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

Solar and batteries can power the world

nworbmot.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

261–270 of 473 posts

Re: Solar and batteries can power the world

#261

Post by edent »

danw1979 wrote: post #249

> solar PV installed cost 384 €/kWp Is this grid-scale solar ? It can’t be rooftop - there is nobody in the UK who will install a 5kW rooftop system for £2k. The quotes I’ve had recently have been closer to £10k.

Yes. It literally says:

> The cost assumptions assume utility-scale solar panels and batteries in large parks. Smaller-scale rooftop solar and home batteries would cost 2-3 times more.

I've installed domestic solar several times. The main cost isn't the panels or the inverters - it's the scaffolding, labour, and wiring improvements in the home. If you have a tall or complicated house, it'll cost more.

Re: Solar and batteries can power the world

#262

Post by lazide »

hvb2 wrote: post #226
lazide wrote: post #166

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Germany’s renewables rollout would like a word….

If you mean what they started in the 90s? That's not what this is about. The conversation was about not being able to rightsize today. Germany did jumpstart their market successfully but that was in a wildly different time. Want to talk about what a typical KWp of installed solar cost at the time? Hindsight....

Germany has only a tiny portion of their total energy needs on renewables - if we’re being honest about the definition of ‘total energy needs’.

Like in the camper van scenario, if we include winter heating and transportation? Oh boy.

It’s getting better, but if we’re really honest very far from the truth

Re: Solar and batteries can power the world

#263

Post by ahhhhnoooo »

declan_roberts wrote: post #9
ahhhhnoooo wrote: post #2

China understands this, parts of the EU understands this. The US is currently dead set on betting on the wrong technology, and it's going to put them so far behind. Imagine a world where people didn't care about labeling new things "woke", and instead could all sit down and say, "we're going to make major investments in next generation infrastructure to ensure our capacity and independence."

China burns significantly more coal than the USA and Europe combined and has no environmental laws standing in the way of their nuclear power plants. Imagine a world where people don't care about labeling new things as "regressive" or "anti-environmental"

China's coal use is shrinking recently, and their solar investment is in the hundreds of GW annually.

Don't look at where the ball is, look at where the ball is going.

Re: Solar and batteries can power the world

#264

Post by ethagnawl »

anon7000 wrote: post #61
mbesto wrote: post #41

Fun fact, 12 million hectares of land of used to produce corn used for ethanol which is used to produce gas. I'll let you draw the conclusion. https://news.cornell.edu/stories/2025/04/trading-some-corn-e...

Yeah, the technology connections video on this was fantastic. If one was to cover that land in solar, you’d produce far more than the current energy demands of the US. Relying on an energy source which requires constant, continuous resource extraction is fucking stupid when we can spend resources up front and get reliable energy (solar + battery) for decades with minimal operating cost & maintenance. And then we’ll h…

> And then we’ll have a recycling loop to minimize future resource extraction.

This is something the (willfully?) deluded really don't appreciate. I know people who listened to _that one Joe Rogan podcast_ about precious metal extraction for EVs and are back on the oil bandwagon. The current regime of precious metal extraction is absolutely dirty and dangerous but ... it doesn't have to be and won't be forever -- especially if, as you've said, we actively prioritize a recycling loop for the components.

Re: Solar and batteries can power the world

#265

Post by scythe »

brational wrote: post #252
anon7000 wrote: post #61

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yeah, the technology connections video on this was fantastic. If one was to cover that land in solar, you’d produce far more than the current energy demands of the US. Relying on an energy source which requires constant, continuous resource extraction is fucking stupid when we can spend resources up front and get reliable energy (solar + battery) for decades with minimal operating cost & maintenance. And then we’ll h…

> which requires constant, continuous resource extraction Is there an upper bound on battery limits with regards to resource extraction?

It's probably fairly high, considering the existence of the sodium-sulfur battery. It's not economically competitive since it operates at high temperature, but it's based on very abundant materials.

Re: Solar and batteries can power the world

#266

Post by Ajedi32 »

ZeroGravitas wrote: post #232
Ajedi32 wrote: post #185

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The issue is that to achieve that you can't just build 90% solar plus 10% fossil fuels. You would need to build 100% solar + 100% fossil fuels for the 10% of the time solar doesn't work.

