Yeah, the technology connections video on this was fantastic. If one was to cover that land in solar, you’d produce far more than the current energy demands of the US.
Relying on an energy source which requires constant, continuous resource extraction is fucking stupid when we can spend resources up front and get reliable energy (solar + battery) for decades with minimal operating cost & maintenance. And then we’ll have a recycling loop to minimize future resource extraction.
The economics only changed recently and infrastructure lasts a long time. It’s the same reason EV’s make up a far larger share of new car sales than a percentage of overall cars, EV’s sucked 20+ years ago yet there are a lot of 20+ year old cars on the road.
The US stopped building coal power plants over a decade ago but we still have a lot of them. Meanwhile we’ve mostly been building solar, which eventually means we’ll have a mostly solar grid but that’s still decades away.
> The economics only changed recently and infrastructure lasts a long time
This needs investment also. An investment poorer people cannot or do not want to do. It is reasonable that when someone gives up a couple of things because that person is rich (rich as in a person in the developed world) the sacrifice is more or less acceptable.
Now change environment and think that these sacrifices are way worse. Even worse than that: that has more implications in conservative cultures where, whether you like it or not, showing "muscle" (wealth) is socially important for them to reach other soccial layers that will make their lives easier.
But giving up those things is probably a very bad choice for their living.
America cannot be compared to South East Asia economically speaking, for example. So the comparison of the coal centrals is not even close.
A salary in Vietnam is maybe 15 million VND for many people. With that you can hardly live in some areas. It is around 600 usd.
It also started importing liquid natural gas in 2023.
But it has abundant sunlight, access to low cost Chinese solar panels that will produce electricity for decades instead of being burned once, and a substantial domestic photovoltaic manufacturing industry of its own.
"Renewable Energy Investments in Vietnam in 2024 – Asia’s Next Clean Energy Powerhouse" (June 2024)
In 2014, the share of renewable energy in Vietnam was just 0.32%. In 2015, only 4 megawatts (MW) of installed solar capacity for power generation was available. However, within five years, investment in solar energy, for example, soared.
As of 2020, Vietnam had over 7.4 gigawatts (GW) of rooftop solar power connected to the national grid. These renewable energy numbers surpassed all expectations. It marked a 25-fold increase in installed capacity compared to 2019’s figures.
In 2021, the data showed that Vietnam now has 16.5 GW of solar power. This was accompanied by its green energy counterpart wind at 11.8 GW. A further 6.6 GW is expected in late 2021 or 2022. Ambitiously, the government plans to further bolster this by adding 12 GW of onshore and offshore wind by 2025.
These growth rates are actually much faster than growth rates in the US.
> This needs investment also. An investment poorer people cannot or do not want to do.
The general premise of investments is that you end up with fewer resources by not doing them.
It now costs less to install a new solar or wind farm than to continue using an existing coal plant, much less if you were considering building a new coal plant, and that includes the cost of capital, i.e. the interest you have to pay to borrow the money for the up-front investment.
Poorer countries would be at a slight disadvantage if they have to pay higher than average interest rates to borrow money, but they also have the countervailing advantage of having lower labor and real estate costs and the net result is that it still doesn't make sense for anybody to continue to use coal for any longer than it takes to build the replacement.
It just takes more than zero days to replace all existing infrastructure.
That's why it will require a functional government who can use taxes responsibly to make the technology affordable to everyone. The US had a pretty good start until one man decided to stop and try to reverse any progress made.
Trump's animus against wind in particular is definitely specific to the man. He was annoyed by a wind farm in Scotland. Trump of course thinks he's one of those old fashioned kings† (and the US has been annoyingly willing to go along with that, how are those "checks and balances" and your "co-equal branches of government" working out for you?) and so he thought the local government would go along with his whims and prohibit the wind farm but they did not.
I'm sure there's some degree of vested interest in protecting fossil energy because it means very concentrated profits in a way that renewables do not. Sunlight isn't owned by anybody (modulo Simpsons references) and nor is the Wind, but I'd expect that, if that was all it was, to manifest as diverting funding to transitional work, stuff that keeps $$$ in the right men's pockets, rather than trying to do a King Canute. Stuff like paying a wind farm not to be constructed feels very Trump-specific.
† The British even know what you do with kings who refuse to stop breaking the law. See Charles the First, though that's technically the English I suspect in this respect the Scots can follow along. If the King won't follow the Law, kill the King, problem solved.
Trump’s campaign had financial backing from a number of oil and gas industry investors. Following the money in this case is not very difficult. He’s just a useful idiot, the whole industry put him there and are profiting at the expense of the rest of us.
But why should American taxpayers be responsible for making the technology affordable for everyone? Why shouldn't Europe or China be expected to shoulder this financial burden?
EDIT: I think people are misunderstanding my response. I fully support local subsidies for solar and renewables. My question is why my tax dollars should go toward making it affordable for everyone, including non-Americans. Either market dynamics will handle that naturally, artificially (i.e., China's manufacturing subsidies), or else it is up to the local government to address the shortfall.
Isn't the American complaint that China did exactly that by subsidizing its solar industry and flooding the global market with panels cheaper than Americans could make?
China is, it's subsidies have resulted in a glut of cheap solar panel production which the world has benefited from. European counties subsidise their own citizens switch to solar, the US no longer does at the federal level.
Responding to your edit: A wider version of the same argument might apply. The US has (historically) benefited considerably from global stability and this does seem to help with that because if basically everybody has energy independence and the overheating doesn't get much worse they might chill the fuck out?
We haven't been building much battery storage to go along with that solar power. Perhaps we will eventually, but until that actually happens the base load requirement represents a hard limit on the amount of solar generation capacity that the grid can handle.
We started scaling batteries after solar (because the technology reached the point where they were profitable after solar)... but they're being installed at scale now, and at a rapdily increasing rate.
Batteries provided 42.8% of California's power at 7pm a few days ago (which came across my social media feed as a new record) [1]. And it wasn't a particularly short peak, they stayed above 20% of the power for 3 hours and 40 minutes. It's a non-trivial amount of dispatchable power.
Batteries are a form of dispatchable power not "base load". There is no "base load" requirement. Base load is simply a marketing term for power production that cannot (economically) follow the demand curve and therefore must be supplemented by a form of dispatchable power, like gas peaker plants, or batteries. "Base load" power is quite similar to solar in that regard. The term makes sense if you have a cheap high-capitol low running-cost source of power (like nuclear was supposed to be, though it failed on the cheap front) where you install as much of it as you can use constantly and then you follow the demand curve with a different source of more expensive dispatchable power. That's not the reality we find ourselves in unless you happen to live near hydro.
I think the mysterious "Misc" electricity which sometimes appears at dawn and then dusk in the UK is likewise BESS†. The raw data doesn't seem to have labels for BESS, a lot of it was oriented around how electricity works twenty five years ago, there's an 850MW power plant here, and one there and one there, and we measure those. So it can cope with a wind farm - say 500MW or 1GW coming ashore somewhere, but not really with the idea that there's 10GW of solar just scattered all over the place on a bright summer's day and the batteries might similarly be too much?
† My thinking is: Dawn because in a few hours the solar comes online, you can refill those batteries at whatever price that is, so sell what you have now for the dawn price, and Dusk because the solar is mostly gone but people are running ovens and so on to make food in the evening, so you can sell into that market. But I might be seeing what I expect not reality.
> We haven't been building much battery storage to go along with that solar power
That too has pretty recently changed. Even my home state of Idaho is deploying pretty big batteries. It takes almost no time to deploy it's all permitting and public comment at this point that takes the time.
Batteries have gotten so cheap that the other electronics and equipement at this point are bigger drivers of the cost of installation.
Here's an 800MWh station that's being built in my city [1].
I think people are just generally stuck with the perception of where things are currently at. They are thinking of batteries and solar like it's 2010 or even 2000. But a lot has changed very rapidly even since 2018.
For full house backup, it sort of sucks right now. They are all charging a premium over what you can otherwise get if it's not specifically a whole home product.
What I've done and would suggest is right now looking for battery banks for big ticket important items that you'd want to stay on anyways in terms of an outage. A lot of those can function as a UPS. You can get a 1kWh battery pack for $400 right now. A comparable home battery backup is charging $1300 per kWh of installed storage.
I currently have a 2kWh battery pack for my computer/server/tv and a 500Wh pack for my fridge. Works great and it's pretty reasonably priced. The 500Wh gives my fridge an extra 6 hours of runtime after a power outage.
If I wanted to power shift, I have smart switches setup so I can toggle when I want to.
You will get a battery and BMS for that price. Decent inverters are expensive, however, so you won't get a whole 10kWh setup with appropriately sized inverter for under US$2K. Probably twice that.
I hesitate to offer any brand advice, because that is very situational, depends on what you're after, what experience level you have, what trade-offs you want to make, etc.
I don't know if the market has improved but when I looked at this a year or two ago I concluded that the consumer market here was utter crap with hugely inflated prices.
The cheapest per kwh way I could find to buy a home battery (that didn't involve diy stuff) was to literally buy an EV car with an inverter... by a factor of at least two... I ended up not buying one.
Unfortunately cheap batteries doesn't translate to reputable companies packaging them in cheap high quality packages for consumers instantly.
Becoming completely dependent on imported tech for such basic needs is a BAD idea. The West cannot outcompete China on cost for these products at this time. And before you say subsidies, let me remind you that we are all going broke.
Once you have PV panels, they (on average) last 20+ years - that's not being dependant, particularly when PV panels can be mass produced anywhere.
( They do not use rare earths (inverters use trace amounts) )
China cornering rare earths (for now) is an "own goal" by every country that chose to let China (and to a lesser degree Malaysia) take a hit on the toxic by products of processing concentrates.
The US is easily capable of producing it's own rare earths, it's certainly not been backwards in asking Australia to do that for it.
We (literally, I know where some are) have 30 year old panels and 95 year old men, their existence doesn't negate an average.
Also, PV panels are kinda non uniform in performance, long term studies show that one fifth of them perform 1.5 times worse than the rest.
Either way, 20 year lifetimes where you build once and reap the rewards for 20 years is sufficient to put to rest the kind of argument being made about dependancies.
That's more than enough time for any G20 country to be making it's own PV production chain.
>Either way, 20 year lifetimes where you build once and reap the rewards for 20 years is sufficient to put to rest the kind of argument being made about dependancies.
It's not sufficient. We have had plenty of time to start making all of the critical things we import, and that never happened. In most cases, these things used to be made in the West in the first place. Just because you CAN make a thing doesn't mean it makes sense. The economics of solar would be totally different if you had to pay 5x more for solar panels to replace Chinese-subsidized slave-labor-backed imports.
There are other arguments to be made against mega-scale solar. Don't get me wrong, I love the idea of solar because it is on a small scale one of the best ways for an individual to get a bit of electricity without reliance on fuel supplies. But it has a lot of disadvantages at scale which make it unsuitable for many regions. Hail, snow, dust, vandals, and strategic vulnerability all make it look precarious. The supply chain concern is that much worse.
Gotcha, you prefer to be daily dependent on fossil fuel delivery rather than get new panels every 20 years, particularly given you're in a country seemingly incapable of manufacture and minerals processing.
The US and the rest of the West are capable of manufacturing. You just said yourself they can be made "anywhere" so make up your mind. What I think is that manufacturing is not competitive in the US or the West as a whole because of wage requirements and monetary exchange rates, and additionally because we operate a mostly free market and don't penalize foreign state-subsidized products hard enough to make domestic manufacture make sense.
Replacing the solar panels every 20 years at minimum would mean that the panels would always be getting refreshed. Bro we have roads and bridges 50 years past end of life, in need of rebuilding. We can't afford this fragile power grid rebuild that is completely dependent on foreign suppliers. Sorry. Take your snark and shove it.
That is only marginally better in the scheme of things. They want to take farms for food out of commission in some places to replace with fragile and unreliable solar systems. Imagine installing this stuff on a large scale. If you plan to replace all the panels after 30 years and incur no losses from high winds, hail, vandals, etc., then you would need to overbuild the system by 20% at minimum. This is assuming modern panels are as durable as those old panels from the study too. 30 years ago, solar panels were built in the West and cost 10x as much as the ones we have now. So it seems reasonable to assume that brand new panels might not have the same characteristics, and be less durable. It would make a lot more sense to just put these panels on roofs and in parking lots where the real estate is already consumed, and the power can be a backup source instead of a grid-scale vulnerability.
That's a lot of guessing though, newer panels might as well be more durable and longer lasting. Even if you lose 20% in 20-30 years you don't need to replace the panel unless the cost of replacing them can be recouped within a reasonable amount of years. As long as there is more space for more panels you don't need to replace existing ones unless they stop working, so capacity just increases for decades until you reach some saturation point.
The real estate would be more valuable than the panels, presumably. So it's not like they can just keep expanding forever. As for the vulnerabilities, this is not based on guessing. We've produced solar panels in the West even recently. They are not competitive with China on cost. They are actually fragile. We are facing geopolitical challenges.
Obviously, money is a factor. But you cannot discount political resistance. If a government in charge is dead set in promoting fossil fuels over renewables, it will never happen. Even if you get a government led by the most gungho green friendly administration, in a democratic government, those opposing can stall any plans to go green. If you live in a less democratic government where leadership decides it's going green, you're going green.
1. Solar panels need a huge capital expenditure up front.
2. Wind power works better for farmers and provide a smaller footprint. Drive on I-80 in Iowa on a clear night and you'll see the wind farms blink their red lights in the distance. Farmers can lease their land for wind turbines, and the generation companies take on the regulatory / capital / politcal risks, etc.
3. Farming is more or less free market based, and often farmers can let their grain sit in a silo until the price is optimal for them to sell. But for a given location, there's only one power company that you can use, and typically the power companies don't like people putting solar panels on the grid. In many states (like in Idaho) there's regulatory capture or weird politics preventing people putting solar panels up on their own land. (Again Idaho)
As a side note, agriculture uses up lots of water in deserts (more so than people), so it seems like in desert spaces like Idaho, solar would make a lot more sense than agriculture would. And we should move the agriculture to where the water naturally falls from the skies.
There was also a huge move by farmers towards growing corn and selling for ethanol because E-85 was seen as some future fuel. Many farmers I know went all in and switched from regional crops (this was in ND), such as sugar beets, soybeans, and spring wheat to corn to fuel this thinking this some kind of energy gold rush.
Then economics, lack of infrastructure and incentives buried it in a few years. Farmers were left holding the bag. Many were not happy they had made a huge move into this new "renewable" energy, only to get burned in the end. The same farmers I know have scoffed at windmills and solar farms.
E-85 really lost a lot of farmers willing to use their land for something that won't pan out. The ones I know went back to growing what sells and grows the best in the market. Trying to tell a farmer that solar panels on his land where he grows food to feed his family is going to be a tough sell now.
> As a side note, agriculture uses up lots of water in deserts (more so than people), so it seems like in desert spaces like Idaho, solar would make a lot more sense than agriculture would. And we should move the agriculture to where the water naturally falls from the skies.
The problem is that in many of those places where enough water naturally falls from the sky the soil and/or the weather isn't as good for growing food.
It is generally much easier to move water to a low water place that has great soil and/or weather than it is to move soil or weather to a high water place that is missing good soil or weather, and so here we are.
It is happening. It takes time to build and it only became absurdly cheap in the past few years. But it keeps getting cheaper and better (batteries too for anyone who wants to bring that up).
had the same question and after reading about it, I found there are multiple layers on each other.
Existing plans are built to run 40-60 years.. retiring creates "stranded assets". pension funds fight hard to avoid that.
The renewable projects that wait for permits exceed total existing capacity.. the bottleneck is not tech, but locality.
Based on your response timestamp I will conclude you didn't watch the video. He "does it rationally" like you requested. You said "try not to blame anyone" so if you'd rather not hear about the people who actually are to blame for this situation, then skip the last 30 minutes of the video.
Theft is stupid from a broad view. It causes more harm to the victim than benefit to the perpetrator. Everyone would be better off if we everyone stopped stealing and we provided the same level of benefit to would-be perpetrators in a more efficient form.
Why hasn't theft stopped yet? Because it's extremely difficult to do from a systems level. In principle it's simple: just don't steal. Convincing everyone to do it is hard.
Likewise, fossil fuels have horrible externalities that kill thousands if not millions of people per year. We'd be better off if we greatly cut back our usage and replaced it with cleaner sources of energy. But the people benefitting from any given use of fossil fuels and the people paying the costs tend not to be the same people. This makes it extremely difficult to organize a halt.
yes but increasing solar will damage the energy lobby in the congress and other places. It's never about what is best, it's about what's best for lobby and their puppets
What is really strange, at this period of history, how anyone would not think that solar makes more sense for focus and investment. Well, unless directly being paid not to use sense or care about the future of humanity, by various oil companies.
It's probably fairly high, considering the existence of the sodium-sulfur battery. It's not economically competitive since it operates at high temperature, but it's based on very abundant materials.
Unfortunately human energy use appears to be proportional to the amount of energy available
Hopefully we are able to reach a point of effectively unlimited cheap energy and storage but it's that if overnight we suddenly had enough solar+batteries to power today's usage, we'd suddenly need way more as demand rises
It's based on cost, like anything else. If running everything on solar and batteries makes it cheaper then we'll use more. But the same is true regardless of the technology. What's not true regardless is whether a given amount of energy usage requires continual resource extraction just to sustain it, or whether it's only needed for new capacity.
> And then we’ll have a recycling loop to minimize future resource extraction.
This is something the (willfully?) deluded really don't appreciate. I know people who listened to _that one Joe Rogan podcast_ about precious metal extraction for EVs and are back on the oil bandwagon. The current regime of precious metal extraction is absolutely dirty and dangerous but ... it doesn't have to be and won't be forever -- especially if, as you've said, we actively prioritize a recycling loop for the components.
What does the 1% of land used to grow corn have to do specifically with solar and batteries? Solar doesn't need to be on the 15% arable land at all.
The corn doesn't just produce ethanol, which just utilizes the starch/sugar. The protein, fat, fiber is eaten by livestock in some form like distillers grains.
And governments like to have food security , and having secondary uses for an abundance of food in the good times is more convenient than storing cheese in caves , and in case of an emergency shortage the production is already there without having to rip up solar panels to grow food.
My conclusion is you're conflating issues (solar and ethanol) unnecessarily.
Then please explain, to me he brought up an unrelated point about ethanol (which is often poorly understood and mischaracterized anyways) consuming a portion of agriculturally productive land. Which BTW this agricultural land that produces ethanol is probably not even close to the best place in the country for industrial scale solar from a LOT of perspectives.
My "try to understand" take: We subsidize corn, then use it yo make a less efficient fuel. The money involved in this process likely takes away from subsidies to other forms of energy. There are a great many activities we do not subsidize, but solar is one that if we did, would produce an outsized benefit to society. And the more we do, the better. Redirecting an ethanol subsidy to solar would be a far more beneficial long term strategy for energy independence and overall standard of living in the US. Going all in on Solar would be a transformative and likely relatively short investment period that would last and benefit a long time. We have done many large scale infrastructure projects in the US, and it is frustrating to see the resistance to this one, being both less disruptive and more "all around win" than any other i can think of.
- Redistribution of food (both for livestock and human) production
- Environmental impacts of PV vs livestock vs depletion of native prairies
Point still stands...if you replaced all of the land used to produce ethanol with PV, you would create a surplus of energy that is higher than anything we could imaginably consume today (hint - China is essentially already doing this)
No no, that argument is pretty old now. The amount of fuel you GROW on your own continent at any single or double digit percentage during wartime-anytime is probably a good long-term research project that shouldn't be interrupted by people online.
The problem is corn requires a lot of fossil fuel energy input, mostly in the form of fertiliser. The net energy output is only around 1.3 so an acre of corn produces maybe 400 gallons of gasoline equivalent output requires 300 gallons of gasoline equivalent in energy inputs.
Ethanol from sugarcane makes a lot more sense. Corn ethanol is just a wasteful subsidy for farmers paid for by drivers.
>The net energy output is only around 1.3 so an acre of corn produces maybe 400 gallons of gasoline equivalent output requires 300 gallons of gasoline equivalent in energy inputs.
