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

Giant batteries and cheap solar power are shoving fossil fuels off the grid

sciencemag.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

261–270 of 432 posts

Re: Giant batteries and cheap solar power are shoving fossil fuels off the grid

#261

Post by Reason077 »

PuffinBlue wrote: post #209
thinkcontext wrote: post #191

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Can't believe all the comments so far and no one feels the need to justify their opinion with numbers. Drives me nuts. You are correct, according to National Renewable Energy Lab (NREL), rooftop solar is over twice as expensive as utility scale solar[0]. The NREL estimate is helpful in that it details the components of the cost. And, as you would expect, the hardware and labor costs are lower for utility scale becaus…

that report puts a 76,800 square foot foundation (so perhaps triple that for total land usage) at $250,000. Is that anywhere remotely in the realms of reality for an area that might actually get permitted and connected at the other assumptions they've made? It wouldn't be in my country (UK).

UK solar farms generally don’t own the land they’re on, but pay a lease or license fee to the landowners.

A UK comparison would be the proposed Cleve Hill Solar Park in Kent, which will also have on-site battery storage. At 350MW it is almost as large as this LA project.

Re: Giant batteries and cheap solar power are shoving fossil fuels off the grid

#262

Post by m463 »

rmuesi wrote: post #84

I’ve always wondered about something, yet have never found anyone discussing it online. So maybe some smart people can help me out: a lot of people install solar on their rooftops. Much of the time this is done with the assumption that it will pay off financially because energy prices are currently at a certain rate and will continue to rise. But here’s my question: If its financially advantageous to install solar on…

Yes, but in some markets (via regulatory capture) retail power is SO expensive that rooftop solar is a great deal.

PG&E in California has tiered electricity costs of $0.28-$0.42/kwh

Meanwhile in other parts of the country, retail power could cost $0.06/kwh

bottom line: you are correct about utility scale power if there were a free market

Re: Giant batteries and cheap solar power are shoving fossil fuels off the grid

#263

Post by JetezLeLogin »

darksaints wrote: post #46

I know someone who has gone fully off the grid via sailboat and is currently on his way around the world. He converted his sailboat to a hybrid setup (electric engines powered by the same batteries that power his stovetop, refrigerator, etc.). His power sources keeping those batteries charged are solar (1200W) and sail regeneration [0]. He has an 18kw diesel generator as a safety measure. His story is particularly in…

In some sense any technology is adopted or ignored based on its intrinsic merits or lack thereof. If we're about encouraging people to move to less-harmful technologies, making them genuinely better and irresistible seems like the avenue most likely to actually work. Making a quasi-moral issue out of it, unfortunately doesn't seem to work because we're not necessarily moral creatures, and what you get instead is a lot of sanctimony, insincere virtue signaling, hypocrisy, not to mention outright resistance. (Edit: Also see: "religions" LOL) Meanwhile an argument about the urgency of future self-preservation doesn't work either, because of that word "future" - we suck at looking ahead. Making & using tools, that's what we're good at. Evaluating tools based on what benefits they give me right now, that's what we're good at. Although we are good at disseminating, absorbing and believing in ideas too, so that's the bright spot in terms of some kind of widespread voluntary change. But on my more pessimistic days when I don't believe an abstract concept can change consciousness that much, I figure the transition to better technologies is going to have to be based on their own advantages - like your friend's electric powerplant on the boat.

Re: Giant batteries and cheap solar power are shoving fossil fuels off the grid

#264

Post by guntars »

bwb wrote: post #252
floatrock wrote: post #246

Earlier quoted context omitted.

https://www.wundercapital.com The problem with commercial solar is the cost of the financing. Home solar is on par with a car loan, banks know how to do that with personal credit scores. Utility scale solar is the realm of private equity. Something like a strip mall is a weird in-between that requires enough manual review that the cost to do all of the risk analysis that financing requires kinda outweighs the potenti…

Walmart is doing it in a lot of locations. I've heard they also believe if electric cars get going they can offer free recharge with people buying xx dollars of groceries.

Yep, I’ve seen their solar roofs covering the parking spots in Flagstaff, AZ. It’s a win, win - they get power and it keeps the cars cooler.

Re: Giant batteries and cheap solar power are shoving fossil fuels off the grid

#265

Post by boringg »

nimish wrote: post #181
litany wrote: post #158

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So the thing is the economics of rooftop solar are a lot different than power station solar. The DOE has public data on how much utilities pay for electricity. In a market like mine, Southern California Edison isn’t an electricity generator, they buy power at about $0.02/kWh but then they sell it to the residential consumer for up to $0.32. So clearly it’s a very different calculation. Regardless of that generators a…

Because the powerwall allows you to "buy" power at the opportunity cost of $0.02/kWh vs paying up to $0.32/kWh ? If you end up generating a lot of excess solar using a lot of grid power at peak times, it could pay for itself. But of course, you need to do the calculation for your situation.

