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

51–60 of 176 posts

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

#51

Post by thewopr »

monochromatic wrote: post #46
schwabacher wrote: post #35

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

> burning it still produces air pollution Doesn't burning it just turn it back into what it was made from? You're not releasing any more carbon than you put into it.

Oxides of nitrogen, soot and various other pollutants come out of burning diesel, even if it's just carbon we pulled out of the air. It would be carbon neutral, but not pollution neutral.

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

#52

Post by cinquemb »

PhantomGremlin wrote: post #49
cinquemb wrote: post #36

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

The problem with CSP compared to PV is all the moving parts. You need something like molten salts, coupled with a conventional turbine and generator. PV can be purely solid state, a thing of beauty IMO compared to mechanical "contraptions".

That's less of a problem, and more of a feature, because those molten salts enable CSP to provide more power for up to 16 hours[0] sans sunlight which is important if you need dispatchability, which is not really comparable to PV's which cannot offer the same now, hence why CSP is not killed off by PV's and has continued to grow along with PV's.

You also have to consider that people who live in apartments or rent a house in developed markets are pretty much either locked out of the market for PV's or not incentivized to pay out of pocket (even considering the subsidies/financing that exist [looking at you Solar City]) for such systems. I'd say that share of the population is far larger than people with a mortgage/own a home and are interested in such systems.

This embodies the situation: "Does this mean CSP will eventually disappear, trampled by PV? Not necessarily. CSP has one major advantage over PV: dispatchability. Current CSP plants can store thermal energy for up to 16 hours, which means that their production profile can match the demand profile (just like a conventional power plant). PV is not dispatchable, as a feasible commercial energy storage system does not yet exist. Dispatchability will be increasingly important when and where renewable energies achieve high penetration rates, so two things can happen: CSP becomes a commercially viable solution before a commercial PV storage system is developed, carving its own market segment; or the PV industry quickly solves the storage issue and becomes the solar technology of choice."[0]

[0]: http://thisisxy.com/blog/cannibalization-in-renewable-energi...

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

#53

Post by cpprototypes »

monochromatic wrote: post #46
schwabacher wrote: post #35

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

> burning it still produces air pollution Doesn't burning it just turn it back into what it was made from? You're not releasing any more carbon than you put into it.

He is probably referring to other pollutants such as NOx. It is unavoidable to produce some amount of these pollutants in an oil combustion process. But California has shown that it's possible to get this down to a low level. Smog used to be really bad in LA. But a combination of catalytic converters, strict emissions testing, and oil refinery requirements to make cleaner burning gas has dramatically reduced smog. The oil refinery requirements make CA gas very expensive compared to the rest of the nation. But I think it's worth it for the air pollution improvements.

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

#54

Post by fsloth »

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…

Totally offbeat angle, nothing to do with energy markets at large, but:

My whole country is situated north of the 60th parallel north. Winters are friggin cold and I would be very concerned if there were no sources of energy not dependent on sunlight or wind.

Also, I'm a neurotic so in case of a nuclear winter type of effect I would love to have some nuclear reactor technology going.

For deep space exploration solar panels don't work. It would be nice if we maintained active interest in power generation systems not dependent on sun or atmospheric movements.

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

#55

Post by crdoconnor »

eru wrote: post #47
crdoconnor wrote: post #40

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>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 try…

Corporations may be people, but they are not humans. The Kindergarten late pick up pricing doesn't apply.

Fossil fuel corporations will fight for their existence and profits from energy scarcity until their last gasp of tainted air. It won't affect their behavior at all.

It does apply to policymakers, however, who are very much human, and who place altogether too much faith in the idiotic models created by economists as it is.

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

#56

Post by PhantomGremlin »

cinquemb wrote: post #52
PhantomGremlin wrote: post #49

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The problem with CSP compared to PV is all the moving parts. You need something like molten salts, coupled with a conventional turbine and generator. PV can be purely solid state, a thing of beauty IMO compared to mechanical "contraptions".

That's less of a problem, and more of a feature, because those molten salts enable CSP to provide more power for up to 16 hours[0] sans sunlight which is important if you need dispatchability, which is not really comparable to PV's which cannot offer the same now, hence why CSP is not killed off by PV's and has continued to grow along with PV's. You also have to consider that people who live in apartments or rent a h…

I agree with you, in theory.

