Are you a salesman? Serious question, it seems you know the best possible scenario but not how the grid works where the rubber meets the road.
Nope, but work in the industry. I know how the grid works in its current state. It's an inefficient mess limited by an antiquated infrastructure.
You're mixing sales, and actual production. I know that power is sold in megawatt hours, it's also produced that way. You're saying a sticker says a car gets 30 Mpg, and I'm saying when it's actually running its only getting 18.
I'm not "mixing sales" and actual production. This is energy markets 101. I'm merely making the distinction between a car sticker showing 50 mpg vs the same car traveling 10 miles. You seem to be unable to differentiate between these two measurements, one of energy output vs another of power generation capacity.
I was never confused on capacity factors or load carrying capabilities. I'm not sure why you're stuck on that.
Maybe in solar the generator produces more than nameplate, but I'd guess that's more with rigging the numbers. Especially if they're only 25 % efficient.
Really? You're obviously confused here. 25% efficiency has nothing to do with the instantaneous production capacity of a (MW) a solar, wind, ethanol, combustible coal, etc generator.
A 1MW solar project can produce 1MW of power at a given point in ideal conditions. The 25% efficiency means it generated 1 MW of power for 15 minutes in an hour long period, it provided a total of 0.25 MWh for consumption.
MW =/= MWh
I'm actually surprised we have to go through this exercise.
Companies dump money in inefficient power plants all the time, and yes they do have green power mandates or incentives which ever you choose to call it.
Right here on the Ohio river an underwater turbine is being built right now that's going to produce a max of 50mW, for a cool 1.5 to 2 billion dollars. That is absolutely insane, the company I work for is building a 1000mw combined cycle for 1.2 billion. Tell me which seems the better option for the buck?
I never said they didn't have renewable mandates. I've actually said the opposite, numerous times. I did say that the mandates doesn't exist in the form of installed capacity. Instead they're in the form of energy production.
Nor did I say companies don't dump money into "inefficient" power plants. Not sure where you conjured that.
And the underwater turbines on the Ohio will cost
$500M for 100MW. That's relatively high for installation costs compared to other sources but you have to consider that most of hydro's costs are upfront capex, and the LCOE should be equal or lower than conventional combustion plants, depending on the length of time in operations, because Ohio River water is free. If your new Combined Cycle generator has CCS it, the energy produced will more than likely be
more expensive ($100/MWh) than that of the hydro deal ($83/MWh).
If I linked the wrong hydro project, please share the term sheet and project specifics of your $2M, 50MW underwater turbine.
Lastly, even if the hydro project is more costly, it's being built to satisfy energy GENERATION requirements (not capacity, but % of energy produced out of total energy portfolio) enacted by your local government.