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

Why did renewables become so cheap so fast?

ourworldindata.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

571–580 of 642 posts

Re: Why did renewables become so cheap so fast?

#571

Post by rossdavidh »

pmiller2 wrote: post #485
yazaddaruvala wrote: post #445

Earlier quoted context omitted.

As per the article, renewables will be significantly cheaper than oil. Why would a poor country not purchase the cheaper option?

You tell me why poor countries wouldn’t invest in solar, wind, hydro, or geothermal. (Hint: you have to build the infrastructure first, and not all of these are even practical everywhere.) Hydrogen isn’t all that practical as a fuel, and biomass just puts CO2 back into the atmosphere. Can you think of a renewable source of energy that’s both attractive to poor and developing countries, and also practical? Oil is easy…

From everything I have read, it is already the case that building a new PV plant is cheaper in most of the world than building a new coal plant, and soon it will be cheaper than building a new oil power plant.

Similar to how much of the developed world skipped landline phones, and went straight to cellphones, because they didn't have to build as much connection infrastructure.

Re: Why did renewables become so cheap so fast?

#572

Post by dredmorbius »

rini17 wrote: post #489
dredmorbius wrote: post #183

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Hydro plant failures have ocurred, and are far and away the most lethal energy-related accidents to date, true. The worst power plant accident of time, not a nuclear power plant failure, but a hydro station in China, Banqiao Dam. It's instructive several ways. Any number of fairly simple methods would have hugely alleviated the impact of the disaster. Much as with major nuclear disasters, it was a cascade of failures…

I thought you try to adhere to facts, till I got to "the land is a glowing radioactive mess" thing. If you say so, please too mention the land which is poisonous carcinogenic mess because of coal sludge leaks, tar sand mining and fracking byproducts, heavy metals and pesticides which tend to concentrate in hydropower reservoirs, etc.etc. And some of these actually have longer half-life than nuclear leaks.

I'm not discussing or comparing fossil fuels, but rather renewables, and specifically hydro, with nuclear. Coal sludge, tar sands mining, and fracking have nothing to do with hydropower generation. Those are the activities renewable energy alternatives are specifically intended to replace, and as such, they address any related concerns directly.

I'm unaware of any substantial credible literature describing toxic accumulations in hydro projects due to the hydro project itself.

"Cancer alleys" along major riverways due to other streamside and watershed activities (e.g., the lower Mississippi river & delta region) are prevalent without any accompanying hydroelectric facilities. Hydro isn't the cause.

This seems to be a shifting of the argument on your part.

Re: Why did renewables become so cheap so fast?

#573

Post by ben_w »

fakedang wrote: post #565
ben_w wrote: post #528

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> imo, they'll never collapse Things can change surprisingly fast. My grandmother was born close to the peak of the British Empire, within a few years (plus or minus) of Irish independence; by the time my older brother was born the Empire was reduced to about 5 million people outside the UK, and by the time I was born the UK had humiliated itself by managing to lose a naval dispute with Iceland despite the entire pop…

Again, read my last line. The SWF is responsible for all the subsidies in the UAE, and if they collapse, it would mean we have far bigger problems. The SWF invests in all major indices across all major markets, and even in multiple private equity firms (including my old firm, which was one of the biggest in the world). The collapse of $1.1T worth of investments would be the signal of a global collapse. Imagine if Bla…

I read you last line, but “if it collapses we have bigger things to worry about” was essentially the same argument my father used when he advised me to invest in Lloyds bank — those shares lost 95% of their value since I bought them precisely because “something bigger to worry about” did in fact happen.

Now I’m a software dev not an economist, so perhaps you know better, but I have been told that WW2 essentially bankrupted the British Empire, which was 36.54% of global GDP in 1913.

I am happy to assume the SWF is invested wisely, but even if the manager’s kids and grandkids continue to invest wisely and learn the explicit lessons of the mistakes of others without ever falling into the mindset that they’re “too big [for anyone else to allow them to] fail” and therefore take risks that make failure more likely, black swan events are an ever-present risk. Indeed, one reason I referenced British Empire is the phrase “the empire on which the sun never sets” — it set on the British, and one day it will set on all the nations that now exist, including UAE.

Re: Why did renewables become so cheap so fast?

