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

Utah produced more power from solar than any other source in May, a new first

sltrib.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

61–70 of 87 posts

Re: Utah produced more power from solar than any other source in May, a new first

#61

Post by qlte »

buckle8017 wrote: post #46
bryanlarsen wrote: post #41

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What do you mean by "inverter power sources"? A new build cost optimal power grid would get 90-98% of its power from solar, wind & batteries per Ember Energy.

solar is an inverter power source electricity from a DC to AC inverter instead of a direct an generator powered by steam yeah a grid that was more than 30% inverter sources (which includes batteries) would likely fail randomly. the big spinning metal in the stream generators provides literal inertia to the grid, flywheels can replace that but those also cost money. solar panels are cheap... of you want 200-400v DC, b…

What you’re generalizing as “inverter power sources” don’t have any fundamental technical limitation like you describe. Those limitations are an artifact of the historical default of a “grid following” inverter that was suitable when the grid was mostly turbine and hydro generators.

Grid following inverters assume the existence of a certain critical mass of large spinning wheels as power sources to set the baseline frequency for the grid, and when those are lost can lead to brownouts as the follower plants are forced to go offline in response.

But newer solar plants can be designed with “grid forming” inverters which completely replace the role of spinning mass with a computerized vs mechanical baseline for the grid.

You can absolutely have a 100% “inverter based” grid as long as there are sufficient grid forming inverters within the mix. This wasn’t a problem until relatively recently when solar adoption exploded thanks to falling costs, and so the additional complexity of the technology wasn’t actively demanded by the market but that is no longer the case.

https://ffdpower.com/grid-forming-vs-grid-following-pcs-what...

https://www.opal-rt.com/blog/grid-forming-vs-grid-following-...

Re: Utah produced more power from solar than any other source in May, a new first

#62

Post by jareklupinski »

gtowey wrote: post #31
epistasis wrote: post #14

Also true for California for quite some time. https://www.canarymedia.com/articles/solar/california-solar-... What's going to happen in the future is that May will be a month of extreme electricity abundance, with a good chunk of the electricity just not being collected at all because the grid doesn't need it, and it will be cheaper to have unused electricity in May than to have too little solar in December.

Solar harvest time.

Make ray while the sun's shinin'

Re: Utah produced more power from solar than any other source in May, a new first

#63

Post by bryanlarsen »

bluGill wrote: post #60
bryanlarsen wrote: post #55

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> we can use it are already taken There are literally millions of unused locations identified that are suitable for pumped storage: https://re100.eng.anu.edu.au/global/ hydro generation sites are mostly taken. pumped storage doesn't need flow, just 2 reservoirs (one or both of which can be built) and a elevation change. > a brand new dam pumped storage facilities generally don't use dams.

You have to have something to keep the water contained between the two.

But those aren't dams. Dams are something that stops the flow of water. And it's this stoppage that causes the environmental problems.

Reservoir walls might look like dams, but they're not dams.

Re: Utah produced more power from solar than any other source in May, a new first

#64

Post by s1artibartfast »

ericd wrote: post #43
epistasis wrote: post #27

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think the challenges for heavy industry aren't as much the cost of energy, as it is the capital cost, and a workforce that has lots of options for higher paying jobs. Heavy industries are usually pretty low on the value chain in economies. They do not provide much return on capital, compared to the high tech options and service options that are available in the US, but not available anywhere else in the world. The…

Well, manufacturing capacity was the basis of US military dominance, which was the underpinning of the post WW2 US-led world order. That's pretty clearly eroded, and we're not sure we could win in a war against China, especially not a full-on war of attrition, and they're not sure about that either, and so they're steadily getting more willing to throw their weight around geopolitically, trying to get a setup that's…

I think it's unlikely the next War will be won by tanks and Liberty ships.

Beyond that there's still the economic viability problem in the US. A steel mill worker in the US makes 65k per year. In China they make 12K. This holds true for the rest of the heavy industry supply chain.

As the parent posts points out, what we are really fighting against here is baumol's cost disease.

Edit: a Chinese steel worker salary is about 80th percentile for Chinese workers - a very attractive gig.

US steel workers are about 40th percentile - worse than average.

