What a Waste – Vermont Yankee is in Beautiful Condition

That happens thanks to progress.
Especially if a technology does not make substantial progress, the ‘old’ technology often is replaced by newer more efficient (less dangerous, etc), cheaper ones.
It also happened to the sailing ships, the steam engine, etc.
Those still have devotees, who mourn the loss of those technologies.

And now it is happening with nuclear power plants.
Not strange.
Since half a century ago no real progress.
Still the same old designs….
Only lost dreams, such as the fast breeder, etc.

You can thank wind energy for helping to take the plant off-line.  Big wind can bid into the grid for nothing  late at night, because of the money earned from the PTC, and because wind does not have fuel cost. The zero bid reduces the amount of money the nuclear plant operator can earn at night, which is generally when wind energy is available, and society needs it the least. The loss of reliable, clean, low-cost baseload nuclear energy, in favor of intermittent, non-dispatchable, non-baseload generation, that adds next to nothing to capacity, is so stupid, the word stupid does not begin to describe what is going on. The PTC is deliberately designed to destroy baseload generation..  Maybe the socialist Bernie Sanders can figure it out. If he can’t get a new Senator.

John, I think you’re giving the efficacy of Vermont’s windfarms more credit than they’re due.

In 2011, Vermont wind generated 33 GWh of energy. In contrast, Vermont Yankee generated 4,073 GWh, or 123 times the amount provided by all VT windfarms combined. The fact that Vermont wind nameplate capacity is about one-sixth of VY’s nameplate is a testament of wind’s poor capacity factor. In the state with the highest recorded wind speed on Earth, it works out to just under 9% – about one-third of what enthusiasts claim is typical.

The real reason for VY’s closure is a tangled mix of influence peddling, corruption and favoritism, and the result will be the generation of 35% less clean energy in Vermont. A good summary of the situation can be found here. Suffice to say – the number of businesspeople and their corrupt political operatives who should be in jail would require at least two hands to count.

There is a place for nuclear in our energy mix but the industry basically antiquated itself. We built a bunch of plants in the 1980’s and then just sat on its behind while others continued the research and development of things like High Temperature Gas Cooled reactors [HTGR], and other technologies. We have known for a long time that someday water use and plant efficiencies would become an issue yet we basically did nothing to design or retrofit our plants with things like desalination as secondary products to enhance profitability.

We understand how to build plants that are cost competitive but continue to build the old designs instead. We have failed to do the necessary research and development over the last 30 years that would have resulted in new reactor designs that use our existing spent fuel as new fuel or have longer refueling cycles to reduce costs.

There is no one to blame but the nuclear power industry itself and the CEO[s] who couldn’t see past the next quarterly report. Now we are attempting to play the catch up game that no one seems interested in playing.

A truly sad state of affairs to a once promising technology.  

p.s. Could someone please add or fix spell check or post how to use it!  Thank you.    

Solar and wind are not just ‘intermittent’.  They can never be baseload, without a cost-effecitve storage solution.  While a cost-effective distributed energy storage solution may present itselft, near term; utility scale is a long way off.  Because of this, wind and solar adds very little to capacity. Even at 5 cents per kwh, it is still cost plus the reliable back-up.  When you add the cost of the back-up for solar and wind, they are not such a great deal.

Bas, as N Nadir has noted repeatedly and as you continue to ignore, solar power has had just as much time on the world stage as nuclear and is still more expensive than nuclear. You seem to believe denying it over and over again will somehow lend veracity to this unfounded opinion.

Nuclear has, by any measure, already been wildly successful at delivering carbon-free energy to not only productive uses, but so that the world’s anti-nuclear bloggers might continue to post views motivated more by fear than facts. Thus far the one real-world experiment in high-saturation solar has proven an unmitigated failure, pushing both carbon emissions and electricity prices through the roof.

Let’s hypothesize this trend continues, and a solar-powered utopia proves elusive. How long would it take for you to admit solar is a “lost dream”? Ten more years? Twenty?

George, ironically people living next to this supposedly toxic and dangerous plant overwhelmingly support keeping it open. Vested business interests are propping up VT’s feeble wind industry as a cover for hawking natural gas.

Nuclear power is, right now and excluding externalities, more expensive than natural gas. It’s also cheaper than wind or solar. Its price remains stable, while spot gas prices fluctuate by a factor of ten or more. And it doesn’t create any carbon emissions.

