8 ms·

Cheap Solar Power

174 points by SushiMon 10y ago

thrownaway2424 10y ago
When will this "duck pricing" actually trickle down to consumers? I'm on a PG&E rate plan that charges me an incredible $0.75/kWh during the afternoons of selected days. According to the figures in the CAISO paper, these are the hours of least net demand.
- pilom 10y ago
  The CAISO paper looked at January and March. In the summer when air conditioners come on, the graph would have no dip and afternoons become the peak rather than evenings.
  - thrownaway2424 10y ago
    Ah, that makes some sense. Still, doesn't solar hack the top off that afternoon peak in the summer?
- djrogers 10y ago
  >I'm on a PG&E rate plan that charges me an incredible $0.75/kWh during the afternoons of selected days. Yeah, PG&E is practically begging their customers to install solar. The biggest savings come on the days/times with the best solar potential, and dropping out of that highest tiers can be a real win.
  - thrownaway2424 10y ago
    You think so? It seems like the rate system is stacked against solar. They just made the top tier cheaper, and raised the bottom tier so that your very first joule costs more. If you had installed solar based on the savings of staying out of the top tiers, now your payoff looks less certain.
    - djrogers 10y ago
      The top tier is still 3.5-4x the cost of the bottom tier, making for a big chunk of your bill to whack off with a smallish solar setup
tvchurch 10y ago
"Admits" seems a bit harsh, like he was doing his best to hide something from the world. By all accounts, it looks like he had written out a reasonable explanation as to why he predicted solar would not become cost effective. At the end of the day, if something doesn't make financial sense, it won't last long without subsidies from the government. The assumptions behind his predictions changed and therefore so did the conclusion. Seems pretty reasonable. Like he says, solar power's intermittency is still an issue in non-sunny places, but in areas with lots of sunlight, the landscape of power generation is changing for the better.
- Amorymeltzer 10y ago
  I particularly liked his point about bringing processes with a high electricity demand to those areas and cutting down on cost across the board. He gives aluminum, ammonia, and desalination as examples, which could do a lot for reducing costs of production while still overall "greening" the process. If they can take advantage of the cycling in prices, I can see regions like the American Southwest selling this as a business incentive.
  - fovc 10y ago
    It's not a novel idea. E.g., Dubai produces a lot of aluminum, since importing ore and exporting Al is cheaper than exporting natural gas. [1] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dubal https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dubal
    - ZeroGravitas 10y ago
      Hydro power and aluminium are a traditional combo too.
  - ThrustVectoring 10y ago
    The transportation fuels example is even more exciting, IMO. Transportation fuels are basically simple hydrocarbons that burn with oxygen to turn into CO2 and H2O. There's only engineering, capital, and energy costs that need to be overcome - then we can run that process in reverse and turning our current transportation infrastructure carbon-neutral.
kamran20 10y ago
Wind and geothermal is good options as well. The biggest problem is storage.
- yoodenvranx 10y ago
  A big problem with wind energy in Germany is a very vocal minority of old people who think that wind park visually destructs nature and it looks horrible. Personally I think wind parks look awesome but there is a lot of opposition.
  - tvchurch 10y ago
    That's what I mean. Wind might be generated "for free," but one cost is what it looks like. Another is how many birds it kills a year. (http://www.smithsonianmag.com/smart-news/how-many-birds-do-wind-turbines-really-kill-180948154/?no-ist http://www.smithsonianmag.com/smart-news/how-many-birds-do-w...) That's not to say we shouldn't build it. Just that we need to consider what it costs before we do.
    - ZeroGravitas 10y ago
      If you check what bird conservation organisations say, they are generally pro wind power, because most of the alternatives are worse for birds. They do want to avoid building them on busy migration routes though. Amazingly popular talking point amongst hypocritical fossil fuel industry supporters and semi-professional contrarians though.
      - tvchurch 10y ago
        Sure. Anyone pro- or anti-wind will say whatever argument they can to try to convince people. All I'm saying is before we decide to build more wind turbines, we should have an honest accounting of all of the benefits and costs laid out. There are locations where they make sense and places where they don't. And there are levels where some government support might make sense, and some levels where they don't. Even if people support one form of power generation over another, there should always be a limit.
dmvaldman 10y ago
So if this has the potential to change the future energy economy, what are some good investments to make now? Should I be looking at SolarCity, who sell the panels, or the energy companies like Sempra, PG&E, Edison? Something else?
- pyoung 10y ago
