9 ms·

This comment gets made in every single solar article put on HN. The true price of solar is what the market is willing to pay for it. If the solar was ruining t

This comment gets made in every single solar article put on HN. The true price of solar is what the market is willing to pay for it. If the solar was ruining the grid or was way more expensive than what it seems, we would not keep seeing solar installed at this pace and at these costs. We need to get out of the mindset that all power generators need to produce a steady amount of power 24/7. A flexible grid made of many power sources that can be ramped up and down can just as easily meet demand and may even be best since it is resilient when any one power source goes down for an extended period of time. You can't just say that solar should be more expensive because it only works half the day. You could just as easily turn that argument around and say that nuclear and coal plants should be more expensive since they are only economical if run at a constant load and require long shutdowns every year for maintenance. There needs to be extra capacity on the grid to meet demand during nuclear/coal shutdowns, but no one states that nuclear and coal should be more expensive as a result.

inputcoffee 8y ago
You misunderstand the sense of "true" here. The point is not that the "true" price in the sense of what it ought to be. It is the "true" price in the sense of what the market is actually paying for the service. When people put out the number $23, they compare it with the cost of power and wonder why, if it is so much lower, it doesn't already swamp the current solution. So the purpose of the comment is to explain that it is not a complete solution, and not reflective of the total ("true") bill.
- matt4077 8y ago
  Yet the market isn't "actually paying" for battery storage at anywhere near the amount of installed solar capacity... Which was the point you misunderstood: dedicated storage installation are not needed at current production levels, and can be avoided even when solar's share of the energy mix grows. Among the possibilities are "smart" appliances scheduling their demand to production peaks (dishwashers can often wait a few hours, cars might not need to charge right away). The same is true for industrial usage, where smelters, for example, have the natural capacity to store energy as heat. A growing fleet of electric cars could also serve as distributed storage: if your car is parked for the night, it could feed energy back into the grid (partially, if you are paranoid).
  - thinkcontext 8y ago
    You don't need 1:1 storage for solar production but it is a real problem. Germany and California are both facing the problem of the solar "duck curve", that is, high solar production during the day when demand is low and high electric usage at the end of the day when people get home from work as solar production is tailing off. More than batteries they utilize gas peaker plants, inefficient, dirty and expensive plants that can ramp up and down quickly to match demand.
    - the8472 8y ago
      > Dirty By coal standards?
      - Schumer 8y ago
        By clean coal standards
    - Jedd 8y ago
      > You don't need 1:1 storage for solar production... You seem to be referring exclusively to solar photovoltaic. Solar thermal generation has quite a different, evening-friendly, distribution curve.
      - thinkcontext 8y ago
        True, though the article was talking about PV. I haven't followed closely recently but my impression was solar thermal has not delivered as promised. Things like Ivanpah was relying on natural gas more than expected. Is this an accurate impression?
        sjwright 8y ago
        > True, though the article was talking about PV. Yet confusingly the article chose images of solar thermal. It's a bit of a worry when the journalists aren't conscious of the most basic aspects of the industry they are covering.
- dd36 8y ago
  It is swamping the current solution.
- criddell 8y ago
  I've thought about adding solar to my home and can't see any reason why I should even consider a battery for storage. I'm in Texas and so I get plenty of sun and my peak energy demand happens to coincide with that sunlight (due to HVAC). Why should I worry about a complete solution?
  - ThomPete 8y ago
    Because you are also a taxpayer.
    - criddell 8y ago
      Huh? Are you talking about subsidies?
      - ThomPete 8y ago
        Not just that, also infrastructure investments.
  - refulgentis 8y ago
    The sun goes down at night
    - criddell 8y ago
      And? I'm still connected to the grid.
      - refulgentis 8y ago
        You're replying to a comment about the true cost of solar being the battery + the panels, asking why anyone would think of buying a battery. That's why.
        petersellers 8y ago
        That still doesn't answer their question. Why does the sun going down at night matter for people who are still tied to the grid?
- crdoconnor 8y ago
  >When people put out the number $23, they compare it with the cost of power and wonder why, if it is so much lower, it doesn't already swamp the current solution. It is swamping the current solution - it just takes a while for new plants to be built and old plants to go offline.
- sunstone 8y ago
