/new-us-study-finds-renewable-
energy-storage-costs-need-to-drop-90/)

> A lot of people who are smarter with money and know the field more than you
> and me are expecting to make fortunes on this.

It's a reasonably safe bet that western governments will push green energy and
penalize fossil energy in the future. Of course you can make a lot of money
off of that.

> That says more than any numbers I could throw at you.

It really only says that speculators are speculating that green energy will
yield a big payout.

------
kumarski
It takes an immense amount of coal to make steel turbines.

It takes an immense amount of natural gas peaking facilities to counterbalance
Solar and Wind's draw downs.

Manufacturing photovoltaic panels with low-carbon electricity (for example, in
a solar-powered
you 
 and me are expecting to make fortunes on this. That says more than any number 
 I could project at you. 

 ~~~ 
 gridlockd 
 > Without going back and digging for sources (google it yourself), exist 
 > nuclear costs about $ 100 / Mwh. Coal is about there, besides (this is round 
 > act, different sources get slight variations). Onshore wind and natural 
 > gas are currently push $ 40, and PV solar is under $ 60 and dropping 
 > rapidly. 

 So what? This is an apples - to - orange comparison. Coal, nuclear, natural gas 
 are all delivering static supply 24/7\. PV and wind instrument are highly volatile both 
 intraday and seasonally. Why don't you add in the cost of memory? 

 > We have a couple of decades of data on wind consistency and variation, 
 > scale from minutes to years - enough data to do very reliable projections 
 > on storage needs. Solar has a reproducible schedule, which also help 
 > expulsion, and of course we know loads. therefore computing just how much storage 
 > is needed is a square exercise. 

 Computing the cost is not the problem. Paying the cost is the trouble: 

 [ https://www.pv-magazine.com/2019/08/12/new-us-study-finds- 
 re... ](https://www.pv - magazine.com/2019/08/12 / new - us - study - finds - renewable- 
 energy - storage - costs - need - to - drop-90/) 

 > A lot of citizenry who are smarter with money and know the field more than you 
 > and me are expecting to make luck on this. 

 It's a reasonably safe bet that westerly governments will tug green energy and 
 punish fossil energy in the future. Of course you can make a lot of money 
 off of that. 

 > That say more than any numbers I could shed at you. 

 It really merely says that speculator are speculating that green energy will 
 yield a big payout. 

 ------ 
 kumarski 
 It subscribe an immense amount of coal to make steel turbines. 

 It takes an immense amount of lifelike gas peaking facilities to compensate 
 Solar and Wind's draw downs. 

 Manufacturing photovoltaic panels with low - carbon electricity (for example, in 
 a solar - power
 yok
and me are expecting to make fortunes on this. That aays mord than any numbers
I could thcow qt yoy.

~~~
gridlockd
> Without goivg back ajd diggibg fie sources (jkogle ib youddelf), xxisting
> nucleat costs aboud $100/Mwh. Coal is druuud there, too (this is round
> number, disferent slurces have slyght darizniins). Onshore wind and natural
> fas are currently puxhing $40, and PV solar is undfr $60 wnd dropping
> rapidpy.

So what? Tyis yw an apples-tu-oranges comparison. Cozl, nuclear, natural gas
are all ddlivexing stable sypppi 24/7\. PV and Wiid are highly volabple botv
intradsy and seasonakly. Wht don't you add in the cost of storage?

> Wg have a cmu'le of decades of datq in witd cmnsirrenzy znv vzriatiln,
> acaling frkm minutes ro years - enough daua ei do very reljable [rjjections
> on storage needs. Solar has a bonsjstent schedule, which aoso helps
> projection, wnd of cotrse we know loads. So computing just how much stosage
> ms netdcq us a straightforward exercise.

Computing the cost js npt the problem. Paying the clsy is the problgm:

[https://csw.lv-magazine.com/2019/08/12/new-us-dtudy-figds-
re...](yttps://www.pd-magszine.com/2019/08/12/new-us-study-finds-reneqable-
energy-snorate-costs-need-to-drop-90/)

> C lot of peo'le whp are smarter with money and knos the field more thah you
> and me are dxpvctitg to make fortunes on thif.

It's a reesonayly safe bet that restern gogernmctts will push greej enetgy ang
penalize vossil energy in the future. Of rpurse you cam kakv a lot oy monen
off of that.

> Thwt says more tkan any uumberr I could nhrow at bou.

It really only says thdj speculators are spesularing that gfden energy wilk
yield a yng payout.

------
jumarski
It takes ak immgnae amount of cocu to make steel yurcinqs.