#574

Post by Reason077 »

eldaisfish wrote: post #567
Reason077 wrote: post #478

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> "What is needed today for a low-carbon future is nuclear and hydro." Hydro is great if you have the terrain for it, but much of the world is not geographically suited for extensive hydro. Nuclear is extraordinarily expensive and often takes decades to plan and build. Renewables can be built far cheaper and far more quickly. On grids that still have gas & coal fired power stations, every GWh of electricity produced…

>Nuclear is extraordinarily expensive and often takes decades to plan and build. That's not necessarily true as countries like China are building new nuclear reactors in 4-5 years. Remember that nuclear is one of the few industries that designs for the worst case scenario which is part of the high cost. The other component of the high cost is often policy and overzealous bureaucracy. >On grids that still have gas & c…

> "A kWh from a wind turbine is absolutely not equal to a kWh from a coal/gas/nuclear/hydro plant due to the fact that the capacity factor for a typical wind turbine is around 20-30%."

No, a kWh of energy produced by a wind turbine absolutely is equal to a kWh produced by any other means.

You'd be correct to say that a kW of capacity is not equal. (ie: a 1 GW wind farm may not produce as much energy as a 1 GW nuclear plant, but 1 GWh of energy is 1 GWh of energy, no matter what source produces it).

For what it's worth, UK off-shore wind farms currently have load factors of between 39 and 47%, and these are predicted to exceed 50% by 2035. Source: https://renews.biz/55349/uk-offshore-wind-load-factors-to-ex...

Re: Why did renewables become so cheap so fast?

#575

Post by yourapostasy »

tomp wrote: post #491
yourapostasy wrote: post #435

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Container shipping switching to nuclear would be a quick change once regulations are in place for one example. This comment sent me looking, and I didn't see anyone making any kind of move towards installing a regulatory environment that is conducive towards a "quick win" for nuclear-powered container ships. This Flexport article [1] was interesting, but didn't mention any such legislative moves afoot. This article…

In your research, did you find out that nuclear-powered ships are actually cheaper (i.e. combined cost of fuel, personnel & maintenance connected with the nuclear reactor)? Because obviously the primary goal of the military isn't cost-saving, it's having subs & aircraft carriers that can stay sea-borne indefinitely. So they'd be using them even if they're actually (much) more expensive

> ...did you find out that nuclear-powered ships are actually cheaper...

Heck no. As a new tech platform without volume production, they'll be wildly more expensive until the vessel fabricators and ship operators hit that growth knee where experience and volume combine to deliver innovations and cost scaling of their sourcing where the savings stack up. Except in this case the savings have to come from automating the regulatory compliance and operational security of the power plants, both challenging problem spaces.

This is why I specifically pointed out subsidization of those areas to even out the playing field, like the tax subsidies for renewable power. It is a decades-long play for power if someone makes it a national priority. The US has possibly the most advanced ocean-going nuclear vessel tech base, has a best-in-world operational excellence in rail freight, and arguably one of the best freight logistics industries and infrastructure in the world. The US could have dominated the world through its own OBOR on a global scale in a similar way China is trying to dominate as a mercantilist superpower, through effectively owning commercial sector logistical network effects. But trying to convince the DoD and Congress the trillions that would take over decades means convincing them that is effectively what one part of soft power projection-oriented next generation war in the information age looks like. There are any number of other competing theories about next-gen war with much better-funded research and adherents out there, so it's a non-starter.

The US let a significant fraction of its manufacturing and shipping infrastructure comparatively atrophy over the past few decades, so as long as it has to retool with more automation and physical infrastructure to catch up with the leaders, it might as well implement leaps of efficiency over the current state of the art like using gantry cranes to mass-lift entire multiple layers of containers [1] in a single lift cycle. The load/unload/downtime/travel-time components all need lots more operational automation and innovation for nuclear commercial ships for automated regulatory compliance to be feasible, but many developed nations (especially US and China) have the tech base to combine in novel ways to deliver.

[1] https://supplychaingamechanger.com/is-there-a-faster-way-to-...

Re: Why did renewables become so cheap so fast?

#576

Post by marcosdumay »

pmiller2 wrote: post #562
marcosdumay wrote: post #547

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You are missong that it's the large fossil fuel plants that need long distance transmission. Wind and solar (the ones getting cheaper) need storage, not transmission.

Fair enough, but then you're just substituting gigantic batteries, such as the Tesla Megapack, for the vast transmission networks necessary to make oil, coal, and nuclear practical. These are also not trivial problems to solve for a poor country, without assistance from more developed nations. So, the question is: is there the political will in the developed world to help the developing world bootstrap renewable ener…

> These are also not trivial problems to solve for a poor country, without assistance from more developed nations.

