8 ms·

I cannot imagine the revolution that solar power will produce if it can fall another 3-5x in the next 10 years. It is already at grid parity. Although my perso

I cannot imagine the revolution that solar power will produce if it can fall another 3-5x in the next 10 years. It is already at grid parity. Although my personal hope is for storage, inverters, controllers and other technologies to get cheaper. Especially longer term storage beyond 4 hours.

toomuchtodo 6y ago
I think it’s unlikely you see any fossil generation in the mix in 10 years except in the most remote of locations (with no solar or wind potential). Wind and solar are already around 2 cents/kWh utility scale, and batteries are catching up. No fossil or nuclear generation can compete with that.
- emit_time 6y ago
  Source? I don't disagree, would just like to share this information with friends :)
  - toomuchtodo 6y ago
    Commenting as a reminder to self to return with a model.
- repsilat 6y ago
  I'd bet there will be some natural gas generation in the US in non-remote areas in 2030. Maybe not new construction, but gas is cheap, responsive, and already in place. I don't think it'll be completely replaced by batteries and added renewable capacity that quickly, though I'd love to be proven wrong.
- manfredo 6y ago
  > Batteries are catching up. Are they? The US consumes 11.5TWh of electricity daily. It's estimated that it needs 3 weeks if storage to get to 100% carbon free [1]. By comparison global battery production in 2019 was 300GWh [2]. Even if you factor in the fact that the curve of battery production is rising, it'd take decades to fullfil just the US's storage demands with batteries. There are other storage options like hydroelectricity and pumping air into mineshafts, but those are geographically limited. 1. https://pv-magazine-usa.com/2018/03/01/12-hours-energy-storage-80-percent-wind-solar/ https://pv-magazine-usa.com/2018/03/01/12-hours-energy-stora... 2. https://cleantechnica.com/2019/04/14/global-lithium-ion-battery-planned-capacity-update-9-growth-in-a-single-month-march-charts/amp/ https://cleantechnica.com/2019/04/14/global-lithium-ion-batt...
  - toomuchtodo 6y ago
    They are [1]. It’s a self reinforcing cycle. For example, batteries are already cheaper than most gas peakers. That demand (along with EVs demand, primarily Tesla) ramps manufacturing capacity, realizing further cost declines along the way. Remember, the sun and wind are free once the turbines and panels are installed (both which last at least two decades). That’s what fossil and nuclear are competing against, and it’s a losing battle. Sounds like those companies that sell batteries to utilities and consumers are in a very favorable position, considering the storage requirements you note. [1] https://about.bnef.com/blog/battery-pack-prices-fall-as-market-ramps-up-with-market-average-at-156-kwh-in-2019/ https://about.bnef.com/blog/battery-pack-prices-fall-as-mark...
    - manfredo 6y ago
      Yes, the capacity is increasing. But there's still a massive disconnect between the amount of battery storage required to make renewables usable and the capacity that exists. The link I posted already factors in increasing demand, but the amount of battery production in these projections is still orders of magnitude lower than what is requires. 