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

Solar and battery to make up 81% of new US electric-generating capacity in 2024

eia.gov

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

261–270 of 276 posts

Re: Solar and battery to make up 81% of new US electric-generating capacity in 2024

#261

Post by asadotzler »

epistasis wrote: post #206
hinkley wrote: post #71

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> How much solar/wind/battery capacity can 34B USD buy!? According to How Big Things Get Done, at least 30B worth. Nuclear plants have some of the worst cost and time overruns for large projects, wind and solar some of the lowest (beaten only by roads). And his theory as to why this happens, is that wind, solar, and roads are self-similar. Building the first 10% directly informs you on how to build the next 10%. Ever…

According to this article, the staff for the regulator in Georgia (the only entity in the decision making process looking out for the customers, ratepayers) were banned from even considering the cost of renewables: > Plant Vogtle proceeded with no cost-cap, no consumer protections, and Public Service Commission (PSC) staff were prohibited from conducting analysis comparing the costs of nuclear to clean energy alterna…

>Nuclear in the US is so expensive that even starting a new reactor requires considerable corruption.

Best line I've come across in a while. I'm gonna use it. Is it yours?

Re: Solar and battery to make up 81% of new US electric-generating capacity in 2024

#262

Post by afpx »

Maakuth wrote: post #85
why_only_15 wrote: post #42

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In the US, PV solar capacity factor is about 0.24 (partly because lots of people live near very sunny regions like California and Texas). The National Renewable Energy Laboratory claims that in some parts of the US utility-scale solar capacity factors are 0.33 [0]. Wind is about 0.36, Hydro also 0.36, Nuclear about 0.93 [1]. If you apply these capacity factors to the nameplate capacities (ignoring batteries), you get…

Of course those capacity factors hide one important bit, the dispatchability. While the capacity factor is the same in this list for wind and hydro, the wind and solar generation are naturally capped by nature. When demand exceeds the natural availability of these, you need to dispatch some extra generation. Hydro and natural gas are well suited for this, coal can do it even if dirtily. Nuclear generation could be ma…

I've been out of the industry for a few years, but it used to take 9 hours to turn a coal generator on.

Re: Solar and battery to make up 81% of new US electric-generating capacity in 2024

#263

Post by samatman »

asadotzler wrote: post #257
samatman wrote: post #246

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Pro-nuclear doesn't make one anti-renewables. They're complementary technologies, the rivalry is entirely one-sided. Not to mention incredibly aggravating to those of us who would like power to be reliable, with no emissions.

The arguments against renewables from your side since at least the '70s when I came across them first, have been persistent and loud, for half a century! You're gonna just pretend that never happened, walk away from it. The parent mentioned the "duh, sun don't shine at night" line because that's some shit your side was for real pushing, for fucking decades. You don't get to sidestep half a lifetime of that garbage an…

I'm not on whatever side you're having this imaginary argument with. But keep yelling at a cloud if it brings you pleasure.

Re: Solar and battery to make up 81% of new US electric-generating capacity in 2024

#264

Post by enslavedrobot »

samatman wrote: post #40

This is nameplate capacity: the power a generator can deliver, full on, under ideal conditions. Solar and wind always look great when measured in nameplate capacity, which is why this is done. If you want to know how much electricity they will generate, you have to multiply by the capacity factor. Nuclear, for instance has a capacity factor of 0.9 in the US: it delivers 90% of its nameplate capacity in a given year.…

The LCOE of nuclear is very sensitive to its capacity factor.

Nuclear costs are set to skyrocket because for a larger and larger part of the day they will not be profitable as renewables undercut the price of power.

With a lower and lower capacity factor, new nuclear plants will never pay for themselves.

https://youtu.be/udJJ7n_Ryjg?si=m-F4DNn5MpNvycPA

Re: Solar and battery to make up 81% of new US electric-generating capacity in 2024

#265

Post by Qwero »

Maakuth wrote: post #85
why_only_15 wrote: post #42

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In the US, PV solar capacity factor is about 0.24 (partly because lots of people live near very sunny regions like California and Texas). The National Renewable Energy Laboratory claims that in some parts of the US utility-scale solar capacity factors are 0.33 [0]. Wind is about 0.36, Hydro also 0.36, Nuclear about 0.93 [1]. If you apply these capacity factors to the nameplate capacities (ignoring batteries), you get…

Of course those capacity factors hide one important bit, the dispatchability. While the capacity factor is the same in this list for wind and hydro, the wind and solar generation are naturally capped by nature. When demand exceeds the natural availability of these, you need to dispatch some extra generation. Hydro and natural gas are well suited for this, coal can do it even if dirtily. Nuclear generation could be ma…

The German energy market and therefore me as a consumer had to pay billions for dispatch operations.

The energy market got plenty of inefficiency through the fast build out of renewable that the battery projects, calculating with this excess are getting build but not fast enough.

There are already a few projects at old coal plants were they have connectivity.

And with the ev batteries alone there will be used but still very good batteries hitting this market very soon. Equivalent to the whole water energy storage of Germany

Re: Solar and battery to make up 81% of new US electric-generating capacity in 2024

#266

Post by Ringz »

Sweepi wrote: post #152
Ringz wrote: post #131

Earlier quoted context omitted.

A misconception I often read on YouTube, Reddit, HackerNews is that everyone equates batteries with lithium ion batteries. A battery is a chemical storage device for energy and there are already many different types. 1. There are also functioning batteries without lithium, for example with salt, which are now already being tested in Swiss and German households and bring some advantages compared to lithium batteries.…

is [2] offline? maybe you meant this one?: https://tu-dresden.de/tu-dresden/newsportal/news/meilenstein... ... did you use a tool to translate your text from German -> English and the tool did also translate the url...? However, sb. tried to access this url in Nov 2021, but it did not exist back then aswell: https://web.archive.org/web/20240216101723/https://tu-dresde...

