4 ms·

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-

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.

4 ms·

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-

by ViewTrick1002 1mo ago

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.