US installs record solar capacity as prices keep falling(arstechnica.com)
arstechnica.com
US installs record solar capacity as prices keep falling
https://arstechnica.com/science/2022/09/us-installs-record-solar-capacity-as-prices-keep-falling/
4 comments
Rooftop solar costs quite a lot more to field than utility solar.
If you can buy from a community solar project, instead, that is likely a better deal.
If you can buy from a community solar project, instead, that is likely a better deal.
Unfortunately I'm in the Houston area, where there isn't much support for renewables or sustainability on a level larger than the individual. The best I was able to do was find a grid provider that claims to be 100% renewable.
My issue with those providers is that buying their services doesn't mean they're expanding their renewable sources to match the people signing up for them. Those sources exist and are being used already, it just gives them a bucket of billing that they can mark up.
Specific providers make those guarantees, to go beyond just selling green credits they already have lying around. I think in Texas Bulb should qualify in this case.
https://bulb.com/
https://bulb.com/
I'm not really seeing anything on their site that says every new customer's kW-h usage translates directly to new kW-h sources being built. They do say:
"For every unit of electricity you use, we put a unit on the grid produced by a renewable source like solar or wind. "
But that's only talking about generation from their existing resources - not the building of new resources. In fact they go on to say that they're only purchasing energy from renewable sources to one-to-one match their customers use. Bulb is just a reseller like any other.
"For every unit of electricity you use, we put a unit on the grid produced by a renewable source like solar or wind. "
But that's only talking about generation from their existing resources - not the building of new resources. In fact they go on to say that they're only purchasing energy from renewable sources to one-to-one match their customers use. Bulb is just a reseller like any other.
Looks like Bulb just got bought by Green Mountain Energy anyway:
https://www.greenmountainenergy.com/home-energy-solutions/so...
They also seem to go beyond the bare minimum and have more information.
I thought the Bulb site was implying they bought bundled RECS, i.e. they paid local Texas renewable developers for both their energy output and the REC at the same time.
Which is better than buying unbundled RECs.
https://www.greenmountainenergy.com/home-energy-solutions/so...
They also seem to go beyond the bare minimum and have more information.
I thought the Bulb site was implying they bought bundled RECS, i.e. they paid local Texas renewable developers for both their energy output and the REC at the same time.
Which is better than buying unbundled RECs.
At what point does the accumulation of solar deployed start to threaten the economics of power plant creation?
That is... power plants are such significant investments that they are only viable with a government guarantee on future price and demand. But with renewables being deployed at large scale, those guarantees would start being something a gov would pick up the tab on rather than long-term by consumers.
Which is to hypothesis that the gov won't want to pick up the tab, prices of grid energy will rise fast, and there's a long-term incentive to getting off-grid that will accelerate whenever this tipping point occurs.
That is... power plants are such significant investments that they are only viable with a government guarantee on future price and demand. But with renewables being deployed at large scale, those guarantees would start being something a gov would pick up the tab on rather than long-term by consumers.
Which is to hypothesis that the gov won't want to pick up the tab, prices of grid energy will rise fast, and there's a long-term incentive to getting off-grid that will accelerate whenever this tipping point occurs.
What guarantee? Are you thinking of nuclear plants?
Gas turbine power plants are cheap to build. (They have to be, because they're used as "peakers", only operating 10% - 20% of the time.) The threat to them is battery storage, not renewable generation.
Combined-cycle gas turbines (combined with steam powered generation using the turbine exhaust for heat) are slightly less cheap, but nowhere near the same league as nuclear costs.
Even so, in some places it's now (2022) cheaper to build new PV than to pay for the gas to run a fully paid-for gas plant. Or so we are told.
Long distance high voltage transmission lines sometimes need government involvement, because 1) they affect many land-owners, at least some of whom won't be happy; and 2) the margins are low in the power transmission game.
The need for long-distance transmission and gas peakers could be reduced quite a bit in a year or so, if PV, wind, and battery storage prices continue on trend (downwards). Not off-grid, but local grid.
Gas turbine power plants are cheap to build. (They have to be, because they're used as "peakers", only operating 10% - 20% of the time.) The threat to them is battery storage, not renewable generation.
Combined-cycle gas turbines (combined with steam powered generation using the turbine exhaust for heat) are slightly less cheap, but nowhere near the same league as nuclear costs.
Even so, in some places it's now (2022) cheaper to build new PV than to pay for the gas to run a fully paid-for gas plant. Or so we are told.
Long distance high voltage transmission lines sometimes need government involvement, because 1) they affect many land-owners, at least some of whom won't be happy; and 2) the margins are low in the power transmission game.
The need for long-distance transmission and gas peakers could be reduced quite a bit in a year or so, if PV, wind, and battery storage prices continue on trend (downwards). Not off-grid, but local grid.
Guarantees on future price is what Germany did/does as subsidies to the renewable sector. If prices fall significantly then it would be the German government that has to pay the difference between what investors expected and what the market is willing to pay.
With prices going the other, governments in EU (including Germany) is now considering subsidies again by creating a price roof. Any difference between the roof price and the market price will be paid by the government.
Nuclear plants can have similar subsidies. Price guarantees and price roofs are market tools rather than technology dependent tools, but they are more likely to trigger if the market price is fluctuating a lot. The more weather dependent the energy grid is, for now (and in general), the larger and more frequent the difference between max and min price are, the more likely the government will have to pay out in order to offer such subsidies.
Of course the government are not required to offer either subsidies.
With prices going the other, governments in EU (including Germany) is now considering subsidies again by creating a price roof. Any difference between the roof price and the market price will be paid by the government.
Nuclear plants can have similar subsidies. Price guarantees and price roofs are market tools rather than technology dependent tools, but they are more likely to trigger if the market price is fluctuating a lot. The more weather dependent the energy grid is, for now (and in general), the larger and more frequent the difference between max and min price are, the more likely the government will have to pay out in order to offer such subsidies.
Of course the government are not required to offer either subsidies.
>With prices going the other, governments in EU (including Germany) is now considering subsidies again by creating a price roof. Any difference between the roof price and the market price will be paid by the government.
Isn't it the other way around? The difference won't be paid; the whole idea is to stop paying over the roof.
Isn't it the other way around? The difference won't be paid; the whole idea is to stop paying over the roof.
[deleted]
[deleted]
There is multiple different strategies discussed by other countries and EU itself. The EU commission as of 9 days ago suggested a price floor of 180 EUR/MWh on all energy production except gas, coal and hydro, using the difference as an tax to fund lower gas and coal prices.
The Norwegian government will pay 50% of their citizens electricity bill of anything that exceeds ~€0.07 per kw/h, a decision they made last year.
The Danish government announced today that they will offer any citizen an interest free loan for electricity bills, and removed all the energy taxes for the next 6 months.
Germany stepped in 18 days ago to save the energy company Fortums with 150 billions euros of government money. Fortums had a lot of long term contract to deliver cheap gas, betting that the price would remain low, and lost that bet. The government intervention was said to be done in order to prevent an other 2008 crash.
The UK announced the "Energy Price Guarantee for families and businesses" at the 1st October. This price guarantee is done through a mix of lowered taxes and direct social support (government stepping in and directly pay part of the bill).
It is expected to see a lot of similar initiatives in EU until winter, especially as the energy price is predicted to significant rise when gas supply start to deplete.
The Norwegian government will pay 50% of their citizens electricity bill of anything that exceeds ~€0.07 per kw/h, a decision they made last year.
The Danish government announced today that they will offer any citizen an interest free loan for electricity bills, and removed all the energy taxes for the next 6 months.
Germany stepped in 18 days ago to save the energy company Fortums with 150 billions euros of government money. Fortums had a lot of long term contract to deliver cheap gas, betting that the price would remain low, and lost that bet. The government intervention was said to be done in order to prevent an other 2008 crash.
The UK announced the "Energy Price Guarantee for families and businesses" at the 1st October. This price guarantee is done through a mix of lowered taxes and direct social support (government stepping in and directly pay part of the bill).
It is expected to see a lot of similar initiatives in EU until winter, especially as the energy price is predicted to significant rise when gas supply start to deplete.
This happened a while ago. Before renewables actually.
Peaker plants only run some of the time. They charge more for their power because they need to cover their fixed costs.
That's partly why people use gas plants, theyre relatively cheap to build, which matters when you are effectively acting as a backup.
We could in theory let these businesses gamble on how often they will be needed but grids/governments already found it better to pay capacity fees to these generators to ensure they are available if needed.
Notably, that money goes to the people who build the plant, not the fossil fuel suppliers, unless the capacity is actually needed.
But even those people are having their business model challenged because batteries that are installed to shift daily solar peaks can bid for the same peaks.
