A cheap unit of solar electricity and a cheap unit of electricity delivered after dark are different products. That distinction runs through the investment argument Eric Toone, Breakthrough Energy’s chief technical officer, presented at the MIT Energy Initiative’s annual research conference. MIT published its account of the keynote on November 12.
Toone described an exercise that priced the replacement of conventional products with lower-carbon equivalents worldwide. Breakthrough and collaborators used AI in their analysis. Toone put the extra cost at roughly $7.5 trillion and argued that widespread adoption depends on bringing the premium down. The figure represents a scenario presented by an investor with stakes in the technologies under discussion. MIT’s account provides neither a spending timetable nor a range around the estimate.
Transmission is one example. Toone pointed to portfolio company TS Conductor, whose wire uses a solid core to limit sag. He argued that putting more power through an existing corridor could help get electricity from places with abundant renewable generation to customers elsewhere. Storage addresses a different mismatch by moving the use of that electricity to another hour.
Which cost reaches the buyer?
A factory buying power for an overnight shift has little reason to compare two generators on their midday output alone. Its comparison includes the wire, the available storage and the cost of covering hours when both fall short. That helps explain why a transmission investment can affect the competitiveness of a solar plant many miles away. The relevant price comparison follows the electricity all the way to the customer.