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

Wind now competes with fossil fuels, and solar almost does

fortune.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

31–40 of 176 posts

Re: Wind now competes with fossil fuels, and solar almost does

#31

Post by noselfrighteous »

scythe wrote: post #23
toomuchtodo wrote: post #8

1. This is excellent. It means we're well on our way to sustainable energy generation. Wind and solar are only going to get cheaper. Even without subsidies, there is no reason to ever build another coal or oil fired generation facility. Natural gas will stick around until utility scale batteries ramp up, to where peaking plants are too expensive compared to utility scale batteries. 2. Nuclear is dead. Very dead. Thor…

7. Compressed air energy storage can't get here fast enough. Batteries are great, but they have to be replaced. Tanks can last for centuries and the materials are way cheaper at scale (CAES makes no sense below the MWh scale).

I was thinking about this the other day, what's the loss factor in compressed air storage?

Re: Wind now competes with fossil fuels, and solar almost does

#32

Post by mistermann »

toomuchtodo wrote: post #8

1. This is excellent. It means we're well on our way to sustainable energy generation. Wind and solar are only going to get cheaper. Even without subsidies, there is no reason to ever build another coal or oil fired generation facility. Natural gas will stick around until utility scale batteries ramp up, to where peaking plants are too expensive compared to utility scale batteries. 2. Nuclear is dead. Very dead. Thor…

I'm wondering, when they say prices are now near parity, is that pure prices, or does it still consider the "cost of externalities" factor?

Also, does it factor in the necessary costs for peak load and low production (cloudy / no wind)?

I actually don't think life would be that bad if society had to self-limit consumption during these times, but what are the real facts on these two items?

Re: Wind now competes with fossil fuels, and solar almost does

#33

Post by oska »

jweir wrote: post #30

I wish there was a link to the article and sources on the prices. "while natural gas-based electricity cost $82 in North and South America." This makes no sense – the price of NG is very local. I just ran an analysis of NYISO Zone J (New York City's) average hourly price for the last year – and it comes out at an average of $40.87 per MWh(peak and off peak). This would include all sources of generation. The prices in…

> I wish there was a link to the article and sources on the prices.

Here [1] is the official press release. However, I don't think the full report is available as a free download.

[1] http://about.bnef.com/press-releases/wind-solar-boost-cost-c...

Re: Wind now competes with fossil fuels, and solar almost does

#34

Post by MrTonyD »

jweir wrote: post #30

I wish there was a link to the article and sources on the prices. "while natural gas-based electricity cost $82 in North and South America." This makes no sense – the price of NG is very local. I just ran an analysis of NYISO Zone J (New York City's) average hourly price for the last year – and it comes out at an average of $40.87 per MWh(peak and off peak). This would include all sources of generation. The prices in…

I read a summary of some recent research at Stanford - concluding that wind was more than competitive with oil. That article mentioned that there were hidden subsidies to many energy sources, including oil and gas, and that most analysis didn't take those into account.

Re: Wind now competes with fossil fuels, and solar almost does

#35

Post by schwabacher »

cpprototypes wrote: post #29
toomuchtodo wrote: post #8

1. This is excellent. It means we're well on our way to sustainable energy generation. Wind and solar are only going to get cheaper. Even without subsidies, there is no reason to ever build another coal or oil fired generation facility. Natural gas will stick around until utility scale batteries ramp up, to where peaking plants are too expensive compared to utility scale batteries. 2. Nuclear is dead. Very dead. Thor…

There's possibly a better alternative to batteries: http://www.audiusa.com/newsroom/news/press-releases/2015/05/... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/E-diesel This type of technology can allow the extra power generated by solar/wind to be used to create oil. If this technology is developed further, I think it could be a better alternative to batteries. Imagine a desert full of solar panels creating oil with excess electr…

The benefit of creating oil like this is that it is energy dense, the downside is that it is hugely inefficient at every step compared to battery storage and burning it still produces air pollution.

Re: Wind now competes with fossil fuels, and solar almost does

#36

Post by cinquemb »

toomuchtodo wrote: post #8

1. This is excellent. It means we're well on our way to sustainable energy generation. Wind and solar are only going to get cheaper. Even without subsidies, there is no reason to ever build another coal or oil fired generation facility. Natural gas will stick around until utility scale batteries ramp up, to where peaking plants are too expensive compared to utility scale batteries. 2. Nuclear is dead. Very dead. Thor…

There's also CSP[0] which has taken off recently in the past 5 years (fastest growing[1] segment at ~4GW total vs ~177GW for PV) which is overshadowed by most compared to PV mind-share, but is better suited for projects that require more energy/load requirements.

I also can see CSP being more attractive to locales with existing grids and who can probably attract financing easier for a +100 MW plant to one institution vs 100k+ people having to be sold on such to install PV on their house/property. There's definitely a market for both and they will all chip away at fossil fuels rapidly coming from different sides of the market for energy.

[0]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Concentrated_solar_power

[1]: http://www.examiner.com/article/market-growth-for-pv-solar-v...

Re: Wind now competes with fossil fuels, and solar almost does

#37

Post by crdoconnor »

toomuchtodo wrote: post #8

1. This is excellent. It means we're well on our way to sustainable energy generation. Wind and solar are only going to get cheaper. Even without subsidies, there is no reason to ever build another coal or oil fired generation facility. Natural gas will stick around until utility scale batteries ramp up, to where peaking plants are too expensive compared to utility scale batteries. 2. Nuclear is dead. Very dead. Thor…

>Natural gas will stick around until utility scale batteries ramp up, to where peaking plants are too expensive compared to utility scale batteries.

