5 ms·

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

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 1mo 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 1mo 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 1mo 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.

ViewTrick1002 1mo 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 1mo 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 1mo 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.