14 ms·
The US can reach 90% clean electricity by 2035 without increasing consumer bills
- deleted 6y ago[deleted]
- abvdasker 6y agoBut it won't.
- deleted 6y ago[deleted]
- H8crilA 6y agoPeople are so focused on $$ when it comes to (green or other) energy. The real problem is not $$ but Joules. Building any type of a power plant costs energy itself, and unfortunately unlike capital, which is just a concept that you can argue with and win, there is absolutely no arguing with physics: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Energy_return_on_investment#EROEI_and_payback_periods_of_some_types_of_power_plants https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Energy_return_on_investment#ER... The energy amortisation time of green power generators (the time it takes to pay back the Joules) is orders of magnitude higher than any dirty energy. This problem is well visible once you count all of the world's energy usage and just plot it. The rollout is anything but fast: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_energy_consumption https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_energy_consumption
- godzillabrennus 6y agoNuclear is the answer.
- MattGaiser 6y agoYou could start planning now and you would be lucky to get shovels in the ground by 2035.
- hairytrog 6y agotoo true for most nuclear projects out there.
- nickik 6y agoFrance turned its whole grid nuclear in 15 years with 60s technology. The utter absurdity that has happened with nuclear energy is crazy. Its like the whole climate change disaster could have been avoided in the first place. Nuclear is like anything else, if you build one bespoke reactor, its expensive. If you build 20 that are the same its gone end up cheap. The problem is every country has its own government trying to build its own reactors and only have like one project going. Its like the rocket industry just 10x worse. And the way regulation was managed after Three Mile Island was insane, and has utterly stopped nuclear innovation essentially impossible (specially new reactors) and makes nuclear building beyond expensive. Its really a sad situation, humanity should be in the nuclear age right now. That we are still grappling with replacing coal power is beyond mind-blowing.
- MattGaiser 6y agoWhat is the significance of this?
- H8crilA 6y agoWell you can do the maths. Let's assume it takes 1 year to pay back the energy usage, on average, for the green projects (look up that Wikipedia link). Let's also assume that we can dedicate 5% of the world's energy budget towards new power plants and that the world stops growing. So: 5% energy recession and zero global energy demand growth. How long would that take to roll out? 1/5% = 20 years, all of those years will be of serious austerity. Multiple countries (especially those with "good", that is growing demographics) would blow up. Up to you to decide if it's feasible to execute, and those are very optimistic numbers. What if the energy usage grows at 2% and we can dedicate only 3%? Well, that would give us 1/(3% - 2%) = 100 years to finish the project. These are not happy things to look at. Personally I'm just trying to avoid the impending climate doom. Whatever happens - this problem is here to stay with us for many decades.
- est31 6y agoThat's some weird kind of fear mongering. You assume instant replacement of fossil fuel plants. If you don't do this, but keep them running, and add renewables on top, it looks different. Using your numbers to demonstrate it of 1 year EROEI. Let's say we make a starting investment for one year where we take 5% of the world's energy output to invest into new renewable power. After that year is over, we have capacity to generate 5% of the world's energy output per year, but we don't replace any of the existing fossil plants, but put it to work for new energy plants. So the second year we spend that energy on another 5% of renewable energy. Now we have capacity of 10% of the world's energy budget at start of year 1. If we continue doing this, we have 20% after the third year, 40% after the fourth, and 80% after the fifth. By the end of the sixth year, we can generate 160% of the energy demand of the world at start of year 1. We can now turn off the fossil fuel plants and enjoy a 60% increase in energy output, most likely more than the world has grown in that time. Now you wonder, won't it cost tons of money to use all of this energy to build new plants? Sure it will, but that's already priced into things. That's what we have banks for. Your fears are unfounded.
