Global Solar Power Investment Will Top $1B per Day This Year • Hacker News Board

Re: Global Solar Power Investment Will Top $1B per Day This Year

#141

Post by pydry » Wed, Jun 07, 2023, 10:09 PM UTC

ftth_finland wrote: post #128

pydry wrote: post #123

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>Having power and not freezing to death when the sun doesn’t shine and the wind doesn’t blow is a pretty solid point. Not really. Electricity usage is not actually constant and nuclear power doesn't do load following unless you double the cost again (10x solar's LCOE). Theres a reason only France tried that - and that is strongly related to the reason why Areva went spectacularly bankrupt. Theres no reality in which…

> Not really. Oh, really? What's your solution to producing non-polluting power when the sun doesn’t shine and the wind doesn’t blow? > Electricity usage is not actually constant and nuclear power doesn't do load following unless you double the cost again Can you explain how you've come to this conclusion? We recently turned up a new nuclear power plant in Finland and they did nothing but turn up and down the generat…

>Oh, really? What's your solution to producing non-polluting power when the sun doesn’t shine and the wind doesn’t blow?

Gosh you really didnt read anything I wrote did you?

Re: Global Solar Power Investment Will Top $1B per Day This Year

#142

Post by wcoenen » Wed, Jun 07, 2023, 10:14 PM UTC

jacquesm wrote: post #29

timerol wrote: post #13

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I wouldn't characterize that as a bait-and-switch, but as adjusting to economic reality. When solar is <1% of penetration, a solar kWh is basically just as valuable as any other kWh. When solar gets over 10% of penetration, a solar kWh is worth much less than any other kWh - when the sun is shining, energy is plentiful. By the time you get to ~25% solar penetration, energy is almost free on a sunny day at noon, and m…

Nonsense, until 100% of daytime generation is solar/wind every KW added still offsets generation from other sources. This myth is mostly perpetrated by the suppliers of power based on more expensive and more polluting sources who see the value of their investments slashed.

I wouldn't be so quick to dismiss timerol's point as nonsense.

I live in Belgium. I was doing some electrical work in my home recently. On the 29th of May, I noticed two out of three phases were close to 250V instead of the intended 230V. This is the limit where inverters of solar installations switch themselves of; it indicates more solar power was being produced than could be absorbed by the grid.

It turns out the day-ahead electricity market prices on that day were negative for 8 hours. As I noticed with my voltage meter, such price signals are trying to tell us something. Shielding market participants from those signals (e.g. by net metering) will cause real technical problems.

I already try to be part of the solution by charging my EV around solar noon, even tough I don't have solar panels. And I will switch to dynamic hourly pricing soon. But one person voluntarily acting on price signals is not going to be enough.

Re: Global Solar Power Investment Will Top $1B per Day This Year

#143

Post by _hypx » Wed, Jun 07, 2023, 10:17 PM UTC

ftth_finland wrote: post #134

_hypx wrote: post #124

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You are describing e-fuels. Hydrogen from excess renewables is the same idea. The critics are simply not paying attention to the fact that green energy is nearly free and therefore fuels made from it can also be nearly free.

The plants aren't free.

Same issue with wind and solar. Sure, you have to build them first, but afterwards it's a continuous stream of virtually free energy.

Re: Global Solar Power Investment Will Top $1B per Day This Year

#144

Post by jacquesm » Wed, Jun 07, 2023, 10:26 PM UTC

wcoenen wrote: post #142

jacquesm wrote: post #29

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Nonsense, until 100% of daytime generation is solar/wind every KW added still offsets generation from other sources. This myth is mostly perpetrated by the suppliers of power based on more expensive and more polluting sources who see the value of their investments slashed.

I wouldn't be so quick to dismiss timerol's point as nonsense. I live in Belgium. I was doing some electrical work in my home recently. On the 29th of May, I noticed two out of three phases were close to 250V instead of the intended 230V. This is the limit where inverters of solar installations switch themselves of; it indicates more solar power was being produced than could be absorbed by the grid. It turns out the…

I already documented precisely this in another comment. Inverters switching off means that everything works exactly as designed. Negative prices are mostly on account of those producers that don't switch themselves off, such as nuclear power stations and baseline load providers that are too slow to adjust to demand or supply peaks.

With 50 panels on my property (a good 12.5 KW of generating capacity based on the nameplate power of one inverter and the peak capacity provided by the other) I probably am on the large size for a domestic installation. But you don't install solar power for peak capacity, you install it for average days and not so average days when you're going to need every Watt produced. And on those days (when power is scarce) you'll find that you are still consuming from the grid. That's the only issue with solar: when you need it most it isn't there. And so everybody gets to be happy: less CO2 emitted, fewer fossil fuel tonnage burned as if there is no tomorrow and some cash back for those that invested in solar. In the long run everybody wins, in the short term some parties may have to review their spreadsheets. But those traditional suppliers definitely aren't losing money, in fact they made out like bandits over the last year or two.

Re: Global Solar Power Investment Will Top $1B per Day This Year

#145

Post by pfdietz » Wed, Jun 07, 2023, 10:48 PM UTC

ftth_finland wrote: post #125

pfdietz wrote: post #99

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The key is sufficiently cheap electrolysers. They are below $300/kW now. The other steps (if any) have higher capital cost/energy cost ratios, so they can be done when energy is more expensive.