  Probably the safest 'investment' you can make is to put panels on your roof (assuming your utility is supportive, barring that wait for batteries to get cheap/good). Solar stocks are a minefield at the moment (largely thanks to SunEd[1]). There are also things called yield co's which are holding companies for energy projects that largely focus on dividends. They are kinda like REITs. But it is worth mentioning that these are relatively new investment vehicles, and they still share some risk with the parent company[2] [1] http://www.latimes.com/business/la-fi-sunedison-collapse-20160504-story.html http://www.latimes.com/business/la-fi-sunedison-collapse-201... [2] http://www.reuters.com/article/us-sunedison-inc-yieldco-idUSKCN0XM0A2 http://www.reuters.com/article/us-sunedison-inc-yieldco-idUS...
beat 10y ago
That's fascinating. I especially like where he's going on the cost of synthetic gasoline. I'm a little iffy on it (what's the source for CO2 by the ton? Atmosphere?), but if sufficiently cheap solar electricity can generate gasoline straight from the air at a price that rivals fossil fuel, it both solves the storage problem (gasoline is wonderful high density storage), and makes banning fossil fuel via regulation an achievable goal.
- danielweber 10y ago
  I always ask about synthetic fuels as an alternative to electric vehicles and have never gotten a good answer on it. We already have a huge liquid fuel distribution network built up. Why re-invent the wheel?
  - beat 10y ago
    Cost. Synthetic fuels are very expensive. The ethanol industry sucks - it's just a fancy crop subsidy.
    - epistasis 10y ago
      That's a biofuel, not a synthetic fuel. The difference being biological process versus a chemical synthesis process. BTW, I accidentally downvoted you, did not mean to! Sorry for the loss of an internet point. It wasn't mean to discourage your comment.
      - beat 10y ago
        Synthetic fuels have it even worse, I think, in terms of cost. Unless we can get a really cheap form of electricity that is clean (solar) and connect it to a process that it more efficient than simply growing corn (or other biomass), then synthetic fuels will have the same problem. They can't be cost-competitive with fossil fuels without massive subsidy.
        epistasis 10y ago
brooklyndavs 10y ago
A bit off topic.... Currently Hydro power makes up a small (6%) but significant portion of the energy mix in the US. https://www.eia.gov/tools/faqs/faq.cfm?id=427&t=3 https://www.eia.gov/tools/faqs/faq.cfm?id=427&t=3 When you look at just the clean energy sources in the US this percentage is greater obviously. Also, other countries rely more on Hydro than the US (Canada and China come to mind). Has there been modeling done on what global warming will do to those Hydro power sources? For example, I can imagine drought is not good for reliable Hydro power. Has declining Hydro power been accounted for in possible future clean energy mixes?
buovjaga 10y ago
Keith is one of the authors of the Ecomodernist Manifesto (2015). In the Manifesto they say: The scale of land use and other environmental impacts necessary to power the world on biofuels or many other renewables are such that we doubt they provide a sound pathway to a zero-carbon low-footprint future. High-efficiency solar cells produced from earth-abundant materials are an exception and have the potential to provide many tens of terawatts on a few percent of the Earth’s surface. Present-day solar technologies will require substantial innovation to meet this standard and the development of cheap energy storage technologies that are capable of dealing with highly variable energy generation at large scales. Nuclear fission today represents the only present-day zero-carbon technology with the demonstrated ability to meet most, if not all, of the energy demands of a modern economy. However, a variety of social, economic, and institutional challenges make deployment of present-day nuclear technologies at scales necessary to achieve significant climate mitigation unlikely. A new generation of nuclear technologies that are safer and cheaper will likely be necessary for nuclear energy to meet its full potential as a critical climate mitigation technology.
- evolve2k 10y ago
  Ref: http://www.ecomodernism.org http://www.ecomodernism.org
vackosar 10y ago
Is solar using rare metals that we will run out of soon? So will in the end solar fail anyway?
- wmeredith 10y ago
  "Limited supplies of five rare-earth minerals pose a threat to increasing use of clean-energy technologies such as wind turbines and solar panels, a U.S. Energy Department report found." Source is from 2012: http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2012-01-05/five-rare-earths-crucial-for-clean-energy-seen-in-short-supply http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2012-01-05/five-rare-...
  - epistasis 10y ago
    >The substances -- dysprosium, terbium, europium, neodymium and yttrium -- face potential shortages until 2015, according to the report, which reiterates concerns identified a year ago. So, it's past 2015, apparently these shortages didn't materialize.
fancy_pantser 10y ago
I wish there was more analysis around energy storage (mainly because that's what my startup does). I think it's often overlooked in the press when talking about the future of solar. We're working to flatten the duck curve that solar created.
- jes5199 10y ago
  I would love to see some good numbers about how much it costs to do grid-scale storage and how those costs are changing over time
amalantony06 10y ago
Given that Solar power is the fundamental source of energy leading to petroleum based energy (starting with photosynthesis), it's surprising that we still rely on petroleum to the degree we do today. In 100 years this would perhaps be something people would find shocking (like how we are shocked today at how mainstream slavery used to be 150 odd years ago). Solar Energy is unlimited, cheap and clean. My guess would be that energy will eventually end up being near free.
