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

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

gspp.berkeley.edu

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

91–100 of 124 posts

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

#91

Post by specialist »

manfredo wrote: post #64

A few things stick out to me: * This study assumes that we can ramp up purchases of solar and wind generation to match this graph: https://imgur.com/lMU252r while costs continue to decrease. That's not how markets work. Rapidly buy solar panels and the cost of solar panels go up. Put solar panels in all the places where it's easy to install and now you have to pay extra to put them in places where it's not so conveni…

Are you predicting that solar panel production won't continue to scale to meet demand?

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

#92

Post by csours »

H8crilA wrote: post #31
csours wrote: post #28

Earlier quoted context omitted.

They show the payoff period Germany and in Southern Europe. I wonder what the payoff period is in Texas.

It's probably better, but don't forget that this is inherently a global problem. Scotland is running 100% renewable - so what, who cares? Not only it's not enough (the country is small), they also import a lot of goods with manufacturing energy footprints that released co2 elsewhere. Even if the US switches to 100% renewable the problem is far from solved. Look at the population pyramid of Nigeria, for example. Those…

I think I understand where you're coming from, but I would say 'don't let the perfect be the enemy of the good'.

Grand jumps in capability rarely (if ever) happen in the real world.

Gradual change can feel like a capitulation, but it's often the safest and best overall.

If you try to force huge change and fail or things go wrong or the system is deficient in some way, there can be a big backlash.

The CO2 released in production and deployment of solar cells is regrettable, but as soon as that solar cell comes online it starts displacing fossil fuel.

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

#93

Post by dd36 »

cinquemb wrote: post #68
dd36 wrote: post #52

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I bought panels from https://www.santansolar.com/ . Enphase micros and Ironridge racking from https://tandem-solar-systems.com/ . Then I made permits using https://get.solardesigntool.com/ . All-in-all, it was fun and easy.

That's pretty cool, I wonder what your $/kwh would jump to with battery storage… probably a significant jump compared to 1.7 cents/kwh over the lifetime (esp consider degradation of electrochemical batteries over charging cycles) SolarReserve bid under 5 cents/kwh in Chile in 2017 for a grid scale 24/7 CSP/molten salt storage system… we'd probably need a safer way to transport molten salt tanks from high Irradiance a…

So 2 Powerwalls should cover me. That’s 27kWh but only 14kWac peak. It’s the peak that’s really the issue. If I’m running a furnace and my stove, it may go over.

But currently 2 PW is $17,000 with 10 year warranty. That’s $142/mo. If they work for 20 years, that’s half. Enphase is coming out with its own system.

Anyways, it already makes sense but for peak usage. I only use 15kWh max a night but my peak can be up to 20kWac for a few minutes at a time.

If battery makers can increase peak of home stationary batteries - Tesla cars peak much higher, like 400kW - and Tesla’s battery costs are under $100/kWh, the end is nigh for electric utilities. They need to start stringing fiber.

End is even closer if Tesla enables vehicle2grid soon.

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

#94

Post by specialist »

hairytrog wrote: post #21

Exciting. But here are some problems. - Unfortunately, they are averaging the entire US, which is made of several grids, so the bad days are not that bad in their analysis. To fix those bad days, you'd need hella more storage, hella more capacity. e.g. 3-4x the renewables capacity than the normal need. - Such a system has a very low resiliency because it depends on national grid. If Covid has taught us anything, it i…

"But here are some problems."

The opportunities are insurmountable.

"...a very low resiliency because it depends on national grid."

Grid will become massively decentralized. Transmission costs are already greater than production costs in many systems, a trend that will continue.

We'll get resiliency "for free".

Others have already commented on demand shifting. Additionally, producers will innovate, creating new "products" to meet unique customer demands. Like colocation.

"...nukes and nat gas will not be competitive 99%"

Current nukes must be propped up for as long as possible, stopgap until renewables can overtake.

We'll definitely need new nuke options, like small modular reactors (micro reactors) and reprocessing. (My future perfect is traveling wave reactors, but that's a long ways off.)

We need to phase out natural gas asap.

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

#95

Post by Retric »

hebrox wrote: post #71
hairytrog wrote: post #69

Earlier quoted context omitted.

since hydro is basically constant, any analysis can just subtract it from the total demand. the dynamic analysis can proceed without considering hydro.

Reading the description on Wikipedia, I would say it can be part of the dynamic analysis. "With a dam and reservoir it is also a flexible source of electricity, since the amount produced by the station can be varied up or down very rapidly (as little as a few seconds) to adapt to changing energy demands." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hydroelectricity

Exactly, large scale hydro is extremely flexible, shifting production not just on a hourly basis in many cases across months. Hydro’s rapid response is why pumped storage was initially developed.

Environmentally, rivers need variable flow rates to minimize silt buildup so doing so is actually good for the environment. Comparing the costs of constructing a dam with the cost of extra generating capacity, this flexibility is also extremely cheap. They do maintain a minimum flow at all times it’s generally a low fraction of average let alone maximum capacity.

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

#96

Post by cinquemb »

dd36 wrote: post #93
cinquemb wrote: post #68

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's pretty cool, I wonder what your $/kwh would jump to with battery storage… probably a significant jump compared to 1.7 cents/kwh over the lifetime (esp consider degradation of electrochemical batteries over charging cycles) SolarReserve bid under 5 cents/kwh in Chile in 2017 for a grid scale 24/7 CSP/molten salt storage system… we'd probably need a safer way to transport molten salt tanks from high Irradiance a…

So 2 Powerwalls should cover me. That’s 27kWh but only 14kWac peak. It’s the peak that’s really the issue. If I’m running a furnace and my stove, it may go over. But currently 2 PW is $17,000 with 10 year warranty. That’s $142/mo. If they work for 20 years, that’s half. Enphase is coming out with its own system. Anyways, it already makes sense but for peak usage. I only use 15kWh max a night but my peak can be up to…

You'll definitely have chemical degradation within those 10 years, but even assuming $71/month over 20 years + $0.017/kwh, that's still pretty expensive for an urban environment, though may work out for suburban and rural (I pay about 11-12c/kwh in my 2br apt in Jakarta), I still think there is still plenty of future opportunity for electric utilities (esp for industrial applications that will require peaks alot higher than residential).

I really don't see costs coming down that much in the next 10 years for electrochemical batteries.

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

#97

Post by danans »

xyzzyz wrote: post #72
ip26 wrote: post #53

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Instead of dispatchability payments, why not demand response? Thermostats, electric cars, water heaters, dryers, smelters, and data centers can all turn on a dime if an incentive is there. Also, what's wrong with policy wonks?

Most data centers needs non-stop 24/7 reliability, and there are very few use cases where it makes sense and is even possible to delay your workload waiting for lower energy prices. Smelters have complicated processes, and they cannot really turn on a dime. Lastly, data centers and smelters are expensive capital investments, and typically the economic calculation requires them to be run non-stop to recoup the capital…

Yes, but demand response for thermostats, EVs, water heaters, even overnight ice freezing for daytime cooling use - all those are dispatchable loads.

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

#98

Post by dd36 »

cinquemb wrote: post #96
dd36 wrote: post #93

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So 2 Powerwalls should cover me. That’s 27kWh but only 14kWac peak. It’s the peak that’s really the issue. If I’m running a furnace and my stove, it may go over. But currently 2 PW is $17,000 with 10 year warranty. That’s $142/mo. If they work for 20 years, that’s half. Enphase is coming out with its own system. Anyways, it already makes sense but for peak usage. I only use 15kWh max a night but my peak can be up to…

You'll definitely have chemical degradation within those 10 years, but even assuming $71/month over 20 years + $0.017/kwh, that's still pretty expensive for an urban environment, though may work out for suburban and rural (I pay about 11-12c/kwh in my 2br apt in Jakarta), I still think there is still plenty of future opportunity for electric utilities (esp for industrial applications that will require peaks alot high…

Yes, utilities seemingly will be all industrial. Their poles in residential neighborhoods could be put to good use offering other high value services.

I wonder if Tesla should buy some of these large publicly traded utilities, like APS.

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

#99

Post by IshKebab »

manfredo wrote: post #64

A few things stick out to me: * This study assumes that we can ramp up purchases of solar and wind generation to match this graph: https://imgur.com/lMU252r while costs continue to decrease. That's not how markets work. Rapidly buy solar panels and the cost of solar panels go up. Put solar panels in all the places where it's easy to install and now you have to pay extra to put them in places where it's not so conveni…

I seriously doubt America will buy solar panels quickly enough to outstrip supply. Much more likely that production will increase and costs will go down due to economies of scale.

Also there is no shortage of places to put solar panels, especially in America.

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

#100

Post by manfredo »

godelski wrote: post #76
manfredo wrote: post #66

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Nuclear energy, so far, is the only proven way of producing more than 3/4 of a nation's electricity from carbon free sources other than geographically limited options like hydroelectricity. It's a proven technology that has served as France's main electricity source for close to 4 decades. As compared to plans to turn our power grid into a Rube Goldberg machine and dealing with power outages when wind and solar outpu…

I don't really agree with this, even though I am an avid nuclear proponent. I do think France has it right, but there's some other things to consider. France is phasing out some of its nuclear and does not plan on replacing it. No they aren't going to 0% or even 50%, but they are doing it and this is a good idea. They are replacing old plants with renewables where they can and replacing and building new plants where…

> France is phasing out some of its nuclear and does not plan on replacing it

A statement they keep making to placate anti-nuclear advocates but keep postponing and postponing. Because there's no way to reliably generate the majority of electricity using wind and solar, and only small parts of France are suitable for hydroelectricity.

Diversification doesn't matter for energy that comes from heat engines. Just like how many countries successfully grew their economies with > 80% fossil fuels plants, there's nothing wrong with powering a country entirely on nuclear power. Sure it's good build alternatives where it's cheaper. But the main draw of nuclear power is that its output entirely controllable. Diversification is much more important in renewables where you don't control the weather.

Post reply on HN