upvote
This is correct in the sense that, if you were to build a zero emissions energy system from scratch with today's technology, your conclusion would be that you'd eventually have to do this.

But in much of the world, setting up PV is economically sound simply because it displaces a certain amount of kWh generated over the course of a year from other sources that are more polluting and more expensive.

In this regime, the dynamics of production over time don't matter yet.

At some point, when renewable generation has very high penetration, you'll reach a point where building more is uneconomical, and to then displace the remaining other power sources you'll need to overpay (ignoring externalities).

However, that's assuming no technological change on the way there, which is a whole separate topic.

reply
So massively overprovision them. It’s still cheaper than fossil fuels, especially if you price in all the externalities. Seems like all these hungry datacenters we’re building can soak up any excess capacity anyway.
reply
What does cheap mean? You aren't paying for the same thing - a ccgt plant is super fast and works independent of the weather.

I'm in favour of having it but the reason why you need to over provision is because of the intermittency. This can also push out proper base load (e.g. nuclear) although it's not simple.

You have to think about the portfolio.

In Britain at least there is also a bit of a sleight of hand where the marginal costs are reported but not the CFD strike prices used to incentivise the buildout.

reply