Live data from Hacker News

Solar’s Future is Insanely Cheap

rameznaam.com

131–140 of 223 posts

Re: Solar’s Future is Insanely Cheap

#131
post #65

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That just dumping old solar panels into the landfill will cause Cu, Pb, As, Cr to spread into the ground effectively contaminating it. The government is trying to ban dumping it and trying to impose a responsibility to manufacturers to properly recycle and decontaminate it, which will cost about 4~5 times more than dumping.

Oh no, copper! Chromium! Next you're going to tell me of the fiendish plot to incorporate these into pots and pans to poison us all. There is no reason to include As in PV. There are anti-renewable propaganda screeds that pretend otherwise ("look! GaAs PV cells are a thing, therefore all PV uses As!") That leaves lead. Lead has been used for connections, but it is being phased out, not least because of EU environment…

> I suspect you are just repeating anti-renewable lies here.

You speak with a tone of authority - do you have deep expertise and knowledge in this field? Yes or no? Please don't dodge the question.

This is the best article I could find with about 10 minutes of googling. I have excerpted a small portion, but there is more relevant information immediately following this portion.

This does not sound like a solved problem to me, at all.

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/338195279_An_overvi...

3. Global photovoltaic market and waste generation The market share of solar panels by technology group is shown in Fig. 4. Currently, the volume of comprehensive connected PV panels is rising sharply. Rapid growth is anticipated in the coming years with the typical useful life of a solar panel of 25 years [1,12]. However, it is expected that the total quantity of PV panels EOL will reach 9.57 million tonnes by 2050 [4]. In 2014, the market was dominated by silicon-based c-Si panels, which accounted for a 92% share of the market with those based on CdTe technology at 5%, copper indium gallium (di) selenide (CIGS) at 2%, with 1% accounted for by those manufactured from other materials (dye-sensitized, CPV, organic hybrids) [4,14,15]. The market share of c-Si PV panels is projected to decrease from 92% to 44.8% between 2014 and 2030 [13,14]. The third-generation PV panels are predicted to reach 44.1%, from a base of 1% in 2014, over the same period [4,13–15]. Solar PV panels will probably lose efficiency over time, whereby the operational life is 20–30 years at least [7,13,16]. The International Renewable Energy Agency (IRENA) estimated that at the end of 2016, there were around 250,000 metric tonnes of solar panel waste globally [12]. The solar panels contain lead (Pb), cadmium (Cd) and many other harmful chemicals that could not be removed if the entire panel is cracked [17–19]. In November 2016, the Environment Minister of Japan advised that Japan’s production of solar panel waste per year is expected to rise from 10,000 to 800,000 tonnes by 2040 and the country has no plans to dispose of them safely and effectively [17,20]. A recent statement found that the Toshiba Environmental Solutions will take approximately 19 years for reprocessing all solar massive waste of Japan produced by 2020 [21]. The yearly waste will be 70–80 times higher by 2034 than the year before 2020 [21]. China with a larger number of solar plants, currently operates around two times as many solar panels as USA and has no proposals for the dumping of the whole old panels. Despite the presence of environmental awareness, California, another world leader in solar panels, also has no waste disposal plan. At the end of their useful lives, only Europe requires the manufactures of solar panels to collect and dump solar waste. Although solar panels were disposed of on regular sites, it is not advisable because the modules can degrade, and harmful chemicals can leach into the ground causing drinking water contamination [22]. The lifetime of PV modules has been estimated for 25 years. Therefore, it can be assumed that the installed PV power (MW) becomes waste after that period. To identify the time shifting, the years of installation and the years of waste generation may be denoted as x and y, respectively where y ¼ xþ25 [1].

Re: Solar’s Future is Insanely Cheap

#132
post #98

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The EROEI of renewables is good and getting better. There is nothing in their manufacture that would be impossible without fossil fuels.

Think hard about that; huge trucks for mining, huge trucks for transport, huge amount of energy to separate component minerals, the actual energy for manufacture of these renewables, up to this point I don't see renewables at any stage of this process. Diesel fueled trucks to deliver said renewable technologies to their place of use. Oh, their is one worker who drives a tesla ...... Oh at end of their life requires f…

Those huge truck use electric motors, because electric motors have better torque. The diesel is just there to provide an energy source. There are already several haul trucks that use batteries instead of diesel. And some of them generate more electricity than they use, because they haul large loads downhill and regenerative breaking means that for the truck, its duty cycle is energy positive!

It's important to ask: why do you think thinks like large trucks can not be electrified? What assumptions do you hold that say they could never be powered by carbon free electricity?

Re: Solar’s Future is Insanely Cheap

#133
post #44

This tells me that until fossil plants are mostly shut down (and perhaps afterward), we will continue to have negative electricity prices at times. It might be a profitable idea to buy extra energy storage capacity to get paid for storing energy at certain times, then sell it when it is high demand.

I just wish the negative electricity prices reached the non-industrial consumer. If it reached me, I'll have an Arduino controlled hot water heater, furnace and fridge/freezer dynamically turning on/off to take the most advantage of prices pronto.

In some areas you can buy electricity this way, but the other end of the deal bites you, so beware of that.

