Electricity over $900/MWh in most of Western US now • Hacker News Board

Re: Electricity over $900/MWh in most of Western US now

#341

Post by hnick » Thu, Feb 18, 2021, 11:36 PM UTC

belorn wrote: post #329

hnick wrote: post #249

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Of course, there is always a certain level of electricity generation that is needed as most people like to use their fridges, AC and computers 24/7. This is true but let me summarise my understanding which might be incorrect, and is based off this article and similar ones. I'd like to know where it's wrong? https://www.abc.net.au/news/science/2017-10-12/renewable-ene... Basically, there is a minimum amount of power…

There is one additional factor which is used in practice. Fossil fueled plants like those operation on oil can get paid to operate in backup mode. I know plants here in Sweden does this, and I suspect it is either tax funded directly or by the grid connection cost that get added on top of the metered cost. This way a traditional fossil fueled power station get paid to maintain capacity regardless of current demand, a…

It sounds basically like paying someone to be "on call" in case you need them in a hurry. That does seem like more of a bandage over the existing system rather than an optimal design.

Re: Electricity over $900/MWh in most of Western US now

#342

Post by zbrozek » Fri, Feb 19, 2021, 6:22 AM UTC

akamaka wrote: post #338

zbrozek wrote: post #335

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's probably true in places with sensible construction costs and timelines. But around here it's going to cost me $250k to fix the envelope of my house. If it reduced my energy usage to zero it would take only 70 years to pay for itself. But it won't do that and I won't live that long, so...

Yep, you nailed the biggest problem. No single person can individually make decisions on those time scales. Future energy costs, interest rates, climate trends, technological changes, and urban planning all need to be factored in. There needs to be a financing system that packages all this together and offers homeowners a simple low-interest construction loan that is cheaper than their energy bills.

In practice it's vastly more cost efficient for me to build an enormous solar array and install batteries. So I'm doing that.

Re: Electricity over $900/MWh in most of Western US now

#343

Post by cbozeman » Fri, Feb 19, 2021, 11:30 AM UTC

Dma54rhs wrote: post #306

nielsbot wrote: post #252

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Guess you need solar panel de-icers. Are those a thing?

They do exist but for a homeowner it's not that hard to go to the roof and clean the cells and roof either?

Yeah that's a good idea. Climb onto your roof, onto a notoriously slippery surface, to "clean" said surface off the roof (how exactly are they to do that...?).

That way you can slip on the snow and fall onto not just the snow, but the compacted snow that's now become ice, and not just ice, but the incredibly hard concrete that is your driveway...

Yeah I don't see that ending poorly at all.

Re: Electricity over $900/MWh in most of Western US now

#344

Post by belorn » Fri, Feb 19, 2021, 11:37 AM UTC

hnick wrote: post #341

belorn wrote: post #329

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There is one additional factor which is used in practice. Fossil fueled plants like those operation on oil can get paid to operate in backup mode. I know plants here in Sweden does this, and I suspect it is either tax funded directly or by the grid connection cost that get added on top of the metered cost. This way a traditional fossil fueled power station get paid to maintain capacity regardless of current demand, a…

It sounds basically like paying someone to be "on call" in case you need them in a hurry. That does seem like more of a bandage over the existing system rather than an optimal design.

It is but there are not many alternatives. Government are investing into more power lines at the border in order to import energy from nearby countries fossil fueled energy plants. If we look at the region as a whole however, the fossil fueled energy capacity still need to match the whole grid and the owners of those plants will need to be paid.

Hydro power is a great alternative, but we are already at peak utilization. We actually need to tear down some in order to save red listed species and restore the environment for animals that need to have unobstructed rivers to reproduce. As the capacity has been increasing, hydro power has been mostly static in term of growth.

There is nuclear and the political situation of that. The government and the green party (who is part of the current government constellation) are promoting the "on call" as a favorable strategy over nuclear. Their main political argument is that everything is good as long we produce more green energy over the whole year than we consume coal energy during the winter. Historically the political right has been pro-fossil fuels, but given the current situation there has been some movement now where some parties is looking to move into opposition.

And last we got battery technology. So far the only installations that I know globally that operate by generating solar energy and putting them into battery is Tesla. I don't know how economical that system has been. There exist to my knowledge no wind park operating through Tesla batteries, and I do not know why that is.

Re: Electricity over $900/MWh in most of Western US now

#345

Post by Dma54rhs » Fri, Feb 19, 2021, 2:40 PM UTC

cbozeman wrote: post #343

Dma54rhs wrote: post #306

Earlier quoted context omitted.

They do exist but for a homeowner it's not that hard to go to the roof and clean the cells and roof either?

Yeah that's a good idea. Climb onto your roof, onto a notoriously slippery surface, to "clean" said surface off the roof (how exactly are they to do that...?). That way you can slip on the snow and fall onto not just the snow, but the compacted snow that's now become ice, and not just ice, but the incredibly hard concrete that is your driveway... Yeah I don't see that ending poorly at all .

I'm sorry but are you serious? You tie yourself with a rope to secure you. Someone has to clean the rooftops from a too big of a snow buildup from cold places all the time. If cleaning small area of panels on rooftop where men and women all around the world work all the time you don't really deserve the modern cozy life. Time to reflect buddy.

Re: Electricity over $900/MWh in most of Western US now

#346

Post by nielsbot » Fri, Feb 19, 2021, 8:48 PM UTC

Dma54rhs wrote: post #306

nielsbot wrote: post #252

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Guess you need solar panel de-icers. Are those a thing?

They do exist but for a homeowner it's not that hard to go to the roof and clean the cells and roof either?

Ok, but I think something more convenient would be better and help adoption.

Re: Electricity over $900/MWh in most of Western US now

#347

Post by abandonliberty » Sat, Feb 20, 2021, 3:21 AM UTC

jjav wrote: post #275

abandonliberty wrote: post #217

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'd love to see us start building energy efficient homes. A bit more up front investment would give huge returns.

A problem is that conserving doesn't in the end produce any cost savings, which is a perverse disincentive to conserve. Water during the CA droughts a few years ago is a perfect example. Water agencies asked people to conserve water. So people did. A lot. Water agencies promptly freaked out because their revenue decreased. Of course it did, people were conserving water. So they increased the base rates (the amount th…

Yes, we need to align incentives with conservation/consumption and minimize externalities.

Unfortunately, because our buildings are not built by the parties that have to pay for consumption, that's not enough to incentivize energy efficient / green building construction.

There's probably some costs that need to be shared including leaky pipes and fire departments that increase in times of heat, but that seems unlikely to account for a tripling. Your water department probably charged that way because there are water hogs that create jobs/food/etc. who wouldn't be able to foot the actual bill of their water use, so while they wanted to incentivize conservation they also wanted everyone to share the bill. This isn't necessarily a bad thing; we're in this together and need money and food.