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

Solar’s Future is Insanely Cheap

rameznaam.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

191–200 of 223 posts

Re: Solar’s Future is Insanely Cheap

#191

Post by HeadsUpHigh »

Barrin92 wrote: post #27
lallysingh wrote: post #16

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Sounds like a bullshit purity test.

It's not a bullshit purity test at all. It highlights the extremely neglected costs in raw material and non-electrifiable infrastructure that is required to produce materials that are nominally 'green'. In some cases it's questionable if some green technologies actually are a net positive at all. There is a strong 'abundance' bias implicit in articles by people like Ramez Naam, who push so strongly for green energy p…

> It highlights the extremely neglected costs in raw material and non-electrifiable infrastructure that is required to produce materials that are nominally 'green'.

Hey just because you haven't thought of them doesn't mean other people with much more knowledge and experience on the subject haven't.

Re: Solar’s Future is Insanely Cheap

#192

Post by hrishi1990 »

greglindahl wrote: post #174
sephamorr wrote: post #28

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…

> The fact of the matter is that an intermittent kWh is not as valuable as an on-demand reliable kWh Don't worry -- every single time renewables are mentioned on HN, this aspect is at the top of the posting.

And as long as it's true, may it long keep getting mentioned.

Re: Solar’s Future is Insanely Cheap

#193

Post by tonyedgecombe »

greglindahl wrote: post #174
sephamorr wrote: post #28

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…

> The fact of the matter is that an intermittent kWh is not as valuable as an on-demand reliable kWh Don't worry -- every single time renewables are mentioned on HN, this aspect is at the top of the posting.

Every HN post has something negative at the top.

Re: Solar’s Future is Insanely Cheap

#194

Post by avmich »

mistermann wrote: post #107
avmich wrote: post #34

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> the environmental costs in making the turbine have to be considered. Of course it is considered, and few short decades ago that was a valid counterargument. Not anymore - and not later, given the pace of development in efficiencies and breadth of applications.

> Of course it is considered... One would certainly hope so, but lots of weird things happen on this planet. Where could someone who is interested to learn about the degree to which this is true go to read about what is really happening on the ground? Where did you learn about it?

First, Fermi estimate. You can estimate how much something weights, costs, takes to construct etc.

Then you become particularly good in it when you read texts from this area, so you gradually replace your estimates with data. And correct your errors when they disrespect reality too much. It's harder to estimate CO2 emissions from cement production from first principles; but you may have actual numbers from typical plants, which include inefficiencies.

All of that favors data and usually requires calculations, and also often requires understanding of natural sciences - conservation laws, energy conversions, speed of processes - and some economical modeling too.

A collection of links with data and models is on Azimuth Project - https://www.azimuthproject.org/azimuth/show/HomePage .

Re: Solar’s Future is Insanely Cheap

#196

Post by gyogyo »

peterwoerner wrote: post #152
pydry wrote: post #71

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

But the solution isn't batteries, it stored hydroelectric. Only works where you have mountains though.

Europe is already using something like 90% of our hydro electricity potential. So far, countries either: - added renewable energies on top of existing fossil fuel based power generation (gas, coal) - added renewable energies and replaced coal with gas (US for instance)

Re: Solar’s Future is Insanely Cheap

#197

Post by Retric »

blake1 wrote: post #81
sephamorr wrote: post #28

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…

Exactly, the only thing limiting solar at this point is the rate of investment. Wind and hydro etc have a huge role, but for some back of the envelope estimates.

On the storage issue, at ~100$/kWh batteries that do a conservative 1,000 cycles are ~10c/kWh stored + generation costs + conversion inefficiency. Take current unsubsidized grid solar prices of 2c/kWh solar and double that for 4c/kWh as a conservative redundant safety margin. Tracking solar for example has much better morning and evening generation though at slightly higher prices.

If 2/3 of your electricity is at 4c/kWh and 1/3 is at 15c/kWh that’s 7.7c/kWh for pure solar 24/7 including peaking power needs. Obviously a specific mix of generation determines storage needs, but those are also really pessimistic estimates.

PS: Hydro power is 6.1% of the total U.S. electricity generation. If 80% of that is released at night that’s a huge reduction in storage needed. Similarly transmitting power east or west makes a large difference in storage needs.

Re: Solar’s Future is Insanely Cheap

#198

Post by 8bitsrule »

lukifer wrote: post #164
gwright wrote: post #139

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

I don't know about its efficacy, but my favorite means of mass energy storage is a gravity battery: literally stacking heavy blocks in a huge tower, which are raised and lowered based on energy demands by automated cranes. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Energy_Vault

At best a 'gravity battery' is as efficient as hydroelectric, since pumped-storage is a gravity battery. Towers, trains, spinning flywheels are high-maintenance by comparison. The technology for pumped-storage requires a supply of water and a high place to pump it to. Used around the world (Europe & US, at least) since 1890s.

Bath County, VA: capacity 24GWh, since 1985

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pumped-storage_hydroelectricit...

Dinorwig Power Station, Wales: capacity 9.1GWh

https://www.theregister.co.uk/2016/05/16/geeks_guide_electri...

Worldwide, today

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_pumped-storage_hydroel...

Re: Solar’s Future is Insanely Cheap

#199

Post by foota »

Retric wrote: post #197
blake1 wrote: post #81

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

Exactly, the only thing limiting solar at this point is the rate of investment. Wind and hydro etc have a huge role, but for some back of the envelope estimates. On the storage issue, at ~100$/kWh batteries that do a conservative 1,000 cycles are ~10c/kWh stored + generation costs + conversion inefficiency. Take current unsubsidized grid solar prices of 2c/kWh solar and double that for 4c/kWh as a conservative redund…

Hydro isn't quite so fungible, I think a couple areas account for most the hydro generation.

Re: Solar’s Future is Insanely Cheap

#200

Post by pfdietz »

gwright wrote: post #139
blake1 wrote: post #81

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Storage would be some combination of diurnal storage (batteries, say) and long term storage (hydrogen). The former benefits from high efficiency; the latter from lower capital cost. There is also thermal storage (an order of magnitude cheaper than batteries) for any application involving heating or cooling, including industrial users of heat.
Post reply on HN