pjg03d
Well-Known Member
- First Name
- Justin
- Joined
- Sep 10, 2025
- Threads
- 4
- Messages
- 80
- Reaction score
- 76
- Location
- US
- Vehicles
- 4S, Lyriq
What is never built into these numbers, because it is difficult and cumbersome to do so, is the social cost of carbon, which we all pay whether we believe in it or want to, or not.Interesting. I would be curious to dig into the numbers a bit more. They use “lifetime energy cost,” so I would love to see the timeline that they’re using. The longer the timeline, the longer the “break even point” for example.
Geography also matters significantly for solar and wind. As does “land cost” as they take up significantly more acreage than a coal or natural gas or nuclear plant.
I think the headline may be a bit simplistic without know the real details.
They did note they’re talking about building new power plants. Existing plants are still significantly cheaper than building a new solar or wind farm. So fossil fuel plants are also being kept alive because they already exist.
It’s like comparing the costs of ownership of a used ICE vehicle to a new BEV. The used car will still be cheaper to own. Different math when comparing new to new.
LNG plants that are already online may be cheaper to operate day to day compared to a buildout of a new solar farm array, but those costs are always represented as costs to the utility building and operating them, not the extended costs of healthcare due to asthma and other cardiopulmonary issues caused by combustion exhaust, or cost of flooding/flood insurance due to more frequent high-intensity storms, etc.
In this case it is more like comparing a... hm, relevance...used high-mileage and poorly maintained 911 996 that you and your family agreed to fix up, to a new Chevy Bolt or something. Upfront costs are going to be low on the 996 but paying to even maintain its drivability may bankrupt your family or it may just catch fire in the garage. Should have just bought the Bolt.
Sponsored