8 ms·

Nice. The economics of renewables are really hard to beat. I hope we speed up the construction speed and at the same time electrify more sectors.

verisimi 4y ago
Really? Solar gives lots of electricity in the summer. But you have light and warmth then. In the winter when you need the electricity, you get maybe 1/10 of whatever the solar array is capable of. Wind is not generally viable, except in very windy locations. Biogas (eg anaerobic digestors) seems much more possible - but even these need warmth to run well - so aren't as good in the winter. And when you think that yes - you can pay several thousands for a battery to store your electricity (for a day or so), but that the battery will only last a few years - how people think the economics make sense is a mystery to me. I'm fast coming to the conclusion that all renewable tech is about allowing the government to have deep control over your energy, and to put you in a situation where you are forced to buy very expensive gear from mega-corps. PS - the battery thing also applies to cars. Old electric cars are basically not worth keeping after 10 years. Who would replace the old battery that costs as much as the car? Esp when the battery slots are incompatible with the latest advances - ie you can't upgrade to a better battery, but only install yesterday's tech.
- hutzlibu 4y ago
  "But you have light and warmth then. " Yes, but often too much of it, so lots of people use AC, which uses a LOT of power. Electricity is needed all the year. "Wind is not generally viable, except in very windy locations." And there is wind everywhere, but only if you build high enough. So yes, there are places where it makes no sense to build them, but there are a lot more other places, where it does. "I'm fast coming to the conclusion that all renewable tech is about allowing the government to have deep control over your energy" So a solar + battery powered off grid home is deep controlled by the government? May you explain how that works? "And when you think that yes - you can pay several thousands for a battery to store your electricity (for a day or so)," Have you looked up any actual numbers? Maybe do so. Also maybe that part, that tracks how the battery prices are changing. They are constantly getting cheaper. Also maybe you are aware, that the whole industry that was and is fossil based needs to change. Your criticism comes from an angle, that assumes that should be for free? Burning fossil fuels is cheap. But only if you ignore the external costs of climate change and air pollution.
- groestl 4y ago
  > Solar gives lots of electricity in the summer. But you have light and warmth then. In the winter when you need the electricity, you get maybe 1/10 of whatever the solar array is capable of. The third phase of the energy transition will see massive overcapacity in the summer being turned into chemical energy, to be stored until winter. Hydrogen and synthetic methan will be burned, and the dissipating heat used for district heating. Efficiency is north of 70% for this. I don't see a fundamental problem.
  - brutusborn 4y ago
    Do you have a source for north of 70%? I’m not implying it’s incorrect, but I haven’t seen any papers with this level of efficiency for similar proposals.
    - nasmorn 4y ago
      The 70% is not for conversion into electricity but for total useable energy if the waste heat is used in district heating networks. It can reach up to 80% of the primary fuel used. While that seems worse then simply burning it at the end user you have to keep in mind that you also gain electricity which can be used to drive a heat pump. This is by far the best way to burn gas if heat is needed as a result. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cogeneration https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cogeneration
      - groestl 4y ago
        Yepp. The power plant in my area claims 83% efficiency for that pipeline already (natural gas to electricity & heat), using heat coupling (about 50% electricity). And they're working on powering that with hydrogen in the future.
    - groestl 4y ago
      https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0360544218320693?via%3Dihub https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S03605... We're not there yet. Currently, this setup is non-sensical since a lot of other measures should be implemented first, but even currently existing tech is pretty efficient, all things considered. And it only gets better from here.
- rapsey 4y ago
  Lots of southern places where solar is great all year. For more northern locations, cutting down on coal/gas usage for half the year is much better than nothing.
  - efitz 4y ago