That’s a bargain by any standard.

“…solar power has had just as much time on the world stage as nuclear and …“
The big difference:
Solar power started in the sixties with:
– yields of ~3% at labs; now ~45%; improvement 15x ;
– Panel prices per W of >$25 in 1980; now $1,=; improvement 25x
– PV panel yields of ~3% in the seventies; now ~20%; improvement 7x
And this development continues during next decades.

While nuclear only became more expensive and lost many dreams.
Still stuck with the same old (expensive) high pressure steam-turbine / generator combination.
So of course CSP cannot compete as that also uses that dated steam-turbine / generator combination.

“…. and is still more expensive than nuclear.“
Depending on the place, electricity generated by nuclear is >3times more expensive than electricity generated by PV-solar.
E.g.
In Austin recently a new contract for PV-solar: $50/MWh.
The new Hinkley nuclear power plant will produce for ~$180/MWh in 2023, price going up with inflation during 35years. To that price you have to add:
– major liability subsidies (accident + waste). Worth: ~$50/MWh;
– Loan guarantees £10billion. Worth: ~$60/MWh
– Other subsidies such as decommioning, etc.
That implies that the real cost-price is $190/MWh for new nuclear, rising as the major component rises with inflation. While PV solar will become much cheaper. Estimations are ~$30/MWh in 2023.

“….Nuclear has … been wildly successful at delivering carbon-free energy…“
If that would be true than the share of nuclear in the world electricity production would have gone up and up. But after a peak of ~17% in the nineties it went down towards ~10% now.
Even the volume produced is in decline.
From 2,660 TWh in 2006, decreasing towards ~2,500TWh now (~5% less).

Realize that a paradigma change is going on.
Even the ‘iron’ combination (steamturbine/generator) gradually becomes obsolete. Following the steam driven ocean liner, the steam locomotive engine, etc.

“Solar and wind are not just ‘intermittent’.  They can never be baseload…“
That is correct. Baseload power plants are past.

The combination of different generation methods using many distributed small sources, deliver more reliable electricity than one can do with baseload plants.

Just check the big reliability improvement in Germany during the past years when wind+solar became substantial.

“…no one to blame but the nuclear power industry…”

What nuclear power industry, GE, B&W?  Those companies also build fossil fuel and renewable plants.  Why should they care what kind of plants their customers order?  Tearing down an old plant and building new ones is always good for business.  Remember, they work for their share holders, not the public.

It’s the job of the public and the public utility commissions to demand clean and sustainable energy.  It’s the job of business to give the customer what they want.  The Vermont public got duped by self-seeking politicians, and now the world will pay the price due to the added pollution and the people of Vermont will loose jobs and likely pay more for electricity.

“In 2011, Vermont wind generated 33 GWh of energy. “

No reason to use 2011 generation data when we have data that is only a few months old.

      –      http://www.eia.gov/electricity/data/browser/

Vermont wind generated 107GWh in 2012 and 238GWh in 2013. In January of this year it generated 31 GWh. It looks like capacity factor for January was about 35%.

Your point about shutting down nuclear is well taken – no need to cherry pick old data in an attempt to denigrate wind.

Well Nathan of course you are right.; why should GE and  B&W really care.  But I was just thinking of the thousands of people that once worked in the industries that supplied the nuclear components or those companies and utilites which operated the plants.

No, that is not progress. The CO2 free electricity it generates would have been sold for about 6 cents/kWh had it not been for… what? Subsidized wind?

Are you working on a tech that will make 24/7 baseload renewable power for less than 6 cents/kWh? What I see here is profit seeking destroying the biosphere via the need to build more coal or NG.

Kill a perfectly good plant in order to displace cheap electricity for expensive… Ya, real progress (and to think I used to like wind, solar and NG)!

At least, they should preserve it so when NG becomes expensive again, the residents could demand its restart.

@Nathan,
So the public and the public utility commissions went wrong by not demanding generation IV decades ago? And by not demanding a solution of the waste problem?

Now they have cheaper and less dangerous alternatives, that:
– generate less CO2 (no fuel at all, no mining);
– add far less heat to the earth;
– without a waste problem for next 1,000 generations;
– takes less land (higher power densitiy);
and leads to more reliable electricity supply (thanks to distributed generation) as a.o. Germany shows.

“…a tech that will make 24/7 baseload renewable power for less than 6 cents/kWh?…“
The combination of:
– distributed generation by thousands of small units;
– different methods / technologies
deliver more reliable electricity 24/7, than big power plants can.

