5 ms·

But even if we reduce installation and labor costs (and as other comments have mentioned, weight may not be the biggest factor here), my understanding is that s

But even if we reduce installation and labor costs (and as other comments have mentioned, weight may not be the biggest factor here), my understanding is that solar is already the cheapest energy source per kW by a pretty significant margin. The problem with getting it to replace carbon-based fuel sources is all the other issues GP comment mentioned re storage, grid, etc. That said, it's not like one thing is dependent on the other, so good to see efficiency increasing regardless.

waldothedog 2y ago
Interesting podcast discussing, among other things, why being cheap on cost/kwh isn’t enough https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/volts/id1548554104?i=1000658797967 https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/volts/id1548554104?i=1...
- mcbishop 2y ago
  Volts is an awesome podcast for energy-transition enthusiasts.
oceanplexian 2y ago
It’s only cheap if the land is free, transmission costs are free, and your power needs are intermittent. None of those are true in reality. The “solar is the cheapest form of energy” is a marketing gimmick. If it were true free market forces would already gone 100% solar because the purpose of energy companies is to make money.
- hn_throwaway_99 2y ago
  You seem to have misread my comment, or just didn't read the whole thing, because I mostly agree (except for the part about "land is free" - most of the solar costs I've seen take into consideration full installation and financing costs). I said it was cheapest on a pure per kW basis. But exactly for these reasons e.g. the intermittent nature of it we can not currently go 100% solar without storage solutions, infrastructure improvements, etc. Point being it is those areas that will need to be solved (i.e. come down in price) and that marginal improvements in panel efficiency aren't the limiting factor in going to 100% renewables.
- mcbishop 2y ago
  > If it were true free market forces would already gone 100% solar EVs might be cheaper than ICE cars now (including energy expense over their expected lifetimes)... But that doesn't mean the free market should be 100% EVs (all of a sudden).
- bruce511 2y ago
  While land isn't free, solar doesn't need land, it needs sun. By which I mean there's an awful lot of free rooftop space available, and a lot of space which would benefit from a roof (like car parks at the mall). So it's not competing for land against say buildings or agriculture. Now sure, the owner of the roof may want some rent etc, but that really doesn't alter the cost of the energy, it just spreads the benefit.
  - cocoa19 2y ago
    Why are we choosing rooftops instead of a central location for solar, like we do for all other types of electricity generation? At first sight, it seems economies of scale would make it easier to have one company handle a solar power station, rather than now having to pay expensive home solar panel loans and maintain them.
    - hn_throwaway_99 2y ago
      We are choosing central locations. Google utility-scale solar.
    - tekno45 2y ago
      transmission of electricity has losses. And 2 solar panels only make 2x as much energy if exposure is the same. So go where the sun is already done if the sun is above your head.
    - bruce511 2y ago
      >> Why are we choosing rooftops instead of a central location for solar, like we do for all other types of electricity generation? solar is different to say coal, because the economics of home-generation, and grid generation are not miles apart. In other words it's not like I can have a coal-fired power station at home, but I can have solar panels. Up to now electricity generation has been constrained to large-scale (hydro, coal, nuclear etc). The advent of solar, and to a lesser extend small-scale wind and hydro, makes local generation more accessible. >> rather than now having to pay expensive home solar panel loans and maintain them. Solar maintenance is minimal. (Again, not like a turbine generator.) Loans are a function of capital. It takes capital to populate a home roof, and capital to build a power plant. If you have no capital then the point is moot. As an individual I have enough capital to fund my solar system without loans. (I get about a 14% return on that capital.) I don't have enough capital to fund a power station. Other benefits of home generation include more resilience should the grid fail. So for example, after a storm, power lines may be down, but I get electricity during the day. That's a bonus though, not the main driver. So to answer your question - it's not either or, it's both. There's a lot of roof-top solar in my city (measured in gigawatts), there's also solar farms generating power. Lastly' I'll point out that distribution _from_ my house is cheaper than from a plant, because I generate a few spare kw, and the wire already coming into my hose is sufficient for that. So no new (grid) hardware is required.
- pulvinar 2y ago
  If it's a marketing gimmick, they're fooling a lot large power companies: "Solar and battery storage to make up 81% of new U.S. electric-generating capacity in 2024" https://www.eia.gov/todayinenergy/detail.php?id=61424 https://www.eia.gov/todayinenergy/detail.php?id=61424
  - SkyPuncher 2y ago
    They’re not fooling those companies. Those companies are happy to push “we’re green”. Not saying it’s a bad thing, but I don’t buy that any company is being fooled by this.
    - hansvm 2y ago
      Plus, they charge more for greener power.
    - notTooFarGone 2y ago
      Ah yeah the classic companies that forego profit to put a sticker on their logo
- abetusk 2y ago
  We are in the process of seeing a rapid and vast shift to solar. Infrastructure takes time to roll out so the timeframe of solar is maybe 10-15 years before we see 50% of the worlds power switch to solar. If the 10-15 year estimate is true, this would be a breakneck speed for such a fundamental infrastructure change.
- austhrow743 2y ago
  Do you throw out things you already own when you see that an alternative has become cheaper than what you paid?
- derstander 2y ago
  > If it were true free market forces would already gone 100% solar because the purpose of energy companies is to make money. I’m not going to speak on whether solar truly is the cheapest form of energy as I have no idea whether or not that is the case. But I’m going to suggest that one of your premises is wrong: we don’t have a true free market in energy — see all of the subsidies that gas, oil, and coal companies have gotten (for quite some time). Yes, solar gets subsidies, too, but comparing a relative newcomer to entrenched players makes this a lot less clear of a picture than you’re painting. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fossil_fuel_subsidies https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fossil_fuel_subsidies
- conk 2y ago
  Existing power generators have deprecation schedules measured in the decades. The free market forces are going to prevent those investments from becoming a write off today.

