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

Solar will supply almost all growth in U.S. electricity generation through 2025

cleantechnica.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

121–130 of 231 posts

Re: Solar will supply almost all growth in U.S. electricity generation through 2025

#121

Post by weakfish »

ctoth wrote: post #72
epistasis wrote: post #3

The EIA (and the IEA) have historically underpredicted solar deploys, to a comical level. They need 2-4 years of spot on predictions before they can regain credibility on their projections, IMHO. So I would put these projections as a bare minimum floor on how much solar will get installed. The true number is likely quite a bit higher.

No, 2050 isn't some sort of tipping point[0]. [0]: https://www.liberalpatriot.com/p/to-avoid-the-worst-impacts-...

I’d hardly qualify a sub stack with a policy agenda as a source here.

Re: Solar will supply almost all growth in U.S. electricity generation through 2025

#122

Post by doug_durham »

mensetmanusman wrote: post #114

solar is 10x cheaper than nuclear generation, but storage is 100x more expensive than nuclear. Need a massive change in our understanding of storage costs to go 100% renewable.

Citations? I find this difficult to understand.

Re: Solar will supply almost all growth in U.S. electricity generation through 2025

#123

Post by MilaM »

mensetmanusman wrote: post #114

solar is 10x cheaper than nuclear generation, but storage is 100x more expensive than nuclear. Need a massive change in our understanding of storage costs to go 100% renewable.

Do you happen to have a source for this comparison? I'm curious to know what the economics of grid scale electricity storage are.

Re: Solar will supply almost all growth in U.S. electricity generation through 2025

#124

Post by DennisP »

bilsbie wrote: post #87
tallowen wrote: post #2

I found this podcast with Jesse Jenkins to be a really helpful start to understand non fixed energy resources. https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/what-the-sun-isnt-alwa... I thought that the most cost effective way to supply energy would require a certain amount of base load. It seems like this is a misunderstanding because of how much cheaper and more available these non fixed resources are than fixed resources.…

I’ve always said this! Make daytime energy 100x cheaper and the market will respond. Appliances will start building in batteries, behaviors will change , and who knows what else the market will come up with.

That's just externalizing costs though. Instead of building a large battery at the power station, you're building lots of little batteries everywhere else.

Even demand management can be an externalized cost. If a factory shuts down half the time, then you need twice as many factories to produce the same stuff.

Re: Solar will supply almost all growth in U.S. electricity generation through 2025

#125

Post by AnthonyMouse »

bilsbie wrote: post #87
tallowen wrote: post #2

I found this podcast with Jesse Jenkins to be a really helpful start to understand non fixed energy resources. https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/what-the-sun-isnt-alwa... I thought that the most cost effective way to supply energy would require a certain amount of base load. It seems like this is a misunderstanding because of how much cheaper and more available these non fixed resources are than fixed resources.…

I’ve always said this! Make daytime energy 100x cheaper and the market will respond. Appliances will start building in batteries, behaviors will change , and who knows what else the market will come up with.

How is daytime energy supposed to get 100x cheaper and still allow solar, which only generates during the daytime, to recover its costs? Unless you mean for the nighttime price to increase by a huge factor, but then how would that out-compete existing technologies for generation at night?

Re: Solar will supply almost all growth in U.S. electricity generation through 2025

#126

Post by itsoktocry »

dylan604 wrote: post #78
olyjohn wrote: post #61

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Does this reduce your energy usage though? You're still using the same amount of power during the day. So it saves you money, and takes some load off the grid during peak usage. What does that do to reduce emissions from power generation? Without solar, you're still charging off the same infrastructure.

As if someone trying to save money is such a ridiculous thing to do? WTF? I subscribe to a power company that produces power via wind. So my money is supporting green energy generation. So yeah, it would still be doing plenty. Not really sure why you gotta be so negative about something

Do you even actually save money, accounting for the financing and installation of the solar panels?

A while back there was a thread on the SolarCity subreddit linked from HN where the OP discussed his savings thanks to nice weather, but still figured he had a 20 year payback period on his setup.

That is crazy.

