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

Deregulated energy markets accelerate solar adoption

seanobannon.substack.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

161–170 of 187 posts

Re: Deregulated energy markets accelerate solar adoption

#161

Post by _bin_ »

piva00 wrote: post #117
dingnuts wrote: post #87

Earlier quoted context omitted.

no, the commentator is simply proposing actually responding to the imperialism of China by protecting US assets and national security instead of rolling over and taking it because of misguided principles about free trade and intellectual property that the CCP has undermined for forty years to arrive in a position where they can undercut us on price through human rights abuses. It is China that is imperialist and that…

> It is China that is imperialist and that has ruined the post cold war free trade world order. The US must respond or China will be the world hegemon. The USA is the current imperial power, go ask us born in South America how it felt to listen to stories on dictatorships brought on by the imperialism of the USA; or societies having to bend for the spread of Reagan's economics cancer dismantling any semblance of soci…

Every nation tries to influence her neighbors to be more accommodating of her wants and needs. We just happen to be bigger and better at doing it. Speaking historically, and relative to other past and present world powers, y'all are far better off living near America.

It is completely reasonable that we wouldn't put up with leaders objectively hostile to our interests popping up in our backyard, not after the last one who did got within a hair's breadth of planting nuclear missiles a hundred miles off our coast.

I actually wouldn't care nearly as much about China were Deng in power. I'd worry a bit given that we don't want to be economically eclipsed, sure, but my present concerns are directly tied to the current leadership and posture of china.

Are you suggesting we were wrong to transfer technology out of Germany post-WWII? To me it seems like a hell of a lot better as some form of repayment than the onerous reparations regime we tried post-WWI. Vae victis; if all millions of American dead cost Germany were some scientists and patents, they should count themselves lucky.

Saying America "stole" JPL from Avro is also a crazy interpretation. The Arrow was an incredibly expensive project: canada had about 20 million people at the time and was in terrible economic shape. Diefenbaker's decision remains controversial, and most people agree that destroying the project so thoroughly was just stupid, but you can't support the idea that we "stole" something from Canada or somehow compelled her to kill the project.

Re: Deregulated energy markets accelerate solar adoption

#162

Post by _bin_ »

Jtsummers wrote: post #120
_bin_ wrote: post #88

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think you are misguided because of a true belief in "the system". The problem is systems often fail to handle bad-faith actors who intentionally abuse them. Absent a higher system, we lack good means to address this. But the system is not a moral good and we don't owe it to anyone or anything to maintain arbitrary rules when our enemies are using them to hamstring us and threaten our citizens, liberties, and way of…

> We can't afford not to respond. If we are unwilling to go to war, we'd have to concede to being [C]hina's bitch, which is a worse option than war. Current US foreign policy is a bit all over the place, but it's difficult to determine if the US is actually willing to go to war or not to defend its allies or even its own interests. There were the attacks on the Houthis, ok, but in order to facilitate that the US requ…

I tend to agree with you. There's a valid point that we shouldn't be consigning young Americans to die in foreign wars, but I do believe we should still maintain foreign bases and a global military. I think the past several administrations have made critical mistakes w.r.t. our diplomatic and military posture.

I'm making more of a positive statement than a normative one. I'm aware the political winds are rather against me in this and wouldn't expect to be able to sell this particular set of ideas to either party, but I still believe them to be our best option.

Re: Deregulated energy markets accelerate solar adoption

#163

Post by cbsmith »

merely-unlikely wrote: post #109
cbsmith wrote: post #85

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> China's share of of electricity production from coal is at 60% as of 2023[1] compared to 16% for the US[2]. That's down from 80% in 2005. Yeah, but they're kind of leapfrogging from coal to clean energy. In 10 years, they are expected to be at 60% renewables.

> from coal to clean energy The reason I'm skeptical of that framing is it implies coal production is being replaced by clean energy, rather than total energy production being increased. Coal production continues to climb[1] and construction of new coal plants hit a 10 year high in 2024[2]. China accounted for 95% of the world’s new coal power construction activity in 2023[3]. Lots of countries announce decarbonizati…

> The reason I'm skeptical of that framing is it implies coal production is being replaced by clean energy, rather than total energy production being increased.

I wasn't intending to imply that. It's entirely possible China might get to 90% renewable energy production without shutting down a single coal plant.

> Lots of countries announce decarbonization goals, but I will remain skeptical until the data show progress.

Sure, but that doesn't conflict with having more and more of your energy production being renewable.