What is the problem, that sounds great? 30% free output out of your input is staggering honestly. Thank you sunshine and atmospheric CO2. You don't have to use fossil fuel for this. You can potentially run the farm equipment off ethanol if it were designed as such.
You can also only grow sugarcane well up to usda zone 8. Some people can do it as an annual but I guess it is tricky. Corn you can grow all the way into Canada.
> What is the problem, that sounds great? 30% free output out of your input is staggering honestly.
It's really not when you compare it to the energy return you get from energy invested in other forms of energy generation. Solar power, for example, is typically estimated to produce 13x as much energy as it takes to make the panel. This is obviously a considerable improvement over 1.3x.
So why does it matter as long as the net energy output is positive? Because the whole point of the energy generating exercise is to do something with the output energy other than just make more energy and there isn't unlimited capacity on the input side of the equation. The 100 "free" gallons you get in the example sounds great, but sustaining that requires inputting (i.e. growing) 300 gallons worth, so you need to produce 400 gallons total to get 100 useful gallons. Looking at the math another way, an ethanol powered civilization would spend 75% of the energy it produces simply producing more energy, leaving only 25% to actually do anything useful with. This is bad, because said civilization will run out land to grow corn for ethanol well before it's generating enough useful energy.
It's sort of like the energy equivalent of the food explanation for why it took human civilization so long to advance out of the agrarian stage. Up until relatively recently, most humans spent most of their time and effort simply growing enough food to live. This left very little excess capacity for humans to do anything to move humanity forward. In the modern day, very little of our time and energy goes into growing food, leaving all sorts of extra capacity to build spaceships and AI and the Internet and whatever else. But only because we got really efficient at growing food.
Yeah, but market pricing fluctuates and that corn (hopefully) isn't grown in a monocrop. Alternating with soybean affects protein and food oils markets, and alternating or adding industrial hemp both, plus tremendous fibre.
Opportunity costs essentially. The effort that goes into growing and refining corn ethanol could be better spent on reducing fuel consumption instead of dedicating five acres of land to provide the equivalent net yearly fossil fuel consumption of a single average car using 500 gallons of gasoline to drive about 15000 miles.
Again opportunity costs. It almost always makes sense to spend the money on the most efficient means to achieve the goal. Money spent paying farmers and ethanol refiners to inefficiently produce 25% lower carbon fuel could instead be directed at other endeavours that for the same cost reduce carbon emissions more.
The difference is we already grow corn at scale beyond market need. Probably less has to be paid in that effort than starting up some other industry. Which still can be done along side the corn shouldering the load until that industry reaches the scale of the corn industry's waste product.
> Probably less has to be paid in that effort than starting up some other industry.
No, that's the entire point. As mentioned above, for ethanol you input the equivalent of 300 ethanol gallons worth of energy (which could also be ethanol) to get 100 net gallons out you can do whatever you want with. If you instead used that 300 gallons worth of input to produce solar panels, they'd produce 3,600 net gallons worth of equivalent energy over their lifetime. You get 36x more net energy building solar panels than growing corn for ethanol. Sure, you could spend 600 gallons worth of energy and do both, but then you'd still be better off switching the entire 600 gallons of input to solar panels until you run out of solar panel generation capacity or demand. That's the opportunity cost.
Also a minor point worth making is that ethanol is in no way a "waste product" from the corn growing industry that would otherwise go to, well, waste. Farmers aren't just growing a bunch of extra corn for no reason that we can conveniently use for ethanol. If demand for ethanol stopped, they'd stop growing all that extra corn.
The consumer rooftop solar cost is usually one of the most expensive ways you can generate electricity - often several times the cost of utility solar installations. The high rooftop solar price is usually hidden (at least in the USA) because no power source has been as subsidized as rooftop solar. Besides direct subsidies, wealthier home owners have often been paid the retail rate for the electricity they sell to the grid. This causes higher electricity bills for those in apartments and those who can't afford to put panels on their roof. Also, in almost all cases, the home installation doesn’t have enough battery power to actually last through inclement weather and so is free riding on the reliability provided by the grid, putting more costs on the less well off. The whole thing is sort of a reverse Robin Hood scheme.
Rooftop solar is good but it shouldn't be a gift to the wealthier residents paid for by those less wealthy. Any subsidies for solar power should go to utility grade solar. Money is limited and is fungible - a dollar spent subsidizing utility solar will go much, much, further than a dollar spent subsidizing wealthy homeowners who install panels on their roof.
> The high rooftop solar price is usually hidden (at least in the USA)
My understanding is that the (unsubsidised) price of rooftop solar is only high in the USA. Because the cost is almost entirely labor (high in the US) and issues around permitting (more restrictive in the US). Pretty much everywhere else in the world you'll now save money with rooftop solar + batteries even if you can't sell back to the grid at all. Even places that aren't that sunny like the UK where I live.
It is still more expensive than "grid scale" deployments. But there are positive externalities that make up for that: uses otherwise unused space, less grid capacity needed, adds resiliency to the grid (if implemented well with storage).
I recently specced a 500kW project. Quote was $CA1.67/Watt. But I'm pretty sure they would have bumped that up a lot higher later in the process if we hadn't stopped due to permitting hurdles.
> Besides direct subsidies, wealthier home owners have often been paid the retail rate for the electricity they sell to the grid. This causes higher electricity bills for those in apartments and those who can't afford to put panels on their roof
I don't think you thought this up yourself, so I won't blame you for it, as this exact, word for word swill is mindlessly repeated by a lot of people, so thats ample evidence of brainwashing going on.
The subsidies and retail rate (both of which have been murdered by now thanks to swill like this) incentives were not a sneaky reverse welfare program snuck in by the wealthy.
They were infrastructure incentives for people who could afford to make those infrastructure investments.
Investments have always required incentives and a positive ROI. You don't put money into your 401k, Roth or HSA because you expect to lose money in 20 years.
The goal of solar subsidies was never some sneaky wealth redistribution with unforseen sideeffects but rather to rally support from the private industry and wealthy homes to spearhead rapid decarbonization, energy independence, and grid decentralization.
A single mother treading water, barely being able to afford groceries isn't your persona for actually making rapid decarbonization, energy independence, and grid decentralization happen - however, the wealthy that you so despise of, certainly put a 10kWh (sometimes more) PV array on their 3000 sqft rooftop and actually feed power to the grid that was reeling under tremendous growing strain.
People hanging portable solar panels from the balconies of their apartments barely make power to run their kitchen fridge so that's out as well.
Mom and pop landlords and corporate run apartments aren't going to put solar for their tenants because they are not legally allowed to sell power above utility rates while they don't enjoy the 10% guaranteed ROI that utilities get (which is where utilities actually make their money), so that's out too.
This makes me sad - We could have had a future where the grid was fully decentralized, where our single mother neighbor would never had to worry about the lights getting turned off even when there was a downed power line or wildfire or a snowstorm turning down power lines half a mile away, where she could plug in her EV into my shed instead of having to drive miles away to a crowded charging station.
We are numbers people here - so here's a numbers perspective:
If I had taken the same money I had to spend on a "grid compliant" installation (so I could connect all of this to the grid) and put it into the SNP500 instead, I would never have had to worry just about a power bill (as bad it is - $0.60/kWh) but also my inflation adjusted grocery bills for the rest of my life.
You won't convince many people if you think ad hominem attacks and insults are acceptable. Yes, subsidies are done to help drive adoption. The key is that the subsidies should go where they can do the most good. Money is limited and is fungible - a dollar spent subsidizing utility solar will go much, much, further to decarbonizing the grid than a dollar spent subsidizing rooftop residential solar.
My response is the opposite of ad hominem. It's me noticing and acknowledging that a large group of people comment on energy policy who understand neither energy nor policy but feel confident to both vote and comment on energy policy because they have been brainwashed.
> a dollar spent subsidizing utility solar will go much, much, further to decarbonizing the grid than a dollar spent subsidizing rooftop residential solar
That's completely, trivially provably wrong.
For one, rooftop residential allows decentralization and redundancy. Customers can have their house continue to run while the grid as a whole is down.
Utility solar absolutely does not - solar here is just another source of energy into the centralized grid. From a physics and math perspective, that source of energy could very well have been a coal plant. It doesn't have the same decentralized and redundancy benefit as a 10kWh PV array and a 30kWh battery on a home where the home no longer even needs the grid anymore.
Any rational consumer would appreciate having power than not - We cannot argue physics and math or consumer demands - that's just insanity.
A person who repeatedly argues against this basic math doesn't have the best interest of the consumer in mind. Further, when there's a group of people who repeatedly argues the same illogical swill using the same phrasing as the others, it's a cult.
I could go on and on but I have learned that arguing with brainwashed people takes a lot of time and effort and most of the time, in the end, it ends in a stalemate. Most of the time, it reenforces them they are right and the other side is ignorant and "doesnt get it". No thank you.
On this very thread a person who actually designs and implements grid projects agreed that the only objective utility solar serves are those of the utilities themselves.
The reason why this person is provably correct is because you could come to the same conclusion from first principles as well. To most people, the above statement is a "duh!" moment.
They gave solid, clear, objective examples of how utilities have other much higher priorities than ensuring consumers have access to the most affordable, reliable, resilient power.
They further gave evidence and insight into how the way utilities fund their infrastructure projects actively make them opposed to what's good for the consumer, because decentralization and redundancy would collapse the value of existing collateral.
Now that's a high quality, high value, high merit discussion.
When someone comes and lectures me about how my dollars should go towards initiatives that absolutely do not help me, rather makes me even more dependent on a 3rd party that doesn't have me as their first priority, I dont care about what they have to say especially when I have options available where my dollars directly go towards initiatives that absolutely do help me.
The most generous interpretation I have of their motives is that they are brainwashed.
I would encourage beginning from first principles, gaining clarity into what the final objective is - to provide affordable, redundant, reliable, resilient power to the consumer or to ensure the utility has smoother operations and a tighter grip over the consumer and ensure the consumer is completely dependent on the utility?
If the brainwashing isn't complete and there's a tiny chance of a breakthrough, maybe changing domains would help?
What's better for a local economy that has willing, capable backyard farmers:
- allow them to sell their product that meets all regulatory requirements, to other willing consumers at the same market clearing price or
- destroy them completely and remove any incentives for them to grow, in favor of having a massive, centralized farm?
I have some experience with distributed energy generation and have met with senior utility executives many times while trying to implement some grant supported projects through my work.
It turns out that a big problem is that whenever we install local generation it costs utilities a ton of money. They bundle the cost of grid maintenance into their per kWh charges. These costs, which include debt service, maintenance, upgrades etc amount to 5-7 cents/kWh. Whenever you generate your own energy you cost the utility 5-7cents/kWh that they have to pay regardless of your usage.
This business model, which has bundled grid maintenance into usage costs means that utilities put up huge roadblocks for distributed generation. They say they love it, but they actually hate it. Utility executives have looked me in the eye and said as much.
It gets worse though, because energy infrastructure is backed by trillions in utility bonds. These "low risk" debt instruments are owned by national and private pension funds of mind boggling size. In order to bring about a distributed energy future the grid (and low pressure nat gas infrastructure) must be reorganized in a manner that is likely to make those bonds worthless. These background factors are definitely in play when you see these bait and switch enthusiastic green energy programs that turn out to be a regulatory quagmire when you dig into them. Public utilities and pension funds hate green energy, they are a major factor in west's pathetic performance when it comes to solar adoption vs China.
> It turns out that a big problem is that whenever we install local generation it costs utilities a ton of money
So a question:
- Lets hypothesize that distributed, decentralized systems cost way more than centralized systems
- If you agree with that hypothesis, can we next hypothesize that building a distributed, decentralized system that can support power on one block and can allow it to continue to stay on while the "central feeder line" (please tell me the proper word for this made up word is) to all the blocks is down, because that one block has a local distributed, decentralized power source, is of value to the community?
In the past, commercial factories were the only places that could afford this kind of redundancy but it feels to me, thanks to crashing prices of solar and batteries (I could never have imagined 12kWh brand new LFP could be purchased for $2k), this level of redundancy is now very much realistic at the consumer, residential level. It just doesn't work locally today because the utility poles lack the smarts to do the isolated switching and safe islanding. For example: one unsettled question today is if a lot of customers on one such island are on solar and the grid is down, how do we safely supply power within nominal specs to the whole of the island - but this isn't a physical unknown, we know how to solve it. It just is lacking implementation.
> These costs, which include debt service, maintenance, upgrades etc amount to 5-7 cents/kWh. Whenever you generate your own energy you cost the utility 5-7cents/kWh that they have to pay regardless of your usage
Capitalism has repeatedly proven its ability to cut costs down while improving QoS. I realize you really believe in the numbers you have been provided - that it costs a utility 5-7cents/kWh that they have to pay regardless of my usage, but before SpaceX, it used to cost multiple millions of dollars and years of planning and design to launch one rocket.
In this case the utility executives work for public utilities. So capitalism isn't to blame. It's about the incentives of the incumbent energy providers.
It is already cheaper to build the distributed energy solution you describe but making that change would require a massive restructuring of electricity and natural gas utilities. Such a restructuring would revalue the debt that backs the existing infrastructure. This would be a great thing for the average person but not for the people currently in charge of regulating what types of systems are allowed.
Costs of distributed energy may drop so low in the next 5-10 years that it will no longer be possible to keep things from moving to a micro grid network.
> but making that change would require a massive restructuring of electricity and natural gas utilities. Such a restructuring would revalue the debt that backs the existing infrastructure. This would be a great thing for the average person but not for the people currently in charge of regulating what types of systems are allowed
fair. I appreciated the insight in your original message - datapoints from industry insiders like yourself do help people like I gain some understanding of why we have to go in alone on this and not wait
> Public utilities and pension funds hate green energy, they are a major factor in west's pathetic performance when it comes to solar adoption vs China
No this statement is absolutely wrong. Here's why:
> west's pathetic performance when it comes to solar adoption vs China
China is dominating energy because the CCP doesn't care what their citizens think. They need energy and they are doing everything they can do to get it. They will put you behind bars at best or kill your family and demolish your house if it gets in the middle of a power line trench. For China, energy isn't a "nice to have" - they realize it's essential and they won't stop until they get there.
China is the person out in the mountains being chased by a hungry bear while we in the west is the person sitting in their air conditioned room debating whether to drive or take an Uber to have a drink with buddies.
News came out last week that you can buy a Chinese hypersonic missle for $100k - you can't even build a little two car garage where I am for double that price.
> Public utilities and pension funds hate green energy
Pension funds don't care whether energy is green or orange. What they hate are the horrible returns affected by all the stealing and grifting that happens in the name of "green energy".
Public utilities (atleast in the jurisdictions that I am aware of) love any infrastructure work - they are guaranteed a 10% ROI by the government on any approved infrastructure work they do. If you could work with them to build infrastructure to cremate just newborn kids and get it approved by the CPUC, they will happily start work on it tomorrow. The reason why they hate green energy is because after they've made their 10% ROI, they are now stuck with a power source that costs them more than their non-green sources and that hurts their razor thin margins.
However, as the customer - I don't care either about what public utilities and pension funds hate or don't.
What I do care about is having affordable and reliable power and I absolutely can get that with my own solar panels and batteries. The fact that it's green is a happy sideffect for most.
The reason why every home in the U.S. isn't overflowing with solar panels and batteries is because of regulation and government shenanigans making retail costs really high. Average people in Pakistan, South Africa and Lebanon certainly power their whole homes with solar panels and batteries but their governments don't have nonsense taffifs and fees on Chinese solar equipment.
Totally agree that regulations and government interference are the reasons we don't have cheap solar panels.
Those regulations and that interference result from the fact that in a distributed world the current utility bond value drops to zero. Utilities will not build infrastructure that makes their existing infrastructure lose value.
I recently negotiated with a government owned utility on a large solar project. They were 100% against it until I demonstrated that the project would never feed back to the grid and wouldn't reduce the amount of power we currently buy from them. Zero interest in distributed solutions on their side. They are focused on giant transmission line projects and hydro.
> They are focused on giant transmission line projects and hydro
Is that because of the scale they need to achieve to support the investment?
> until I demonstrated that the project would never feed back to the grid
Financial greed aside, and I mentioned this previously, feedback at a large scale isn't free especially if the impedance of the grid cannot be predicted - the frequency or voltage or both would spike. Monitoring for these conditions are expensive and addressing them is even more expensive - the cheapest solution is you do a shutdown until things stabilize but this is kinda catch-22 because that itself might have its own cascading effects.
Let me ask you this - if you were to update a local neighborhood (like a block or two of 1000 homes) distribution station, that all have their own solar and battery, where the homes could independently power themselves for a day - what changes or upgrades would you make to ensure they can share load for that one day when the larger grid is suffering an outage?
Now would that cost and complexity be lower or higher if instead, nothing was changed at grid scale at all but each of the individual 1000 homes doubled their own capacity (let's say 30kWh a day if you're OK with that)?
That land is producing food for cars. If we covered half in solar panels we’d have almost enough energy to power the country. Turn the other half over to food production and you’d come out ahead on both energy and food.
It's a common mistake to believe there isn't enough land to grow food, and that is simply false. We throw tons and tons of food away every year due to spoilage and other factors. Even in many parts of Africa scarcity of food is caused by waste and distribution problem than simply lack of arable land.
And when you think about the millions of lands used to grow bioethanol I think we can safely convert that for solar installation without worries.Agrovoltaic is also a practical approach for a lot of crops and farmers so that we can grow and produce electricity side by side.
Why do you assume that solar and production of food is mutually exclusive on that land? Agrovoltaics is a thing and can often have benefits to the growing of crops.
A roof is quite literally the worst place to put solar panels. Its a load most roofs are not designed for, and the whole point of a roof is to keep water out, which is compromised by attaching stuff to it.
The most efficient way to do large scale solar is with semi-local utility scale arrays with ultra efficient inverters and enormous chemical or hydro storage. We have a lot of unused land, that's not a problem
Kinda funny how we invented a carbon neutral fuel system but we are like "lets only use it as a 15% mix" vs trying to design new engines for pure ethanol. You could fuel your car with hooch you made from yard waste.
Not sure. But not everyone uses fertilizer. No till is being more widely appreciated, getting nitrogen in the soil using cover crops that fix it from the atmosphere. Probably everything uses oil for lube including any alternative energy. Teslas still need greasing after all. They still have bearings and other moving parts.
Some crops can require as much as 10 calories of petrochemical energy to get 1 calorie of food energy when one takes such things into account --- corn (well, maize) is quite calorie dense/efficient in terms of land and other usages --- I'd be curious to see a full, comprehensive crunching of the values involved.
Not unless your yard was ~5 acres and you did nothing with that land but grew corn for ethanol. And even if you could do that, there's nowhere near enough "yard' for every car out there. The math just doesn't math.
Correct me if I’m wrong but my understanding was that ethanol in gasoline was a result laws enacted due to corn farmers (or their state reps) lobbying for subsidies, not any intrinsic part of gasoline production
Algae needs solar light, so you will have to flood a lot of land to get enough.
Also, in case of a war or blockade you can switch the corn use from etanol to food. You will have to eat tortilla and polenta for a year [1] but it's better than algae from seawater or famine.
Here we use sugar cane to produce etanol, it's more efficient because it's a C4 plant. I guess it's possible in the south of the US.
[1] It's not so bad in my opinion if you can mix some meat in the sauce.
Yellow corn is very popular here in Argentina. Things I ate this or last week:
* Home made popcorn: made from whole yellow corn grains.
* Corn on the cob: Sweet yellow corn. We just learned that you can microwave them for 6 minutes instead of boiling.
* Polenta: Grinded yellow corn. Add milk, butter and as much cheese as possible. You can buy the precooked grinded corn, and it takes less than 5 minutes. Bonus points for a sauce with tomato, onion, peppers, and red chorizo. [1]
* Humita/Tamales: Put some grinded corn wrapped inside the corn husk and boil it. I had not eat them since a long time ago, but they use also yellow corn here. I like it, but it requires a lot of preparation.
We use white corn only for food related to our two independence day:
* Locro: Mix split white hard corn, beans, pumpkin pieces, potatoes, pieces of meat with bone and whatever you can find. Boil it for hours and hours and hours. I probably eat it once or twice a year. [2]
* Mazamorra (porridge?): Mix split white hard corn with sugar and probably milk. Boil it until it's soft, that may take a very long time. I think I eat it once or twice in my life, for some patriotic celebration.