And as the gas gets burnt less, the price goes up, in a vicious circle that leads to more and more battery deployment.
Peaker plants only run some of the time. They charge more for their power because they need to cover their fixed costs.
That's partly why people use gas plants, theyre relatively cheap to build, which matters when you are effectively acting as a backup.
We could in theory let these businesses gamble on how often they will be needed but grids/governments already found it better to pay capacity fees to these generators to ensure they are available if needed.
Notably, that money goes to the people who build the plant, not the fossil fuel suppliers, unless the capacity is actually needed.
But even those people are having their business model challenged because batteries that are installed to shift daily solar peaks can bid for the same peaks.
And as the gas gets burnt less, the price goes up, in a vicious circle that leads to more and more battery deployment.
The peakers are still needed for the last few percent that batteries can't economically cover. The price of power at those times will rise to the point that the peakers can still cover their costs, but it will be cheaper than having enough batteries to handle it. What's needed is to expose those prices to the end users so demand dispatch can handle some of it.
Very low capacity factor peakers could be run with hydrogen (or other e-fuels) without greatly affecting their costs, since they'd use so little of it.
Very low capacity factor peakers could be run with hydrogen (or other e-fuels) without greatly affecting their costs, since they'd use so little of it.
If grid battery prices fall another 90% (on trend, this will be in 10 - 15 years, and there is no reason to think that it cannot happen), the economics will probably be different.
Need to skate where the puck's going, not where it is.
Need to skate where the puck's going, not where it is.
Hydrogen costs about $1/kWh of energy storage capacity when stored underground in solution mined caverns in salt formations, so that's a tough target for batteries to reach. Even a 10x reduction will not get them there. The higher efficiency of batteries also becomes proportionally less important as the cost of renewable energy itself declines.
It will be interesting to see where the crossover point between hydrogen (and other e-fuels) and current batteries lies. There are also technologies that will fall between them, including certain battery technologies with low current density (Form Energy's batteries are in this category) and various flavors of thermal storage. The latter has the possibility of shifting over to reheat with hydrogen in emergency situations when the directly stored heat is exhausted.
It will be interesting to see where the crossover point between hydrogen (and other e-fuels) and current batteries lies. There are also technologies that will fall between them, including certain battery technologies with low current density (Form Energy's batteries are in this category) and various flavors of thermal storage. The latter has the possibility of shifting over to reheat with hydrogen in emergency situations when the directly stored heat is exhausted.
I think there's something missing here. Is that the price per unit stored, or the price per unit of capacity to store?
Batteries cost $120/kWh of initial capacity, but they can be recharged between hundreds and multiple thousands of times before significant degradation, depending on the specific design? Picking x1000 arbitrarily, that adds 12¢ to the cost of electricity that goes via a battery today (a lot to be sure, but significantly less than the average domestic cost here).
I think hydrogen electrolysis is about 60-90% efficient, so 1/0.9 to 1/0.6 times the electricity cost to make as gas (assuming the hardware cost is amortised to the point of being negligible), but that isn't as high as $1/kWh even for domestic electricity prices here in Germany. Square cube law implies large scale storage will be much cheaper than small scale storage, so I'm still expecting that to be lower than $1/kWh as delivered, though I can believe it might cost that to build the capacity.
Batteries cost $120/kWh of initial capacity, but they can be recharged between hundreds and multiple thousands of times before significant degradation, depending on the specific design? Picking x1000 arbitrarily, that adds 12¢ to the cost of electricity that goes via a battery today (a lot to be sure, but significantly less than the average domestic cost here).
I think hydrogen electrolysis is about 60-90% efficient, so 1/0.9 to 1/0.6 times the electricity cost to make as gas (assuming the hardware cost is amortised to the point of being negligible), but that isn't as high as $1/kWh even for domestic electricity prices here in Germany. Square cube law implies large scale storage will be much cheaper than small scale storage, so I'm still expecting that to be lower than $1/kWh as delivered, though I can believe it might cost that to build the capacity.
The $1/kWh is per unit of capacity to store energy. That cost is then amortized over the number of charge/discharge cycles to get the per unit of energy stored cost. Hydrogen storage in underground solution mined cavities is just that cheap. This is the huge advantage hydrogen has for very long term or very rarely used energy storage over batteries.
Storage of a combustible gas underground is already done on a massive scale. Natural gas is already stored, by the millions of tonnes, in just these kinds of caverns. The cost is cheap enough that the entire NG consumption of a region's winter can be stored.
Now, hydrogen also has power related costs: cost/W of electrolysers, compressors, and turbines or fuel cells. But for very long term storage this becomes small compared to the per energy capacity costs.
Storage of a combustible gas underground is already done on a massive scale. Natural gas is already stored, by the millions of tonnes, in just these kinds of caverns. The cost is cheap enough that the entire NG consumption of a region's winter can be stored.
Now, hydrogen also has power related costs: cost/W of electrolysers, compressors, and turbines or fuel cells. But for very long term storage this becomes small compared to the per energy capacity costs.
Battery cost is on the same downward trend as everything else, with new chemistries subtracting step functions. (Watch iron/air, zinc/bromine, antimony/calcium.)
But for bulk storage, there are still cheaper technologies that cost only per MW to store or extract, not per MWh stored, like batteries. Tankage is cheap.
The per-MW cost is for motor-generators attached to hydro turbine, air compressor, or winch; or for nitrogen liquifier and turbine; or for electrolyser and fuel cell or combined-cycle turbine.
Storing in transportable tanks affords extra revenue opportunities.
But for bulk storage, there are still cheaper technologies that cost only per MW to store or extract, not per MWh stored, like batteries. Tankage is cheap.
The per-MW cost is for motor-generators attached to hydro turbine, air compressor, or winch; or for nitrogen liquifier and turbine; or for electrolyser and fuel cell or combined-cycle turbine.
Storing in transportable tanks affords extra revenue opportunities.
I don't think that answers my question. I think the stated prices may mean something other than what they look like they mean.
Cost for motor/generators is not changing, but the tech is extremely mature. Costs for electrolysers and fuel cells are both falling fast. Air compression and liquidation are both mature technologies, but might respond to a massive increase in usage by getting cheaper.
A survey of storage technology pilot projects show people doing much more expensive versions of each than will be deployed. The incentives for pilot projects favor over-complex systems based on over-complex processes described in papers that had to be that to get academic attention as novel, and grants likewise.
When civil engineers get involved, systems will get radically simpler and cheaper. Probably designs will trade off efficiency, as the cost for a little extra power is much less than for complexity.
A survey of storage technology pilot projects show people doing much more expensive versions of each than will be deployed. The incentives for pilot projects favor over-complex systems based on over-complex processes described in papers that had to be that to get academic attention as novel, and grants likewise.
When civil engineers get involved, systems will get radically simpler and cheaper. Probably designs will trade off efficiency, as the cost for a little extra power is much less than for complexity.
you also have to factor in the cost of the hydrogen to burn which for green hydrogen isn't cheap.
In a world where you are trying to cover the last few percent of zero carbon generation, green hydrogen wil be cheap enough to be used to make alcohol, plastics and a bunch of other things just because it's cheaper than natural gas or other feedstocks. So it's not really a worry, prices for grey/blue and green hydrogen should crossover this decade.
As I already pointed out, for the last few percent this doesn't matter much, as the cost of the energy there is dominated by the capital cost of the storage system, not the cost of the fuel being burned.
I think Form Energy batteries and that whole category of cheap long term storage that gets turned back into electricity (including, controversially, pumped hydro) are a dead end.
The random element breaks their already fragile cost justification.
Hydrogen generation makes sense because it's a physical product that you can use for other things if you don't burn it, which acts as insurance. A buffer for your buffer.
Heat batteries can have predictable loads and don't need the return trip to electricity.
Lithium and PV have a daily rhythm of usage which covers the higher price.
And throwing some energy away most of the year if there's no demand can still make financial sense if it's needed for rare peaks.
In general, building more renewables and doing the above is cheaper than trying to store energy and convert it back to electricity (unless you do it once or twice a day to amortise the cost).
This is why the climate change deniers go on and on about storage. They have correctly identified that it doesn't make financial sense to use batteries for that last few percent, but ignored all the other, better cheaper options to focus on that totally unnecessary approach. And also that the other 90% are better, cleaner and cheaper so we have money to burn on solutions if we needed it.
The cheaper renewables get, the less the Form battery sales pitch works. Just build more generation and short term storage.
The random element breaks their already fragile cost justification.
Hydrogen generation makes sense because it's a physical product that you can use for other things if you don't burn it, which acts as insurance. A buffer for your buffer.
Heat batteries can have predictable loads and don't need the return trip to electricity.