  However the amount of storage (battery or otherwise) for a network of renewable electricity producers depends on the full diversity of the complete network. Which is to say, for example, that a grid supplied by solar and wind will need proportionally less storage per megawatt as the geographical size of the grid increases. A larger grid "averages out" the intermittent sources better as it gets bigger.
  - hueving 8y ago
    Not for solar. There are no grids nearly large enough to have half in the day time and half in the night time on average.
    - sunstone 8y ago
      The type of renewable generator, ie solar, wind, hydroelectric, geothermal and tidal, or a combination thereof is another dimension of grid diversity.
- ehnto 8y ago
  You don't see it swamping thr competition for a bunch of reasons. You need capital in order to install solar, you also need to own your home and not be renting. A landlord has little incentive to install solar. A state sized utility solar installation is non-trivial and that's why you don't yet see utilities providing solar themselves to the grid, and even if they did the price would be different. So you don't see everyone using it because it's expensive to get started and because utility providers have yet to build solar plants capable of supplying a state. I don't think anyone has. In time though, a combination of rooftop solar and utility scale battery/renewable systems to cover baseline load will probably be how we power the nation. Perhaps some gas or other generators will stick around to provide the baseline.
- honestoHeminway 8y ago
  We dont pay the true price of coal, coal is a overdrawn credit-card on future generations where you cant bail by death.
heisenbergs 8y ago
Not only that. Solar energy production follows the sun, which incidentally is what humans also follow and when they are typically active and using most energy. Hence, solar producing energy when it is actually needed and in most demand (peak energy). This is even more so the case in hotter places that need AC.
- manmal 8y ago
  For ACs and cooking lunch, yes. For cooking dinner and artificial lighting, no.
  - ben_w 8y ago
    Dinner is relevant. Lights… take a standard lightbulb form factor fill it with batteries and coat the outside with LEDs, and it can last most of the night.
    - djrogers 8y ago
      Now you’re right back where this started - accounting for the cost of batteries. Oh, and my stomach says dinner is most definitely not irrelevant.
      - ben_w 8y ago
        Said batteries cost about the same as the LEDs, which — combined — cost less than the electricity they use in their working life.
      - stale2002 8y ago
        It is an irrelevant portion of total electricity usage. It doesnt matter if a very small portion of your electricity usage has high costs.
- Max_aaa 8y ago
  Typically peak residential energy use is actually early morning and evening. And those tend to be the worst times for solar. Solar is great for businesses and schools, well basically anything that operates mainly or totally during the day.
hueving 8y ago
>If the solar was ruining the grid or was way more expensive than what it seems, we would not keep seeing solar installed at this pace and at these costs. This completely ignores the fact that the people buying solar get subsidies and they aren't the ones paying for the burdened grid. In some states, distribution companies are paying retail prices back to solar producers. That means these people get to freeride on the grid and force the power company to deal with their unstable power supply for free.
- heisenbergs 8y ago
  This completely ignores the fact that every form of power generation is heavily subsidized, one way or another. For example, in the USA "some states" heavily subsidize fossil fuels by not raising any tax on gas. Somewhat of a nitpicking point you are raising here.. The point of the article is that in this case, even without subsidies solar would beat anything else. This is despite heavy import duties that were recently imposed.
  - hueving 8y ago
    >heavily subsidize fossil fuels by not raising any tax on gas. Unless they are taxing solar, that's not a subsidy when comparing the two. Where fossil fuels are subsidized is in the externalities they don't pay for (i.e. environmental impact).
- stale2002 8y ago
  Highly polluting energy sources are not paying to clean up the environmental costs that they produce. Maybe THEY are the free riders.
  - hueving 8y ago
    From some externality to society perspective, sure. But that's definitely not true of a grid operation cost perspective. A coal power plant does not get paid retail rates for the power it generates. The utility company charges more precisely to pay for transmission and the people to maintain it.
TheSpiceIsLife 8y ago
> but no one states that nuclear and coal should be more expensive as a result. Yes, yes we are. The correct calculation uses the capacity factor, not the name-plate capacity.
aagha 8y ago
I think you're looking at this only from an economical point of view and not factoring in environmental concerns. In CA, though solar continues to be installed, we've reached a point--due to a lack of good/cheap storage ability--that at the end of the day (where Solar has been working fine all day), in order to meat evening demand, the only way to address steep demand is to fire up coal-fired plants. They work, but they're not only expensive, they're dirty.

