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

Germany solar power output jumps to record highs

reuters.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

91–100 of 108 posts

Re: Germany solar power output jumps to record highs

#91

Post by Arnt »

Kuinox wrote: post #87
Arnt wrote: post #81

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Amazing how right you can be and still wrong. 5% of German production is about twice the projected capacity of Hinkley Point C, the only current nuclear plant I remember the name of, so that might cost maybe €60B. The same amount of PV would cost maybe €2B. If you overbuild PV by 300% you still have >€50B cost difference. You can reach any conclusion if you're willing to disregard price differences of more than 10×.…

> Amazing how right you can be and still wrong. Of course I'm wrong, I think differently than your beliefs, Atheist were wrong too.

You do think differently than my beliefs…

Independent of belief, "X has the following good feature" does not imply "X is a good idea" or "X is worth serious consideration". Belief is one thing, cost is quite another and cannot be believed away.

Re: Germany solar power output jumps to record highs

#92

Post by j-pb »

Kuinox wrote: post #86
j-pb wrote: post #71

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You say that the cost of renevables and energy storage combined don't include the cost associated with storing the energy? Wild take.

The graph you linked doesn't take it into account.

Yeah but you can do the calculations yourself.

I'm gonna use the most expensive storage technology I know (lithium-ion) and forego cheaper alternatives like pumped hydro just to make a point.

I'm gonna use data from lazard, because it looks like the most recent study[1].

  - Cost of Lithium-Ion Battery Packs 139$/kWh [2]
  - 139000$/MWh
  - We want the levelized cost of electricity, so let's assume, again to make a point, that we have to throw the battery out after 500 cycles instead of it only operating at 80% charge. That's 139000$ / 500 = 278$
  - The EU estimates that in a 80% renewable grid you need approx 30% storage capacity. So let's assume we need 40% storage capacity for a 100% grid.[3] That's 278$ * 0.4 = 112$
  - Cost for solar 24–96$
  - Cost for wind 24–75$
  - Cost for solar + storage 136$ - 208$
  - Cost for wind + storage 136$ - 187$
  - Cost for new nuclear: 141–221$
So you can combine renewables with the most expensive/deluxe storage technology available today and it's still cheaper than nuclear.

1: https://www.lazard.com/media/typdgxmm/lazards-lcoeplus-april...

2: https://about.bnef.com/blog/lithium-ion-battery-pack-prices-...

3: https://energy.ec.europa.eu/topics/research-and-technology/e...

Re: Germany solar power output jumps to record highs

#93

Post by kgabis »

j-pb wrote: post #92
Kuinox wrote: post #86

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The graph you linked doesn't take it into account.

Yeah but you can do the calculations yourself. I'm gonna use the most expensive storage technology I know (lithium-ion) and forego cheaper alternatives like pumped hydro just to make a point. I'm gonna use data from lazard, because it looks like the most recent study[1]. - Cost of Lithium-Ion Battery Packs 139$/kWh [2] - 139000$/MWh - We want the levelized cost of electricity, so let's assume, again to make a point,…

> The EU estimates that in a 80% renewable grid you need approx 30% storage capacity. So let's assume we need 40% storage capacity for a 100% grid.

Fortunately there's no such thing as diminishing returns and we can just make assumptions like this without any backing./s

Re: Germany solar power output jumps to record highs

#94

Post by j-pb »

kgabis wrote: post #93
j-pb wrote: post #92

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yeah but you can do the calculations yourself. I'm gonna use the most expensive storage technology I know (lithium-ion) and forego cheaper alternatives like pumped hydro just to make a point. I'm gonna use data from lazard, because it looks like the most recent study[1]. - Cost of Lithium-Ion Battery Packs 139$/kWh [2] - 139000$/MWh - We want the levelized cost of electricity, so let's assume, again to make a point,…

> The EU estimates that in a 80% renewable grid you need approx 30% storage capacity. So let's assume we need 40% storage capacity for a 100% grid. Fortunately there's no such thing as diminishing returns and we can just make assumptions like this without any backing./s

He said without providing any backing.

But sure let's take a paper that estimated costs for the 100% renewable case: https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1748-9326/ac4dc8#...

They estimate €80 per MWh for an entirely renewable System.

So do you want to provide a study that has some contradicting numbers, or do you just want to admit that no amount of evidence is going to change your mind and move on?

