Solar + Battery (covering 97% of demand) is now cheaper than coal and nuclear
Technology
74
Beiträge
29
Kommentatoren
0
Aufrufe
-
Does the wind blow year round? I’m imagining a similar case for wind, then you can say that for the union of these two sets, renewables are cheaper than legacy energy
Maybe bump that number slightly for places with hydro that can serve as a battery
I would have loved that but having a wind turbine is… not easy. Permits, psychotic attitude from neighbours… but that have been my go-to given we don’t have a stream to go hydro.
I’m still happy with covering 8 ou of 12 months with our setup but it’s still unnerving to swallow the costs of the setup + utilities for winter months… -
Then get it from the sources that already exist. 97% coverage is a great milestone.
Funny enough lots of people hate that. Lots of people have binary thinking, it's either 100% coal or 100% solar.
-
Funny enough lots of people hate that. Lots of people have binary thinking, it's either 100% coal or 100% solar.
Yeah, they do, and they pretend to be wise adults while doing it. Like they're the only ones who thought of this.
EVs, too. No, we don't have to wait until they can all do 1000 miles and charge in 5 minutes. 350 miles and 20 minute 10-80% charge is fine for the vast majority of the market.
-
I would have loved that but having a wind turbine is… not easy. Permits, psychotic attitude from neighbours… but that have been my go-to given we don’t have a stream to go hydro.
I’m still happy with covering 8 ou of 12 months with our setup but it’s still unnerving to swallow the costs of the setup + utilities for winter months…Wind kinda has to go big for efficiency. It's hard to beat the laws of physics on this. Not really feasible for individuals to do in a meaningful way unless you have a whole farm.
Solar panels are workable-ish. Residential rooftop is OK, but the real cost benefit is from filling big, flat fields with racks. Homes have to be a boutique setup every time, and labor cost adds up.
If you want to be (semi-) independent of traditional power utilities, the way to go is co-ops. You and all your neighbors go in on buying a field and putting solar/wind/storage on it
-
I work in this field. I'm trying to change these numbers! We are heading the right direction is the good news. China may well save us all with cheaper panels and battery manufacturing. And if 97% reduces our emissions even 50% on todays emissions then we can start talking about actually meeting some climate targets.
So this is all good news, but as I also said: I work in this field and know we have a long way to go yet. There also isn't a single answer. Batteries, smart grids, grid-interconnects, efficiencies, supply mixes, demand offsetting; power is the best thing in the world to work in right now, it touches sooo many aspects of humanity and is changing so fast!
power is the best thing in the world to work in right now, it touches sooo many aspects of humanity and is changing so fast!
100%
-
I saw a video where a guy was claiming vertical solar panels can effectively generate more power more often. They can catch a little something when the sun is low in winter , or on the shoulder hours of sun-up/down, where traditional solar can’t, and they don’t get snow buildup
it's a trade-off. the average generation curve depends on the inclination; each has its pros and cons
-
To tack onto that: https://ourworldindata.org/land-use-per-energy-source
When you account for land use in the entire life cycle from mining resources to disposal at end of life cycle, nuclear uses a quarter of the land of rooftop cadmium panels and a tenth of silicon panels.
Offshore wind is the only thing that gets close and even that has ecological and commercial concerns.
If you're pro-stable and sustainable ecological systems, nuclear based power grid is a no brainer.
yeah at a certain point it becomes a trade-off between "no geopolitical dependence on uranium" and "no geopolitical dependence on something that is currently produced in china, but could be produced anywhere if we tried hard enough"
-
it's a trade-off. the average generation curve depends on the inclination; each has its pros and cons
Also if one chose to have some tree for natural shading it kind of forbids to have verticals. Shade was more appropriate in our case so there’s a very limited direct sun exposure.
-
I you live where sun is abundant all year round… In which case (Las Vegas?) I would question the choice of having humans living in a fucking desert in the first place. But man I wish I could cover my needs between October and March here in Europe but no battery will help me store so much for so long
Exactly that. My worst case winter month (not even by day and I like to be warm every day) is generating less than 25% of consumption. Not that other winter months are much better.
-
Yeah I saw that… Though I’m 3 years into solar and my measurements aren’t so positive. I am definitely not covering 62% of our needs yearly. The 4 less sunny months are killers when you need heating.
62 percent could be 7 months all the time and 5 never right? So if those 4 months only get you 20% but the others give you ninety something. When I see that 62 I see it as over half the year it will work out good.