Lithium and PV have a daily rhythm of usage which covers the higher price.
And throwing some energy away most of the year if there's no demand can still make financial sense if it's needed for rare peaks.
In general, building more renewables and doing the above is cheaper than trying to store energy and convert it back to electricity (unless you do it once or twice a day to amortise the cost).
This is why the climate change deniers go on and on about storage. They have correctly identified that it doesn't make financial sense to use batteries for that last few percent, but ignored all the other, better cheaper options to focus on that totally unnecessary approach. And also that the other 90% are better, cleaner and cheaper so we have money to burn on solutions if we needed it.
The cheaper renewables get, the less the Form battery sales pitch works. Just build more generation and short term storage.
Throwing away energy will probably not be a thing once the factories for hydrogen and ammonia generating equipment and desalination equipment have ramped up.
H2, NH3, and clean H2O are so useful there will always be a market for as much as you can produce at zero marginal cost. I.e., once you have the equipment, which you needed anyway, it makes no sense to operate it less than you can afford to, even when the price of those drops to near nothing.
H2, NH3, and clean H2O are so useful there will always be a market for as much as you can produce at zero marginal cost. I.e., once you have the equipment, which you needed anyway, it makes no sense to operate it less than you can afford to, even when the price of those drops to near nothing.
You could argue that running those systems at anything less than 100% capacity is just another kind of waste, which would be true.
It's all just trade-offs. Generating energy that isn't used, or not using assets to their full capacity is just something to deal with based on costs and benefits.
We have plenty of waste and slack in the world today, and renewables seem likely to radically reduce that, so no point getting caught up in worrying about minor inefficiencies. 10 steps forward, one step back is still forward motion.
It's all just trade-offs. Generating energy that isn't used, or not using assets to their full capacity is just something to deal with based on costs and benefits.
We have plenty of waste and slack in the world today, and renewables seem likely to radically reduce that, so no point getting caught up in worrying about minor inefficiencies. 10 steps forward, one step back is still forward motion.
Agreed. Just noting that drawing down your ammonia storage to run ammonia synthesis for sale would make no sense. But an aluminum plant might reasonably burn aluminum powder to keep its furnaces hot, when spot price peaks.
I had a fascinating talk with an executive at a power dustrobution company a couple of years ago.
He looked forward to Solar. He said the #1 biggest cost of electricity was 2 fold: 1) running cable everywhere and 2) anticipating demand 10 years away and running cable for that demand
So, putting solar on your roof really helps them with demand "far" from the plant
He looked forward to Solar. He said the #1 biggest cost of electricity was 2 fold: 1) running cable everywhere and 2) anticipating demand 10 years away and running cable for that demand
So, putting solar on your roof really helps them with demand "far" from the plant
In the daytime grid solar is already the cheapest option in terms of cost per kWh, but demand is on a second by second basis not simply a question of producing enough total power each month. That means there isn’t a single tipping point, just increased adoption as costs drop. Cheaper grid storage increase the amount of PV grid operators will want etc.
As to going fully off grid, [Rooftop solar + inverters etc + batteries + installation] vs [paying for the same things + an electric grid] seems to favor home installation before you consider economies of scale. When panels where expensive rooftop solar was more competitive because the primary costs where the panels themselves, but as they drop other costs become more relevant and solar farms are pulling ahead. Though specific tax breaks for rooftop solar muddles the issue.
As to going fully off grid, [Rooftop solar + inverters etc + batteries + installation] vs [paying for the same things + an electric grid] seems to favor home installation before you consider economies of scale. When panels where expensive rooftop solar was more competitive because the primary costs where the panels themselves, but as they drop other costs become more relevant and solar farms are pulling ahead. Though specific tax breaks for rooftop solar muddles the issue.
> At what point does the accumulation of solar deployed start to threaten the economics of power plant creation?
From what I've read… a few years ago, even for existing plants and just counting fuel costs. Although the cause is because it is cheap, not because of how much is installed.
From what I've read… a few years ago, even for existing plants and just counting fuel costs. Although the cause is because it is cheap, not because of how much is installed.
[deleted]
Right now. Seriously, companies that are building gas/coal/nuclear plants under the assumption that electricity prices are going to stay at the current levels are making a very fatal mistake. A lot of investments in this space are drying up for this reason or effectively under water. Investors know this and are moving their money elsewhere.
Cost per mwh from off-shore wind is below 50$ now in a market where the prices peaking north of 500$ recently. Very profitable business. Solar energy is cheaper than that and even more profitable. Basically as panel prices drop, the life time cost of their energy drops as well. And since that is measured in decades, it's very low to begin with.
A 100 watt panel operational for 3 decades producing maybe 0.5kwh per day on average would produce around 5 mwh of power during it's operational life (a bit over 10k days, easy number to work with). More in sunny places, less in cloudy places. You can get solar panels like that at around 50$. Those are consumer prices, power plants would be able get better deals. The higher efficiency ones that people actually put on their roofs are more expensive of course but also produce more energy. The cost of the energy they produce is probably around 30-40$ per mwh That's domestic solar and right now. Prices for commercial solar plants are around 1-2 cents per kwh in some sunny countries (unsubsidized). So 10-20$ per mwh In other places it's a bit higher. We'll see that drop below 10$ very soon. Offshore wind is more expensive typically but still very lucrative.
So, in a market where that is true right now, planning to operate new plants where the energy cost is at least 10x that, you are not going to be able to compete long term. Basically operating at 10x the cost of your competitors is a lousy business plan. And when 10x has a chance of becoming 100x or even a 1000x it's basically madness to even consider that.
Prices will eventually actually drop below a 10 cents per mwh. It's a bold prediction but you can just look at the cost curves and trends and make some predictions. It will happen in the next 2-3 decades. That's a 10x improvement relative to now.
What makes solar panels expensive is all the exotic materials, glass, and energy needed to produce them. Energy cost is trending down. So, that helps. And there are companies producing solar with organic materials that are essentially printing them on rolls. This is a new and emerging business but you'd find those on some EV car roofs for example. That sounds like something that could drop prices a lot and would also be really scalable. Lower material cost, lower energy cost, economies of scale. A 10x cost drop is a conservative estimate. It might turn int 50x or even 100x eventually. So, relative to the 10x difference we have today that adds up to a very depressing outlook for anything else.
So, coal/nuclear/gas power plant creation is not a great investment currently. These plants need to operate for decades to generate meaningful return on investment.
Short term there's plenty of demand for expensive energy, long term energy is going to be so cheap and plentiful that that business will dry up rapidly. More so than is already happening.
Many power plants are of course already unsustainable economically and only survive because of government support and protectionist measures. There are a lot of coal companies that went bankrupt in recent years. And gas plants aren't doing much better. Nuclear plants have similar issues. Yes they are clean but way too expensive. People are building new ones not because they are cheap but because securing access to energy is strategically important to countries. But unless somebody figures out how to make them 100x cheaper than they are now, they are not going to ever be competitive. And there's no guarantee that 100x would be enough even.
Cost per mwh from off-shore wind is below 50$ now in a market where the prices peaking north of 500$ recently. Very profitable business. Solar energy is cheaper than that and even more profitable. Basically as panel prices drop, the life time cost of their energy drops as well. And since that is measured in decades, it's very low to begin with.
A 100 watt panel operational for 3 decades producing maybe 0.5kwh per day on average would produce around 5 mwh of power during it's operational life (a bit over 10k days, easy number to work with). More in sunny places, less in cloudy places. You can get solar panels like that at around 50$. Those are consumer prices, power plants would be able get better deals. The higher efficiency ones that people actually put on their roofs are more expensive of course but also produce more energy. The cost of the energy they produce is probably around 30-40$ per mwh That's domestic solar and right now. Prices for commercial solar plants are around 1-2 cents per kwh in some sunny countries (unsubsidized). So 10-20$ per mwh In other places it's a bit higher. We'll see that drop below 10$ very soon. Offshore wind is more expensive typically but still very lucrative.
So, in a market where that is true right now, planning to operate new plants where the energy cost is at least 10x that, you are not going to be able to compete long term. Basically operating at 10x the cost of your competitors is a lousy business plan. And when 10x has a chance of becoming 100x or even a 1000x it's basically madness to even consider that.
Prices will eventually actually drop below a 10 cents per mwh. It's a bold prediction but you can just look at the cost curves and trends and make some predictions. It will happen in the next 2-3 decades. That's a 10x improvement relative to now.