- angli 10y ago
  It's not as surprising as you'd think. The basic problem is energy density and availability. Human beings don't directly photosynthesize for clear reasons. Solar power isn't available constantly and is too diffuse to power us in real-time. Instead, we eat plants (or animals, which is just another layer of indirection) that have photosynthesized over time and stored up that energy - we then convert that energy so we can metabolize it as needed. The same thing is happening with petroleum. It's denser and more flexible than the sun. These are real constraints that have led us to use these sources of energy and prioritize them. They're not insurmountable - I think as prices fall we'll see more research into storage, I believe panel efficiency is going up - but the path of least resistance is a powerful force.
  - toomuchtodo 10y ago
    > Human beings don't directly photosynthesize for clear reasons. I've always wondered why humans did not evolve to photosynthesize, and am interested if they could be permitted to evolve to using CRISPR.
    - icefo 10y ago
      Photosynthesis is terribly inefficient, something like 5-6% of the light is actually used to make glucose out of CO2 because the process is quite complex and humans don't have a huge skin surface. That's my opinion
      - 10y ago
BatFastard 10y ago
Could this be a solution in the EU's problem of bringing jobs and wealth to North Africa? Thereby encouraging immigrants to stay in their homeland? The Sahara has some of the Sunniest sky's in the world. Maybe its time to spend a few hundred billion and build those solar plants in North Africa.
- _FKS_ 10y ago
  It also has high winds with airborne, highly abrasive sand. Panels don't last long there unless you clean them daily. I can't immagine that happening for utility-scale installations.
- roel_v 10y ago
  Panels would be build elsewhere, installation is once in two or three decades, maintenance is minimal and low skill. The only profit is land lease, which will only benefit those that have plenty of money already. So I think no, this won't bring jobs or wealth to North Africa.
- zanny 10y ago
  Unless you mean to build solar manufacturing plants, which even then have very limited applicability for unskilled human labor, the installation and upkeep of solar are absolutely nothing compared to the human cost of coal, oil, or even to a lesser degree nuclear.
josefresco 10y ago
"It does not mean rooftop solar in New England makes sense" Someone forgot to tell my neighbors - in New England. Rooftop solar everywhere.
forrestthewoods 10y ago
I'll start paying attention when a solar company is formed and becomes profitable without any reliance on subsidies. I'm not holding my breath.
deleted 10y ago
[deleted]
homido 10y ago
If solar is such a good investment, why aren't power companies creating solar fields with a sense of urgency? Sure, there are a token few, but this is mainly for PR reasons or funded by grants ETC. When businesses (wholesalers and consumers) start going to solar on a grand scale, Solar will have finally arrived as a cost effective alternative. Wake me when this happens.
- sunstone 10y ago
  Wake up! It's happening already in places with lots of sun (or high electricity costs). Examples are, much of Australia, Hawaii, California and others. As solar gets cheaper the viable territory expands.
  - homido 10y ago
    What major power companies or private organization are doing this? (besides as a tax write-off)? None that I know of sunny climate or not. Even when they are, most aren't in these climates so wake me up when solar comes there in this fashion.
_FKS_ 10y ago
In the meanwhile, a few other sources argue that the overall ERORI (energy invested vs. energy produced) is well below a somehow 'sustainable' level. The impression I'm getting is that the day oil/gas production starts to fall due to geological limits, so will the production of photovoltaic & windmills. Please see: https://collapseofindustrialcivilization.files.wordpress.com/2016/05/ferroni-y-hopkirk-2016-energy-return-on-energy-invested-eroei-for-photo.pdf https://collapseofindustrialcivilization.files.wordpress.com... And: http://science-and-energy.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/03/20160307-Des-Houches-Case-Study-for-Solar-PV.pdf http://science-and-energy.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/03/201... And: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mqhC6uI8TUY https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mqhC6uI8TUY (for french speakers out there) Please do convince me that we can run the current industrial civilization, at current rates of energy usage, with only solar & wind, on a long enough run, without oil.
- maxerickson 10y ago
  The first link is about installing panels in regions of moderate insolation like Germany. Areas with more sun make more sense.
- deleted 10y ago
  [deleted]
- marcosdumay 10y ago
  If solar power is cheaper than coal without subsides, it has greater than 1 EROEI by a big margin, and the question is settled. Bottom-up studies suffer from a big diversity of flaws, and there are plenty of them with obvious bias both ways.
  - _FKS_ 10y ago