-
Some key insights from the article:
Basically, what they did was to look at how much batteries would be needed in a given area to provide constant power supply at least 97% of the time, and the calculate the costs of that solar+battery setup compared to coal and nuclear.
See and this is why we need to subsidize poor old coal. It can't compete without it. Won't someone think of the miners! /s
-
What you do is get weather data for sunlight and wind. The two combine to cover some of the lull in the other. From historical data, you can calculate the maximum lull where neither are providing enough. Double that as a safety factor, and that's how much battery you need.
Doing this is by far the cheapest way to get to 95% clean energy everywhere. That would be a total game changer.
From historical data, you can calculate the maximum lull where neither are providing enough.
The difficulty there is that there are a lot of places where you frequently get multiple weeks of both solar and wind at <10% capacity (google for dunkelflaute) that would need an implausible amount of storage to cover.
The OP article is already talking about 5x overbuilding solar with 17h of storage to get to 97% in the most favourable conditions possible. I dont see how you can get to an acceptably stable grif in most places without dispatchable power.
-
97% sounds impressive, but thats equivalent to almost an hour of blackout every day. Developed societies demand +99.99% availability from their grids.
It sound impressive, until you read it's Las Vegas. In places like Germany you have several weeks per year with neither enough sun nor wind. With backup power like gas turbines which run few weeks per year you have to subsidize the operators. And if you want run them on green hydrogen, massively overbuild the renewable capacity so that you can fill up gas storage during summertime.
-
Some key insights from the article:
Basically, what they did was to look at how much batteries would be needed in a given area to provide constant power supply at least 97% of the time, and the calculate the costs of that solar+battery setup compared to coal and nuclear.
Not where I live. By far. Not to mention that it doesn't even cover winter months at all. Battery or no battery it doesn't cover even the usage most of the time when the sun is out, let alone charge the battery.
Edit: care to explain the downvote?
-
I would have loved that but having a wind turbine is… not easy. Permits, psychotic attitude from neighbours… but that have been my go-to given we don’t have a stream to go hydro.
I’m still happy with covering 8 ou of 12 months with our setup but it’s still unnerving to swallow the costs of the setup + utilities for winter months…Residential wind for electricity generation is not really recommendable afaik, but it could be viable for some amount of heat generation, potentially: https://solar.lowtechmagazine.com/2019/02/heat-your-house-with-a-mechanical-windmill/
-
Some key insights from the article:
Basically, what they did was to look at how much batteries would be needed in a given area to provide constant power supply at least 97% of the time, and the calculate the costs of that solar+battery setup compared to coal and nuclear.
As others have said this is for Las Vegas which receives wayyy more sun than the average place. But the other misleading part is they looked at 20 years which is close to the life cycle for solar/batteries and not even half the life of nuclear
-
As others have said this is for Las Vegas which receives wayyy more sun than the average place. But the other misleading part is they looked at 20 years which is close to the life cycle for solar/batteries and not even half the life of nuclear
Fair point but nuclear will probably always have the disadvantage of initial cost and time to market. It's a huge risk for investors and public officials.
-
From historical data, you can calculate the maximum lull where neither are providing enough.
The difficulty there is that there are a lot of places where you frequently get multiple weeks of both solar and wind at <10% capacity (google for dunkelflaute) that would need an implausible amount of storage to cover.
The OP article is already talking about 5x overbuilding solar with 17h of storage to get to 97% in the most favourable conditions possible. I dont see how you can get to an acceptably stable grif in most places without dispatchable power.
It's not that bad. This is an actual technique in use, and it drastically decreases how much storage you need.
The biggest problem has been convincing capitalism to do it. They've been building solar like nuts because that's the cheapest per MW of anything on simple Excel spreadsheets. More mathematical nuance would show that if everyone does this, it's just going to cause overproduction and wasted potential on very sunny days. You need all three, and toss in some hydro and geothermal, as well.
-
As others have said this is for Las Vegas which receives wayyy more sun than the average place. But the other misleading part is they looked at 20 years which is close to the life cycle for solar/batteries and not even half the life of nuclear
From the dot graph, it implies that las Vegas is one of the worse options? And Birmingham is somehow best?
Not sure I'm reading that right?
-
62 percent could be 7 months all the time and 5 never right? So if those 4 months only get you 20% but the others give you ninety something. When I see that 62 I see it as over half the year it will work out good.
Yeah but that would not account for the electricity need: in winter we need between 1000/1300 kWh mainly for heating / domestic hot water. Other months under 250 even if we use air conditioning. So if you cover the 7 nice months you still get absolutely wrecked by the dreaded 4 in the winter cost wise…