Practically speaking there hasn't been a lot of large scale CSP done, and e.g. Ivanpah[1] has a lot of limitations and teething problems. It has no energy storage, and it needs to use natural gas for 4.5 hours each day during startup.

As for your assertion that CSP has continued to grow, the one data point I linked to claims "little appetite" from California utilities for power from plants like that.

One thing can probably both agree on is that CSP is a "go big or go home" technology. It's not suited for small scale deployments. Which makes it quite complementary to rooftop PV.

[1] http://breakingenergy.com/2014/10/29/at-ivanpah-solar-power-...

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

#57

Post by Qwertious »

Retric wrote: post #10
existencebox wrote: post #5

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You make a valid point, but I'd be curious to what extent this applies on both sides. I know I certainly hear a lot of buzz about the subsidies provided for "green energy", installing panels, that sort of thing. I was also under the impression that we haven't fully moved away from using certain rare earth metals/other compounds in the panels/large electric generators, which likely have a heavy cost externality in min…

Fossil fuels get on the order of 100+ billion per year in direct and indirect subsidies in the US as a conservative estimate . By far the largest subsides for 'Green Energy' go to corn ethanol which is mostly political football. After that there really more rounding errors than anything else. PS: Nuclear seems to be popular on a lot of tech sites, but it needs massive subsides to come close to break even.

I'm not saying you're wrong (and I think you're right), but do you have a source for the "fossil fuels get $100billion+ in subsidies" and "Nuclear needs massive subsidies to come close to break even"?

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

#58

Post by gwright »

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…

Understanding costs with and without subsidies is critical. I believe the current reports about renewables being cost-effective relative to fossil fuels includes subsidies but I couldn't find the raw data after a few minutes of googling. If so, just means the costs are being shifted -- and that renewables are still more expensive than coal/gas.

The big problem is that we still don't have effective ways to time-shift energy production. Solar and wind power sources will never replace base-load coal/gas plants until we can solve that problem. Battery technology doesn't solve this problem yet.

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

#59

Post by cinquemb »

PhantomGremlin wrote: post #56
cinquemb wrote: post #52

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's less of a problem, and more of a feature, because those molten salts enable CSP to provide more power for up to 16 hours[0] sans sunlight which is important if you need dispatchability, which is not really comparable to PV's which cannot offer the same now, hence why CSP is not killed off by PV's and has continued to grow along with PV's. You also have to consider that people who live in apartments or rent a h…

I agree with you, in theory. Practically speaking there hasn't been a lot of large scale CSP done, and e.g. Ivanpah[1] has a lot of limitations and teething problems. It has no energy storage, and it needs to use natural gas for 4.5 hours each day during startup. As for your assertion that CSP has continued to grow, the one data point I linked to claims "little appetite" from California utilities for power from plant…

> "Practically speaking there hasn't been a lot of large scale CSP done…"

Maybe not in the United States, but it has taken off in Spain (looking at Wikipedia I cited earlier, which is probably better suited to take advantage of it in theory since installations are near population centers). I see far more interest oversees than in the United States… which is not surprising considering all the entrenched players that simply don't have the influence to the same degree in other places.

I can agree with this statement to some degree: "It's not suited for small scale deployments. Which makes it quite complementary to rooftop PV.", but seeing how it's serving a need that PV has not been able to provide to date despite it all, I'd hardly say its "go big or go home", there's far more abundant sodium and potassium available in the earth's crust vs lithium.

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

#60

Post by jessaustin »

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...

Batteries have improved over time, but I'm not convinced that they'll see the vast improvements necessary in order for them to replace natural gas for a long time. If natural gas really must be replaced the most logical alternative might be ammonia.

Ammonia has hydrogen's good properties: not a greenhouse gas, doesn't cause smog, numerous production methods including electrolysis, easily transported in liquid form, can be used in fuel cells or in ICEs. However it doesn't embrittle, in liquid form it's actually denser in hydrogen atoms than liquid hydrogen is, and due to its agricultural applications there is already an established distribution infrastructure (in the Midwest, at least).

Post reply on HN