Yes this one: https://tu-dresden.de/tu-dresden/newsportal/news/meilenstein...

Many of my texts and links are from the years 2019-2022 when I was researching for various publications on renewable energy. Most of them, unfortunately, without DOI links. I didn't check them before I uploaded them here. And I would have so much more that it would be enough for an entire book.

Re: Solar and battery to make up 81% of new US electric-generating capacity in 2024

#267

Post by JoeAltmaier »

pfdietz wrote: post #26
JoeAltmaier wrote: post #25

Earlier quoted context omitted.

[flagged]

I suggest you provide actual evidence for your assertion. You will not be able to, because it is false. The land area in the US is enormous and land cost is only a small fraction of the cost of a PV field. And, of course, grids can be extended as needed. The trolling is entirely yours.

Again with the hand-waving. "Land is big!" is no kind of argument or evidence. It all comes down to cost and practicality. Energy is not some game, its business.

And with dropping panel cost, land is the last remaining hard nut in the equation. Not a small fraction, a large one, and becoming larger.

As for understanding math, the earth is not getting any bigger. That limit cannot be beat, no matter how breathless the rhetoric.

Re: Solar and battery to make up 81% of new US electric-generating capacity in 2024

#268

Post by defrost »

JoeAltmaier wrote: post #267
pfdietz wrote: post #26

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I suggest you provide actual evidence for your assertion. You will not be able to, because it is false. The land area in the US is enormous and land cost is only a small fraction of the cost of a PV field. And, of course, grids can be extended as needed. The trolling is entirely yours.

Again with the hand-waving. "Land is big!" is no kind of argument or evidence. It all comes down to cost and practicality. Energy is not some game, its business. And with dropping panel cost, land is the last remaining hard nut in the equation. Not a small fraction, a large one, and becoming larger. As for understanding math, the earth is not getting any bigger. That limit cannot be beat, no matter how breathless the…

It would take 526 solar farms the size of the Solar Star solar farm to power the approx 131 million households in the USofA.

https://8billiontrees.com/solar-panels/largest-solar-farm

That's 526 x 13 km^2 of area (plus grid connection) or 6,838 km^2.

Or one large square of 83 x 83 km.

Or less than a third the size of Anna Creek Cattle Station in Australia.

See map: https://australianscaffolds.com.au/australias-largest-cattle...

For comparison, recall that the land area of Australia is more or less the same as the land area of mainland contiguous USofA.

Re: Solar and battery to make up 81% of new US electric-generating capacity in 2024

#269

Post by JoeAltmaier »

defrost wrote: post #268
JoeAltmaier wrote: post #267

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Again with the hand-waving. "Land is big!" is no kind of argument or evidence. It all comes down to cost and practicality. Energy is not some game, its business. And with dropping panel cost, land is the last remaining hard nut in the equation. Not a small fraction, a large one, and becoming larger. As for understanding math, the earth is not getting any bigger. That limit cannot be beat, no matter how breathless the…

It would take 526 solar farms the size of the Solar Star solar farm to power the approx 131 million households in the USofA. https://8billiontrees.com/solar-panels/largest-solar-farm That's 526 x 13 km^2 of area (plus grid connection) or 6,838 km^2. Or one large square of 83 x 83 km. Or less than a third the size of Anna Creek Cattle Station in Australia. See map: https://australianscaffolds.com.au/australias-largest…

Very encouraging!

Now, to find that level unobstructed ground-level stable dry cheap tracts near grids, with access for maintenance. Near where folks need the electricity. And the land isn't ecologically significant. And remember, storage or it's not helping for shit.

There are so many obstacles left! So many reasons it will slow down once the enthusiasm and price supports have dried up. Like everything else we've ever done.

Re: Solar and battery to make up 81% of new US electric-generating capacity in 2024

#270

Post by defrost »

JoeAltmaier wrote: post #269
defrost wrote: post #268

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It would take 526 solar farms the size of the Solar Star solar farm to power the approx 131 million households in the USofA. https://8billiontrees.com/solar-panels/largest-solar-farm That's 526 x 13 km^2 of area (plus grid connection) or 6,838 km^2. Or one large square of 83 x 83 km. Or less than a third the size of Anna Creek Cattle Station in Australia. See map: https://australianscaffolds.com.au/australias-largest…

Very encouraging! Now, to find that level unobstructed ground-level stable dry cheap tracts near grids, with access for maintenance. Near where folks need the electricity. And the land isn't ecologically significant. And remember, storage or it's not helping for shit. There are so many obstacles left! So many reasons it will slow down once the enthusiasm and price supports have dried up. Like everything else we've ev…

I would have thought the US had several people capable of purchasing an area only a third of an Australian cattle station to corner the future market for solar energy production and build out HVDC delivery lines .. but I forgot it's been all downhill since the space program.

The money is same scale as oil & gas investments so it's not exactly something that isn't being done already - the layout can one big area, many smaller areas, the panels can be raised in the air to allow for crops | animals underneath, etc.

Roadsides would be good, poor quality agricultural land, lake beds that are drying up in the midwest and circa Utah, etc.

But yeah, you're right - too hard for the USofA that used to be great. /

Meanwhile, we're doing that here already - scaling up to power billion tonne per annum mining operations to deliver resource to the rest of the world .. where do you think China gets it's iron, lithium, mineral sands, etc. from?

Post reply on HN