    It might be worse. You can’t just dial up and dial down production and processing of fuels. And the regulatory climate is very hostile. So it’s a reasonable business decision to shut down a capital intensive coal mine when demand drops, or to give up on natural gas pipelines (constant hostile regulators, activist lawfare and protests) when demand drops.
- martyvis 4y ago
  It seems you are basing your thoughts just anecdotally. For instance, I'm sure "winter" in USA doesn't mean 6 months of snow and cloud. I'm sure in some areas winter actually is probably better. And sure wind isn't good energy in all locations - but in areas where it is you can probably harness it at quite high density. I'm in Australia and was just looking at this research here looking at cost effectiveness. It seems to both look at the actual generation capability (that is amount of sun and wind) but also cost of distribution and whether it is going to impact wilderness or other uses. Have a look at the heat maps they have created. I'm sure there are similar studies in the USA. https://re100.eng.anu.edu.au/heatmaps/#map-links https://re100.eng.anu.edu.au/heatmaps/#map-links
  - throwaway2037 4y ago
    Ironic about winter, right? In some places in the world, there is more sunshine and less clouds during winter. Nice example: Tokyo (Japan) metropolis. It is typically cloudy and less sunny during summer months and far more sunny during winter months. That said, you will probably needs panels that can adjust tilt by season for maximum energy production.
- adrianN 4y ago
  "I'm fast coming to the conclusion that all renewable tech is about allowing the government to have deep control over your energy, and to put you in a situation where you are forced to buy very expensive gear from mega-corps." That sounds like unfounded paranoia. It has literally never been easier to be an energy-independent anarchist living in a hut somewhere than today.
  - agentgumshoe 4y ago
    It was very easy actually before people decided electricity is nifty. It's quite expensive to do now if you don't want a reasonably large shift in lifestyle in doing so.
    - toss1 4y ago
      Yup. Large shift in lifestyle to become an energy-independent anarchist living off of the grid without electricity. Not much shift if you want off-grid electricity, but expensive. Seems people deciding electricity is nifty are on to something. But with multi-kw solar+battery kits selling everywhere for just a few $k, and 1000-lumen LED lights pulling only single-digit watts, it's getting affordable to have both
      - bee_rider 4y ago
        I guess there is a continuum of “expense” and “lifestyle change,” since you can pick solar installations of various sizes. Choose your own off grid anarchist experience!
    - adrianN 4y ago
      I'd argue that living without a fridge, a washing machine, a heat pump, smoke free light and a car is more difficult than having those things.
- fnordpiglet 4y ago
  Really? What control does the government have over renewables? Fossil fuels bought the government and nuclear is entirely controlled by the government. Edit: Tesla cars at 200k miles typically retain 80% of their total capacity. The 10 years you quote is the full warranty period. Additionally it costs about $10k to replace the batteries. House hold battery’s last about 20+ years, with 30+ possible without daily draw (quoted based on Tesla power wall specs). I don’t know where you’re getting your battery facts from, but they’re essentially wrong. I suspect it’s not renewables that’s been captured but your biases.
- seb1204 4y ago
  There is a lot of FUD raised in your high level comment. One technology alone will not get us far, together they can however. https://reneweconomy.com.au/a-near-100-per-cent-renewables-grid-is-well-within-reach-and-with-little-storage/ https://reneweconomy.com.au/a-near-100-per-cent-renewables-g... Sure 100% solar powered homes might be harder to do in the colder hemispheres but in many parts of the world it is already possible. During spring, summer and autumn you can cover most of your electricity with a 3kW solar panel set up. Shift your dishwasher, washing machine and dryer to mid day, charge devices when the sun shines etc. Families in poorer countries are likely on a much smaller carbon footprint and it is therefore easier to replace their energy needs with solar or solar thermal. Small, medium as well as large scale island grids are already possible and in operation. https://reneweconomy.com.au/wa-off-grid-school-runs-100-on-solar-and-battery-72421/ https://reneweconomy.com.au/wa-off-grid-school-runs-100-on-s... For colder climates the solar alone will not cut it, insulated homes, heat pumps and solar can however.
- dukeyukey 4y ago