- hairytrog 6y agoWell noted. Here's a paper: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0360544213000492 https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S03605... The energy returned on invested, EROI, has been evaluated for typical power plants representing wind energy, photovoltaics, solar thermal, hydro, natural gas, biogas, coal and nuclear power. The strict exergy concept with no " primary energy weighting" , updated material databases, and updated technical procedures make it possible to directly compare the overall efficiency of those power plants on a uniform mathematical and physical basis. Pump storage systems, needed for solar and wind energy, have been included in the EROI so that the efficiency can be compared with an " unbuffered" scenario. The results show that nuclear, hydro, coal, and natural gas power systems (in this order) are one order of magnitude more effective than photovoltaics and wind power. =
- killjoywashere 6y agoEven if we assume that's correct, those sources have massive impacts under other categories. In contrast, anaerobic bacteria are terribly inefficient with their energy use, yet vastly outperform all animals in terms of biomass. So it's unclear to me that the EROI metric actually matters all that much. If I can produce solar panels with a solar-powered factory at a profit, I don't care about the price of coal or its EROI. I'm printing free money. Of the 4 options you mention, I'm entirely a fan of hydro and nuclear. Especially nuclear. But FUD makes nuclear hard politically, so while I wouldn't campaign against it, I wouldn't waste my rep campaigning hard for it.
- hairytrog 6y agoYou can make while society falls around you. You want to make the most efficient use of time, energy, land, and materials. Why? So you can do more with it, give more people more time to think about things unrelated to survival, so you can support more people, whatever. Efficiency is key to civilization and progress. Solar takes 10X the land and 15x the material with no plan to deal with it after it has reached the end of life. Wind is worse.
- 6y ago
- csours 6y agoInteresting chart, but it does not seem to consider the cost of the installation, just the fuel, or it seems to assume a very long amortization period for nuclear/fossil fuel generation plants. With wind and solar, all you have is the plant. There's no EROEI on the fuel because there is no energy investment in the fuel for wind and solar.
- H8crilA 6y agoFor a very long time solar panels would cost more energy to manufacture than they would output through their lifetime. This is no longer the case, but the amortization period is still large. Fuel is not the problem. The power plants are the problem.
- csours 6y agoThey show the payoff period Germany and in Southern Europe. I wonder what the payoff period is in Texas.
- H8crilA 6y agoIt's probably better, but don't forget that this is inherently a global problem. Scotland is running 100% renewable - so what, who cares? Not only it's not enough (the country is small), they also import a lot of goods with manufacturing energy footprints that released co2 elsewhere. Even if the US switches to 100% renewable the problem is far from solved. Look at the population pyramid of Nigeria, for example. Those people will want homes (cement, steel) and cars and flights.
- csours 6y agoI think I understand where you're coming from, but I would say 'don't let the perfect be the enemy of the good'. Grand jumps in capability rarely (if ever) happen in the real world. Gradual change can feel like a capitulation, but it's often the safest and best overall. If you try to force huge change and fail or things go wrong or the system is deficient in some way, there can be a big backlash. The CO2 released in production and deployment of solar cells is regrettable, but as soon as that solar cell comes online it starts displacing fossil fuel.
- ctdonath 6y agoNot convinced. I’m using utility solar for about 20% of my electricity needs, precisely to experience what’s claimed. Average cost is 50% above regular sourcing, and rising significantly. https://twitter.com/ctdonath/status/1274157769889918978?s=21 https://twitter.com/ctdonath/status/1274157769889918978?s=21
- MattGaiser 6y agoIs that a price of power rise or a price of transmission rise?
- beambot 6y agoIn many places, it's the "fees because we can" rise.
- MattGaiser 6y agoWe have that here too. Plenty of “fees.”
- ctdonath 6y agoThat’s the curious bit: power generated per flat panel-rental fee is decreasing. Rental cost is consistent.
- MattGaiser 6y agoAre people willing to pay a green premium for it? We have a company near me that has some of the cheapest power sources from wind, but they used to market with the slogan “pay more for power.”
- killjoywashere 6y agoWe did a PPA for full replacement at a time in our life when we were probably at max usage (2 teenagers at home, all electric appliances) and haven't looked back. Our monthly bill immediately dropped and stayed down. As far as I can tell, the only thing I need to worry about is the risk of deflation, and there's not much I can do about that.
