Live data from Hacker News

The US can reach 90% clean electricity by 2035 without increasing consumer bills

gspp.berkeley.edu

11–20 of 124 posts

Re: The US can reach 90% clean electricity by 2035 without increasing consumer bills

#11
post #5

Not convinced. I’m using utility solar for about 20% of my electricity needs, precisely to experience what’s claimed. Average cost is 50% above regular sourcing, and rising significantly. https://twitter.com/ctdonath/status/1274157769889918978?s=21

Is that a price of power rise or a price of transmission rise?

In many places, it's the "fees because we can" rise.

Re: The US can reach 90% clean electricity by 2035 without increasing consumer bills

#12
post #5

Not convinced. I’m using utility solar for about 20% of my electricity needs, precisely to experience what’s claimed. Average cost is 50% above regular sourcing, and rising significantly. https://twitter.com/ctdonath/status/1274157769889918978?s=21

Is that a price of power rise or a price of transmission rise?

That’s the curious bit: power generated per flat panel-rental fee is decreasing.

Rental cost is consistent.

Re: The US can reach 90% clean electricity by 2035 without increasing consumer bills

#13
post #3

People are so focused on $$ when it comes to (green or other) energy. The real problem is not $$ but Joules. Building any type of a power plant costs energy itself, and unfortunately unlike capital, which is just a concept that you can argue with and win, there is absolutely no arguing with physics: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Energy_return_on_investment#ER... The energy amortisation time of green power generators…

Well noted. Here's a paper: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S03605... The energy returned on invested, EROI, has been evaluated for typical power plants representing wind energy, photovoltaics, solar thermal, hydro, natural gas, biogas, coal and nuclear power. The strict exergy concept with no " primary energy weighting" , updated material databases, and updated technical procedures make it possible to directly compare the overall efficiency of those power plants on a uniform mathematical and physical basis. Pump storage systems, needed for solar and wind energy, have been included in the EROI so that the efficiency can be compared with an " unbuffered" scenario. The results show that nuclear, hydro, coal, and natural gas power systems (in this order) are one order of magnitude more effective than photovoltaics and wind power. =

Re: The US can reach 90% clean electricity by 2035 without increasing consumer bills

#14
post #3

People are so focused on $$ when it comes to (green or other) energy. The real problem is not $$ but Joules. Building any type of a power plant costs energy itself, and unfortunately unlike capital, which is just a concept that you can argue with and win, there is absolutely no arguing with physics: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Energy_return_on_investment#ER... The energy amortisation time of green power generators…

Interesting chart, but it does not seem to consider the cost of the installation, just the fuel, or it seems to assume a very long amortization period for nuclear/fossil fuel generation plants.

With wind and solar, all you have is the plant. There's no EROEI on the fuel because there is no energy investment in the fuel for wind and solar.

Re: The US can reach 90% clean electricity by 2035 without increasing consumer bills

#15
post #3

People are so focused on $$ when it comes to (green or other) energy. The real problem is not $$ but Joules. Building any type of a power plant costs energy itself, and unfortunately unlike capital, which is just a concept that you can argue with and win, there is absolutely no arguing with physics: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Energy_return_on_investment#ER... The energy amortisation time of green power generators…

What is the significance of this?

Well you can do the maths.

Let's assume it takes 1 year to pay back the energy usage, on average, for the green projects (look up that Wikipedia link). Let's also assume that we can dedicate 5% of the world's energy budget towards new power plants and that the world stops growing. So: 5% energy recession and zero global energy demand growth. How long would that take to roll out? 1/5% = 20 years, all of those years will be of serious austerity. Multiple countries (especially those with "good", that is growing demographics) would blow up. Up to you to decide if it's feasible to execute, and those are very optimistic numbers. What if the energy usage grows at 2% and we can dedicate only 3%? Well, that would give us 1/(3% - 2%) = 100 years to finish the project.

These are not happy things to look at. Personally I'm just trying to avoid the impending climate doom. Whatever happens - this problem is here to stay with us for many decades.

Re: The US can reach 90% clean electricity by 2035 without increasing consumer bills

#17

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Is that a price of power rise or a price of transmission rise?

That’s the curious bit: power generated per flat panel-rental fee is decreasing. Rental cost is consistent.

Are people willing to pay a green premium for it?

We have a company near me that has some of the cheapest power sources from wind, but they used to market with the slogan “pay more for power.”

Re: The US can reach 90% clean electricity by 2035 without increasing consumer bills

#18
post #11

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Is that a price of power rise or a price of transmission rise?

In many places, it's the "fees because we can" rise.

We have that here too. Plenty of “fees.”

Re: The US can reach 90% clean electricity by 2035 without increasing consumer bills

#20
post #14
post #3

People are so focused on $$ when it comes to (green or other) energy. The real problem is not $$ but Joules. Building any type of a power plant costs energy itself, and unfortunately unlike capital, which is just a concept that you can argue with and win, there is absolutely no arguing with physics: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Energy_return_on_investment#ER... The energy amortisation time of green power generators…

Interesting chart, but it does not seem to consider the cost of the installation, just the fuel, or it seems to assume a very long amortization period for nuclear/fossil fuel generation plants. With wind and solar, all you have is the plant. There's no EROEI on the fuel because there is no energy investment in the fuel for wind and solar.

For a very long time solar panels would cost more energy to manufacture than they would output through their lifetime. This is no longer the case, but the amortization period is still large.

Fuel is not the problem. The power plants are the problem.

Post reply on HN