Wind and solar power are even more expensive than is commonly thought • Hacker News Board

Re: Wind and solar power are even more expensive than is commonly thought

#11

Post by mpweiher » Mon, Jul 28, 2014, 6:42 AM UTC

tomjen3 wrote: post #8

spingsprong wrote: post #5

"Wind power is not generated on a calm day, nor solar power at night, so conventional power plants must be kept on standby—but are not included in the levelised cost of renewables." Solar not generating power at night is a good thing. Demand for electricity is lower at night, and turning on and off conventional power stations is not ideal. Solar helps level things out, meaning you need fewer conventional power statio…

One a really stormy day I want to be able to hide under my electric blanket, with a cup of tea, in front of the tv/computer. That requires electricity, but those solar panels aren't going to be very effective when it is overcast and rainy. Why not just go for getting a thorium reactor to work and then use them instead?

"On a really stormy day [..] but those solar panels [..]"

Good thing that wind turbine is going to be cranking. :-)

Re: Wind and solar power are even more expensive than is commonly thought

#12

Post by crdoconnor » Mon, Jul 28, 2014, 6:43 AM UTC

ekianjo wrote: post #9

spingsprong wrote: post #5

"Wind power is not generated on a calm day, nor solar power at night, so conventional power plants must be kept on standby—but are not included in the levelised cost of renewables." Solar not generating power at night is a good thing. Demand for electricity is lower at night, and turning on and off conventional power stations is not ideal. Solar helps level things out, meaning you need fewer conventional power statio…

> Demand for electricity is lower at night Not really much lower as you'd like to portray it. http://www.solstats.com/wp/wp-content/uploads/2011/08/chart1... Solar only works if you can produce energy and use it locally. As distance increases the energy loss is significant.

>Not really much lower as you'd like to portray it.

A LOT of the higher usage at night is due to the fact that night-time electricity is cheaper.

If you're going to run an aluminum smelting plant, for instance (uses TONS of electricity), it currently makes sense to run it full bore when electricity is cheapest - at night.

If daytime electricity were cheaper or even the same price, that graph would certainly look differently to how you're portraying it.

>Solar only works if you can produce energy and use it locally. As distance increases the energy loss is significant.

Much like with every other form of energy. Surplus solar gets exported right now - Germany sends it to France.

Re: Wind and solar power are even more expensive than is commonly thought

#13

Post by hristov » Mon, Jul 28, 2014, 6:43 AM UTC

The research is provided by the Brookings institution which is more public relations agency than a research institution. The only thing you can take away from this "research" is that someone paid to get this result.

Re: Wind and solar power are even more expensive than is commonly thought

#14

Post by rurounijones » Mon, Jul 28, 2014, 6:50 AM UTC

mpweiher wrote: post #11

tomjen3 wrote: post #8

Earlier quoted context omitted.

One a really stormy day I want to be able to hide under my electric blanket, with a cup of tea, in front of the tv/computer. That requires electricity, but those solar panels aren't going to be very effective when it is overcast and rainy. Why not just go for getting a thorium reactor to work and then use them instead?

"On a really stormy day [..] but those solar panels [..]" Good thing that wind turbine is going to be cranking. :-)

Or disabled due to wind speeds being too high.

Re: Wind and solar power are even more expensive than is commonly thought

#15

Post by fauigerzigerk » Mon, Jul 28, 2014, 6:51 AM UTC

crdoconnor wrote: post #7

lotsofmangos wrote: post #2

For solar and wind to make sense it is all about the storage in the short term and global interconnects in the long term, rather than the current system of trying to balance against a baseload. And nuclear is great in many ways, but you cannot have a global energy solution that you couldn't happily give to your enemies, whatever the price per watt is.

Until the nuclear energy liability cap gets pushed into at LEAST the hundreds of billions range rather than the paltry $375 million per plant it is now, I'm not gonna believe all of the claims that it's completely safe either. If the risk of disaster/need for cleanup truly is infinitesimal as the industry and its cheerleaders keep saying, why is the taxpayer still shouldering basically all of the insurance costs?

I think it's because insurance models stop working once the probability of an accident gets extremely small and the possible damages of any accident get extremely large. An insurance claim of hundereds of billions would wipe out any and all insurance companies instantly.