When it seems like you might die from the heat but the price charged is $8.50 per kWh how much longer do you want to wait before switching on the AC? (If you live somewhere it never gets hot, figure on the same but for a midwinter freeze and deciding when to pay for your resistive circuit heat pump boost)

Re: Solar’s Future is Insanely Cheap

#134

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Solar all day, NG all night would be a major improvement over our current system. Especially as batteries get better.

Depending on where you are, that's pretty close to what's happened. Right now (4pm), the California ISO is generating 73% from renewables+hydro, 7% nuclear, and the balance gas. Naturally, the night replaces solar with gas. This is largely how California has reduced electricity emissions to their current levels.

Always gets me that the above is a no brainer. But people married to the argument that we can't have renewables until we solve the storage problem just refuse to even consider it.

Disconcerting.

Re: Solar’s Future is Insanely Cheap

#136

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> residential wind turbines Wind has a scalability problem. Residentially, it's only a good sell as a backup supply for when solar isn't cutting it to hopefully prevent generator use. And even that's a tough economic argument. Towers have huge economies of scale, both in total size and height. So the turbines just keep getting bigger and bigger because it's more and more cost effective.

If my understanding is correct there is curious difference in perceived scale with kinetic vs thermal energy. Based on a a rowing machine's advertised metrics, I calculated you could row across the English channel on half a packet of chocolate biscuits.

Put another way: I’ll have to spend an hour on the treadmill to work off the calories in this burger.

Re: Solar’s Future is Insanely Cheap

#137

Power markets are more complicated than most people realize. One thing to note is that solar power can be cheaper than gas, but still not be economic. The fact of the matter is that an intermittent kWh is not as valuable as an on-demand reliable kWh to a utility who's number 1 priority is reliability. Even as solar is acquired at lower and lower prices, if evening power is generated by expensive and inefficient gas t…

All they need to do is build mechanical/hydraulic systems for storing solar power during the day and unleashing it at night. For example, use solar power during the day to pump fluid from a lower reservoir into a higher reservoir, and then harness the energy of the water flowing from the higher reservoir into the lower reservoir through turbines. As long as your output energy is always coming from the turbines, and a…

>...For example, use solar power during the day to pump fluid from a lower reservoir into a higher reservoir, and then harness the energy of the water flowing from the higher reservoir into the lower reservoir through turbines.

Trying to rely only on intermittent power sources has huge storage requirements due to weather along with daily/seasonal variation. If grid energy storage was a simple problem it would have been done decades ago.

For example, one estimate is that for Germany to rely on solar and wind would require about 6,000 pumped storage plants which is literally 183 times their current capacity:

>...Based on German hourly feed-in and consumption data for electric power, this paper studies the storage and buffering needs resulting from the volatility of wind and solar energy. It shows that joint buffers for wind and solar energy require less storage capacity than would be necessary to buffer wind or solar energy alone. The storage requirement of over 6,000 pumped storage plants, which is 183 times Germany’s current capacity, would nevertheless be huge.

https://www.econstor.eu/bitstream/10419/144985/1/cesifo1_wp5...

Re: Solar’s Future is Insanely Cheap

#138

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>A hypothetical cheap ~30% efficient solar panel could add something like 40 miles of range per day to a car in ideal conditions. Does this take into consideration the increased weight of the solar panel and any additional equipment?

Could it not be built into the roof directly! This is a great idea as presumably people who don’t use their car a lot need not leave it charging permanently and if you run out of battery you can just wait (if it’s sunny enough).

Why is that better than just putting the solar panel on the roof of your house and plugging the car in?

Re: Solar’s Future is Insanely Cheap

#139
post #81

Power markets are more complicated than most people realize. One thing to note is that solar power can be cheaper than gas, but still not be economic. The fact of the matter is that an intermittent kWh is not as valuable as an on-demand reliable kWh to a utility who's number 1 priority is reliability. Even as solar is acquired at lower and lower prices, if evening power is generated by expensive and inefficient gas t…

As mentioned in the article, solar power is insanely cheap. So while you are right that a kWh of solar is not, on average, as valuable as a kWh of semidispatchable coal, the insane cheapness means that at some point, it is economical to massively overbuild renewable and decommission fossil fuel plants. You provide no evidence for the implausible claim that solar causes emissions to go up: your argument is only that t…

It doesn't matter that if solar/wind is cheap (or even zero) because you still have to have an alternate power source for when your intermittent power has gone AWOL. You need cheap grid-scale storage, which doesn't exist at the moment.

Re: Solar’s Future is Insanely Cheap

#140
post #71

Power markets are more complicated than most people realize. One thing to note is that solar power can be cheaper than gas, but still not be economic. The fact of the matter is that an intermittent kWh is not as valuable as an on-demand reliable kWh to a utility who's number 1 priority is reliability. Even as solar is acquired at lower and lower prices, if evening power is generated by expensive and inefficient gas t…

Intermittency and the unsuitability of grid storage batteries to compensate is heavily played up by the carbon industry. The future of low emissions energy production will be largely driven by overproduction and demand shifting, not banks of grid level batteries. This likely won't happen as soon in America, however, the economy is too tied in to fossil fuels and the appetite to upgrade the electric grid by utility co…

It is "played up" because that is how the physics/science works right now. Grid-scale storage is required to smooth out grid-scale intermittent generation.
Post reply on HN