3 ms·

The most cost efficient new-build grid is 90-98% solar/wind/battery depending on your locales insolation & wind coverage. (Source Ember Energy) The remaining

The most cost efficient new-build grid is 90-98% solar/wind/battery depending on your locales insolation & wind coverage. (Source Ember Energy) The remaining 2-10% is nat gas, if you have a piped source, or coal if you don't. But 98% renewable doesn't mean you can hit 100% by adding 2% more of something else, it means your something else has to supply ~100% of the power 2% of the time. If China is aiming for that cost-optimal 90-98% renewables, that means they need to build a lot of coal.

fpoling 2mo ago
And they build a lot of modern coal power station with over 45% efficiency and flexibility in power output.
idiotsecant 2mo ago
Solar battery is not by any stretch of any possible definition the cheapest generation to deploy. Not even close. We do a disservice to the entire conversation saying easily falsifiable things like that. At 90% penetration solar + battery has a LFSCOE somewhere around $800/mwh depending on the study. Natural gas is something like 30-60. Solar panels are cheap. Building the required transmission and storage to service those panels is far more expensive than the panels themselves. Increased renewable generation is an important goal, but we need to let the facts guide the path, not the other way around.
- ViewTrick1002 2mo ago
  Please, don’t cite the LFSCOE paper again. Citing it shows you have a beef against renewables. That paper uses one renewable source, like only solar, and 2018-19 cost data for storage. A real grid is made up of a mix of sources, which is why the research lately has focused on system costs. All those analyses find that renewable grids are far cheaper than if involving new built nuclear power. Here are two modern papers on the subject: https://www.csiro.au/-/media/Energy/GenCost-2025-26-Final/GenCost_2025-26_Final_Report_20260715.pdf https://www.csiro.au/-/media/Energy/GenCost-2025-26-Final/Ge... https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0360544226009837 https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S036054422...
  - idiotsecant 2mo ago
    A) I am an electrical engineer who makes a living designing control systems for renewable generation. I know more about most of this than just about anyone in this conversation. B) the post I am replying to is specifically calling for a 98% solar grid.
    - HappMacDonald 2mo ago
      You replied to: "The most cost efficient new-build grid is 90-98% solar/wind/battery depending on your locales insolation & wind coverage. (Source Ember Energy)" https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=49477559#49481711 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=49477559#49481711 There's a big difference between "letting the facts guide the path" and tilting at strawmen built out of straw nobody else even brought into the discussion. If you'd like to make the point that "cost of panels" can be misleading when supporting components and interconnects begin to take up the lion's share of costs then that sounds like a noble thing to remind folk of, but ideally not as a segway into shilling more fracking which includes untold environmental costs as externalities.
robocat 2mo ago
> supply ~100% of the power 2% of the time Or you design the majority of loads so they can be turned off for 2% of the time. Load shedding is a better solution than running peakers for [heated] towel rails.
- bethekidyouwant 2mo ago
  It would also be better if you ate only vegetables and drove an ultralight (ebike) good luck. I personally like being able to turn on my lights 100% of the time
  - Earw0rm 2mo ago
    The heck kind of lights are you running that won't go all night on a battery that fits in your palm?
    - joha4270 2mo ago
      The one in my oven. It's not about lights, it's about electricity always being available. And well, always having power available (for domestic, but also for expensive production facilities that looses money while idle) using renewables is a lot more expensive than generating most of your power with renewables
- bryanlarsen 2mo ago
  If you do that, you'd then need to find a way to supply 98% of the power 2% of the time. It helps, but not much.

fpoling 2mo ago

And they build a lot of modern coal power station with over 45% efficiency and flexibility in power output.

idiotsecant 2mo ago

Solar battery is not by any stretch of any possible definition the cheapest generation to deploy. Not even close. We do a disservice to the entire conversation saying easily falsifiable things like that. At 90% penetration solar + battery has a LFSCOE somewhere around $800/mwh depending on the study. Natural gas is something like 30-60. Solar panels are cheap. Building the required transmission and storage to service those panels is far more expensive than the panels themselves. Increased renewable generation is an important goal, but we need to let the facts guide the path, not the other way around.

ViewTrick1002 2mo ago
Please, don’t cite the LFSCOE paper again. Citing it shows you have a beef against renewables. That paper uses one renewable source, like only solar, and 2018-19 cost data for storage. A real grid is made up of a mix of sources, which is why the research lately has focused on system costs. All those analyses find that renewable grids are far cheaper than if involving new built nuclear power. Here are two modern papers on the subject: https://www.csiro.au/-/media/Energy/GenCost-2025-26-Final/GenCost_2025-26_Final_Report_20260715.pdf https://www.csiro.au/-/media/Energy/GenCost-2025-26-Final/Ge... https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0360544226009837 https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S036054422...
- idiotsecant 2mo ago
  A) I am an electrical engineer who makes a living designing control systems for renewable generation. I know more about most of this than just about anyone in this conversation. B) the post I am replying to is specifically calling for a 98% solar grid.
  - HappMacDonald 2mo ago
    You replied to: "The most cost efficient new-build grid is 90-98% solar/wind/battery depending on your locales insolation & wind coverage. (Source Ember Energy)" https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=49477559#49481711 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=49477559#49481711 There's a big difference between "letting the facts guide the path" and tilting at strawmen built out of straw nobody else even brought into the discussion. If you'd like to make the point that "cost of panels" can be misleading when supporting components and interconnects begin to take up the lion's share of costs then that sounds like a noble thing to remind folk of, but ideally not as a segway into shilling more fracking which includes untold environmental costs as externalities.

robocat 2mo ago

> supply ~100% of the power 2% of the time Or you design the majority of loads so they can be turned off for 2% of the time. Load shedding is a better solution than running peakers for [heated] towel rails.

bethekidyouwant 2mo ago
It would also be better if you ate only vegetables and drove an ultralight (ebike) good luck. I personally like being able to turn on my lights 100% of the time
- Earw0rm 2mo ago
  The heck kind of lights are you running that won't go all night on a battery that fits in your palm?
  - joha4270 2mo ago
    The one in my oven. It's not about lights, it's about electricity always being available. And well, always having power available (for domestic, but also for expensive production facilities that looses money while idle) using renewables is a lot more expensive than generating most of your power with renewables
bryanlarsen 2mo ago
If you do that, you'd then need to find a way to supply 98% of the power 2% of the time. It helps, but not much.