- egypturnash 6y agoOne more reason to not re-elect Mr. I Love Coal.
- deleted 6y ago[deleted]
- sigzero 6y agoThe questions are always "How much will it cost?" "Is it worth it?" "Do we have the political will to do it?"
- sharemywin 6y agonot in that order.
- kelnos 6y agoMy opinion is that it doesn't matter how much it costs; it is worth it at any cost, because continuing down the path of making our planet uninhabitable for humans is not a winning strategy. However, I don't think we have the political will to do it, which is really the only thing that matters in the end.
- pkaye 6y agoIn my county in California, the county purchases the electricity while PG&E provides the infrastructure. The 50/50% solar/wind plan is only around $4/month more than the standard plan. https://ebce.org/residents/ https://ebce.org/residents/
- koheripbal 6y agoCalifornia is sunnier than most parts. That makes a big difference.
- m463 6y agoCalifornia also charges people up to .48/kwh so there's a good incentive for people to get solar.
- manfredo 6y agoThis plan is rather misleading. You're buying energy from the same grid, but paying a markup to say it's coming from solar and wind. Say the company generates 100Wh of solar, 100Wh of wind and 200Wh of natural gas. Bill buys the 50/50 solar and wind plan and "buys" 100Wh of solar and 100Wh of wind at a marked up rate. Charlie buys the normal plan and gets his energy from the remaining sources. If a meteor hits the gas plant at night, Bill's electricity is still going out. California still generates 45% of its energy from fossil fuels. And another 10% from nuclear which some don't consider renewable. Solar and wind account for 21% of electricity generation: https://www.energy.ca.gov/data-reports/energy-almanac/california-electricity-data/2018-total-system-electric-generation#:~:text=California%20has%20approximately%2080%2C000%20MW,and%206%2C000%20MW%20from%20wind https://www.energy.ca.gov/data-reports/energy-almanac/califo....
- hairytrog 6y agoExciting. But here are some problems. - Unfortunately, they are averaging the entire US, which is made of several grids, so the bad days are not that bad in their analysis. To fix those bad days, you'd need hella more storage, hella more capacity. e.g. 3-4x the renewables capacity than the normal need. - Such a system has a very low resiliency because it depends on national grid. If Covid has taught us anything, it is the need for resiliency in the face of rare events. In this case unfavorable weather, broken transmission, etc. - Cost projection is rosy... The panels, batteries, and storage are already very close to the material cost. Need some pretty fundamental tech transitions to improve further. - If there is no policy change, nukes and nat gas will not be competitive 99% of the time because solar/wind are nearly free electricity and bid extremely low power prices that nuke/gas can't compete with. So even though they will provide the backbone and dispatchibility needed for on-demand power, they do not currently have the financial incentive to do so. We need resiliency and dispatchibility payments. Report is Berkeley and GridLab, mostly policy wonks A much better report from MIT: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S2542435119303009 https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S25424... or http://energy.mit.edu/research/utility-future-study/ http://energy.mit.edu/research/utility-future-study/ Both are harder to read and give worse news, so probably won't be part of the policy discussion... The report itself: http://www.2035report.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/06/2035-Report.pdf?hsCtaTracking=8a85e9ea-4ed3-4ec0-b4c6-906934306ddb%7Cc68c2ac2-1db0-4d1c-82a1-65ef4daaf6c1 http://www.2035report.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/06/2035-Re... And the data explorer: https://www.2035report.com/data-explorer/?hsCtaTracking=aefa383f-f7b1-45c3-99c8-9413fdc3a3c7%7C98cb714c-8c3e-4475-b718-610a20b81491 https://www.2035report.com/data-explorer/?hsCtaTracking=aefa...
