https://www.lazard.com/perspective/levelized-cost-of-energy-...
https://www.irena.org/newsroom/pressreleases/2020/Jun/Renewa...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Variable_renewable_energy#Comp...
I remember my department had a few very large grants for solar and wind integration studies. There is always some x profitable level to integrate into some portion of the grid. Before you actually start to lose money. Used to be around 30% in most cases a decade ago. Imagine it is bit asymptotic without improvements to the cost of energy storage. I would guess 40% in most cases now.
Found this: https://www.iea.org/articles/will-system-integration-of-rene...
Check out South Australia on OpenNEM [1]. Paired with natural gas and transmission, they're at an exceptionally high amount of renewables penetration [2] and have a very low cost of power in Australia [3]. They're also using a large, recently expanded, Tesla utility scale battery for ancillary/frequency response services [4] (previously profitably performed by natural gas generators), which is causing financial pain for those mentioned gas operators (who are having trouble profiting now on either the power provided or frequency response services).
[1] https://opennem.org.au/energy/sa1/?range=7d&interval=30m
[2] https://www.afr.com/policy/energy-and-climate/coal-generatio...
[3] https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2019/dec/24/south...
Phoenix and Las Vegas come to mind - places where incident solar flux and electricity demand (due to heavy air conditioner use) almost perfectly coincide (peaks are separated by only ~50 minutes)
That said, I think this analysis misses two important factors when it comes to impoverished countries. Otherwise, you would see more solar there. Developing countries have much lower standards when it comes to building a new power plant, so don't need to pay for sulfur scrubbers. The other factor is that unskilled labor much cheaper there. Solar and wind require much higher-skill labor as there is much more maintenance that needs to be done.
Are you sure that the steam turbine (high RPM, balancing, thermal stress to blades, steam conditioning) is easier to maintain than a electric generator or an array of photovoltaics with control circuits?
https://www.abc.net.au/news/12990532
> The owners of Australia's newest coal-fired power station have written down the value of the asset to zero, wiping out a $1.2 billion investment in the face of an onslaught of renewable energy. ... The decision was booked in Sumitomo's September accounts, in which the company acknowledged the facility was worthless despite being barely 10 years old.
It’s even cheaper in third-world countries (and China) due to the cost of labor.
[1] https://www.brookings.edu/opinions/the-real-costs-of-u-s-ene...
Nigeria is closer to the equator and has lower labor costs for installation, so their solar costs will be even cheaper.
Like every industry in the last decade, coal generators have also become more efficient.
I’d be shocked (heh) if solar power becomes more efficient given the Shockley-Quessier limit of PV cells which have a maximum efficiency in the best theoretical case with an infinite stacking of panels of 30%. Large synchronous machines on the other hand, in practice, can have a 95% efficiency.
Here’s a study without the “carbon pricing”: https://energy.mit.edu/wp-content/uploads/2016/03/MITEI-WP-2...
Again coal is much cheaper.
I’m sympathetic to your agenda but it’s deceitful and unfair to presume agreement given the unique circumstances theses results affect conclusions. A place like Nigeria has to worry about what’s happening to their people in the next month rather than in the next 50 years, thus they’ll have different trade offs to make.
As soon as you need to store energy wind and solar become much more expensive.