Wind now competes with fossil fuels, and solar almost does • Hacker News Board

Re: Wind now competes with fossil fuels, and solar almost does

#111

Post by raverbashing » Fri, Oct 09, 2015, 10:49 AM UTC

brrt wrote: post #96

crdoconnor wrote: post #90

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>The problem with upgrading distribution network is of course the MASSIVE amounts capex needed to replace it. No. This is primarily a political issue not a question of lack of resources, and the capex and difficulty required is, while high, typically overestimated by a large degree. The main problem is that the networks are usually owned by monopoly utilities with interests in power generation. How much do you think…

> The main problem is that the networks are usually owned by monopoly utilities with interests in power generation. How much do you think they want to upgrade if the net result is more competition? Hell, they'd probably pay not to have to upgrade. This... is exactly what is happening :-). Utilities and network operators are trying out ways to give incentives to customers who can respond with negative load (i.e. turni…

Yes, by electrolysis. Of molten minerals. This also consumes energy

"Alumina is dissolved in molten cryolite, typically at 960 °C"

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aluminium_smelting

Re: Wind now competes with fossil fuels, and solar almost does

#112

Post by mtgx » Fri, Oct 09, 2015, 10:54 AM UTC

downandout wrote: post #79

Wind and solar are still not competitive. The report says that coal costs $75 per megawatt hour, while land-based wind costs $83 and solar comes in at a whopping $122. That's far from "almost competitive". Also note that these are not costs of production , these are what people wind up paying for it. That means that the coal numbers include extensive taxes, while the solar and wind numbers include extensive tax disco…

Coal is heavily subsidized in many countries, even up to 50% in some.

Re: Wind now competes with fossil fuels, and solar almost does

#113

Post by jessaustin » Fri, Oct 09, 2015, 10:57 AM UTC

toomuchtodo wrote: post #67

jessaustin wrote: post #60

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Natural gas will stick around until utility scale batteries ramp up... Batteries have improved over time, but I'm not convinced that they'll see the vast improvements necessary in order for them to replace natural gas for a long time. If natural gas really must be replaced the most logical alternative might be ammonia. Ammonia has hydrogen's good properties: not a greenhouse gas, doesn't cause smog, numerous producti…

I bet you $1000 to a charity of your choice that utility scale batteries combined with renewables replace natural gas for electricity generation in the US in the next 10 years. I shall even assume all the risk. If I'm correct, you can buy me a coffee.

Hahaha well tentatively let's say EFF...

Rhetorical flourishes aside, I'd love for you to be right and I'm perfectly content to be convinced that you are. What specific technologies or materials will get batteries over this hump? Please don't say lithium-ion because although they seem OK for phones I can't seem to buy one for a power tool that will last a year.

Re: Wind now competes with fossil fuels, and solar almost does

#114

Post by fauigerzigerk » Fri, Oct 09, 2015, 11:02 AM UTC

downandout wrote: post #102

icebraining wrote: post #98

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I simply pointed out that by using prices that include taxes and incentives, this report artificially exaggerated the costs of coal and understated the true costs of solar/wind. They aren't really even close to being competitive in real terms, but this report falsely implies that they are. How do you define "real" terms? Sure it's not the price that would emerge if those taxes/incentives didn't exist, but market pric…

>How do you define "real" terms? The actual cost of production without artificial factors like taxes and incentives being included.

Regulating or taxing emissions is simply a form of collective demand for clean air, a scarce resource. I don't see how it is any more artificial than demand for land that drives up the prices for coal mines or the demand for labor that determines salaries of coal miners.

In other words, producing energy by burning coal consumes clean air. Clean air is owned by the public and the public is charging for its use.

Re: Wind now competes with fossil fuels, and solar almost does

#115

Post by forgetsusername » Fri, Oct 09, 2015, 11:10 AM UTC

crdoconnor wrote: post #103

downandout wrote: post #99

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>$83 is close enough to $75 that tweaks to tax policy can now be used to make renewable energy investment over fossil fuel virtually a no brainer decision The tweaks to tax policy you're referring to have already happened, and they still haven't made wind and solar competitive. Taxes and incentives being included are the only reason that the numbers quoted in this extremely misleading report are even remotely close t…

>The tweaks to tax policy you're referring to have already happened, and they still haven't made wind and solar competitive They already did in the UK and Germany as the article points out. The political weight of utilities and the oil/natgas industry is significantly higher in the US which is probably why the US hasn't followed in Germany/UK's footsteps. Too many Senate re-election campaign funds being paid for by K…

>"too many Senate re-election campaign funds being paid for by Kochs, etc."

Or maybe, just maybe, decision makers realize that this stuff doesn't have to be, nor should be, implemented overnight?