    Fossil fuels are the base subsidy. It's hard to see how a manufactured product will be cheaper than fosil fuels consumed on the spot (as coal is primarly a local consumption resource). Also the economy of scale principle works here too: how can a (coal) thermal plant which feeds a region, cities, can be replaced by a collection of small scale devices that produce electricity, and pretend to be cheaper? Nothing will ever be cheaper than coal to produce electricity. There's a good reason why the industrial revolution started with coal and not with renewables (which for the record were already available in Europe for a few centuries before that - it was already widely used since the 12th century)
djrogers 10y ago
I really have to take exception with a statement in the opening here: > rooftop solar seem systems which are (arguably) little more than green bling for the wealthy My rooftop solar system (installed in late 2013) is 2.5 years in to what is looking to be a 5.9 year break-even point. After 6 years I will be earning $4-5k/year from it. Even if I had financed this (not a solar lease, those are usually structured so the leasing company gets all the benefits) at a high interest rate, it would turn out to be one of my best investments on a $/return basis. The fact that basically don't have a monthly power bill (which is substantial in hot parts of PG&E land) is my #1 benefit here, as reducing my monthly budget by that amount makes the rest of my life that much nicer. The fact that I have reduced my 'carbon footprint' is barely on my radar compared to the financial benefits here.... I did find it crazy that the installer/designer wanted to know if I wanted more visible colors, or a portion of the panels facing the from top the house so they were more noticeable. I suppose some people just have to green-signal...
- xrange 10y ago
  >After 6 years I will be earning $4-5k/year from it. Can you point us in the direction of a good write-up on net-metering? I'm sure different jurisdictions have different rules. I was under the impression that net metering was only good up until your yearly production was equal to your demand. Or are you saying that the $4-5k/year is at wholesale rates?
  - djrogers 10y ago
    If I'm not paying that $4-5k to PG&E, and the installation costs have been recouped, then that $4-5k/yr is profit. Money is fungible - if you manage it well, you get the same net effect from preventing it's loss as you do from earning it.
    - xrange 10y ago
      Ah, got it. Thanks. Although if anyone has a good article on net metering, I'd like to read it.
dang 10y ago
Submitters: Please don't editorialize titles when submitting stories. The HN guidelines ask you to use the original title unless it is misleading or linkbait. https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html (Submitted title was "Harvard Physicist, Long-Time Solar Skeptic Admits Solar Power Now Makes Sense".)
ck2 10y ago
Imagine an earth 1000 years from now where countries on one side of the planet help out the other side via solar power through superconducting power cables that have little power loss over 10,000 miles. Since each side gets sunlight somewhere, no batteries needed. Of course 1000 years from now they could solve the battery problem too where each residence has its own low cost, safe storage. Or 1000 years from now terrorists dirty-bomb everyone. Sigh.
- xrange 10y ago
  >Or 1000 years from now terrorists dirty-bomb everyone. ...Well, on a more optimistic note, a dirty-bombs, while they may destroy property values and cause cleanup issues, don't really kill any more than a conventional/kinetic bomb. I think they may be one of the best-case scenarios when it comes to a terrorist strike, since the causalities will be low, but there will be a lot of "frenzy" about the invisible radiation. (I'm sure someone will correct me if I'm wrong, or if there are silent aerosolized short-half-life "bombs" in existence that are "detonated" secretly inside of buildings so that people are accumulating long term exposures unknowingly). Also, I wouldn't be surprised if room-ish temperature superconductors appear much sooner than 1,000 years from now. And it will definitively be interesting to see how high of energy densities SMES (Superconducting Magnetic Energy Storage) will get to in the next 20 years with existing cryogenic superconductors. http://snf.ieeecsc.org/abstracts/stp443-high-field-hts-smes-coil http://snf.ieeecsc.org/abstracts/stp443-high-field-hts-smes-...
  - ck2 10y ago
    Look at all the cancer from 9/11 and that was just fine particles in the air. Now imagine radioactive fine particles with half-life of decades. Sure, the death isn't instantaneous. But the suffering and early death will be massive. After the US nuked Japan (twice) the real damage was to those left living for the short time afterwards and all the radioactivity an slow death.
jernfrost 10y ago
So year after year it is becoming evident that solar is the future and yet very little seems to happen elsewhere to accommodate this. Solar cells produce DC. Batteries which can store the solar power uses DC. Our iPhones, laptops, flat screens, electric cars use DC. Yet the connection between this DC power production and DC power consumption happens with an AC line wasting power. It is also a dumb line. Solar power production varies considerably and a lot of power consumption is flexible but we don't have any intelligence built into the power distribution network to be able to tell devices when to use power and when not to. Imagine if smart cables went into our laptops so they could charge when power was abundant/cheap and use battery when it wasn't. Electric cars could automatically start charging when power was cheap and stop when it got expensive. Washing machines could have timer function which would start them as soon as power prices were low.

