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

For the first time, renewable energy generation beat out coal in the US

popsci.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

11–20 of 314 posts

Re: For the first time, renewable energy generation beat out coal in the US

#11

Post by hutzlibu »

verisimi wrote: post #10
adrianN wrote: post #7

Nice. The economics of renewables are really hard to beat. I hope we speed up the construction speed and at the same time electrify more sectors.

Really? Solar gives lots of electricity in the summer. But you have light and warmth then. In the winter when you need the electricity, you get maybe 1/10 of whatever the solar array is capable of. Wind is not generally viable, except in very windy locations. Biogas (eg anaerobic digestors) seems much more possible - but even these need warmth to run well - so aren't as good in the winter. And when you think that yes…

"But you have light and warmth then. "

Yes, but often too much of it, so lots of people use AC, which uses a LOT of power. Electricity is needed all the year.

"Wind is not generally viable, except in very windy locations."

And there is wind everywhere, but only if you build high enough. So yes, there are places where it makes no sense to build them, but there are a lot more other places, where it does.

"I'm fast coming to the conclusion that all renewable tech is about allowing the government to have deep control over your energy"

So a solar + battery powered off grid home is deep controlled by the government? May you explain how that works?

"And when you think that yes - you can pay several thousands for a battery to store your electricity (for a day or so),"

Have you looked up any actual numbers? Maybe do so. Also maybe that part, that tracks how the battery prices are changing. They are constantly getting cheaper.

Also maybe you are aware, that the whole industry that was and is fossil based needs to change. Your criticism comes from an angle, that assumes that should be for free?

Burning fossil fuels is cheap. But only if you ignore the external costs of climate change and air pollution.

Re: For the first time, renewable energy generation beat out coal in the US

#12

Post by groestl »

verisimi wrote: post #10
adrianN wrote: post #7

Nice. The economics of renewables are really hard to beat. I hope we speed up the construction speed and at the same time electrify more sectors.

Really? Solar gives lots of electricity in the summer. But you have light and warmth then. In the winter when you need the electricity, you get maybe 1/10 of whatever the solar array is capable of. Wind is not generally viable, except in very windy locations. Biogas (eg anaerobic digestors) seems much more possible - but even these need warmth to run well - so aren't as good in the winter. And when you think that yes…

> Solar gives lots of electricity in the summer. But you have light and warmth then. In the winter when you need the electricity, you get maybe 1/10 of whatever the solar array is capable of.

The third phase of the energy transition will see massive overcapacity in the summer being turned into chemical energy, to be stored until winter. Hydrogen and synthetic methan will be burned, and the dissipating heat used for district heating. Efficiency is north of 70% for this. I don't see a fundamental problem.

Re: For the first time, renewable energy generation beat out coal in the US

#13

Post by brutusborn »

groestl wrote: post #12
verisimi wrote: post #10

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Really? Solar gives lots of electricity in the summer. But you have light and warmth then. In the winter when you need the electricity, you get maybe 1/10 of whatever the solar array is capable of. Wind is not generally viable, except in very windy locations. Biogas (eg anaerobic digestors) seems much more possible - but even these need warmth to run well - so aren't as good in the winter. And when you think that yes…

> Solar gives lots of electricity in the summer. But you have light and warmth then. In the winter when you need the electricity, you get maybe 1/10 of whatever the solar array is capable of. The third phase of the energy transition will see massive overcapacity in the summer being turned into chemical energy, to be stored until winter. Hydrogen and synthetic methan will be burned, and the dissipating heat used for d…

Do you have a source for north of 70%? I’m not implying it’s incorrect, but I haven’t seen any papers with this level of efficiency for similar proposals.

Re: For the first time, renewable energy generation beat out coal in the US

#14

Post by rapsey »

verisimi wrote: post #10
adrianN wrote: post #7

Nice. The economics of renewables are really hard to beat. I hope we speed up the construction speed and at the same time electrify more sectors.

Really? Solar gives lots of electricity in the summer. But you have light and warmth then. In the winter when you need the electricity, you get maybe 1/10 of whatever the solar array is capable of. Wind is not generally viable, except in very windy locations. Biogas (eg anaerobic digestors) seems much more possible - but even these need warmth to run well - so aren't as good in the winter. And when you think that yes…

Lots of southern places where solar is great all year. For more northern locations, cutting down on coal/gas usage for half the year is much better than nothing.

Re: For the first time, renewable energy generation beat out coal in the US

#15

Post by efitz »

rapsey wrote: post #14
verisimi wrote: post #10

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Really? Solar gives lots of electricity in the summer. But you have light and warmth then. In the winter when you need the electricity, you get maybe 1/10 of whatever the solar array is capable of. Wind is not generally viable, except in very windy locations. Biogas (eg anaerobic digestors) seems much more possible - but even these need warmth to run well - so aren't as good in the winter. And when you think that yes…

Lots of southern places where solar is great all year. For more northern locations, cutting down on coal/gas usage for half the year is much better than nothing.

