7 ms·

In the US, wind power is getting bigger and better, report says

69 points by carride 5y ago

melling 5y ago
i hear more about wind than solar these days. 20 years ago i thought most homes would have some solar by now. where i lived we lose power once or twice a year. Many people have natural gas backup generators. my understanding is rooftop solar feeds the grid and not a house directly. So, millions of homes have backup generators Are we nearing any tipping point where local solar becomes a “big thing”?
- jsight 5y ago
  > Are we nearing any tipping point where local solar becomes a “big thing”? Probably not, tbh. Its getting a lot cheaper, but its really possible that subsidies will start getting smaller along the same time. In my area, rules to force utilities to allow net metering on good terms are trending weaker as well. The combination hurts solar competitiveness. If the cost of powerwall type systems fell by at least 50% some of these things might change, as the utility interconnect might not be needed any more.
  - throwaway0a5e 5y ago
    The utility interconnect really drives up the minimum price of solar because you have to go through licensed professionals who know you can't avoid them so there is no downward pressure on price unlike all other residential electrical (new construction notwithstanding).
    - coding123 5y ago
      Do your homework on that. In many areas you can hire a solar guy to do your last mile for $600 to $1000. Everything else is DIY and Alibaba. Just make sure to get county approval on the inverters and UL listed etc...
    - jsight 5y ago
      I've noticed that effect, but I don't think the problem is on the installer side. A big part of the cost for them is the "soft costs" and a part of that is dealing with sometimes intransigent personnel at power companies. There are horror stories of them needing to pester the company for months to get the final approval to energize the system, and that adds significant cost. The solar companies would love to get rid of this problem. I don't think that I'd want someone that isn't a licensed roofer or electrician doing the installation work anyway.
  - yardie 5y ago
    Subsidies are in place to solve the chicken/egg problem of inducing demand and creating a new market. If solar panels are getting cheaper then subsidies should start to go away once targets are met. BTW, I still feel we're far away from withdrawing subsidies. Until we get below $1000/kw its still too steep for most homeowners. Currently, Florida is $2600/kw.
    - jsight 5y ago
      Oh, I agree and I have nothing against the subsidies getting scaled back over time. The issue is that it makes cost cutting in the industry less effective, as the savings don't always get directed to the buyer's bottom line. I think it might create a long stall where solar doesn't really expand that much in consumer markets.
- tmountain 5y ago
  I have solar. So far, it feels like more of a "feel good" thing than a major economic benefit. Getting a 10kw solar array installed cost ~25k in our territory. Dealing with the local electric company was a huge pain, and the array doesn't actually feed the house (we sell power back to the grid). To really maximize the benefit, you need a powerwall, so you can store surplus energy, continue service during outages, and avoid taking a hit if the net metering agreement changes in the future. We're actually exploring this by way of the Ford F-150 lightning acting as a battery backup, but that also requires upgrading the house to a 400 amp service, so you really start feeling like you're getting in to sunk cost territory.
  - jerf 5y ago
    This was one of my major disappointments when I looked into solar the first time. I don't want to stick panels on top of my house that are basically just feeding back into the grid. I want to have panels that first feed my house, and maybe if there's extra feed it into the grid, but if the grid goes down I still have a more-or-less functional house. A big part of solar's value to me is the renewable, off-grid backup power. Solar has the interesting and useful characteristic that it keeps working even if things have really gone to pot and you've even lost gas and water for some reason. Having lots of houses like this scattered all over the place greatly increases civilizational resilience. (That is, I'm not so much trying to plan for "The End Of The World" just for me personally with my own solar install, but want the resilience at the societal level, and might be willing to pay to help it along.) If solar's just going to feed back into the grid, I might as well just let the utility companies manage it themselves. It's more efficient than anything I can do myself. Unfortunately, it seems like the way solar works helps that goal much less than I'd like. I hardly need multiple kilowatts of power backing a single functional outlet that almost seems begrudgingly provided. I'd be interested in anyone who has experience in perhaps managing to set their house up the way I describe, what magic words to Google or say to installers to talk about this, and how much more money it may have been.
    - OneEyedRobot 5y ago
      The real money ends up being in the power storage. Obviously there's such a thing as 'night' and multiple days without full sun (or snow on your roof depending on the area). I wonder how many electric F-150s will get sold to people on the basis of using them as a whole-house battery. I fully agree on your point of the lack of logic to grid-based solar. No doubt large scale facilities can be placed in better areas, be cheaper per watt, have higher uptime, are able to afford the more exotic power storage (dams for one). Now, if it were me, I'd start with new construction designed around low power usage. LED lighting, efficient computers, chest freezer turned into a refrigerator, no electric heat or dryers or transfer fans for gas heaters. The sticking point would tend to be A/C but I think that can be mitigated via small house size, insulation, and use of efficient split systems. The smaller the electricity use the more tractable the problem.
- The_Beta 5y ago