174 points by SushiMon 10y ago

When will this "duck pricing" actually trickle down to consumers? I'm on a PG&E rate plan that charges me an incredible $0.75/kWh during the afternoons of selected days. According to the figures in the CAISO paper, these are the hours of least net demand.

pilom 10y ago
The CAISO paper looked at January and March. In the summer when air conditioners come on, the graph would have no dip and afternoons become the peak rather than evenings.
- thrownaway2424 10y ago
  Ah, that makes some sense. Still, doesn't solar hack the top off that afternoon peak in the summer?
djrogers 10y ago
>I'm on a PG&E rate plan that charges me an incredible $0.75/kWh during the afternoons of selected days. Yeah, PG&E is practically begging their customers to install solar. The biggest savings come on the days/times with the best solar potential, and dropping out of that highest tiers can be a real win.
- thrownaway2424 10y ago
  You think so? It seems like the rate system is stacked against solar. They just made the top tier cheaper, and raised the bottom tier so that your very first joule costs more. If you had installed solar based on the savings of staying out of the top tiers, now your payoff looks less certain.
  - djrogers 10y ago
    The top tier is still 3.5-4x the cost of the bottom tier, making for a big chunk of your bill to whack off with a smallish solar setup

tvchurch 10y ago

"Admits" seems a bit harsh, like he was doing his best to hide something from the world. By all accounts, it looks like he had written out a reasonable explanation as to why he predicted solar would not become cost effective. At the end of the day, if something doesn't make financial sense, it won't last long without subsidies from the government. The assumptions behind his predictions changed and therefore so did the conclusion. Seems pretty reasonable. Like he says, solar power's intermittency is still an issue in non-sunny places, but in areas with lots of sunlight, the landscape of power generation is changing for the better.

Amorymeltzer 10y ago
I particularly liked his point about bringing processes with a high electricity demand to those areas and cutting down on cost across the board. He gives aluminum, ammonia, and desalination as examples, which could do a lot for reducing costs of production while still overall "greening" the process. If they can take advantage of the cycling in prices, I can see regions like the American Southwest selling this as a business incentive.
- fovc 10y ago
  It's not a novel idea. E.g., Dubai produces a lot of aluminum, since importing ore and exporting Al is cheaper than exporting natural gas. [1] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dubal https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dubal
  - ZeroGravitas 10y ago
    Hydro power and aluminium are a traditional combo too.
- ThrustVectoring 10y ago
  The transportation fuels example is even more exciting, IMO. Transportation fuels are basically simple hydrocarbons that burn with oxygen to turn into CO2 and H2O. There's only engineering, capital, and energy costs that need to be overcome - then we can run that process in reverse and turning our current transportation infrastructure carbon-neutral.

kamran20 10y ago

Wind and geothermal is good options as well. The biggest problem is storage.

yoodenvranx 10y ago
A big problem with wind energy in Germany is a very vocal minority of old people who think that wind park visually destructs nature and it looks horrible. Personally I think wind parks look awesome but there is a lot of opposition.
- tvchurch 10y ago
  That's what I mean. Wind might be generated "for free," but one cost is what it looks like. Another is how many birds it kills a year. (http://www.smithsonianmag.com/smart-news/how-many-birds-do-wind-turbines-really-kill-180948154/?no-ist http://www.smithsonianmag.com/smart-news/how-many-birds-do-w...) That's not to say we shouldn't build it. Just that we need to consider what it costs before we do.
  - ZeroGravitas 10y ago
    If you check what bird conservation organisations say, they are generally pro wind power, because most of the alternatives are worse for birds. They do want to avoid building them on busy migration routes though. Amazingly popular talking point amongst hypocritical fossil fuel industry supporters and semi-professional contrarians though.
    - tvchurch 10y ago
      Sure. Anyone pro- or anti-wind will say whatever argument they can to try to convince people. All I'm saying is before we decide to build more wind turbines, we should have an honest accounting of all of the benefits and costs laid out. There are locations where they make sense and places where they don't. And there are levels where some government support might make sense, and some levels where they don't. Even if people support one form of power generation over another, there should always be a limit.

dmvaldman 10y ago

So if this has the potential to change the future energy economy, what are some good investments to make now? Should I be looking at SolarCity, who sell the panels, or the energy companies like Sempra, PG&E, Edison? Something else?