A big plant fails sometimes within a second and then there is a problem.
A small unit fails also sometimes within a second, but then there is no problem as there are thousands of other units running.

Btw.
Wind and solar production is variable but highly predictable as German grid operators and the whole sale markets show.

Rod,
Do you really think that Entergy decided to close a profitable business?
If, their shareholders should move the board out.

Undermining public confidence can be costly – http://www.boston.com/news/local/vermont/articles/2010/02/24/nrc_confirms_2005_tritium_leak_at_vermont_yankee_plant/

Regarding the leak: “Plant officials admitted last month that they had misled state officials, sometimes under oath, by saying the plant did not have the sort of underground pipes that could carry tritium.”

Imagine a graph of all the solar and wind ramping up and down, turning off and on. Your idea needs massive storage in order to be better than what you call “past. Massive storage (and the collection) needs to be much cheaper in order for your idea to become practical. In the meantime, in order to avert the accelerating emissions of excess CO2, we need to develop nuclear baseload, plain and simple.

Joe, could you provide an accurate link to your information? Thanks.

Just check the German studies and experience.
German utilities are busy closing baseload plants, replacing them with flexible fluidized bed plants.
Being at the stock market, so with CEO’s P&L responsible, they do that for good economic reasons.

Your ideas:”…all the solar and wind ramping up and down …Massive storage … “, seem logic but are not supported with the outcome of scenario studies, neither the German reality.

Elias, it certainly can, and it was stupid of Entergy officials to lie.

They could have trusted media to point out the insignificance of the leaking tritium, which  showed no elevated levels outside of one well on VY property – couldn’t they?

They could have trusted media to point out the additional deaths which will result from replacing VY with burning biomass (aka, old-growth forest), coal, and natural gas – couldn’t they?

Even if media didn’t step up to the plate, they could have trusted Vermonters to see through the hysteria peddled by the Arnie Gundersens, Helen Caldicotts, and Robert Alvarezes of the antinuclear fear circus.

Couldn’t they?

I like the idea of wind and solar and nuclear, all competing to keep prices down. I also like the idea of cheap storage, so that wind and solar can become practical in the real world, you know, where baseload IS depended on even more so than in the past.

I hate the idea of wind and solar “only” because that necessitates coal and ng fired back up. Don’t believe it, search duck graph.

@Bob,

Your remarks imply that no pro-nuclear statement by any utility (such as statements regarding safety, etc) can be trusted…
Which is not far off the impression I often get.

Bob,

Not sure what you are asking for here??

I did provide the link in my comment – here it is again.

http://www.eia.gov/electricity/data/browser/

Just select filter/order button and pick Vermont to see a breakdown.

This table shows the same number you quoted for 2011. 

Joe, interactive pages like that one which present hundreds of options usually can be linked to with the specific search you describe already selected. Makes it easier to find what you’re referring to.

Thanks for updated information. I see that all operational Vermont wind in January provided about 1/15th of Vermont Yankee’s generation with a capacity factor ~two and one-half times less. And although this source says

However, based on the current operation of the Searsburg facility a generalized factor of 1kilometer of ridgeline per 0.55 MW of built capacity seems reasonable for estimating the potential ridgeline ‘consumption’ of developing wind energy projects.

Searsburg is also an old project (1997) – newer projects might only result in razing 1km/MW, or 108km of clearcut ridgeline for Vermont’s total. In acreage/MW, it works out to about 200 times the footprint of VY, which of course only matters if you live there.

Who needs to cherry pick?

Bob – Point taken on links.Thanks.

Again, I do not have a problem with your position regarding closing of Vermont Yankee. The closure will increase the CO2 generated by NE region and it may also cause problems for an already weak NE electricity market over the next few years. See this EIA article for more.

However, situation for Vermont itself is not as dire as you seem to indicate.  Here are some points to consider.

– Vermont only used 2,167 GWh of the electricity generated by Vermont Yankee in 2011. The rest went out to the New England market.  (see pg e8 in the link)  So, they will not need to replace all 4,000 GWh with wind and the 238 GWh generated by wind in 2013 becomes much more significant. Instead of the 1/123 mentioned in your earlier comment – wind is actually at 1/10 of nuclear usage in Vermont.

– About 1/3 of Vermont’s electricity comes from Quebec Hydro. Here is an article detailing the agreement.