inputcoffee 8y ago

You misunderstand the sense of "true" here. The point is not that the "true" price in the sense of what it ought to be. It is the "true" price in the sense of what the market is actually paying for the service. When people put out the number $23, they compare it with the cost of power and wonder why, if it is so much lower, it doesn't already swamp the current solution. So the purpose of the comment is to explain that it is not a complete solution, and not reflective of the total ("true") bill.

matt4077 8y ago
Yet the market isn't "actually paying" for battery storage at anywhere near the amount of installed solar capacity... Which was the point you misunderstood: dedicated storage installation are not needed at current production levels, and can be avoided even when solar's share of the energy mix grows. Among the possibilities are "smart" appliances scheduling their demand to production peaks (dishwashers can often wait a few hours, cars might not need to charge right away). The same is true for industrial usage, where smelters, for example, have the natural capacity to store energy as heat. A growing fleet of electric cars could also serve as distributed storage: if your car is parked for the night, it could feed energy back into the grid (partially, if you are paranoid).
- thinkcontext 8y ago
  You don't need 1:1 storage for solar production but it is a real problem. Germany and California are both facing the problem of the solar "duck curve", that is, high solar production during the day when demand is low and high electric usage at the end of the day when people get home from work as solar production is tailing off. More than batteries they utilize gas peaker plants, inefficient, dirty and expensive plants that can ramp up and down quickly to match demand.
  - the8472 8y ago
    > Dirty By coal standards?
    - Schumer 8y ago
      By clean coal standards
  - Jedd 8y ago
    > You don't need 1:1 storage for solar production... You seem to be referring exclusively to solar photovoltaic. Solar thermal generation has quite a different, evening-friendly, distribution curve.
    - thinkcontext 8y ago
      True, though the article was talking about PV. I haven't followed closely recently but my impression was solar thermal has not delivered as promised. Things like Ivanpah was relying on natural gas more than expected. Is this an accurate impression?
      - sjwright 8y ago
        > True, though the article was talking about PV. Yet confusingly the article chose images of solar thermal. It's a bit of a worry when the journalists aren't conscious of the most basic aspects of the industry they are covering.
dd36 8y ago
It is swamping the current solution.
criddell 8y ago
I've thought about adding solar to my home and can't see any reason why I should even consider a battery for storage. I'm in Texas and so I get plenty of sun and my peak energy demand happens to coincide with that sunlight (due to HVAC). Why should I worry about a complete solution?
- ThomPete 8y ago
  Because you are also a taxpayer.
  - criddell 8y ago
    Huh? Are you talking about subsidies?
    - ThomPete 8y ago
      Not just that, also infrastructure investments.
- refulgentis 8y ago
  The sun goes down at night
  - criddell 8y ago
    And? I'm still connected to the grid.
    - refulgentis 8y ago
      You're replying to a comment about the true cost of solar being the battery + the panels, asking why anyone would think of buying a battery. That's why.
      - petersellers 8y ago
        That still doesn't answer their question. Why does the sun going down at night matter for people who are still tied to the grid?
crdoconnor 8y ago
>When people put out the number $23, they compare it with the cost of power and wonder why, if it is so much lower, it doesn't already swamp the current solution. It is swamping the current solution - it just takes a while for new plants to be built and old plants to go offline.
sunstone 8y ago
However the amount of storage (battery or otherwise) for a network of renewable electricity producers depends on the full diversity of the complete network. Which is to say, for example, that a grid supplied by solar and wind will need proportionally less storage per megawatt as the geographical size of the grid increases. A larger grid "averages out" the intermittent sources better as it gets bigger.
- hueving 8y ago
  Not for solar. There are no grids nearly large enough to have half in the day time and half in the night time on average.
  - sunstone 8y ago
    The type of renewable generator, ie solar, wind, hydroelectric, geothermal and tidal, or a combination thereof is another dimension of grid diversity.
ehnto 8y ago
You don't see it swamping thr competition for a bunch of reasons. You need capital in order to install solar, you also need to own your home and not be renting. A landlord has little incentive to install solar. A state sized utility solar installation is non-trivial and that's why you don't yet see utilities providing solar themselves to the grid, and even if they did the price would be different. So you don't see everyone using it because it's expensive to get started and because utility providers have yet to build solar plants capable of supplying a state. I don't think anyone has. In time though, a combination of rooftop solar and utility scale battery/renewable systems to cover baseline load will probably be how we power the nation. Perhaps some gas or other generators will stick around to provide the baseline.
honestoHeminway 8y ago
We dont pay the true price of coal, coal is a overdrawn credit-card on future generations where you cant bail by death.

