Comments on: Utility Agrees: (Their) Solar Should Supplant Natural Gas

By: Doug

Doug — Fri, 20 Sep 2013 03:56:00 +0000

And I think it’s not a concern if the rooftop system is owned by the utility.

By: Doug

Doug — Fri, 20 Sep 2013 03:55:00 +0000

It would have been nice if this article had stuck to the facts. We have a debate in our community about plans to modernize a peak power plant that is within two miles of my house. News articles that I can forward along are critical. In our case, the plan is for a $500M natgas peaker. $500M would buy a lot of rooftop solar!

By: agelbert

agelbert — Tue, 17 Sep 2013 02:04:00 +0000

http://www.pic4ever.com/images/47b20s0.gif

http://www.pic4ever.com/images/128fs318181.gif

By: Bob_Wallace

Bob_Wallace — Mon, 16 Sep 2013 21:40:00 +0000

The entire argument for nuclear hinges on stating a selling price that’s low enough to be interesting.

When one points out that as other generation (wind) forces nuclear to sell at a loss during part of the time, thus forcing a need to sell higher the rest of the time, then it’s clear that nuclear can’t survive.

Solar doesn’t have to be cheaper than the LCOE for nuclear. It just has to be less than the LCOE + lost revenue recovery.

If the pro-nuclear folks admit that then they are lost. Their dreams of great big complex systems for generating electricity go poof.

By: Shiggity

Shiggity — Mon, 16 Sep 2013 21:28:00 +0000

“What’s important to keep in mind when talking about solar and
electricity prices is that solar energy production tends to align very
well with the highest energy demand on a utility’s system. It doesn’t
have to be cheaper than a nuclear power plant built in 1965, it just has
to be cheaper than the next kilowatt-hour the utility needs at 4pm on a
hot, July afternoon.”

No matter how many times I try to explain this to the nuclear guys, they just won’t accept it.