Dent corn doesnt make popcorn nor can you eat it as sweet corn, it is a corn optimized for starch. If you want to eat it directly you must put a nixtamalization process on it or it doesn't have much nutritional value. Typically it's processed into starch process, or turned into fuel or fructose.
> Dent corn is the variety used in food manufacturing as the base ingredient for cornmeal flour (used in the baking of cornbread), corn chips, tortillas, and taco shells. It is also used to make corn syrup.
After a quick search, you need "flint" corn instead of "dent" corn for polenta (it appears to be similar to grits). I guess in case of an emergency anyone is better than nothing.
Also, it would be much easier to switch if the people has the know-how. (I'm worried about the availability of enough seeds of the other corn.)
> so you will have to flood a lot of land to get enough.
Not necessarily, just use pre-existing water treatment plants to grow algae, and vertical photobioreactors exist. Algae also has a much higher harvest rate versus corn, and if you only wanted to ferment the algal biomass into corn you'd have much higher yields than corn.
> Also, in case of a war or blockade you can switch the corn use from ethanol to food. You will have to eat tortilla and polenta for a year [1] but it's better than algae from seawater or famine.
True
> Here we use sugar cane to produce etanol, it's more efficient because it's a C4 plant. I guess it's possible in the south of the US.
Agreed.
The article is just wrong. And only mentions energy used for heating in passing. Heating requires MASSIVE amounts of energy.
I should know bc I have a whole house battery and solar system (almost 30 kWh battery and 24kW solar). It keeps the lights on, but not heating. I live in a mild climate.
The reality is that battery/solar requires major quality of life and activity time shifting trade-offs.
People still build houses like energy is cheap and abundant. A properly insulated house in any temperate climate require very little heating or cooling.
Spend 50k on insulation that will last the life of the building instead of 50k on heating and cooling devices which will need constant maintenance and replacement + fuel and end up costing 10x more over the life of the building.
A modern house with modern insulation in a mild climate shouldn't even need a central heating system. You can get by with 500w toaster heaters in each room for the coldest time of the year
In the short term the math is usually bad. Can be a 20, 30, 40 year payback on insulation. For the builder? It’s almost for sure a loss unless he can play the green card. For any individual owner? They are likely to leave before they recoup a project like this. Appraisals on houses are price per square foot with a bedroom and bathroom modifier. Until people start pricing in energy efficiency in homes, say a price multiple of 0.8 to 1.2 based on the efficiency of the home? It’s going to be hard to math out.
Which yes is sad.
I live in a moderately cold area and pay less than $2000 a year to heat a ~2000 square foot home. So something that improves the efficiency of the building would have to have a pretty low cost to even pay back at all.
There's probably a few lower cost things that I am overlooking, to the tune of netting out a few hundred dollars of savings after however many years they took to pay back.
> Can be a 20, 30, 40 year payback on insulation. For the builder?
In the UK, houses have energy ratings, which are largely not that useful, but they do allow estimated annual running charge.
The house that I live in we moved in and were spending ~1.7k on gas a year.
We needed to re-render the place, because it has a few missing pieces. we spent the extra £4 to put in 90mm of external wall insulation. We also had to replace the glazing. It was cheaper to get triple glazing (for some reason), however the results of that was that it was 6degrees warmer in winter, and 10 degrees (celcius) cooler in summer. Even with gas prices doubling, we spend about £70 on hotwater and heating.
There's also the simple reality that houses with better energy ratings are worth more when they are sold. If you own a house, it's a good way to lower your bills and increase the value of your house. The only thing you know for sure when you pay hundreds per month for gas is that it goes out of the chimney. Over ten years, that adds up. Most houses you can probably do some sensible things that definitely earn themselves back in that kind of period while also increasing the value of your property. The inconvenience and financing tend to be the big obstacle. Add incentives to the mix and it becomes an easy choice in a lot of places.
> For any individual owner? They are likely to leave before they recoup a project like this
How do you draw this conclusion? Like any other expensive, long-lasting part of the house, this should be seen as an asset which is “priced-in“ to the value of the building.
In northern Europe houses are insulated and have a rating. Cost to heat and electricity use are even standard part of a property listing and people do make it part of their total household cost calculation.
same here. 1940's house with slate roof and vermiculite "insulation". You can't just use modern insulation techniques or blown-in foam because that would make exterior wood rot. You need to keep the air flowing the right way to dry out the wood.
Same here... my walls are brick that need to breathe or they will crack and crumble within years if sealed up too tight.
Same goes with the cinder block foundation. If insulated, it moves the freeze/thaw interface inside the block and then you end up with a failing foundation.
I have to clean the eaves of my house myself because nobody I hire will believe me that you can't point a pressure washer at the eaves without water getting inside the walls. "I'll just avoid the vents" doesn't work when you can see daylight between the roof and the wall all around the house.
You don't even need to go that far, put 100m of tubing 2m underground and plug it in your heat recovery ventilation system, bam free winter freeze protection/pre warming and free summer cooling, all you need is a 30w pumps and you will save hundreds of kw per year
I think my comment is pretty clear about the use case, this is obviously not water for your floor heating. You shouldn't even have that in a properly insulated house, way too much inertia.
There are electric floor heating graphene foils that put out 20w per sqm, they're more than enough, no moving part, no maintenance, no bs, not even 20% of the price of a hydro floor heating, you can even install them yourself
Heat recovery ventilation systems exchange inside air for outside air through an air to air heat exchanger (modern energy-efficient houses are built too tight for natural air exchange). If you make the incoming outdoor air an even 50°F (except when the outdoor temperature is between about 50° and 70°) then you spend less on heating and cooling.
Yes you're right and I don't disagree. But a 500w heater isn't going to cut it when it's 20F outside. You actually have to run the heat as hard as possible when the sun is shining so you have some thermal momentum going into the evening.
The end result is you're going to make big lifestyle changes to accommodate the energy. For example everyone sleeping in 1 bedroom and only cooking with an electric pressure cooker or low and slow with an induction range.
A house built to passive house standards requires less than 10w per sqm of peak heating demand, a 500w toaster will warm 50sqm, which is a decent room already.
There are passive houses built at 2000m altitude in the Alps, some are made of wood and have literal strawbales for insulation, there are no excuses left in 2026 not to build good houses, it's more economical, more practical, more comfortable, more ecological
> A properly insulated house in any temperate climate require very little heating or cooling.
A "properly insulated" house still requires something around 0,5 W/m2/K. Modeling a moderate 120 m2 house in the coldest months when the temperatures hit 15-20 negative you still need 2,5 kW of heat with domestic hot water on top. Put in the efficiency of a heat pump and you are still easily looking at half a mega watt-hour per month. ~1MWh for a whole house is very reasonable number during winter months, sans electric mobility.
That's entirely unrealistic to cover with batteries with current battery technologies alone, electricity generation is absolutely REQUIRED. Windmills can help soften the blow and storage needs substantially, but the TFA is about solar, which is effectively absent during the winter.
That was a good number in 1980 lmao (or in the US maybe), passive houses are often 1/5th of that. I'm talking 25cm+ of rockwool in the walls, 40cm on the roof and triple pane windows, mostly facing south, reasonably shaped house that conserve heat by design, etc.
0.5 W/m²/K is a good value.... for a window, certainly not for the overall house, for a wall it wouldn't even pass code in most of Europe
> That's entirely unrealistic to cover with batteries with current battery technologies alone
> passive houses are often 1/5th of that.
> 0.5 W/m²/K is a good value.... <...> for a wall it wouldn't even pass code in most of Europe
There's a mix of miscommunication and wat. I'm using approximate floor area values here, not perimeter walls. 0.1 W/m2/K for a WALL is definitely not a "passive" house, that's barely A++.
> I'm talking 25cm+ of rockwool in the walls, 40cm on the roof and triple pane windows,
Yep, this gets you something like 0.5 realistic, maaaaybe up to 0.3 in the models.
> > > That's entirely unrealistic to cover with batteries with current battery technologies alone
> It already is a reality for many people.
Megawatt-hour level home-battery installs? Show us a picture. That's literally a room full of batteries. The actual reality is having ten or so kilowatt-hours to balance rooftop solar.
It costs a lot more than 50K to retrofit a house towards passive standards.
Not everyone has the capital (even with gov subsidies) to make those investments, and it's generally the people who need to save a few bucks on bills the most that DONT have the money.
I'm replying to someone who bought a 30kwh battery and 24kwp setup, in my country that's already classified as a "local energy provider" I think they're doing OK financially.
People still spend literal millions on poorly built and poorly insulated mcmansions today btw, it's not a money issue.
GP's argument is the marginal cost when building new is roughly that amount, not that any house can be retrofitted for that amount.
However, it's not that far off for retrofitting, if you do it when your siding already needs to be replaced. Add 3-5" XPS foam to the exterior of any standard house; if a basement you bring insulation several feet down and out below the ground. If cathedral ceiling, when replacing the roof you put 6-8" polyiso down over the sheathing before the new roofing material. If vented roof, get 1.5x code minimum blown in the attic. Air seal first, of course (1-hour of air sealing is the best ROI of anything you can do in an old house).
Passive house standards first gained popularity in Germany and Scandinavia but it seems the principles have been adapted to quite a wide range of climate zones now.
Take plants that can use enery from the sun 'freely'. Is it cheap for them? Not really when you look at the evolutionary battle between plant species. There is always another plant willing to take your place if you're inefficient, slow growing, not poisoning the ground around you, or some other trick to keep you alive.
Any means to keep energy cheap and abundant must be by force because it is not a natural order.
Not saying it shouldn't, I'm just saying it isn't. Housing should be free and taxes illegal but here we are. Some retard decides to go to war with Iran and it costs 30% more to tank your car, I'm not making the rules. Solar panels got 15% more expensive over night in my country too. What happens when they decide to mess around with China? They make 70% of batteries and panels.
24kW solar "to keep lights on" is a funny way to underplay it. My house "summer" electricity usage is 60kWh per month, including water pump, DHW, septic and work from home for 2 adults. So 3h of your PV production would power my house for a month!
Regarding heating - I live in cold climate. We had average daily temperature of -10c this january, with multiple lows at -25c, and most nights at -15c. The house is 116sqm. Our heatpump COP for that month was above 2, and we used 787kWh total to heat the house, which is not a lot, actually. At 15 cents per kWh it is 118 euros for heating, for the coldest month in a decade! Considering also that we do not pay for electricity since april until october (solar panels).
We also paid less than those houses which use natural gas, wood pellets, etc. We also do not need to do anything to keep house warm. Also, during summer months we could "drive for free" in EV due to free solar electricity.
All that just to counter your take on "major quality of life and activity time shifting trade-offs".
I live in a northern climate and I know multiple people who are net zero with solar+basic battery.
Proper insulation and good windows go a very long way. For instance, I set my heat to 66F during the day and 60F at night. When I wake up in the morning, the register is usually still above 60F.
66F is ridiculously cold to me, and I live in Canada where it can reach -40(F or C) in the winter. I would find that very uncomfortable and elderly people would be shivering constantly and highly susceptible to respiratory illness.
I have a modern cold climate air source heat pump which essentially needs to run 24 hours a day to maintain a stable 20C when the outdoor temperatures reach -15C. Below that, the heat pump shuts off and the furnace kicks in to provide emergency heating. My thermostat is a modern one with full time-of-day and day-of-week scheduling for heating and cooling, but it doesn't matter because the heat pump by itself is not able to swing the temperature up (by even half a degree) on its own, so this causes the furnace to kick in every time the schedule calls for a higher temperature, defeating the entire purpose of time-of-day scheduling.
I will also add that where I live (Southern Ontario) the sky is overcast 90% of the time during the winter. Solar panels, even somehow free of snow and ice, are going to produce almost nothing on those dark days. Add in the need to keep the panels free of snow and ice (presumably with heating, since nobody is going to be climbing around on their roof in the winter), and you'd likely reach energy net-negative trying to make use of them.
Modern heat pumps can heat efficiently at -25 degrees Celsius or even lower. Not sure if they are available in Canada, but in Scandinavia (similar climate) they are pretty common.
I also agree that 66F (about 19 degrees Celsius) is not comfortable during day time. It is fine for sleeping temperature. During winter homes in heating dominated climates typically have higher indoor temperatures. One advantage of lower inside temperature is that relative humidity stays slightly higher when it is very cold outside.
>66F is ridiculously cold to me...I would find that very uncomfortable and elderly people would be shivering constantly and highly susceptible to respiratory illness.
I know people who live in the Mediterranean and get by with no heating during the winter with indoor and outdoor tempuratures this low or lower, so it seems that one can be conditioned into doing so.
Perhaps it's the presence of more sunlight on average rather than the temperature that makes the difference.
You’re forgetting about humidity. Mediterranean climate has comfortable humidity year-round. Where I live, winter relative humidity is 0% because outdoor humidity is nonexistent from freezing temperatures.
My temperature tolerance has varied quite drastically over my lifetime. Born in the south, raised mostly in Iowa as one of those kids who was wearing shorts as soon as the temp was above 20 degrees. To a pathetic SoCal resident who reaches for a jacket or hoodie when it hits 65 degrees. You absolutely do adapt and rather quickly.
People acclimatize pretty well if you let them. We keep our house at 65F all winter, and set the AC for 85F in the summer and everyone is pretty happy. The payback period on a good sweater is not very long.
Setting for command is different from actual temp. Plus, humidity is rarely accounted for. A good AC that lowers humidity from 90%+ to 30% and this 30°C home becomes quite comfortable.
I actually live on the same latitude as Ontario so -40F/C is not unusual. Add in windchill, and it gets even more common, given my windy location.
Yeah, I understand I'm probably an outlier at 66F. I was using the numbers more to point out how little a house temperature will drop with good windows and insulation.
What year was your house built? Do you have a whole-house humidifier?
My house was built in the late 1980s. It has decent insulation but not amazing. It still needs a lot of heating when temperatures plunge below -15C. I do not have a whole-house humidifier. I had one with my previous furnace but it had issues with mold in the filter and clogging of the condensate pump.
In the northwest corner of Massachusetts I converted an old school into an apartment building. I installed 2" of polystyrene on the outside and about a foot of cellulose in the ceilings. We relay on heatpumps for HVAC. I also installed a 50kW solar array. We don't start paying for heating until Nov/Dec and stop paying in Apr/May. Our Electric usage goes through the roof in Jan/Feb/Mar. Our weak point is that the exterior walls are about 40% windows. I hope to install better thermal shades which will cost about $80k. We also last fall installed a solar thermal array to for hot water and heat the hallway which is radiant floor. I would like to think we could achieve net-zero but I will likely need to expand the solar array by about 200%.
Thermal curtains are more effective than good windows. Good windows are minimally helpful.
Thermal curtains are a godsend. I remember reading about your journey and I hope it works out! I think it'd be money well spent.
In my last house, I replaced single pane windows with properly installed, sealed, and insulated double-hungs and it practically cut my heat bill in half. I agree that modern window to modern window replacement probably won't get you much, though.
Net zero. But not effectively zero. They sell energy during the day when no one needs it and buy it an night when we all need it. If we all switched to solar and heat pumps there would be blackouts and an energy crisis
If no one needs it during the day, they can't sell it. That's not how markets work. Energy that is generated, needs to be consumed or else the grid breaks down. These two facts together mean, that the energy they sell is needed and used. Albeit they could generate and sell even more energy, if the energy could be stored or if the load could be shaped accordingly. The latter is a great way to lower energy costs.
Energy consumption during the night is low. So low, that night time electricity prices, which are lower than the daytime prices, are still a thing.
Heat pumps are an opportunity for load shaping. Buildings can be heated, when electricity is abundant and heated a few degree over the target temperature, if needed. The heat is stored inside the building and needs less heating during the night. That works quite well, especially here in Europe were buildings generally have good insulation and are made of brick, which can store a lot of heat.
Solar generates like 1/10 in the northern countries for half of the year. No batteries currently can solve this.
The problem with global ecological regulations is they never differentiate between countries on the equator or 30th parallel with countries around 60. They expect everyone to only run on sun and wind. It isn't possible. There has to be at least nuclear which is ridiculously expensive.
It's generally not an easy problem to solve otherwise it wouldn't be a problem anymore.
First sensible thing to do is to relax the expectations for countries like Poland that have no good way to compete with other countries energy wise because of geographical location that noone chooses.
It is extremely unfair to treat everyone the same even though every country has different energy resources.
There's a solution that costs less than fossil fuels, but it's a coordination problem and the USA is structurally unable to solve those anymore. I guess the Soviet Union wins the last laugh?
Because the sun doesn't shine every day. Where I live, the sky is overcast 90% of the time in the winter. You can't charge the batteries during the summer and run them all winter.
They've fallen victim to a catastrophically easy scare tactic, unfortunately. "The sun only shines during the day therefore solar is bad!" Dumb, but easy.
In Toronto there is only daylight for 9 hours in winter
Yes surely some days are cloudy
So some days you get 5% capacity factor, and need some other energy source as well
So it harms the economics of the venture
Look at the profitability of companies building utility scale solar farms, they cost 100 million and the company hopes to get a 10% return and pay a 3% dividend.
They still have to contend with moving parts for tracking the angle of the sun, fans on inverters, contactors, clearing snow, mowing grass, site drainage, tornadoes etc, so sometimes it is not as easy as it sounds
All for a 7%? Why shouldn’t they just buy the s&p 500 and call it a day
I had a 20kWh array and 18kWh of batteries in Texas and it was GREAT in the summer. It'd start charging by 6am and be charged by 9am, even with simultaneous usage. Then we'd live off solar for the day (even with HVAC), go back on batteries around 9pm and they'd be out around 4am. No problem.
But during an overcast winter day, the stack wouldn't get power until 8/9, not make it to 50%, start discharging by 4/5pm, and be out by 10/11pm. It would easily be 8-10 hours where we were wholly dependent on the grid.
Not a problem, just a constraint to acknowledge and plan for.
At 66F, I struggle to do job because my fingers go numb and I can't touch-type well. If others have that problem, a small heat-lamp (like for a reptile cage) can locally heat just the area above the keyboard cheaply.
Respectfully, 30kWh is not much in this context. In 10 years every modern 2-car home will have 200kWh on the driveway just from the EVs; add a 100kWh whole home battery at a price point close to a 10kWh battery today and the calculus changes in most of the world.
The cost of materials going into modern batteries easily leaves room for another 10x reduction in price, IMO where this all is heading is obvious. Zero marginal cost will win every day of the week.
FWIW we run our cabin on 15kWh battery today year around, though we do run a small wood stove to supplant the heat pump on cold winter days.
40 kWH of storage and 9 kW of solar panels is all I need personally to live a 1st world lifestyle in the bay area mostly off-grid except for water and internet.
PNW is fraught, amazing during the Summer, but underpowered in Winter. The best solution is overprovisioning panels by a factor of 4 or so if the room is available. Did a place up there and it's hugely overproductive half the year, and just under break even in the dead of Winter.
From the Bay area or so and down across the country is ideal for solar, passing through a lot of red states that ought to know better. Fun fact though: Texas has the most windmills of any state by a huge margin.
I bet you didn't even see the tragic farce when writing your solution. Land development requiring ”2-car homes" is the driver of the problem! An apartment only has to heat one or two walls facing the outside instead of 4. That's 50-75% right off the top of your energy usage, with the mean closer to 75%.
There's nothing farcical about wanting one's own space where there's space to have one's own space. I'm grateful to no longer be sharing walls with a domestic abuse couple on one side and a midnight banshee on the other wall when she got busy. Energy is cheap, people are exhausting.
And that gets into another coordination problem we're unable to solve. It's a solved problem to build apartments where you can't hear your neighbors, but the builders don't have incentive to spend the money upfront to do so and we add regulations to make it more expensive for them to do so. So people go on thinking "apartments suck" and not the correct "we shouldn't let people build apartments which suck".
Also, living in SFH isn't avoiding all problems. I'd rather live in a properly-built apartment than my old house when my neighbor left her dogs outside to bark for the entire work day, every single day, and all the city would do is fine her a hundred bucks every few months. (or if you want to say "rural", that's 1 a small fraction of the population and 2 I like hospitals).
