Ađź‘Ź 477wordđź‘Ź 3-minuteđź‘Ź read
Solar has become synonymous with the climate movement. As I’ve said many times that is a strategic mistake. From a long-term perspective, I consider solar limited and inefficient. That doesn’t mean it has no role in a net-zero strategy, just that solar shouldn’t be the focus.
Rooftop solar makes perfect because there isn’t a viable alternative to generate power from that real estate. Rooftop solar also doesn’t typically incur the same interconnection and grid upgrade issues associated with larger solar projects.
But rooftop isn’t the only place solar make sense. When paired with battery storage, it can also make sense in the sunniest geographies.
A new report from thinktank Ember concludes that in specific locations, solar + storage can provide cost-effective power on an almost 24/7 basis.
Yes, almost.
The report cherry-picks 12 of the sunniest cities including Las Vegas, Mexico City, and Muscat Oman. In Vegas it concluded that a system comprised of 6 GW of solar and 17-GWh of storage could provide 1 GW of power on nearly a 24/7 basis.
It estimates the system cost at $104 per megawatt-hour and compares that cost to $118/MWh for coal and $182/MWh for nuclear.
I suspect the report’s cost input data is a bit biased. I have no proof, only my gut, which is always skeptical of organizations that ultimately profit by proliferating a specific message.
The bread of global energy think tanks isn’t typically buttered by the fossil fuel industry, but by clean energy advocates. Ember boasts as its funders the Sequoia Climate Foundation, the European Climate Foundation, and the Sunrise Project, all of which have a vested interest in validating solar as the solution.
Here’s an example of what I consider a bias in the report:
It cites the cost of coal “in many regions.”
What does that mean?
I interpret it as meaning that the cost of coal may be less expensive in other areas.
The comparison also conveniently uses nuclear - currently the most expensive clean energy solution - and conveniently omits natural gas, the primary fossil fuel used in today’s power plants.
Nonetheless, the report’s point is valid. Yet it also validates my position that solar isn’t the ubiquitous solution the climate community has portrayed it to be.
Another example of Ember’s bias is illustrated by how it views its own findings:
“This is a turning point in the clean energy transition,” said Kostantsa Rangelova, an Ember analyst. “Around-the-clock solar is no longer a distant dream; it’s an economic reality of the world. It unlocks game-changing opportunities for energy-hungry industries like data centres and manufacturing.”
Yeah – if they’re in a handful of the sunniest locations on earth. And even then, not a single city could rely on solar 100% of the time.
More to the point - what about the other 95% of the planet?
#ember #solarenergy #batterystorage