– Green Mountain Power has also signed an agreement to purchase nuclear from Seabrook.

– Here is the fuel mix for Green Mountain Power in 2014. Note – nuclear mix will go up substantially  in 2015 based on above agreement. 

“Green Mountain Power, a unit of Quebec’s Gaz Metro, will buy 15 MW from NextEra for 2012-2014 to replace expiring power supply contracts, including some power from Vermont Yankee. Green Mountain Power will buy 60 MW starting in 2015”

My point being in all the above is that the closing of Vermont is a regional issue not a Vermont issue. 

There were many investigations of Entergy’s statements, including three major investigations by the NRC, by the Public Oversight Panel, and by a legal firm.  All investigations ended up basically saying that Entergy made mistaken statements, but had no intention to mislead.  Maybe four investigations: the Attorney General also did an investigation and then announced that there just wasn’t enough evidence to file charges.

I have several blog posts about this, and the posts have links to original documents. 

http://yesvy.blogspot.com/2011/07/no-criminal-charges-vermont-attorney.h...

http://yesvy.blogspot.com/2011/07/vermont-attorney-general-will-soon.htm...

http://yesvy.blogspot.com/2011/07/vermont-yankee-vermont-attorney-genera...

I believe that’s “your” German reality. As you said, they are replacing (whatever) with fluidized bed plants which are coal, better than old coal but still coal. So, in replacing the old coal, good! But in replacing the CO2 free sources, well that’s just like ripping a larger percentage of their solar and wind out, right? I believe very strongly that it is the desire to make even more money from coal that will bring destroy the biosphere.

P.S. the general news today (on the radio) says that climate change is even more serious than ever!

Your coal plants add even more heat to the Earth. Remember that infographic about how much water coal uses? Anyways, that heat is infrared which will escape to space unless those coal plants keep getting built instead of nuclear (or major CSP).

Solar panels also cause heat. Here’s a simple equation: Heat gain = albedo – albedo of land used to put solar panel on + eff. Deserts are hot, but they appear to be much lighter in color than solar panel material, thus additional heat gain. Perhaps, no big deal (unless it is to the locals!). Remember, it will take huge amounts of land for solar to offset the power of just one nuclear reactor. If the albedo of panel is 10 (really dark) and the eff of panel is 15%, that makes the panel as 35 and if the albedo of the land is 60, then heat gain is from the difference, 25. Now, that 25 is greater than the 15% eff of the panel, therefore, almost twice the heat is given off due to inability to make the panel “only as dark as it needs to be”. These figures could be wrong because sand… is really light in color!

The preferable major land covering solar is mirrors (CSP) for this reason, and because it has molten salt storage (unless PV can be made almost as light in color as its efficiency, say albedo of 80 for 15%).

Nuclear: The waste should be fissioned in MSR’s or fast reactors, the remaining fission products to be isolated for 500 years, not 10,000. Alvin Weinberg invented both the LWR and the MSR… it can more easily be done now… 50 years later… and it should be.

Almost all physicists would agree that nuclear, especially the closed cycle, is the best weapon against excess GHG’s. They would also say “It is possible“.

The president of the company is seldom technical (for utilities or most any industry), you should only trust technical statements he says while reading directly from material prepared by his technical staff (except in rare cases like Elon Musk whose CEO and chief engineer).  A utility president should not be expected to know what fluid is in which pipe. 

If you want real details, ask for the “white paper” (which is always written by the technical staff).  If you want to know about a regulated utility, look at their regulatory paperwork.  

It is childish to pretend that nuclear utility officials are uniquely untrustworthy.

Your story about albedo is interesting.
Someone should do real measurements and calculations.

Only your comparison with desert sand misses the point that rooftop PV-panels are enough to deliver all electricity needed (if ~50% of all roofs are covered).

CSP wil not become a factor as it is clearly more expensive than PV-panels and can only be used in deserts. And worse, there is no clear path towards substantial lower costs (the max. cost level is ~30% of present costs in order to compete in the next decades).
So CSP technology looses from PV+storage.

Btw.
CSP generates roughly same heat as overall yield is not much better due to the old steam turbine used to generate electricity. While the yield of PV-panels improves each year ~0.5%.
The best (I know) commercial rooftop PV-panels now have 21.5%, while Sunpower announced new panels with yield of 24% next year.

