Solar is now cheaper than some coal, says India energy minister • Hacker News Board

Re: Solar is now cheaper than some coal, says India energy minister

#251

Post by SideburnsOfDoom » Wed, Apr 20, 2016, 10:02 AM UTC

levemi wrote: post #206

hnarn wrote: post #57

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The best location for covering a large area of land for purposes of solar energy would arguably be a desert. "90% of the world’s population lives within range of a desert and could be supplied with solar electricity from there", says this article, which also shows you how much needs to be covered to supply the entire globe in theory: http://cleantechnica.com/2009/06/22/half-a-trillion-dollars-...

The desert is full of life that would be impacted by these panels.

As compared to the environmental impact of coal, oil and gas, really? Are you joking?

Re: Solar is now cheaper than some coal, says India energy minister

#252

Post by the_why_of_y » Wed, Apr 20, 2016, 10:16 AM UTC

forrestthewoods wrote: post #14

starving_coder wrote: post #11

Earlier quoted context omitted.

From the article: “Of course there are challenges of 24/7 power. We accept all of that – but we have been able to come up with a solar-based long term vision that is not subsidy based.” Headline is not possible at face value except that it is.

As best I can tell India's government is currently spending billions of dollars on solar. Maybe it will some day not be subsidy based. But as best I can tell it currently is. In fact the government appears to be spending one hundred billion dollars on solar in the next six years. By 2022. Furthermore, "The Ministry of New and Renewable Energy provides 70 percent subsidy on the installation cost of a solar photovoltai…

They have to subsidize solar a bit so it can compete with the huge subsidies for carbon based fuels.

http://www.imf.org/external/pubs/cat/longres.aspx?sk=42940.0

Re: Solar is now cheaper than some coal, says India energy minister

#253

Post by drjesusphd » Wed, Apr 20, 2016, 2:19 PM UTC

kristopolous wrote: post #243

drjesusphd wrote: post #126

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> w/m^2 still have some growth There's a pretty solid upper-bound on that.

In solutions that don't require unobtanium, current cells are arguably only about 1/4th of the way there. In solutions that have been constructed regardless of cost, it's still not 1/2 the way. I think seeing another 100% gain in affordable solutions is conservative, since 400% is what's possible.

Sure, but a fourfold increase in efficiency does not lead to "effectively zero" land area over time, which is what you claimed.

Re: Solar is now cheaper than some coal, says India energy minister

#254

Post by kristopolous » Wed, Apr 20, 2016, 5:29 PM UTC

drjesusphd wrote: post #253

kristopolous wrote: post #243

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In solutions that don't require unobtanium, current cells are arguably only about 1/4th of the way there. In solutions that have been constructed regardless of cost, it's still not 1/2 the way. I think seeing another 100% gain in affordable solutions is conservative, since 400% is what's possible.

Sure, but a fourfold increase in efficiency does not lead to "effectively zero" land area over time, which is what you claimed.

If the vast majority of buildings used "negative" power (that is that they generated more back into the grid then they took out) due to small scale power generation on premises, then the net effect may not dictate a need for a grandiose centralized solution.

When people compare say a million homes power needs, which is about 1000Gwh/month, in the non-distributed systems you need a 1000Gwh/month solution (think nuclear). However, this hypothetical 4-fold increase in efficiency would need only 7 solar panel (1.6m x 1m) per house for a net zero need distributed system.

If the right market incentives were there, and in a future market anticipating the swanson curve, someone may install say 25 panels (18 in excess of their need) to generate monthly passive income ("fans" of solar have 30+ panels)

Under this model, someone would be powering their house and two of their neighbors.

You can see how this can add up with the right market structure.

My argument is that in a world of a free-market entrepreneurial energy, you won't need a centralized power generator capable of powering 1 million homes. In fact, you may not need centralized power generation at all.

The future problems aren't going to be in power generation, but in storage.

Re: Solar is now cheaper than some coal, says India energy minister

#255

Post by conceit » Wed, Apr 20, 2016, 10:01 PM UTC

nathansobo wrote: post #209

julienchastang wrote: post #203

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Exactly. Huge externalities such as rising sea-levels, ocean acidification, etc. etc.

Takes political mechanisms to enforce those costs on polluters, so it's really important for solar to beat coal even in the presence of this hidden subsidy.

Solar does have externalities, as well. Solar panels aren't built from nothing.

And batteries neither, apparently

Re: Solar is now cheaper than some coal, says India energy minister

#256

Post by gozur88 » Thu, Apr 21, 2016, 5:24 AM UTC

ZeroGravitas wrote: post #241

gozur88 wrote: post #18

Great! If he's right, we don't have to do anything, right? No direct subsidies, no feed-in tariffs, no cheap loans, etc. We can just let it happen !.

Your use of the suspiciously specific phrase "direct subsidies" suggests that you already know that coal receives plenty of government subsidies and that if those were removed, and coal had to account for the damage it does, then yes it would just happen.

>Your use of the suspiciously specific phrase "direct subsidies"...

Was to contrast cash grants from other forms of subsidies like feed-in tariffs, cheap loans, net-zero metering, etc. There's no reason to parse my comments like some kind of religious text - I will tell you what I mean.