There's another possibility which is that there will be an overbuild of solar and wind caused by a clean energy boom (ZIRP already did this to oil; where is that ROI-hungry risk capital going to look for returns next?).

The market will then figure out ways of putting the large irregular surpluses of electricity to use. For example, generating fuel as mentioned below, or running adjustable output aluminum smelting plants.

I think the opportunities opened up by periodic bouts of practically free electricity which have already started to occur have been vastly understated. People just look at the other side of the equation - probably because oil/utility companies have tried to keep us fixated upon it.

I think the most optimistic part of all of this, though, is the implications for democracy and peace. When the age of oil finally expires (and it is nearing a close) there won't be any way to put a chokehold on supplies of energy with raw military power.

This is probably the only thing, in fact, that could actually lead to lasting peace in the middle east, which has been plagued by the resource curse for a century or so.

Re: Wind now competes with fossil fuels, and solar almost does

#38

Post by osmala »

trhway wrote: post #15
maxharris wrote: post #7

The article uses euphemisms and double-talk: As more countries and states enact market systems that put a price on carbon emissions, clean energy technologies will actually become cheaper than fossil fuel technologies Translated into plain English: As more governments raise the price of fossil fuels through increased taxation, solar and wind may cost less than fossil fuels. What does the author have to gain by obfusc…

>Translated into plain English: >As more governments raise the price of fossil fuels through increased taxation, solar and wind may cost less than fossil fuels. well, as it stands currently the whole society pays the tax for the fossil fuels use - that tax is the expenses and damages caused by the environment damage and climate change, oil wars, backward countries and people having huge political power due to being r…

For society you need reliability, you just don't stop freezers just because sun goes down, or there is period of storms or night. You would need atleast 14 times the hour capacity just to smooth the daily curve. [In winter there is less sunlight hours and maximum sun light is mid-day.] The cost is more than 0.1$ per watt hour of capacity, just for battery, and not for any power electronics going with it.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rechargeable_battery

So this alone would increase your cost estimates by 150$

And for society you probably want a weeks worth of electricity stored in some form or other to deal with weather differences, and not summer winter difference. So minimal goal would be 24*7. Or just more than 150 hours.

Or that another 1500$ of cost not included in your estimations. Now a big thing to realize, in electricity markets where networks are required to take in solar and wind from other players, its not the producer of electricity that bears the cost of that large storage its the utility that buys the electricity from market.

Right now it works somewhere along the lines. Lets make 40% efficient fossil fuel plants instead of 60% efficient slowly starting fossil fuel plants, so that we can turn them on and off for covering the difference between intermitted sources and consumption. So in reality renewable plants end up just becoming fuel saving devices for fossil fuel plants while reducing fuel efficiency of said plants when they actually are turned on . In long run I believe nuclear is way to go if we want to stop global warming. The intermittency problem goes away with it and you can run a grid with 100% nuclear with very little storage because production isn't intermittent, and with modern plants you can vary electricity production between 50 and 100%

Global warming is accumulating effect, the emissions are just rate of change, and not the temperature difference, and we need to aim pretty close to zero emissions to stop it. [Yes nature takes some of it off from circulation but a lot less than people think because naysayers compare our emissions to winter, summer cycle of plants that cancels itself in yearly basis.]

Re: Wind now competes with fossil fuels, and solar almost does

#39

Post by toomuchtodo »

crdoconnor wrote: post #37
toomuchtodo wrote: post #8

1. This is excellent. It means we're well on our way to sustainable energy generation. Wind and solar are only going to get cheaper. Even without subsidies, there is no reason to ever build another coal or oil fired generation facility. Natural gas will stick around until utility scale batteries ramp up, to where peaking plants are too expensive compared to utility scale batteries. 2. Nuclear is dead. Very dead. Thor…

>Natural gas will stick around until utility scale batteries ramp up, to where peaking plants are too expensive compared to utility scale batteries. There's another possibility which is that there will be an overbuild of solar and wind caused by a clean energy boom (ZIRP already did this to oil; where is that ROI-hungry risk capital going to look for returns next?). The market will then figure out ways of putting the…

I have high hopes that practically free energy leads us to post scarcity.

Re: Wind now competes with fossil fuels, and solar almost does

#40

Post by crdoconnor »

mistermann wrote: post #32
toomuchtodo wrote: post #8

1. This is excellent. It means we're well on our way to sustainable energy generation. Wind and solar are only going to get cheaper. Even without subsidies, there is no reason to ever build another coal or oil fired generation facility. Natural gas will stick around until utility scale batteries ramp up, to where peaking plants are too expensive compared to utility scale batteries. 2. Nuclear is dead. Very dead. Thor…

I'm wondering, when they say prices are now near parity, is that pure prices, or does it still consider the "cost of externalities" factor? Also, does it factor in the necessary costs for peak load and low production (cloudy / no wind)? I actually don't think life would be that bad if society had to self-limit consumption during these times, but what are the real facts on these two items?

>I'm wondering, when they say prices are now near parity, is that pure prices, or does it still consider the "cost of externalities" factor?

I think it just counts externalities that are already priced in via taxes/subsidies.

It's not really possible to price global warming or clean air anyway.

Plus, remember the story about primary school parents who were fined for being late to pick up their kids?

The effect of trying to price global warming or clean air is harmful in and of itself. We shouldn't be trying to accurately assess the cost of destroying our environment to determine the exact tax to levy on the fossil fuel companies. We should be taxing them into oblivion now that we have alternatives.

Post reply on HN