“…The waste should be fissioned in MSR’s or fast reactors…“
That are ideas / dreams from more than half a century ago. Almost all important nuclear countries tried these and lost hundreds of billions$. France tried twice with Phenix and Super-Phenix.

Even if we get the process under control in some future, it will reduce the volume of the waste. The reduction of long living highly radio-active products towards near zero is nearly impossible (part will be replaced by others). So the smaller waste volume still will have to stay isolated for a million years.
Which is the reason France is now spending billions in order to find a safe storage place.

Agree. Entergy’s board is no bunch of criminals.
But that is not the issue.

Mistakes leave a bad feeling at the public and at the government people in the oversight / control boards. 
Making that feeling much worse if the utility board starts with denial that things are wrong, and declares that the public is safe (Chernobyl, Fukushima, etc).
Responsible people that have to check, start to mistrust Entergy.
In reaction Entergy tries to show all is fine even more, etc.

So trust is destroyed and in the end the relation.
It creates a climate in which nobody can operate.

Nathan,
If the CEO doesn’t know the issues, he should bring a guy that knows.
Or he should state that he doesn’t know, thank his audience for their remarks which gives him the opportunity to start a thorough investigation, and ask his critical audience whether they can choose one (or few) persons that take part in the investigation commission which involves also external experts.

Then you may improve the relation / trust.
Denying and then having to admit is the method to kill relations (even in marriages).
It was done with Chernobyl, Fukushima, etc.

The CEO is responsible. He should know what he can state and what not.
The CEO chooses his technical staff/advisors, his organisation.
So if you cannot trust his statements, the company cannot be trusted (sell the shares if you have some of them).

I forgot to mention that rooftops are usually really hot, anyways. I’m sure there are a bunch of calculations about albedo by now. 

The dreams of yesteryear must be implimented if they are real and proven concepts at CO2 reduction (and waste reduction to boot). The only reason these dreams were not realized is that there were actually cheaper ways to generate electricity… the already proven (in naval ship) water reactor concept, and of course, cheap fossil fuels. In fact, these “dreams” were purposely put off till a more urgent time. 

Here are some mention of these dreams from some rather notable sources.

• Weinberg was thrilled with the success that would lead to inexhaustible energy. ORNL then developed a conceptual design for the Molten Salt Breeder Reactor for sustainable commercial power generation. Considering the burgeoning global population demand for resources, he wrote, “humankind’s whole future depended on the breeder”. His Energy as the Ultimate Raw Material described applications of cheap energy: desalination, gasoline from coal, ammonia, iron by electrolytic reduction, chlorine, steel, and aluminum production. Burning the Rocks pointed out that ordinary dirt contains thorium with energy content far exceeding that of the same amount of oil.

http://atomicinsights.com/alvin-weinbergs-liquid-fuel-reactors-part-1/

Bty, Mr Weinberg also helped to establish what now is the NREL because his office was interested in solar power.

Robert,
Check the German figures (the PDF under “Stromerzeugung nach Energieträgern”).
They replaced nuclear with renewable and even replaced part of fossil with renewable already, reducing coal consumption.

Even in the last 7 years, while they closed almost half their nuclear fleet (8 of 17) in 2011 and had cold winters in 2012/2013 (this winter is soft; so I expect CO2 improvements).

“I like the idea of wind and solar and nuclear, all competing to keep prices down.“

With a level playing field, solar+storage+wind is much cheaper and will become even cheaper. Just calculate all costs (incl. the liability subsidies granted by nuclear laws, etc.).

In Germany the program for small rooftop solar installations (=~70% of all) to add batteries is a huge success. They expect that the 30% subsidy on the investment can be lowered to zero in ~3 years, as the increased volumes create lower prices. And battery prices drop anyway.
 

I support renewable.
Especially solar+storage+wind, helped by hydro and geo-thermal.

Those (together) have the capability to take over all nuclear and fossil.

@Rod,
Times are changing, as science progesses. Again.

Now more advanced science & engineering brings us:
 – cheaper and cheaper electricity by PV-panel solar and wind turbines;
 – cheaper and cheaper electricity storage;
 – advanced computerized grid management technologies;
which result in more reliable and cheaper supply of electricity than grids with big nuclear power plants.

Shown by Germany where the av. total supply interuption for the av. customer improved a factor two.
From ~30min./year before renewable became substantial, to ~15min./year now!
Netherlands still is at the 25min./year level (less wind+solar). UK & France ~60min./year.
USA ~120min./year (not counting outages due to weather disasters).