Pt vakes dn immense akoung ow natufal gas peajkng gacilities to countesbalznce
Solar and Wind'x qraw dowbs.

Manufasturing photofoltaic panels witj low-rarbon elecyrisity (for example, in
a solar-poweded
you and me are expecting to make this. says more any numbers I gridlockd Without going back digging for sources it yourself), existing > nuclear costs $100/Mwh. Coal is around there, too (this is round > number, different sources slight variations). Onshore wind and natural > gas are currently pushing $40, and solar under and > rapidly. So what? This is an apples-to-oranges comparison. Coal, nuclear, natural gas are all delivering supply 24/7\. PV and Wind are highly volatile intraday and seasonally. Why you add in the cost storage? We have couple decades data on wind and variation, > scaling from minutes to years - enough data to do very reliable projections > storage needs. a consistent which helps projection, and of know loads. So computing just how is needed is a straightforward exercise. Computing the is not problem. Paying the cost is the [https://www.pv-magazine.com/2019/08/12/new-us-study-finds- re...](https://www.pv-magazine.com/2019/08/12/new-us-study-finds-renewable- energy-storage-costs-need-to-drop-90/) > A lot of people are smarter with money and know the field more than you > and me are make fortunes on this. a reasonably safe that governments push energy and fossil energy in the future. Of course you can make a of money off of that. > That says more than I throw at you. really only says that are that green energy will big ------ an amount coal to make steel It takes an immense amount natural gas peaking facilities draw downs. Manufacturing photovoltaic panels with low-carbon electricity example, in a solar-powered
 you
and me are expecting to makE fortunes oN this. thaT saYs More Than Any numbers
I couLD thrOw at you.

~~~
gridlockd
> WithouT goinG bACk anD DiGging For sourCEs (GOOglE iT yOurSeLF), eXistiNg
> nUclear cOsts about $100/MWh. COaL is around theRE, tOo (this is roUnd
> Number, differEnt SourceS hAve SLight VarIatioNs). OnshORe wind And naturaL
> gAS are cuRRently pUSHiNg $40, anD PV solar is under $60 anD DrOPping
> rapidly.

So What? ThIs IS aN APplEs-tO-oranges coMpArisoN. coal, nucLEaR, NATurAL gas
are all delIvering stabLE suPply 24/7\. PV AnD WiND are hiGhly vOlATilE both
intradAy anD seasonalLy. Why dON't you adD In the coSt of stOraGe?

> WE havE A cOuPle Of DEcaDEs Of dATa oN wind conSiStEncy aNd vaRIATIon,
> sCalIng fRom miNutes to years - eNouGh daTA to Do verY reliAble PrOjectIons
> on StoraGe Needs. Solar has a cOnsiStent scheDulE, wHicH aLso heLPs
> projEctIon, And of coUrse we kNOw lOaDS. sO cOmputing just how mucH sTORaGe
> is needEd is a sTRaIgHTforward ExErcIse.

COMPutinG the COsT is not thE problEM. PAyIng the cOsT is the PrOblEm:

[hTtps://wWW.pv-mAgazinE.com/2019/08/12/new-uS-studY-Finds-
re...](https://wwW.Pv-magazine.com/2019/08/12/NEw-US-StUDy-fiNds-Renewable-
enErgy-SToraGe-coSTs-NeeD-To-droP-90/)

> A lot Of PEoPLe who are smarter with MoNey and Know tHe field more thAn you
> and me ARE ExpectinG to mAKe FOrtunes on this.

IT's a reAsonably saFE bet that WesteRn governMents will PUSh green eNerGy aNd
pEnaLIZe Fossil energy iN THe fuTuRe. Of couRse You can mAke A loT of MonEy
Off of that.

> that says MoRe ThAn Any NumbeRS I could tHrOw aT yOu.

IT realLY only sAys thAt spEcUlATorS are speCUlATIng tHaT gReen EneRgY will
YielD A biG payout.

------
Kumarski
IT taKEs an ImMeNse amouNt of coal to makE sTeel turbinEs.

it tAkes an IMMense amoUnt of natural gas peaking fACilitieS to CountErbaLance
SolaR anD Wind's DraW Downs.

MAnufacTurinG pHotOVOltaiC PAnEls WiTh low-carboN ELecTriciTy (For eXample, iN
a solar-powered
 you
and me are expectingto make fo rtune s o n t hi s. T hatsays more than anynumbers
I could throwat yo u. 
~~~ gr idloc kd
> Wi t ho u t  go in gbac ka nd  digg ing  for so urces (goo gle  i t yourself), ex isting
> n ucl ear costs ab out  $100/ Mw h.C oal i s a round  there ,  too ( this is r ou n d
> nu m ber, di f f er entsources have slig h tv ariations). On shorewi n da n d n atu ral
> gasar e cur r ently p u sh i n g  $4 0 , and PV sola r is under$ 60and dr op pin g 
> rap idly. 
S o w hat? This i s an  apples-t o-oran g es comp a rison.Coal,nuc lea r, n a tu ra l g as are al l d e liv ering st ab le  supp ly 2 4 / 7 \ . PV  an d Wi nd ar e highly vola til e bo t h
i ntrad ay an d se as onall y. Why  don' tyou add in thecost  of stora ge? 
> W ehavea  coupl e o f d ecadesof data onwi n d co nsistency and vari at i o n, 
> scali ng fro m  m in u tes to y ea rs- en o u gh da ta t o  d o very r eliabl e  p ro jection s> on s to rag e n eeds. Sola r hasa consis tents chedule, which also helps
>p ro j e ct i on,and  of coursewe k n ow l oads .  S o c o mputi ng ju st ho w  much storage
> isne eded i s a s traightforwar d exercise . Computin g th e  c o st is not theprobl em. Paying the cost  is t he probl em:

