Live data from Hacker News

Solar and battery to make up 81% of new US electric-generating capacity in 2024

eia.gov

71–80 of 276 posts

Re: Solar and battery to make up 81% of new US electric-generating capacity in 2024

#71

> Nuclear. Start-up of the fourth reactor (1.1 GW) at Georgia’s Vogtle nuclear power plant I checked the Wiki page: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vogtle_Electric_Generating_Pla... > Two additional units utilizing Westinghouse AP1000 reactors were under construction since 2009, with Unit 3 being completed in July 2023.[9][10][11] This last report blames the latest increase in costs on the contractor not completing wor…

> How much solar/wind/battery capacity can 34B USD buy!?

According to How Big Things Get Done, at least 30B worth. Nuclear plants have some of the worst cost and time overruns for large projects, wind and solar some of the lowest (beaten only by roads).

And his theory as to why this happens, is that wind, solar, and roads are self-similar. Building the first 10% directly informs you on how to build the next 10%. Everything you learn along the way can be rolled back into the project in a feedback loop.

What you learn shingling a roof or building a nuclear reactor doesn't help this project all that much. It helps the next. And how many nuclear reactors does one worker build in their lifetime? 2? 4? That's not a lot of opportunity for process improvement.

Re: Solar and battery to make up 81% of new US electric-generating capacity in 2024

#72

It's not really correct to call batteries "electric-generating". They store electricity, but don't generate it. Still, if you take the batteries out, solar makes up 75% of the remaining new electric-generating capacity. If you add wind, you get 92%.

From the purposes of grid operation, batteries serve both generating and load functions. Having a complete catalog of generating capacity is a standard metric that EIA tracks. So even though batteries can also consume from the grid, it really does make sense to add them to the list of "generation," at least according to the purpose that this generation metric has always served.

> batteries serve both generating and load functions.

Only until they run out of power! Capacity is still the core of their function.

Re: Solar and battery to make up 81% of new US electric-generating capacity in 2024

#73
post #49

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That’s not why it is done, it’s because this is reporting in capacity and that is the physical capacity being installed. That phrasing makes it sound nefarious, then you end with a fairly low solar range (which varies substantially and exceeds that in sunnier parts of the US). Bit of an odd take. You could say the same, or lower, of capacity factors on peaking oil or gas plants in some areas that run for only a coupl…

Why report on capacity instead of energy? Why would capacity matter at all?

Because energy generated is an after the fact number in any sort of power generation, and doesn't help with any sort of prediction.

Re: Solar and battery to make up 81% of new US electric-generating capacity in 2024

#74
post #49

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That’s not why it is done, it’s because this is reporting in capacity and that is the physical capacity being installed. That phrasing makes it sound nefarious, then you end with a fairly low solar range (which varies substantially and exceeds that in sunnier parts of the US). Bit of an odd take. You could say the same, or lower, of capacity factors on peaking oil or gas plants in some areas that run for only a coupl…

Why report on capacity instead of energy? Why would capacity matter at all?

You are really asking after the explanation above?

Re: Solar and battery to make up 81% of new US electric-generating capacity in 2024

#75
post #58

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In the US, PV solar capacity factor is about 0.24 (partly because lots of people live near very sunny regions like California and Texas). The National Renewable Energy Laboratory claims that in some parts of the US utility-scale solar capacity factors are 0.33 [0]. Wind is about 0.36, Hydro also 0.36, Nuclear about 0.93 [1]. If you apply these capacity factors to the nameplate capacities (ignoring batteries), you get…

US nuclear averages below 0.9, individual plants can break 0.93 for a single year, but long term maintenance and refueling cycles lower the average. Ex: 95.73% (2017) 80.25% (lifetime) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Beaver_Valley_Nuclear_Power_St... 94.43% (2017) 75.20% (lifetime) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brunswick_Nuclear_Generating_S... 96.04% (2017) 78.07% (lifetime) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Browns_Ferry_…

Is a 15% difference that much of a different story?

Re: Solar and battery to make up 81% of new US electric-generating capacity in 2024

#76

This is nameplate capacity: the power a generator can deliver, full on, under ideal conditions. Solar and wind always look great when measured in nameplate capacity, which is why this is done. If you want to know how much electricity they will generate, you have to multiply by the capacity factor. Nuclear, for instance has a capacity factor of 0.9 in the US: it delivers 90% of its nameplate capacity in a given year.…

Somehow, that is the latest pro-niclear / anti-renewables talking point. Not tgat people in field learn the principle of load factor in one of the first days of 101 lectures on the subject...

It least it is an evolution up from "solar isn't working at night" and similar deep and hot takes on the subject.

Re: Solar and battery to make up 81% of new US electric-generating capacity in 2024

#77
post #75
post #58

Earlier quoted context omitted.

US nuclear averages below 0.9, individual plants can break 0.93 for a single year, but long term maintenance and refueling cycles lower the average. Ex: 95.73% (2017) 80.25% (lifetime) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Beaver_Valley_Nuclear_Power_St... 94.43% (2017) 75.20% (lifetime) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brunswick_Nuclear_Generating_S... 96.04% (2017) 78.07% (lifetime) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Browns_Ferry_…

Is a 15% difference that much of a different story?

Look at your paycheck, and imagine the number is 15% lower. Should answer the question.

Re: Solar and battery to make up 81% of new US electric-generating capacity in 2024

#78

> Nuclear. Start-up of the fourth reactor (1.1 GW) at Georgia’s Vogtle nuclear power plant I checked the Wiki page: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vogtle_Electric_Generating_Pla... > Two additional units utilizing Westinghouse AP1000 reactors were under construction since 2009, with Unit 3 being completed in July 2023.[9][10][11] This last report blames the latest increase in costs on the contractor not completing wor…

> How much solar/wind/battery capacity can 34B USD buy!? I'm guessing you'd run into space constraints pretty quickly. For one large project a nuclear reactor is incredibly compact compared to most alternatives except maybe hydro.

I don't think space is a concern in North America.

Re: Solar and battery to make up 81% of new US electric-generating capacity in 2024

#79
post #13

"The Gemini solar facility in Nevada plans to begin operating in 2024. With a planned photovoltaic capacity of 690 megawatts (MW) and battery storage of 380 MW, it is expected to be the largest solar project in the United States when fully operational." That's about 60% of the capacity of one unit at Vogtle nuclear power station, and Vogtle has four units. Also, adding the solar capacity to the battery capacity to ge…

And now look at number of solar and wind installed vs. nuclear. Take net numbers, as most nuclear capacity replaces decommissioned reactors in countries without a nuclear exit strategy.

I am too lazy too look up, and link, those publicly available numbers again....

Post reply on HN