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

Satellite powered estimation of global solar potential

research.google

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

141–150 of 216 posts

Re: Satellite powered estimation of global solar potential

#141

Post by NavinF »

malfist wrote: post #130
PaulDavisThe1st wrote: post #107

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Anything grid tied is generally required to have phenomenally reliable shutdown if the grid goes down OR proven (and very expensive) automated switching that disconnects it from the grid if the grid goes down. This is so those F150s are not backfeeding the wires while a repair crew is trying to fix it. Ergo, if the local grid is "taken out", those F150s cannot be "on the local grid".

I'm sure you know what you're talking about, but Duke energy is running the program, and they wouldn't be paying people to grid tie their EV for disruptions unless they could use it: https://news.duke-energy.com/releases/illuminating-possibili... The lightning extended range has a 135 kwh battery and can backfeed 90A@240V. That's a heck of a lot of power.

Article says "customers will allow their EVs to feed energy back to the grid – helping to balance it during peak demand". It doesn't say anything about what happens when the grid goes down during disasters

Re: Satellite powered estimation of global solar potential

#142

Post by Retric »

patrickhogan1 wrote: post #139
Retric wrote: post #136

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Ahh, ok the tool sucks it doesn’t seem to calculate based on your current cost per kWh or the local cost per kWh. It’s ignoring inflation on those calculations, acting like your electric bill will be the same in 20 years. It’s also ignoring residual value in the system after 20 years they typically last 25-30, and you don’t pay taxes on savings. There install estimates where also really high for my area, but I don’t…

Your electric bill 20 years from now is just as likely to go down as it is to go up. In two decades, we could see advancements like mobile generators offering free power, ultra-affordable battery packs delivered to homes to meet energy needs, or even the widespread adoption of low-cost fusion energy. The key takeaway is that predicting the future cost of electricity is as challenging as it was to predict today’s sola…

None of what you just said is even vaguely realistic. Prices can’t drop below zero but they can easily more than double, so even if you assume equal odds in either direction it doesn’t cancel out. Worse, any physical device is going to have a cost to produce it which requires charging people to use it thus they can’t even drop to 0.

Beyond that none of their prices or timelines are accurate, even ignoring the issues with inflation.

Re: Satellite powered estimation of global solar potential

#143

Post by jodrellblank »

mlsu wrote: post #92

This is fine and all, but each individual having a solar panel introduces a lot of issues. Your energy bill is about 1/4 or 1/3rd distribution. As you take less power from the grid because of the solar on your roof, that proportion grows larger and larger. At the same time, the power company makes less money off of you, because you are using less power. Therefore, they have less money to invest in distribution, which…

> "It's just way less expensive per watt to put a bunch of solar panels in one spot on cheap land in the desert and pipe it through the existing distribution network."

If that were true people wouldn't be buying solar panels for their homes because grid electricity would be "way less expensive" and it wouldn't be worth it. Which means either it isn't true, or the grid companies are too busy profiteering and it's not "putting the grid operators in an impossible position where everyone unfairly hates them" it's "grid operators putting themselves into an impossible position where everyone deservedly hates them".

Re: Satellite powered estimation of global solar potential

#144

Post by bagels »

bruce511 wrote: post #122
XorNot wrote: post #44

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Grid connected solar goes down when the grid is out though. You need specific inverters to retain power. You also just have issues like the low chance of having clear skies after a hurricane or a bushfire. For disaster situation power, a diesel generator is still the cheapest and most reliable option.

>> Grid connected solar goes down when the grid is out though. You need specific inverters to retain power. Yes, and sort of. Inverters will prevent power flowing to the grid if the grid is off. However most inverters will continue to supply power into the house while the grid is off. There are various factors in play here, and you need to do proper homework, but certainly a fraction of the house can be powered, if n…

Most solar installations without batteries do not function without grid power present. Sure, some could, but most do not.

Re: Satellite powered estimation of global solar potential

#145

Post by bagels »

patrickhogan1 wrote: post #139
Retric wrote: post #136

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Ahh, ok the tool sucks it doesn’t seem to calculate based on your current cost per kWh or the local cost per kWh. It’s ignoring inflation on those calculations, acting like your electric bill will be the same in 20 years. It’s also ignoring residual value in the system after 20 years they typically last 25-30, and you don’t pay taxes on savings. There install estimates where also really high for my area, but I don’t…

Your electric bill 20 years from now is just as likely to go down as it is to go up. In two decades, we could see advancements like mobile generators offering free power, ultra-affordable battery packs delivered to homes to meet energy needs, or even the widespread adoption of low-cost fusion energy. The key takeaway is that predicting the future cost of electricity is as challenging as it was to predict today’s sola…

When did PGE prices ever go down?