And the usual engineer mindset to consider the options to be 1 or 0, no?
I just live far enough from the center of it all that I have a vacant quarter acre and thicker windows that happened when the last owner's mistakes caught up with me the current owner. For medical, I have UCSF, and for major medical, I have medical tourism, something I fully endorse from experience. And yes, not everyone can do that. And well, I can't touch my toes and they probably can. Life's funny that way.
No reason to be rude or hyperbolic - I agree with you that cars destroy communities and we should strive to reduce the need for cars and parking.
For solar powered homes specifically though, multi-story buildings are much harder to run solar powered from the simple ratios - even if you reduce energy use 75%, at 4 stories you are break-even in roof-ratio-to-energy-need. I’ve worked in this space a while, and it’s now pretty straight forward to run single-family homes 24/7/367 on solar in most of the world, but multi story buildings are much harder.
Utility solar is cheaper in studies that do not factor in the cost of distribution, but the picture is much less clear when total system cost is considered - not having to pay for expanded distribution grids or new interconnects is a major benefit of residential production.
As for the last part not being true, can you clarify? The majority of the earths population lives between the 20th and 40th latitude, the band around the earth approximately between Madrid and the Sahara desert. Sure you can’t run a poorly insulated home in northern Michigan on solar year around without considerable expense, but that’s nowhere near where the majority of humanity lives.
> I should know bc I have a whole house battery and solar system
This is not really a qualification to speak on how the grid works, at all.
Actually having panels on your roof doesn't give you unique insight into how solar panels operate - there is extensive data out there, any PV installation can become a data source trivially.
> The reality is that battery/solar requires major quality of life and activity time shifting trade-offs.
One residence powering itself is not representative of how the grid works, and is not a good way to evaluate any power generation technology whether its PV, coal, nuclear, etc.
I'm actually trying to accomplish what the author is describing, so I have experience to talk about the difficulty of its implementation (unlike the author himself, who has zero experience with its implementation to speak of).
This is basically correct in the sense that we cannot simply just force everyone in, say, Minnesota to install electric baseboard heating, rooftop solar, and a battery pack, and then expect them to stay warm. There are periods of extended extreme cold and low solar flux where you would simply not be able to warm everyone's house - that's just physics.
But there are a lot of extra things you can do as an intermediate steps to dramatically close the gap. The main ones are:
1. Homes can be renovated to improve insulation
2. Cold weather heat pumps can handle most mild winter conditions efficiently
3. Electricity doesn't all have to be locally generated - it can be transmitted from other parts of the country.
4. You can keep using fossil fuel peaker plants, and still have incredible reduced overall emissions
The article is about utility scale solar and storage I believe not home installations. It also mentions towards the end that in cold norther climates adding wind to the mix makes sense
There are TONS of incentives to increase energy efficiency.
Most local electric and gas companies will do free energy audits. Many will offer rebates if you install tankless water heaters, heat pumps, and insulation. Installers get kickbacks from manufacturers and tax credits if you buy higher efficiency equipment. Lenders will give you 0% loans to fund it all. The Feds and many States offer tax credits for all of the above.
I've done every single thing on this list in the last 5 years, some in Texas, some in Indiana.
A well built home with more insulation will, according to physics, lose less heat in any given scenario. So policies that push for things that improve buildings can reduce energy use.
Do you think we have reached peak building efficiency or something?
Beyond the other better insulation comments, pairing electric with heat pumps that are SEER 10+ goes a long way to improve heating efficiency. Old resistive heaters are 1:1 on energy to heat, while newer heat pumps operate to much lower temperatures, and give you 1:10 or 1:15 electric:heat energy ratios.
My heat pump is SEER 19, and it can't heat my house below 25F. I think this is mostly due to it not being large enough - it was sized to cool my house on the hot summer days, and more energy needs to move on the cold winter days.
SEER, while a useful first-order approximation of efficiency, is for cooling and not heating. HSPF-V is for cold climates. Likely you just don't have a cold-climate heat pump which maintains full capacity down to -10°C (and some a little lower still), even before you get into appropriate maximum capacity.
That's not even close to correct. At the design lowest temperature (if <15°C), the very best get 2 COP, but most are 1.5 or lower. The problem is you have to accommodate the worst case.
The average of installed units is closer to 2.0 COP average, unfortunately. Multi-head units really drive down efficiency. A single-head Gree Sapphire can do 4-5 COP on average and that's the best you can get, so still nowhere near your guess.
Under what circumstances? I've seen higher-end units that do maybe 1:5 in ideal conditions (heating to 68F when the ambient temp is 55F), but never seen units that do 1:10 or 1:15. This was about 2-3 years ago I did this research. Have things improved that drastically in the last few years?
Too many folks here do not understand or care to appreciate the constraints of the real world. Heat pumps are excellent and relatively cheap but have limitations. One of the biggest limitations is that a heat pump's efficiency drops as ambient temperature drops. This is the worst possible situation for heating as the conditions when the risks of losing heat are the highest, are precisely the conditions when these devices are least efficient.
As long as they remain more efficient than resistive heaters down to the lowest temperatures you experience, it's a win. Heat pump efficiency is still improving. You can get heat pumps that can handle down to -35°C now with even better ones in the works.
I'm not questioning the merit of heat pumps. I should know because i have two in Ontario, Canada, one rated to -35 C and the other rated to - 25 C.
What i remain opposed to is this persistent idea that heat pumps work in all situations, for all people and for all time. They do not, and heat pumps create a unique set of problems that we might not be fully prepared for.
House heating does not require massive amounts of energy. What it requires is efficiency. I've seen a house in Canada that was heated with a single candle when not occupied. Triple wall, reflective foil in between the wall layers, vertical movement of air in the walls interrupted every 30 cm or so. Absolutely amazing. And it still had sizeable windows. If your house doesn't leak energy like a sieve you don't need to replace as much either. Between passive solar and some augmentation you can do fine on an extremely modest energy budget.
And Canada is not exactly the warmest country on the planet.
What's the actual effect you get out of that? Even half, 12 kW, would be an absolutte beast of heating (for a home), even with 'dumb' convection heating. With heat pumps 2-3 kW should really be enough.
You should store your solar energy as heat. You move the heat from outside or underground into your house with a heat pump where the heat storage lasts a week or more. You need very little solar to heat your house this way.
So for a mild climate your installer seems to have done you a disservice and probably overcharged you. You can heat an average house with solar for under $14K if properly installed.
There isn't a lot you can reasonably do to something that is already there. I insulated my attic better, but there wasn't enough space to go as high as I wanted (I guess I could in the middle, but not around the edges). The thin walls are still thin, and not much I can do about it for a reasonable price. Likewise the windows are really bad, but the cost of good windows is large. By the time I insulated this house to modern standards I'm nearly half way to tearing it down and building something new (a complete destroy is a lot cheaper than trying to take something off without destroying the rest) - and a new house would get a lot of other benefits (I want a larger kitchen but there is no place to put it)
Which is why a lot of poorly insulated houses still exist - people have mostly done what can be done for a reasonable price, but anything that will make a difference is also very expensive with very long paybacks.
Because where I live around 55th this winter we had five straight weeks below -15c / 5f daily average plus enough snowfall that it was infeasible to clean anything but the most major roads.
Solar is out of question in these conditions and when thermal pump fails you have to evacuate. When just grid electricity fails you have to either have some sort of stored fuel backup or evacuate.
The article is typical handwavy crap which is popular among people living in what amounts to subtropics who can't even imagine how crazy they sound to most everyone else.
> The article is typical handwavy crap which is popular among people living in what amounts to subtropics
To be fair, 90% of the population lives within 45 degrees of the equator. If we're talking about global energy solutions for CO2 reduction, we can go a long way just by focusing on what works in these areas of the globe.
The article does also point out that hydro/wind are going to be important at higher latitudes in winter, but they also acknowledge that they don't account for seasonal variation in demand. That's the biggest flaw I can find in the analysis.
FWIW: I'm down in a mild arid climate at 35N, and yeah, 90% of our winter days are nearly sunny, even when the lows are in the teens. It's a different world for sure.
Most space heating is in the Northern parts though, so those are the ones that need to be addressed. There are solutions that are a pareto improvement, but it's a coordination problem and the USA is sufficiently broken and unable to solve those.
handwavy argument. Yes, in the (sub)tropics the argument is even stronger pro-PV, not the least because it'll give you the opposite of heating - aircon - for free right when you need it. And considering summer heatwaves as have been seen the last few years "way north", that benefit will extend that way even if you wouldn't bother considering letting it "assist", if not fully replace, your heating. That said though, for 50° polewards and above, if you wanted to use PV in winter orient the panels vertically. If you can clad your too floor with shiplap larch so you can with PV panels. Given the price of timber ... there's a plan.
> The article is typical handwavy crap which is popular among people living in what amounts to subtropics who can't even imagine how crazy they sound to most everyone else.
Most everyone else? Only about two percent of the Earths population live above the 55th parallel. There’s a big gulf between that and the ‘subtropics’.
I don’t disagree that solar/battery isn’t the answer for 100% of power needs, let alone 100% of heating needs, but if we got to even 50% we’d be in a lot better situation than we are now.
Yes 30 kWh battery is considered large. It takes up a full 6 slot 2u rack in my garage and cost around $8k. In the context of OP's goals it's larger than what 99% of people in the world will ever have.
Approximately 1% of people in the world currently have an EV with a more than 30 kWh battery... and we're very early in the adoption curve of EVs and other large batteries.
As far as I understood it, it only talks about electricity, so that doesn't seem like a contradiction to me. I think some electrification of heating is expected in 2030, but not that much bigger than it is now.
Do check that your heater isn’t doing something ridiculous. A while back I helped someone debug a Mitsubishi Electric system on which the installer had set the fan speed control to high instead of auto (it’s an easily accessible setting on the thermostat). I forget exactly how much power was saved, but IIRC it was well over 30kWh/day.
I don’t know where all that energy was going. I expected some improvement but not anywhere near that much.
I'm not sure how sustainable it is at scale but I know someone who winters off a woodburning stove. They basically get their wood for free from trees that come down in their yard or people's yards that they know. They use a hydraulic woodsplitter to manage splitting all the wood.
Note that the article title has "the world" in it, immediately limits his specific claims to 80% of the world nearer the equatorr as most of the people in the world have more need for cooling than heating.
He even has a map that covers this and multiple paragraphs of discussion about high latitudes and wind in winter.
This is a large pv system for what I assume is a single family home. Do you have resistive in floor heating or an electric boiler feeding radiators? I imagine you could easily run a half dozen mini-splits drawing 500-1000w each, or a centralized heat pump. Happy to help if you can give more details.
The article should have explored that aspect further but it's not all or nothing. For example, a geothermal setup could significantly offset the amount of energy required to heat a home.
where are you? that is a massive amount of solar in any place at a reasonably low latitude. Is your house enormous or are you heating your house with resistive heating?
Isn't it all relative? Cooling actually isn't a problem at all with solar. I can run my AC full blast during the summer and still get the batteries fully charged before evening.
Gonna go off on a limb and guess that you live in North America where the state of the art in single-family homes is double-pane windows and thin outer walls made of cardboard and pressboard, clad with "luxurious" vinyl siding. I mean no offense to you guys. It is what it is.
My house in the bay area runs at <1kW per hour most of the time and the sunlight is more than enough to keep it above 65F most of the year. Maybe you need LED lights because when I'm not there, it's ~150W per hour.
Of course actual data like this is downvote heresy! Go for it! Also, bite me.
That power use seems reasonably believable. I'm in the Puget Sound area where we get less sunlight than you and our winters are colder, and I just made a graph of my daily electricity use for 2025 [1]. My house is all electric.
I had 219 days with under 24 kWh use, i.e., drawing an average under 1 kW. I got an EV in mid April that year which I charged with the included level 1 charger until getting a 12 kW EVSE installation in I think May. (2024, the last year with no EV charging, had 240 days under 24 kWh).
Almost every day that was over 30 kWh after that was a day when I charged the car which was typically on a Saturday which is also typically when I do laundry which includes about 5 kWh for the clothes dryer.
I was puzzled by the large number of days near or above 50 kWh in February. The end of 2025 doesn't look like it is setting up 2026 for that high a usage. I just checked the weather records and it doesn't look like that was a particularly cold time.
I just made another graph just showing February 2024, 2025, and 2026, and a third showing January of those 3 years, and both show that in 2026 I'm using quite a lot less power (except for the EV charging) than in the prior years.
I've not changed any habits...but in November 2025 I had my house weatherized. They added a lot more insulation under the house (I already had sufficient attic insulation) and did blower tests and sealed everything that was leaking, and it appears this cut energy use by somewhere in the 10-20% range.
It seems then early 2025 appears so high because the end of 2025 is showing the effects of weatherizing.
I build off-grid camper vans for a living and install solar + lithium battery systems regularly. The technology has matured a lot in the last few years. What used to take a massive roof array and a bank of heavy lead-acid or AGM batteries to run basic appliances now fits in a fraction of the space with lithium. The limiting factor in real-world installs isn't the panels or the batteries anymore, it's getting customers to right-size the system for their actual usage instead of what they think they'll use. People consistently underestimate idle draws and overestimate how much sun they'll get. Scale that mindset problem up to a national grid and I imagine the challenge is the same.
I build off-grid electrical campers (Mercedes eSprinter) with extended 600kWh batteries (11 times more battery capacity than the default model) and charge them from solar panels at home. I disagree with your negative mindset, people who ride in my eCamper quickly learn you can go 100% solar and use you camper at home to store all neighborhood solar and even charge other EVs from our eCamper battery. We make our own parallel battery cell dis/charger to extent the LFP battery life to 20000 charges (one a day for 50 years).
15kWh 48V LFP battery around $1800 with low quality battery management system in metal box on wheels. Car batteries need more expensive inverters if you want to fast charge them (150kW-950kW) and super fast discharge them while driving fast (>100 kW). Thus my 600kW extender comes to almost $62000 for vans and small trucks. Cheaper if installed as house battery. The Mercedes eSprinter 56kW van costs around $80000 new but we sell 3 year old vans like this for $4000 without battery. So refurbished and converted to eCamper with 1800 mile range you pay $6700. You can drive 3000 km (almost 1860 miles) with this battery in the eSprinter and eCamper. A normal size car would go twice as far with this battery but it's big and heavy enough that you need to tow it in a trailer.
The crucial point though is the charging/discharging inverter (converter) that I purpose built (printed circuits boards) and a change to the car firmware. Without it the car will reject the battery, your acceleration would be less and it also would not last the same amount of discharge cycles. My battery electronics works fine for cars, trucks, boats, house and neighborhood batteries (up to 6mW per shipping container).
eSprinter 2022 is 56kWh. In Europe I'm limited in the size of a battery by the total legal weight of van and it's trailer combined. So I can not tow more weight than 600KWh LFP batteries with this particular van. But with $0.01 cost per kWh it only cost $60 (52,08 Euro) for a full charge, good for 2000 km (Amsterdam to southern Spain). So even though I carry 5.5-6 times as much weight as a small city car around, it cost me a lot less than having a tiny battery and charging at commercial chargers with $0.40-$0.90 fees per kWh. And a lot less than gasoline (benzine) or diesel.
Also the larger battery means the individual cells can be pulse charged much slower and each cell individually at the rate where it doesn't damage that much. I measure the temperature, voltage and current of each cell so they never overheat. This is how I get many more cycles out of each cell so they last 50 years. It is also safer, with thousands of temperature measurements several times per second not a single sell gets warm, and if they ever do it is because it is damaged and we can immediately disconnect it and tell the driver where to locate it and remove it.
For a truck these thousands of battery cells discharging slowly in parallel becomes the reason all trucking companies will be forced to switch from diesel to electric, it is several times cheaper per mile or km. Lower energy cost, lower maintainace, lower downtime, longer life. The only thing you would want is that the maximum weight limit per truck goes up so you can ship more per trip. Right now you ship little kilo's if you carry a heavy battery. But charging with your own solar at home base is so much cheaper that it is worth to do two trips versus 1 trip with diesel.
The reason electric trucks are not yet everywhere is that the truck makers ask ridiculous amounts for battery cells that are still wired in series and discharged too fast to last long. Simply bad design. We need a disruptive electric truck startup and we need a disruptive battery startup. Investors welcome...
Thank you. I hardly get to explain the techology I 'invent' (power chips, power router, parallel battery charger, car firmware, charging (station) software, simulation software) because the investors customers only want to hear that its cheaper or sells better (then Tesla). Or that besides going from 4000 to 20000 dis/charge cycles you also prevent any li-ion fires and have fire alarm sensors on every battery cell. The main thing I would like to shout from the rooftops is: Not a single battery on the planet charges their battery cells in parallel as we do, they all shorten their cell lifetime by charging/discharging them to fast in series, what will damage all battery cell types but especially the li-ion.
It is the same with the article we are commenting on here: if people just listen to the statistics, the simulations and the actual market developments they would see that 100% solar+battery is the cheapest energy.
The simple message is Solar is by far the cheapest energy: below 1 dollar cent per kWh and that will fall a lot more in the next decade until we get to 'a squanderable abundance of free and clean energy' as Bob Metcalf puts it https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=axfsqdpHVFU
Batteries still double the cost of that solar but these prices are falling rapidly too. It is already cheaper to have solar nearby than transmit it over a distance of a few miles.
$0,01 per kWh from solar, that is the price worldwide on the condition that they sell you the panels at a reasonable price and don't overcharge you on all the other parts like micro-inverters, field or rooftop installation, permitting and labour. That adds up to around 5 cent for rooftop solar in Australia for example (including everything). 1 cent is for solar panels lasting 50 years (with 20% degradation over decades), we refer to such prices as Levelised Cost Of Energy (LCOE) over lifetime. It halved in the last 10 years for solar and it will halve again (20% cost reduction on each doubling of manufactured capacity). Similar for batteries, they also go down around 20% each year.
1 kWh Wind, or Hydro, Thermal and other renewables do not go down as much in cost price because they have mechanical or chemical components that do not last as long as solar cells and need maintenance and repair.
We keep the cost low by group buying in bulk at wholesale prices (a shipping container with 770 panels for 20-30 houses) with our coop instead of premium installer prices by the electrotechnical or building companies.
If you let our Fiberhood coöperative in the US install your solar, batteries, tiny house or eCamper you do not pay these high tariffs, we have enough panels pre-tariff. So you still can hit 1 cent per kWh but only if you get the decent installers and sellers.
Our energy storage solutions have widened. First you timeshift all electricity use of the car, house or neighborhood into daylight hours when the sun shines. This means a bunch of electronics and software changes. Next we build termal storage solutions, you can store heat much cheaper than electricity. You move heat around with a heat pump. Or you heat your water tank with a datacenter computer in your water tank (for free). In summer you store solar electricity in ice. Or you store it in iron, aluminum, glass or silicon by melting ore and purifying, You embodied the solar electricity into the purified ore.
In northern and southern latitudes you need 10 to 50 times more solar panels to heat houses during cold winters. This means you have large overcapacity in summer that you can sell as embodied iron, etc. Batteries are only needed to store for the hours there is no sunlight during 24 hours, no need to store longer. The cheapest place is to store it in the electrical cars in your neighborhood. That is why we install our own brand ev car chargers in the neighborhood of the panels. In contrast, Tesla chargers overcharge you a factor of 34 to 76 and that's partially because its fossil energy and transmitted over hundreds of miles.
Also Trump doubling solar panel prices with tarifs and shutting down subsidies is wrong, it makes it much more expensive. Add an oil third world war however does help, we sold double solar, batteries and evs in the last month.
I doubt that issue scales to the national grid at all... national grids tend to dictated in size by more or less market forces not careful pre-planning... and capacity planning for new projects tends to have actual data about energy demand and weather patterns and so on.
Very nice. I have my eyes on Lithium-Titanate cells for my house, I can't wait until they go down in price enough. Weight and energy density are not an issue, but safety is and those cells are very good in that sense.
> Scale that mindset problem up to a national grid and I imagine the challenge is the same.
Except that we have raw data there? The only question is how fast it grows, but since we're transitioning that's mostly a question of how fast you decommission fossil plants.