pyoung 10y ago
Probably the safest 'investment' you can make is to put panels on your roof (assuming your utility is supportive, barring that wait for batteries to get cheap/good). Solar stocks are a minefield at the moment (largely thanks to SunEd[1]). There are also things called yield co's which are holding companies for energy projects that largely focus on dividends. They are kinda like REITs. But it is worth mentioning that these are relatively new investment vehicles, and they still share some risk with the parent company[2] [1] http://www.latimes.com/business/la-fi-sunedison-collapse-20160504-story.html http://www.latimes.com/business/la-fi-sunedison-collapse-201... [2] http://www.reuters.com/article/us-sunedison-inc-yieldco-idUSKCN0XM0A2 http://www.reuters.com/article/us-sunedison-inc-yieldco-idUS...

beat 10y ago

That's fascinating. I especially like where he's going on the cost of synthetic gasoline. I'm a little iffy on it (what's the source for CO2 by the ton? Atmosphere?), but if sufficiently cheap solar electricity can generate gasoline straight from the air at a price that rivals fossil fuel, it both solves the storage problem (gasoline is wonderful high density storage), and makes banning fossil fuel via regulation an achievable goal.

danielweber 10y ago
I always ask about synthetic fuels as an alternative to electric vehicles and have never gotten a good answer on it. We already have a huge liquid fuel distribution network built up. Why re-invent the wheel?
- beat 10y ago
  Cost. Synthetic fuels are very expensive. The ethanol industry sucks - it's just a fancy crop subsidy.
  - epistasis 10y ago
    That's a biofuel, not a synthetic fuel. The difference being biological process versus a chemical synthesis process. BTW, I accidentally downvoted you, did not mean to! Sorry for the loss of an internet point. It wasn't mean to discourage your comment.
    - beat 10y ago
      Synthetic fuels have it even worse, I think, in terms of cost. Unless we can get a really cheap form of electricity that is clean (solar) and connect it to a process that it more efficient than simply growing corn (or other biomass), then synthetic fuels will have the same problem. They can't be cost-competitive with fossil fuels without massive subsidy.
      - epistasis 10y ago

brooklyndavs 10y ago

A bit off topic.... Currently Hydro power makes up a small (6%) but significant portion of the energy mix in the US. https://www.eia.gov/tools/faqs/faq.cfm?id=427&t=3 https://www.eia.gov/tools/faqs/faq.cfm?id=427&t=3 When you look at just the clean energy sources in the US this percentage is greater obviously. Also, other countries rely more on Hydro than the US (Canada and China come to mind). Has there been modeling done on what global warming will do to those Hydro power sources? For example, I can imagine drought is not good for reliable Hydro power. Has declining Hydro power been accounted for in possible future clean energy mixes?

buovjaga 10y ago

Keith is one of the authors of the Ecomodernist Manifesto (2015). In the Manifesto they say: The scale of land use and other environmental impacts necessary to power the world on biofuels or many other renewables are such that we doubt they provide a sound pathway to a zero-carbon low-footprint future. High-efficiency solar cells produced from earth-abundant materials are an exception and have the potential to provide many tens of terawatts on a few percent of the Earth’s surface. Present-day solar technologies will require substantial innovation to meet this standard and the development of cheap energy storage technologies that are capable of dealing with highly variable energy generation at large scales. Nuclear fission today represents the only present-day zero-carbon technology with the demonstrated ability to meet most, if not all, of the energy demands of a modern economy. However, a variety of social, economic, and institutional challenges make deployment of present-day nuclear technologies at scales necessary to achieve significant climate mitigation unlikely. A new generation of nuclear technologies that are safer and cheaper will likely be necessary for nuclear energy to meet its full potential as a critical climate mitigation technology.

evolve2k 10y ago
Ref: http://www.ecomodernism.org http://www.ecomodernism.org

vackosar 10y ago

Is solar using rare metals that we will run out of soon? So will in the end solar fail anyway?

wmeredith 10y ago
"Limited supplies of five rare-earth minerals pose a threat to increasing use of clean-energy technologies such as wind turbines and solar panels, a U.S. Energy Department report found." Source is from 2012: http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2012-01-05/five-rare-earths-crucial-for-clean-energy-seen-in-short-supply http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2012-01-05/five-rare-...
- epistasis 10y ago
  >The substances -- dysprosium, terbium, europium, neodymium and yttrium -- face potential shortages until 2015, according to the report, which reiterates concerns identified a year ago. So, it's past 2015, apparently these shortages didn't materialize.

fancy_pantser 10y ago

I wish there was more analysis around energy storage (mainly because that's what my startup does). I think it's often overlooked in the press when talking about the future of solar. We're working to flatten the duck curve that solar created.

jes5199 10y ago
I would love to see some good numbers about how much it costs to do grid-scale storage and how those costs are changing over time

amalantony06 10y ago

Given that Solar power is the fundamental source of energy leading to petroleum based energy (starting with photosynthesis), it's surprising that we still rely on petroleum to the degree we do today. In 100 years this would perhaps be something people would find shocking (like how we are shocked today at how mainstream slavery used to be 150 odd years ago). Solar Energy is unlimited, cheap and clean. My guess would be that energy will eventually end up being near free.

