4 ms·

I’m not sure. Last winter Chicago went something like 40 days without sun IIRC, and I assume the same is true for much of the surrounding area. It doesn’t seem

I’m not sure. Last winter Chicago went something like 40 days without sun IIRC, and I assume the same is true for much of the surrounding area. It doesn’t seem particularly unlikely that you could have many consecutive windless days as well, especially as climate change brings us these “once in a millennia” events every few years. Moreover, as we transition homes from gas heating to heat pumps, this will increase demand on the grid and it will also increase the risks in case of failure (people freezing). Moreover, even without cloud cover, winters are snowy and the days are short and the light is indirect.

Retric 4y ago
You just described why placing solar panels in Chicago is a bad idea. Real world grid scale solar farms are placed in sunny areas that don't get regular cloud cover or even snow like that. Washington State and Chicago are terrible locations for solar, but moving electricity is surprisingly cheap. https://blog.solarenergymaps.com/2014/05/potential-solar-energy-map-of-us.html https://blog.solarenergymaps.com/2014/05/potential-solar-ene... That said, cloudy days reduce but don't eliminate output, so as excess capacity is added the minimum output keeps increasing. A hypothetical green hydro/wind/solar grid would have significant excess solar capacity the same way the current grid adds redundant conventional powerplants.
- throwaway894345 4y ago
  > Washington State and Chicago are terrible locations for solar, but moving electricity is surprisingly cheap. https://blog.solarenergymaps.com/2014/05/potential-solar-ene https://blog.solarenergymaps.com/2014/05/potential-solar-ene... Your link doesn’t support your claim that moving energy is surprisingly cheap. I’m of the impression that this isn’t the case (we can’t easily build transmission lines that can carry the necessary amount of power from the southwest to other parts of the country).
  - Retric 4y ago
    I didn't add a link on power transmission. Actually building stuff in the US has issues that have little to do with cost. Individual UHVDC links are in the multiple GW range. Exact numbers depend on a host of factors but something like 1c/kWh per 1,000 miles for long range is a reasonable ballpark. (Upfront costs in the billions.) Though it’s much higher for underwater links, etc. A link sending power 24/7/365 at maximum capacity is significantly cheaper, conversly geographic barriers can quickly increase prices. Also those costs aren't constant with distance the transmission lines cost far less than the equipment at either end.
- toomuchtodo 4y ago
  I have worked with several folks to get solar installed on their roof in the Chicago suburbs, and it offsets over 100% of their local consumption.
  - LunaSea 4y ago
    Not during night time.
    - throwaway894345 4y ago
      It probably could with enough batteries and panels, but it's probably a very expensive setup.
  - Retric 4y ago
    There is a big difference between producing enough power on average and having power when you want it. Going 100% off grid is possible in Chicago but I doubt it's cost effective. Staying grid connected is offloading all the difficult parts to your electric company.
    - toomuchtodo 4y ago
      Yeah, that’s their job, the hard part. You don’t get a free return on equity. Orchestrate power across a distributed system of load, generators, and storage or let someone competent do it and earn that margin.
      - Retric 4y ago
        Sure, but the point is actually doing the hard part means a different approach is needed. And don't be surprised when electric companies pay a lower rate for solar from you as they charge to supply you with power.
        toomuchtodo 4y ago
        You mean like this? https://reneweconomy.com.au/queensland-to-add-more-than-a-dozen-new-regional-batteries-to-soak-up-solar/ https://reneweconomy.com.au/queensland-to-add-more-than-a-do... > “The new batteries will be spread across major centres in regional Queensland near communities that have significant rooftop solar generation because we know that’s where they will have the greatest overall benefit. > “The network of the future will not only need to move electricity from where it is generated to where it’s going to be used, but also to when it’s consumed.” And sure, utilities can buy power from consumers at a lower cost than they charge for power, but that only works until batteries decline to a cost point where consumers simply replace their utilities with batteries. Is that today? Not yet! But with the amount of battery manufacturing capacity spooling up for EVs and utility scale storage, that day will arrive.
- LunaSea 4y ago
  Moving electricity comes with a loss of production every few miles.
  - Retric 4y ago
    Read up on UHVDC. You pay significant conversion losses, but per mile it’s very efficient.
- ZeroGravitas 4y ago
  Solar makes sense Chicago, and even in places in Alaska that genuinely experience weeks of darkness. An interesting current research area is how much vertical bifacial modules take advantage of reflections from snow on the ground, while shedding snowfall better and flattening the supply curve. A grid entirely based on solar in those regions is less optimal, but no one is proposing such a thing.