- spenrose 6y agoHi! You don't seem to like renewables much [1][2]. (You do post about the promise of nuclear energy, including fusion, which for whatever reason seems to be associated with skepticism about renewables [3].) Finally, you called our attention to the need to be skeptical about COVID-19's impacts in mid-April [4]. Cool, cool. "To fix those bad days, you'd need hella more storage, hella more capacity. e.g. 3-4x the renewables capacity than the normal need. - Such a system has a very low resiliency because it depends on national grid." Citations for these sweeping claims? "If Covid has taught us anything, it is the need for resiliency in the face of rare events." Oh wait, we have a citation for this one. [1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=21868290 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=21868290 [2] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=21879466 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=21879466 [3] https://news.ycombinator.com/submitted?id=hairytrog https://news.ycombinator.com/submitted?id=hairytrog [4] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=22881917 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=22881917
- tareqak 6y agoI wonder if there is a way to quantify the health benefit of a solar installation on a roof, and/or associate battery storage as a dollar value on a per roof / per home basis.
- charliebrownau 6y ago2020 - Still no ones willing to replace petrol with hemp+ethanol Let me know when nations are finally willing to look at REAL SOLUTIONS
- ehutch79 6y agoMoving to clean electricity is not strictly about money. Even if it is for you, factor in the difference in health costs of people around a bunch of burning coal, vs solar or wind. also environmental cleanup. etc.
- deleted 6y ago[deleted]
- m463 6y agoEver since watching "Planet of the Humans" I find myself scrutinizing anything that says "renewable energy" because it might be burning trees. This article did mention solar, wind and batteries and carbon-free so it might be ok.
- manfredo 6y agoA few things stick out to me: * This study assumes that we can ramp up purchases of solar and wind generation to match this graph: https://imgur.com/lMU252r https://imgur.com/lMU252r while costs continue to decrease. That's not how markets work. Rapidly buy solar panels and the cost of solar panels go up. Put solar panels in all the places where it's easy to install and now you have to pay extra to put them in places where it's not so convenient. * This study thinks we can achieve this with only ~200 MWh of storage. This is an optimistic projection. To put this in perspective, daily US energy use is 11.5TWh. We're giving solar and wind generation only ~15% allowed variability before we're dipping into gas. Yeah, it does say that it's only 90% clean electricity, but even reaching this figure is optimistic.
- randombytes6869 6y agoThat's far too optimistic about storage. For small off-grid systems, you need ~5 days of battery capacity to ride out lack of wind/sun. On a large scale you'll need less because you can move power from place to place. But still. Sun is down half the day and wind speeds can be low in areas hundreds of miles wide. Its obvious they will need at least a day of battery capacity, probably more. Not hours. Solar and wind are great. Many areas in the US have hours long periods during the day where power is 100% renewable. But batteries are way too expensive and I don't like when politicians make laws based on predictions 15+ years in the future.
- cinquemb 6y ago> This study thinks we can achieve this with only ~200 MWh of storage. Agree, very unrealistic. One thing that always disappointing to me about these conversations is that solar == photovoltaics, batteries == li-ion electrochemical… luckily the world isn't limited to these asumptions and developments have been and continue to be made, even if they are mostly ignored/overlooked by the HN crowd.
- manfredo 6y agoThings like kinetic storage are geographically limited. Most places with available hydroelectric storage already generate electricity from dams. Chemical storage in the form of natural gas produced by the Sabatier process is very inefficient. Currently it's at 55% efficiency to go from power to gas. Even the most efficient combined cycle plants are currently 65% efficient. End to end efficiency is ~1/3. Also, using synthetic natural gas requires a means to capture the exhaust of gas plants to actually make it carbon neutral. Converting the fraction of a percent of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere is not currently possible. The conversation is mostly about batteries because that is the only known option at the moment, other than geographically limited ones.
- alblue 6y agoThe UK has recently ended its coal-free streak for power generation; up until a few days ago we had been coal free for 67 days, the longest time since the start of the industrial revolution. https://twitter.com/alblue/status/1274290853817827328 https://twitter.com/alblue/status/1274290853817827328 The plan is for the national grid to close coal plants by 2024 leaving just natural gas (the gas, not the American car fuel) as a high carbon source in our power grid.
- coding123 6y agoI was thinking about going big and buying about 100 panels for my 12 acre property. Anyone have any success in small scale solar farming with a utility?