What makes solar panels expensive is all the exotic materials, glass, and energy needed to produce them. Energy cost is trending down. So, that helps. And there are companies producing solar with organic materials that are essentially printing them on rolls. This is a new and emerging business but you'd find those on some EV car roofs for example. That sounds like something that could drop prices a lot and would also be really scalable. Lower material cost, lower energy cost, economies of scale. A 10x cost drop is a conservative estimate. It might turn int 50x or even 100x eventually. So, relative to the 10x difference we have today that adds up to a very depressing outlook for anything else.
So, coal/nuclear/gas power plant creation is not a great investment currently. These plants need to operate for decades to generate meaningful return on investment.
Short term there's plenty of demand for expensive energy, long term energy is going to be so cheap and plentiful that that business will dry up rapidly. More so than is already happening.
Many power plants are of course already unsustainable economically and only survive because of government support and protectionist measures. There are a lot of coal companies that went bankrupt in recent years. And gas plants aren't doing much better. Nuclear plants have similar issues. Yes they are clean but way too expensive. People are building new ones not because they are cheap but because securing access to energy is strategically important to countries. But unless somebody figures out how to make them 100x cheaper than they are now, they are not going to ever be competitive. And there's no guarantee that 100x would be enough even.
> What makes solar panels expensive is all the exotic materials,
What exotic material is needed for crystalline silicon PV (95% of the market)? Silicon itself is extremely mundane; it's the second most common element in the Earth's crust.
What exotic material is needed for crystalline silicon PV (95% of the market)? Silicon itself is extremely mundane; it's the second most common element in the Earth's crust.
It's more the energy cost involved in purifying the refined silicon and implanting the dopants without causing defects that hurt panel efficiency.
And the glass covers and aluminum frames. Making them also uses a lot of energy.
Roll-to-roll low temperature printed PV (using perovskites on plastic film)[1] potentially has lower production cost for this reason.
Put a roll in a shipping container with the controller and inverter electronics, truck it to the site, roll it out on the ground,[2] and hook up the inverter to the grid. Construction costs don't get much lower than that.
1. https://powerroll.solar/unique-solar-film/
2. Bulldoze and steamroll the ground first, if you want. Optional.
And the glass covers and aluminum frames. Making them also uses a lot of energy.
Roll-to-roll low temperature printed PV (using perovskites on plastic film)[1] potentially has lower production cost for this reason.
Put a roll in a shipping container with the controller and inverter electronics, truck it to the site, roll it out on the ground,[2] and hook up the inverter to the grid. Construction costs don't get much lower than that.
1. https://powerroll.solar/unique-solar-film/
2. Bulldoze and steamroll the ground first, if you want. Optional.
I think he's a bit out of date. Some of the hi tech solar panels still use rare earths but since ~2014 they're more the kind of thing you'd put on a space station not a roof.
The cheap, grid scale solar panels are all crystalline silicon.
The cheap, grid scale solar panels are all crystalline silicon.
Solar panels never used rare earths.
Right, the most exotic stuff in (some) solar cells is cadmium and tellurium. The cadmium is nasty but not hard to source, maybe 8 g/m^2. Perovskite cells use a thin film of mostly lead or tin, and maybe some bromine.
They should be calling the neodymium and stuff sometimes used in wind turbines "lanthanides", instead, to avoid misleading people about their availability.
They should be calling the neodymium and stuff sometimes used in wind turbines "lanthanides", instead, to avoid misleading people about their availability.
Right, the premise, "What makes solar panels expensive" is flawed. They are not expensive, they are astonishingly cheap.
But maybe he just means that something will keep their cost above zero, which is true. But their cost per watt nameplate capacity will continue on down with the amount of material they need, and the amount of labor going into them.
Today they still need a frame, and glass, and are packed in boxes onto pallets and shipped; to be mounted on rails and brackets. But soon enough they will have no glass, and no frame, and be shipped in big rolls to be stretched between posts.
But maybe he just means that something will keep their cost above zero, which is true. But their cost per watt nameplate capacity will continue on down with the amount of material they need, and the amount of labor going into them.
Today they still need a frame, and glass, and are packed in boxes onto pallets and shipped; to be mounted on rails and brackets. But soon enough they will have no glass, and no frame, and be shipped in big rolls to be stretched between posts.
A few rare earths, precious metals like platinum, copper, etc. It's also why recycling them is a thing.
No lanthanides, no platinum.
Copper, silver traces. Ultra-pure silicon. Aluminum frame, glass cover.
Copper, silver traces. Ultra-pure silicon. Aluminum frame, glass cover.
Trouble is the cost of solar panels doesn't factor in the dust to dust costs. It's essentially still relying upon the subsidy from cheap Chinese manufacturing. That isn't a sustainable method of creating, or renewing them - particularly when battery storage starts to compete with cars for the raw materials used to produce the batteries. There isn't enough raw materials available on a global scale to do both, and that tightness will likely reverse the cost decline and probably rapidly.
The cheap installed renewable plant that is going in today needs to start self replicating itself on a dust-to-dust basis. Otherwise it is going to end up being a one off benefit that we squandered - like easily accessible gas fields.
Which is why nuclear needs to be there as the strategic option. Markets aren't always the best way to make long term decisions.
The cheap installed renewable plant that is going in today needs to start self replicating itself on a dust-to-dust basis. Otherwise it is going to end up being a one off benefit that we squandered - like easily accessible gas fields.
Which is why nuclear needs to be there as the strategic option. Markets aren't always the best way to make long term decisions.
To elaborate a little on ncmncm's reply, there is a cornucopia of alternatives available for grid battery storage.
Sodium sulfur, iron air, aluminum air are three technologies we have waiting in the wings if lithium ever runs short. We'll never run out of any of those raw materials.
(Edit: I'm not going to mention flow batteries, thermal storage (will we run out of rocks to heat up?), compressed air storage, or other chemicals like hydrogen or ammonia storage.)
But, we are not short of lithium. There is plenty.
There is a temporary shortage of lithium refining capacity, plants that take in the raw mined lithium and produce high purity lithium carbonate ready for the battery factories. But lithium mines? No shortage there.
Also, it'd be reasonable to hold nuclear to the same "dust to dust" standard. Check out what it takes to produce and dispose of nuclear fuel and reaction vessels sometime.
Sodium sulfur, iron air, aluminum air are three technologies we have waiting in the wings if lithium ever runs short. We'll never run out of any of those raw materials.
(Edit: I'm not going to mention flow batteries, thermal storage (will we run out of rocks to heat up?), compressed air storage, or other chemicals like hydrogen or ammonia storage.)
But, we are not short of lithium. There is plenty.
There is a temporary shortage of lithium refining capacity, plants that take in the raw mined lithium and produce high purity lithium carbonate ready for the battery factories. But lithium mines? No shortage there.
Also, it'd be reasonable to hold nuclear to the same "dust to dust" standard. Check out what it takes to produce and dispose of nuclear fuel and reaction vessels sometime.
There is, in fact, far more than enough raw materials for all the batteries that will be needed.
Stationary batteries do not need lithium. And utilities can store energy in bulk without batteries, in other media.
All the nukes will be mothballed as there comes to be zero hours during which they can offer power at a competitive price. Each reduction in duty cycle means they have to bid higher for what is left. Owners may write off capex and try to get enough just to pay to maintain their turbines, and fail at that, too.
Stationary batteries do not need lithium. And utilities can store energy in bulk without batteries, in other media.
All the nukes will be mothballed as there comes to be zero hours during which they can offer power at a competitive price. Each reduction in duty cycle means they have to bid higher for what is left. Owners may write off capex and try to get enough just to pay to maintain their turbines, and fail at that, too.
"Mothballed" nukes cost within the margin of error the same as running ones.
Nuclear costs are builing and decommission, and of course kickbacks to financial system since it's obviously better for energy company to borrow on X+8% rate rather than government on X%.
Nuclear costs are builing and decommission, and of course kickbacks to financial system since it's obviously better for energy company to borrow on X+8% rate rather than government on X%.
And lifetime very intense security. You say reactor, I say dirty bomb. They can't be left unattended and they aren't generally. A few grams of radioactive material and some cheap explosives can do a lot of damage in the wrong hands.
And regular inspections and repairs. They do break down once in a while too. Basically you have a lot of moving parts that need maintenance.
And waste disposal and storage; which contrary to the popular belief is neither a solved problem nor free. Nuclear waste can't be left unattended either. Securing it in a place that is acceptable seems to be an elusive problem.
And you need specially trained staff, constant vigilance against nuclear incidents, constant drills to practice emergency procedures. Screening people to make sure they are not being exposed to radiation, etc.
All of that is cost and it adds up to quite a lot. Actually generating the power is the easy bit. It's all the rest that makes nuclear tough to do cost effectively.
In short, this is why nuclear in the current market is one of the more expensive options; even in nuclear friendly places like the US where a lot of that cost is hidden and tax sponsored or in France which just decrees an electricity price that is actually below the cost price. It's still cost. Take away the government support and these plants go bankrupt in no time at all.