Re: Deregulated energy markets accelerate solar adoption

#164

Post by _bin_ »

asacrowflies wrote: post #122
_bin_ wrote: post #116

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It’s a crude term, sure, but sums up a potential future where total dependence for critical materials leads to one nation being able to do relatively whatever she wants while the other is stuck taking terms as given. If you’d prefer “highly disadvantaged diplomatic, economic, and security situation” I can say that, but this is an internet comment not a freaking Brookings Institute report. Calling me an insane jingois…

Insane because almost none of this is based on reality and as another commenter said is just US imperialist propaganda. Literally hyper concerned with dominance and zero sum winner take all logic aka fascist. Using sexual terms to illicit an emotional response as if China is RAPING us by not giving us everything for nothing(a bitch)? again a fascist style of logic that the ONLY outcome is SOMEONE being the bitch ...…

You're making more unsubstantiated accusations and saying I'm a propagandist, a fascist, blah blah. What is your support for this?

I am concerned with dominance because I don't trust china to hold a military advantage and not abuse it against my people. I expect multiple other countries feel this way, which is fine. All of us will probably jockey for position and I'm arguing we should focus all our resources behind maintaining ours.

Kind of insane that you think because of this I'm a fascist. I'd struggle to think of a credible definition of fascism, even one with which I disagree, that encompasses this. Can you clarify as to whether you're referring fascism as in the definition and political system or in the sense of "orange man is a fascist"?

I specifically talked about disregarding china's IP in response to her disregarding ours. I think we may be in violent disagreement on this point. I didn't say we should go bomb beijing to protect American patents, I said we should cheerfully rip hers off in return. From what you're saying, you believe this would be a good thing and help American growth; I agree.

Obsession with war isn't precisely a good definition of jingoism; regardless, I'm not. I'd very much like to avoid war. As Clausewitz put it, war is an extension of policy by other means. My concern is that we lose most of our non-military means - trade, diplomacy, etc. - due to economic and industrial weakness and insecurity, thus leaving only one open for important issues. I wish to avoid war and pursue peace through strength.

I said nothing about humiliation etc. of enemies. You're reading that into something I said, not sure why.

Re: Deregulated energy markets accelerate solar adoption

#165

Post by _bin_ »

Jtsummers wrote: post #146
mbrumlow wrote: post #143

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Just pointing out that they are not forever. And the use of it in reasoning if flawed. We can but 20 years of oil too. It being a long period only lessons the affect not removes it.

> We can but [sic] 20 years of oil too. The US annual oil demand costs around $500 billion (over 7 billion barrels used per year, but it's not all for energy). Since that does include other uses besides energy and energy demands are only increasing, it's still a useful baseline figure for estimating (because it's conservative, we'll likely need more in the future). To acquire 20 years worth of our current demand woul…

Here are Lazard's 2024 LCOE numbers, a popular reference (though they're often too generous regarding renewables). https://www.lazard.com/media/xemfey0k/lazards-lcoeplus-june-...

You will notice that utility PV and CCGT are relatively similar in cost. Of course, replacing most of our energy infrastructure would have massive capex that one would add to the solar option. Note that the solar numbers do not include the cost of storage. And the storage requirements as you replace each GW of generation get higher, not lower.

Re: Deregulated energy markets accelerate solar adoption

#166

Post by _bin_ »

kragen wrote: post #139
_bin_ wrote: post #116

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It’s a crude term, sure, but sums up a potential future where total dependence for critical materials leads to one nation being able to do relatively whatever she wants while the other is stuck taking terms as given. If you’d prefer “highly disadvantaged diplomatic, economic, and security situation” I can say that, but this is an internet comment not a freaking Brookings Institute report. Calling me an insane jingois…

Please try to make HN comments more like a freaking Brookings Institute report instead of more like /b/ on 4chan. Doing the opposite fosters the kind of environment you claim to want to avoid, where people call you names instead of rebutting your claims with evidence.

I'd agree with you except I didn't direct it at anyone. If I had called someone a bitch that would be different and your complaint would make sense.

It's still an internet forum. It can be high-quality while people still use a colloquialism or two.

Re: Deregulated energy markets accelerate solar adoption

#167

Post by 0cf8612b2e1e »

baggy_trough wrote: post #28
epistasis wrote: post #23

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Thanks for pointing out that ambiguity, I hopefully edited for better clarity! The other problem in California is that most heating is done via natural gas, and though heating needs are fairly low if houses had any sort of insulation, there's basically zero insulation in all homes. Which means that every winter, people experience massive natural gas bills that should be close to zero, making it very problematic to sw…

> there's basically zero insulation in all homes. This is completely false.

In SoCal, but when I moved here from Chicago, I was aghast at the so called insulation. Single pane glass windows, visible gaps in window frames and doors. Probably not legal to sell in the Midwest.

Here, it’s like whatever. I never run the heater, and there are maybe 7 days a year where I want the AC.

Re: Deregulated energy markets accelerate solar adoption

#168

Post by g-b-r »

Jtsummers wrote: post #151
g-b-r wrote: post #147

Earlier quoted context omitted.

As a sidenote, I hate it, can someone explain where does it come from?

https://longnow.org/ideas/long-now-years-five-digit-dates-an... - kragen has posted this before in relation to the five digit years.

