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.
I am not an academic, so I'll leave the formal stuff to others. However I have been running a residential dollar system for 2 years, and tracking the numbers, so here's my data for what it's worth.
Firstly, as a return on capital spent, I'm seeing a return of 16% per annum. As electricity prices increase, that trends up.
Secondly we're purchasing about 66% less energy annually. In summer months around 85% of daily (electrical) energy use is self-generated. Most of our annual grid consumption occurs during 2 months in winter. (We still produce then, but not enough to run our electric heating.)
Next year I'm switching to an EV, which can be charged from my current excess (unused) daytime generation for approx 9 months in the year.
I can't speak to grid-scale costs, but for me anyway, generation cost is 0. (Capital cost was real, but return on capital is 16% and rising, which is better than my retirement account.)
So, if you want to reduce your energy costs, self production is the best route. If you can't do that, then it's unlikely that you (as the consumer) will benefit much. The supplier will likely supply at market rates (set by the most expensive source) and the gap is their profit not yours.
We may in future move to a pricing model that favors cheap electricity during the day, and more expensive at night, but at least where I am that's not a thing yet.
So, generally speaking, it's a lot cheaper to use electric over gasoline for transport. Electric from solar is cheaper to produce than burning fossils. Whether that translates into cheaper for you though depends on market forces. If you're in the US, we'll, good luck with that. It seems to me that suppliers in the US price based on what the consumer will pay, and less on input cost.
Of course all my numbers will vary a lot based on location. YMMV.
Energy costs in NYC are double the national average, and little of that has to do with energy production and a lot to do with living in a place with extreme energy demands and infrastructure needs. And of course taxes. If energy prices in NY are driving you to the brink, you'll get a nice discount by living literally anywhere else.
>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.
Current cost: ~$140–$200 per MWh discharged (Latest Lazard LCOS reports). Price will get cut in half when sodium batteries production ramps up over next few years. Solar + Battery and Wind + battery is the cheapest form electricity outside of hydro.
> 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.
Majority of electricity cost is delivery not generation. In NYC, you have an aging electrical system that needed to be replaced 20 years ago. Then the billions spent to harden to system from global warming effects like Hurricane Sandy. Most of Coned electricity is natural gas and natural gas prices are up 50% compared to last year(August 2024 prices compared August 2025).
1. I am rooting for wind and solar generation but I am skeptical that sodium ion battery production could ramp from today’s pilots to the >100 TWh needed for grid-scale alone in less than 20 years. There is also the issue of transmission network buildout.
2. You’re right about generation vs delivery. I just checked and almost 2/3 of my $750 bill from last month was for delivery vs supply. Appreciate the reminder!
You can make sodium batteries on existing lithium ion production lines. CATL and BYD says you don't need reinvent the factory and they will use their existing lines.
So you're saying we can't use solar because at some point, a small percentage of the time (i.e., peaking demand), it's more expensive than an alternative?
Did you miss that overall it's still cheaper?
There's nothing stopping us from using solar and nuclear as a baseline and firming/peaking with the cheapest fossil fuel. And given the cost reduction in batteries that's been going on, I doubt fossil fuel peaking will still be the cheapest in the next few years.
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.