In theory it can probably be done a bit cheaper and there are some companies working on that obviously. But I'm not really aware of companies pitching solutions anywhere close to solar/wind pricing, even at their current price levels. Which as I was arguing earlier would in any case be a mistake as they are very likely to come down by at least 10x more over the lifetime of whatever plants people are currently planning to build. There are many good reasons to still build a few. But energy price isn't one of those reasons.
And regular inspections and repairs. They do break down once in a while too. Basically you have a lot of moving parts that need maintenance.
And waste disposal and storage; which contrary to the popular belief is neither a solved problem nor free. Nuclear waste can't be left unattended either. Securing it in a place that is acceptable seems to be an elusive problem.
And you need specially trained staff, constant vigilance against nuclear incidents, constant drills to practice emergency procedures. Screening people to make sure they are not being exposed to radiation, etc.
All of that is cost and it adds up to quite a lot. Actually generating the power is the easy bit. It's all the rest that makes nuclear tough to do cost effectively.
In short, this is why nuclear in the current market is one of the more expensive options; even in nuclear friendly places like the US where a lot of that cost is hidden and tax sponsored or in France which just decrees an electricity price that is actually below the cost price. It's still cost. Take away the government support and these plants go bankrupt in no time at all.
In theory it can probably be done a bit cheaper and there are some companies working on that obviously. But I'm not really aware of companies pitching solutions anywhere close to solar/wind pricing, even at their current price levels. Which as I was arguing earlier would in any case be a mistake as they are very likely to come down by at least 10x more over the lifetime of whatever plants people are currently planning to build. There are many good reasons to still build a few. But energy price isn't one of those reasons.
All of those are constant costs, independent of actually generating energy.
Those are problems, which are solvable by predictable amounts of money. Once you commit to it, they aren't a problem. Real problem is that those look like low hanging fruit to politicians, that love to gut programs, where effect will be seen decades later. We can see this now in France, which was so close to actual energy independency.
>But I'm not really aware of companies pitching solutions anywhere close to solar/wind pricing, even at their current price levels.
Yeah, but those regularly produce energy below 5% capacity factor. You have to compare nuclear to renewables + storage. Once you have solution that can withstand December in Poland - very low solar capacity, low wind capacity - you have something to talk about.
Those are problems, which are solvable by predictable amounts of money. Once you commit to it, they aren't a problem. Real problem is that those look like low hanging fruit to politicians, that love to gut programs, where effect will be seen decades later. We can see this now in France, which was so close to actual energy independency.
>But I'm not really aware of companies pitching solutions anywhere close to solar/wind pricing, even at their current price levels.
Yeah, but those regularly produce energy below 5% capacity factor. You have to compare nuclear to renewables + storage. Once you have solution that can withstand December in Poland - very low solar capacity, low wind capacity - you have something to talk about.
A running nuke needs its steam turbine maintained, a periodically expensive proposition.
Capex, of course, is on top of that. Decommissioning is part of capex, though probably taxpayers will mostly end up on the hook for that. Does it cost less to keep running than for decommission?
Capex, of course, is on top of that. Decommissioning is part of capex, though probably taxpayers will mostly end up on the hook for that. Does it cost less to keep running than for decommission?
US energy price hike of 50-100% in the past week. Whatever impact solar has on energy price: it is very much not the dominant effect.
Solar, despite its fast accelerating installation rate, is still a very, very small fraction of the mix, most places.
To add concrete stats [1], solar is only 2.8% of overall US electricity generation in 2021. But if you look at the "billion kW per year" numbers since 2011, they are: 1.82, 4.33, 9.04, 17.69, 24.89, 36.05, 53.29, 63.83, 71.94, 89.20, 114.68. That's a ~10x growth in 10 years, ~25% growth for each of the last 2 years.
At a 15% annual growth rate, you double in 5 years. Throw in economies of scale, tailwinds of regulations and social norms and a 10% electricity generation by 2030 looks probable.
[1] https://www.eia.gov/energyexplained/electricity/electricity-...
At a 15% annual growth rate, you double in 5 years. Throw in economies of scale, tailwinds of regulations and social norms and a 10% electricity generation by 2030 looks probable.
[1] https://www.eia.gov/energyexplained/electricity/electricity-...
It will need to be accelerated. Maybe perovskites on rolls will enable that.
I imagine fenceposts with bifacial film stretched between, in fence-rows running north-south in pastures everywhere, high enough to walk under. Cheap enough, it would be OK if they last only five years. Replacing them would be much cheaper than the original installation.
Maybe they have foil along each edge, + one, - the other, and you staple or clamp the edges to aluminum bus bars. At one end, bars running between rows gather current from all the rows to a converter box. Voltage everywhere is low, for safety, maybe 24V.
Since they are in productive land, density is not necessary. They are far enough apart to avoid shading one another even when the sun is low.
I imagine fenceposts with bifacial film stretched between, in fence-rows running north-south in pastures everywhere, high enough to walk under. Cheap enough, it would be OK if they last only five years. Replacing them would be much cheaper than the original installation.
Maybe they have foil along each edge, + one, - the other, and you staple or clamp the edges to aluminum bus bars. At one end, bars running between rows gather current from all the rows to a converter box. Voltage everywhere is low, for safety, maybe 24V.
Since they are in productive land, density is not necessary. They are far enough apart to avoid shading one another even when the sun is low.
[deleted]
As long as the earth turns, we'll need power at night too (and on cloudy days), and current energy storage devices are not good enough to cover all of that usage.
A true fact about what we built yesterday isn't a necessary limit to what we can build tomorrow.
The storage tech works (as would a global power grid), we "only" need to scale it up, and at current prices a global grid would cost about the same as current annual spending on fossil fuels, while the cost of batteries depends on your estimate for storage requirements, which depends on the diversity (location and energy sources) of the grid, but could be in a similar range.
(Batteries are also the most expensive of the seriously considered solutions, other storage methods exist and work just fine but aren't so good for cars and we need the batteries for cars anyway).
I'm not sure how long either approach would last before needing servicing/replacement, but I'd be surprised if it was less than a year.
Anyone here know how long underwater HVDC cables last?
The storage tech works (as would a global power grid), we "only" need to scale it up, and at current prices a global grid would cost about the same as current annual spending on fossil fuels, while the cost of batteries depends on your estimate for storage requirements, which depends on the diversity (location and energy sources) of the grid, but could be in a similar range.
(Batteries are also the most expensive of the seriously considered solutions, other storage methods exist and work just fine but aren't so good for cars and we need the batteries for cars anyway).
I'm not sure how long either approach would last before needing servicing/replacement, but I'd be surprised if it was less than a year.
Anyone here know how long underwater HVDC cables last?
But why not just use nuclear, which produces power 24/7 with no need for storage?
• Cost (as much as the most expensive serious storage systems)
• Domestic politics (NIMBYing for both reactors and waste, and you don't get around that just by telling people it's fine)
• International politics (extra costs from proving nobody is using them for proliferation)
• Build time (too slow compared to renewables)
• Depending on your particular perspective, you may also care that the fuel itself is in limited supply (given the assumption that at some point even the currently-poor will want energy-hogging lifestyles and that nuclear reserves, even with breeders are 2500 ZJ compared to 65 ZJ of fossil fuels, then if you give everyone a Qatar per capita use that runs out in only about 300 years).
• Domestic politics (NIMBYing for both reactors and waste, and you don't get around that just by telling people it's fine)
• International politics (extra costs from proving nobody is using them for proliferation)
• Build time (too slow compared to renewables)
• Depending on your particular perspective, you may also care that the fuel itself is in limited supply (given the assumption that at some point even the currently-poor will want energy-hogging lifestyles and that nuclear reserves, even with breeders are 2500 ZJ compared to 65 ZJ of fossil fuels, then if you give everyone a Qatar per capita use that runs out in only about 300 years).
That's assuming that prices stay the same for the materials needed to build the grid. Have you looked into the amount of copper required to build this grid? It is many multiples of the current annual production, this would cause prices to rise enormously.
> Have you looked into the amount of copper required to build this grid? It is many multiples of the current annual production
Yes, I have, and it is, even including aluminium (surprisingly a better choice for various reasons). I think I'm one of the main proponents of this on Hacker News, so you might have even seen my previous comments calculating this.
WRT economics, not my field; all I can say is that higher demand increasing prices will encourage (but not necessarily ultimately create) an increase in supply, which has a difficult to forecast feedback relationship when planning for a specific total output.
Yes, I have, and it is, even including aluminium (surprisingly a better choice for various reasons). I think I'm one of the main proponents of this on Hacker News, so you might have even seen my previous comments calculating this.
