Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Solar Just Hit a Record Low Price in the U.S

earther.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

131–140 of 352 posts

Re: Solar Just Hit a Record Low Price in the U.S

#131

Post by jbrownpa »

rsynnott wrote: post #96
inputcoffee wrote: post #71

The true price of solar is the price to produce reliable, continuous energy. That requires something to smooth out the signal and store the energy, most probably a battery. The solar + battery price is also going down, though not as fast as the solar only piece. But that's the metric we should be following. When that hits $30 per MWh, it'll be game over.

I wouldn't bet on batteries, or at least conventional batteries, being the long term solution. There's interesting work being done with air pressure storage, flow batteries (the largest batteries currently under construction are mostly flow batteries in the 500MWh-1GWh range, though the technology is still in its infancy), and big scary vacuum flywheels. All of these are far less developed than lithium ion cells, but…

Planet Money covered this recently: https://www.npr.org/templates/transcript/transcript.php?stor...

Here's an entry on the storage facility: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bath_County_Pumped_Storage_Sta...

"The biggest battery in the world is a giant lake tucked away in the Appalachian Mountains on the border between Virginia and West Virginia"

One of the more promising things is actually water-based storage using back-to-back reservoirs. Water has a lot of mass per volume and is really low tech. And it's a proven strategy that has been operational for many decades.

Re: Solar Just Hit a Record Low Price in the U.S

#132

Post by niftich »

The frustrating part about solar is that because the peak generation output doesn't line up with typical peak consumption ("the duck curve"), utilities need natgas peakers, which sit mostly idle, to fill in the gap. As solar installation grows, coal baseload falls behind due to cheap natgas, and nuclear languishes due to huge capex, established baseload capacity will decrease. From now on, new capacity will largely be a mix of natgas CC, natgas CT, solar, and wind. CCs (combined cycle) are most able to serve in baseload/load-following capacity, but if solar and wind are reliable for a particular interconnection, CTs (simple cycle) are cheaper to build, if less efficient to operate.

Much of the strategizing in the future will be about trying to find the right balance of CCs and CTs to complement intermittent and opportunistic (load-ignorant) renewables, while balancing an onslaught of new regulations and activists that will force battery storage as an issue. This is already happening now, well before battery storage is cost-competitive.

Re: Solar Just Hit a Record Low Price in the U.S

#133

Post by hathawsh »

ac29 wrote: post #98
hathawsh wrote: post #64

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I've never heard of this. What is the name of Utah's "pollution credit" program and where can I find out more? Google isn't helping me.

Perhaps its this? https://deq.utah.gov/air-quality/emission-credits-offset-reg...

That does look like the right info. I think Utah has a typical emission credit program. Maybe xahrepap was overstating the case when (s)he suggested that every Utah land owner has emission credits they can sell. Emission credits seem to be limited to certain large businesses.

Re: Solar Just Hit a Record Low Price in the U.S

#134

Post by rsynnott »

ghouse wrote: post #128
rsynnott wrote: post #106

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's what's generally happening. It's a bit of a limiting factor, though. As you have more and more renewable, you need more and more gas plants which mostly sit around doing nothing, which isn't free. There's also the opposite problem, particularly in the case of wind turbines; if you have enough, then your base-load (ie coal, nuclear, hydro) plus renewable may sometimes exceed demand. This happens from time to ti…

> As you have more and more renewable, you need more and more gas plants This is only true if the load on the grid is growing. In North America, it is not. Otherwise, you already have enough dispatchable generation available when the sun isn't shining or the wind isn't blowing.

This is assuming that you're replacing old, bad power (ie coal, or old-fashioned unresponsive gas plants) with a solar/responsive gas turbine combo. The US still has a fair bit of coal that could stand to be replaced, but I doubt there's enough gas to take up the slack of a solar/gas system without building more.

Re: Solar Just Hit a Record Low Price in the U.S

#135

Post by rsynnott »

jbrownpa wrote: post #131
rsynnott wrote: post #96

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I wouldn't bet on batteries, or at least conventional batteries, being the long term solution. There's interesting work being done with air pressure storage, flow batteries (the largest batteries currently under construction are mostly flow batteries in the 500MWh-1GWh range, though the technology is still in its infancy), and big scary vacuum flywheels. All of these are far less developed than lithium ion cells, but…

Planet Money covered this recently: https://www.npr.org/templates/transcript/transcript.php?stor... Here's an entry on the storage facility: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bath_County_Pumped_Storage_Sta... "The biggest battery in the world is a giant lake tucked away in the Appalachian Mountains on the border between Virginia and West Virginia" One of the more promising things is actually water-based storage using bac…

Pumped storage is great where the geography makes sense, but there are a limited number of good sites which can be economically connected where needed to grids. Long-term, I'd have more hope for currently emergent tech (flow batteries etc).

