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

Renewables remain cheapest, but cost reductions on hold

csiro.au

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

21–30 of 55 posts

Re: Renewables remain cheapest, but cost reductions on hold

#21

Post by defrost »

pydry wrote: post #7
sendfoods wrote: post #5

* Does this study only look at generation costs? What about storage costs? * Does this study look at the fact that the "traditional" grid and energy production technologies will always be necessary, because renewable energy production can drop to zero? This is what increases energy prices in countries that have both renewable and fossil fuel energy production. You are paying for two grids, so to speak

Did you read down to the 4th paragraph? It absolutely does. I'd be curious to know if it also includes a "true" nuclear catastrophe insurance price or (as is more common) if theyre assuming the taxpayer will fund 99.5% of a Fukushima-type $800 billion cleanup bill like in US/Europe.

They're specifically signalling an interest in Small Nuclear Power Reactors [1] which are less accident prone, deferring cost analysis until Dec 2024 [2], and looking for more of a global uptake to bring costs down [3]

[1] https://www.world-nuclear.org/information-library/nuclear-fu...

[2] https://www.iaea.org/projects/crp/i12007

[3] "Achieving the lower end of the nuclear SMR range requires that SMR is deployed globally in large enough numbers to bring down costs available to Australia." (linked GenCost Report, page 58)

Re: Renewables remain cheapest, but cost reductions on hold

#22

Post by rcMgD2BwE72F »

oldgradstudent wrote: post #10

Great, we can stop all incentives for renewable energy now that it is the cheapest way to generate energy. More seriously, where's the catch?

We can definitely stop incentivize renewables when operators of fossil fuel plants pay for their externalities (including consequences of climate change).

Spoiler: that's impossible because they would immediately go bankrupt.

Re: Renewables remain cheapest, but cost reductions on hold

#23

Post by adrianN »

benj111 wrote: post #13
sendfoods wrote: post #5

* Does this study only look at generation costs? What about storage costs? * Does this study look at the fact that the "traditional" grid and energy production technologies will always be necessary, because renewable energy production can drop to zero? This is what increases energy prices in countries that have both renewable and fossil fuel energy production. You are paying for two grids, so to speak

You seem to presuppose that we would need to build new fossil fuel generating capacity. When in fact it's already installed. And I'm not sure they would always need to burn fossil fuels anyway. Coal fired power plants can burn wood, gas plants hydrogen or methane. I don't really get the 2 grids thing either. Everything is being plugged into the same grid. Instead of replacing a coal fired power station, you just plug…

I don't think there is enough wood to replace coal, so we'd probably need some new gas turbines. Remember that you need to be prepared for at least a couple of days of roughly zero renewable generation every couple of years. In many locations you have significantly reduced generation every winter. So you need to have sufficient backup capability available. I don't think today's battery tech scales to that amount of storage, so you'll likely have to rely on hydrogen or methane.

Re: Renewables remain cheapest, but cost reductions on hold

#24

Post by helloguillecl »

londons_explore wrote: post #12

I want to see a "solar dispenser" that can drive very slowly across open land, leaving behind a trail of solar panels. Installation costs are a big part of current solar farms, and a big part of that is the labour to assemble frames, do up all the bolts, connect all the wires, etc. If we could make a single truck drive along at 0.5 mph leaving a trail of installed panels, it would really make installation far cheaper…

I’d want the same but to place them on top of unused rail tracks.

This way we would have a solid base to have them installed and possibly a lot of land available. The machine would need to support different gaugages.

Re: Renewables remain cheapest, but cost reductions on hold

#25

Post by breadloaf »

pydry wrote: post #19
yodelshady wrote: post #15

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I read the original report, which still includes figures of >$100 per kWh for storage, projected for multiple decades (if not in this report, in others). For a higher-latitude nation, we need TWh , probably tens of, for even a small nation. Be assured I have crunched these numbers and confirmed against our current best wind+PV resource data. In other words, if we run a nuclear plant and deliberately induce a, as you…

Australia is already building a lot of pumped storage. E.g. snowy 2 alone has 350 GWh of storage. Im skeptical of the idea that this + solar + wind costs more than nuclear + this even without free catastrophe insurance but id be curious to see your numbers. (Obviously some form of storage would also be necessary for nuclear power which cant adjust output to match variable demand). It is pretty cheap to build pumped s…

That's all is valid only if you have geography and water for such stunt.