WRT economics, not my field; all I can say is that higher demand increasing prices will encourage (but not necessarily ultimately create) an increase in supply, which has a difficult to forecast feedback relationship when planning for a specific total output.
At least the initial rampup would be expensive - the cheapest copper is being mined already, so prices would necessarily need to rise to mine the more expensive copper too. How much it would rise long term once the new mines are running is geologically dependant.
Aluminium has different issues, in that it is very very very energy intensive to refine. It may require new coal/nuclear power generation buildout near the mine for smelting the bauxite to make it even feasible at a large scale, otherwise you run into a chicken/egg problem with your grid idea since the grid doesn't exist yet. This is because aluminium smelters can't be shut down at night, they have a single turn on/off in their lifetime otherwise they need a full disassembly and rebuild, more likely scrap. So it can't just be run intermittently on local solar. To some degree it can be ramped down, so maybe a smaller base generation assisted by solar during the day, but it still needs significant power at night somehow.
Aluminium has different issues, in that it is very very very energy intensive to refine. It may require new coal/nuclear power generation buildout near the mine for smelting the bauxite to make it even feasible at a large scale, otherwise you run into a chicken/egg problem with your grid idea since the grid doesn't exist yet. This is because aluminium smelters can't be shut down at night, they have a single turn on/off in their lifetime otherwise they need a full disassembly and rebuild, more likely scrap. So it can't just be run intermittently on local solar. To some degree it can be ramped down, so maybe a smaller base generation assisted by solar during the day, but it still needs significant power at night somehow.
Aluminum smelters have traditionally only been able to modulate a few percent, and many monitized that to sell demand response to the grid in return for cheaper power.
But its not a fundamental limitation, it was just the cheapest way to take advantage of the existing power system.
Set up somewhere with cheap hydro they can't fully use and ship out the energy as metal, running at nearly full power all the time.
Since there was no benefit to running at a higher variable draw, only costs, no one bothered.
Now there are benefits, so someone made a way to take advantage of them. And smelters who use it will be able to have access to cheaper energy, in more locations:
https://energiapotior.com/how-it-works
And simulaneously, the grid gets more storage, allowing it to roll out more cheap renewables.
This, replicated in specific unique ways across every industry that uses energy, is going to be the real solution to storage of renewables.
But its not a fundamental limitation, it was just the cheapest way to take advantage of the existing power system.
Set up somewhere with cheap hydro they can't fully use and ship out the energy as metal, running at nearly full power all the time.
Since there was no benefit to running at a higher variable draw, only costs, no one bothered.
Now there are benefits, so someone made a way to take advantage of them. And smelters who use it will be able to have access to cheaper energy, in more locations:
https://energiapotior.com/how-it-works
And simulaneously, the grid gets more storage, allowing it to roll out more cheap renewables.
This, replicated in specific unique ways across every industry that uses energy, is going to be the real solution to storage of renewables.
Aluminum ore is super-abundant. There is no possibility of any country anywhere on Earth running short.
The only per-ton expense to produce it is for electricity, which price will be falling very, very fast. So, no, we will not run short of aluminum, even at many times current production rate. Aluminum production process from ore + electric -> metal is extremely mature. Factories to make the factories have already been running for most of a century.
They will operate at night on wind and, during lulls, drawing down storage. They could keep hot by burning powdered aluminum. New ones will be built preferably where wind is reliable, or (as now) hydro power is cheap. Or they might be built near a cliff, and operate their own pumped hydro.
So, no, intermittent sources are not a problem for them or really for anybody, because storage is easy and cheap.
The only per-ton expense to produce it is for electricity, which price will be falling very, very fast. So, no, we will not run short of aluminum, even at many times current production rate. Aluminum production process from ore + electric -> metal is extremely mature. Factories to make the factories have already been running for most of a century.
They will operate at night on wind and, during lulls, drawing down storage. They could keep hot by burning powdered aluminum. New ones will be built preferably where wind is reliable, or (as now) hydro power is cheap. Or they might be built near a cliff, and operate their own pumped hydro.
So, no, intermittent sources are not a problem for them or really for anybody, because storage is easy and cheap.
Absolutely, no shortage of aluminium, as I said, copper is the one where the mining is the bottleneck, for aluminium it is energy for the smelting.
Night time energy storage for the smelters is not a solved issue still and significantly increases the costs beyond just adding sufficient PV panels adjacent to the smelter. Storage is not "easy and cheap" as you assert, otherwise there would be no reason to build the longitudinal grid connections GP was talking about.
Night time energy storage for the smelters is not a solved issue still and significantly increases the costs beyond just adding sufficient PV panels adjacent to the smelter. Storage is not "easy and cheap" as you assert, otherwise there would be no reason to build the longitudinal grid connections GP was talking about.
Grid connections will be used when they are cheaper than drawing down storage. You need them anyway, and want them as a place to dump excess power when local storage is full.
Storage cost is falling even faster than renewable generation did, coming from behind. Now the factories for storage are under construction. By the time we have enough renewable generation capacity to charge storage from, storage will be very cheap. It would be stupid to build out more storage than you have excess to charge it from, beyond some batteries for load smoothing.
Unsurprisingly, people responsible are doing non-stupid things. (Except placing solar farms in the desert, that is indefensible.)
Storage cost is falling even faster than renewable generation did, coming from behind. Now the factories for storage are under construction. By the time we have enough renewable generation capacity to charge storage from, storage will be very cheap. It would be stupid to build out more storage than you have excess to charge it from, beyond some batteries for load smoothing.
Unsurprisingly, people responsible are doing non-stupid things. (Except placing solar farms in the desert, that is indefensible.)
> (Except placing solar farms in the desert, that is indefensible.)
You should blog or vlog about this. I've seen you write this enough times over the last few years(?), and linking to a longer-form argument may be worthwhile.
(I should do the same for the global power grid; there are some wrinkles I want to explore with that also).
You should blog or vlog about this. I've seen you write this enough times over the last few years(?), and linking to a longer-form argument may be worthwhile.
(I should do the same for the global power grid; there are some wrinkles I want to explore with that also).
It's trivial, really: heat and dust drag down conversion efficiency and panel life. There are just so many other, better places to put them that may continue being used.
I'm glad you say "cover all" because I think people underestimate by quite a lot how far PV and Lithium batteries can get you if you're not near the poles.
So today's tech, just with more deployment mostly solves this.
Yes there's room for Wind and heat batteries and all those other things, but even the brutally stupid approach of Solar PV and lithium batteries that we have today, without any new breakthroughs, is good enough to cover most of it.
People use more energy during the day, when the sun is up. Solar PV is the cheapest energy in history and broadly matches this daily profile.
So today's tech, just with more deployment mostly solves this.
Yes there's room for Wind and heat batteries and all those other things, but even the brutally stupid approach of Solar PV and lithium batteries that we have today, without any new breakthroughs, is good enough to cover most of it.
People use more energy during the day, when the sun is up. Solar PV is the cheapest energy in history and broadly matches this daily profile.
Not sure why you were downvoted, seems like a very valid concern. If we turned off oil and coal tomorrow the world would fall apart.
The OddLots podcast has been covering this issue on various episodes but the world of energy is a super complex system of competing interests. Ultimately we need energy to power our transition away to clean energy but the old energy industries have suffered from chronic underinvestment. There was some stat where a university course for oil (or coal?) had dropped to 1 student.
But as we're seeing, without supply prices start to shoot up so unless the world is prepared to undergo huge reduction of consumption, the transition will need to be gradual.
The OddLots podcast has been covering this issue on various episodes but the world of energy is a super complex system of competing interests. Ultimately we need energy to power our transition away to clean energy but the old energy industries have suffered from chronic underinvestment. There was some stat where a university course for oil (or coal?) had dropped to 1 student.
But as we're seeing, without supply prices start to shoot up so unless the world is prepared to undergo huge reduction of consumption, the transition will need to be gradual.
There is no danger or possibility of turning off oil or coal tomorrow, so it is a wholly idle concern. Concern trolling, really.
Demand will fall continuously, and supply will track it. The less of it utilities use, the less sensitive they will become to price, i.e. willing to pay more for it, when they need any at all. But as demand falls off, it will be harder to place what you have, if you have extra. So expect investment in sourcing to fall. These factors will make price volatile.
Industries still using mined hydrocarbons will look to get off them well before alternatives cost matches it, just because prices for alternatives will be more stable, falling on a predictable downward trend.
Demand will fall continuously, and supply will track it. The less of it utilities use, the less sensitive they will become to price, i.e. willing to pay more for it, when they need any at all. But as demand falls off, it will be harder to place what you have, if you have extra. So expect investment in sourcing to fall. These factors will make price volatile.
