andrewducker: (Default)
andrewducker ([personal profile] andrewducker) wrote2018-01-23 12:10 pm

Interesting Links for 23-01-2018

danieldwilliam: (Default)

Colorado Renewables

[personal profile] danieldwilliam 2018-01-23 01:29 pm (UTC)(link)
On the cost of renewables in Colorado.

Generally good news and (I think) part of a continuing and accelerating trend that will see more and quicker renewable uptake in more places.

I think a word of caution. I don't think the bids for "wind + storage" or "solar + storage" are for large amounts of storage. I don't think we're looking at replacing a CCGT. What I suspect is being offered is some renewable generation with a relatively small battery that does electricity condititioning, balancing services and provides enough back up storage that the generators have time to cover their position in the event of a fall off in production. They might be aiming to time shift some supply to match peak demand.

I think it's great that more batteries are being put in to operation because I think the driver of cost reductions are economies of scale and learning curve effects, both of which are in turn driven by volume. I wouldn't want anyone to get the impression that solar + storage could provide power 24 hours a day, seven days a week, 365 days a year for about 10% more than the base cost of solar PV.
danieldwilliam: (Default)

Re: Colorado Renewables

[personal profile] danieldwilliam 2018-01-23 02:08 pm (UTC)(link)
Aye - of course they are replacing a couple of coal plants with other stuff.

I wonder if they are at the solar PV / wind is cheaper to build than the gas costs to burn stage yet.

(Or as I have decided to name it the Sutton Gas Inflection Point).
danieldwilliam: (Default)

Re: Colorado Renewables

[personal profile] danieldwilliam 2018-01-23 02:20 pm (UTC)(link)
So, it's sounding like the renewables plus modest storage is cheaper than the non-capital costs of coal in Colorado.

Which takes you down a CCGT route.