Area of PV needed per capita?

[RDoc]

The question though is what happens when you get 10 days in a row of heavy clouds with rain/snow in a row, not to mention night time. Without either very large scale energy storage or dispatchable backup generation there are going to be long periods with little or no power which most people aren't going to accept.

- - - Updated - - -

Interesting cost estimate -- over $1 billion to replace existing assets that are working reasonably well? That's not a story that sells well with voters. The immediate goal should be to stop building NEW fossil and nuclear plants (except in very particular circumstances). The economics of NEW renewables vs. NEW conventional power is reasonably close, but the economics of NEW renewables vs. operating EXISTING fossil/nuclear is much harder, particularly in the absence of a meaningful carbon charge.

Isn't it closer to $1 Trillion, about 1/3 of France's annual GDP, or $15,000 per person?

 

[Robert.Boston]

Isn't it closer to $1 Trillion, about 1/3 of France's annual GDP, or $15,000 per person?

Yes, you're right -- $1 Trillion. That's beginning to sound like real money.

 

[omgwtfbyobbq]

$15,000 at once is a bit tough, but $15,000 amortized over 20 years isn't too bad.

 

[Robert.Boston]

$15,000 at once is a bit tough, but $15,000 amortized over 20 years isn't too bad.

Could any politician be elected with a platform that reads "increase electricity bills by $1,200 per year for every man, woman and child"? ($1,200 is the annual cost to pay down $15,000 at 5% over 20 years.)

 

[omgwtfbyobbq]

I think an experienced politician would frame it in terms of the total levelized cost, probably beyond 20 years. The net would be higher but the yearly would be lower. I doubt they would build enough capacity to cover all of existing production. They would probably utilize some existing nuclear along side DSM and a smidge of battery storage with a large solar roll out. They could even offer to keep some nuclear plants open if a large enough group of private companies would realistically foot the bill for upgrades and liability insurance (Nuclear's apparently ~7c/kWh for them versus ~14c/kWh for the public, so they would have some incentive to continue to use it).

Factor in some savings from the *abatement curve, include the replacement cost of whichever nuclear plants **comprise the 25% of generation France is looking to cut by 2025, and premium would drop further. I also don't think France would need to offer an extra 400 basis points on bonds to fund large scale PV production, but who knows. Anyhoo, I doubt the long run cost premium would be $1200 per person per year, and even if the 20-year amortized cost was $1200/year, I doubt a politician would frame it like that.


* http://www.mckinsey.com/~/media/McK...cialCrisisCarbonEconomicsGHGcostcurveV21.ashx

** Nuclear power in France - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia