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

Why did renewables become so cheap so fast?

ourworldindata.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

621–630 of 642 posts

Re: Why did renewables become so cheap so fast?

#621

Post by kovach »

Jedd wrote: post #173
sxates wrote: post #125

Personal anecdote - my house has two sets of solar panels on the roof - the first was installed in 2017, the second was just installed last month. In 2017 my 6kw system cost $24,000 before any incentives (by SolarCity). In 2020 my 7.8kw system cost $15,000 before any incentives (by Tesla). Of that $15k, $4.3k was for the panels themselves, $2k for the inverter, $1k for mounting hardware, and $8k for installation. It'…

I'll add some anecdata from Australia. My neighbour had a 5kW system put on, single-phase inverter, about three years ago - for ~ A$7000. I've just put a deposit down for installation of 12kW of panels with a 10kW three-phase inverter for A$7400 Same provider, though I haven't compared breakdown of costs (I'm assuming very similar installation / labour costs).

Coming at this late, but that is a really good price for a fully installed system, does that include some government subsidy?

Considering a similar system like that in southern Europe where installation is pretty cheap, and the prices are higher, I see A$12000 for a 10KW system of panels and a 10KW Fronius three-phase inverter.

Re: Why did renewables become so cheap so fast?

#622

Post by ben_w »

gruez wrote: post #30
simongr3dal wrote: post #23

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Then get your electricity nationaly, or from france, or from germany, or from saudi arabia, or from australia, or from argentina. The point of a global energy grid would be that there's always sun and wind somewhere on the planet and you would smooth out time-of-day differences in usage. The point is NOT to outsource your country's entire electricity production.

> Then get your electricity nationaly, or from france, or from germany, or from saudi arabia, or from australia, or from argentina. Ah yes, because the other countries will magically have the spare capacity (both in terms of generation and transmission)? We already see this play out in Europe: nobody there wants to do anything about russia because they control the natural gas supply. >The point is NOT to outsource yo…

> Ah yes, because the other countries will magically have the spare capacity (both in terms of generation and transmission)?

I believe simongr3dal’s argument is the invisible hand of the free market, not magic.

Optimistically, solar resources are more evenly distributed than oil and gas, so no country can act like Russia; pessimistically, Russia isn’t the first country to exert influence by threatening to cease supply of its resources, and it won’t be the last; the optimistic response to which is that there are many ways to solve seasonal issues, for example the UK (personal familiarity, no other reason for this example) could plan 18-hours local storage and enough local production for winter rather than summer.

Re: Why did renewables become so cheap so fast?

#623

Post by thu2111 »

ben_w wrote: post #618
thu2111 wrote: post #455

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think you must have missed this event from just a few weeks ago: https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/blackout-alert-from-natio... Last week, National Grid issued two electricity margin notices, the most serious security-of-supply alerts since 2016, both citing low wind farm output among the causes and urgently appealing for more power plants. To keep the lights on, Britain burnt coal in polluting old power stations…

I guess you and pjc50 have a different idea of “a large area”. The UK is about half the size of California.

Balancing power over ever larger areas does run into problems with long distance inter-connectors and spare capacity in general though, so it's not like this is an easily solved problem. The UK is well connected to mainland Europe with many large interconnectors and has an enormous abundance of off shore wind power because it's an island, yet it still nearly had brown/blackouts due to low wind coinciding with normal maintenance. That suggests the UK is hitting the limits of what can be done with wind power despite having a lot of it. Even if interconnectors were upgraded, that doesn't help if other countries are already using all their wind power locally.

Re: Why did renewables become so cheap so fast?

#624

Post by manfredo »

nl wrote: post #610
manfredo wrote: post #389

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Pumped hydroelectricity is geographically dependent - you need a valley or mountain that you can dam up to build pumped hydro. While it may be great for South Australia, the region examined in your linked paper, it's wrong to assume that this availability is uniform.

The available isn't uniform, but it sure is widespread! "The perception has been there are limited sites for pumped hydro around the world, but we have found hundreds of thousands." https://www.anu.edu.au/news/all-news/anu-finds-530000-potent...

This paper just ran an algorithm over a heightmap, and pinpointed potential reservoirs. This is a far cry from actually identifying feasible sites. The massive density of hydroelectric storage in the Himalayas, for instance, is far too remote to be developed at anything approaching reasonable cost. Not to mention, it still leaves swathes of places like Central north America, and much of Northern Europe without access to hydroelectric storage.

Re: Why did renewables become so cheap so fast?

#625

Post by epistasis »

ben_w wrote: post #619
Budabellly wrote: post #278

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Gravity batteries! Basically a hunk of concrete that uses spare grid power to be hoisted, and then converts the gravitational energy when its dropped. Seems like there are only a few companies giving it a real go. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gravity_battery

Low energy density though — a fully charged 1kg LiIon battery has enough energy to raise its own weight by a height of about 50 km. Wikipedia says energy density of 0.36-0.875 MJ/kg; assuming 0.5 MJ/kg and putting it into PE = mgh -> 0.5 MJ/kg * 1kg = 1kg * g * h -> h = (0.5 MJ/kg)/g = ~51 km http://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=%280.5%20MJ%2Fkg%29%2Fg...

I think that ultimately this limits how cheap gravity batteries can get, there’s just too much material and those materials are already well-understood components with little chance for falling costs. We would likely need entirely new and innovative materials or designs A gravity battery that used completely new materials or design to come up with something cheap.

Where as lithium ion batteries generally get cheaper the more energy dense we make them (in the same chemistries, at least) because fewer resources go into making that same kWh of storage.

Re: Why did renewables become so cheap so fast?

#626

Post by bagacrap »

_carbyau_ wrote: post #601
bagacrap wrote: post #556

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I have no horse in this race, but it seems to me the solar panels on single family dwellings do benefit everyone. Presumably there are times when the house in question is producing more than it uses, at which point electricity is being pumped back into the grid (I dunno about aus but in the US they're compensated far below market rates for this generation). So it sounds to me as if home owners are selling off space t…

"So it sounds to me as if home owners are selling off space that they own (at great expense!) to contribute to the grid." Well, the "great expense" is subsidised is the issue. So not that great an expense. Effectively their power bills should cancel out the remaining costs eventually and then the home owner should effectively get "free energy" after that. How much free energy? Maybe none and they are ripped off! Mayb…

No, they're selling their roof real estate to improve the capacity for the whole grid. That's why they're receiving money, although you choose to think of as a subsidy. The great expense was the acquisition of said real estate.

This money spend does benefit everyone (even me, on the other side of the planet), because it improves the climate change situation, and locals in particular, because it doesn't require using lots of land to do it. That land can be used for something else useful to you.

Re: Why did renewables become so cheap so fast?

#627

Post by MeinBlutIstBlau »

okareaman wrote: post #599
MeinBlutIstBlau wrote: post #533

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So how do you handle peak periods but it happens to only be a low wind generation day? Just tell everybody brownouts are in effect? The only reason that happens in enormous cities like LA, SF, and Austin TX is because they have way too many people drawing power. The grid can't be built faster than people can move in. In terms of electricity generation, this is why batteries are a monumental step towards making green…

I'd burn fossil fuels too huddled around the furnace in the upper midwest in the winter. To hell with the greens.

I'm not saying we shouldn't have green energy. I'm saying it's not feasible yet. You're damn well sure it's not feasible for {insert major metropolitan area here}.

Re: Why did renewables become so cheap so fast?

#628

Post by MeinBlutIstBlau »

okareaman wrote: post #598
pjc50 wrote: post #469

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You'd have thought that high demand would increase fossil prices? No, they're cheap in North Dakota because of all the fracking there.

I grew up on the beach in California. North Dakota in the winter sounds like a frigid, dark, petroleum smelling hell hole to me.

The upper midwest has comparable climate to Russia. You know, the Russia both Napolean and Hitler invaded. It's not bad right now, but on occasion we get -10F weather. I know southerners think it's the worst but it's really not. Snow and ice is a bigger bitch to deal with than the temp.

Re: Why did renewables become so cheap so fast?

#629

Post by nl »

manfredo wrote: post #624
nl wrote: post #610

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The available isn't uniform, but it sure is widespread! "The perception has been there are limited sites for pumped hydro around the world, but we have found hundreds of thousands." https://www.anu.edu.au/news/all-news/anu-finds-530000-potent...

This paper just ran an algorithm over a heightmap, and pinpointed potential reservoirs. This is a far cry from actually identifying feasible sites. The massive density of hydroelectric storage in the Himalayas, for instance, is far too remote to be developed at anything approaching reasonable cost. Not to mention, it still leaves swathes of places like Central north America, and much of Northern Europe without access…

The European electricity market is already very interconnected, so I doubt that would be a problem there at least.

Re: Why did renewables become so cheap so fast?

#630

Post by dredmorbius »

rini17 wrote: post #586
dredmorbius wrote: post #572

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm not discussing or comparing fossil fuels, but rather renewables, and specifically hydro, with nuclear. Coal sludge, tar sands mining, and fracking have nothing to do with hydropower generation. Those are the activities renewable energy alternatives are specifically intended to replace, and as such, they address any related concerns directly. I'm unaware of any substantial credible literature describing toxic accu…

It is, sadly, not in widespread public awareness. But some research is there, such as [1] [2]. If a hydropower dam has been built today on lower Mississippi it would over time fill with a cubic-mile-worth of toxic sediment on the top of currently existing problems. This is not an exaggeration, an additional superfund site with a volume measured in cubic miles, due solely to the hydro project itself I don't see how el…

First, if. The lower Mississippi has poor hydro potential.

And the region is already a cancer alley. Again: hydro does not create that risk or the polutants.

This is an extreme reach.

Post reply on HN