3 weeks of energy storage in the US works out to 240 TWh given its daily 11.5 TWh consumption. Even if we assume that the projections are accurate and that global battery production will reach 1 TWh in 2023 and 2 TWh per year in 2030, we're still talking about several decades worth of global battery production just to supply the United States' storage requirements. Even just reaching the 12 hours of storage required to reach 80% renewables is going to be difficult to achieve. The reality is that storage even remotely close to what is necessary to run a country predominantly on intermittent sources has never been built. This is totally uncharted territory as far as energy infrastructure goes. And none of our current solutions are capable of delivering the required scale, save for geographically limited options like hydroelectricity. By comparison, multiple countries generate the majority of their electricity from nuclear power, and one has generated over 80% of its energy from nuclear. Between building a wholly novel solution and simply replicating an existing solution, the latter is almost always the easier task. This thread is being rate limited, reply in edit: > 1. Instantaneous excess can electrolyse water, producing hydrogen which can be converted into methane and stored/used in existing natural gas systems. This is much more difficult to do than it sounds. In order to convert hydrogen into methane you need a source of carbon. The fraction of a percent of carbon that exists in the atmosphere cannot feasibly be used. The plans to use synthetic methane as energy storage are contingent on somehow capturing the carbon from burning a gas turbine. California tried to do this by pumping the exhaust into mine shaft, but a leak was sprung and the gas escaped. Not to mention, places without mineshafts nearby have to construct structures to store the exhaust. > 2. Overcapacity in good times implies proportionally higher production in bad times, lowering the storage requirements. No it does not. Overcapacity of solar doesn't make the sun shine at night. Overcapacity of wind somewhat increases production in less windy days, but a totally windless day still generates zero energy regardless of overcapacity.
- newyankee 6y ago
  Which means we need battery storage at LCOE < 3 cents/kwh so a battery that lasts many cycles (> 4000) would really help in lowering costs.
agumonkey 6y ago
When I spin thinking I see: - information is mostly everywhere - computing is mostly everywhere, can turn knowledge into instructions - most machinery is accessible and can be replicated (not saying cpu fab) - what's missing in that frame is an open faucet of clean energy
xxs 6y ago
Instead of inverters, there should be a push for DC network. Virtually all SMPS would be able to to work with DC (right now) and they won't even need active power factor correction either. Washing mashines with brushless DC motors, most ovens would be fine too. When I think almost everything that I have home, save for geothermal pump and three-phase appliances would be ok powered by DC(0). DC has its own issues: galvanic corrosion possibly being one, arcs too (no self-extinguish 50/60 times sec) but it has no issues with inductance, hence lower transport costs. (0)Cheap LEDs with capacitor dropper or regulation by triacs are not compatible.
- m463 6y ago
  I see DC used in electric cars, general automotive and RVs. I will say 12v is not very useful, except maybe for LED lighting. It has high losses to travel any distance. To power anything of significance requires higher voltage (or enormous cables). I do agree that it would be really good to use DC, but I kind of wonder what the reality of efficient and useful DC would be like.
  - xxs 6y ago
    12v DC is not even useful for LEDs as it requires current limiting resistors - hence power wasted to heat. The proper (efficient) way to drive LEDs is via constant current source. I meant DC as in 230-330V DC for home/office use. I meant generally replace AC (high voltage) lines with DC ones.