  Large solar farms take up a lot of land. Much more than wind does. It also makes that land useless for anything else other than solar. Large wind farms generate more power than solar on a per acre basis and have a lot of land that can be used for cow/sheep grazing, buildings for other purposes, and so on. Solar is getting so cheap that people can use them for "local solar" (in the industry, that's called distributed generation). Rooftop solar on residential homes usually power the house first, then the battery of the house, then the grid. This could change if net metering is allowed though but usually only after your batteries are topped up. Also you could just not have batteries (since it's so expensive). In that case any excess power will just go directly to the grid.
  - willis936 5y ago
    What's wrong with putting solar panels under wind farms?
    - The_Beta 5y ago
      Nothing and some companies are looking at that. It changes the dispatch characteristics but that's not a big deal. I can see this happening more in the future when you kind of run out of space and have increased demand for power. First thing you'll probably do is upgrade the turbines to be bigger/more efficient. Then if you've maxed that out you can start adding solar panels underneath the turbines. At the end of the day it's about lowering your costs to generate the power you need.
  - 7952 5y ago
    It's actually common for sheep to be grazed under solar and it helps keep the grass trimmer. Or the grassland can be managed for wildlife and polinators. My guess is that solar sites will be managed to improve soil quality. And eventually we will rotate the fields under solar to give the soil a rest. It is the perfect opportunity for a win-win.
    - The_Beta 5y ago
      Yea, they graze under/around solar panels but that's pretty much all you can do for a solar farm. Wind gives you more opportunity to use the land. I don't see the solar site management thing happening by the way. A lot of time and effort goes into land siting and selection. It won't be that easy to just pack it up and move.
- fred_is_fred 5y ago
  Even where I live with a south facing roof and ample sunshine the pay off for a full system is something like 11 years - and after that I save $50/mo or some paltry amount. If it was reasonable I would get a small number of panels just to offsite the ToD pricing we have here (when the A/C needs to run the most) - but it seems that small installations are not cost effective in the end.
sunshiney 5y ago
Who is preventing exploration of installing these on the tops of buildings in the very cities that create the power need?
- thehappypm 5y ago
  A city is literally the worst place for wind. High property values, low tolerance for visual blight and noise, expensive work forces for maintenance, difficult to access.. you want wind in places like farms, where land and labor are cheap, access is easy, and nobody is going to complain about the noise.
  - 7952 5y ago
    Also. They can create flickering sun which is unpleasant and unhealthy. During cold weather they can shed ice. And they might fall over or catch fire and hurt someone. A safety zone is an easy way to eliminate any danger to the public.
  - sunshiney 5y ago
    I'm rural and locals hate them, wish they were installed in the places where the demand is being created by the density of population: cities. There is considerable ostracization of any farmer who opts in. Low tolerance for visual blight? We agree. We consider them a blight also, particularly for people who choose natural sights over the blight of concrete structures. Noise? Same thing. We hate the noise of any traffic and yet that noise is Ok here? The complaints are significant can't Labor is not a good argument. It's expensive here also. Specialty techs are needed and the drive time charges alone are exhorbitant. These could be placed instead on the top of city buildings. It's been done already. You wouldn't hear the noise over the traffic or neighbors that live inches from you. No birds would be injured or migratory paths interrupted. Wildlife oaths would not be displaced. The visual is not an issue. You already have visual blight in a city. And city dwellers created the huge need.
- robcohen 5y ago
  I think it would not be feasible to add these to most buildings. Wind power is very heavy and there are a lot of obvious wind forces acting on the structures. Buildings were not engineered to take those loads.
rich_sasha 5y ago
What is the endgame for not-on-demand renewables? I ask without prejudice. We know we cannot yet store energy from wind and solar. So they are fine as contributors to the grid, but cannot really take the "power anytime" burden. Yet they are installed in huge numbers. What happens after a "critical mass" is installed? Is it: - Power companies are gaming the current environment, where marginal renewables are cheap, and take preference over fuel-driven plants (fossil or nuclear)? - Is it a long bet on storage becoming cheap enough that renewables+storage (batteries?) are viable? - Something else?
- phicoh 5y ago
  Depends on where in the world you are looking. For example, the EU has a price on CO2 which is going up to reach the EU goals with respect to CO2 emissions. In that case, even if storage of electricity is expensive. At some it will be cheaper than burning fossil. Nobody really knows how new nuclear competes with storage. If there is no price on CO2 (and now other regulations that limit fossil), then renewables just have to compete with fossil on price.
- endymi0n 5y ago
  In the end a mix of all of the below: - overprovisioning because it's still cheap enough - peak shaving with battery storage - dynamic demand applications, powered by hours of "free" energy, taking them outside the peak demand: car charging, heat and cold buffers (aluminum smeltering, ice buffers for A/C), and lots more that will prop up
  - bryanlarsen 5y ago
    Also - mix of sources. Solar+wind is more reliable than either solar or wind. - geothermal - interconnected grids. The wind is always blowing somewhere.
    - idiotsecant 5y ago
      Your third item implies massive multi-trillion dollar upgrades to the transmission system(s) which are historically sexy and politically unpopular. They need to happen but they won't.
dang 5y ago
Ongoing related thread: More wind energy was installed in 2020 than any other energy source - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=28363813 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=28363813 - Aug 2021 (149 comments)