Re: Solar Just Hit a Record Low Price in the U.S

#136

Post by rsynnott »

CompelTechnic wrote: post #124
rsynnott wrote: post #96

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I wouldn't bet on batteries, or at least conventional batteries, being the long term solution. There's interesting work being done with air pressure storage, flow batteries (the largest batteries currently under construction are mostly flow batteries in the 500MWh-1GWh range, though the technology is still in its infancy), and big scary vacuum flywheels. All of these are far less developed than lithium ion cells, but…

One weird thought I had the other day: high voltage DC transmission lines are getting more popular. I wonder if it would be economical for a high voltage DC line to form a loop around the entire planet, so that the load can follow the sun through a complete cycle.

This has terrifying geopolitical implications, so probably no-one will want to depend on it anytime soon.

Re: Solar Just Hit a Record Low Price in the U.S

#137

Post by moistoreos »

Why is this a surprise? Solar costs have been falling for multiple decades.

NON-SURPRISING HEADLINE: "Falling Costs Are Actually Falling".

The important statistics to pay attention to are the implementations and if the components are recyclable not the cost per megawatt. Increasing renewable energy is important but not if you cannot recycle the components.

Re: Solar Just Hit a Record Low Price in the U.S

#138

Post by ghouse »

niftich wrote: post #132

The frustrating part about solar is that because the peak generation output doesn't line up with typical peak consumption ("the duck curve"), utilities need natgas peakers, which sit mostly idle, to fill in the gap. As solar installation grows, coal baseload falls behind due to cheap natgas, and nuclear languishes due to huge capex, established baseload capacity will decrease. From now on, new capacity will largely b…

> The frustrating part about solar is that because the peak generation output doesn't line up with typical peak consumption ("the duck curve"), utilities need natgas peakers, which sit mostly idle, to fill in the gap.

Solar does line up with peak consumption. The duck curve is not a consumption curve, but a "Net Demand" curve -- the demand remaining after solar and generation is removed.

Peakers existed before solar. A typical load duration curve is a sideways "S" The peakers may run less than 5% of the year but are necessary to meet the hottest hours of the year.

Re: Solar Just Hit a Record Low Price in the U.S

#139

Post by opportune »

legitster wrote: post #95
tombert wrote: post #69

I'm of course a supporter of solar, and I don't want to be "that guy", but is there a strategy for handling solar power at night? In these areas that are mostly solar, how do they store the energy, or do they resort to natural gas or coal or something?

Hydroelectric. I believe there is a project in California looking into a big reservoir they can use to fill with water when they have extra power. Aside from that, price incentives should come into play. Everyone charges their cars and electronics during the day when power is cheapest. If you want to run your equipment at night you have to pay more.

I'm not a fan of consumer-facing dynamic pricing in a lot of contexts, but power by far makes the most sense.

An interesting side effect may be that it could encourage us to return to more natural sleeping schedules, based on the actual time when the sun is in the air. Of course that does pose problems in areas that are very close to one of the two poles

Re: Solar Just Hit a Record Low Price in the U.S

#140

Post by jartelt »

inputcoffee wrote: post #71

The true price of solar is the price to produce reliable, continuous energy. That requires something to smooth out the signal and store the energy, most probably a battery. The solar + battery price is also going down, though not as fast as the solar only piece. But that's the metric we should be following. When that hits $30 per MWh, it'll be game over.

This comment gets made in every single solar article put on HN. The true price of solar is what the market is willing to pay for it. If the solar was ruining the grid or was way more expensive than what it seems, we would not keep seeing solar installed at this pace and at these costs.

We need to get out of the mindset that all power generators need to produce a steady amount of power 24/7. A flexible grid made of many power sources that can be ramped up and down can just as easily meet demand and may even be best since it is resilient when any one power source goes down for an extended period of time.

You can't just say that solar should be more expensive because it only works half the day. You could just as easily turn that argument around and say that nuclear and coal plants should be more expensive since they are only economical if run at a constant load and require long shutdowns every year for maintenance. There needs to be extra capacity on the grid to meet demand during nuclear/coal shutdowns, but no one states that nuclear and coal should be more expensive as a result.

Post reply on HN