Yeah, agreed. It's a lot easier to be empirical when the scale of the requirements is quite literally unimaginable without just dealing with raw numbers.
If you mean what they started in the 90s? That's not what this is about. The conversation was about not being able to rightsize today.
Germany did jumpstart their market successfully but that was in a wildly different time. Want to talk about what a typical KWp of installed solar cost at the time?
there is a youtube video I watched where an RV guy converted as many appliances and gadgets on his vehicle to Direct DC as he could, saved a lot on wastage from DC-AC-DC conversions.
True, but higher demand for heating in winter is not specific to Germany. In the end, Germany will likely need to import energy anyway - just as it does today. But this means this question may not be the most relevant.
Just my 2c but I think the biggest thing we could do is to reduce the regulatory burden, cost, and complexity associated with installing roof mounted solar. This should be something that can be approved and installed in a week, and should be a half the price (put another it should have a double digit roi) . Right now all of the economics of home solar are consumed by regulation/complexity and the contractors / solar installation companies.
At the consumer scale the biggest thing we could do is follow the german model of panels that can be plugged into an outlet and installed in an hour by any homeowner (with the same capacity limits and requirements on the panels electronics to protect the grid/line workers during power outages).
That said I'm pretty sure that grid-scale solar is the future of most solar energy, not home solar. It's just cheaper to do things in bigger batches.
This statement is 100% correct, but I think is wrong - utility scale solar is 100% more efficient and cheaper to build at scale, the problem is finding large parcels of land to put it on that are close to where the power consumption is, as well as the complexity and cost associated with grid interconnection (and transition if it not close to demand)
Edit: though if we ever get to self driving cars there should be a whole lot of parking lots in metro areas that aren’t needed.
There's been a wave of legislation[1] introduced in the US to legalize so-called "balcony solar," small grid-tied solar systems that plug into a regular household outlet with zero permitting or interconnect requirements. This is already common in Europe, it's mildly complicated by our split-phase system but not much.
The reason for the high burden today is people have developed an inflated sense of how much the kWh they generate is worth. They install massive systems on their roofs to try to "cancel out" their power bill by exporting their entire daily power consumption over the course of a few sunny hours, which (when all their neighbors do the same) ends up being a costly burden for grid operators who then pass the costs on to users without panels. Smaller systems focused on immediate, local consumption rather than export are much better for the grid which is why they have support.
"Costly burden" is an incredible statement. The utilities get what is effectively free electricity generation. Remember every solar customer still pays the grid connection fee, which goes to maintain the grid.
They love to market a "green energy" plan where they pay you 3c for your exported power and charge somebody miles away 25c for it!
It's a true statement and a real problem. These wildcat megawatt-scale generation facilities built on top of suburban neighborhoods produce an un-curtail-able midday oversupply of electricity driving energy prices into the negative.
The power has to go somewhere, SoCal grid operators have to pay real money to neighboring grids to accept the energy being generated while also paying the homeowner who generated it. No grid connection fee comes close to covering this, it's paid for by increasing rates for everyone else. Net metering was a stupid deal cooked up by politicians who are incapable of systems thinking, or simply decided appealing to suburban voters was more important than grid stability.
It's getting better[1] but still a problem, and the solutions being pursued are: discourage export in favor of onsite storage (done by NEM 3.0) and encourage smaller solar installs (balcony solar).
100% this. If it was DIYable, its an order of magnitude cheaper.
I have leftover panels from an off grid install, and its extremely hard to get an approved permit for a small roof solar array + off the shelf AIO (Ecoflow/Anker)
While I'm pro renewables and the article is technically correct (it could work), I don't think this is optimal. What's optimal is using a mix of mostly (>90-95%) renewable technologies for generating power supplemented by gas (short term) and nuclear (long term).
Additionally, there's a lot of stuff that can be done with cables and batteries that we aren't currently doing to over come daily, seasonal, and weather related variation in power output of wind and solar. Put cables north-south to compensate for seasonal drops in solar output. Put them east-west to have solar power in the evenings/early mornings. Off shore and on shore wind can produce a lot of power and the way high pressure and low pressure systems (aka. weather) work, if the wind is not blowing locally that just means it is blowing elsewhere. Having a lot of solar and wind all over the place and cables to move the power around evens out all the peaks and dips. The rest is just using batteries, pumped hydro, and other storage to add enough buffers.
That gets you quite far. Another point here is that people think in rigid "must cover everything 100% of the time", which is valuable but we actually do have a lot of flexibility. You can choose when to charge your car (at night, or at noon), when to run your dishwasher, etc. And does a data center need to be at 100% capacity 100% of the time no matter the cost? Flexible load is a thing. And we can use automation to control it, flexible pricing to incentivize when there are surpluses or shortages, etc. This btw. also neuters the whole "baseload" argument. Baseload power is non flexible power that becomes a problem when we have too much of it. Flexible power is power you can turn off when there's too much of it. The reason energy prices are high in a lot of places is that we have too much of really expensive base load that drives the pricing even if the wind and sun shines for free and gets curtailed. That lack of flexibility is a problem.
That's how we could get to 90% over the next few decades. The remaining 10% is harder / more expensive. Gas peaker plants make a lot of sense to fill that gap. Replaced by nuclear long term. Nothing against that but it's just stupidly expensive and slow to realize. There's no need to build new gas plants for that; we have plenty already.
If you’re one of the many companies working on reaching this goal, in defiance of everyone in this thread and elsewhere insisting it will never work, I’d like to work with you.
I’ve worked with all of the largest solar, battery and EV companies, as well as America’s largest electric utilities, building complex analytics software to enable the clean energy transition. I’m looking for my next role to continue moving the needle on eliminating fossil fuels. Find me here: https://matthewgerring.com
I emailed you. You can work with us as it is a booming market in Europe and Ukraine (and probably in China too), you could expand our market into the USA. We build charging stations, big batteries (see my other posts in this thread and in my HN profile), Enernet smart grids and entire solar only neighborhoods (houses, solar, batteries, fast internet, water and sewage infrastructure) remotely, all based on 100% solar. From $40K per tiny house.
This would be more believable to skeptics if it wasn't all pro-arguments and theory. If you don't cover the cases in which it doesn't work, or at least mention the arguments against, it reads as propaganda.
The thing that reads the most false is the economics. A 480W solar panel is like $90 on sale, they're dirt cheap. A dozen of them is $1,080. But an installed solar+battery system tied to the grid is more like $30,000, and that's not covering the cost of replacing damaged equipment (lightning is a thing). That's just one home, using certified equipment.
For nation-states to do solar and battery, they need land, capital, and skilled labor that most nations don't have. Then there's the fact that not all nations get enough sun, or the fact that you must have a stable backup supply (not just for "cloudy days", but also emergencies and national defense), and multiple sources of equipment so your entire nation's energy isn't dependent on one country (China). Only about 10-20 nations on earth could switch to renewables for the majority of their energy in the next 10 years.
African countries are some of the poorest on the planet. It takes a very large capital investment, in addition to skilled labor, to energize a nation. They often have other bigger issues to deal with. It's often way cheaper to pay for humans to mine coal, produce charcoal, extract oil (not uncommonly a private company - or a country like China - extracting the resources and making a big profit, or giving a loan with a huge interest payment).
But let's look at a single off-grid DIY example. First you need the expertise to hook it up. If you have the skill, it still isn't cheap if your economy is weak. It requires saving money for a capital purchase, something people all around the world struggle with. And when there are payment programs, they're often exploitative.
It's not like people in Africa aren't aware solar power exists. If it was cheap and easy, everyone would have done it already.
Last year PRC brrrted out enough solar panels whose lifetime output is equivalent to annual global oil consumption. AKA world uses about >40billion barrels of oil per year, PRC's annual solar production will sink about 40billion barrels of oil of emissions in their life times. This is at 50% solar manufacturing utilization. Once battery scales, can displace current global oil via solar ~10 years. Less if solar production also globally scales. Looking at 10/15/20 years to displace most global oil, lng, coal. Well the discretionary bits / economic consumption.
Providing 90% of power is not "powering the world".
It really helps to also have a complementary storage technology with low capacity capex, even if the round trip efficiency is lower. This would complement batteries in the same way ordinary RAM complements cache memory in a computer.
>We can get far without worrying about the last 5-10%. The solutions for the last 5-10% could be fossil fuels in the short-term, long-duration storage as it matures, or easily storeable e-biofuels.
So then they are wrong. The last 5-10 percent is the hardest part and it's the one consumers complain the most about! You can't run a factory on 90% power availability
The issue is that to achieve that you can't just build 90% solar plus 10% fossil fuels. You would need to build 100% solar + 100% fossil fuels for the 10% of the time solar doesn't work.
If you build batteries on the scale that the article suggests (and is probably going to happen in the real future) you can use batteries charged from fossil fuels.
It's a few percent dirtier (round trip losses) but in return you can use gas plants that are 50% more efficient to charge them rather than run peaker plants.
And of course that's ignoring wind which is nearly as cheap as solar and anti-correlated with it.
That's fair, batteries are somewhat useful for peaking even in a world powered 100% by fossil fuels so there's some infrastructure that can be shared. And even on a cloudy day solar output isn't 0%. But I'm skeptical the overlap here is significant enough to invalidate my basic point, though I admit it's a big simplification.
Reality is extremely complicated, so realistically the exact mix of solar + fossil fuels that makes sense is going to depend on a huge number of factors and vary from region to region depending on weather, fuel costs, construction costs, transmission costs, and probably a thousand other things I haven't thought of. The best thing to do is stay out of the way of both industries and let the market sort all of that complexity out.
I would speculate the result of that is going to be a lot more renewables than currently exist, mainly due to the drastic reduction in the cost of solar and batteries that has been occurring over the last few decades, but I don't think it'll be 100% or even 90% renewables either (expect perhaps in the extremely long term). Time will tell.
It helps that the cost of a simple cycle gas turbine power plant (before the recent data center demand spike) is around $600/kW, maybe a factor of 20 cheaper per kW than a nuclear power plant. So backing up the whole grid with such generators wouldn't be that expensive.
Yes, but if you need to have all that infrastructure anyway it no longer makes sense to compare the cost of solar+batteries with the cost of fossil fuels because you actually need to have both.
If you compare the total cost of solar with just the fuel cost of fossil fuels (ignoring its CapEx and non-fuel OpEx) that swings the equation a lot.
Infrastructure cost for 100% is the same as infrastructure cost for 10%? That's not true. The distribution network is the part that can't be scaled, but it can also be reused for either source, so it doesn't double in cost.
No, I'm saying infrastructure cost for 100% is the same as infrastructure cost for 100%. You can't build 10% as much fossil fuel infrastructure and expect it to carry 100% of the load when solar isn't working. And obviously I'm talking about generation here, not distribution.
That's not carbon neutral. You can use synthetic fuels to make it fully carbon neutral (way easier to store than the often-proposed H2) but that's really just another battery.
The goal ultimately is to get to 100% non-fossil fuel. CO2 is removed so slowly from the atmosphere that emissions have to go to nearly zero (preferably, to less than zero) or else we're just delaying disaster.
The point I was making before, btw, was that renewables can get to 100%, but doing it with just batteries as storage is really stupid in many places. Batteries, while necessary and very useful, are not a panacea. In a place like Europe, adding the complementary low capex storage could cut the cost in half (otherwise, excessive overprovisioning of solar, wind, and/or batteries are needed.)
No, they can't, not unless we get rid of the fossil fuel lobby, which pretty much runs the world these days. Which isn't surprising, given that fossil fuels are the largest industry ever created by mankind. If you compare it to anything else which was actively harmful and yet big money tried to convince you it wasn't (like tobacco, alcohol, or really anything else), there is nothing that huge. So it isn't surprising that the industry fights change.
EV adoption has been successfully held back mostly by PR, Germany shifted from nuclear to coal and gas, the US president is doing everything to dismantle anything that isn't fossil fuel and promotes fossil fuels, the list goes on.
The fossil fuel lobby can only do so much. Solar has gotten so cheap it's taking over on its own. Companies are doing it for no reason other than the math makes sense. EV batteries are nearing that point too. You can only keep BYD out of the US for so long.
Sure, but you're attributing this, deliberately or not, to the wrong cause. It wasn't that the fossil fuel industry somehow won - it was range of factors possibly including geopolitics, some existing plants aging, an emotional response to the Fukushima nuclear disaster, and the Green lobby.
Basically, they voted to kill nuclear without a solid plan for an alternative, and coal/gas is the default option for filling the gaps left in the absence of timely and sufficiently rapid investment in other technologies.
Hmm. After former chancellor (Schroeder) heavily pushed Russian gas pipelines (Nord Stream 1 and 2) and then swiftly moved to working for Russian state-owned energy companies, including Nord Stream AG, Rosneft, and Gazprom, I have a different outlook on things.
One can never discount lobbying and influence behind the scenes, but Schroeder finished being Chancellor in 2005, which was six years before the initial post-Fukushima vote in question, and even longer since various aspects of the plan continued to be supported by various politicians.
He'd be a spectacularly successful lobbyist if your suspicion is correct.
>We can get far without worrying about the last 5-10%. The solutions for the last 5-10% could be fossil fuels in the short-term, long-duration storage as it matures, or easily storeable e-biofuels.
I think a lot of people truly dont get this.
Those days when the wind isnt blowing, the sun isnt shining and the batteries and pumped storage are depleted can be easily handled with, e.g. power2gas.
It's pretty expensive (per kwh almost as much as nuclear power) but with enough spare solar and wind capacity and a carbon tax on natural gas it becomes a no brainer to swap natural gas for that.
Nonetheless this wont stop people saying "but what about that last 5-10%?" as if it's a gotcha for a 100% green grid. It isnt. It never was.
I’m happy to be wrong about this globally, but in my neck of the woods the readily exploited hydro resources are already exploited to 90% of their capacity and have been for 100 years. Hydro is in many ways the ultimate renewable energy, but that’s been true since electrification and we’ve been using it as part of the energy mix since then. I’d love to be wrong but my understanding is that there isn’t a huge amount of untapped new hydro capacity available without having severe impacts on ecosystems
Also what is probably used in your country is Pumped-storage hydroelectricity .
During the day you pump water into the reservoir using wind/solar energy and discharge e.g at night .
In the last decade or so hydro generation has grown about as much as solar and wind (they all basically grow about the same amount as global nuclear generation, hydro doubling and wind and solar growing exponentially from basically zero).
So it's not going to take off like solar but it's a big chunk of relatively clean electricity production and it's often basically a byproduct of managing water supplies. It also pairs really well with renewables as even without pumps it has a degree of flex and storage.
This is even more true with international grid connections. Europe in a cold spell? Solar countries import, wind & hydro export. Europe in a heat wave? Flip the switches the opposite direction.
No, because most of that nuclear generation would be during times it wasn't needed. The residual 5-10% in the renewable + batteries world is highly nonuniform, utterly unsuited to being covered by nuclear.
While technically possible, given that the vast majority of the cost is capex and not fuel and given that it is already five times the cost of solar and wind when producing at 100% 24/7, setting literal piles of cash on fire might be more economic than using it to dispatch electricity.
If you're using it to charge batteries it's just five times more expensive than equivalent solar or wind.
French nuclear stations are roughly as fast as combined cycle gas (to turn off at least)
The point is, with enough battery, you don't need fast despatch for things like water/gas/nuclear, because the battery does that for you. In the UK the 11gwhr we have (about 1/2-1/3 of one hours consumption) is more than capable to do the balancing.
Bit of a cop out headline, should have said "will power the world".
Even boring staid organisations are predicting solar will be more than half the planet's electricity supply by 2050 which is I think enough to say it powers the world.
EVs are essentially a giant battery on wheels. Seems there is a good opportunity to configure them as bidirectional power banks for your local grid. You could rewire all parking slots to have a plugin that acts as a bidirectional power station. Imaging how much power could be moved around with such a grid! This would require a major investment in power transmission layouts, but a city full of batteries on wheels.
California has registered around 1M Teslas alone. So this is like having a 1Mx80kwh = 80GWh battery at your service. As a reference, the largest solar + storage facility in California is around 3.2 GWh.
It's nice for an emergency, and almost all EVs can do that already.
But people pay extra to put the batteries over wheels because they need to haul charged batteries around. It's not normally useful to discharge them locally.
Just charging your car when electricity is cheap and avoiding times when it is scarce would solve most of the issues, provided there is a dynamic pricing system in place.
No idea why this has been downvoted. There is a lot of demand for this, and at least one company actively working on orchestrating home and EV batteries with the grid: https://www.amber.com.au/amber-for-evs
World's economy and based on oil and gas and It is not easy to switch to an alternative. Because it will also mean to change all the geopolitical relations around the globe
As enthusiastic as I am about that I'd love to see grid scale storage move more towards something like sand batteries. Stuff you can buy for dollars per ton and move with an excavator seems like a better bet than lithium batteries.
If we want flakey renewables to be the backbone (which we should)...then we needs serious scale on storage side.
Batteries for voltage regulation and quick response is good though
It's important to note that electricity is 21% of the World's energy demand, according to the IEA[1]. This implies that if we could 10x solar, and figure out how to convert some of that to liquid fuels with decent efficiency, we could become sustainable for all energy.
For example, you're counting all the energy in the gasoline that gets loaded into a car, not the useful work that the gasoline actually produces. Gasoline gars typically are only able to convert 20-30% of their fuel into propulsion.
Counting the energy in the fuel loaded into engines is like counting the amount of energy in the sunlight hitting a solar panel.
Similar things go for heating by the way. A modern heat pump often has a coefficient of performance of around 3x, meaning that for every joule of electricity you put into the pump, you can heat up a house with 3 joules of heat, so 3x as efficient as heating the house with combustion.
I don't see why anyone would balk at the idea of using backwards compatible fuel sources, synthesized using a sustainable process powered by solar energy.
Replacing ALL of the liquid fueled devices in the world impractical, to the point of absurdity, to do. Where would we get electric versions of the Emma Mærsk[1] and her sister ships in a reasonable timeframe? Where would all the infrastructure come from to build out the grid to handle the charging load? Where are the ports with that kind of power capability coming from?
What about the world's aviation? There are no viable ways to do air transport on a large scale using battery power.
The world is optimized for liquid fuels, it would make far more sense to synthesize them from low cost solar power during the day, and accumulate the quantities required, rather than rip and replace every single industrial engine on the planet.
2/3rds of that other 79% is wasted as unwanted heat, so we only need to replace 1/3rd of 79% (~26 percent points) so slightly more than double the current clean energy supply.
An extensive explanation of this "primary energy fallacy":
At temperate latitudes, summer/winter is a bigger deal than day/night. To the point where it makes sense to orient fixed panels tilted south and you still get a 2-3x difference in daily capacity between the seasons.
Related is the other comments here that mention air-conditioning is largely a non-issue if you spec for year-round solar. If you are generating 3x as much energy in July compared to January, and January can power your house, then the A/C is basically free.
You can buy a full day's worth of energy storage with an array of LiFePO4 batteries for less than the typical 3% estimate of annual home improvement and maintenance costs you should be budgeting for as a homeowner. The cost problem usually comes from the labor and every solar installation company seemingly being ran by scam artists.
Thats whats driving the buildout in places like spain.
Solar power is in curltailment most days, so to make money solar operators need to add batteries to take free energy and shift it to the ultra expensive parts of the day.
Because solar energy production doesn't just vary by time-of-day, it also varies seasonally. Where I live, winter solar production collapses due to decreased daylight hours and cloud cover. At the same time, energy use skyrockets due to heating demand.
We would need a lot of batteries to be able to charge during the summer and drain during the winter!
Musk was proposing about 1.2TW of solar capacity, the US installed about 250GW since then and is currently installing about 50GW a year and is projected to have 770GW by 2036 in a decades time.
So the US is probably over-delivering compared with many things Elon has proposed delivering himself.
So, about two orders of magnitude lower specific energy than Li-ion batteries. The extra cost per kg had better be damned small or this won't pencil out.
1/2 the 'cost' of electricity is borne by grid operators, which are usually regulated monopolies. They are generally overstaffed, inneficient bureaucracies. I'm not against public service obviously but I don't think that's the issue, rather it's just related to 'monopoly' provider status.