69 points by carride 5y ago

i hear more about wind than solar these days. 20 years ago i thought most homes would have some solar by now. where i lived we lose power once or twice a year. Many people have natural gas backup generators. my understanding is rooftop solar feeds the grid and not a house directly. So, millions of homes have backup generators Are we nearing any tipping point where local solar becomes a “big thing”?

jsight 5y ago
> Are we nearing any tipping point where local solar becomes a “big thing”? Probably not, tbh. Its getting a lot cheaper, but its really possible that subsidies will start getting smaller along the same time. In my area, rules to force utilities to allow net metering on good terms are trending weaker as well. The combination hurts solar competitiveness. If the cost of powerwall type systems fell by at least 50% some of these things might change, as the utility interconnect might not be needed any more.
- throwaway0a5e 5y ago
  The utility interconnect really drives up the minimum price of solar because you have to go through licensed professionals who know you can't avoid them so there is no downward pressure on price unlike all other residential electrical (new construction notwithstanding).
  - coding123 5y ago
    Do your homework on that. In many areas you can hire a solar guy to do your last mile for $600 to $1000. Everything else is DIY and Alibaba. Just make sure to get county approval on the inverters and UL listed etc...
  - jsight 5y ago
    I've noticed that effect, but I don't think the problem is on the installer side. A big part of the cost for them is the "soft costs" and a part of that is dealing with sometimes intransigent personnel at power companies. There are horror stories of them needing to pester the company for months to get the final approval to energize the system, and that adds significant cost. The solar companies would love to get rid of this problem. I don't think that I'd want someone that isn't a licensed roofer or electrician doing the installation work anyway.
- yardie 5y ago
  Subsidies are in place to solve the chicken/egg problem of inducing demand and creating a new market. If solar panels are getting cheaper then subsidies should start to go away once targets are met. BTW, I still feel we're far away from withdrawing subsidies. Until we get below $1000/kw its still too steep for most homeowners. Currently, Florida is $2600/kw.
  - jsight 5y ago
    Oh, I agree and I have nothing against the subsidies getting scaled back over time. The issue is that it makes cost cutting in the industry less effective, as the savings don't always get directed to the buyer's bottom line. I think it might create a long stall where solar doesn't really expand that much in consumer markets.
tmountain 5y ago
I have solar. So far, it feels like more of a "feel good" thing than a major economic benefit. Getting a 10kw solar array installed cost ~25k in our territory. Dealing with the local electric company was a huge pain, and the array doesn't actually feed the house (we sell power back to the grid). To really maximize the benefit, you need a powerwall, so you can store surplus energy, continue service during outages, and avoid taking a hit if the net metering agreement changes in the future. We're actually exploring this by way of the Ford F-150 lightning acting as a battery backup, but that also requires upgrading the house to a 400 amp service, so you really start feeling like you're getting in to sunk cost territory.
- jerf 5y ago
  This was one of my major disappointments when I looked into solar the first time. I don't want to stick panels on top of my house that are basically just feeding back into the grid. I want to have panels that first feed my house, and maybe if there's extra feed it into the grid, but if the grid goes down I still have a more-or-less functional house. A big part of solar's value to me is the renewable, off-grid backup power. Solar has the interesting and useful characteristic that it keeps working even if things have really gone to pot and you've even lost gas and water for some reason. Having lots of houses like this scattered all over the place greatly increases civilizational resilience. (That is, I'm not so much