If the people from 10.000 wanted me to write useless digits for 8 thousand years, I'd leave them a bad planet just out of spite xD

Re: Deregulated energy markets accelerate solar adoption

#169

Post by colechristensen »

kragen wrote: post #141
colechristensen wrote: post #136

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>I also think that there's low risk of lock-in from buying Chinese solar products now. It's not lock-in, it's price competitiveness of locally produced solar. If Chinese solar is half price, domestic industry won't exist. If relations with China further deteriorate, they may restrict access. If there was a war we'd be out a major source of energy production/growth. Currently the US is expected to manufacture solar mo…

20% year over year growth would mean falling further and further behind China, which is closer to 50% lately. Bookmark this comment and check back in a year to see if China's installed PV capacity grew by more or less than 20% in 02024. Current US industrial policy is vastly inadequate for bootstrapping a domestic solar industry to international competitiveness, and the US trade barriers against cheap Chinese EVs are…

Why does the US need to have an internationally competitive solar export industry? We can't beat China and a lot of other countries on labor costs so unless we go crazy with automation or have some research breakthroughs for significant solar efficiency vs cost, it would never be a huge win regardless of policy. What we do need is a domestic production base for domestic usage so that solar can't become a negotiating tactic used against us, or a hindrance if international relations collapse.

Arguments about current exponential growth not being fast enough don't land with me.

Re: Deregulated energy markets accelerate solar adoption

#170

Post by kragen »

_bin_ wrote: post #165
Jtsummers wrote: post #146

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> We can but [sic] 20 years of oil too. The US annual oil demand costs around $500 billion (over 7 billion barrels used per year, but it's not all for energy). Since that does include other uses besides energy and energy demands are only increasing, it's still a useful baseline figure for estimating (because it's conservative, we'll likely need more in the future). To acquire 20 years worth of our current demand woul…

Here are Lazard's 2024 LCOE numbers, a popular reference (though they're often too generous regarding renewables). https://www.lazard.com/media/xemfey0k/lazards-lcoeplus-june-... You will notice that utility PV and CCGT are relatively similar in cost. Of course, replacing most of our energy infrastructure would have massive capex that one would add to the solar option. Note that the solar numbers do not include the c…

Unfortunately this PDF doesn't explain Lazard's calculations, so it won't convince anyone who employs any critical thinking. Key factors like types of PV panels, whether tariffs are included or excluded, to what extent the panels' peak capacity exceeds the inverters' capacity (if at all), interest rates, etc., are not provided at all. Capacity factor is only mentioned as a broad range, with no mention of factors like what country it's in, fixed vs. sun-tracking, transmission costs for especially sunny sites, etc. Maybe it's fine if you want a rough guide, if it's correct, but it presents no evidence to show that it is correct.

Some evidence that it's not correct is that Saudi Arabia signed a PPA for wind last year at US$15.65 per MWh https://renewablesnow.com/news/saudi-arabia-signs-1-100-mw-o..., which is barely over half of Lazard's minimum LCOE for wind of US$27. So I don't think they're being too generous regarding renewables, though their solar numbers do look more reasonable.

Here's a quick LCoE exercise. Unlike Lazard, I show my work, so that, if it's wrong, anyone can see that and correct it. Suppose you're a utility that can freely import Chinese solar panels at the current €0.110/Wp (https://www.solarserver.de/photovoltaik-preis-pv-modul-preis...) in a region where single-axis trackers give you a 25% capacity factor, you are borrowing money at 5% to build a 100-megawatt-peak plant, the panel cost is 30% of the total plant cost, and the plant life is 20 years. (These are fairly typical numbers.)

The panels will degrade over the 20-year period, so you'll only get about 90% of your rated peak power on average over that time, and the capacity factor of 25% brings that down to 23 megawatts on average. (This is front-loaded, so the panels produce more toward the beginning of the plant's life when it matters more, but let's ignore that.) This works out to about 200'000 MWh per year.

To amortize a €36.78 million loan over 20 years at 5% you need to pay €2.9 million per year.

Dividing €2.9 million by 200'000 MWh gives you €15 per MWh (1.5¢/kWh, 55¢ per gallon of gasoline, US$4.30/GJ).

This is pretty far below where current European and US solar PPAs are coming in, and about half of what Lazard gives as the low end. So, either I'm missing something fundamental, or one or more of my assumptions above is inapplicable to most of Europe and the US. Here are my best guesses about what it is:

- A lot of European plants are being built in very polar and cloudy countries like the Netherlands and Germany, so the capacity factor is much worse than 25%. Like 10%.

- The US has massive import tariffs which more than double the price of solar panels.

- Maybe balance-of-plant costs have fallen far behind the precipitous drop in solar module prices, so maybe currently the cost of modules is only 15% of the plant cost instead of the usual 30% or so.

- Maybe lenders consider solar energy projects risky and so demand higher interest rates than the 5% or so that is usual for utility bond flotation.

What do others think?

Post reply on HN