4 ms·

Solar and batteries are exploding in production, and prices are falling (not increasing.) I mean, sure, there's a point of diminishing returns, but even at last

Solar and batteries are exploding in production, and prices are falling (not increasing.) I mean, sure, there's a point of diminishing returns, but even at last year's prices I'm getting a 17.5% return on investment. Every year that goes by the investment gets cheaper, and the price of electricity goes up, so the savings just get better and better. And this for a capital spend on equipment with no moving parts, no lubricants, no maintenance schedule (apart from a window-washer a couple times a year.) It's a no brainer if you live anywhere the sun shines well - and LOTS of people have figured this out, so the amounts being installed are moving the needle.

interactivecode 2y ago
plus with every advancement in cost and efficiency the amount of sun needed reduces. If you're a bit more north you might just need a couple extra panels compared to really sunny places. Even if it's just to offset instead of completely replace other fuels
- haccount 2y ago
  The viability of solar panels in the north depends on eye watering grid prices, which isn't the case everywhere or all of the year. Whenever it occurs it is generally during winter time when a roof worth of panels provides a mere trickle of energy. I considered some small-medium batteries and panels but the calculation came out massively in favor of putting the same bundle of cash into a financial investment portfolio instead.
  - bruce511 2y ago
    I'm 100% with you here (see my comment above about fusion economics.) But solar doesn't have to be local. Upgrading the grid to move large volumes of electricity from mid to high latitudes changes your equation somewhat.
JumpCrisscross 2y ago
> Solar and batteries are exploding in production, and prices are falling Sure. Now look at the baseline. We’d need to 10x the growth rate for the numbers to rival the expected growth in power demand. The folks at the tech majors aren’t idiots. If they could buy this cheapest power at scale, they would. Everybody would. One can’t. The panels are easy, but the batteries are back ordered and getting the land and permitting takes years. I’m in Wyoming. I have seen people spend more time and paperwork getting a wind farm and HVDC line up than an experimental (totally non-economic) nuclear reactor. That doesn’t apply if you’re putting up one windmill to power your off-grid house. But the economics present at that scale diminish when you’re building a fleet of data centre.
- bryanlarsen 2y ago
  In the US, power growth rate is about 1% per annum or about 40GW. AI&crypto is doubling that number to about 2% per annum. The US is installing solar at a rate of about 40GW per year so we need to 2X it, not 10X it. China is installing it at a rate of about 10GW per month, so capacity is certainly not the constraint.
  - JumpCrisscross 2y ago
    > US is installing solar at a rate of about 40GW per year so we need to 2X it, not 10X it 2x means no carbon reduction. 3x means we can close coal by 2040 and decarbonise by 2082 [1]. And “panels are easy.” (We’re not 2 or even 3x’ing deployment inside a decade [2].) Now look at batteries. Assume we ban EVs and send 100% of production to utilities. 10x. Solar + wind with batteries only means we burn natural gas. It’s based on the same faulty logic as the failed nuclear-only strategies of yesteryear. It’s what we’re doing right now, which is why we’re installing about 10 GWh a year of natural gas over the 40% it already commands and why trillions are being invested in new natural gas infrastructure [3]. [1] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electricity_sector_of_the_United_States https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electricity_sector_of_the_Un... [2] https://seia.org/research-resources/us-solar-market-insight/ https://seia.org/research-resources/us-solar-market-insight/ [3] https://www.eia.gov/energyexplained/electricity/electricity-in-the-us-generation-capacity-and-sales.php https://www.eia.gov/energyexplained/electricity/electricity-...

interactivecode 2y ago

plus with every advancement in cost and efficiency the amount of sun needed reduces. If you're a bit more north you might just need a couple extra panels compared to really sunny places. Even if it's just to offset instead of completely replace other fuels

haccount 2y ago
The viability of solar panels in the north depends on eye watering grid prices, which isn't the case everywhere or all of the year. Whenever it occurs it is generally during winter time when a roof worth of panels provides a mere trickle of energy. I considered some small-medium batteries and panels but the calculation came out massively in favor of putting the same bundle of cash into a financial investment portfolio instead.
- bruce511 2y ago
  I'm 100% with you here (see my comment above about fusion economics.) But solar doesn't have to be local. Upgrading the grid to move large volumes of electricity from mid to high latitudes changes your equation somewhat.

JumpCrisscross 2y ago

> Solar and batteries are exploding in production, and prices are falling Sure. Now look at the baseline. We’d need to 10x the growth rate for the numbers to rival the expected growth in power demand. The folks at the tech majors aren’t idiots. If they could buy this cheapest power at scale, they would. Everybody would. One can’t. The panels are easy, but the batteries are back ordered and getting the land and permitting takes years. I’m in Wyoming. I have seen people spend more time and paperwork getting a wind farm and HVDC line up than an experimental (totally non-economic) nuclear reactor. That doesn’t apply if you’re putting up one windmill to power your off-grid house. But the economics present at that scale diminish when you’re building a fleet of data centre.

bryanlarsen 2y ago
In the US, power growth rate is about 1% per annum or about 40GW. AI&crypto is doubling that number to about 2% per annum. The US is installing solar at a rate of about 40GW per year so we need to 2X it, not 10X it. China is installing it at a rate of about 10GW per month, so capacity is certainly not the constraint.
- JumpCrisscross 2y ago
  > US is installing solar at a rate of about 40GW per year so we need to 2X it, not 10X it 2x means no carbon reduction. 3x means we can close coal by 2040 and decarbonise by 2082 [1]. And “panels are easy.” (We’re not 2 or even 3x’ing deployment inside a decade [2].) Now look at batteries. Assume we ban EVs and send 100% of production to utilities. 10x. Solar + wind with batteries only means we burn natural gas. It’s based on the same faulty logic as the failed nuclear-only strategies of yesteryear. It’s what we’re doing right now, which is why we’re installing about 10 GWh a year of natural gas over the 40% it already commands and why trillions are being invested in new natural gas infrastructure [3]. [1] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electricity_sector_of_the_United_States https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electricity_sector_of_the_Un... [2] https://seia.org/research-resources/us-solar-market-insight/ https://seia.org/research-resources/us-solar-market-insight/ [3] https://www.eia.gov/energyexplained/electricity/electricity-in-the-us-generation-capacity-and-sales.php https://www.eia.gov/energyexplained/electricity/electricity-...