Re: Germany solar power output jumps to record highs

#95

Post by Kuinox »

illiac786 wrote: post #89
j-pb wrote: post #15

Earlier quoted context omitted.

But on the right track. We're building the solar equivalent of the total cumulative nuclear capacity germany has ever build every 3 years. If we manage to hold off regressive forces that are trying to derail the current trajectory with whataboutism of nuclear and fusion, we might actually make it to CO2 neutrality in a reasonable timeframe.

“On the right track” would be “we know we’re going to make it without mass extinction of humans”. Currently I’m not so sure and I doubt anyone knows. We’re making changes, but the course correction haven’t been sufficient so far and it remains to be seen if we will be able to do enough fast enough to avoid said cataclysm.

You underestimate the survability of humans, there won't be a mass extinctions of humans, there will be a mass extinctions of human comfort.

Re: Germany solar power output jumps to record highs

#96

Post by Kuinox »

j-pb wrote: post #92
Kuinox wrote: post #86

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The graph you linked doesn't take it into account.

Yeah but you can do the calculations yourself. I'm gonna use the most expensive storage technology I know (lithium-ion) and forego cheaper alternatives like pumped hydro just to make a point. I'm gonna use data from lazard, because it looks like the most recent study[1]. - Cost of Lithium-Ion Battery Packs 139$/kWh [2] - 139000$/MWh - We want the levelized cost of electricity, so let's assume, again to make a point,…

> The EU estimates that in a 80% renewable grid you need approx 30% storage capacity.

The number I first gave(CO2 per kWh) is when Germany was at more than 80% renewable, at the time I wrote the comment. As we can all see the 'low carbon' target you set yourself in your example is not enough.

Re: Germany solar power output jumps to record highs

#98

Post by j-pb »

Kuinox wrote: post #96
j-pb wrote: post #92

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yeah but you can do the calculations yourself. I'm gonna use the most expensive storage technology I know (lithium-ion) and forego cheaper alternatives like pumped hydro just to make a point. I'm gonna use data from lazard, because it looks like the most recent study[1]. - Cost of Lithium-Ion Battery Packs 139$/kWh [2] - 139000$/MWh - We want the levelized cost of electricity, so let's assume, again to make a point,…

> The EU estimates that in a 80% renewable grid you need approx 30% storage capacity. The number I first gave(CO2 per kWh) is when Germany was at more than 80% renewable, at the time I wrote the comment. As we can all see the 'low carbon' target you set yourself in your example is not enough.

The target I set in my example was 100% Renewables. No carbon is not enough for zero carbon?

Btw the EU wants 80% renewables by 2050, that includes coal guzzlers like poland. Germany wants 100% renewables by 2035.

So you're barking at the wrong tree.

Re: Germany solar power output jumps to record highs

#99

Post by Kuinox »

j-pb wrote: post #98
Kuinox wrote: post #96

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> The EU estimates that in a 80% renewable grid you need approx 30% storage capacity. The number I first gave(CO2 per kWh) is when Germany was at more than 80% renewable, at the time I wrote the comment. As we can all see the 'low carbon' target you set yourself in your example is not enough.

The target I set in my example was 100% Renewables. No carbon is not enough for zero carbon? Btw the EU wants 80% renewables by 2050, that includes coal guzzlers like poland. Germany wants 100% renewables by 2035. So you're barking at the wrong tree.

So you say Germany is already doing enough ?

The tree I'm barking at kills thousands of European every year by burning coal, and finance anti-nuclear propaganda. https://env-health.org/IMG/pdf/dark_cloud-full_report_final....

https://www.ege.fr/sites/ege.fr/files/media_files/German_Int...

Re: Germany solar power output jumps to record highs

#100

Post by illiac786 »

Kuinox wrote: post #95
illiac786 wrote: post #89

Earlier quoted context omitted.

“On the right track” would be “we know we’re going to make it without mass extinction of humans”. Currently I’m not so sure and I doubt anyone knows. We’re making changes, but the course correction haven’t been sufficient so far and it remains to be seen if we will be able to do enough fast enough to avoid said cataclysm.

You underestimate the survability of humans, there won't be a mass extinctions of humans, there will be a mass extinctions of human comfort.

You are correct. Back to middle age, Stone Age maybe. I didn’t mean humanity will entirely be extinct, I meant human population will diminish a lot.
Post reply on HN