Hydro One in Ontario was by far the largest occupant on the Sunshine list (>$100K salaries) and have always been. They pay dramatically above market wages, have more staff than they need. It's the 'old boys clubs of old boys clubs'.
If energy prices drop, they will be able to charge more money to justify more 'infra', staff and expanding budgets.
The best thing we could ever do is get rid of our dependency on the energy grid.
If our homes could be powered like our cars ... that would be amazing and open up a ton of competition in a landscape which now has almost no competition.
That said - there are definitely theoretical efficiencies at scale and if we did get rid of the grid, we may never be able to get it back.
It's plausible that 'decentralized energy' may be very advantageous in that it puts a lot of competitive pressure on the centralized elements. Then we get the best of both worlds.
Edit: value chain and institutional power dynamics is the only real way to look at all of these systems. It's incredibly naive to think that some arbitrary technology is going to change any landscape. Case and point is this issue itself - that we 'grow' fuel instead of doing something arguably more efficient is a function of structural power.
Is this grid-scale solar ? It can’t be rooftop - there is nobody in the UK who will install a 5kW rooftop system for £2k. The quotes I’ve had recently have been closer to £10k.
> The cost assumptions assume utility-scale solar panels and batteries in large parks. Smaller-scale rooftop solar and home batteries would cost 2-3 times more.
I've installed domestic solar several times. The main cost isn't the panels or the inverters - it's the scaffolding, labour, and wiring improvements in the home. If you have a tall or complicated house, it'll cost more.
Fuel price varies dramatically with respect to geographic area. It seems reasonable to factor that in especially if geographic area is factored in to solar capacity.
I wish it made sense to do residential solar where I am. It probably does technically, but i hate the idea of spending a ton on a system and then STILL have to pay my power company; if you are connected to the grid at all where I am, you pay the power company $5/kw/month of solar capacity and your excess sell-back rates are insanely bad (0.03/kwh, vs billed usage rate at $0.17/kwh)
The next generation of home batteries will be a game changer. It will do for home energy storage what Lithium-Ion has done for laptops, phones and vehicles and it will be a lot safer too.
Nuclear could have powered the world easily and we could have done it with 1960s technology. And we could easily do electricity and heating with nuclear quite easily. The only thing that's actually tricky is synfuels and solar/battery doesn't solve that. High temperature reactors using heat to create hydrogen is arguable the better path to synfuels then electrolysis.
And we can go to 100% of electricity from nuclear, we don't have to have this dumb argument about 'the last 5-10%'. Because its reliable.
And if you actually do the math nuclear would have been cheaper then all this nonsense we have been doing for 30 years with wind, solar and batteries. The cost of the gird updates is like building a whole new infrastructure. With nuclear, the centralized more local networks are perfectly reasonable.
I did some scenarios starting in Year 2000 or Germany to all nuclear, vs wind (off-shore, on-shore), and solar (partly local partly brought in) and batteries. The numbers aren't even close, nuclear would have been the much better deal. Even if you are very conservative and don't account for major learning effect that countries like France had when building nuclear.
That said, even with nuclear, having a few Lithium batteries that can go all out for 1-2h is actually a good deal. Its really only about peak shaving the absolute daily peaks. What you don't want is having to build batteries that can handle days or weeks.
Making hydrogen from water and solar light is certainly better than using nuclear energy for that.
There is no reason for consuming valuable nuclear fuel, for which better uses exist, instead of using free solar light.
The efficiency of converting solar energy into hydrogen is already acceptable. The same is true for the efficiency of converting hydrogen and concentrated carbon dioxide into synthetic hydrocarbons, which are the best means for long term energy storage, and also for applications like aircraft and spacecraft.
The least efficient step remains concentrating the diluted carbon dioxide from air.
While the efficiency of converting solar energy and water into hydrogen by artificial means is already better than that of living beings, the living beings are still much more efficient in converting H2 and CO2 from air into organic substances.
Besides improving the efficiency of the existing techniques, an alternative method of CO2 capture would be the genetic engineering of a bacterium that would produce some usable oil from H2 and air, with an improved productivity over the existing bacteria, which use most of the captured energy to make substances useful for them, not for us, so unmodified bacteria would not have a high enough useful output.
> Making hydrogen from water and solar light is certainly better than using nuclear energy for that.
Using heat is the most efficient and if you use nuclear heat directly, and you don't have to go to the step of converting to electricity, you get huge efficiency.
> There is no reason for consuming valuable nuclear fuel
Nuclear fuel is not valuable once you have a closed cycle. Fuel cost are already only a few % of total nuclear cost and in a closed cycle would be almost nothing. As soon as you breed fuel from fertile material the cost is basically 0.
> The efficiency of converting solar energy into hydrogen is already acceptable.
It requires a very large plant to do in many small batches and cost 20x what hydrogen costs from natural gas. Its not efficient and will not be for the next 20+ years at least.
> The only thing that's actually tricky is synfuels and solar/battery doesn't solve that. High temperature reactors using heat to create hydrogen is arguable the better path to synfuels then electrolysis.
IIRC nuclear doesn't really work well as the last 5-10%. Start-up and shut-down for nuclear reactors is a slow process. When it's generating, it needs to just keep on generating. Not so quick to dial down or up just because the wind is(n't) blowing.
It's not that slow. They can ramp up and down over hours, and those demand patterns are known in advance. Combine with battery, pumped storage, or synfuel generation to soak up excess power during low demand times, and use that to provide peaker capacity during high demand times.
The problem is the economics. They’re just horrifyingly expensive to build. The equivalent to each new large scale reactor in GWe requires tens of billions in subsidies.
The next problem comes from incentives. Why should anyone with solar or storage buy this expensive grid based nuclear electricity?
Why should their neighbors not buy surplus renewables and instead pay out of their nose for expensive nuclear powered electricity?
EDF is already crying about renewables cratering the earning potential and increasing maintenance costs for the existing french nuclear fleet. Let alone the horrifyingly expensive new builds.
And that is France which has been actively shielding its inflexible aging nuclear fleet from renewable competition, and it still leaks in on pure economics.
The French have used their nuclear system for 20+ years as a giving tree.
The forced EDF to sell nuclear at very cheap prices to fossil fuel companies and then buy it back at much higher price.
The French forced EDF to give subsides to solar even when that actually hurts their economics.
The French randomly in the 2010s decided to replace nuclear in a short time-frame (completely 100% unrealistic) but it sounds good to politicians. And they decided to delay all maintenance and didn't do any of the upgrades many other nations did.
Once of the secrets of French nuclear is, that their grandfather were so good in providing them these nuclear plants, the french absolutely suck at running them. Other countries like the US and ironically Germany managed to run their reactors at higher factors.
The problem is the solar is cheap when its being produced and makes the economics of base lose worse, without actually solving base load. Solar has been cross subsidized this way for a long time. And has been more explicitly subsidized. But its a private good, it helps only private people, it is negative on a system level.
Once you think on a systemic level, how to provide reliable energy for a whole country, nuclear is not more expensive and France saved a huge amount of money buy doing what they did.
> Why should anyone with solar or storage buy this expensive grid based nuclear electricity?
If somebody privately wants to build solar/storage that's fine, but they should get no support. Also prices should be adjust to actually reflect peak demand. Historically the way the system operated is with much simpler pricing models because it was understood that everybody shares in this infrastructure. In such a situation, the majority of people wouldn't build solar and batteries.
But really, the question we should ask, what the best thing to run a modern economy on and the German solution of 'lets build a massive electricity pipeline to solar farms in Greece' isn't a great model.
All this new energy transfer infrastructure is incredibly expensive. It cost at least as much as the generation itself, and sometimes more.
Then when asked what method to price in the Swedish nuclear fleet having ~50% of capacity offline multiple times last year and France famously having 50% of the capacity offline during the energy crisis I always get crickets for answers.
It’s apparently fine when nuclear plants doesn’t deliver, but not renewables.
The difference with renewables is that it’s even easier to manage. Their intermittency is entirely expected and the law of large numbers ensure we never have half the capacity offline due to technical issues at the same time.
> Once you think on a systemic level, how to provide reliable energy for a whole country, nuclear is not more expensive and France saved a huge amount of money buy doing what they did.
Given that new built nuclear power costs 18-24 cents per kWh and won’t come online until the 2040s what you’re trying to tell me is that multiplying the current electricity cost 3-4x and creating a self made energy crisis isn’t so bad.
The French made a good choice half a century ago. The equivalent choice in 2026 are renewables and storage.
Just look at the proposed EPR2 fleet. A 11 cent per kWh CFD and interest free loans. Summing up to over 20 cents per kWh for the electricity. With the first reactor coming online at the earliest in 2038.
It’s just complete insanity at this point.
> All this new energy transfer infrastructure is incredibly expensive. It cost at least as much as the generation itself, and sometimes more.
The 10 GW HVDC links being built costs €20B. That’s equivalent to the subsidies needed for one new large scale reactor. Then you have the market price of electricity on top of that.
France has treated its nuclear fleet like literally shit. They have literally delayed maintenance because the government believed that they were just about to replace all nuclear with renewables. In addition to that, France has so much nuclear that they have become incredibly lax in operating their nuclear, they take ages to do basic shit most other countries do in just a few days. All of this is literally just related to the French government of the last 10-20 years not giving a shit about nuclear.
The reality is that in most western countries even 50+ year old nuclear plants often have an 80% uptime and usually are down at times when the capacity is not needed. If a government properly cares for their reactors, up-times of 90-95% are very possible.
Switzerland has a capacity factor of 90% with some of the oldest reactors in the world.
> The difference with renewables is that it’s even easier to manage. Their intermittency is entirely expected and the law of large numbers ensure we never have half the capacity offline due to technical issues at the same time.
The fact is that is overall much less available and much less flexible on when you do the generation and when you want more or less energy.
> Given that new built nuclear power costs 18-24 cents per kWh and won’t come online until the 2040s what you’re trying to tell me is that multiplying the current electricity cost 3-4x and creating a self made energy crisis isn’t so bad.
Nuclear is to slow is something renewable fans have been arguing since the 1970s.
The fact about cost is that on a system level its cheaper and France has been able to have cheaper energy then Germany for the last 50+ years.
Once you don't just look at generation but total cost, including all the cost of building out the grid, the cost is much higher. And if you ever want to be 100% renewable you better have weeks of battery at least, and that is a thing people barley calculate. Gas peakers plants will remain the solution for a very long time and when gas prices go up, it will cause an energy crisis.
In addition you will need to replace the wind energy far sooner.
In addition, with nuclear, a huge part of the cost is going to salaries of local highly educated people and technicians. You capture much more of the value in your own economy for the next 60+ years.
> Given that new built nuclear power costs 18-24 cents per kWh and won’t come online until the 2040s what you’re trying to tell me is that multiplying the current electricity cost 3-4x and creating a self made energy crisis isn’t so bad.
> Just look at the proposed EPR2 fleet. A 11 cent per kWh CFD and interest free loans. Summing up to over 20 cents per kWh for the electricity. With the first reactor coming online at the earliest in 2038.
The West has so totally and completely fucked the industry and did every possible thing wrong for the last 30 years. And now we are paying for it. This is what 30+ years of renewable orthodox has brought us, high energy prices and a complete collapse of the nuclear industry. France has dropped all its advanced reactor as well now we are building EPRs again. Its beyond sad.
What we could build are APR1400 units like in the UAE. If you do a proper build, yes it takes 10 year for the first to finish but after you start a new years 3 years later, and then another every year and then 2 each after that and later 3 each year. In 20 you can build pretty much as much capacity as you need and your learning curve is going to be amazing, likely you will finish a new build in less then 5 years at much lower cost. The problem is if you only look at 'when will the first reactor finish' instead of 'how fast can we build 20 reactors'.
Capital-recovery component for APR1400 alone works out to about 3.2–4.3 US¢/kWh at 5–7% financing, but this is for only 4 reactors built in with no background. But we should finance this with government bonds directly, so really capital alone is only 2 USc/kWh and less as build cost go down the learning curve. The fuel cost is also only 3-4 USc/kWh (hopefully we again have reliable European fuel and reduce the price further, another thing destroyed by the last 30 years). And operation and maintenance around 10USc/kWh isn't crazy for a proper fleet with centralized staff training and local industry.
As with everything in nuclear, one nation building 1 plant is going to be expensive and makes the numbers look worse then they are. And remember this was build in a country with no experience and no train workforce and only 4 reactors built, not the 10s of reactors people should build. A country like Poland could easily do a 20 year flash build program, and that would be much faster for them then Poland.
> The 10 GW HVDC links being built costs €20B. That’s equivalent to the subsidies needed for one new large scale reactor. Then you have the market price of electricity on top of that.
> Are you starting to realize the conundrum?
Try looking up total grid upgrade cost if you want to achieve 100% renewables. We are literally talking the same amount of money as all the generation combined. I heard interviews with people responsible for even only part of Germany where they admitted they will have to go to private markets to fund 100+ billion $ in investments. And these investors will want their money back. Total grid cost will be higher then to total cost of renewable installs. And of course wind turbines need to be rebuilt.
But I guess Germany is making it easier on itself by losing so much industry that they have fewer problems in the future for renewables to solve. Germany by the way since 2018 is spending 50 billion $ per year on direct energy subsidies. Yes that is partly heating but France because of its cheap electricity has far more heating converted to electric. So it is related to electricity policy.
What I want is rock solid energy that is reliable and served from a simple centralized grid, nuclear + 1-2h battery peak shaving with lithium or sodium batteries. Anything longer then that isn't great. Not some scheme where we somehow hope that the combination of Greek solar and Danish wind produce enough, and then trying produce hydrogen in Canada and ship it to Germany, or whatever other nonsense people want to come up with.
The current proto-market system has all the wrong intensives built in and we were much better of in a system where there was simply one centralized utility that made rational engineering choices about how to get cheap energy to everybody.
Not to mention that having a well functioning nuclear industry has lots of other advantages that 'buy solar panels from China' doesn't bring.
Demand following for nuclear is possible (after all, if you produce 10X but the demand suddenly drops to 7X, what you can always do is to "dump" 3X worth of steam instead of injecting it in the turbine), but because the cost of nuclear is mainly upfront, it is not cost efficient at all.
If it costs 10X dollars upfront to build a nuclear central that can produce 10X energy, then if you run it at 100%, it will cost 1 dollar per 1 unit of energy. If you follow the demand, you will not produce 10X, but let's say to illustrate maybe 5X, and it will cost 2 dollars per 1 unit of energy.
You are right about storage as a way to help with demand following, but if you build enough storage capacity, then you basically have solved "for free" a big part of the problem linked to the intermittence of renewables. In this case, you have the choice between building an expensive nuclear central and a distributed cheaper renewable generation.
I'm not saying it demonstrate renewables are better, but that it is true that nuclear is not the obvious winner it looks like before we look into the practical details.
No, nuclear storage needs to be optimized for 1-2h peaks, if you build a renewable system you need, much, much more. And you have much more localized peaks and valleys depending on weather and such.
So basically, you can put some battery next to every nuclear plant and otherwise use the same grid.
For renewable you need a much more complex grid with much more battery.
Why do you say "optimized for 1-2h peaks"? The typical electricity demand has a trough during the night for few hours, then a first peak in the morning, than a second less-deep trough in the middle of the day (sometimes with a bump around lunchtime), than a second bigger peak in the afternoon for 3-4 hours. And of course this varies with season, day of week, regions, ...
Not sure why you are saying that renewable you need "much more battery": the overlap of generation means that you already have a "baseline" of generation even with renewables (sure, I know about dunkelflaute, but they are as frequent as unexpected shutdown of nuclear site), and therefore in both case, the game is mainly to "move the peaks around" which requires about the same capacity.
Not sure why you are saying the renewable led to a much more complex grid either. Sure, with a naive simplified grid, nuclear works well. But in practice, the modern grid is complex, and adding more nuclear does not really reduce the complexity.
Also, nuclear or not, having EV or heat-pump will be needed for decarbonisation, and therefore the demand becomes even more complex. With EV and heat-pump, local solar+battery is also a smarter choice. So it means that some storage will need to be built on the consumer site directly, even with nuclear.
I'm not saying that in some situation at the end of the computation, nuclear is not the best option, but it is not at all as simple as having a clear winner. Also, the reality is that you need to work with the uncertainties, so it is not like one solution has a score of 75 and the other has a score of 70, so the first is the obvious choice, it is more like one solution has a score of 75 +- 15 and the other 70 +- 5 (or even asymmetric errors), so you cannot directly conclude the first solution is the best. I think the conversation would be way more healthy if we could just avoid over-simplify into a pro-nuclear vs. pro-renewable partisan battle.
(also not sure about "you can put some battery next to every nuclear plant and otherwise use the same grid", why is this not true for renewable too? Just compute the average production of the site, and put storage that will charge when the site produces more than the average and discharge when the site produces less, and you get the same situation as the nuclear site (they may still have period of no generation, the same way nuclear sites have unexpected shutdown). Especially that with a renewable site, the cost is lower so the site owner can invest more in storage and manage it themselves: storage is part of the black box, the grid does not need to know, stay the same and no complexity is added)
Renewable (solar for example) needs enough battery to cover the 12-18 hours a day where the sun isn't shining or is at too low an angle to effectively capture by solar panels. This is far more than covering a few hours of load peak. Solar might actually be a decent peaking power source, as it tends to peak at the same time as demand. But it's not a good base load source; it needs far too much battery buffer.
My point is that to follow the demand, you need ~12 hours of capacity: the trough is during the night around 1-4 am, the peak is mainly in the afternoon around 5pm. So if you have a battery for nuclear, you will charge it during the night and discharge it ~12 hours later.
Not sure about your 12-18 hours, it looks like you want to use the energy during the night, while it is the trough and does not require energy.
The problem isn't technical dispatchability, it's economic dispatchability. A nuclear plant operated at 5-10% capacity factor would be ludicrously uneconomical, even to just operate.
It's not a technical limitation, it's economic. The cost of nuclear is almost all in building (and decommissioning) the plant, the fuel is almost free. So you want to produce flat out as long as you can get almost any positive price for the output.
First of all its not that slow, and when you know when you need it, at what point in the day, so you can ramp up in anticipation.
Also, the claim that nuclear is slow to change is a limitation of current nuclear plants, more modern plants could be far better. Some designs are very much load following.
Nuclear reactors make awful targets in a conflict, not sure having many around is generally a good idea if conflict is a risk and there are alternatives.
Exactly right. Who wants to live any where near a nuclear reactor in a conflict between countries or general war. Despite a country not having nuclear weapons, targeting the nuclear reactors of other countries, is almost as good.
It's very clear now that infrastructure of all kinds are increasingly fair game. Nuclear reactors, data centers, water processing plants, hospitals... Both sad and ridiculous, but that's the level of insanity reached.
That's a big if, though. Solar and batteries require globalisation, based on fossil fuels.
I feel like nuclear reactors are a better choice.
> in a conflict, not sure having many around is generally a good idea
On the other hand, blowing nuclear reactors could be considered a big escalation. We see with Iran and Ukraine that it's not exactly the first thing one wants to target.
My point was that photovoltaic is "an alternative" to nuclear reactors, but an alternative that relies on globalisation. Nuclear reactors... much less.
For many nations that is really not the primary reason to choose infrastructure. And even if that is your goal. Then building a 500MW reactor you can drop in the ground is likely a pretty decent solution.
China understands this, parts of the EU understands this. The US is currently dead set on betting on the wrong technology, and it's going to put them so far behind.
Imagine a world where people didn't care about labeling new things "woke", and instead could all sit down and say, "we're going to make major investments in next generation infrastructure to ensure our capacity and independence."
The American shale gas/fracking boom really distorted a lot of things. The strategic energy situations of the United States, the EU, and China were all pretty similar in the late 20th Century: major dependence on OPEC-controlled oil and gas. Post-fracking, the US strategic energy situation has diverged from the others.
This difference leads indirectly to things like the current "not war" in Iran. (Iran's geography already gives it strong bargaining power via pressure on energy markets. It would have an even stronger hand if the US was not capable of energy independence).
The long term impacts on climate changes are even more negative. It's hard to supplant a cheap, ubiquitous energy source with strong negative externalities when those externalities are subtle, gradual, and strongly denied via propaganda by entrenched interests.