I don't think powerwall has that functionality. At least original powerwalls only provided backup power. From a C&I perspective this is one of the sources of revenue for batteries - however there are many different ways for electricity charges to be passed on to customers. It isn't only kWh.

Re: Giant batteries and cheap solar power are shoving fossil fuels off the grid

#266

Post by boringg »

haroldp wrote: post #208
DubiousPusher wrote: post #70

> the cost to decarbonize the U.S. grid alone would be $4.5 trillion They make this sound like a lot but that strikes me as actually pretty cheap. I don't think that number can be right. Edit: I mean seriously think. The F-35 has cost us 1.45 trillion dollars so far. That's roughly 1/3 of the price they're asserting here. Localizing our entire energy dependence has got to have some serious national security benefits.…

> Localizing our entire energy dependence has got to have some serious national security benefits. It's estimated that we spent $6.8T between 1976 and 2007 on the US policy of always maintaining an Aircraft Carrier on station all day every day in the Persian Gulf, to insure the free flow of oil. https://offiziere.ch/wp-content/uploads/US-miiltary-cost-of-...

Oil and Gas indirect subsidies ;)

Re: Giant batteries and cheap solar power are shoving fossil fuels off the grid

#267

Post by tomrod »

astanway wrote: post #241
zaroth wrote: post #227

Earlier quoted context omitted.

But what’s happening more and more now is that batteries are arbitraging those rate spike, and ultimately those spikes will disappear entirely.

Utility scale batteries are not yet a proven and deployed technology. Not to say there aren’t successes - Aliso Canyon and the AEMO installation in Australia have both been very well received by their respective system operators. But there’s a very long way to go before batteries will exist as a viable, general alternative to natural gas peaker plants.

You're exactly right. Thanks for adding the the knowledge pool today!

Re: Giant batteries and cheap solar power are shoving fossil fuels off the grid

#268

Post by 8bitsrule »

notJim wrote: post #225
nexuist wrote: post #118

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>Localizing our entire energy dependence has got to have some serious national security benefits It would also cause extreme instability by shooting up unemployment, destroying large corporations that offered valuable careers with good benefits, and exacerbate polarization between those who believe in man made climate change and those who don't. Don't get me wrong - I think energy independence is the way to go - but…

I've got some bad news for you about what's going to happen to the economy when we have 3° C of warming because we didn't do this fast enough.

Not to mention how many people will no longer need jobs.

Re: Giant batteries and cheap solar power are shoving fossil fuels off the grid

#269

Post by opportune »

nexuist wrote: post #118
DubiousPusher wrote: post #70

> the cost to decarbonize the U.S. grid alone would be $4.5 trillion They make this sound like a lot but that strikes me as actually pretty cheap. I don't think that number can be right. Edit: I mean seriously think. The F-35 has cost us 1.45 trillion dollars so far. That's roughly 1/3 of the price they're asserting here. Localizing our entire energy dependence has got to have some serious national security benefits.…

>Localizing our entire energy dependence has got to have some serious national security benefits It would also cause extreme instability by shooting up unemployment, destroying large corporations that offered valuable careers with good benefits, and exacerbate polarization between those who believe in man made climate change and those who don't. Don't get me wrong - I think energy independence is the way to go - but…

>but paying $4.5 trillion to effectively ruin the lives of millions of people is not a popular position, especially given that we have terrible safety nets to allow these people to find other jobs.

Do you have any inkling of how many jobs $4.5 trillion would create? And how many climate change will destroy?

Re: Giant batteries and cheap solar power are shoving fossil fuels off the grid

#270

Post by NickNameNick »

driverdan wrote: post #170
newnewpdro wrote: post #92

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> What you need are windows with low solar heat gain coefficients (SHGC), which is mostly independent of insulation. Or you can get window treatments that are shiny on the side facing the window. In the desert by me people use substantial awnings on the exterior putting the windows in shade. It's a lot cheaper than fancy window treatments and in my experience far more effective. Provides more space to mount solar pan…

Tint is cheap and requires little to no maintenance. I can't see how awnings would cost less. That said, awnings are probably more efficient.

The problem with window tint is that it's 'on' all the time.

A well designed awning lets in more light in winter, giving you solar gain when you want it, but provides extra shade in summer.

Post reply on HN