3 ms·

Ok but what about when it’s night time or cloudy?

goodcanadian 11mo ago
That's where the battery comes in. Yes, I am over-simplifying the very complex problem of grid management, but so are you.
ldoughty 11mo ago
Molten salt solar power doesn't care. It remains hot. Advancements in solar also are improving with clouds. Also, you know, batteries. When someone makes it cost effective to install a device to sell your car battery power on the grid we'll also have a better time managing the grid during spikes... Would be nice if that also did home battery backup in blackouts... 70 kWh would get me through most of the ones I've experienced.
- lazide 11mo ago
  Molten salt absolutely does care, keeping it molten controls how much power can be withdrawn. It’s a form of thermal battery (and an inefficient one). If the sun is shining vs not (and if further withdrawal will freeze the salt) absolutely controls power output.
- sgerenser 11mo ago
  Molten salt solar power plants are completely obsolete. See for ex. Ivanpah being shut down early because the power its generating is too expensive compared to Solar PV: https://www.renewableenergyworld.com/solar/once-an-engineering-marvel-two-thirds-of-this-concentrated-solar-power-plant-will-shut-down-after-a-california-utility-pulled-two-of-its-ppas/ https://www.renewableenergyworld.com/solar/once-an-engineeri...
dgacmu 11mo ago
Solar + battery + wind actually do pretty well. There's a bit of a de-correlation between solar and wind that makes the mix more resilient than either alone. We can't do 100% in most places yet, but it's pretty straightforward to move to a much higher percentage of them in our grid mix than we have now, California possibly excepting. (But even in California you see battery starting to extend how much we can do with solar as prices continue to drop.) And the plummeting price of solar modules makes it more cost effective to over provision for the case of clouds, and/or to mount solar panels to optimize for morning and evening production as well.
- xp84 11mo ago
  California has energy costs more than double most other states so it’s probably not the best argument for “it’s so easy to go mostly renewable.” A lot of things are feasible if you’re willing to [force everyone in the state to] spend 2x. Whatever California is trying to do in the past 20 years has been extraordinarily regressive.
  - throwup238 11mo ago
    Our energy costs are due to the distribution network and the massive amount of deferred maintenance on it that has come due in the last decade, accelerated by the Camp fire court case. There was a two year period a few years ago where power went out at least once a week while SDGE replaced every power pole in the rural east county by flying them in on helicopters. That's largely what we're paying for.
    - dgacmu 11mo ago
      As the above poster said. Generation costs are a small part of most consumers' bills, but particularly in CA. If you look at the location marginal pricing map from CA ISO: https://www.caiso.com/todays-outlook/prices https://www.caiso.com/todays-outlook/prices You'll see that right now (before solar has really kicked in), The price for the next megawatt hour of generation is $49 -- i.e., under 5c per kWh. That's comparable to the average price in PJM (east coast) at the same time: https://www.caiso.com/todays-outlook/prices https://www.caiso.com/todays-outlook/prices vs https://pjm.com/ https://pjm.com/ The big problem for California is that cheap generation via solar doesn't move the needle as much on consumer bills because of the transmission and distribution costs. In San Francisco, for example the distribution fee is over $0.20/kWh. That's twice what mine is in Pittsburgh. In contrast, the generation pricing is only about $0.04/kWh more than mine: https://www.pge.com/tariffs/assets/pdf/tariffbook/ELEC_SCHEDS_A-1.pdf https://www.pge.com/tariffs/assets/pdf/tariffbook/ELEC_SCHED... though this pricing does favor behind the meter generation such as residential solar.
      - jeffbee 11mo ago

That's where the battery comes in. Yes, I am over-simplifying the very complex problem of grid management, but so are you.

ldoughty 11mo ago

Molten salt solar power doesn't care. It remains hot. Advancements in solar also are improving with clouds. Also, you know, batteries. When someone makes it cost effective to install a device to sell your car battery power on the grid we'll also have a better time managing the grid during spikes... Would be nice if that also did home battery backup in blackouts... 70 kWh would get me through most of the ones I've experienced.

lazide 11mo ago
Molten salt absolutely does care, keeping it molten controls how much power can be withdrawn. It’s a form of thermal battery (and an inefficient one). If the sun is shining vs not (and if further withdrawal will freeze the salt) absolutely controls power output.
sgerenser 11mo ago
Molten salt solar power plants are completely obsolete. See for ex. Ivanpah being shut down early because the power its generating is too expensive compared to Solar PV: https://www.renewableenergyworld.com/solar/once-an-engineering-marvel-two-thirds-of-this-concentrated-solar-power-plant-will-shut-down-after-a-california-utility-pulled-two-of-its-ppas/ https://www.renewableenergyworld.com/solar/once-an-engineeri...

dgacmu 11mo ago

Solar + battery + wind actually do pretty well. There's a bit of a de-correlation between solar and wind that makes the mix more resilient than either alone. We can't do 100% in most places yet, but it's pretty straightforward to move to a much higher percentage of them in our grid mix than we have now, California possibly excepting. (But even in California you see battery starting to extend how much we can do with solar as prices continue to drop.) And the plummeting price of solar modules makes it more cost effective to over provision for the case of clouds, and/or to mount solar panels to optimize for morning and evening production as well.

xp84 11mo ago
California has energy costs more than double most other states so it’s probably not the best argument for “it’s so easy to go mostly renewable.” A lot of things are feasible if you’re willing to [force everyone in the state to] spend 2x. Whatever California is trying to do in the past 20 years has been extraordinarily regressive.
- throwup238 11mo ago
  Our energy costs are due to the distribution network and the massive amount of deferred maintenance on it that has come due in the last decade, accelerated by the Camp fire court case. There was a two year period a few years ago where power went out at least once a week while SDGE replaced every power pole in the rural east county by flying them in on helicopters. That's largely what we're paying for.
  - dgacmu 11mo ago
    As the above poster said. Generation costs are a small part of most consumers' bills, but particularly in CA. If you look at the location marginal pricing map from CA ISO: https://www.caiso.com/todays-outlook/prices https://www.caiso.com/todays-outlook/prices You'll see that right now (before solar has really kicked in), The price for the next megawatt hour of generation is $49 -- i.e., under 5c per kWh. That's comparable to the average price in PJM (east coast) at the same time: https://www.caiso.com/todays-outlook/prices https://www.caiso.com/todays-outlook/prices vs https://pjm.com/ https://pjm.com/ The big problem for California is that cheap generation via solar doesn't move the needle as much on consumer bills because of the transmission and distribution costs. In San Francisco, for example the distribution fee is over $0.20/kWh. That's twice what mine is in Pittsburgh. In contrast, the generation pricing is only about $0.04/kWh more than mine: https://www.pge.com/tariffs/assets/pdf/tariffbook/ELEC_SCHEDS_A-1.pdf https://www.pge.com/tariffs/assets/pdf/tariffbook/ELEC_SCHED... though this pricing does favor behind the meter generation such as residential solar.
    - jeffbee 11mo ago