  Ironically most renewables are far more distributed and local than something like gas plants. Instead of maintaining continent-spanning supply chains you can just put your panels up and leave them for a decade or two.
- yunwal 4y ago
  > I'm fast coming to the conclusion that all renewable tech is about allowing the government to have deep control over your energy, and to put you in a situation where you are forced to buy very expensive gear from mega-corps. As opposed to government-sanctioned utility companies and petrol companies? Its pretty easy to make your own solar panel (not an efficient one, but something). It is very capital intensive to mine for natural gas and crude these days. Surely the solar panel + battery offers more independence (as evidenced by the fact that nearly every large RV owner is thinking about getting solar now).
melling 4y ago
Excellent. There are only a few thousand coal power plants globally https://www.statista.com/statistics/859266/number-of-coal-power-plants-by-country/ https://www.statista.com/statistics/859266/number-of-coal-po... They generate something like 25% of greenhouse gases. When should be expect these to be replaced, and get the 25% drop in emissions? Replacing over a billion ICE cars seems with EV’s is going to be so much more work, for example. An immediate 25% drop in emissions might even buy us a few more years before we need to get to net zero emissions.
- ericmay 4y ago
  > Replacing over a billion ICE cars seems with EV’s is going to be so much more work, for example. Instead we could replace ICE cars with no cars and get much more bang for our buck. A few changes to how we build so that you can walk/bike within 15 minutes for many daily needs would reduce energy consumption, save families money, still allow for a car, and everyone would be much happier and healthier. Cars for all transit is a bad solution regardless of ICE or EV.
  - wolfendin 4y ago
    A ‘few’ changes that include ‘modifying or replacing a large amount of the constructed environment built in the US over the past 75 years’ It’s not a bad idea but let’s be realistic about the amount of work it would take
    - ericmay 4y ago
      We can start with new developments, and we can just allow someone to sell their house in an existing neighborhood to someone who wants to make it a neighborhood grocery store. No deconstruction if “75 years of infrastructure” required.
  - melling 4y ago
    How about reporting back once you’ve convinced a billion people to change their habits? If we can’t replace a few thousand coal plants, we are unlikely to… People wouldn’t even notice the difference if we replaced coal power plants.
jillesvangurp 4y ago
One thing that's often overlooked in statistics like this is roof top solar because it's just not that easy to account for. In places like Australia, where double digit percentages of homes have solar and where building codes are actually being changed to require solar panels, this is a non trivial amount that is putting a lot of pressure on energy suppliers to adapt. Effectively whole states are running on solar when the sun comes out (which it does a lot over there). Whether they like it or not, demand for grid electricity drops a lot whenever these panels are producing. And of course a lot of people are installing batteries as well. That must be happening in the US as well and it must be having some impact. https://www.seia.org/solar-industry-research-data https://www.seia.org/solar-industry-research-data This article seems to suggest that the amount of installed solar has doubled in the last four years and that the pace is accelerating. Also it states that the solar market expanded by 40% last year.
- digdugdirk 4y ago
  Keep in mind that many US states are actively implementing legislation to disincentivize solar installation. Not disagreeing with your statement, just pointing out that there's many headwinds to a greener energy future.
  - jillesvangurp 4y ago
    Sure, but is that slowing down installations or just setting us up for a correction some time in the future when people install solar anyway? It seems to me that the market for rooftop solar is in any case supply constrained, not demand constrained. And I can't imagine this being very popular with homeowners or the politicians that represent them, regardless of their political color. So, there might be some backlash against this as well at some point.
    - toomuchtodo 4y ago
      Correct. Legislation to disincentive rooftop solar works until battery economics improve sufficiently, at which point the install velocity accelerates because you can sidestep unfavorable net metering or time of day pricing. You’ll then consume your own solar during production, consume it from batteries when not producing, and relying on the grid for shortfall. The next fight will be the legal ability to disconnect from the grid and be self sufficient when they attempt to make connection charges onerous and mandatory. Tangentially, at scale, this is referred to as a utility death spiral. https://eepower.com/news/71-of-u-s-utilities-see-the-utility-death-spiral-as-a-possible-future-scenario/ https://eepower.com/news/71-of-u-s-utilities-see-the-utility...