Industries still using mined hydrocarbons will look to get off them well before alternatives cost matches it, just because prices for alternatives will be more stable, falling on a predictable downward trend.
Yea.. it's a pretty long way to go to seamlessly pick up summer and some winter loads, though. Look at the CAISO supply trend on Sep 07 2022:
https://www.caiso.com/TodaysOutlook/Pages/supply.html
Similarly, examine it on Feb 07 2022.
https://www.caiso.com/TodaysOutlook/Pages/supply.html
Similarly, examine it on Feb 07 2022.
Its not clear what you intend us to conclude from that data.
I'd conclude that until solar has excesses on the peak demand days that it probably makes financial sense to keep rolling out more solar.
And that increase in excess on non-peak days then makes rolling out batteries make financial sense.
And then the presence of those batteries makes rolling out even more solar make sense.
And indeed that is what is happening.
I'd conclude that until solar has excesses on the peak demand days that it probably makes financial sense to keep rolling out more solar.
And that increase in excess on non-peak days then makes rolling out batteries make financial sense.
And then the presence of those batteries makes rolling out even more solar make sense.
And indeed that is what is happening.
Right, you only roll out storage as fast as you have overcapacity to charge it from.
The amount of storage build-out that justifies, thus far, is easy to accommodate with batteries. Later, as renewables shoulder more of the load, the storage needs to get bigger and you start looking for economies of scale.
Ultimately, instead of paying to build out long-term storage, most places will rely on imports of synthesized liquid fuel to burn in peaker plants, from places that produce excess reliably, e.g. tropics, for solar, and reliably windy places. It is always windy somewhere. That synthetic liquid fuel is most likely ammonia.
And, while waiting for those to come online and undercut NG, you just continue peaking with NG.
Today people are breaking ground for factories to build ammonia synthesis equipment, which will take remarkably long to finish and start producing. Then those need to build enough synthesis equipment to absorb hundreds and thousands of excess GW. And we will have ships to transport it in, tanks to keep it in.
All that is a huge job, but it will be done. The stuff that handles an equal amount of petroleum and NG was built and is used, and will wind down and be scrapped.
The amount of storage build-out that justifies, thus far, is easy to accommodate with batteries. Later, as renewables shoulder more of the load, the storage needs to get bigger and you start looking for economies of scale.
Ultimately, instead of paying to build out long-term storage, most places will rely on imports of synthesized liquid fuel to burn in peaker plants, from places that produce excess reliably, e.g. tropics, for solar, and reliably windy places. It is always windy somewhere. That synthetic liquid fuel is most likely ammonia.
And, while waiting for those to come online and undercut NG, you just continue peaking with NG.
Today people are breaking ground for factories to build ammonia synthesis equipment, which will take remarkably long to finish and start producing. Then those need to build enough synthesis equipment to absorb hundreds and thousands of excess GW. And we will have ships to transport it in, tanks to keep it in.
All that is a huge job, but it will be done. The stuff that handles an equal amount of petroleum and NG was built and is used, and will wind down and be scrapped.
Provided, of course, civilization doesn't collapse first.
If build-out matches predictions, collapse is an easy call. But build-out has been consistently beating predictions.
If build-out matches predictions, collapse is an easy call. But build-out has been consistently beating predictions.
If I'm reading this chart correctly on 2-07-22 solar production reached a peak of ~11MW and stayed their for about 6 hours.
On 9-7-22 solar production reached a peak just under ~13MW and was at that level for about 7/8 hours.
To me the average seasonal difference actually seems insignificant in the big picture. If its feasible for solar to power most energy on the summer days then it would be doable to get there for winter days especially since demand on 2-7-22 peaked at about 60% of the peak on 9-7-22.
The larger issues seem to be unpredictable off days due to off-season weather (cloud cover or wilfire ash or whatever) and of course storing power at night. But it seems like batteries will improve and running off solar on the day reduces need for natural gas until night.
On 9-7-22 solar production reached a peak just under ~13MW and was at that level for about 7/8 hours.
To me the average seasonal difference actually seems insignificant in the big picture. If its feasible for solar to power most energy on the summer days then it would be doable to get there for winter days especially since demand on 2-7-22 peaked at about 60% of the peak on 9-7-22.
The larger issues seem to be unpredictable off days due to off-season weather (cloud cover or wilfire ash or whatever) and of course storing power at night. But it seems like batteries will improve and running off solar on the day reduces need for natural gas until night.
That page shows me "-17MW" for solar, so I'm not sure what to make of that?
If you visit the link it loads todays info. The poster was intending us to select a specific date on the calendar to get the full days info not just the early morning.
Not totally sure why solar would ever be negative, but that's the wider explanation I think.
One possibility is that batteries are often colocated with solar, so possibly a solar/battery combination has been misfiled under solar.
Not totally sure why solar would ever be negative, but that's the wider explanation I think.
One possibility is that batteries are often colocated with solar, so possibly a solar/battery combination has been misfiled under solar.
Not to mention that a big fraction of those panels are made in china, and panels generally generate much less power after 20 or 30 years.
They're also vulnerable to hail, and require a lot of copper wiring.
I would buy any stock related to mini nuclear reactors. It seems like a promising solution, since it's faster and simpler to deploy, they can probably be sold to less rich countries, they're probably even safer.
I'm not a nuclear engineer, but I wish there was more news about it.
They're also vulnerable to hail, and require a lot of copper wiring.
I would buy any stock related to mini nuclear reactors. It seems like a promising solution, since it's faster and simpler to deploy, they can probably be sold to less rich countries, they're probably even safer.
I'm not a nuclear engineer, but I wish there was more news about it.
People have been hyping up small modular reactors for as long as I have been alive. They make total sense. And yet, there is not a single one is operation? I don't really care what tech gets us to cheap, abundant power, but given the cost curves of solar and batteries, it's hard to see anything competing.
Both are here, right now, and getting cheaper every year. Nuclear seems to be something climate skeptics points to as a way of doing nothing.
Both are here, right now, and getting cheaper every year. Nuclear seems to be something climate skeptics points to as a way of doing nothing.
It is probably more productive to talk about why certain technologies have and have not been adopted than to "take sides" in an artificial debate that, for some reason, pits nuclear against wind and solar.
The first small modular civilian reactor in the United States in 2022. However, the United States has been producing small modular reactors for military use since the late 1950s.
Ignore dogma and consider cases why nuclear power might be beneficial even if the dollar cost for wind and solar is globally lower: - The power output variance for nuclear is not very correlated with solar, wind, and hydro. Given the issues related to supply and demand variance, adding power sources whose variance isn't correlated with other power sources stabilizes supply and reduces risks of blackouts. - Solar, wind, and hydro are very geographically-dependent sources. To a small degree, so is nuclear— it requires cooling— but it can be built in places that aren't great choices for wind and solar. This means it's very useful for some local markets. - Nuclear has a different set of mineral requirements from batteries. In many ways, they are more complicated (e.g., enriching Uranium for light water reactors), but they are nonetheless different. Using nuclear alongside batteries reduces risk from mineral supply chains being broken.
Most of these effects run in both directions. Relying entirely on one source of energy is more risky than utilizing an ensemble of sources.
The first small modular civilian reactor in the United States in 2022. However, the United States has been producing small modular reactors for military use since the late 1950s.
Ignore dogma and consider cases why nuclear power might be beneficial even if the dollar cost for wind and solar is globally lower: - The power output variance for nuclear is not very correlated with solar, wind, and hydro. Given the issues related to supply and demand variance, adding power sources whose variance isn't correlated with other power sources stabilizes supply and reduces risks of blackouts. - Solar, wind, and hydro are very geographically-dependent sources. To a small degree, so is nuclear— it requires cooling— but it can be built in places that aren't great choices for wind and solar. This means it's very useful for some local markets. - Nuclear has a different set of mineral requirements from batteries. In many ways, they are more complicated (e.g., enriching Uranium for light water reactors), but they are nonetheless different. Using nuclear alongside batteries reduces risk from mineral supply chains being broken.
Most of these effects run in both directions. Relying entirely on one source of energy is more risky than utilizing an ensemble of sources.
Nukes just cost more. Always have, always will. Like geothermal, they depend on a steam turbine that is expensive to maintain. It is hard for anything with a steam turbine to compete with anything without.
Nukes have the extra ball-and-chain of huge capital cost to amortize over all the kWh they will produce over their lifetime. This means that if you end up operating only half time, there are half as many kWh to amortize over, and each kWh costs even more, making you even less competitive. (Operating a steam turbine less might reduce maintenance cost, but probably not if you are starting and stopping it every night, or if you keep it cycling to avoid that.)
