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

All the electricity you'll need for 40 years

innerpathing.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

61–70 of 131 posts

Re: All the electricity you'll need for 40 years

#61

Post by forgetfreeman »

fragmede wrote: post #50
fallingsquirrel wrote: post #36

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Utilities should charge a separate connection fee and per-kWh rate if that's what matches the economic reality of their business. I don't see the summer abundance as an issue. It means we get to shut off the fossil fuels 8 months out of the year. The remaining 4 months, everyone pays a little more per kWh, averaging out to the same cost over a full year. What's not to like?

The economic viability of a fossil fuel plant that's only used 4 months out of the year. If the plant shuts down because it's no longer economically viable/doesn't cover operating costs, what happens next winter?

Ostensibly it gets replaced by a grid storage array and sufficient renewable inputs.

Re: All the electricity you'll need for 40 years

#62

Post by dtech »

fragmede wrote: post #50
fallingsquirrel wrote: post #36

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Utilities should charge a separate connection fee and per-kWh rate if that's what matches the economic reality of their business. I don't see the summer abundance as an issue. It means we get to shut off the fossil fuels 8 months out of the year. The remaining 4 months, everyone pays a little more per kWh, averaging out to the same cost over a full year. What's not to like?

The economic viability of a fossil fuel plant that's only used 4 months out of the year. If the plant shuts down because it's no longer economically viable/doesn't cover operating costs, what happens next winter?

The electricity price in the winter will go up until either the plants are viable again or alternatives become viable.

Re: All the electricity you'll need for 40 years

#63

Post by Ekaros »

theturtle32 wrote: post #55
sdk77 wrote: post #8

It's nice to have solar panels, I have them too and while they do generate even more electricity than I need, they do so in around 6 to 7 months peaking in July. So in winter, it's grid power and in summer I might need to pay to feed in the surplus. This is in the Netherlands. It's kind of sad to see all that electricity unused in summer, and knowing I could have enough for all of the winter if only there was some wa…

"pay to feed in the surplus"? In my U.S. context, this sounds surprising: are you saying that sometimes the energy utility CHARGES you money when you feed solar energy to the grid? That sounds... bizarre?

Purchasers want to make margin on anything. So they charge this on the seller and then on buyer. Also with how markets work it is not like there isn't risks or need to at least some level forecast how much you will be buying and then selling. So their cut also covers this work.

And finally electricity is a spot market. So there is agreed price for certain period and in some cases market can be distorted and that price can be negative. It could be idiotic subsidies or production that can't be ramped as effectively. Or someone does massive mistakes with their bids, think of trading bots going wrong.

Re: All the electricity you'll need for 40 years

#64

Post by forgetfreeman »

ben_w wrote: post #42
skybrian wrote: post #28

> Electric vehicles are mainstream and last longer than their gas engine counterparts, with an estimated lifespan of 200,000 miles. What's this based on? Don't many gas cars last that long? It seems like it depends very much on how well you maintain them.

I'm not sure about averages, but given the second hand pricing I've seen: I thought after 100 or so megameters, even well maintained internal combustion engines needed maintenance of a price comparable to replacement?

Barring weird parts supply issues rebuilding an engine should be significantly cheaper than purchasing a low mileage crate replacement. Same with transmissions.

Re: All the electricity you'll need for 40 years

#65

Post by toomuchtodo »

Animats wrote: post #56
candiddevmike wrote: post #3

This seems like a "green brag" without much substance. Great that this person is privileged enough to afford solar panels, I guess. Nothing to be learned here though: no wire diagrams, placement schematics, or BoM. Just someone telling everyone how green they are.

The solar panels are cheap. It's the multi-acre lot with a lake that's expensive.

I’ve mounted ~8kw of solar on a south facing roof in ~4 hours with two other people. You need not multi acre lots, only a surface that can see the sky mostly unobstructed, although if you’ve got the land and aren’t using it, ground mount solar is cheaper, faster, and safer to deploy.

(In the United States, the majority of housing units are single-family houses – about 82 million out of the total 129 million occupied units in 2021)

Re: All the electricity you'll need for 40 years

#66

Post by mikehotel »

amelius wrote: post #49
sdk77 wrote: post #29

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Sure. Of course. Not being allowed to disconnect them would be ridiculous. But do you want to keep an eye on the market every day, and run to the breaker to turn on an off your inverter? No. So you need a solution for that. Then a battery is much more interesting.

Note: doing this manually every day (breaking the circuit) can increase the risk of damaging your installation.

How can the use of a switch damage your installation?

Re: All the electricity you'll need for 40 years

#67

Post by coumbaya »

I wish regulations where more lax in France. It was a battle with the town council to install 3.2kw of solar panels on the ground, I want to install 10 more but it looks like the ground option which is cheap will not be approved, I would have to out them on my roof which is costly and is not true south (and arguably, more visible).

Re: All the electricity you'll need for 40 years

#68

Post by Animats »

Average US home power consumption: 30 KWh/day.

Assuming an average of 4 solar hours per day, you would need a solar system capacity of approximately 7.5 kW to 12.5 kW.

Individual solar panels produce 250-400 watts. So, conservatively, 50 panels. Installed, that's currently about $25,000, including inverter but not battery backup. Battery backup will cost maybe $15,000 more. So, the whole installation is about $40,000. This is with no grid connection, power sales, or incentives. Not too bad. Costs about the same as a car.

Median US house price is $412,300.

Re: All the electricity you'll need for 40 years

#69

Post by haccount »

shadowpho wrote: post #9

$88 amortized over 15 years is only $16k. It’s really impressive they can get it done for that much, although I suspect labor has to be free at that cost. I’d be curious what batteries they went with and how it’s organized (aka the more technical side)

A $16k investment at 4% annual yield with quarterly payout re-invested turns into $29k at the 15 year mark. So maybe batteries and panels today feels like a good investment, but is it the best?

Re: All the electricity you'll need for 40 years

#70

Post by churchill »

haccount wrote: post #38
churchill wrote: post #17

I live here in Nigeria where electricity has been epileptic since I was born (I'm 23 now). Like, I live in one of the nicer suburbs in my state, but 12h of power isn't guaranteed. So, last year, I spent $7k on 8.4 KW of panels (400W * 21), an inverter, and 20KWh of batteries. It's been life-changing. I've been able to go completely off-grid. Like, I disconnected from the grid (i.e., my meter) completely. And my usage…

This compared to my own experience shows how much location matters for these things. I live in a place with cheap and stable hydropower. There's winter time price spikes but average solar earnings compared to grid cost from solar during sunny months would be pocket change. In winter solar would give virtually nothing. The overwhelming conclusion was that instead of buying a pile of hardware to install, configure and…

Different strokes for different folks. If you already have sufficiently reliable power and the savings won't beat the S&P500, then I guess sticking to the grid makes more sense. It's just the flexibility and reliability of solar I'm commenting on, especially if you live close to the equator.
Post reply on HN