Georgelemental 4y ago
The economics of renewables are hard to beat until night falls and the wind stops blowing, at which point the cost jumps to $infinity/MWh
- olddustytrail 4y ago
  If the wind stops blowing that means no new weather systems are being formed. In which case the sun must have stopped shining and the entire planet is doomed. Too late to worry about electricity in that case!
- megaman821 4y ago
  Another way to look at it, renewables are so cheap 100% renewable usage will be dominated by grid-scale battery cost. What is the magnitude of battery price drops that we will see over the next 10-15 years? The cheaper the batteries are the greater the incentive to build renewables.
- adrianN 4y ago
  The cost jumps at most to whatever it costs to make, store, and burn hydrogen.
- yen223 4y ago
  We are more likely to run out of fossil fuels before we run out of sunlight and wind
- yodsanklai 4y ago
  And also wind/solar rely on cheap fossil energy for their construction.
- rstuart4133 4y ago
  > The economics of renewables are hard to beat until night falls and the wind stops blowing, at which point the cost jumps to $infinity/MWh I can understand why you might think that. But there is one place on the planet that's done the renewable transition now. And it proves you wrong. Let me introduce the state of South Australia. It's an advanced OECD economy, situated at the base end of Australia so far from anywhere it has only 1 transmission line connecting to a neighbouring state, and it's renowned for going down. Unusually for Australia, South Australia also has no coal or gas, and is famous for wild storms taking down kilometres of it's 100kv power lines. It's currently running at 80% renewables: https://reneweconomy.com.au/south-australia-hits-stunning-new-high-in-race-to-renewables-only-grid/ https://reneweconomy.com.au/south-australia-hits-stunning-ne... No, the power does no go off at night. The transition was expensive. SA already had the most expensive electricity in Australia, and during the transition prices did go up for years. But at 80% the transition is almost over (although they need to build more storage), and the price of electricity in SA has been dropping. In fact it's dropped below the pre-transition price, so it's often below the rest of Australia's coal fired generation: https://www.aemc.gov.au/sites/default/files/2021-11/sa_fact_pack.pdf https://www.aemc.gov.au/sites/default/files/2021-11/sa_fact_... With that example to follow, the rest of the Australian states are gritting their teeth and following South Australia's lead. Teeth gritting is required because we are predicting a 50% jump in electricity prices, during the transition. It's already starting to bite: https://www.afr.com/companies/energy/power-bills-to-rise-by-20-per-cent-from-july-1-20230314-p5crzg https://www.afr.com/companies/energy/power-bills-to-rise-by-... . But that price hike only lasted 5 years in SA, and the light at the end of the tunnel is lower prices than we have now.
fbdab103 4y ago
One thing I have idly considered - what to do with the excess daily solar energy? Presumably the problem is only going to magnify over the coming years. Net-metering agreements are continuing to get worse, so it seems that the surplus electricity will go to waste. Outside of bitcoin mining, is there any energy sink a residential user could engage to suck up the spare capacity? At the industrial scale - what processes can intermittently engage in production which is still cost effective if the equipment lays idle for a majority of the day? Fuel synthesis? Desalination? SETI-like computations?
- nforgerit 4y ago
  Electrolyzing excess energy to produce hydrogen is a good option. Sure, it is not that efficient but you can store hydrogen and it's a useful base ingredient for many industrial processes. And if you need electrical energy you just burn it in a gas-fired power plant.
  - danhor 4y ago
    Unfortunately the equipment isn't cheap (though getting cheaper), so it only makes sense if it can run a significant portion (I've heard 25% in the coming decade for germany) of the time.
    - fbdab103 4y ago
      25% utilization is significantly better than I would have expected. In the middle of Summer, there might already be 6 hours of underutilized solar (averaged with 0% excess in Winter). Given another 10 years of engineering and cost improvements, that does indeed sound a plausible use case.

