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

Renewables remain cheapest, but cost reductions on hold

csiro.au

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

11–20 of 55 posts

Re: Renewables remain cheapest, but cost reductions on hold

#11

Post by defrost »

sendfoods wrote: post #5

* Does this study only look at generation costs? What about storage costs? * Does this study look at the fact that the "traditional" grid and energy production technologies will always be necessary, because renewable energy production can drop to zero? This is what increases energy prices in countries that have both renewable and fossil fuel energy production. You are paying for two grids, so to speak

There's an entire sub chapter and a bunch of tables on current storage technology costs.

Mainly focused on battery banks at scale, and pumped hydro, with a side note or more on hydrogen generation with peak excess for off peak turbines, etc.

Re: Renewables remain cheapest, but cost reductions on hold

#12

Post by londons_explore »

I want to see a "solar dispenser" that can drive very slowly across open land, leaving behind a trail of solar panels.

Installation costs are a big part of current solar farms, and a big part of that is the labour to assemble frames, do up all the bolts, connect all the wires, etc.

If we could make a single truck drive along at 0.5 mph leaving a trail of installed panels, it would really make installation far cheaper. The truck could take as 'input' a container of solar panels with the necessary legs and supports, maybe even concrete bases, all ready to go, shipped direct from the factory.

Other components could be combined to save costs too - for example, the inverter could be built into the panels. The panel frame and the mounting frame could be combined to save weight and assembly time. In a big line of panels, only the end ones have high mechanical wind loads, so middle ones could use far more lightweight plastic supports.

Then creation of a 1 acre solar farm could be as little as a couple of days work for 2 people driving the truck.

Re: Renewables remain cheapest, but cost reductions on hold

#13

Post by benj111 »

sendfoods wrote: post #5

* Does this study only look at generation costs? What about storage costs? * Does this study look at the fact that the "traditional" grid and energy production technologies will always be necessary, because renewable energy production can drop to zero? This is what increases energy prices in countries that have both renewable and fossil fuel energy production. You are paying for two grids, so to speak

You seem to presuppose that we would need to build new fossil fuel generating capacity. When in fact it's already installed. And I'm not sure they would always need to burn fossil fuels anyway. Coal fired power plants can burn wood, gas plants hydrogen or methane.

I don't really get the 2 grids thing either. Everything is being plugged into the same grid. Instead of replacing a coal fired power station, you just plug in a wind farm. We already have to maintain peaker plants now.

Yes if you had a grid that was as renewable heavy as we could make it, you would be factoring in the costs of these plants into running the grid. But currently most (all?) Countries aren't at that stage, and if/when it does get to that stage, those peaker plants will still have to compete against other forms of peak energy generation / storage.

Re: Renewables remain cheapest, but cost reductions on hold

#14

Post by pydry »

oldgradstudent wrote: post #10

Great, we can stop all incentives for renewable energy now that it is the cheapest way to generate energy. More seriously, where's the catch?

We still need to build quicker and build more. This just demonstrates which forms of power would make effective use of taxpayer subsidies.

Re: Renewables remain cheapest, but cost reductions on hold

#15

Post by yodelshady »

pydry wrote: post #7
sendfoods wrote: post #5

* Does this study only look at generation costs? What about storage costs? * Does this study look at the fact that the "traditional" grid and energy production technologies will always be necessary, because renewable energy production can drop to zero? This is what increases energy prices in countries that have both renewable and fossil fuel energy production. You are paying for two grids, so to speak

Did you read down to the 4th paragraph? It absolutely does. I'd be curious to know if it also includes a "true" nuclear catastrophe insurance price or (as is more common) if theyre assuming the taxpayer will fund 99.5% of a Fukushima-type $800 billion cleanup bill like in US/Europe.

I read the original report, which still includes figures of >$100 per kWh for storage, projected for multiple decades (if not in this report, in others). For a higher-latitude nation, we need TWh, probably tens of, for even a small nation. Be assured I have crunched these numbers and confirmed against our current best wind+PV resource data.

In other words, if we run a nuclear plant and deliberately induce a, as you say, "Fukushima-style cleaup", we are about comparable.

That's how expensive proper storage is. "Storage will save us", is frankly, an irresponsible lie that has killed.

