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

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

singularityhub.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

151–160 of 197 posts

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

#151

Post by jacquesm »

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…

Oh, and as for the 'intended 230 V' -> grid voltage can be between 228 and 252 inclusive without violating the standard. Nominally it is 240 V, not 230 V. The way inverters inject power into the grid is by syncing to it and then leading the phases a bit to cause current to flow. The RMS voltage will rise as a consequence of that.

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

#152

Post by colordrops »

pfdietz wrote: post #149
colordrops wrote: post #137

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

There is a disconnect for sure here - I said I agree that it may be inferior efficiency-wise. I also said that, nevertheless, it's still far better than fossil fuels. Both statements are true, and are not contradictory. It moves the needle in a positive direction on climate change which was my original statement. I never said anything about it being the best possible of all solutions. If you want to be pedantic, not using any power at all, and going back to an agrarian lifestyle is more efficient that centralized solar.

Don't let perfect be the enemy of good. There's no way that our governments are going to put all possible resources into a centralized renewable grid, so we should also incentivize private individuals to invest while we are waiting for our politicians and power companies to get on board.

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

#153

Post by [deleted] »

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?

[deleted]

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

#154

Post by pfdietz »

coldpie wrote: post #46
pydry wrote: post #17

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Civilian nuclear power help share costs with the nuclear military industrial complex (e.g. Russia, France, UK, USA) and it's useful for countries that have a clear and pressing desire to be able to develop a nuclear bomb in a hurry (Sweden, South Korea, Japan), but without those caveats there isn't much point to it which is why nobody else builds it. Its LCOE is 5x that of solar and between 1.5x-3x more expensive tha…

> paired with just about all viable forms of green large scale storage (hydrogen, batteries, pumped storage). I'm skeptical that these can actually scale to the required level to provide baseload when renewables are unavailable. Don't forget to include EVs and electric heating, which we don't have in massive quantities today but will need to have in short order. (To be ultra-clear: I would never argue against more re…

Why are you skeptical? A blanket statement without an argument to back it up is not addressable or useful.

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

#155

Post by danans »

ftth_finland wrote: post #31
ianai wrote: post #26

Earlier quoted context omitted.

My state proposed a grid battery solution that would have provided power for the entire state for up to 1-2 days IIRC. They didn’t approve it, but the budget wasn’t astronomical. I honestly wonder if the worry about off hours use is a little overblown. Infrastructure has a history of both being expensive up front and funded. Imagine if the US didn’t have highways and trying to explain all the impacts to the GDP that…

Where can I find more information about this? I can find very little information about long term storage, not that 1-2 days is much. Most seem to think 4 hours qualifies as storage.

> Most seem to think 4 hours qualifies as storage.

It does in some places. In Finland (where I presume you are), it clearly isn't enough, but in warmer places like Texas and California and the huge swathes of the world that have sufficiently reliable renewable electricity resources that 4 hour storage could handle the intermittency.

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

#156

Post by pfdietz »

ftth_finland wrote: post #129
pydry wrote: post #117

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Sort of. Doing that would still be cheaper than nuclear power whose capital costs are insane . Does that count as profitable? It would be cheaper still to throw pumped storage and batteries into the mix.

> Sort of. Doing that would still be cheaper than nuclear power whose capital costs are insane. Does that count as profitable? Yes. What do I get for $15B? How many GWh of storage and electricity generation? > It would be cheaper still to throw pumped storage and batteries into the mix. What pumped storate? Everybody is already about maxed out on hydro capability. What batteries? The world is barely producing enough…

> What pumped storate? Everybody is already about maxed out on hydro capability.

You are making the common mistake of assuming pumped hydro must, like primary hydro, be built on rivers. But pumped hydro just requires two reservoirs near each other with a vertical offset (although one can imagine repurposing an existing on-river reservoir by adding a separate off-river reservoir nearby at a different altitude; any reservoir with a sizeable hill nearby would do.) They could be built anywhere that isn't flat, even in deserts.

This web site uses geographical data to find PHES opportunities around the world. The possibilities are enormous.

https://re100.eng.anu.edu.au/global/

As an example, here's a facility being built near Ely, Nevada. Look how arid the area is. This facility is sized to provide 1000 MW of output for 8 hours. At $2.5B, the cost of the project is ~$316/kWh of storage capacity.

https://www.powermag.com/major-pumped-hydro-storage-project-...

> What batteries? The world is barely producing enough for EVs and other stuff, there aren't enough GWhs available for utility storage.

You are again making a foolish argument that production of things cannot be increased. Please stop. One would almost begin to think you're arguing in bad faith here.

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

#157

Post by ed25519FUUU »

0cf8612b2e1e wrote: post #66
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 am fully pro solar, but the duck curve is a real thing. Time value of money and time value of electricity. If there is nobody to consume that extra juice it is of limited utility.

The funny thing about the duck curve is that PG&E still charges you the highest prices for electricity during that time period.

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

#158

Post by ed25519FUUU »

timerol wrote: post #27
vuln wrote: post #20

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What’s “free” about maintaining the equipment or the cost of the equipment over time? The people that invested in installing solar still need to pay off the cost in order to break even. I guess they can eat the cost knowing that they’re saving the planet by giving away power they paid to harvest to a power company to profit off of.

You're misreading my comment a bit. It's only "free" on a sunny day at noon, because of the massive oversupply. The panels will make money, but at times when supply is lower, like after 2pm range. This depends on time-of-year as well. Solar prices have been falling rapidly, so the value of a kWh of energy generated via solar has also been falling in competitive power generation markets.

Net metering takes this fully into account, since it’s a dollar-for-dollar trade. I’d electricity is cheap during a certain part of the day, what they pay you is cheap.

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

#159

Post by ed25519FUUU »

pfdietz wrote: post #88
timerol wrote: post #55

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Why is this important? Because the potential impact of net-metered solar on electricity prices doesn’t even become relevant until you reach higher levels of penetration, or roughly 10% and beyond. I think what I said was in line with that video's conclusions, which seemed to be arguing for continued net metering in the eastern half of the country, and used CA as an example of when the current policy hits its limits…

Real time variable rates are needed. These would also incentivize all sorts of load shifting strategies, which are very economically advantageous, if the damned pricing system can allow them.

That makes it harder for PG&E to gouged customers!

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

#160

Post by ed25519FUUU »

pfdietz wrote: post #149
colordrops wrote: post #137

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

It’s superior $ for utilities though? Didn’t the public pay $0 for it?
Post reply on HN