Retric 4y ago

You just described why placing solar panels in Chicago is a bad idea. Real world grid scale solar farms are placed in sunny areas that don't get regular cloud cover or even snow like that. Washington State and Chicago are terrible locations for solar, but moving electricity is surprisingly cheap. https://blog.solarenergymaps.com/2014/05/potential-solar-energy-map-of-us.html https://blog.solarenergymaps.com/2014/05/potential-solar-ene... That said, cloudy days reduce but don't eliminate output, so as excess capacity is added the minimum output keeps increasing. A hypothetical green hydro/wind/solar grid would have significant excess solar capacity the same way the current grid adds redundant conventional powerplants.

throwaway894345 4y ago
> Washington State and Chicago are terrible locations for solar, but moving electricity is surprisingly cheap. https://blog.solarenergymaps.com/2014/05/potential-solar-ene https://blog.solarenergymaps.com/2014/05/potential-solar-ene... Your link doesn’t support your claim that moving energy is surprisingly cheap. I’m of the impression that this isn’t the case (we can’t easily build transmission lines that can carry the necessary amount of power from the southwest to other parts of the country).
- Retric 4y ago
  I didn't add a link on power transmission. Actually building stuff in the US has issues that have little to do with cost. Individual UHVDC links are in the multiple GW range. Exact numbers depend on a host of factors but something like 1c/kWh per 1,000 miles for long range is a reasonable ballpark. (Upfront costs in the billions.) Though it’s much higher for underwater links, etc. A link sending power 24/7/365 at maximum capacity is significantly cheaper, conversly geographic barriers can quickly increase prices. Also those costs aren't constant with distance the transmission lines cost far less than the equipment at either end.
toomuchtodo 4y ago
I have worked with several folks to get solar installed on their roof in the Chicago suburbs, and it offsets over 100% of their local consumption.
- LunaSea 4y ago
  Not during night time.
  - throwaway894345 4y ago
    It probably could with enough batteries and panels, but it's probably a very expensive setup.
- Retric 4y ago
  There is a big difference between producing enough power on average and having power when you want it. Going 100% off grid is possible in Chicago but I doubt it's cost effective. Staying grid connected is offloading all the difficult parts to your electric company.
  - toomuchtodo 4y ago
    Yeah, that’s their job, the hard part. You don’t get a free return on equity. Orchestrate power across a distributed system of load, generators, and storage or let someone competent do it and earn that margin.
    - Retric 4y ago
      Sure, but the point is actually doing the hard part means a different approach is needed. And don't be surprised when electric companies pay a lower rate for solar from you as they charge to supply you with power.
      - toomuchtodo 4y ago
        You mean like this? https://reneweconomy.com.au/queensland-to-add-more-than-a-dozen-new-regional-batteries-to-soak-up-solar/ https://reneweconomy.com.au/queensland-to-add-more-than-a-do... > “The new batteries will be spread across major centres in regional Queensland near communities that have significant rooftop solar generation because we know that’s where they will have the greatest overall benefit. > “The network of the future will not only need to move electricity from where it is generated to where it’s going to be used, but also to when it’s consumed.” And sure, utilities can buy power from consumers at a lower cost than they charge for power, but that only works until batteries decline to a cost point where consumers simply replace their utilities with batteries. Is that today? Not yet! But with the amount of battery manufacturing capacity spooling up for EVs and utility scale storage, that day will arrive.
LunaSea 4y ago
Moving electricity comes with a loss of production every few miles.
- Retric 4y ago
  Read up on UHVDC. You pay significant conversion losses, but per mile it’s very efficient.
ZeroGravitas 4y ago
Solar makes sense Chicago, and even in places in Alaska that genuinely experience weeks of darkness. An interesting current research area is how much vertical bifacial modules take advantage of reflections from snow on the ground, while shedding snowfall better and flattening the supply curve. A grid entirely based on solar in those regions is less optimal, but no one is proposing such a thing.