Re: Solar will supply almost all growth in U.S. electricity generation through 2025

#127

Post by rstuart4133 »

Ajedi32 wrote: post #60
dylan604 wrote: post #21

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is where I'm really intrigued of all-house battery packs like the Tesla Powerwall (it's the only name of one I'm familiar to call out). I like the idea that it charges at night during the lower rates, and during the day the house is powered from the battery. Just haven't seen any longevity reports on them in general vs brochure data.

One thing to consider is that if that's profitable to do at house scale, then it's probably even more profitable to do at grid scale and you'll likely be out-competed by utility companies. Edit: Unless you're taking advantage of tax incentives to do it at house scale. Its hard to beat the economics of just being handed free money.

> if that's profitable to do at house scale, then it's probably even more profitable to do at grid scale

There is a reason home generation wins. It's because retail prices are 3 times what the generator is paid. (That's true where I live).

So yes, in absolute terms power generated by home solar costs more than a utility generating it. But it's not 3 times more, so if you install home solar and use the power, it's always a big win. It will be the same with batteries.

The traditional forms of generating power, coal, gas, hydro and nuclear only win because home generation costs using those technologies (eg, putting a coal mine and generator in your back year) costs far more than 3 times. You can't put wind, or pumped storage in your back yard either.

But solar and batteries are different animals. They are different in other ways too. It always makes sense to over provision solar. The question is not whether to do it, but by how much. So home generators will always be looking to sell power, and since it's free selling it at 1/3 of what they would pay for the same power looks like money for jam to them. It makes you wonder how many utility generators will be left standing if solar takes over the world.

Re: Solar will supply almost all growth in U.S. electricity generation through 2025

#128

Post by AnthonyMouse »

klabb3 wrote: post #82
tallowen wrote: post #2

I found this podcast with Jesse Jenkins to be a really helpful start to understand non fixed energy resources. https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/what-the-sun-isnt-alwa... I thought that the most cost effective way to supply energy would require a certain amount of base load. It seems like this is a misunderstanding because of how much cheaper and more available these non fixed resources are than fixed resources.…

> Energy this cheap gives us a huge incentive to change our energy use patterns to match power abundance rather than to take energy demand as a constant. I have not listened to the podcast, but I know for a fact that’s much harder than it sounds. Parking spaces, highways, factories, offices, parks, beaches, hiking trails, skiing, museums, stadiums, even grocery stores have an extreme variability in demand. Almost all…

You can replace a significant proportion of the grid with intermittent generation without any trouble. Using solar for the air conditioning load in the summer is perfect. Use whatever you want to charge electric car batteries because they're batteries and most cars are parked >90% of the time. You can can't shift 100% of the load based on time of day through pricing, but you can do a non-trivial amount.

Then you pick the low-hanging fruit and start trying to find a solution to power heat pumps in the winter at night and it's... not as easy. But a grid can be 0% fossil fuels without being 100% solar and wind.

Re: Solar will supply almost all growth in U.S. electricity generation through 2025

#129

Post by stcredzero »

AnthonyMouse wrote: post #128
klabb3 wrote: post #82

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Energy this cheap gives us a huge incentive to change our energy use patterns to match power abundance rather than to take energy demand as a constant. I have not listened to the podcast, but I know for a fact that’s much harder than it sounds. Parking spaces, highways, factories, offices, parks, beaches, hiking trails, skiing, museums, stadiums, even grocery stores have an extreme variability in demand. Almost all…

You can replace a significant proportion of the grid with intermittent generation without any trouble. Using solar for the air conditioning load in the summer is perfect. Use whatever you want to charge electric car batteries because they're batteries and most cars are parked >90% of the time. You can can't shift 100% of the load based on time of day through pricing, but you can do a non-trivial amount. Then you pick…

Using solar for the air conditioning load in the summer is perfect.

Ish. They don't completely correspond.

Re: Solar will supply almost all growth in U.S. electricity generation through 2025

#130

Post by outside1234 »

tallowen wrote: post #2

I found this podcast with Jesse Jenkins to be a really helpful start to understand non fixed energy resources. https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/what-the-sun-isnt-alwa... I thought that the most cost effective way to supply energy would require a certain amount of base load. It seems like this is a misunderstanding because of how much cheaper and more available these non fixed resources are than fixed resources.…

AND how we manage our personal energy - for example, adding batteries to arbitrage the cheap daytime energy during the night
Post reply on HN