waldothedog 2y ago

Interesting podcast discussing, among other things, why being cheap on cost/kwh isn’t enough https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/volts/id1548554104?i=1000658797967 https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/volts/id1548554104?i=1...

mcbishop 2y ago
Volts is an awesome podcast for energy-transition enthusiasts.

oceanplexian 2y ago

It’s only cheap if the land is free, transmission costs are free, and your power needs are intermittent. None of those are true in reality. The “solar is the cheapest form of energy” is a marketing gimmick. If it were true free market forces would already gone 100% solar because the purpose of energy companies is to make money.

hn_throwaway_99 2y ago
You seem to have misread my comment, or just didn't read the whole thing, because I mostly agree (except for the part about "land is free" - most of the solar costs I've seen take into consideration full installation and financing costs). I said it was cheapest on a pure per kW basis. But exactly for these reasons e.g. the intermittent nature of it we can not currently go 100% solar without storage solutions, infrastructure improvements, etc. Point being it is those areas that will need to be solved (i.e. come down in price) and that marginal improvements in panel efficiency aren't the limiting factor in going to 100% renewables.
mcbishop 2y ago
> If it were true free market forces would already gone 100% solar EVs might be cheaper than ICE cars now (including energy expense over their expected lifetimes)... But that doesn't mean the free market should be 100% EVs (all of a sudden).
bruce511 2y ago
While land isn't free, solar doesn't need land, it needs sun. By which I mean there's an awful lot of free rooftop space available, and a lot of space which would benefit from a roof (like car parks at the mall). So it's not competing for land against say buildings or agriculture. Now sure, the owner of the roof may want some rent etc, but that really doesn't alter the cost of the energy, it just spreads the benefit.
- cocoa19 2y ago
  Why are we choosing rooftops instead of a central location for solar, like we do for all other types of electricity generation? At first sight, it seems economies of scale would make it easier to have one company handle a solar power station, rather than now having to pay expensive home solar panel loans and maintain them.
  - hn_throwaway_99 2y ago
    We are choosing central locations. Google utility-scale solar.
  - tekno45 2y ago
    transmission of electricity has losses. And 2 solar panels only make 2x as much energy if exposure is the same. So go where the sun is already done if the sun is above your head.
  - bruce511 2y ago
    >> Why are we choosing rooftops instead of a central location for solar, like we do for all other types of electricity generation? solar is different to say coal, because the economics of home-generation, and grid generation are not miles apart. In other words it's not like I can have a coal-fired power station at home, but I can have solar panels. Up to now electricity generation has been constrained to large-scale (hydro, coal, nuclear etc). The advent of solar, and to a lesser extend small-scale wind and hydro, makes local generation more accessible. >> rather than now having to pay expensive home solar panel loans and maintain them. Solar maintenance is minimal. (Again, not like a turbine generator.) Loans are a function of capital. It takes capital to populate a home roof, and capital to build a power plant. If you have no capital then the point is moot. As an individual I have enough capital to fund my solar system without loans. (I get about a 14% return on that capital.) I don't have enough capital to fund a power station. Other benefits of home generation include more resilience should the grid fail. So for example, after a storm, power lines may be down, but I get electricity during the day. That's a bonus though, not the main driver. So to answer your question - it's not either or, it's both. There's a lot of roof-top solar in my city (measured in gigawatts), there's also solar farms generating power. Lastly' I'll point out that distribution _from_ my house is cheaper than from a plant, because I generate a few spare kw, and the wire already coming into my hose is sufficient for that. So no new (grid) hardware is required.
pulvinar 2y ago
If it's a marketing gimmick, they're fooling a lot large power companies: "Solar and battery storage to make up 81% of new U.S. electric-generating capacity in 2024" https://www.eia.gov/todayinenergy/detail.php?id=61424 https://www.eia.gov/todayinenergy/detail.php?id=61424
- SkyPuncher 2y ago
  They’re not fooling those companies. Those companies are happy to push “we’re green”. Not saying it’s a bad thing, but I don’t buy that any company is being fooled by this.
  - hansvm 2y ago
    Plus, they charge more for greener power.
  - notTooFarGone 2y ago
    Ah yeah the classic companies that forego profit to put a sticker on their logo
abetusk 2y ago
We are in the process of seeing a rapid and vast shift to solar. Infrastructure takes time to roll out so the timeframe of solar is maybe 10-15 years before we see 50% of the worlds power switch to solar. If the 10-15 year estimate is true, this would be a breakneck speed for such a fundamental infrastructure change.
austhrow743 2y ago
Do you throw out things you already own when you see that an alternative has become cheaper than what you paid?
derstander 2y ago
> If it were true free market forces would already gone 100% solar because the purpose of energy companies is to make money. I’m not going to speak on whether solar truly is the cheapest form of energy as I have no idea whether or not that is the case. But I’m going to suggest that one of your premises is wrong: we don’t have a true free market in energy — see all of the subsidies that gas, oil, and coal companies have gotten (for quite some time). Yes, solar gets subsidies, too, but comparing a relative newcomer to entrenched players makes this a lot less clear of a picture than you’re painting. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fossil_fuel_subsidies https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fossil_fuel_subsidies
conk 2y ago
Existing power generators have deprecation schedules measured in the decades. The free market forces are going to prevent those investments from becoming a write off today.