heisenbergs 8y ago

Not only that. Solar energy production follows the sun, which incidentally is what humans also follow and when they are typically active and using most energy. Hence, solar producing energy when it is actually needed and in most demand (peak energy). This is even more so the case in hotter places that need AC.

manmal 8y ago
For ACs and cooking lunch, yes. For cooking dinner and artificial lighting, no.
- ben_w 8y ago
  Dinner is relevant. Lights… take a standard lightbulb form factor fill it with batteries and coat the outside with LEDs, and it can last most of the night.
  - djrogers 8y ago
    Now you’re right back where this started - accounting for the cost of batteries. Oh, and my stomach says dinner is most definitely not irrelevant.
    - ben_w 8y ago
      Said batteries cost about the same as the LEDs, which — combined — cost less than the electricity they use in their working life.
    - stale2002 8y ago
      It is an irrelevant portion of total electricity usage. It doesnt matter if a very small portion of your electricity usage has high costs.
Max_aaa 8y ago
Typically peak residential energy use is actually early morning and evening. And those tend to be the worst times for solar. Solar is great for businesses and schools, well basically anything that operates mainly or totally during the day.

hueving 8y ago

>If the solar was ruining the grid or was way more expensive than what it seems, we would not keep seeing solar installed at this pace and at these costs. This completely ignores the fact that the people buying solar get subsidies and they aren't the ones paying for the burdened grid. In some states, distribution companies are paying retail prices back to solar producers. That means these people get to freeride on the grid and force the power company to deal with their unstable power supply for free.

heisenbergs 8y ago
This completely ignores the fact that every form of power generation is heavily subsidized, one way or another. For example, in the USA "some states" heavily subsidize fossil fuels by not raising any tax on gas. Somewhat of a nitpicking point you are raising here.. The point of the article is that in this case, even without subsidies solar would beat anything else. This is despite heavy import duties that were recently imposed.
- hueving 8y ago
  >heavily subsidize fossil fuels by not raising any tax on gas. Unless they are taxing solar, that's not a subsidy when comparing the two. Where fossil fuels are subsidized is in the externalities they don't pay for (i.e. environmental impact).
stale2002 8y ago
Highly polluting energy sources are not paying to clean up the environmental costs that they produce. Maybe THEY are the free riders.
- hueving 8y ago
  From some externality to society perspective, sure. But that's definitely not true of a grid operation cost perspective. A coal power plant does not get paid retail rates for the power it generates. The utility company charges more precisely to pay for transmission and the people to maintain it.

TheSpiceIsLife 8y ago

> but no one states that nuclear and coal should be more expensive as a result. Yes, yes we are. The correct calculation uses the capacity factor, not the name-plate capacity.

aagha 8y ago

I think you're looking at this only from an economical point of view and not factoring in environmental concerns. In CA, though solar continues to be installed, we've reached a point--due to a lack of good/cheap storage ability--that at the end of the day (where Solar has been working fine all day), in order to meat evening demand, the only way to address steep demand is to fire up coal-fired plants. They work, but they're not only expensive, they're dirty.