Re: Satellite powered estimation of global solar potential

#146

Post by bagels »

navaed01 wrote: post #87

This is a very neat exercise but I don’t think it’s going to create change. These models already exist and I’ve never met anyone who said their reason for not investing in solar is because they felt the accuracy of existing models is not good enough. I say this as someone who lives on a part of the world where a large % of the inhabitants could have solar but do not - and I find it sad, frustrating and puzzling. Bigg…

I have low confidence in the whole industry. High prices, holes in my roof, and many reports of systems being installed poorly with warranties not being honored.

Re: Satellite powered estimation of global solar potential

#147

Post by mlsu »

jodrellblank wrote: post #143
mlsu wrote: post #92

This is fine and all, but each individual having a solar panel introduces a lot of issues. Your energy bill is about 1/4 or 1/3rd distribution. As you take less power from the grid because of the solar on your roof, that proportion grows larger and larger. At the same time, the power company makes less money off of you, because you are using less power. Therefore, they have less money to invest in distribution, which…

> " It's just way less expensive per watt to put a bunch of solar panels in one spot on cheap land in the desert and pipe it through the existing distribution network. " If that were true people wouldn't be buying solar panels for their homes because grid electricity would be "way less expensive" and it wouldn't be worth it. Which means either it isn't true, or the grid companies are too busy profiteering and it's no…

No. People put solar panels on their homes, but crucially, they still receive power from the grid when their solar panels are not producing electricity.

People who don't have solar panels pay for electricity at 11:00AM. That's lucrative for the grid operator between 11:00-3:00 only -- when the duck curve is low. When demand peaks at 5-6pm, the grid operator pays boatloads of money to import power from elsewhere, burn expensive fossil fuels to service the demand.

Crucially, the grid operator is limited on pricing: they cannot "gouge" consumers at 5pm -- they must keep prices below a cap. Utility pricing is extremely regulated, it's set essentially by the state.

What you're doing when you set up solar panels on your home is actually freeloading. Your electric bill is less than it should be: you take power (at an artificially low rate) when it's super expensive, and don't take it when it's super cheap. This is very very bad business for the grid operator. They're also mandated by law (!) to keep your house hooked up to the grid and run distribution lines all over the place. Just in case you want to plug your car or run your AC at 5pm. Try getting a permit to build a new transmission line anywhere and see whether that's good business. If you have solar panels on your house, you are being subsidized by them -- not the other way round!

Timing is everything here. The United states has on the order of minutes of energy storage across the electric grid.

Re: Satellite powered estimation of global solar potential

#148

Post by [deleted] »

mlsu wrote: post #92

This is fine and all, but each individual having a solar panel introduces a lot of issues. Your energy bill is about 1/4 or 1/3rd distribution. As you take less power from the grid because of the solar on your roof, that proportion grows larger and larger. At the same time, the power company makes less money off of you, because you are using less power. Therefore, they have less money to invest in distribution, which…

[deleted]

Re: Satellite powered estimation of global solar potential

#150

Post by opo »

xnx wrote: post #12

This is a very impressive refinement of their existing tool, but is this type of advanced calculation of roof-pitch (etc.) still relevant? Haven't we more or less concluded that a million piecemeal rooftop installations of solar are about the worst way to do it? More complicated and expensive to permit and install, less efficient operation, difficult to repair, difficult to insure, difficult to upgrade, inefficient t…

>...Haven't we more or less concluded that a million piecemeal rooftop installations of solar are about the worst way to do it?

The data shows that you are correct. Utility grid solar provides low cost power and consumer rooftop solar does not and will not. The rooftop solar price is usually hidden because no power source has been as subsidized as rooftop solar. Besides direct subsidies, wealthier home owners have often been paid the retail rate for the electricity they sell to the grid which causes higher electricity bills for those who can't afford to put panels on their roof - sort of a reverse Robinhood scheme.

As the statista.com report says:

>...Rooftop solar photovoltaic installations on residential buildings and nuclear power have the highest unsubsidized levelized costs of energy generation in the United States. If not for federal and state subsidies, rooftop solar PV would come with a price tag between 117 and 282 U.S. dollars per megawatt hour.

https://www.statista.com/statistics/493797/estimated-leveliz...

Looks like that report is a year old, but I doubt the installation costs have really gone down much since then. (Panel prices come down, but labor costs, etc. don't.)

Post reply on HN