verisimi 4y ago

Really? Solar gives lots of electricity in the summer. But you have light and warmth then. In the winter when you need the electricity, you get maybe 1/10 of whatever the solar array is capable of. Wind is not generally viable, except in very windy locations. Biogas (eg anaerobic digestors) seems much more possible - but even these need warmth to run well - so aren't as good in the winter. And when you think that yes - you can pay several thousands for a battery to store your electricity (for a day or so), but that the battery will only last a few years - how people think the economics make sense is a mystery to me. I'm fast coming to the conclusion that all renewable tech is about allowing the government to have deep control over your energy, and to put you in a situation where you are forced to buy very expensive gear from mega-corps. PS - the battery thing also applies to cars. Old electric cars are basically not worth keeping after 10 years. Who would replace the old battery that costs as much as the car? Esp when the battery slots are incompatible with the latest advances - ie you can't upgrade to a better battery, but only install yesterday's tech.

hutzlibu 4y ago
"But you have light and warmth then. " Yes, but often too much of it, so lots of people use AC, which uses a LOT of power. Electricity is needed all the year. "Wind is not generally viable, except in very windy locations." And there is wind everywhere, but only if you build high enough. So yes, there are places where it makes no sense to build them, but there are a lot more other places, where it does. "I'm fast coming to the conclusion that all renewable tech is about allowing the government to have deep control over your energy" So a solar + battery powered off grid home is deep controlled by the government? May you explain how that works? "And when you think that yes - you can pay several thousands for a battery to store your electricity (for a day or so)," Have you looked up any actual numbers? Maybe do so. Also maybe that part, that tracks how the battery prices are changing. They are constantly getting cheaper. Also maybe you are aware, that the whole industry that was and is fossil based needs to change. Your criticism comes from an angle, that assumes that should be for free? Burning fossil fuels is cheap. But only if you ignore the external costs of climate change and air pollution.
groestl 4y ago
> Solar gives lots of electricity in the summer. But you have light and warmth then. In the winter when you need the electricity, you get maybe 1/10 of whatever the solar array is capable of. The third phase of the energy transition will see massive overcapacity in the summer being turned into chemical energy, to be stored until winter. Hydrogen and synthetic methan will be burned, and the dissipating heat used for district heating. Efficiency is north of 70% for this. I don't see a fundamental problem.
- brutusborn 4y ago
  Do you have a source for north of 70%? I’m not implying it’s incorrect, but I haven’t seen any papers with this level of efficiency for similar proposals.
  - nasmorn 4y ago
    The 70% is not for conversion into electricity but for total useable energy if the waste heat is used in district heating networks. It can reach up to 80% of the primary fuel used. While that seems worse then simply burning it at the end user you have to keep in mind that you also gain electricity which can be used to drive a heat pump. This is by far the best way to burn gas if heat is needed as a result. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cogeneration https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cogeneration
    - groestl 4y ago
      Yepp. The power plant in my area claims 83% efficiency for that pipeline already (natural gas to electricity & heat), using heat coupling (about 50% electricity). And they're working on powering that with hydrogen in the future.
  - groestl 4y ago
    https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0360544218320693?via%3Dihub https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S03605... We're not there yet. Currently, this setup is non-sensical since a lot of other measures should be implemented first, but even currently existing tech is pretty efficient, all things considered. And it only gets better from here.
rapsey 4y ago
Lots of southern places where solar is great all year. For more northern locations, cutting down on coal/gas usage for half the year is much better than nothing.
- efitz 4y ago
  It might be worse. You can’t just dial up and dial down production and processing of fuels. And the regulatory climate is very hostile. So it’s a reasonable business decision to shut down a capital intensive coal mine when demand drops, or to give up on natural gas pipelines (constant hostile regulators, activist lawfare and protests) when demand drops.
martyvis 4y ago