Renewable energy innovation is occurring at an incredibly fast rate. The economy is a complex thing. Adoption will happen without distorting markets with overwrought subsisidies and burning money trying to accelerate it further.

Re: Wind now competes with fossil fuels, and solar almost does

#116

Post by rcraft » Fri, Oct 09, 2015, 11:19 AM UTC

toomuchtodo wrote: post #8

1. This is excellent. It means we're well on our way to sustainable energy generation. Wind and solar are only going to get cheaper. Even without subsidies, there is no reason to ever build another coal or oil fired generation facility. Natural gas will stick around until utility scale batteries ramp up, to where peaking plants are too expensive compared to utility scale batteries. 2. Nuclear is dead. Very dead. Thor…

Have you ever looked into the negative environmental impacts of lithium mining and disposal?

Elon's battery tech has serious negative environmental impacts yet the majority of people think its perfectly green because the media hasn't yet vilified this industry like they have fossil fuels.

Re: Wind now competes with fossil fuels, and solar almost does

#117

Post by forgetsusername » Fri, Oct 09, 2015, 11:20 AM UTC

m_eiman wrote: post #109

downandout wrote: post #102

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>How do you define "real" terms? The actual cost of production without artificial factors like taxes and incentives being included.

You should also include external costs to your cost of producing coal power; then is what the CO2 taxes are an attempt to do. That someone else is forced to pay to handle the effects of your pollution doesn't mean that this cost shouldn't be considered part of the cost of coal generated electricity.

I don't think downandout is confused with the purpose of taxes, nor do I see it disagreeing with them.

The point I think (and to which I agree) is that real costs matter because anything can be "competitive" with enough subsidization. And subsidization doesn't make things cheaper in the real sense, it simply realigns incentives.

As is, renewables are heavily subsidized, fossil fuels are taxed heavily, and there's still a gap. It's trivial to close that gap through tax policy. So then the question becomes, what is the correct level of subsidization? I'm not sure, but I don't think the answer is "more, more, more". Because eventually you will eliminate the industry that is paying the taxes to offset the subsidized one. When it's no longer economically feasible to pay those heavy subsidies, that's when you'll see why the real cost of production matters.

Re: Wind now competes with fossil fuels, and solar almost does

#118

Post by cma » Fri, Oct 09, 2015, 11:27 AM UTC

downandout wrote: post #79

Wind and solar are still not competitive. The report says that coal costs $75 per megawatt hour, while land-based wind costs $83 and solar comes in at a whopping $122. That's far from "almost competitive". Also note that these are not costs of production , these are what people wind up paying for it. That means that the coal numbers include extensive taxes, while the solar and wind numbers include extensive tax disco…

You aren't including the subsidies oil gets via tax payments to fund our wars in oil-producing nations.

Re: Wind now competes with fossil fuels, and solar almost does

#119

Post by 7952 » Fri, Oct 09, 2015, 11:50 AM UTC

downandout wrote: post #79

Wind and solar are still not competitive. The report says that coal costs $75 per megawatt hour, while land-based wind costs $83 and solar comes in at a whopping $122. That's far from "almost competitive". Also note that these are not costs of production , these are what people wind up paying for it. That means that the coal numbers include extensive taxes, while the solar and wind numbers include extensive tax disco…

This kind of thing does leave renewables open to attack based on the "subsidy bad" line of thinking. The whole point of the incentives is to pay a fair price for a superior product that does not cause pollution and health damage. It is unreasonable to require a superior source of energy to actually be cheaper. In that sense nuclear/solar/wind are worth purseing even if they cost more than coal. The fact that renewables are so competitive is more a testament to how inefficient large fossil fuel power stations are.

Re: Wind now competes with fossil fuels, and solar almost does

#120

Post by brrt » Fri, Oct 09, 2015, 12:06 PM UTC

forgetsusername wrote: post #115

crdoconnor wrote: post #103

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>The tweaks to tax policy you're referring to have already happened, and they still haven't made wind and solar competitive They already did in the UK and Germany as the article points out. The political weight of utilities and the oil/natgas industry is significantly higher in the US which is probably why the US hasn't followed in Germany/UK's footsteps. Too many Senate re-election campaign funds being paid for by K…

> "too many Senate re-election campaign funds being paid for by Kochs, etc. " Or maybe, just maybe, decision makers realize that this stuff doesn't have to be, nor should be, implemented overnight? Renewable energy innovation is occurring at an incredibly fast rate. The economy is a complex thing. Adoption will happen without distorting markets with overwrought subsisidies and burning money trying to accelerate it fu…

I admire your optimism :-) but I'm not 100% sure that is true. If there wasn't a political drive behind this, wouldn't it have been easier to burn coal for the next 100 years?