Having lots of cheap energy is always boosts industry and reduces cost of living for everyone. The way China accomplished that was by investing heavily in every sort of energy and building large scale infrastructure, instead of adding roadblocks at every stage.
> China burns significantly more coal than the USA and Europe combined
Which is expected when both Europe and the US outsourced most manufacturing to China. It's actually surprising China is so low given they're literally the factory of the world
I agree and lets not label something as dangerous or expensive if it can be made to be affordable and safe. "As of 2026, 59 nuclear power plants are operational in mainland China, second globally to the United States, which has 94." "There are over 28 further plants under construction with a total power of 32.3 GW, ranked first for the 18th consecutive year"
Apart from the current administration's absolutely hilariously bad governing, the US economy really only cares about profit. The same is going to happen to any country with outsized income inequality.
This argument would make more sense if Chinese companies were all going out of business due to their governments heavy investments in solar and batteries.
They're not anti-renewables as a bet, they're anti-renewables strategically. If you like going to war, you can power your warfighting apparatus much easier with a gas tank than a battery. If you want better defense, you don't depend on hostile nations for your energy needs. The US wants to double down on oil because it likes to fight wars and it's paranoid about defense.
This is just incorrect. The politics in the US say one thing but the market is going in the other direction. 2026 additions to the US grid will be almost entirely renewables - 6.3 GW of natural gas / 86 GW total means ~93% of new additions to grid capacity are renewable [1]. A quarter of the electricity in the US is now generated by renewables [2] and growing rapidly. The states with the largest amount of renewable electricity generation are wildly different politically, but all agree that renewables make the most financial sense [3].
No, no they can’t. As has been explained over and over again by people who know better. Someday yes when the tech improves (changes) dramatically. But that’s not today.
Note that we had the technology to do this affordably as of about 2008, when lithium iron phosphate (LiFePO4) batteries became widely available for about $10-12 each (I had to look that up). They were definitely available at low cost ($6) by 2018:
Looks like sodium-ion (Na-ion) 18650 batteries at 1.5 Ah have about 1/2 the capacity of LiFePO4 18650s at 3.5 Ah, and are about twice the price, so lets call them 4x the price per energy stored:
So we can project that Na-ion batteries will have the same price per kWh as today's LiFePO4 in perhaps 8 years, or around 2034, if not sooner. That will negate the lithium supply chain bottleneck so that we're limited to ordinary shortages (like copper).
500 W bifacial solar panels are available for $100 each in bulk, so there's no need to analyze them since they're no longer the bottleneck. A typical home uses 24 kWh/day, so 15-20 panels at a typical 4.5 kW/m2 solar insolation provide enough power to charge batteries and still have some energy left over, at a cost of $1500-2000. Installation labor, electricians/licensing, inverters and batteries now dominate cost.
The sodium ion battery market is about $1 billion annually, vs $100 billion for lithium ion. It took lithium about 15-20 years to grow that much. So whoever gets in now could see a 1-2 orders of magnitude return over perhaps 8-15 years. I almost can't think of a better investment outside of AI.
-
I've been watching this stuff since the 1980s and I can tell you that every renewable energy breakthrough coincides with a geopolitical instability. For the $8 trillion the US spent on Middle East wars since 9/11, we could have had a moonshot for solar+batteries and be at 90+% coverage today. Not counting the other $12 trillion the US spent on the Cold War. Fully $20 trillion of our ~$40 trillion US national debt went to funding endless war, with the other $20 trillion lost on trickle-down tax cuts for the ultra wealthy.
We can't do anything about that stuff in the short term. But we can move towards off-grid living and a distributed means of production model where AI, 3D printing, permaculture, and other alternative tech negates the need for investment capital.
In the K-shaped economy, the "if you can't beat 'em, join 'em" phrase might more accurately be stated "if you can't join 'em, beat 'em".
This comment section is so weird. This seems like a decent analysis to me. It also backs up what's been pretty obvious for some time: solar is the future. Yet we have:
- Pointing out the corn ethanol scam. Ok, that's fair. We would be better of spending money on renewables. No argument there;
- Multiple people arguing that solar hasn't goten more mature, more effective and that battery technology really hasn't gotten better. No sources mind you, just opinion;
- Another busy thread based on an uncited claim that this doesn't account for US heating costs. And tthere are a lot of people who seem to think not having efficient insulation in houses is an expression of freedom in some way;
- There's the naive idea that the profit motive will somehow solve all this. Bless your heart;
- Probably the least surprising thing is that the pro-nuclear people piped up and tried to make this about nuclear and failed. Sorry but nuclear is one of the most expensive forms of electricity and there's no real way to get around that.
I normally don't expect such anti-solar sentiment here.
Here's the real problem with renewables politically: if you produce 1GW of solar and it produces 2TWh of electricity in year 1, it'll probably 2TWh in years 2-30 with very little maintenance. That's bad in our system because some private company doesn't get to keep profiting.
Let's compare that to an oil well. If you drill wells and make them produce 100kbpd (barrels pe day) of crude and some quantity of natural gas in year 1 then in year 2 it produces 80-85kbpd. In year 3 it's ~70kbpd. In year 4 it's 55kbpd. By year 5 it's less than half what it was originally. This is for the Permian basin and it's called "decline rate".
So to maintain the amount of oil and gas you need, you need to be constantly drilling new wells and bringing them online to replace the lost capacity. That's good for business because all that exploration and digging is more profit opportunity.
Evenw ith coal, you need people and machiens to keep digging up the coal.
Our entire electricity sector is sold a lie that the private sector is somehow better at providing electricity and then everything is built around a massive wealth transfer from consumers and the government to the already wealthy.
That's really why renewables aren't popular in the modern political climate.
By 2050 is the important caveat. That's assuming constant production of batteries at the current scale and production.
It also assumes we figure out how to economically recycle materials from batteries (and total recovery may never be possible). Grid scale lithium batteries have an effective lifecycle of 15 years. In this potential future, global lithium reserves would actually start getting choked up before the 2050 goal.
Nuclear is inevitable and we all need to stop pretending otherwise.
We already have an electric grid we don’t need to build a new one from scratch just replace infrastructure that gets to old and add more for whatever extra demand shows up.
Obviously other energy sources are going to exist and non solar power will be produced, but nuclear is getting fucked in a solar + battery heavy future. Nuclear already needs massive subsidies and those subsidies will need to get increasingly large to keep existing nuclear around let alone convince companies to build more.
Nuclear costs are massively skewed by the compliance costs.
Reactors that only took 5 years to build before ALARA are still safely running 80 years later. The 15-20 year build and certification time for new reactors is purely made up. The countries that are building our battery and solar pipeline (China, South Korea, Japan) are all building nuclear domestically at 1/3 of the cost of us.
More importantly, for cobalt and lithium - we still exclusively rely on natural raw resources that are still very cheap. Meanwhile we have established reserves of fissile material for thousands of years.
Maybe it won't be in the near future, or even in our lifetime, but there is no way the human race does not turn to nuclear eventually.
> Maybe it won't be in the near future, or even in our lifetime, but there is no way the human race does not turn to nuclear eventually.
We already use nuclear, if you mean fission as a primary energy source…
Batteries don’t consume lithium, battery recycling doesn’t consume lithium, we a literally use the same lithium for hundreds of billions of years. So the only way humans are going to be forced to use nuclear is when the stars die.
I don’t think humans will last that long, but if they do I’m unsure what technology they’ll be using. Theoretically dumping matter into black holes beats nuclear, but who knows.
Compliance costs are there because the government takes up the burden of accident costs. If the government does that, you can expect the government to then have a say in how things are designed and operated.
> Grid scale lithium batteries have an effective lifecycle of 15 years. In this potential future, global lithium reserves would actually start getting choked up before the 2050 goal.
I think the long-term solutions here are not grid-scale lithium batteries, but pumped hydro, flow batteries, or compressed air. Lithium batteries have just gotten a bit ahead on the technological growth curve because of the recent boom in production from phones and EVs, but liquid flow batteries can be made using common elements, and are likely to be cost-effective once the tech gets worked out better.
So: I don't think we can say "lithium energy storage is unfeasible large-scale and long-term" and thus conclude that nuclear is inevitable, unless we also look at all the other storage alternatives.
The main reason lithium batteries are used in cars and electronics is because they offer some of the best energy storage per kilogram. That's really important for something meant to be portable, but it's completely irrelevant for a large permanent installation.
Fun fact, 12 million hectares of land of used to produce corn used for ethanol which is used to produce gas. I'll let you draw the conclusion.
https://news.cornell.edu/stories/2025/04/trading-some-corn-e...
Yeah, the technology connections video on this was fantastic. If one was to cover that land in solar, you’d produce far more than the current energy demands of the US.
Relying on an energy source which requires constant, continuous resource extraction is fucking stupid when we can spend resources up front and get reliable energy (solar + battery) for decades with minimal operating cost & maintenance. And then we’ll have a recycling loop to minimize future resource extraction.
If you want to debate that, spend some time with this video first: https://youtu.be/KtQ9nt2ZeGM
So here I go: if it is so stupid, why it is not done yet?
Try not to blame anyone. Do it rationally if you can, from your message I understand your opinion.
I say this as a person that has lived in a developing country the last 15 years. It is not that simple IMHO...
The economics only changed recently and infrastructure lasts a long time. It’s the same reason EV’s make up a far larger share of new car sales than a percentage of overall cars, EV’s sucked 20+ years ago yet there are a lot of 20+ year old cars on the road.
The US stopped building coal power plants over a decade ago but we still have a lot of them. Meanwhile we’ve mostly been building solar, which eventually means we’ll have a mostly solar grid but that’s still decades away.
> The economics only changed recently and infrastructure lasts a long time
This needs investment also. An investment poorer people cannot or do not want to do. It is reasonable that when someone gives up a couple of things because that person is rich (rich as in a person in the developed world) the sacrifice is more or less acceptable.
Now change environment and think that these sacrifices are way worse. Even worse than that: that has more implications in conservative cultures where, whether you like it or not, showing "muscle" (wealth) is socially important for them to reach other soccial layers that will make their lives easier.
But giving up those things is probably a very bad choice for their living.
America cannot be compared to South East Asia economically speaking, for example. So the comparison of the coal centrals is not even close.
A salary in Vietnam is maybe 15 million VND for many people. With that you can hardly live in some areas. It is around 600 usd.
Just my two cents.
Unlike the US, Vietnam is a net importer of fuel. It imports over 40 million tons of coal per year:
https://statbase.org/data/vnm-coal-imports/
It also started importing liquid natural gas in 2023.
But it has abundant sunlight, access to low cost Chinese solar panels that will produce electricity for decades instead of being burned once, and a substantial domestic photovoltaic manufacturing industry of its own.
"Renewable Energy Investments in Vietnam in 2024 – Asia’s Next Clean Energy Powerhouse" (June 2024)
https://energytracker.asia/renewable-energy-investments-in-v...
In 2014, the share of renewable energy in Vietnam was just 0.32%. In 2015, only 4 megawatts (MW) of installed solar capacity for power generation was available. However, within five years, investment in solar energy, for example, soared.
As of 2020, Vietnam had over 7.4 gigawatts (GW) of rooftop solar power connected to the national grid. These renewable energy numbers surpassed all expectations. It marked a 25-fold increase in installed capacity compared to 2019’s figures.
In 2021, the data showed that Vietnam now has 16.5 GW of solar power. This was accompanied by its green energy counterpart wind at 11.8 GW. A further 6.6 GW is expected in late 2021 or 2022. Ambitiously, the government plans to further bolster this by adding 12 GW of onshore and offshore wind by 2025.
These growth rates are actually much faster than growth rates in the US.
Add cheap labor to the equation.
In developed countries 20-50% of the cost of roof top solar is labor.
> This needs investment also. An investment poorer people cannot or do not want to do.
The general premise of investments is that you end up with fewer resources by not doing them.
It now costs less to install a new solar or wind farm than to continue using an existing coal plant, much less if you were considering building a new coal plant, and that includes the cost of capital, i.e. the interest you have to pay to borrow the money for the up-front investment.
Poorer countries would be at a slight disadvantage if they have to pay higher than average interest rates to borrow money, but they also have the countervailing advantage of having lower labor and real estate costs and the net result is that it still doesn't make sense for anybody to continue to use coal for any longer than it takes to build the replacement.
It just takes more than zero days to replace all existing infrastructure.
That's why it will require a functional government who can use taxes responsibly to make the technology affordable to everyone. The US had a pretty good start until one man decided to stop and try to reverse any progress made.
Not one man, he's financially backed by the wealthiest people in the world and politically supported by millions.
Acting like this blunder is some random stroke of bad luck isn't telling the whole story.
Trump's animus against wind in particular is definitely specific to the man. He was annoyed by a wind farm in Scotland. Trump of course thinks he's one of those old fashioned kings† (and the US has been annoyingly willing to go along with that, how are those "checks and balances" and your "co-equal branches of government" working out for you?) and so he thought the local government would go along with his whims and prohibit the wind farm but they did not.
I'm sure there's some degree of vested interest in protecting fossil energy because it means very concentrated profits in a way that renewables do not. Sunlight isn't owned by anybody (modulo Simpsons references) and nor is the Wind, but I'd expect that, if that was all it was, to manifest as diverting funding to transitional work, stuff that keeps $$$ in the right men's pockets, rather than trying to do a King Canute. Stuff like paying a wind farm not to be constructed feels very Trump-specific.
† The British even know what you do with kings who refuse to stop breaking the law. See Charles the First, though that's technically the English I suspect in this respect the Scots can follow along. If the King won't follow the Law, kill the King, problem solved.
Trump’s campaign had financial backing from a number of oil and gas industry investors. Following the money in this case is not very difficult. He’s just a useful idiot, the whole industry put him there and are profiting at the expense of the rest of us.
But why should American taxpayers be responsible for making the technology affordable for everyone? Why shouldn't Europe or China be expected to shoulder this financial burden?
EDIT: I think people are misunderstanding my response. I fully support local subsidies for solar and renewables. My question is why my tax dollars should go toward making it affordable for everyone, including non-Americans. Either market dynamics will handle that naturally, artificially (i.e., China's manufacturing subsidies), or else it is up to the local government to address the shortfall.
Isn't the American complaint that China did exactly that by subsidizing its solar industry and flooding the global market with panels cheaper than Americans could make?
[1] https://www.bbc.com/news/business-20247734 (2012)
China is, it's subsidies have resulted in a glut of cheap solar panel production which the world has benefited from. European counties subsidise their own citizens switch to solar, the US no longer does at the federal level.
Responding to your edit: A wider version of the same argument might apply. The US has (historically) benefited considerably from global stability and this does seem to help with that because if basically everybody has energy independence and the overheating doesn't get much worse they might chill the fuck out?
Look at it this way: Benefiting everyone is a side effect of benefiting American taxpayers.
Or do you think that US federal investment in solar and battery technology would be bad for the American taxpayer?
The transition is happening rapidly in Pakistan: https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2026/mar/17/pakistan...
We haven't been building much battery storage to go along with that solar power. Perhaps we will eventually, but until that actually happens the base load requirement represents a hard limit on the amount of solar generation capacity that the grid can handle.
We started scaling batteries after solar (because the technology reached the point where they were profitable after solar)... but they're being installed at scale now, and at a rapdily increasing rate.
Batteries provided 42.8% of California's power at 7pm a few days ago (which came across my social media feed as a new record) [1]. And it wasn't a particularly short peak, they stayed above 20% of the power for 3 hours and 40 minutes. It's a non-trivial amount of dispatchable power.
[1] https://www.gridstatus.io/charts/fuel-mix?iso=caiso&date=202...
Batteries are a form of dispatchable power not "base load". There is no "base load" requirement. Base load is simply a marketing term for power production that cannot (economically) follow the demand curve and therefore must be supplemented by a form of dispatchable power, like gas peaker plants, or batteries. "Base load" power is quite similar to solar in that regard. The term makes sense if you have a cheap high-capitol low running-cost source of power (like nuclear was supposed to be, though it failed on the cheap front) where you install as much of it as you can use constantly and then you follow the demand curve with a different source of more expensive dispatchable power. That's not the reality we find ourselves in unless you happen to live near hydro.
I think the mysterious "Misc" electricity which sometimes appears at dawn and then dusk in the UK is likewise BESS†. The raw data doesn't seem to have labels for BESS, a lot of it was oriented around how electricity works twenty five years ago, there's an 850MW power plant here, and one there and one there, and we measure those. So it can cope with a wind farm - say 500MW or 1GW coming ashore somewhere, but not really with the idea that there's 10GW of solar just scattered all over the place on a bright summer's day and the batteries might similarly be too much?
† My thinking is: Dawn because in a few hours the solar comes online, you can refill those batteries at whatever price that is, so sell what you have now for the dawn price, and Dusk because the solar is mostly gone but people are running ovens and so on to make food in the evening, so you can sell into that market. But I might be seeing what I expect not reality.
Thanks for the [1] link, I hadn't seen that before.
> We haven't been building much battery storage to go along with that solar power
That too has pretty recently changed. Even my home state of Idaho is deploying pretty big batteries. It takes almost no time to deploy it's all permitting and public comment at this point that takes the time.
Batteries have gotten so cheap that the other electronics and equipement at this point are bigger drivers of the cost of installation.
Here's an 800MWh station that's being built in my city [1].
I think people are just generally stuck with the perception of where things are currently at. They are thinking of batteries and solar like it's 2010 or even 2000. But a lot has changed very rapidly even since 2018.
[1] https://www.idahopower.com/energy-environment/energy/energy-...
> Batteries have gotten so cheap
Any pointers for a regular Joe Shmoe homeowner looking for a backup battery? The Tesla Power Wall stuff and similar costs are halfway to six figures.
For full house backup, it sort of sucks right now. They are all charging a premium over what you can otherwise get if it's not specifically a whole home product.
What I've done and would suggest is right now looking for battery banks for big ticket important items that you'd want to stay on anyways in terms of an outage. A lot of those can function as a UPS. You can get a 1kWh battery pack for $400 right now. A comparable home battery backup is charging $1300 per kWh of installed storage.
I currently have a 2kWh battery pack for my computer/server/tv and a 500Wh pack for my fridge. Works great and it's pretty reasonably priced. The 500Wh gives my fridge an extra 6 hours of runtime after a power outage.
If I wanted to power shift, I have smart switches setup so I can toggle when I want to.
In the EU €1800 gets you a 10kWh battery (ex install)
That's on the high side, I would guess. Depending on what brand you want, you can get 10kWh of LFP for under a grand right now in the US.
With a BMS and inverter? What brand should I be looking at?
You will get a battery and BMS for that price. Decent inverters are expensive, however, so you won't get a whole 10kWh setup with appropriately sized inverter for under US$2K. Probably twice that.
I hesitate to offer any brand advice, because that is very situational, depends on what you're after, what experience level you have, what trade-offs you want to make, etc.
I don't know if the market has improved but when I looked at this a year or two ago I concluded that the consumer market here was utter crap with hugely inflated prices.
The cheapest per kwh way I could find to buy a home battery (that didn't involve diy stuff) was to literally buy an EV car with an inverter... by a factor of at least two... I ended up not buying one.
Unfortunately cheap batteries doesn't translate to reputable companies packaging them in cheap high quality packages for consumers instantly.
Becoming completely dependent on imported tech for such basic needs is a BAD idea. The West cannot outcompete China on cost for these products at this time. And before you say subsidies, let me remind you that we are all going broke.
Once you have PV panels, they (on average) last 20+ years - that's not being dependant, particularly when PV panels can be mass produced anywhere.
( They do not use rare earths (inverters use trace amounts) )
China cornering rare earths (for now) is an "own goal" by every country that chose to let China (and to a lesser degree Malaysia) take a hit on the toxic by products of processing concentrates.
The US is easily capable of producing it's own rare earths, it's certainly not been backwards in asking Australia to do that for it.
There was a test on 30 year old panels and they only lost 20%.
We (literally, I know where some are) have 30 year old panels and 95 year old men, their existence doesn't negate an average.
Also, PV panels are kinda non uniform in performance, long term studies show that one fifth of them perform 1.5 times worse than the rest.
Either way, 20 year lifetimes where you build once and reap the rewards for 20 years is sufficient to put to rest the kind of argument being made about dependancies.