It seems you are basing your thoughts just anecdotally. For instance, I'm sure "winter" in USA doesn't mean 6 months of snow and cloud. I'm sure in some areas winter actually is probably better. And sure wind isn't good energy in all locations - but in areas where it is you can probably harness it at quite high density. I'm in Australia and was just looking at this research here looking at cost effectiveness. It seems to both look at the actual generation capability (that is amount of sun and wind) but also cost of distribution and whether it is going to impact wilderness or other uses. Have a look at the heat maps they have created. I'm sure there are similar studies in the USA. https://re100.eng.anu.edu.au/heatmaps/#map-links https://re100.eng.anu.edu.au/heatmaps/#map-links
- throwaway2037 4y ago
  Ironic about winter, right? In some places in the world, there is more sunshine and less clouds during winter. Nice example: Tokyo (Japan) metropolis. It is typically cloudy and less sunny during summer months and far more sunny during winter months. That said, you will probably needs panels that can adjust tilt by season for maximum energy production.
adrianN 4y ago
"I'm fast coming to the conclusion that all renewable tech is about allowing the government to have deep control over your energy, and to put you in a situation where you are forced to buy very expensive gear from mega-corps." That sounds like unfounded paranoia. It has literally never been easier to be an energy-independent anarchist living in a hut somewhere than today.
- agentgumshoe 4y ago
  It was very easy actually before people decided electricity is nifty. It's quite expensive to do now if you don't want a reasonably large shift in lifestyle in doing so.
  - toss1 4y ago
    Yup. Large shift in lifestyle to become an energy-independent anarchist living off of the grid without electricity. Not much shift if you want off-grid electricity, but expensive. Seems people deciding electricity is nifty are on to something. But with multi-kw solar+battery kits selling everywhere for just a few $k, and 1000-lumen LED lights pulling only single-digit watts, it's getting affordable to have both
    - bee_rider 4y ago
      I guess there is a continuum of “expense” and “lifestyle change,” since you can pick solar installations of various sizes. Choose your own off grid anarchist experience!
  - adrianN 4y ago
    I'd argue that living without a fridge, a washing machine, a heat pump, smoke free light and a car is more difficult than having those things.
fnordpiglet 4y ago
Really? What control does the government have over renewables? Fossil fuels bought the government and nuclear is entirely controlled by the government. Edit: Tesla cars at 200k miles typically retain 80% of their total capacity. The 10 years you quote is the full warranty period. Additionally it costs about $10k to replace the batteries. House hold battery’s last about 20+ years, with 30+ possible without daily draw (quoted based on Tesla power wall specs). I don’t know where you’re getting your battery facts from, but they’re essentially wrong. I suspect it’s not renewables that’s been captured but your biases.
seb1204 4y ago
There is a lot of FUD raised in your high level comment. One technology alone will not get us far, together they can however. https://reneweconomy.com.au/a-near-100-per-cent-renewables-grid-is-well-within-reach-and-with-little-storage/ https://reneweconomy.com.au/a-near-100-per-cent-renewables-g... Sure 100% solar powered homes might be harder to do in the colder hemispheres but in many parts of the world it is already possible. During spring, summer and autumn you can cover most of your electricity with a 3kW solar panel set up. Shift your dishwasher, washing machine and dryer to mid day, charge devices when the sun shines etc. Families in poorer countries are likely on a much smaller carbon footprint and it is therefore easier to replace their energy needs with solar or solar thermal. Small, medium as well as large scale island grids are already possible and in operation. https://reneweconomy.com.au/wa-off-grid-school-runs-100-on-solar-and-battery-72421/ https://reneweconomy.com.au/wa-off-grid-school-runs-100-on-s... For colder climates the solar alone will not cut it, insulated homes, heat pumps and solar can however.
dukeyukey 4y ago
Ironically most renewables are far more distributed and local than something like gas plants. Instead of maintaining continent-spanning supply chains you can just put your panels up and leave them for a decade or two.
yunwal 4y ago
> I'm fast coming to the conclusion that all renewable tech is about allowing the government to have deep control over your energy, and to put you in a situation where you are forced to buy very expensive gear from mega-corps. As opposed to government-sanctioned utility companies and petrol companies? Its pretty easy to make your own solar panel (not an efficient one, but something). It is very capital intensive to mine for natural gas and crude these days. Surely the solar panel + battery offers more independence (as evidenced by the fact that nearly every large RV owner is thinking about getting solar now).

