{"id":443122,"date":"2026-05-08T10:37:49","date_gmt":"2026-05-08T17:37:49","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/climatescience.press\/?p=443122"},"modified":"2026-05-08T10:37:51","modified_gmt":"2026-05-08T17:37:51","slug":"why-electricity-costs-more-than-we-thinkand-why-in-germany-solar-is-about-10x-more-expensive-than-coal","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/climatescience.press\/?p=443122","title":{"rendered":"Why electricity costs more than we think\u2026and why, in Germany, solar is about 10x more expensive than coal"},"content":{"rendered":"
\n
\"\"<\/figure>\n<\/div>\n\n\n

From Watts Up With That?<\/a><\/p>\n\n\n\n

Dr. Lars Schernikau: Energy Economist, Commodity Trader, Author<\/em><\/em><\/p>\n\n\n\n

Details including the full Blog \u201c<\/em>Rethinking the cost of electricity in a complex energy system<\/em><\/strong>\u201d<\/em><\/strong> are available at <\/em>www.unpopular-truth.com<\/em><\/a><\/p>\n\n\n\n

\"\"<\/figure>\n\n\n\n

We think we understand electricity costs. We don\u2019t.<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

Most of us believe the cost of electricity is a question already answered. We compare technologies, quote numbers per kWh, and rely on a couple of familiar metrics to tell us what is cheap and what is not. But, what if I tell you that those numbers only tell part of the story?<\/p>\n\n\n\n

For decades, the conversation has been shaped by simplified measures like the levelized cost of electricity (LCOE). These figures seem easy to communicate and widely accepted, yet they focus narrowly on individual power plants while ignoring the system they operate in\u2026 and that matters allot!<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Electricity is not a product<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

Electricity is often treated as a commodity or a product . A unit of energy sold at a price per kWh.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

In reality this is not correct as electricity is a service provided on demand 24\/7\/365.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Therefore, it must be delivered reliably, at the right voltage, frequency, phase, and current every milli-second of every day. That requires a highly complex system made up of generation, reserve capacity, storage, transmission networks, and stability mechanisms.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Once you look at electricity this way, the question to be asked changes quite a bit.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

We are no longer just asking \u201cwhat does this technology cost<\/em>?\u201d  But rather \u201cwhat does it cost to make the entire system work<\/em>?\u201d Because what would you do with electricity if it is not delivered to your location, ready for use?<\/p>\n\n\n\n

What the standard metrics miss<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

Common metrics like LCOE were never designed to answer system-level questions as they capture plant-level costs, but leave out balancing, grid integration, backup, and storage (system-costs).<\/p>\n\n\n\n

More complete approaches exist, such as the Full Cost of Electricity (FCOE),<\/a> which attempt to account for the entire system required to deliver reliable electricity and when these broader costs are considered, the picture begins to shift.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Even institutions like the OECD and UNECE now acknowledge that increasing the share of wind and solar can raise total system costs (see links in the original blog here)<\/a>. Not because the technologies themselves are inherently flawed, but because they require additional infrastructure and support to function within a stable grid.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\"\"<\/figure>\n\n\n\n

The paradox of adding more wind and solar<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

At first glance, expanding wind and solar seems like a straightforward path to cheaper and \u201ccleaner\u201d energy\u2026but systems rarely behave that simply.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

As their share increases, the cracks start to show\u2026.<\/p>\n\n\n\n