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

31–40 of 257 posts

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

#31

Post by zizee »

turtlebits wrote: post #15
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.

> The average household consumes 28.9kwh in a day

Maybe in the USA.

> which is way more than rooftop solar can provide.

Maybe in your part of the world this is true, but it is not unrealistic in many places.

Also, why are you limiting your thinking to rooftop solar?

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

#32

Post by danans »

turtlebits wrote: post #15
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.

> The average household consumes 28.9kwh in a day, which is way more than rooftop solar can provide.

The average house doesn't need to source 100% of their electricity from rooftop solar. Electric utilities are how most people will still get a significant portion of their electricity, even those with rooftops solar.

Also, the average household's electricity needs could be reduced significantly while increasing comfort via better insulation, air sealing, and higher efficiency appliances.

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

#33

Post by hn_throwaway_99 »

turtlebits wrote: post #15
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.

Most people will have a big battery in their garage capable of powering their house for days pretty soon.

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

#34

Post by eloff »

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…

> These will start to be important problems when the quantity of power produced by solar panels is about 100 times larger than current world marketed energy consumption. I expect that this will happen in about 30 years.

You predict energy needs will increase 100x in 30 years? Surely you mean just solar energy production?

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

#35

Post by chrisco255 »

vkou wrote: post #24
amelius wrote: post #18

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

It's relatively high, the problem is that building new dams is an environmental disaster, and existing dams are two orders of magnitude below needed capacity. Also, hydro dams kill a lot of people when they have accidents.

Do you have to dam a river to store energy in this way? Can they just build water towers that pull water from underground up into a tank and release it via gravity to generate power when needed?

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

#36

Post by vidanay »

turtlebits wrote: post #15
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.

Once solar generating costs are further reduced, there needs to be improved effort on improving local infrastructure (within a single residence). Getting rid of DC-AC-DC conversion would be a huge improvement. If we standardize on a DC system (48v?) then household devices can be more efficient without the conversions.

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

#37

Post by jxidjhdhdhdhfhf »

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…

One possibility is to use farmland or grazing land. You can pick crops that do better in part shade and then place solar panels over them. If done right it could have a beneficial effect on crop growth while at the same time earning extra money.

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

#38

Post by briga »

m463 wrote: post #4
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've wondered about that too (competing with nature for the sun) but I think just putting panels on the roof or over the parking lot would probably address 95% of the problem. Along similar lines, I've wondered if solar panels will start to look like pine trees at some point.

>I've wondered if solar panels will start to look like pine trees at some point.

Interesting thought, but I'm not sure there same factors that led to plant evolution will play out with solar panels. Plants reaching up into the air was a direct response to competition with other types of plants. Presumably the same sort of competition won't be necessary with solar panels. I'm sure nature still has a lot of inspiration we can draw from for creating new types of solar panels, but my guess is that the most efficient surface for collecting solar energy is the flat square design we see today.

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

#39

Post by yazaddaruvala »

cbmuser wrote: post #19

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, consume…

Here is a commercial installation of solar + storage at $0.04/kWh[1]. And it’s not unique, that article links to the cheapest solar + storage in the US at $0.025/kWh.

Additionally, these are today’s prices, as per this article the price for renewables is dropping exponentially every year. And if Elon Musk is to be believed (which I do) the price for storage is also dropping exponentially.

[1] https://pv-magazine-usa.com/2019/09/10/los-angeles-commissio...

Post reply on HN