Tobberone

This is not the application im worried about in regards to Jerome Paradox. There are other power guzzling techs that will eat any and all energy that can be produced while paying more per kwh than any of us can afford. Those technologies are my primary concern…

Oh, the new “renewables are bad” talking point. Unlike the general feel of the article I think this is actually just in time. The first TW took 70 years to install, but the second took 2 years (2024). Given 20 years of operational life that means that the quantities starts to accelerate by the end of the 2030-thirties. Which is when the article states that there will be price parity between recycling and landfill…

However, at least here, the cost of landfills has increased and will continue to increase so it quill only be a matter of time…

I would think that the graph would be rather different had it been “last kilometer”? I’d expect to see electricity at the bottom there.

For panels mounted as depicted, I’m with you 100%. I do want to mention though that vertically mounted panels seems to increase harvests and from the farmer (singular) I’ve spoken to who is testing this with the help of academia I’ve understood that there is a debate about moisture retention. And as far as I’ve seen, there are more than university coming to the same conclusions. Having said that, we’ve still to see this tested large scale…

I agree wholeheartedly. Solving the issue of high wintertime electricity use is not about adding capacity, it is about driving down demand. High winter time electricity costs is unfortunate, but it will help making that change. High winter electricity costs will incentivise innovation in energy/heat storage to help reduce electricity needs. And that in turn will help keep electricity costs down for everybody. The municipality im in is currently building 2 heat storage facilities to try the technology. Fingers crossed it will pan out well! For a country like Sweden with approximately 2-2,5 million small houses, if each had a 10MWh heat battery on-prem that’d approximately equal the energy output of all nuclear sites in the country for the sunless 5 months…

I’m not sure those conclusions can be drawn by that article. I mean, there was one solid regression in there which clearly showed a near perfect linearity between less gas-hours (that is more fossil free power) and lower electricity cost. And in that regression Sweden and norway was even omitted, had they not been the correlation would be even stronger.

As for the other regressions presented they were not apples to apples comparisons and no conclusions can be drawn because of bad methodology. Sure enough R-square was very low as well, but that would be expected.

The issues with the methodology are that A) the cost of electricity isnt decided by what is produced in a country, but by how much is in demand in neighboring electricity regions. For instance, the price of electricity in sweden is closely tied to demand in Germany. Thus will wind and solar in Sweden have very little explanative power on price. And B) the meassured price is t the true mean price as met by the consumers. If 5% of households has a solar installation it will skew the mean price by alot. Not only will their price of electricity inversely follow production as they will first use there own production, they will also see negative prices when the installation delivers more electricity than what is used by the household. Both mechanisms skew the price of the mean bought kwh electricity And neither is accounted for in this comparison.

But the main conclusion stands. Any reduction in gas-hours will lower the price of electricity.