Insurance companies have to make statistics based rational decisions, but society as a whole is always forced to make decisions that cannot be statistically proven to be rational in an economic sense.

There is no way to take out insurance against some virus strain escaping a lab and killing 90% of the world's population. There is no way to insure against the effects of a worldwide bank run. There is simply a point where insurance stops working and politics has to kick in.

Re: Wind and solar power are even more expensive than is commonly thought

#16

Post by testrun » Mon, Jul 28, 2014, 7:00 AM UTC

crdoconnor wrote: post #4

When looking at these graphs, it pays to take a peek at who exactly is behind them. Modeling the costs and benefits of different forms of energy (especially environmental costs) is extremely easy to fudge. There are all sorts of assumptions you have to plug in to the model where you could covertly insert a policy bias. If the 'measurer' had an agenda, it wouldn't be hard for them to push the figures one way or anothe…

Can you give a citation of how much methane leakage occurs?

Re: Wind and solar power are even more expensive than is commonly thought

#17

Post by testrun » Mon, Jul 28, 2014, 7:07 AM UTC

crdoconnor wrote: post #12

ekianjo wrote: post #9

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Demand for electricity is lower at night Not really much lower as you'd like to portray it. http://www.solstats.com/wp/wp-content/uploads/2011/08/chart1... Solar only works if you can produce energy and use it locally. As distance increases the energy loss is significant.

>Not really much lower as you'd like to portray it. A LOT of the higher usage at night is due to the fact that night-time electricity is cheaper. If you're going to run an aluminum smelting plant, for instance (uses TONS of electricity), it currently makes sense to run it full bore when electricity is cheapest - at night. If daytime electricity were cheaper or even the same price, that graph would certainly look diff…

Calling bullshit on this one. Smelters do not work this way, they buy electricity in bulk and is a 24/7 operation.

Re: Wind and solar power are even more expensive than is commonly thought

#18

Post by spingsprong » Mon, Jul 28, 2014, 7:26 AM UTC

ekianjo wrote: post #9

spingsprong wrote: post #5

"Wind power is not generated on a calm day, nor solar power at night, so conventional power plants must be kept on standby—but are not included in the levelised cost of renewables." Solar not generating power at night is a good thing. Demand for electricity is lower at night, and turning on and off conventional power stations is not ideal. Solar helps level things out, meaning you need fewer conventional power statio…

> Demand for electricity is lower at night Not really much lower as you'd like to portray it. http://www.solstats.com/wp/wp-content/uploads/2011/08/chart1... Solar only works if you can produce energy and use it locally. As distance increases the energy loss is significant.

Did you look at your own graph?!

Demand is reduced almost by half at night.

Re: Wind and solar power are even more expensive than is commonly thought

#19

Post by spingsprong » Mon, Jul 28, 2014, 7:26 AM UTC

tomjen3 wrote: post #8

spingsprong wrote: post #5

"Wind power is not generated on a calm day, nor solar power at night, so conventional power plants must be kept on standby—but are not included in the levelised cost of renewables." Solar not generating power at night is a good thing. Demand for electricity is lower at night, and turning on and off conventional power stations is not ideal. Solar helps level things out, meaning you need fewer conventional power statio…

One a really stormy day I want to be able to hide under my electric blanket, with a cup of tea, in front of the tv/computer. That requires electricity, but those solar panels aren't going to be very effective when it is overcast and rainy. Why not just go for getting a thorium reactor to work and then use them instead?

Because thorium reactors don't exist?

Re: Wind and solar power are even more expensive than is commonly thought

#20

Post by crdoconnor » Mon, Jul 28, 2014, 7:41 AM UTC

testrun wrote: post #16

crdoconnor wrote: post #4

When looking at these graphs, it pays to take a peek at who exactly is behind them. Modeling the costs and benefits of different forms of energy (especially environmental costs) is extremely easy to fudge. There are all sorts of assumptions you have to plug in to the model where you could covertly insert a policy bias. If the 'measurer' had an agenda, it wouldn't be hard for them to push the figures one way or anothe…

Can you give a citation of how much methane leakage occurs?

Exactly how much? No, because unlike CO2, methane leakage is not being continuously measured.

The fracking industry is not interested in measuring (duh) and the government is not forcing them to do so.

Here's a study that tries to hazard an estimate in leakage from one source though:

http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2014/jun/20/fracking-...