Re: Renewables remain cheapest, but cost reductions on hold

#26

Post by pydry »

breadloaf wrote: post #25
pydry wrote: post #19

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Australia is already building a lot of pumped storage. E.g. snowy 2 alone has 350 GWh of storage. Im skeptical of the idea that this + solar + wind costs more than nuclear + this even without free catastrophe insurance but id be curious to see your numbers. (Obviously some form of storage would also be necessary for nuclear power which cant adjust output to match variable demand). It is pretty cheap to build pumped s…

That's all is valid only if you have geography and water for such stunt.

This, along with wind turbine bird death thing, is one of the more bizarre objections Ive heard emanating from the carbon + nuclear public relations lobbies.

There isnt a shortage of up. The geography to make it work isnt rare:

https://www.sciencealert.com/scientists-spot-530-000-potenti...

Re: Renewables remain cheapest, but cost reductions on hold

#27

Post by kaon123 »

oldgradstudent wrote: post #10

Great, we can stop all incentives for renewable energy now that it is the cheapest way to generate energy. More seriously, where's the catch?

The catch is that other forms of energy are also greatly incentivised. Arguably even more than renewables (sorry can't be bothered to find a source).

I live in a European country, and the first reaction by most governments here to rising gas prises was to subsidise gas [insert captain Picard facepalm here].

Re: Renewables remain cheapest, but cost reductions on hold

#28

Post by grapeskin »

helloguillecl wrote: post #24
londons_explore wrote: post #12

I want to see a "solar dispenser" that can drive very slowly across open land, leaving behind a trail of solar panels. Installation costs are a big part of current solar farms, and a big part of that is the labour to assemble frames, do up all the bolts, connect all the wires, etc. If we could make a single truck drive along at 0.5 mph leaving a trail of installed panels, it would really make installation far cheaper…

I’d want the same but to place them on top of unused rail tracks. This way we would have a solid base to have them installed and possibly a lot of land available. The machine would need to support different gaugages.

Place them on basically any commercially unusable and economically “worthless” space. Instead of mowing down forests to lay them 5 inches off the ground, put them on highway noise barriers, build ceilings over commercial walkways (Europe is full of these but without solar panels), spread them out and put them high over parks to provide shaded areas that allow for greenery to grow underneath, and so on.

The way solar farms are built now, or at least what I’ve seen, is wasteful. Solar has a great advantage in that it can be built alongside virtually anything, but a lot is currently in cleared out areas that can’t be used for anything else.

Re: Renewables remain cheapest, but cost reductions on hold

#29

Post by londons_explore »

londons_explore wrote: post #12

I want to see a "solar dispenser" that can drive very slowly across open land, leaving behind a trail of solar panels. Installation costs are a big part of current solar farms, and a big part of that is the labour to assemble frames, do up all the bolts, connect all the wires, etc. If we could make a single truck drive along at 0.5 mph leaving a trail of installed panels, it would really make installation far cheaper…

Cabling in a solar farm is also a big part of the costs. If inverters were designed to output higher voltages - eg. a direct-to-10 kV output, then cables could be far thinner and cheaper. 3 phase silicone cable thinner than your baby finger rated for 20kV at just 20 amps could be run along (and carry all the energy from) a length of panels over a kilometer long.

Such a design generally isn't used today because you have to design for someone potentially breaking in and trying to use cable cutters on a wire - you aren't allowed to electrocute the thief! But higher voltage cables could be used with a metal 'detection shield' sitting at just 50 volts which can detect someone starting to cut a cable and de-energise everything.

Re: Renewables remain cheapest, but cost reductions on hold

#30

Post by gregwebs »

rcMgD2BwE72F wrote: post #22
oldgradstudent wrote: post #10

Great, we can stop all incentives for renewable energy now that it is the cheapest way to generate energy. More seriously, where's the catch?

We can definitely stop incentivize renewables when operators of fossil fuel plants pay for their externalities (including consequences of climate change). Spoiler: that's impossible because they would immediately go bankrupt.

No need to get into climate change. The externality of pollution alone is much greater than any subsidy. Natural gas wouldn’t go bankrupt and it’s necessary to have natural gas peaker plants when you have renewables.

In this report they state that the cost of fossil fuels is 2.9 trillion in the US alone (this number is higher than the IRENA report and some other analyses). https://energyandcleanair.org/wp/wp-content/uploads/2020/02/...

But we should look at each fuel individually. According to one study, air pollution costs of coal are 32 cents/kWh, 13 cents/kWh for oil, and 2 cents/kWh for natural gas. Other studies have come up with lower amounts. https://www.ucsusa.org/resources/hidden-costs-fossil-fuels

Post reply on HN