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

Solar Is Cheapest Electricity in History, U.S. DOE Aims to Cut Costs 60% by 2030

cleantechnica.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

11–20 of 257 posts

Re: Solar Is Cheapest Electricity in History, U.S. DOE Aims to Cut Costs 60% by 2030

#11

Post by Nullabillity »

brundolf wrote: post #10
kragen wrote: post #6

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I assume location must play a large part in this? Solar must be more cost-effective in, say, the Mojave desert, than it is in Alaska. Yes, each peak kilowatt of utility-scale solar produces about 240 watts average in Arizona, 140 in Maine, and 100 in Germany ("capacity factors" of 24%, 14%, and 10%). I assume the number for Alaska would be even lower. > Every solar panel you put on the ground is going to take up so…

> it will reflect less heat back into space than the plant or bare dirt would, locally raising the temperature I'm not sure this checks out... the light gets absorbed, but the energy doesn't get turned into heat, it gets turned into electricity. If anything, where it's covering up concrete or asphalt it should reduce the conversion of sunlight to local heat.

Some of it turns into electricity, some of it is wasted (turned into heat). And the whole point is that the electricity gets used at some point, turning into heat, computation (heat), light (heat), or motion (heat). And of course, you also have transmission losses (heat) along the way!

Re: Solar Is Cheapest Electricity in History, U.S. DOE Aims to Cut Costs 60% by 2030

#12

Post by andechs »

rich_sasha wrote: post #5

If solar were free, but we still needed to pay for battery storage, how would it then compare in cost to fuel-based alternatives (fossil fuel, nuclear etc)?

Not all battery storage needs to be electrochemical - hydroelectric dams work amazingly as pumped storage batteries (although site specific).

Re: Solar Is Cheapest Electricity in History, U.S. DOE Aims to Cut Costs 60% by 2030

#13

Post by kragen »

brundolf wrote: post #10
kragen wrote: post #6

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I assume location must play a large part in this? Solar must be more cost-effective in, say, the Mojave desert, than it is in Alaska. Yes, each peak kilowatt of utility-scale solar produces about 240 watts average in Arizona, 140 in Maine, and 100 in Germany ("capacity factors" of 24%, 14%, and 10%). I assume the number for Alaska would be even lower. > Every solar panel you put on the ground is going to take up so…

> it will reflect less heat back into space than the plant or bare dirt would, locally raising the temperature I'm not sure this checks out... the light gets absorbed, but the energy doesn't get turned into heat, it gets turned into electricity. If anything, where it's covering up concrete or asphalt it should reduce the conversion of sunlight to local heat.

A 21% efficient solar panel reflects about 9% of the light, turns about 60% of it into heat immediately, and turns the other 21% into heat shortly afterwards, perhaps somewhere else, when the power the solar cell generates is dissipated by, for example, an electric motor or lightbulb.

Re: Solar Is Cheapest Electricity in History, U.S. DOE Aims to Cut Costs 60% by 2030

#14

Post by jessaustin »

kragen wrote: post #7
rich_sasha wrote: post #5

If solar were free, but we still needed to pay for battery storage, how would it then compare in cost to fuel-based alternatives (fossil fuel, nuclear etc)?

It's a little hard to predict how the price of battery storage will change as demand for it increases by orders of magnitude, and also how energy usage patterns will change as the relative cost of nighttime energy usage goes up. I've explored these themes in the past in a number of notes. https://dercuano.github.io/topics/solar.html and in particular https://dercuano.github.io/notes/energy-storage-efficiency.h... , h…

...how energy usage patterns will change as the relative cost of nighttime energy usage goes up.

My fondest dream is that they'll stop dotting the countryside with those ridiculous pole-mounted "security" lights, and we'll be able to experience nighttime again.

Re: Solar Is Cheapest Electricity in History, U.S. DOE Aims to Cut Costs 60% by 2030

#15

Post by turtlebits »

rich_sasha wrote: post #5

If solar were free, but we still needed to pay for battery storage, how would it then compare in cost to fuel-based alternatives (fossil fuel, nuclear etc)?

People use way too much power for battery storage to be viable. The average household consumes 28.9kwh in a day (in 2017), which is way more than rooftop solar can provide.

Maybe when we have smaller houses and don't have a bajillion devices plugged in all the time.