Can you explain how the costs pencil out? Today, in Finland, renewables produced between 0,2 GW and 1,5 GW. Does that mean I would need $450M (1,5 GW * $300/kW) in electrolysers to soak up all that power? For simplicity's sake, let's say output averages 1GW over 24 hours? What do I get for the day with my $450M electrolysis plant?

There's a tradeoff between the cost of excess solar/wind and the capacity factor of the electrolysers. You can get a handle on where the tradeoffs lie by looking at optimizations using historical weather data.

https://model.energy/

For Finland, the 2030 assumptions number (for "synthetic baseload" from renewables + storage) is just under their "EPR" number (which may be a bit optimistic, given your experience with an EPR). As I said, Finland is a tough case for renewables. The solution has > 400 MW each of solar and wind, and 110 MW of electrolysers (to provide 100 MW of synthetic baseload).

Re: Global Solar Power Investment Will Top $1B per Day This Year

#146

Post by pfdietz » Wed, Jun 07, 2023, 10:50 PM UTC

ftth_finland wrote: post #130

pfdietz wrote: post #106

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Industrial combustion turbines have been available for decades that burn hydrogen (in waste gases from various industrial processes, and also in jet engines adapted to burn hydrogen). It's just a matter of designing a combustor that works with the gas. This is known to be a solvable problem. If a particular high end gas turbine that's available today doesn't yet have a hydrogen combustor, that just means this solvabl…

How is your comment different from: "Combustion turbines for 100% hydrogen are not commercially available today."

It rejects the insinuation that this is somehow an obstacle to using hydrogen burning turbines in the future.

And that insinuation is there, or else why did you bring that up?

Re: Global Solar Power Investment Will Top $1B per Day This Year

#147

Post by [deleted] » Wed, Jun 07, 2023, 10:51 PM UTC

ftth_finland wrote: post #132

pfdietz wrote: post #115

Earlier quoted context omitted.

And then, there is little reason to burn that gas in turbines until existing consumers of hydrogen (like ammonia plants) have had their fill of it. Even before it's used in turbines, it would operate as dispatchable demand. And when it's used in turbines, it will be mixed with natural gas at first. Below about 20% H2 existing combustors work fine.

To solve the emission problem we need to be able to turn 100% hydrogen in to electricity.

[deleted]

Re: Global Solar Power Investment Will Top $1B per Day This Year

#148

Post by pfdietz » Wed, Jun 07, 2023, 10:54 PM UTC

ftth_finland wrote: post #132

pfdietz wrote: post #115

Earlier quoted context omitted.

And then, there is little reason to burn that gas in turbines until existing consumers of hydrogen (like ammonia plants) have had their fill of it. Even before it's used in turbines, it would operate as dispatchable demand. And when it's used in turbines, it will be mixed with natural gas at first. Below about 20% H2 existing combustors work fine.

To solve the emission problem we need to be able to turn 100% hydrogen in to electricity.

Yes, and this is possible, and has been done before. The point I was making is that it's not necessary to do it immediately. There are intermediate steps where it isn't necessary.

Re: Global Solar Power Investment Will Top $1B per Day This Year

#149

Post by pfdietz » Thu, Jun 08, 2023, 12:08 AM UTC

colordrops wrote: post #137

MostlyStable wrote: post #108

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm not against rooftop solar. My parents have, what was, at the time of installation, the largest residential install in the state of CA. But rooftop solar is not a good use of resources for fighting climate change, which is what I was responding to.

I don't follow. How does it not help in the fight against climate change? It may be less effecient than central power but it still reduces emissions compared to fossil fuels, and it's not a zero sum game as it does not take away capacity from central power.

It's inferior on a CO2 avoided per $ spent basis compared to utility scale solar installs.

This is not difficult to understand. What's your roadblock here?

Re: Global Solar Power Investment Will Top $1B per Day This Year

#150

Post by r00fus » Thu, Jun 08, 2023, 12:17 AM UTC

the8472 wrote: post #67

r00fus wrote: post #48

Earlier quoted context omitted.

For baseload power I agree, but looking at Zaporizhzhia in Ukraine, it's hard not to see the downsides of nuclear: it's vulnerable to water/cooling issues and can be weaponized by terrorists or an invading army. Solar has none of these issues, and is resilient/decentralized as well.

> and can be weaponized by terrorists or an invading army. These risks seem vastly overstated for a large fraction of the world. That such events happen occasionally does not mean the entire world needs to be on a war footing all the time. That would be incredibly wasteful. > it's vulnerable to water/cooling issues Yeah that seems more like an issue but may be solvable by using sea water for cooling?

> These risks seem vastly overstated for a large fraction of the world. That such events happen occasionally does not mean the entire world needs to be on a war footing all the time. That would be incredibly wasteful.

That’s part of the problem. It’s an asymmetric risk/cost issue. The attackers only need to get it right once, you need to defend your installation constantly.

Security for nuclear power stations already increase the upkeep cost considerably.