toomuchtodo 6y ago

I think it’s unlikely you see any fossil generation in the mix in 10 years except in the most remote of locations (with no solar or wind potential). Wind and solar are already around 2 cents/kWh utility scale, and batteries are catching up. No fossil or nuclear generation can compete with that.

emit_time 6y ago
Source? I don't disagree, would just like to share this information with friends :)
- toomuchtodo 6y ago
  Commenting as a reminder to self to return with a model.
repsilat 6y ago
I'd bet there will be some natural gas generation in the US in non-remote areas in 2030. Maybe not new construction, but gas is cheap, responsive, and already in place. I don't think it'll be completely replaced by batteries and added renewable capacity that quickly, though I'd love to be proven wrong.
manfredo 6y ago
> Batteries are catching up. Are they? The US consumes 11.5TWh of electricity daily. It's estimated that it needs 3 weeks if storage to get to 100% carbon free [1]. By comparison global battery production in 2019 was 300GWh [2]. Even if you factor in the fact that the curve of battery production is rising, it'd take decades to fullfil just the US's storage demands with batteries. There are other storage options like hydroelectricity and pumping air into mineshafts, but those are geographically limited. 1. https://pv-magazine-usa.com/2018/03/01/12-hours-energy-storage-80-percent-wind-solar/ https://pv-magazine-usa.com/2018/03/01/12-hours-energy-stora... 2. https://cleantechnica.com/2019/04/14/global-lithium-ion-battery-planned-capacity-update-9-growth-in-a-single-month-march-charts/amp/ https://cleantechnica.com/2019/04/14/global-lithium-ion-batt...
- toomuchtodo 6y ago
  They are [1]. It’s a self reinforcing cycle. For example, batteries are already cheaper than most gas peakers. That demand (along with EVs demand, primarily Tesla) ramps manufacturing capacity, realizing further cost declines along the way. Remember, the sun and wind are free once the turbines and panels are installed (both which last at least two decades). That’s what fossil and nuclear are competing against, and it’s a losing battle. Sounds like those companies that sell batteries to utilities and consumers are in a very favorable position, considering the storage requirements you note. [1] https://about.bnef.com/blog/battery-pack-prices-fall-as-market-ramps-up-with-market-average-at-156-kwh-in-2019/ https://about.bnef.com/blog/battery-pack-prices-fall-as-mark...
  - manfredo 6y ago
    Yes, the capacity is increasing. But there's still a massive disconnect between the amount of battery storage required to make renewables usable and the capacity that exists. The link I posted already factors in increasing demand, but the amount of battery production in these projections is still orders of magnitude lower than what is requires. 3 weeks of energy storage in the US works out to 240 TWh given its daily 11.5 TWh consumption. Even if we assume that the projections are accurate and that global battery production will reach 1 TWh in 2023 and 2 TWh per year in 2030, we're still talking about several decades worth of global battery production just to supply the United States' storage requirements. Even just reaching the 12 hours of storage required to reach 80% renewables is going to be difficult to achieve. The reality is that storage even remotely close to what is necessary to run a country predominantly on intermittent sources has never been built. This is totally uncharted territory as far as energy infrastructure goes. And none of our current solutions are capable of delivering the required scale, save for geographically limited options like hydroelectricity. By comparison, multiple countries generate the majority of their electricity from nuclear power, and one has generated over 80% of its energy from nuclear. Between building a wholly novel solution and simply replicating an existing solution, the latter is almost always the easier task. This thread is being rate limited, reply in edit: > 1. Instantaneous excess can electrolyse water, producing hydrogen which can be converted into methane and stored/used in existing natural gas systems. This is much more difficult to do than it sounds. In order to convert hydrogen into methane you need a source of carbon. The fraction of a percent of carbon that exists in the atmosphere cannot feasibly be used. The plans to use synthetic methane as energy storage are contingent on somehow capturing the carbon from burning a gas turbine. California tried to do this by pumping the exhaust into mine shaft, but a leak was sprung and the gas escaped. Not to mention, places without mineshafts nearby have to construct structures to store the exhaust. > 2. Overcapacity in good times implies proportionally higher production in bad times, lowering the storage requirements. No it does not. Overcapacity of solar doesn't make the sun shine at night. Overcapacity of wind somewhat increases production in less windy days, but a totally windless day still generates zero energy regardless of overcapacity.
newyankee 6y ago
Which means we need battery storage at LCOE < 3 cents/kwh so a battery that lasts many cycles (> 4000) would really help in lowering costs.

agumonkey 6y ago

When I spin thinking I see: - information is mostly everywhere - computing is mostly everywhere, can turn knowledge into instructions - most machinery is accessible and can be replicated (not saying cpu fab) - what's missing in that frame is an open faucet of clean energy

xxs 6y ago

Instead of inverters, there should be a push for DC network. Virtually all SMPS would be able to to work with DC (right now) and they won't even need active power factor correction either. Washing mashines with brushless DC motors, most ovens would be fine too. When I think almost everything that I have home, save for geothermal pump and three-phase appliances would be ok powered by DC(0). DC has its own issues: galvanic corrosion possibly being one, arcs too (no self-extinguish 50/60 times sec) but it has no issues with inductance, hence lower transport costs. (0)Cheap LEDs with capacitor dropper or regulation by triacs are not compatible.

m463 6y ago
I see DC used in electric cars, general automotive and RVs. I will say 12v is not very useful, except maybe for LED lighting. It has high losses to travel any distance. To power anything of significance requires higher voltage (or enormous cables). I do agree that it would be really good to use DC, but I kind of wonder what the reality of efficient and useful DC would be like.
- xxs 6y ago
  12v DC is not even useful for LEDs as it requires current limiting resistors - hence power wasted to heat. The proper (efficient) way to drive LEDs is via constant current source. I meant DC as in 230-330V DC for home/office use. I meant generally replace AC (high voltage) lines with DC ones.