So the expectation is that nukes will very quickly become unable to produce enough revenue to pay for continued operation. Then they are mothballed. Suddenly, all that capex is amortized over a much smaller lifetime kWh total, and the actual cost of every kWh ever produced jumps instantly to greater than you ever were able to charge for it. Then you go into receivership, or anyway write off that capex you thought you had invested, but really just poured down a hole.
Nukes have the extra ball-and-chain of huge capital cost to amortize over all the kWh they will produce over their lifetime. This means that if you end up operating only half time, there are half as many kWh to amortize over, and each kWh costs even more, making you even less competitive. (Operating a steam turbine less might reduce maintenance cost, but probably not if you are starting and stopping it every night, or if you keep it cycling to avoid that.)
So the expectation is that nukes will very quickly become unable to produce enough revenue to pay for continued operation. Then they are mothballed. Suddenly, all that capex is amortized over a much smaller lifetime kWh total, and the actual cost of every kWh ever produced jumps instantly to greater than you ever were able to charge for it. Then you go into receivership, or anyway write off that capex you thought you had invested, but really just poured down a hole.
In the context of CO2 emissions, money doesn't matter, only resources and physical units do.
Money matters in that you can spend it building and operating nukes, or building renewables. You can't spend the same dollar on both, but the dollar spent on renewables gets you more kW than the same dollar spent on nukes.
We will need every non-carbon kW we can muster.
We will need every non-carbon kW we can muster.
Why? OK. The reason why nuclear has not been adopted is that society has taken against it. Politicians respond to what people want, and create rules and roadblocks.
There are alternatives that can fill the same roles you envisage for nuclear. We'll get some of those instead.
Don't talk to us nerds, go knocking on doors and persuade soccer moms and instagram influencers that nuclear is safest, cheapest, best for their kiddies. That's who you need to convince.
There are alternatives that can fill the same roles you envisage for nuclear. We'll get some of those instead.
Don't talk to us nerds, go knocking on doors and persuade soccer moms and instagram influencers that nuclear is safest, cheapest, best for their kiddies. That's who you need to convince.
The people you need to convince are the people with money making the decisions. They look at nuclear and see a loser technology that consistently overpromises and underdelivers, and blows throw its cost promises again and again. In comparison, utility scale renewable installations dependably come in with 10% of the contracted figures.
V.C. Summer and Vogtle 3/4 were the nails in the coffin for nuclear here in the US. Nuclear has no time now to rebuild a reputation for honesty.
Soccer moms and instagram influencers have nothing to do with this.
V.C. Summer and Vogtle 3/4 were the nails in the coffin for nuclear here in the US. Nuclear has no time now to rebuild a reputation for honesty.
Soccer moms and instagram influencers have nothing to do with this.
They have votes. Politicians do what they say.
Politicians have arranged to be well-insulated from what soccer moms want. Soccer moms, meanwhile, are what we call a "managed population". They vote as they are told to. Not just them, of course.
We are living in the world Edward Bernays built, where democracy holds vanishingly little sway as PR machinery reliably generates votes for whatever whoever pays it wants.
Sometimes opposing payers compete.
We are living in the world Edward Bernays built, where democracy holds vanishingly little sway as PR machinery reliably generates votes for whatever whoever pays it wants.
Sometimes opposing payers compete.
We shouldn't assume that pro-nuclear people are climate skeptics, anymore than we should assume that anti-nuclear people are fossil fuel advocates. German renewables politicians voted to get natural gas declared as green, and on the opposite side of the political debate we had nuclear politicians, both accusing the other side of being climate skeptics.
We should not care what tech get us to cheap, abundant, emission-free power, and the current trends from nations around the world points in multiple directions. We don't see examples of cheap small modular reactors, but we also don't have national grids that operates exclusively on solar and batteries. Solar seem to have the best cost curve, while short duration batteries looks great in replacing natural gas when those are used in short (a few hours) duration. Battery technology is also looking great to replace grid stabilizers, ie something to temporary supply or take energy when energy plants on the grid boots up or goes winds down.
Skeptics of solar and batteries is generally directed towards the idea of replacing all worlds existing fossil fueled power plants. Replacing them all with nuclear looks conceptional feasible. Getting the solar capacity up to 100% seems also feasible, but batteries is generally were people start to have doubts.
We should not care what tech get us to cheap, abundant, emission-free power, and the current trends from nations around the world points in multiple directions. We don't see examples of cheap small modular reactors, but we also don't have national grids that operates exclusively on solar and batteries. Solar seem to have the best cost curve, while short duration batteries looks great in replacing natural gas when those are used in short (a few hours) duration. Battery technology is also looking great to replace grid stabilizers, ie something to temporary supply or take energy when energy plants on the grid boots up or goes winds down.
Skeptics of solar and batteries is generally directed towards the idea of replacing all worlds existing fossil fueled power plants. Replacing them all with nuclear looks conceptional feasible. Getting the solar capacity up to 100% seems also feasible, but batteries is generally were people start to have doubts.
> since it's faster and simpler to deploy
No it isn't, as demonstrated by all the solar being installed alongside the zero mini nuclear reactors.
> require a lot of copper wiring
Intuitively I'd expect the quantity of wiring to be roughly proportional to output power, regardless of method; how much do you need for the coils of reactor turbines, for example?
> panels generally generate much less power after 20 or 30 years.
Maybe? That's the expected lifetime, but the actual outcome will vary depending on how weather-beaten they are. Being entirely solid state with no moving parts larger than an electron-hole pair is quite an advantage.
> can probably be sold to less rich countries
We're just going to stop worrying about proliferation?
No it isn't, as demonstrated by all the solar being installed alongside the zero mini nuclear reactors.
> require a lot of copper wiring
Intuitively I'd expect the quantity of wiring to be roughly proportional to output power, regardless of method; how much do you need for the coils of reactor turbines, for example?
> panels generally generate much less power after 20 or 30 years.
Maybe? That's the expected lifetime, but the actual outcome will vary depending on how weather-beaten they are. Being entirely solid state with no moving parts larger than an electron-hole pair is quite an advantage.
> can probably be sold to less rich countries
We're just going to stop worrying about proliferation?
per energy output, nuclear reactors require less metal, concrete, steel, etc.
I used to be pro-nuclear. But the war in Ukraine stopped that. One does not need to be a president of Russia to bomb a nuclear reactor. A crazy guy at top of even small country can clearly manage to destroy reactors with modern conventional weapons releasing a lot of radioactivity. Smaller reactors increase that risk exponentially simply by having more targets closer to densely populated areas.
Fusion reactors in theory can be much safer in that regard, but until they are realized and shown to work I do not see any sensible alternative for building solar or wind while keeping coal and gas power stations running.
Fusion reactors in theory can be much safer in that regard, but until they are realized and shown to work I do not see any sensible alternative for building solar or wind while keeping coal and gas power stations running.
Fusion plants according to current projected designs would not, in fact, be appreciably safer. It is academic, because they would be 10s to 1000s of times as expensive as what they would be competing with, so will not be built.
D-3He reactors might someday find uses in the outer solar system, or in military rapid-deployment corps, if they turn out possible. But availability of 3He will always be a problem. Probably it will be bred by using solar power to accelerate protons.
D-3He reactors might someday find uses in the outer solar system, or in military rapid-deployment corps, if they turn out possible. But availability of 3He will always be a problem. Probably it will be bred by using solar power to accelerate protons.
Nuclear plants take too long to get up and running to help us with the climate crisis that is here now. We can meet all our needs with renewables and storage.
Who cares that the panels are mostly made in China? Most of the electronics that would control your hypothetical nuclear plant would be made in China too.
Who cares that the panels are mostly made in China? Most of the electronics that would control your hypothetical nuclear plant would be made in China too.
Why does the wiring of PV panels have to be copper? The wiring (aside from the contact wires actually on the cells themselves) is not volume constrained, so I'd expect aluminum to be used, not copper.
Brometheus(2)
The biggest unknown right now is how FERC 2222 is going to play out. It essentially allows consumer solar to be aggregated and sold on the wholesale markets. As aggregators come online and prices fluctuate there are going to be even more regulations as federal and state officials find flaws and gaps in how the system works.
I tend to lean toward battery storage as being the piece that will tip the scale. As more efficient and longer lasting batteries come online, grid ops will become a bit easier and some of the DER capacity that would typically be shed could be stored for later needs.
I tend to lean toward battery storage as being the piece that will tip the scale. As more efficient and longer lasting batteries come online, grid ops will become a bit easier and some of the DER capacity that would typically be shed could be stored for later needs.
I'm actually pro-solar, and plan to get it eventually, but I think the scaminess surrounding it will put a nasty taste in people's mouths for years to come.