Re: Solar Is Cheapest Electricity in History, U.S. DOE Aims to Cut Costs 60% by 2030

#16

Post by kragen »

jessaustin wrote: post #14
kragen wrote: post #7

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's a little hard to predict how the price of battery storage will change as demand for it increases by orders of magnitude, and also how energy usage patterns will change as the relative cost of nighttime energy usage goes up. I've explored these themes in the past in a number of notes. https://dercuano.github.io/topics/solar.html and in particular https://dercuano.github.io/notes/energy-storage-efficiency.h... , h…

...how energy usage patterns will change as the relative cost of nighttime energy usage goes up. My fondest dream is that they'll stop dotting the countryside with those ridiculous pole-mounted "security" lights, and we'll be able to experience nighttime again.

I would love this, but battery costs and solar-panel costs are nowhere near high enough to cause it to happen in order to save on the power bill. They probably never will be.

Re: Solar Is Cheapest Electricity in History, U.S. DOE Aims to Cut Costs 60% by 2030

#17

Post by tzs »

kragen wrote: post #6
briga wrote: post #2

This is good to hear. I assume location must play a large part in this? Solar must be more cost-effective in, say, the Mojave desert, than it is in Alaska. I sometimes wonder if the widespread adoption of solar is going to have an environmental impact that isn't immediately apparent. Every solar panel you put on the ground is going to take up solar energy that could otherwise be absorbed by a plant, which in turn mea…

> I assume location must play a large part in this? Solar must be more cost-effective in, say, the Mojave desert, than it is in Alaska. Yes, each peak kilowatt of utility-scale solar produces about 240 watts average in Arizona, 140 in Maine, and 100 in Germany ("capacity factors" of 24%, 14%, and 10%). I assume the number for Alaska would be even lower. > Every solar panel you put on the ground is going to take up so…

> Yes, each peak kilowatt of utility-scale solar produces about 240 watts average in Arizona, 140 in Maine, and 100 in Germany ("capacity factors" of 24%, 14%, and 10%). I assume the number for Alaska would be even lower.

In this US government report [1] that looks at solar energy in remote parts of Alaska the capacities of 11 systems in use in 11 villages they looked at ranged from 7.1% to 11.6%. Looks like around 9.4% average.

[1] https://www.energy.gov/sites/prod/files/2016/02/f29/Solar-Pr...

Re: Solar Is Cheapest Electricity in History, U.S. DOE Aims to Cut Costs 60% by 2030

#18

Post by amelius »

andechs wrote: post #12
rich_sasha wrote: post #5

If solar were free, but we still needed to pay for battery storage, how would it then compare in cost to fuel-based alternatives (fossil fuel, nuclear etc)?

Not all battery storage needs to be electrochemical - hydroelectric dams work amazingly as pumped storage batteries (although site specific).

What is the typical efficiency of a charge-discharge cycle?

Re: Solar Is Cheapest Electricity in History, U.S. DOE Aims to Cut Costs 60% by 2030

#19

Post by cbmuser »

It doesn't matter that solar itself is cheap, it still needs backup plants which are the reason Germany has the highest electricity prices - world-wide.

> https://www.globalpetrolprices.com/electricity_prices/

It's really strange that users on HN keep rehashing the myth that solar and wind energy will result in lower electricity prices for consumers - they won't, never.

Even if solar and wind energy was free, consumers would still have to pay the costs for running backup and/or storage plants which lets consumers prices soar.

The problem with solar and wind is that they simply can't produce electricity on-demand which means the kWh has an actual market value and can therefore be sold with a profit.

If a solar or wind park produces huge amounts of electricity when demand is low, the result are dumping or even negative prices.

Affordable and clean electricity in populous industrial countries like Germany or the US can be provided through nuclear energy only.

Proof:

> https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/ghg-emissions-by-sector?t...

> https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/ghg-emissions-by-sector?t...

Germany: 350 million tons p.a. CO2 in the energy sector France: 50 million tons p.a. CO2 in the energy sector

Germany: 38 cents per kWh France: 22 cents per kWh

Germany: 50% renewables in its electricity mix France: 70% nuclear in its electricity mix

Re: Solar Is Cheapest Electricity in History, U.S. DOE Aims to Cut Costs 60% by 2030

#20

Post by Someone »

briga wrote: post #2

This is good to hear. I assume location must play a large part in this? Solar must be more cost-effective in, say, the Mojave desert, than it is in Alaska. I sometimes wonder if the widespread adoption of solar is going to have an environmental impact that isn't immediately apparent. Every solar panel you put on the ground is going to take up solar energy that could otherwise be absorbed by a plant, which in turn mea…

https://news.mit.edu/2011/energy-scale-part3-1026:

“A total of 173,000 terawatts (trillions of watts) of solar energy strikes the Earth continuously. That's more than 10,000 times the world's total energy use“

That article is from 2011, but I think it’s a very safe bet that factor is still more than 1,000 today.

Also, I would think about every solar panel you put on the ground reflects less energy into space than the ground did.

Post reply on HN