If you build batteries on the scale that the article suggests (and is probably going to happen in the real future) you can use batteries charged from fossil fuels. It's a few percent dirtier (round trip losses) but in return you can use gas plants that are 50% more efficient to charge them rather than run peaker plants. And of course that's ignoring wind which is nearly as cheap as solar and anti-correlated with it.

That's fair, batteries are somewhat useful for peaking even in a world powered 100% by fossil fuels so there's some infrastructure that can be shared. And even on a cloudy day solar output isn't 0%. But I'm skeptical the overlap here is significant enough to invalidate my basic point, though I admit it's a big simplification.

Reality is extremely complicated, so realistically the exact mix of solar + fossil fuels that makes sense is going to depend on a huge number of factors and vary from region to region depending on weather, fuel costs, construction costs, transmission costs, and probably a thousand other things I haven't thought of. The best thing to do is stay out of the way of both industries and let the market sort all of that complexity out.

I would speculate the result of that is going to be a lot more renewables than currently exist, mainly due to the drastic reduction in the cost of solar and batteries that has been occurring over the last few decades, but I don't think it'll be 100% or even 90% renewables either (expect perhaps in the extremely long term). Time will tell.

Re: Solar and batteries can power the world

#268

Post by burningChrome »

bb88 wrote: post #184
germandiago wrote: post #92

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So here I go: if it is so stupid, why it is not done yet? Try not to blame anyone. Do it rationally if you can, from your message I understand your opinion. I say this as a person that has lived in a developing country the last 15 years. It is not that simple IMHO...

1. Solar panels need a huge capital expenditure up front. 2. Wind power works better for farmers and provide a smaller footprint. Drive on I-80 in Iowa on a clear night and you'll see the wind farms blink their red lights in the distance. Farmers can lease their land for wind turbines, and the generation companies take on the regulatory / capital / politcal risks, etc. 3. Farming is more or less free market based, an…

There was also a huge move by farmers towards growing corn and selling for ethanol because E-85 was seen as some future fuel. Many farmers I know went all in and switched from regional crops (this was in ND), such as sugar beets, soybeans, and spring wheat to corn to fuel this thinking this some kind of energy gold rush.

Then economics, lack of infrastructure and incentives buried it in a few years. Farmers were left holding the bag. Many were not happy they had made a huge move into this new "renewable" energy, only to get burned in the end. The same farmers I know have scoffed at windmills and solar farms.

E-85 really lost a lot of farmers willing to use their land for something that won't pan out. The ones I know went back to growing what sells and grows the best in the market. Trying to tell a farmer that solar panels on his land where he grows food to feed his family is going to be a tough sell now.

Re: Solar and batteries can power the world

#269

Post by gpm »

foobarian wrote: post #253
cogman10 wrote: post #236

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> We haven't been building much battery storage to go along with that solar power That too has pretty recently changed. Even my home state of Idaho is deploying pretty big batteries. It takes almost no time to deploy it's all permitting and public comment at this point that takes the time. Batteries have gotten so cheap that the other electronics and equipement at this point are bigger drivers of the cost of installa…

> Batteries have gotten so cheap Any pointers for a regular Joe Shmoe homeowner looking for a backup battery? The Tesla Power Wall stuff and similar costs are halfway to six figures.

I don't know if the market has improved but when I looked at this a year or two ago I concluded that the consumer market here was utter crap with hugely inflated prices.

The cheapest per kwh way I could find to buy a home battery (that didn't involve diy stuff) was to literally buy an EV car with an inverter... by a factor of at least two... I ended up not buying one.

Unfortunately cheap batteries doesn't translate to reputable companies packaging them in cheap high quality packages for consumers instantly.

Re: Solar and batteries can power the world

#270

Post by ethagnawl »

declan_roberts wrote: post #5

The article is just wrong. And only mentions energy used for heating in passing. Heating requires MASSIVE amounts of energy. I should know bc I have a whole house battery and solar system (almost 30 kWh battery and 24kW solar). It keeps the lights on, but not heating. I live in a mild climate. The reality is that battery/solar requires major quality of life and activity time shifting trade-offs.

The article should have explored that aspect further but it's not all or nothing. For example, a geothermal setup could significantly offset the amount of energy required to heat a home.
Post reply on HN