melling 4y ago

Excellent. There are only a few thousand coal power plants globally https://www.statista.com/statistics/859266/number-of-coal-power-plants-by-country/ https://www.statista.com/statistics/859266/number-of-coal-po... They generate something like 25% of greenhouse gases. When should be expect these to be replaced, and get the 25% drop in emissions? Replacing over a billion ICE cars seems with EV’s is going to be so much more work, for example. An immediate 25% drop in emissions might even buy us a few more years before we need to get to net zero emissions.

ericmay 4y ago
> Replacing over a billion ICE cars seems with EV’s is going to be so much more work, for example. Instead we could replace ICE cars with no cars and get much more bang for our buck. A few changes to how we build so that you can walk/bike within 15 minutes for many daily needs would reduce energy consumption, save families money, still allow for a car, and everyone would be much happier and healthier. Cars for all transit is a bad solution regardless of ICE or EV.
- wolfendin 4y ago
  A ‘few’ changes that include ‘modifying or replacing a large amount of the constructed environment built in the US over the past 75 years’ It’s not a bad idea but let’s be realistic about the amount of work it would take
  - ericmay 4y ago
    We can start with new developments, and we can just allow someone to sell their house in an existing neighborhood to someone who wants to make it a neighborhood grocery store. No deconstruction if “75 years of infrastructure” required.
- melling 4y ago
  How about reporting back once you’ve convinced a billion people to change their habits? If we can’t replace a few thousand coal plants, we are unlikely to… People wouldn’t even notice the difference if we replaced coal power plants.

jillesvangurp 4y ago

One thing that's often overlooked in statistics like this is roof top solar because it's just not that easy to account for. In places like Australia, where double digit percentages of homes have solar and where building codes are actually being changed to require solar panels, this is a non trivial amount that is putting a lot of pressure on energy suppliers to adapt. Effectively whole states are running on solar when the sun comes out (which it does a lot over there). Whether they like it or not, demand for grid electricity drops a lot whenever these panels are producing. And of course a lot of people are installing batteries as well. That must be happening in the US as well and it must be having some impact. https://www.seia.org/solar-industry-research-data https://www.seia.org/solar-industry-research-data This article seems to suggest that the amount of installed solar has doubled in the last four years and that the pace is accelerating. Also it states that the solar market expanded by 40% last year.

digdugdirk 4y ago
Keep in mind that many US states are actively implementing legislation to disincentivize solar installation. Not disagreeing with your statement, just pointing out that there's many headwinds to a greener energy future.
- jillesvangurp 4y ago
  Sure, but is that slowing down installations or just setting us up for a correction some time in the future when people install solar anyway? It seems to me that the market for rooftop solar is in any case supply constrained, not demand constrained. And I can't imagine this being very popular with homeowners or the politicians that represent them, regardless of their political color. So, there might be some backlash against this as well at some point.
  - toomuchtodo 4y ago
    Correct. Legislation to disincentive rooftop solar works until battery economics improve sufficiently, at which point the install velocity accelerates because you can sidestep unfavorable net metering or time of day pricing. You’ll then consume your own solar during production, consume it from batteries when not producing, and relying on the grid for shortfall. The next fight will be the legal ability to disconnect from the grid and be self sufficient when they attempt to make connection charges onerous and mandatory. Tangentially, at scale, this is referred to as a utility death spiral. https://eepower.com/news/71-of-u-s-utilities-see-the-utility-death-spiral-as-a-possible-future-scenario/ https://eepower.com/news/71-of-u-s-utilities-see-the-utility...