angli 10y ago
It's not as surprising as you'd think. The basic problem is energy density and availability. Human beings don't directly photosynthesize for clear reasons. Solar power isn't available constantly and is too diffuse to power us in real-time. Instead, we eat plants (or animals, which is just another layer of indirection) that have photosynthesized over time and stored up that energy - we then convert that energy so we can metabolize it as needed. The same thing is happening with petroleum. It's denser and more flexible than the sun. These are real constraints that have led us to use these sources of energy and prioritize them. They're not insurmountable - I think as prices fall we'll see more research into storage, I believe panel efficiency is going up - but the path of least resistance is a powerful force.
- toomuchtodo 10y ago
  > Human beings don't directly photosynthesize for clear reasons. I've always wondered why humans did not evolve to photosynthesize, and am interested if they could be permitted to evolve to using CRISPR.
  - icefo 10y ago
    Photosynthesis is terribly inefficient, something like 5-6% of the light is actually used to make glucose out of CO2 because the process is quite complex and humans don't have a huge skin surface. That's my opinion
    - 10y ago

BatFastard 10y ago

Could this be a solution in the EU's problem of bringing jobs and wealth to North Africa? Thereby encouraging immigrants to stay in their homeland? The Sahara has some of the Sunniest sky's in the world. Maybe its time to spend a few hundred billion and build those solar plants in North Africa.

_FKS_ 10y ago
It also has high winds with airborne, highly abrasive sand. Panels don't last long there unless you clean them daily. I can't immagine that happening for utility-scale installations.
roel_v 10y ago
Panels would be build elsewhere, installation is once in two or three decades, maintenance is minimal and low skill. The only profit is land lease, which will only benefit those that have plenty of money already. So I think no, this won't bring jobs or wealth to North Africa.
zanny 10y ago
Unless you mean to build solar manufacturing plants, which even then have very limited applicability for unskilled human labor, the installation and upkeep of solar are absolutely nothing compared to the human cost of coal, oil, or even to a lesser degree nuclear.

josefresco 10y ago

"It does not mean rooftop solar in New England makes sense" Someone forgot to tell my neighbors - in New England. Rooftop solar everywhere.

forrestthewoods 10y ago

I'll start paying attention when a solar company is formed and becomes profitable without any reliance on subsidies. I'm not holding my breath.

deleted 10y ago

[deleted]

homido 10y ago

If solar is such a good investment, why aren't power companies creating solar fields with a sense of urgency? Sure, there are a token few, but this is mainly for PR reasons or funded by grants ETC. When businesses (wholesalers and consumers) start going to solar on a grand scale, Solar will have finally arrived as a cost effective alternative. Wake me when this happens.

sunstone 10y ago
Wake up! It's happening already in places with lots of sun (or high electricity costs). Examples are, much of Australia, Hawaii, California and others. As solar gets cheaper the viable territory expands.
- homido 10y ago
  What major power companies or private organization are doing this? (besides as a tax write-off)? None that I know of sunny climate or not. Even when they are, most aren't in these climates so wake me up when solar comes there in this fashion.

_FKS_ 10y ago

In the meanwhile, a few other sources argue that the overall ERORI (energy invested vs. energy produced) is well below a somehow 'sustainable' level. The impression I'm getting is that the day oil/gas production starts to fall due to geological limits, so will the production of photovoltaic & windmills. Please see: https://collapseofindustrialcivilization.files.wordpress.com/2016/05/ferroni-y-hopkirk-2016-energy-return-on-energy-invested-eroei-for-photo.pdf https://collapseofindustrialcivilization.files.wordpress.com... And: http://science-and-energy.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/03/20160307-Des-Houches-Case-Study-for-Solar-PV.pdf http://science-and-energy.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/03/201... And: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mqhC6uI8TUY https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mqhC6uI8TUY (for french speakers out there) Please do convince me that we can run the current industrial civilization, at current rates of energy usage, with only solar & wind, on a long enough run, without oil.