Re: Utah produced more power from solar than any other source in May, a new first

#65

Post by Rover222 »

bryanlarsen wrote: post #28
Rover222 wrote: post #23

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Large-scale battery storage is already expanding rapidly, and is way cheaper than pumped storage.

pumped storage is still significantly cheaper for seasonal storage. The cut off is about 2 weeks now -- if you need to pull from storage more than twice a month batteries are cheaper. If you need to pull from storage less than twice a month pumped storage is cheaper.

I meant it's cheaper when considering building an entirely new pumped storage facility, vs battery storage.

Re: Utah produced more power from solar than any other source in May, a new first

#66

Post by bluGill »

bryanlarsen wrote: post #63
bluGill wrote: post #60

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You have to have something to keep the water contained between the two.

But those aren't dams. Dams are something that stops the flow of water. And it's this stoppage that causes the environmental problems. Reservoir walls might look like dams, but they're not dams.

Pedantically you are correct. However you are completely missing the point.

Re: Utah produced more power from solar than any other source in May, a new first

#67

Post by grahamerwin »

Vaclav Smil would be quick to replace the word power with electricity in the title of this article. It is why Germany can say renewables supply 56% of its electricity while renewables supply only about 21% of its energy. The rest of energy generation won't quickly be replaced with renewables: diesel and kerosene moving freight and people, natural gas in furnaces and boilers, coke reducing iron ore into steel, methane feeding the reactors that fix nitrogen to make fertilizer, and coal that turns limestone into cement.

I am fully on board with renewables! I have just found Smil's perspective quite useful here.

Re: Utah produced more power from solar than any other source in May, a new first

#68

Post by rsynnott »

epistasis wrote: post #14

Also true for California for quite some time. https://www.canarymedia.com/articles/solar/california-solar-... What's going to happen in the future is that May will be a month of extreme electricity abundance, with a good chunk of the electricity just not being collected at all because the grid doesn't need it, and it will be cheaper to have unused electricity in May than to have too little solar in December.

> What's going to happen in the future is that May will be a month of extreme electricity abundance, with a good chunk of the electricity just not being collected at all because the grid doesn't need it

This is already a thing in some places. Or, sometimes, because the grid can't _take_ it. Here's a dashboard for Irish energy production: https://www.smartgriddashboard.com/all/solar/?duration=month - on the wind and solar you'll notice that on big days, actual production is usually way below forecast production. This is sometimes due to actual mis-forecast, or due to renewable production being high enough that it meets total demand. But usually it's that the _grid_ can't take it; there is demand, but no way to get it there.

It's a chicken-egg problem, of course; you're not going to build excess grid capacity in the hopes that someone one day builds a wind farm, so in practice grid upgrades trail renewable sources.

Re: Utah produced more power from solar than any other source in May, a new first

#69

Post by epistasis »

grahamerwin wrote: post #67

Vaclav Smil would be quick to replace the word power with electricity in the title of this article. It is why Germany can say renewables supply 56% of its electricity while renewables supply only about 21% of its energy. The rest of energy generation won't quickly be replaced with renewables: diesel and kerosene moving freight and people, natural gas in furnaces and boilers, coke reducing iron ore into steel, methane…

Vaclav Smil has been so wrong on energy, that I'm a bit surprised to see his name mentioned at all.

The idea of "primary energy" versus electricity is an important concept, but completely unconnected to Smil.

Re: Utah produced more power from solar than any other source in May, a new first

#70

Post by ericd »

s1artibartfast wrote: post #64
ericd wrote: post #43

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Well, manufacturing capacity was the basis of US military dominance, which was the underpinning of the post WW2 US-led world order. That's pretty clearly eroded, and we're not sure we could win in a war against China, especially not a full-on war of attrition, and they're not sure about that either, and so they're steadily getting more willing to throw their weight around geopolitically, trying to get a setup that's…

I think it's unlikely the next War will be won by tanks and Liberty ships. Beyond that there's still the economic viability problem in the US. A steel mill worker in the US makes 65k per year. In China they make 12K. This holds true for the rest of the heavy industry supply chain. As the parent posts points out, what we are really fighting against here is baumol's cost disease. Edit: a Chinese steel worker salary is…

For sure, it's not going to be the same, but we need to be able to feed our missile launchers for more than a couple of weeks if we get into a peer conflict. That means building a lot of big physical things, quickly, and transporting a lot of those big physical things, quickly. For that last part, actually, maybe we do still need liberty ships...
Post reply on HN