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

Solar Just Hit a Record Low Price in the U.S

earther.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

181–190 of 352 posts

Re: Solar Just Hit a Record Low Price in the U.S

#181

Post by Animats »

inputcoffee wrote: post #71

The true price of solar is the price to produce reliable, continuous energy. That requires something to smooth out the signal and store the energy, most probably a battery. The solar + battery price is also going down, though not as fast as the solar only piece. But that's the metric we should be following. When that hits $30 per MWh, it'll be game over.

Not entirely. About 10GW of solar capacity would cover the entire air conditioning load peak for California[1] That's when power prices are the highest, and it doesn't need energy storage. Pretty soon, most air conditioning load will be on solar power.

[1] http://www.caiso.com/TodaysOutlook/Pages/default.aspx

Re: Solar Just Hit a Record Low Price in the U.S

#182

Post by a3n »

heisenbergs wrote: post #155
jartelt wrote: post #140

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This comment gets made in every single solar article put on HN. The true price of solar is what the market is willing to pay for it. If the solar was ruining the grid or was way more expensive than what it seems, we would not keep seeing solar installed at this pace and at these costs. We need to get out of the mindset that all power generators need to produce a steady amount of power 24/7. A flexible grid made of ma…

Not only that. Solar energy production follows the sun, which incidentally is what humans also follow and when they are typically active and using most energy. Hence, solar producing energy when it is actually needed and in most demand (peak energy). This is even more so the case in hotter places that need AC.

How long can molten salt make steam after the sun goes down?

Re: Solar Just Hit a Record Low Price in the U.S

#183

Post by state_less »

rsynnott wrote: post #96
inputcoffee wrote: post #71

The true price of solar is the price to produce reliable, continuous energy. That requires something to smooth out the signal and store the energy, most probably a battery. The solar + battery price is also going down, though not as fast as the solar only piece. But that's the metric we should be following. When that hits $30 per MWh, it'll be game over.

I wouldn't bet on batteries, or at least conventional batteries, being the long term solution. There's interesting work being done with air pressure storage, flow batteries (the largest batteries currently under construction are mostly flow batteries in the 500MWh-1GWh range, though the technology is still in its infancy), and big scary vacuum flywheels. All of these are far less developed than lithium ion cells, but…

Batteries are pretty convenient though. They don't have any moving parts and can supply electricity on demand.

Not all lithium batteries are created equal in terms of longevity. A traditional lithium manganese battery might have 500 cycles in it before hitting 80% capacity. A lithium titanate [1] battery might be closer to 5000 cycles. A battery could be designed for long term usage and thus lower the long term cost, if not the upfront cost.

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lithium%E2%80%93titanate_batte...

Re: Solar Just Hit a Record Low Price in the U.S

#184

Post by rwcarlsen »

Animats wrote: post #181
inputcoffee wrote: post #71

The true price of solar is the price to produce reliable, continuous energy. That requires something to smooth out the signal and store the energy, most probably a battery. The solar + battery price is also going down, though not as fast as the solar only piece. But that's the metric we should be following. When that hits $30 per MWh, it'll be game over.

Not entirely. About 10GW of solar capacity would cover the entire air conditioning load peak for California[1] That's when power prices are the highest, and it doesn't need energy storage. Pretty soon, most air conditioning load will be on solar power. [1] http://www.caiso.com/TodaysOutlook/Pages/default.aspx

But you do need storage and/or backup providers because not having air-conditioning run on cloudy days is not an option.

Re: Solar Just Hit a Record Low Price in the U.S

#185

Post by crdoconnor »

inputcoffee wrote: post #153
jartelt wrote: post #140

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This comment gets made in every single solar article put on HN. The true price of solar is what the market is willing to pay for it. If the solar was ruining the grid or was way more expensive than what it seems, we would not keep seeing solar installed at this pace and at these costs. We need to get out of the mindset that all power generators need to produce a steady amount of power 24/7. A flexible grid made of ma…

You misunderstand the sense of "true" here. The point is not that the "true" price in the sense of what it ought to be. It is the "true" price in the sense of what the market is actually paying for the service. When people put out the number $23, they compare it with the cost of power and wonder why, if it is so much lower, it doesn't already swamp the current solution. So the purpose of the comment is to explain tha…

>When people put out the number $23, they compare it with the cost of power and wonder why, if it is so much lower, it doesn't already swamp the current solution.