trying to plan for "The End Of The World" just for me personally with my own solar install, but want the resilience at the societal level, and might be willing to pay to help it along.) If solar's just going to feed back into the grid, I might as well just let the utility companies manage it themselves. It's more efficient than anything I can do myself. Unfortunately, it seems like the way solar works helps that goal much less than I'd like. I hardly need multiple kilowatts of power backing a single functional outlet that almost seems begrudgingly provided. I'd be interested in anyone who has experience in perhaps managing to set their house up the way I describe, what magic words to Google or say to installers to talk about this, and how much more money it may have been.
  - OneEyedRobot 5y ago
    The real money ends up being in the power storage. Obviously there's such a thing as 'night' and multiple days without full sun (or snow on your roof depending on the area). I wonder how many electric F-150s will get sold to people on the basis of using them as a whole-house battery. I fully agree on your point of the lack of logic to grid-based solar. No doubt large scale facilities can be placed in better areas, be cheaper per watt, have higher uptime, are able to afford the more exotic power storage (dams for one). Now, if it were me, I'd start with new construction designed around low power usage. LED lighting, efficient computers, chest freezer turned into a refrigerator, no electric heat or dryers or transfer fans for gas heaters. The sticking point would tend to be A/C but I think that can be mitigated via small house size, insulation, and use of efficient split systems. The smaller the electricity use the more tractable the problem.
The_Beta 5y ago
Large solar farms take up a lot of land. Much more than wind does. It also makes that land useless for anything else other than solar. Large wind farms generate more power than solar on a per acre basis and have a lot of land that can be used for cow/sheep grazing, buildings for other purposes, and so on. Solar is getting so cheap that people can use them for "local solar" (in the industry, that's called distributed generation). Rooftop solar on residential homes usually power the house first, then the battery of the house, then the grid. This could change if net metering is allowed though but usually only after your batteries are topped up. Also you could just not have batteries (since it's so expensive). In that case any excess power will just go directly to the grid.
- willis936 5y ago
  What's wrong with putting solar panels under wind farms?
  - The_Beta 5y ago
    Nothing and some companies are looking at that. It changes the dispatch characteristics but that's not a big deal. I can see this happening more in the future when you kind of run out of space and have increased demand for power. First thing you'll probably do is upgrade the turbines to be bigger/more efficient. Then if you've maxed that out you can start adding solar panels underneath the turbines. At the end of the day it's about lowering your costs to generate the power you need.
- 7952 5y ago
  It's actually common for sheep to be grazed under solar and it helps keep the grass trimmer. Or the grassland can be managed for wildlife and polinators. My guess is that solar sites will be managed to improve soil quality. And eventually we will rotate the fields under solar to give the soil a rest. It is the perfect opportunity for a win-win.
  - The_Beta 5y ago
    Yea, they graze under/around solar panels but that's pretty much all you can do for a solar farm. Wind gives you more opportunity to use the land. I don't see the solar site management thing happening by the way. A lot of time and effort goes into land siting and selection. It won't be that easy to just pack it up and move.
fred_is_fred 5y ago
Even where I live with a south facing roof and ample sunshine the pay off for a full system is something like 11 years - and after that I save $50/mo or some paltry amount. If it was reasonable I would get a small number of panels just to offsite the ToD pricing we have here (when the A/C needs to run the most) - but it seems that small installations are not cost effective in the end.

