Solar and batteries can power the world

Responding to your edit: A wider version of the same argument might apply. The US has (historically) benefited considerably from global stability and this does seem to help with that because if basically everybody has energy independence and the overheating doesn't get much worse they might chill the fuck out?

The French have used their nuclear system for 20+ years as a giving tree.

The forced EDF to sell nuclear at very cheap prices to fossil fuel companies and then buy it back at much higher price.

The French forced EDF to give subsides to solar even when that actually hurts their economics.

The French randomly in the 2010s decided to replace nuclear in a short time-frame (completely 100% unrealistic) but it sounds good to politicians. And they decided to delay all maintenance and didn't do any of the upgrades many other nations did.

Once of the secrets of French nuclear is, that their grandfather were so good in providing them these nuclear plants, the french absolutely suck at running them. Other countries like the US and ironically Germany managed to run their reactors at higher factors.

The problem is the solar is cheap when its being produced and makes the economics of base lose worse, without actually solving base load. Solar has been cross subsidized this way for a long time. And has been more explicitly subsidized. But its a private good, it helps only private people, it is negative on a system level.

Once you think on a systemic level, how to provide reliable energy for a whole country, nuclear is not more expensive and France saved a huge amount of money buy doing what they did.

> Why should anyone with solar or storage buy this expensive grid based nuclear electricity?

If somebody privately wants to build solar/storage that's fine, but they should get no support. Also prices should be adjust to actually reflect peak demand. Historically the way the system operated is with much simpler pricing models because it was understood that everybody shares in this infrastructure. In such a situation, the majority of people wouldn't build solar and batteries.

But really, the question we should ask, what the best thing to run a modern economy on and the German solution of 'lets build a massive electricity pipeline to solar farms in Greece' isn't a great model.

All this new energy transfer infrastructure is incredibly expensive. It cost at least as much as the generation itself, and sometimes more.

We will have to see if Deere's new tractor which runs on E98 actually makes it to market.

The blunt question is:

>How many calories of energy to grow 1 calorie of corn (using modern industrial farming practices)

I have some experience with distributed energy generation and have met with senior utility executives many times while trying to implement some grant supported projects through my work.

It turns out that a big problem is that whenever we install local generation it costs utilities a ton of money. They bundle the cost of grid maintenance into their per kWh charges. These costs, which include debt service, maintenance, upgrades etc amount to 5-7 cents/kWh. Whenever you generate your own energy you cost the utility 5-7cents/kWh that they have to pay regardless of your usage.

This business model, which has bundled grid maintenance into usage costs means that utilities put up huge roadblocks for distributed generation. They say they love it, but they actually hate it. Utility executives have looked me in the eye and said as much.

It gets worse though, because energy infrastructure is backed by trillions in utility bonds. These "low risk" debt instruments are owned by national and private pension funds of mind boggling size. In order to bring about a distributed energy future the grid (and low pressure nat gas infrastructure) must be reorganized in a manner that is likely to make those bonds worthless. These background factors are definitely in play when you see these bait and switch enthusiastic green energy programs that turn out to be a regulatory quagmire when you dig into them. Public utilities and pension funds hate green energy, they are a major factor in west's pathetic performance when it comes to solar adoption vs China.

Thank you. I hardly get to explain the techology I 'invent' (power chips, power router, parallel battery charger, car firmware, charging (station) software, simulation software) because the investors customers only want to hear that its cheaper or sells better (then Tesla). Or that besides going from 4000 to 20000 dis/charge cycles you also prevent any li-ion fires and have fire alarm sensors on every battery cell. The main thing I would like to shout from the rooftops is: Not a single battery on the planet charges their battery cells in parallel as we do, they all shorten their cell lifetime by charging/discharging them to fast in series, what will damage all battery cell types but especially the li-ion.

It is the same with the article we are commenting on here: if people just listen to the statistics, the simulations and the actual market developments they would see that 100% solar+battery is the cheapest energy.

The simple message is Solar is by far the cheapest energy: below 1 dollar cent per kWh and that will fall a lot more in the next decade until we get to 'a squanderable abundance of free and clean energy' as Bob Metcalf puts it https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=axfsqdpHVFU Batteries still double the cost of that solar but these prices are falling rapidly too. It is already cheaper to have solar nearby than transmit it over a distance of a few miles.

More in my earlier comments weeks and months ago https://news.ycombinator.com/threads?id=morphle