The article is wrong on several core points. It treats a 33 percent wind capacity factor as “wind off two thirds of the time,” which is not how output or backup works. It uses incorrect heat-rate values that understate simple-cycle fuel burn and overstate combined-cycle fuel burn. It spreads capital cost by hours instead of by actual MWh, which inflates the supposed penalty. It assumes a full one-to-one gas plant dedicated as backup, which no real grid does. When you correct these errors, wind’s cost per MWh is often lower than new gas, and the claimed 40 percent premium does not appear.
The article is wrong on several core points. It treats a 33 percent wind capacity factor as “wind off two thirds of the time,” which is not how output or backup works. It uses incorrect heat-rate values that understate simple-cycle fuel burn and overstate combined-cycle fuel burn. It spreads capital cost by hours instead of by actual MWh, which inflates the supposed penalty. It assumes a full one-to-one gas plant dedicated as backup, which no real grid does. When you correct these errors, wind’s cost per MWh is often lower than new gas, and the claimed 40 percent premium does not appear.
Very good article giving sound basis for an important conclusion.
Would like to see a comparison of SCGT/solar vs CCGT. Has anyone done one?