Re: Renewables remain cheapest, but cost reductions on hold

#16

Post by benj111 »

pydry wrote: post #7
sendfoods wrote: post #5

* Does this study only look at generation costs? What about storage costs? * Does this study look at the fact that the "traditional" grid and energy production technologies will always be necessary, because renewable energy production can drop to zero? This is what increases energy prices in countries that have both renewable and fossil fuel energy production. You are paying for two grids, so to speak

Did you read down to the 4th paragraph? It absolutely does. I'd be curious to know if it also includes a "true" nuclear catastrophe insurance price or (as is more common) if theyre assuming the taxpayer will fund 99.5% of a Fukushima-type $800 billion cleanup bill like in US/Europe.

Equally does it take into account all the costs of global warming?

Re: Renewables remain cheapest, but cost reductions on hold

#17

Post by i5heu »

londons_explore wrote: post #12

I want to see a "solar dispenser" that can drive very slowly across open land, leaving behind a trail of solar panels. Installation costs are a big part of current solar farms, and a big part of that is the labour to assemble frames, do up all the bolts, connect all the wires, etc. If we could make a single truck drive along at 0.5 mph leaving a trail of installed panels, it would really make installation far cheaper…

Yes! this would be amazing!

Since I've seen these Images, I am kinda amazed by the potential of this idea.

https://www.artstation.com/artwork/dOkXJ1

Re: Renewables remain cheapest, but cost reductions on hold

#18

Post by algo_trader »

londons_explore wrote: post #12

I want to see a "solar dispenser" that can drive very slowly across open land, leaving behind a trail of solar panels. Installation costs are a big part of current solar farms, and a big part of that is the labour to assemble frames, do up all the bolts, connect all the wires, etc. If we could make a single truck drive along at 0.5 mph leaving a trail of installed panels, it would really make installation far cheaper…

> I want to see a "solar dispenser" that can drive very slowly across open land

We gotta you covered (ha! pun!) [1].

[1] https://5b.co/web/image/website/1/social_default_image

Re: Renewables remain cheapest, but cost reductions on hold

#19

Post by pydry »

yodelshady wrote: post #15
pydry wrote: post #7

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Did you read down to the 4th paragraph? It absolutely does. I'd be curious to know if it also includes a "true" nuclear catastrophe insurance price or (as is more common) if theyre assuming the taxpayer will fund 99.5% of a Fukushima-type $800 billion cleanup bill like in US/Europe.

I read the original report, which still includes figures of >$100 per kWh for storage, projected for multiple decades (if not in this report, in others). For a higher-latitude nation, we need TWh , probably tens of, for even a small nation. Be assured I have crunched these numbers and confirmed against our current best wind+PV resource data. In other words, if we run a nuclear plant and deliberately induce a, as you…

Australia is already building a lot of pumped storage. E.g. snowy 2 alone has 350 GWh of storage. Im skeptical of the idea that this + solar + wind costs more than nuclear + this even without free catastrophe insurance but id be curious to see your numbers.

(Obviously some form of storage would also be necessary for nuclear power which cant adjust output to match variable demand).

It is pretty cheap to build pumped storage, relatively. Pumping water uphill isnt too complicated. Until a few months ago though the cheapest "battery" was still natural gas.

Pumped storage is an unsexy 100 year old technology and it doesnt have a huge lobby doing public relations like the nuke industry so when big projects go ahead we tend not to hear about it but there are tons in the pipeline all over.

Re: Renewables remain cheapest, but cost reductions on hold

#20

Post by cinntaile »

i5heu wrote: post #17
londons_explore wrote: post #12

I want to see a "solar dispenser" that can drive very slowly across open land, leaving behind a trail of solar panels. Installation costs are a big part of current solar farms, and a big part of that is the labour to assemble frames, do up all the bolts, connect all the wires, etc. If we could make a single truck drive along at 0.5 mph leaving a trail of installed panels, it would really make installation far cheaper…

Yes! this would be amazing! Since I've seen these Images, I am kinda amazed by the potential of this idea. https://www.artstation.com/artwork/dOkXJ1

It reminds me a little of those large coal excavators, but the similarity is probably just because these are big machines.
Post reply on HN