maxerickson 10y ago
The first link is about installing panels in regions of moderate insolation like Germany. Areas with more sun make more sense.
deleted 10y ago
[deleted]
marcosdumay 10y ago
If solar power is cheaper than coal without subsides, it has greater than 1 EROEI by a big margin, and the question is settled. Bottom-up studies suffer from a big diversity of flaws, and there are plenty of them with obvious bias both ways.
- _FKS_ 10y ago
  Fossil fuels are the base subsidy. It's hard to see how a manufactured product will be cheaper than fosil fuels consumed on the spot (as coal is primarly a local consumption resource). Also the economy of scale principle works here too: how can a (coal) thermal plant which feeds a region, cities, can be replaced by a collection of small scale devices that produce electricity, and pretend to be cheaper? Nothing will ever be cheaper than coal to produce electricity. There's a good reason why the industrial revolution started with coal and not with renewables (which for the record were already available in Europe for a few centuries before that - it was already widely used since the 12th century)

djrogers 10y ago

I really have to take exception with a statement in the opening here: > rooftop solar seem systems which are (arguably) little more than green bling for the wealthy My rooftop solar system (installed in late 2013) is 2.5 years in to what is looking to be a 5.9 year break-even point. After 6 years I will be earning $4-5k/year from it. Even if I had financed this (not a solar lease, those are usually structured so the leasing company gets all the benefits) at a high interest rate, it would turn out to be one of my best investments on a $/return basis. The fact that basically don't have a monthly power bill (which is substantial in hot parts of PG&E land) is my #1 benefit here, as reducing my monthly budget by that amount makes the rest of my life that much nicer. The fact that I have reduced my 'carbon footprint' is barely on my radar compared to the financial benefits here.... I did find it crazy that the installer/designer wanted to know if I wanted more visible colors, or a portion of the panels facing the from top the house so they were more noticeable. I suppose some people just have to green-signal...

xrange 10y ago
>After 6 years I will be earning $4-5k/year from it. Can you point us in the direction of a good write-up on net-metering? I'm sure different jurisdictions have different rules. I was under the impression that net metering was only good up until your yearly production was equal to your demand. Or are you saying that the $4-5k/year is at wholesale rates?
- djrogers 10y ago
  If I'm not paying that $4-5k to PG&E, and the installation costs have been recouped, then that $4-5k/yr is profit. Money is fungible - if you manage it well, you get the same net effect from preventing it's loss as you do from earning it.
  - xrange 10y ago
    Ah, got it. Thanks. Although if anyone has a good article on net metering, I'd like to read it.

dang 10y ago

Submitters: Please don't editorialize titles when submitting stories. The HN guidelines ask you to use the original title unless it is misleading or linkbait. https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html (Submitted title was "Harvard Physicist, Long-Time Solar Skeptic Admits Solar Power Now Makes Sense".)

ck2 10y ago

Imagine an earth 1000 years from now where countries on one side of the planet help out the other side via solar power through superconducting power cables that have little power loss over 10,000 miles. Since each side gets sunlight somewhere, no batteries needed. Of course 1000 years from now they could solve the battery problem too where each residence has its own low cost, safe storage. Or 1000 years from now terrorists dirty-bomb everyone. Sigh.

xrange 10y ago
>Or 1000 years from now terrorists dirty-bomb everyone. ...Well, on a more optimistic note, a dirty-bombs, while they may destroy property values and cause cleanup issues, don't really kill any more than a conventional/kinetic bomb. I think they may be one of the best-case scenarios when it comes to a terrorist strike, since the causalities will be low, but there will be a lot of "frenzy" about the invisible radiation. (I'm sure someone will correct me if I'm wrong, or if there are silent aerosolized short-half-life "bombs" in existence that are "detonated" secretly inside of buildings so that people are accumulating long term exposures unknowingly). Also, I wouldn't be surprised if room-ish temperature superconductors appear much sooner than 1,000 years from now. And it will definitively be interesting to see how high of energy densities SMES (Superconducting Magnetic Energy Storage) will get to in the next 20 years with existing cryogenic superconductors. http://snf.ieeecsc.org/abstracts/stp443-high-field-hts-smes-coil http://snf.ieeecsc.org/abstracts/stp443-high-field-hts-smes-...
- ck2 10y ago
  Look at all the cancer from 9/11 and that was just fine particles in the air. Now imagine radioactive fine particles with half-life of decades. Sure, the death isn't instantaneous. But the suffering and early death will be massive. After the US nuked Japan (twice) the real damage was to those left living for the short time afterwards and all the radioactivity an slow death.

jernfrost 10y ago

So year after year it is becoming evident that solar is the future and yet very little seems to happen elsewhere to accommodate this. Solar cells produce DC. Batteries which can store the solar power uses DC. Our iPhones, laptops, flat screens, electric cars use DC. Yet the connection between this DC power production and DC power consumption happens with an AC line wasting power. It is also a dumb line. Solar power production varies considerably and a lot of power consumption is flexible but we don't have any intelligence built into the power distribution network to be able to tell devices when to use power and when not to. Imagine if smart cables went into our laptops so they could charge when power was abundant/cheap and use battery when it wasn't. Electric cars could automatically start charging when power was cheap and stop when it got expensive. Washing machines could have timer function which would start them as soon as power prices were low.