It is swamping the current solution - it just takes a while for new plants to be built and old plants to go offline.

Re: Solar Just Hit a Record Low Price in the U.S

#187

Post by crdoconnor »

derefr wrote: post #168
Max_aaa wrote: post #164

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Typically peak residential energy use is actually early morning and evening. And those tend to be the worst times for solar. Solar is great for businesses and schools, well basically anything that operates mainly or totally during the day.

Most energy consumption in the world is industrial, right? We wouldn't need to have nearly as many power plants (of any kind) if all those power plants needed to do was to sustain residential usage. If you think of it as two power grids, then "the big power grid"—the industrial grid—can be fully powered by solar, and the residential grid, i.e. "the small power grid", is kind of trivial to solve in comparison.

Industrial power is often more amenable to demand shifting though. I want my kettle to start boiling now, but aluminum smelters don't really mind if the throughput is highest at 3pm instead of 3am or vice versa, especially if that gets them a cheaper price.

Even for domestic users, electric storage heaters, water heaters and electric car charging are all amenable to demand shifting. Over time, those will probably become the largest users of electricity if prices keep plunging.

I think there's a lot of money to be made out demand shifting tech, especially if people keep erroneously believing that variability is a problem best solved with expensive lithium ion batteries.

Re: Solar Just Hit a Record Low Price in the U.S

#188

Post by ThomPete »

criddell wrote: post #177
inputcoffee wrote: post #153

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You misunderstand the sense of "true" here. The point is not that the "true" price in the sense of what it ought to be. It is the "true" price in the sense of what the market is actually paying for the service. When people put out the number $23, they compare it with the cost of power and wonder why, if it is so much lower, it doesn't already swamp the current solution. So the purpose of the comment is to explain tha…

I've thought about adding solar to my home and can't see any reason why I should even consider a battery for storage. I'm in Texas and so I get plenty of sun and my peak energy demand happens to coincide with that sunlight (due to HVAC). Why should I worry about a complete solution?

Because you are also a taxpayer.

Re: Solar Just Hit a Record Low Price in the U.S

#189

Post by secabeen »

derefr wrote: post #168
Max_aaa wrote: post #164

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Typically peak residential energy use is actually early morning and evening. And those tend to be the worst times for solar. Solar is great for businesses and schools, well basically anything that operates mainly or totally during the day.

Most energy consumption in the world is industrial, right? We wouldn't need to have nearly as many power plants (of any kind) if all those power plants needed to do was to sustain residential usage. If you think of it as two power grids, then "the big power grid"—the industrial grid—can be fully powered by solar, and the residential grid, i.e. "the small power grid", is kind of trivial to solve in comparison.

Air Conditioners alone use about 6% of all electricity, so non-industrial is a big chunk: https://www.energy.gov/energysaver/home-cooling-systems/air-...

Re: Solar Just Hit a Record Low Price in the U.S

#190

Post by tshannon »

samcheng wrote: post #166
duxup wrote: post #157

My house faces south westish. I have a lot of roof on the back side that I think would be good for solar but all the automated online stuff seem to indicate it was be expensive and not pay off for a LONG while. At least around here in MN there's not a lot of residential push for it. Hopefully as prices drop it becomes more viable.

Solar is quite location (and latitude) dependent. Duluth gets about half of the annual Global Horizontal Irradiance that Tuscon does, and that's before accounting for the fact that snow will sometimes cover the panels. In addition, Minnesota has significantly lower electricity prices than the big coastal states (partially due to the great wind resource in the SW corner of the state, partially due to political reasons…

I've always wondered if it makes any sense (if you have the property) to setup a windmill instead of solar panels. I don't think there's much market in smaller / single home windmill installations and so the costs are probably much, much higher.
Post reply on HN