Read the beginning of false claim #28. This paper is such a joke lol. The authors agree with the "false statement" and then propose their own solution. I can't believe this is on an "edu" website.
Something I learned a while ago that stuck with me is that it takes roughly the same electricity to refine oil to gasoline as an EV uses to drive the distance that gasoline would get you, and that only accounts for refining, not transport and storage of that gasoline, loss due to evaporation, etc.
In other words, you can pretty much ignore where the electricity comes from and EVs are still better than gas cars for the environment.
By far, my priority for energy policy, in the US where I live, is to lower the cost of energy.
After reading Claim 11, starting on page 29, where the authors state that:
>unsubsidized solar energy is now generally cheaper than fossil fuels; and
> solar energy compares favorably in terms of levelized cost (total lifetime energy production / total lifetime cost)
The authors build this argument over three pages, including several charts, citing a Lazard paper that prices solar at $60/Mwh vs gas combined cycle at $70/MWh. But only in the last paragraph do they concede that when you include the cost of intermittency (firming), solar is only cheaper than gas peaking plant cost ($168/MWh).
As someone who lives in New York City and is drowning in inflated energy bills, lacking any engineering explanation why my residential electricity $/MWh is triple that of Beijing, I am sick and tired of phony academic papers such as this that begin with a conclusion and work backward to fabricate extremely misleading arguments.
I don’t care how my energy is generated. I strongly prefer it comes from sources that pollute less. But that preference is miles behind the priority for cheaper energy.
Bullshit research like this, written by attorneys, including arguments like claim 11 which tries to hide the fact that solar only produces energy during daylight, annd does not account for storage/firming costs are not helping move our national energy dialog forward.
If anyone likes data visualization. Australia are betting heavily on renewables for their 2030 targets (despite some State Govt's opposition ahem Qld) and it's pretty magical see this in action day-to-day:
I'd also reccomend having a look at David Osmond's projections, where he looks at if we scaled up storage, wind and solar, by a few factors how close we would get to 100% stable and renewable.
There are plenty of false claims about solar, wind and EV and they are worth debunking.
But there are also a few topics for which the real answer is much more nuanced (for instance claims #9, #12 and #13), where the claim itself is way exaggerated but there are still significant challenges to address, and treating those the same way you treat blatant bullshit is damageable, because of course opponents are going to exploit these to discredit the paper altogether…
I wish academics could be a little more level headed an avoid taking needlessly polarizing takes like that.
This, and other documents are important, but will not prevent continuance both of the misleading claims, and opposition to wind, solar and EV. This is because the opposition is oftentimes not rooted in logic and reasoning but in emotions.
If you don't like something, being told it's good for you doesn't magically make you like it.
Utility-scale solar is very unpopular in Japan. Because most suitable lands of them are densely forested, and installing utility-scale solar systems requires destory the forests.
There are concerns landslides due to reduced water storage functionality, and emotional antipathy at having their hometowns' mountains covered with solar panels.
Preface to this is I generally do believe that renewables are cheaper, however I'm not entirely certain of how much because so rarely are full assumptions and details documented.
Storage costs, knock-on effect of intermittency, maintenance costs, etc.
My personal true claim about solar that is generally ignored or unknown is that dust reduces solar efficiency by 40% and that the mitigation is frequent washing of panels, which results in considerable water use in precisely the worst areas for that.
This 2024 paper cites a 2016 paper about clouds and dusts that finds 10.4% reduction in efficiency when the relative humidity was 52.24% after two weeks. (The 2016 study is cited in footnote 184 under clasim 12). That's not a desert condition, I can assure you.
11 comments
[ 1.6 ms ] story [ 31.6 ms ] threadIn other words, you can pretty much ignore where the electricity comes from and EVs are still better than gas cars for the environment.
After reading Claim 11, starting on page 29, where the authors state that:
>unsubsidized solar energy is now generally cheaper than fossil fuels; and
> solar energy compares favorably in terms of levelized cost (total lifetime energy production / total lifetime cost)
The authors build this argument over three pages, including several charts, citing a Lazard paper that prices solar at $60/Mwh vs gas combined cycle at $70/MWh. But only in the last paragraph do they concede that when you include the cost of intermittency (firming), solar is only cheaper than gas peaking plant cost ($168/MWh).
As someone who lives in New York City and is drowning in inflated energy bills, lacking any engineering explanation why my residential electricity $/MWh is triple that of Beijing, I am sick and tired of phony academic papers such as this that begin with a conclusion and work backward to fabricate extremely misleading arguments.
I don’t care how my energy is generated. I strongly prefer it comes from sources that pollute less. But that preference is miles behind the priority for cheaper energy.
Bullshit research like this, written by attorneys, including arguments like claim 11 which tries to hide the fact that solar only produces energy during daylight, annd does not account for storage/firming costs are not helping move our national energy dialog forward.
https://explore.openelectricity.org.au/energy/nem/?range=7d&...
I'd also reccomend having a look at David Osmond's projections, where he looks at if we scaled up storage, wind and solar, by a few factors how close we would get to 100% stable and renewable.
https://bsky.app/profile/davidosmond.bsky.social/post/3lyhcq...
There are plenty of false claims about solar, wind and EV and they are worth debunking.
But there are also a few topics for which the real answer is much more nuanced (for instance claims #9, #12 and #13), where the claim itself is way exaggerated but there are still significant challenges to address, and treating those the same way you treat blatant bullshit is damageable, because of course opponents are going to exploit these to discredit the paper altogether…
I wish academics could be a little more level headed an avoid taking needlessly polarizing takes like that.
If you don't like something, being told it's good for you doesn't magically make you like it.
There are concerns landslides due to reduced water storage functionality, and emotional antipathy at having their hometowns' mountains covered with solar panels.
Storage costs, knock-on effect of intermittency, maintenance costs, etc.
This 2024 paper cites a 2016 paper about clouds and dusts that finds 10.4% reduction in efficiency when the relative humidity was 52.24% after two weeks. (The 2016 study is cited in footnote 184 under clasim 12). That's not a desert condition, I can assure you.
https://sustainenergyres.springeropen.com/articles/10.1186/s...
For combustion engines, a drop in efficiency increases your daily cost, and the carbon footprint.
For solar, it simply means a lower maximum energy storage per day, which implies a higher initial outlay. The "wasted" sunlight doesn't cost anything.