SSDD
Gold Member
- Nov 6, 2012
- 16,672
- 1,966
- 280
Ivanpah plant has a levelized cost of $72, the caveat is it has practically no storage capacity.
The subsides for that power plant are outrageous....to suggest that it generates energy at $72 is to be astoundingly ignorant of the economics...
If enough batteries were added to cover 1% of the anual production the levelized cost would rise above $110.
Again, the subsides drive the actual cost to astronomical levels....if it were a viable source of energy, no subsidy would be required....they could get by on the same tax breaks all real energy producers get by on. Even now the company is begging for cash from the government to keep from going under...loans are coming due and there is no money to pay them...the Ivanpah plant is nothing more than a great big shiny money hole....interesting that you are unwilling to look at that fact square on. it is a blight on the desert and an effective bird killing machine. For someone who professes to be concerned about the environment, it is surprising that you can turn a blind eye to the incredible environmental damage that renewables cause.
Storage is the achiles heel of renewable. So again, I'm not pushing it until there is an acceptable proven large scale solution. Pumped hydro and compressed gas seem to be promissing , but there's nothing more than prototypes right now.
No...it's cost...and gross inefficiency....if renewables were an up and coming thing...governemnt funds would not be necessary.