It might be worse. You can’t just dial up and dial down production and processing of fuels. And the regulatory climate is very hostile. So it’s a reasonable business decision to shut down a capital intensive coal mine when demand drops, or to give up on natural gas pipelines (constant hostile regulators, activist lawfare and protests) when demand drops.

Re: For the first time, renewable energy generation beat out coal in the US

#16

Post by nasmorn »

brutusborn wrote: post #13
groestl wrote: post #12

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Solar gives lots of electricity in the summer. But you have light and warmth then. In the winter when you need the electricity, you get maybe 1/10 of whatever the solar array is capable of. The third phase of the energy transition will see massive overcapacity in the summer being turned into chemical energy, to be stored until winter. Hydrogen and synthetic methan will be burned, and the dissipating heat used for d…

Do you have a source for north of 70%? I’m not implying it’s incorrect, but I haven’t seen any papers with this level of efficiency for similar proposals.

The 70% is not for conversion into electricity but for total useable energy if the waste heat is used in district heating networks. It can reach up to 80% of the primary fuel used. While that seems worse then simply burning it at the end user you have to keep in mind that you also gain electricity which can be used to drive a heat pump. This is by far the best way to burn gas if heat is needed as a result.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cogeneration

Re: For the first time, renewable energy generation beat out coal in the US

#17

Post by martyvis »

verisimi wrote: post #10
adrianN wrote: post #7

Nice. The economics of renewables are really hard to beat. I hope we speed up the construction speed and at the same time electrify more sectors.

Really? Solar gives lots of electricity in the summer. But you have light and warmth then. In the winter when you need the electricity, you get maybe 1/10 of whatever the solar array is capable of. Wind is not generally viable, except in very windy locations. Biogas (eg anaerobic digestors) seems much more possible - but even these need warmth to run well - so aren't as good in the winter. And when you think that yes…

It seems you are basing your thoughts just anecdotally. For instance, I'm sure "winter" in USA doesn't mean 6 months of snow and cloud. I'm sure in some areas winter actually is probably better. And sure wind isn't good energy in all locations - but in areas where it is you can probably harness it at quite high density. I'm in Australia and was just looking at this research here looking at cost effectiveness. It seems to both look at the actual generation capability (that is amount of sun and wind) but also cost of distribution and whether it is going to impact wilderness or other uses. Have a look at the heat maps they have created. I'm sure there are similar studies in the USA. https://re100.eng.anu.edu.au/heatmaps/#map-links

Re: For the first time, renewable energy generation beat out coal in the US

#18

Post by groestl »

brutusborn wrote: post #13
groestl wrote: post #12

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Solar gives lots of electricity in the summer. But you have light and warmth then. In the winter when you need the electricity, you get maybe 1/10 of whatever the solar array is capable of. The third phase of the energy transition will see massive overcapacity in the summer being turned into chemical energy, to be stored until winter. Hydrogen and synthetic methan will be burned, and the dissipating heat used for d…

Do you have a source for north of 70%? I’m not implying it’s incorrect, but I haven’t seen any papers with this level of efficiency for similar proposals.

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S03605...

We're not there yet. Currently, this setup is non-sensical since a lot of other measures should be implemented first, but even currently existing tech is pretty efficient, all things considered. And it only gets better from here.

Re: For the first time, renewable energy generation beat out coal in the US

#19

Post by anovikov »

It's so funny to read discussions of "whether or not renewables are viable for replacement of all or most of electricity needs in the U.S.". Here in Europe, we have it figured many years ago and are replacing fossil-fueled generation at a crazy rate, will probably push it to a niche use (gas peakers to fill void when there's neither sun or wind and before enough electrolyzers are put online), in less than 10 years.

Re: For the first time, renewable energy generation beat out coal in the US

#20

Post by adrianN »

verisimi wrote: post #10
adrianN wrote: post #7

Nice. The economics of renewables are really hard to beat. I hope we speed up the construction speed and at the same time electrify more sectors.

Really? Solar gives lots of electricity in the summer. But you have light and warmth then. In the winter when you need the electricity, you get maybe 1/10 of whatever the solar array is capable of. Wind is not generally viable, except in very windy locations. Biogas (eg anaerobic digestors) seems much more possible - but even these need warmth to run well - so aren't as good in the winter. And when you think that yes…

"I'm fast coming to the conclusion that all renewable tech is about allowing the government to have deep control over your energy, and to put you in a situation where you are forced to buy very expensive gear from mega-corps."

That sounds like unfounded paranoia. It has literally never been easier to be an energy-independent anarchist living in a hut somewhere than today.

Post reply on HN