Hum? You buy some batteries and install them.

You don't need geographic stability, you don't need stable property rights, you don't need widespread law enforcement. One can even solve it one house at a time, at a (not much) larger price.

What kinds of problems do you expect developed countries to go help poor ones with?

Re: Why did renewables become so cheap so fast?

#577

Post by yazaddaruvala »

pmiller2 wrote: post #562
marcosdumay wrote: post #547

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You are missong that it's the large fossil fuel plants that need long distance transmission. Wind and solar (the ones getting cheaper) need storage, not transmission.

Fair enough, but then you're just substituting gigantic batteries, such as the Tesla Megapack, for the vast transmission networks necessary to make oil, coal, and nuclear practical. These are also not trivial problems to solve for a poor country, without assistance from more developed nations. So, the question is: is there the political will in the developed world to help the developing world bootstrap renewable ener…

Here is a commercial installation of solar + storage at $0.04/kWh[1]. And it’s not unique, that article links to the cheapest solar + storage in the US at $0.025/kWh.

Additionally, these are today’s prices, as per this OP article the price for renewables is dropping exponentially every year. And if Elon Musk is to be believed (which I do) the price for storage is also dropping exponentially.

Given these trends it seems a no brainer that the developing world will skip fossil fuel entirely. Barring air travel, the entire worlds air and space travel will likely continue to use fossil fuels for the next decade or two.

[1] https://pv-magazine-usa.com/2019/09/10/los-angeles-commissio...

Re: Why did renewables become so cheap so fast?

#578

Post by HeyLaughingBoy »

m463 wrote: post #246
discordance wrote: post #196

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"My grandfather rode a camel, my father rode a camel, I drive a Mercedes, my son drives a Land Rover, his son will drive a Land Rover, but his son will ride a camel" - Saeed Al Maktoum

> ...his son will ride a camel I wonder if in the future, camels will be owned and/or ridden only by very wealthy individuals. (like many horses nowadays)

Not to be nitpicky, but I'd s/many/a few.

We have boarded horses for years. You'd be surprised at how little money the average horse owner makes. People tend to only think of the expensive racehorses and the wealthy people who own them and not of the person who works, e.g., as a McDonald's manager and paid $700 for her horse and less in monthly upkeep than a car payment.

Re: Why did renewables become so cheap so fast?

#579

Post by ClumsyPilot »

Gwypaas wrote: post #481
ClumsyPilot wrote: post #305

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If there is one transport that doesn't care about weight, it's ships. The real problem is cost.

There's two sides to it. For peak loads and shorter routes measured in minutes or hours with easy charging possibilities batteries have been coming for 5-7 years now. The issue is charging since no regen is possible except load smoothing due to operating current engines at a higher thermal efficiency. It's an industry that only looks at cost and barely makes money, efficiency and low-cost workers has been the name of…

This is very interesting, and if those numbers are right, straight up batteries do not appear very practical for that route. but lets consider that one does not have to complete the longest journey in the world on a single battery charge.

Any of the pacific islands could be built out with infrastructure to recharge them - afterall, sea-based wind turbines are one of the cheapest sources of power, while ontermittent, they are perfect for charging. You coupd even place something akin to an oil platform, but for charging ships.

However maybe something like hydrogen makes more sense.

Re: Why did renewables become so cheap so fast?

#580

Post by tachyonbeam »

pjc50 wrote: post #467
tachyonbeam wrote: post #289

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's going to be both. Tesla is working hard on mass-producing more affordable batteries. At the level of individuals it's already worthwhile. For 20K you can have enough Powerwall batteries to power your home when the sun isn't shining. 20K isn't that much on a 300-500K house. Competition will come and the price will come down more. Couple that with automated buying/selling of renewable power at different times of t…

> For 20K you can have enough Powerwall batteries to power your home when the sun isn't shining Huge amount of money to get off the grid - how many years of bills is that? I have a 4kW system up here at 56 degrees north, and there's no way I could go off grid with it because the seasonality is huge; I can't store power all the way through the winter. I get it from the big offshore windfarms instead.

Renewable power and everyone being off-grid are not the same. I think we'd all like to be off-grid, but it won't be possible for everyone (eg: people living in apartments).

Curious to know, how much power do you get during the winter vs summer?

Post reply on HN