@Rod,
Considering the profound way Energy destroyed it’s relations with Vermont’s supervising board and important parts of the public, it is unlikely the Entergy board would get enough manoeuvre space for such operation (if they wanted that).

Apparently they concluded that too, as they tried to sell the plant during some years.

But apparently no entrepeneur could figure out a positive business plan.
Very sad for the people who put their working life in it.
But not strange.

Future wholesale electricity prices show a downward trend.
For the next years (until ~2020) one can see that looking at the prices of Futures. Even at the Amsterdam market.

For the longer term, one has to look at the fundamentals.  
And those predict that at ~2030 cost prices for PV-solar will be ~$30/MWh, Wind ~$50/MWh and that storage will add only ~$10/MWh to those prices (estimations for New England).
Many/most customers will then have their own PV installation which implies the whole market wil shrink substantially. Germany’s major utilities experience that already to their dismay.

I assume that VY and most other nuclear power plants cannot compete in such environment, despite the major subsidies they enjoy (liability, etc).
Only nuclear plants that enjoy special protection (e.g. Vogtle) may survive. Thanks to relative high contributions of their rate & tax payers.

You invest in wind and solar and I will continue to inform people that we need some sort of nuclear in order to power 10 billion people without interuption. BAU is not enough to stop excess CO2. It should be mandatory curriculum – energy awareness 101

  Bob.

  The people who tout wind and solar as the solution to modern technological challenges are either delusional or have another motivation.  The real reason they want wind and solar is because, in their minds, it will change the structure of society.

Their vision of utopia is small hamlets populated with just a few people, who grow their own vegetables (no meat allowed, too much flatulence) and live in harmony with the environment. A reference to Hobbits seems appropriate, but this would be an insult to Hobbits. Sounds great, huh?

The only problem is the few billion people already on the planet.  Don’t worry they have a “solution” for this “problem” too.  The same solution offered by Lenin, Stalin, Hitler, Mao, Pol Pot, and every other two bit dictator that has ever lived, or lives, on planet earth.

This ongoing debate has nothing to do with energy, it is about ideology. The name of the site says it all, “The Energy Collective”.    When will all of the real scientists, engineers, accountants, and mathematicians, rise up, and as the comic Lewis Black has said on another topic, “Rise up as one, and (metaphorically) slay them”. 

Nuclear has had the support of a PTC for several years, w/o the sunset issues of renewables and there are exactly two plants in construction based on that (plus a huge loan guarantee and rate recovery backstop), but I am sure you are right that the PTC is Bernie Sanders’ diabolical plan to make us live in hamlets.

So the subsidy should be larger? (that’s actually a real question)

To the original point – the idea that the PTC is some conspiracy to encourage moral decay through the development of wind and solar remains, to my limited understanding, absurd.

It is bias which causes people to overreact to reports of ‘mistakes’. It’s not defensible normal behaviour as you seem to propose.

Bas. You forget the integration costs of intermittent renewables. Again.

Please consider the system LCOE of intermittent renewables. It is far higher than the very low costs you always present. So much higher in fact that it turns your rosy solar/wind fantasies into ashes. Others are starting to notice this fact. This fact will end the German “Energiewende”. Germany will never close all it’s nukes.

“Abstract – Levelized costs of electricity (LCOE) are a common metric for comparing power generating technologies. However, there is qualified criticism particularly towards evaluating variable renewables like wind and solar power based on LCOE because it ignores integration costs that occur at the system level. In this paper we propose a new measure System LCOE as the sum of generation and integration costs per unit of VRE. For this purpose we develop a conclusive definition of integration costs. Furthermore we decompose integration costs into different cost components and draw conclusions for integration options like transmission grids and energy storage. System LCOE are quantified from a power system model and a literature review. We find that at moderate wind shares (~20%) integration costs can be in the same range as generation costs of wind power and conventional plants. Integration costs further increase with growing wind shares. We conclude that integration costs can become an economic barrier to deploying VRE at high shares. This implies that an economic evaluation of VRE must not neglect integration costs. A pure LCOE comparison would significantly underestimate the costs of VRE at high shares. System LCOE give a framework of how to consistently account for integration costs and thus guide policy makers and system planers in designing a cost-efficient power system.”

https://www.pik-potsdam.de/members/Ueckerdt/system-lcoe-working-paper