Georgelemental 4y ago

The economics of renewables are hard to beat until night falls and the wind stops blowing, at which point the cost jumps to $infinity/MWh

olddustytrail 4y ago
If the wind stops blowing that means no new weather systems are being formed. In which case the sun must have stopped shining and the entire planet is doomed. Too late to worry about electricity in that case!
megaman821 4y ago
Another way to look at it, renewables are so cheap 100% renewable usage will be dominated by grid-scale battery cost. What is the magnitude of battery price drops that we will see over the next 10-15 years? The cheaper the batteries are the greater the incentive to build renewables.
adrianN 4y ago
The cost jumps at most to whatever it costs to make, store, and burn hydrogen.
yen223 4y ago
We are more likely to run out of fossil fuels before we run out of sunlight and wind
yodsanklai 4y ago
And also wind/solar rely on cheap fossil energy for their construction.
rstuart4133 4y ago
> The economics of renewables are hard to beat until night falls and the wind stops blowing, at which point the cost jumps to $infinity/MWh I can understand why you might think that. But there is one place on the planet that's done the renewable transition now. And it proves you wrong. Let me introduce the state of South Australia. It's an advanced OECD economy, situated at the base end of Australia so far from anywhere it has only 1 transmission line connecting to a neighbouring state, and it's renowned for going down. Unusually for Australia, South Australia also has no coal or gas, and is famous for wild storms taking down kilometres of it's 100kv power lines. It's currently running at 80% renewables: https://reneweconomy.com.au/south-australia-hits-stunning-new-high-in-race-to-renewables-only-grid/ https://reneweconomy.com.au/south-australia-hits-stunning-ne... No, the power does no go off at night. The transition was expensive. SA already had the most expensive electricity in Australia, and during the transition prices did go up for years. But at 80% the transition is almost over (although they need to build more storage), and the price of electricity in SA has been dropping. In fact it's dropped below the pre-transition price, so it's often below the rest of Australia's coal fired generation: https://www.aemc.gov.au/sites/default/files/2021-11/sa_fact_pack.pdf https://www.aemc.gov.au/sites/default/files/2021-11/sa_fact_... With that example to follow, the rest of the Australian states are gritting their teeth and following South Australia's lead. Teeth gritting is required because we are predicting a 50% jump in electricity prices, during the transition. It's already starting to bite: https://www.afr.com/companies/energy/power-bills-to-rise-by-20-per-cent-from-july-1-20230314-p5crzg https://www.afr.com/companies/energy/power-bills-to-rise-by-... . But that price hike only lasted 5 years in SA, and the light at the end of the tunnel is lower prices than we have now.

fbdab103 4y ago

One thing I have idly considered - what to do with the excess daily solar energy? Presumably the problem is only going to magnify over the coming years. Net-metering agreements are continuing to get worse, so it seems that the surplus electricity will go to waste. Outside of bitcoin mining, is there any energy sink a residential user could engage to suck up the spare capacity? At the industrial scale - what processes can intermittently engage in production which is still cost effective if the equipment lays idle for a majority of the day? Fuel synthesis? Desalination? SETI-like computations?

nforgerit 4y ago
Electrolyzing excess energy to produce hydrogen is a good option. Sure, it is not that efficient but you can store hydrogen and it's a useful base ingredient for many industrial processes. And if you need electrical energy you just burn it in a gas-fired power plant.
- danhor 4y ago
  Unfortunately the equipment isn't cheap (though getting cheaper), so it only makes sense if it can run a significant portion (I've heard 25% in the coming decade for germany) of the time.
  - fbdab103 4y ago
    25% utilization is significantly better than I would have expected. In the middle of Summer, there might already be 6 hours of underutilized solar (averaged with 0% excess in Winter). Given another 10 years of engineering and cost improvements, that does indeed sound a plausible use case.