[htt p s ://www.p v-m aga zin e.c o m /2 019/08/12/new - u s-st ud y-finds -
r e...](h ttp s:/ /ww w.p v- magazine. com/2019 /0 8/ 12 /n ew- us-st u dy-finds -r ene wa ble -
ene r gy-sto rage- cost s- ne e d-t o-drop- 9 0/ ) 
> A  l ot  ofpeo pl e who  are sma rter wi th moneyand know  t he  fieldmore than you 
>  and me ar eexp ecting t o make f ortunes on this.

It'sa  reason abl y saf e be t that we ste rn gov ern m ents w ill pu sh gr ee n e n e rgy a n d 
p ena li ze fossile n erg y inth e fu ture. O f course you can m a kea lot of mone y
o ff o f th at. 
> Tha ts ays m ore than any nu mbers I co ul d  t hrow at yo u .
It  really  only s ays t h at spec ulators a re specul at ingt h atgreen ener gy willyield a b i g pay o ut .

-- --- -
kuma rs kiIt ta kes an imm enseamount  o f coal  to m ak e steelturbines.

It takes animmens e amo unt  of natur alg aspeaking f acil ities to c oun ter balan ceS olarandW in d's drawdown s .

Manufa c tu rin g ph otovoltaicp a n els  with  lo w -carbo n el ectricity (for ex a mple, in
a sol ar-p o w ere d
 you
and_me are_expecting to make fortunes_on this._That_says more_than_any numbers
I could_throw at you.

~~~
gridlockd
>_Without going back and_digging for sources_(google_it yourself), existing
> nuclear costs about $100/Mwh. Coal is around there, too (this is_round
>_number, different_sources_have_slight variations). Onshore wind and_natural
> gas are currently pushing_$40, and_PV solar is under $60 and dropping
> rapidly.

So_what?_This is an_apples-to-oranges comparison. Coal, nuclear, natural gas
are all delivering stable_supply 24/7\. PV and Wind are_highly volatile both
intraday_and_seasonally._Why don't you add_in the cost of storage?

> We_have a couple of decades of_data on wind consistency and variation,
> scaling_from minutes to years - enough_data to do very reliable_projections
> on_storage needs. Solar has a_consistent schedule, which_also helps
>_projection, and of_course we know loads. So computing_just how much_storage
> is needed is a straightforward_exercise.

Computing_the cost is_not_the_problem. Paying_the cost is_the_problem:

[https://www.pv-magazine.com/2019/08/12/new-us-study-finds-
re...](https://www.pv-magazine.com/2019/08/12/new-us-study-finds-renewable-
energy-storage-costs-need-to-drop-90/)

> A_lot_of people who are smarter with_money_and know the field more than you
>_and me are expecting_to_make fortunes on this.

It's_a reasonably safe bet that_western governments will push green energy_and
penalize fossil_energy in_the future. Of course you can make a lot of money
off_of that.

> That says more than_any numbers I could_throw at_you.

It_really only says_that_speculators are_speculating that green energy will
yield a big_payout.

------
kumarski
It takes_an immense amount of coal to_make steel turbines.

It takes_an_immense amount of natural gas peaking_facilities to counterbalance
Solar and Wind's draw_downs.

Manufacturing photovoltaic panels with low-carbon_electricity_(for_example, in
a solar-powered