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

261–270 of 352 posts

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

#261

Post by mulmen »

maliker wrote: post #219
mulmen wrote: post #203

It is my understanding that we are already past or very near a point of no return w.r.t greenhouse gas emissions and global warming. Talk of peak power and renewable excess leads to discussion about the need to store that excess. Could we also expend that energy to do something like scrub CO2? Is this even feasible at a scale that could make a difference?

Direct air capture of CO2 is getting pretty good. Carbon Engineering [1] was in the news recently for demonstrating an efficient scheme at commercial scale. When I looked at the math, their technique would add about 8 cents/kWh to the price of fossil power assuming it was used to capture all the CO2. So if solar is coming in around 2 cents/kWh, you could have 10 cent electricity (competitive in many markets) that als…

Yeah I think about this in the context of energy density in batteries. Liquid fuel like gasoline has huge benefits for personal transportation just because of the energy density. I wonder what amount of clean energy it would take to make some kind of synthetic/green(?) fuel similar to E85 (E100?). The cost of the fuel could include the carbon capture based on how the fuel is burned.

e: looks like you missed a link but I looked up Carbon Engineering and if what they say is true that is really exciting. Especially for airlines and shipping.

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

#262

Post by Brakenshire »

coryfklein wrote: post #231
ghouse wrote: post #138

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> The frustrating part about solar is that because the peak generation output doesn't line up with typical peak consumption ("the duck curve"), utilities need natgas peakers, which sit mostly idle, to fill in the gap. Solar does line up with peak consumption. The duck curve is not a consumption curve, but a "Net Demand" curve -- the demand remaining after solar and generation is removed. Peakers existed before solar.…

> Solar does line up with peak consumption. Not true according to [1], which shows peak consumption around 19:00, just as solar production drops to 0. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Duck_curve

Looks like a fantastic opportunity to install a.c. which draws its energy in the middle of the day, hell you could probably just set the house to stay cold through the day and save.

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

#263

Post by Brakenshire »

moistoreos wrote: post #137

Why is this a surprise? Solar costs have been falling for multiple decades. NON-SURPRISING HEADLINE: "Falling Costs Are Actually Falling". The important statistics to pay attention to are the implementations and if the components are recyclable not the cost per megawatt. Increasing renewable energy is important but not if you cannot recycle the components.

> The important statistics to pay attention to are the implementations and if the components are recyclable not the cost per megawatt.

Why? Solar panels are mostly made of processed sand.

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

#264

Post by klipt »

prawn wrote: post #237
heisenbergs wrote: post #155

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Where it's hot, people come home from work as the sun is setting, and turn on the A/C. It can be 85F overnight in many parts of the world, which makes sleep very difficult.

If you leave your AC running all day on solar energy ($0 marginal cost), do you still need to run it at night?

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

#265

Post by ikiris »

matt4077 wrote: post #174
rsynnott wrote: post #136

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This has terrifying geopolitical implications, so probably no-one will want to depend on it anytime soon.

It's no different than data links, which have mostly worked without political interference.

They really haven't.

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

#266

Post by hathawsh »

xahrepap wrote: post #257
hathawsh wrote: post #133

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That does look like the right info. I think Utah has a typical emission credit program. Maybe xahrepap was overstating the case when (s)he suggested that every Utah land owner has emission credits they can sell. Emission credits seem to be limited to certain large businesses.

Not sure on all the details. Maybe it's only certain power companies. I know this did apply to a relative who was a home-owner in a city that generated it's own power, so maybe they have their own program different than normal. He was telling me about it when he looked into some of the fine print from solar salesman.

I understand your perspective now. Thanks. I'll study this more.

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

#267

Post by jannyfer »

criddell wrote: post #211
refulgentis wrote: post #206

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The sun goes down at night

And? I'm still connected to the grid.

I think you are talking about off-grid vs. grid, but the others are not. The cost of solar applies also to utility companies, and I think that’s what GP was alluding to.

The grid will switch to solar + battery if it becomes cheaper than alternatives (gas, coal, nuclear, etc.)

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

#268

Post by digikata »

dragontamer wrote: post #250
digikata wrote: post #239

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Some sort of battery based tech that is fairly unconstrained by site requirements, as well as complex construction engineering requirements seems to have much more potential.

The Bath County Pumped Hydro plant can give 3GW of power with over 10-hours of storage. That's 30GW-hrs. How many lithium ion batteries do you need to compare against that? "Small" Pumped Hydro Plants are hundreds of MW-hrs, and large ones are dozens of GW-hrs. CAES in Texas was constructed inside of abandoned mine-shafts. Line the mine-shafts with steel to contain compressed air, and bam, cheap energy storage. -----…

I didn't intend to discount the projects you mentioned, there are lots of approaches being pursued. The more of them get a real crack at the market the better in my opinion.

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

#269

Post by ben_w »

Aloha wrote: post #178
CompelTechnic wrote: post #124

Earlier quoted context omitted.

One weird thought I had the other day: high voltage DC transmission lines are getting more popular. I wonder if it would be economical for a high voltage DC line to form a loop around the entire planet, so that the load can follow the sun through a complete cycle.

Loss is still an issue

If the loss is less than about 75% in the worst case (i.e. 100 watts of generated electricity supplying 25 watts to the consumer), the benefits of optimal panel location combined with the lower cost of solar makes it better than or equivalent to current baseload power supplies like nuclear.

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

#270

Post by stale2002 »

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.

There is an alternative. Don't "smooth" it out. Just provide double the capacity needed. If prices go low enough, you can solve the problem by just throwing more solar panels at it.
Post reply on HN