sunshiney 5y ago

Who is preventing exploration of installing these on the tops of buildings in the very cities that create the power need?

thehappypm 5y ago
A city is literally the worst place for wind. High property values, low tolerance for visual blight and noise, expensive work forces for maintenance, difficult to access.. you want wind in places like farms, where land and labor are cheap, access is easy, and nobody is going to complain about the noise.
- 7952 5y ago
  Also. They can create flickering sun which is unpleasant and unhealthy. During cold weather they can shed ice. And they might fall over or catch fire and hurt someone. A safety zone is an easy way to eliminate any danger to the public.
- sunshiney 5y ago
  I'm rural and locals hate them, wish they were installed in the places where the demand is being created by the density of population: cities. There is considerable ostracization of any farmer who opts in. Low tolerance for visual blight? We agree. We consider them a blight also, particularly for people who choose natural sights over the blight of concrete structures. Noise? Same thing. We hate the noise of any traffic and yet that noise is Ok here? The complaints are significant can't Labor is not a good argument. It's expensive here also. Specialty techs are needed and the drive time charges alone are exhorbitant. These could be placed instead on the top of city buildings. It's been done already. You wouldn't hear the noise over the traffic or neighbors that live inches from you. No birds would be injured or migratory paths interrupted. Wildlife oaths would not be displaced. The visual is not an issue. You already have visual blight in a city. And city dwellers created the huge need.
robcohen 5y ago
I think it would not be feasible to add these to most buildings. Wind power is very heavy and there are a lot of obvious wind forces acting on the structures. Buildings were not engineered to take those loads.

rich_sasha 5y ago

What is the endgame for not-on-demand renewables? I ask without prejudice. We know we cannot yet store energy from wind and solar. So they are fine as contributors to the grid, but cannot really take the "power anytime" burden. Yet they are installed in huge numbers. What happens after a "critical mass" is installed? Is it: - Power companies are gaming the current environment, where marginal renewables are cheap, and take preference over fuel-driven plants (fossil or nuclear)? - Is it a long bet on storage becoming cheap enough that renewables+storage (batteries?) are viable? - Something else?

phicoh 5y ago
Depends on where in the world you are looking. For example, the EU has a price on CO2 which is going up to reach the EU goals with respect to CO2 emissions. In that case, even if storage of electricity is expensive. At some it will be cheaper than burning fossil. Nobody really knows how new nuclear competes with storage. If there is no price on CO2 (and now other regulations that limit fossil), then renewables just have to compete with fossil on price.
endymi0n 5y ago
In the end a mix of all of the below: - overprovisioning because it's still cheap enough - peak shaving with battery storage - dynamic demand applications, powered by hours of "free" energy, taking them outside the peak demand: car charging, heat and cold buffers (aluminum smeltering, ice buffers for A/C), and lots more that will prop up
- bryanlarsen 5y ago
  Also - mix of sources. Solar+wind is more reliable than either solar or wind. - geothermal - interconnected grids. The wind is always blowing somewhere.
  - idiotsecant 5y ago
    Your third item implies massive multi-trillion dollar upgrades to the transmission system(s) which are historically sexy and politically unpopular. They need to happen but they won't.

dang 5y ago

Ongoing related thread: More wind energy was installed in 2020 than any other energy source - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=28363813 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=28363813 - Aug 2021 (149 comments)