That's more than enough time for any G20 country to be making it's own PV production chain.
>Either way, 20 year lifetimes where you build once and reap the rewards for 20 years is sufficient to put to rest the kind of argument being made about dependancies.
It's not sufficient. We have had plenty of time to start making all of the critical things we import, and that never happened. In most cases, these things used to be made in the West in the first place. Just because you CAN make a thing doesn't mean it makes sense. The economics of solar would be totally different if you had to pay 5x more for solar panels to replace Chinese-subsidized slave-labor-backed imports.
There are other arguments to be made against mega-scale solar. Don't get me wrong, I love the idea of solar because it is on a small scale one of the best ways for an individual to get a bit of electricity without reliance on fuel supplies. But it has a lot of disadvantages at scale which make it unsuitable for many regions. Hail, snow, dust, vandals, and strategic vulnerability all make it look precarious. The supply chain concern is that much worse.
20 years is not great for those. Extreme weather can also shred them. It's fine to have some, but I sure as hell don't want to be dependent on that.
Gotcha, you prefer to be daily dependent on fossil fuel delivery rather than get new panels every 20 years, particularly given you're in a country seemingly incapable of manufacture and minerals processing.
That's certainly a position.
The US and the rest of the West are capable of manufacturing. You just said yourself they can be made "anywhere" so make up your mind. What I think is that manufacturing is not competitive in the US or the West as a whole because of wage requirements and monetary exchange rates, and additionally because we operate a mostly free market and don't penalize foreign state-subsidized products hard enough to make domestic manufacture make sense.
Replacing the solar panels every 20 years at minimum would mean that the panels would always be getting refreshed. Bro we have roads and bridges 50 years past end of life, in need of rebuilding. We can't afford this fragile power grid rebuild that is completely dependent on foreign suppliers. Sorry. Take your snark and shove it.
There was a test on 30 year old panels and they only lost 20% capacity.
That is only marginally better in the scheme of things. They want to take farms for food out of commission in some places to replace with fragile and unreliable solar systems. Imagine installing this stuff on a large scale. If you plan to replace all the panels after 30 years and incur no losses from high winds, hail, vandals, etc., then you would need to overbuild the system by 20% at minimum. This is assuming modern panels are as durable as those old panels from the study too. 30 years ago, solar panels were built in the West and cost 10x as much as the ones we have now. So it seems reasonable to assume that brand new panels might not have the same characteristics, and be less durable. It would make a lot more sense to just put these panels on roofs and in parking lots where the real estate is already consumed, and the power can be a backup source instead of a grid-scale vulnerability.
That's a lot of guessing though, newer panels might as well be more durable and longer lasting. Even if you lose 20% in 20-30 years you don't need to replace the panel unless the cost of replacing them can be recouped within a reasonable amount of years. As long as there is more space for more panels you don't need to replace existing ones unless they stop working, so capacity just increases for decades until you reach some saturation point.
The real estate would be more valuable than the panels, presumably. So it's not like they can just keep expanding forever. As for the vulnerabilities, this is not based on guessing. We've produced solar panels in the West even recently. They are not competitive with China on cost. They are actually fragile. We are facing geopolitical challenges.
Obviously, money is a factor. But you cannot discount political resistance. If a government in charge is dead set in promoting fossil fuels over renewables, it will never happen. Even if you get a government led by the most gungho green friendly administration, in a democratic government, those opposing can stall any plans to go green. If you live in a less democratic government where leadership decides it's going green, you're going green.
1. Solar panels need a huge capital expenditure up front.
2. Wind power works better for farmers and provide a smaller footprint. Drive on I-80 in Iowa on a clear night and you'll see the wind farms blink their red lights in the distance. Farmers can lease their land for wind turbines, and the generation companies take on the regulatory / capital / politcal risks, etc.
3. Farming is more or less free market based, and often farmers can let their grain sit in a silo until the price is optimal for them to sell. But for a given location, there's only one power company that you can use, and typically the power companies don't like people putting solar panels on the grid. In many states (like in Idaho) there's regulatory capture or weird politics preventing people putting solar panels up on their own land. (Again Idaho)
As a side note, agriculture uses up lots of water in deserts (more so than people), so it seems like in desert spaces like Idaho, solar would make a lot more sense than agriculture would. And we should move the agriculture to where the water naturally falls from the skies.
There was also a huge move by farmers towards growing corn and selling for ethanol because E-85 was seen as some future fuel. Many farmers I know went all in and switched from regional crops (this was in ND), such as sugar beets, soybeans, and spring wheat to corn to fuel this thinking this some kind of energy gold rush.
Then economics, lack of infrastructure and incentives buried it in a few years. Farmers were left holding the bag. Many were not happy they had made a huge move into this new "renewable" energy, only to get burned in the end. The same farmers I know have scoffed at windmills and solar farms.
E-85 really lost a lot of farmers willing to use their land for something that won't pan out. The ones I know went back to growing what sells and grows the best in the market. Trying to tell a farmer that solar panels on his land where he grows food to feed his family is going to be a tough sell now.
> As a side note, agriculture uses up lots of water in deserts (more so than people), so it seems like in desert spaces like Idaho, solar would make a lot more sense than agriculture would. And we should move the agriculture to where the water naturally falls from the skies.
The problem is that in many of those places where enough water naturally falls from the sky the soil and/or the weather isn't as good for growing food.
It is generally much easier to move water to a low water place that has great soil and/or weather than it is to move soil or weather to a high water place that is missing good soil or weather, and so here we are.
In California, PG&E charges you for putting solar on their grid and they'll pay you a penny for your extra electricity.
> why it is not done yet?
Whoa lots to unpack here. I'll summarize:
- It is already happening to some extent (it's cheaper)
- Try explaining to farmers to do away with their livelihood and retrain them to running a solar farm
- Entrenched bureaucracy and gov subsidies
People, especially recent American leaders, do not make rational decisions.
They also have goals other than generating energy effectively
It is happening. It takes time to build and it only became absurdly cheap in the past few years. But it keeps getting cheaper and better (batteries too for anyone who wants to bring that up).
had the same question and after reading about it, I found there are multiple layers on each other.
Existing plans are built to run 40-60 years.. retiring creates "stranded assets". pension funds fight hard to avoid that. The renewable projects that wait for permits exceed total existing capacity.. the bottleneck is not tech, but locality.
I found this visual schematic helpful - https://vectree.io/c/why-energy-transitions-are-slow-grid-in...
Based on your response timestamp I will conclude you didn't watch the video. He "does it rationally" like you requested. You said "try not to blame anyone" so if you'd rather not hear about the people who actually are to blame for this situation, then skip the last 30 minutes of the video.
Time, infrastructure changes take decades
It is being done, just not here.
Because externalities screw with incentives.
Theft is stupid from a broad view. It causes more harm to the victim than benefit to the perpetrator. Everyone would be better off if we everyone stopped stealing and we provided the same level of benefit to would-be perpetrators in a more efficient form.
Why hasn't theft stopped yet? Because it's extremely difficult to do from a systems level. In principle it's simple: just don't steal. Convincing everyone to do it is hard.
Likewise, fossil fuels have horrible externalities that kill thousands if not millions of people per year. We'd be better off if we greatly cut back our usage and replaced it with cleaner sources of energy. But the people benefitting from any given use of fossil fuels and the people paying the costs tend not to be the same people. This makes it extremely difficult to organize a halt.
yes but increasing solar will damage the energy lobby in the congress and other places. It's never about what is best, it's about what's best for lobby and their puppets
If you won't think of the energy corridor, who will?
What is really strange, at this period of history, how anyone would not think that solar makes more sense for focus and investment. Well, unless directly being paid not to use sense or care about the future of humanity, by various oil companies.
> which requires constant, continuous resource extraction
Is there an upper bound on battery limits with regards to resource extraction?
It's probably fairly high, considering the existence of the sodium-sulfur battery. It's not economically competitive since it operates at high temperature, but it's based on very abundant materials.
What about salt water batteries? Seem almost commodity
Once you have enough to power the world and are able to recycle them, then you're done with extracting resources for them.
Unfortunately human energy use appears to be proportional to the amount of energy available
Hopefully we are able to reach a point of effectively unlimited cheap energy and storage but it's that if overnight we suddenly had enough solar+batteries to power today's usage, we'd suddenly need way more as demand rises
It's based on cost, like anything else. If running everything on solar and batteries makes it cheaper then we'll use more. But the same is true regardless of the technology. What's not true regardless is whether a given amount of energy usage requires continual resource extraction just to sustain it, or whether it's only needed for new capacity.
> And then we’ll have a recycling loop to minimize future resource extraction.
This is something the (willfully?) deluded really don't appreciate. I know people who listened to _that one Joe Rogan podcast_ about precious metal extraction for EVs and are back on the oil bandwagon. The current regime of precious metal extraction is absolutely dirty and dangerous but ... it doesn't have to be and won't be forever -- especially if, as you've said, we actively prioritize a recycling loop for the components.
What does the 1% of land used to grow corn have to do specifically with solar and batteries? Solar doesn't need to be on the 15% arable land at all.
The corn doesn't just produce ethanol, which just utilizes the starch/sugar. The protein, fat, fiber is eaten by livestock in some form like distillers grains.
And governments like to have food security , and having secondary uses for an abundance of food in the good times is more convenient than storing cheese in caves , and in case of an emergency shortage the production is already there without having to rip up solar panels to grow food.
My conclusion is you're conflating issues (solar and ethanol) unnecessarily.
My conclusion is that you didn't even try to understand the GP.
Then please explain, to me he brought up an unrelated point about ethanol (which is often poorly understood and mischaracterized anyways) consuming a portion of agriculturally productive land. Which BTW this agricultural land that produces ethanol is probably not even close to the best place in the country for industrial scale solar from a LOT of perspectives.
My "try to understand" take: We subsidize corn, then use it yo make a less efficient fuel. The money involved in this process likely takes away from subsidies to other forms of energy. There are a great many activities we do not subsidize, but solar is one that if we did, would produce an outsized benefit to society. And the more we do, the better. Redirecting an ethanol subsidy to solar would be a far more beneficial long term strategy for energy independence and overall standard of living in the US. Going all in on Solar would be a transformative and likely relatively short investment period that would last and benefit a long time. We have done many large scale infrastructure projects in the US, and it is frustrating to see the resistance to this one, being both less disruptive and more "all around win" than any other i can think of.
This is a fair point as it's not just simply using ethanol for gasoline. This article goes into more depth about it: https://www.pnas.org/doi/10.1073/pnas.2501605122
There's lot of factors at play here:
- Location for generating PV
- Redistribution of food (both for livestock and human) production
- Environmental impacts of PV vs livestock vs depletion of native prairies
Point still stands...if you replaced all of the land used to produce ethanol with PV, you would create a surplus of energy that is higher than anything we could imaginably consume today (hint - China is essentially already doing this)
No no, that argument is pretty old now. The amount of fuel you GROW on your own continent at any single or double digit percentage during wartime-anytime is probably a good long-term research project that shouldn't be interrupted by people online.
The problem is corn requires a lot of fossil fuel energy input, mostly in the form of fertiliser. The net energy output is only around 1.3 so an acre of corn produces maybe 400 gallons of gasoline equivalent output requires 300 gallons of gasoline equivalent in energy inputs.
Ethanol from sugarcane makes a lot more sense. Corn ethanol is just a wasteful subsidy for farmers paid for by drivers.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ethanol_fuel_energy_balance
>The net energy output is only around 1.3 so an acre of corn produces maybe 400 gallons of gasoline equivalent output requires 300 gallons of gasoline equivalent in energy inputs.
What is the problem, that sounds great? 30% free output out of your input is staggering honestly. Thank you sunshine and atmospheric CO2. You don't have to use fossil fuel for this. You can potentially run the farm equipment off ethanol if it were designed as such.
You can also only grow sugarcane well up to usda zone 8. Some people can do it as an annual but I guess it is tricky. Corn you can grow all the way into Canada.
> What is the problem, that sounds great? 30% free output out of your input is staggering honestly.
It's really not when you compare it to the energy return you get from energy invested in other forms of energy generation. Solar power, for example, is typically estimated to produce 13x as much energy as it takes to make the panel. This is obviously a considerable improvement over 1.3x.
So why does it matter as long as the net energy output is positive? Because the whole point of the energy generating exercise is to do something with the output energy other than just make more energy and there isn't unlimited capacity on the input side of the equation. The 100 "free" gallons you get in the example sounds great, but sustaining that requires inputting (i.e. growing) 300 gallons worth, so you need to produce 400 gallons total to get 100 useful gallons. Looking at the math another way, an ethanol powered civilization would spend 75% of the energy it produces simply producing more energy, leaving only 25% to actually do anything useful with. This is bad, because said civilization will run out land to grow corn for ethanol well before it's generating enough useful energy.
It's sort of like the energy equivalent of the food explanation for why it took human civilization so long to advance out of the agrarian stage. Up until relatively recently, most humans spent most of their time and effort simply growing enough food to live. This left very little excess capacity for humans to do anything to move humanity forward. In the modern day, very little of our time and energy goes into growing food, leaving all sorts of extra capacity to build spaceships and AI and the Internet and whatever else. But only because we got really efficient at growing food.
Yeah, but market pricing fluctuates and that corn (hopefully) isn't grown in a monocrop. Alternating with soybean affects protein and food oils markets, and alternating or adding industrial hemp both, plus tremendous fibre.
Opportunity costs essentially. The effort that goes into growing and refining corn ethanol could be better spent on reducing fuel consumption instead of dedicating five acres of land to provide the equivalent net yearly fossil fuel consumption of a single average car using 500 gallons of gasoline to drive about 15000 miles.
Why not do both, reduce fuel consumption while shifting to a carbon neutral fuel source that is fully onshored?
Again opportunity costs. It almost always makes sense to spend the money on the most efficient means to achieve the goal. Money spent paying farmers and ethanol refiners to inefficiently produce 25% lower carbon fuel could instead be directed at other endeavours that for the same cost reduce carbon emissions more.
The difference is we already grow corn at scale beyond market need. Probably less has to be paid in that effort than starting up some other industry. Which still can be done along side the corn shouldering the load until that industry reaches the scale of the corn industry's waste product.
> Probably less has to be paid in that effort than starting up some other industry.
No, that's the entire point. As mentioned above, for ethanol you input the equivalent of 300 ethanol gallons worth of energy (which could also be ethanol) to get 100 net gallons out you can do whatever you want with. If you instead used that 300 gallons worth of input to produce solar panels, they'd produce 3,600 net gallons worth of equivalent energy over their lifetime. You get 36x more net energy building solar panels than growing corn for ethanol. Sure, you could spend 600 gallons worth of energy and do both, but then you'd still be better off switching the entire 600 gallons of input to solar panels until you run out of solar panel generation capacity or demand. That's the opportunity cost.
Also a minor point worth making is that ethanol is in no way a "waste product" from the corn growing industry that would otherwise go to, well, waste. Farmers aren't just growing a bunch of extra corn for no reason that we can conveniently use for ethanol. If demand for ethanol stopped, they'd stop growing all that extra corn.
I’d rather people went rooftop solar, and put that land to producing food.
The consumer rooftop solar cost is usually one of the most expensive ways you can generate electricity - often several times the cost of utility solar installations. The high rooftop solar price is usually hidden (at least in the USA) because no power source has been as subsidized as rooftop solar. Besides direct subsidies, wealthier home owners have often been paid the retail rate for the electricity they sell to the grid. This causes higher electricity bills for those in apartments and those who can't afford to put panels on their roof. Also, in almost all cases, the home installation doesn’t have enough battery power to actually last through inclement weather and so is free riding on the reliability provided by the grid, putting more costs on the less well off. The whole thing is sort of a reverse Robin Hood scheme.
Rooftop solar is good but it shouldn't be a gift to the wealthier residents paid for by those less wealthy. Any subsidies for solar power should go to utility grade solar. Money is limited and is fungible - a dollar spent subsidizing utility solar will go much, much, further than a dollar spent subsidizing wealthy homeowners who install panels on their roof.
> The high rooftop solar price is usually hidden (at least in the USA)
My understanding is that the (unsubsidised) price of rooftop solar is only high in the USA. Because the cost is almost entirely labor (high in the US) and issues around permitting (more restrictive in the US). Pretty much everywhere else in the world you'll now save money with rooftop solar + batteries even if you can't sell back to the grid at all. Even places that aren't that sunny like the UK where I live.
It is still more expensive than "grid scale" deployments. But there are positive externalities that make up for that: uses otherwise unused space, less grid capacity needed, adds resiliency to the grid (if implemented well with storage).
Rooftop solar in Australia is ~60cents per Watt installed.
in the US - admittedly 4 years old info, the cost of utility scale solar was like ~$1/watt - rooftop solar was like $2.5-$3/watt
I recently specced a 500kW project. Quote was $CA1.67/Watt. But I'm pretty sure they would have bumped that up a lot higher later in the process if we hadn't stopped due to permitting hurdles.
> Besides direct subsidies, wealthier home owners have often been paid the retail rate for the electricity they sell to the grid. This causes higher electricity bills for those in apartments and those who can't afford to put panels on their roof
I don't think you thought this up yourself, so I won't blame you for it, as this exact, word for word swill is mindlessly repeated by a lot of people, so thats ample evidence of brainwashing going on.
The subsidies and retail rate (both of which have been murdered by now thanks to swill like this) incentives were not a sneaky reverse welfare program snuck in by the wealthy.
They were infrastructure incentives for people who could afford to make those infrastructure investments.
Investments have always required incentives and a positive ROI. You don't put money into your 401k, Roth or HSA because you expect to lose money in 20 years.
The goal of solar subsidies was never some sneaky wealth redistribution with unforseen sideeffects but rather to rally support from the private industry and wealthy homes to spearhead rapid decarbonization, energy independence, and grid decentralization.
A single mother treading water, barely being able to afford groceries isn't your persona for actually making rapid decarbonization, energy independence, and grid decentralization happen - however, the wealthy that you so despise of, certainly put a 10kWh (sometimes more) PV array on their 3000 sqft rooftop and actually feed power to the grid that was reeling under tremendous growing strain.
People hanging portable solar panels from the balconies of their apartments barely make power to run their kitchen fridge so that's out as well.
Mom and pop landlords and corporate run apartments aren't going to put solar for their tenants because they are not legally allowed to sell power above utility rates while they don't enjoy the 10% guaranteed ROI that utilities get (which is where utilities actually make their money), so that's out too.
This makes me sad - We could have had a future where the grid was fully decentralized, where our single mother neighbor would never had to worry about the lights getting turned off even when there was a downed power line or wildfire or a snowstorm turning down power lines half a mile away, where she could plug in her EV into my shed instead of having to drive miles away to a crowded charging station.
We are numbers people here - so here's a numbers perspective:
If I had taken the same money I had to spend on a "grid compliant" installation (so I could connect all of this to the grid) and put it into the SNP500 instead, I would never have had to worry just about a power bill (as bad it is - $0.60/kWh) but also my inflation adjusted grocery bills for the rest of my life.
You won't convince many people if you think ad hominem attacks and insults are acceptable. Yes, subsidies are done to help drive adoption. The key is that the subsidies should go where they can do the most good. Money is limited and is fungible - a dollar spent subsidizing utility solar will go much, much, further to decarbonizing the grid than a dollar spent subsidizing rooftop residential solar.
My response is the opposite of ad hominem. It's me noticing and acknowledging that a large group of people comment on energy policy who understand neither energy nor policy but feel confident to both vote and comment on energy policy because they have been brainwashed.
> a dollar spent subsidizing utility solar will go much, much, further to decarbonizing the grid than a dollar spent subsidizing rooftop residential solar
That's completely, trivially provably wrong.
For one, rooftop residential allows decentralization and redundancy. Customers can have their house continue to run while the grid as a whole is down.
Utility solar absolutely does not - solar here is just another source of energy into the centralized grid. From a physics and math perspective, that source of energy could very well have been a coal plant. It doesn't have the same decentralized and redundancy benefit as a 10kWh PV array and a 30kWh battery on a home where the home no longer even needs the grid anymore.
Any rational consumer would appreciate having power than not - We cannot argue physics and math or consumer demands - that's just insanity.
A person who repeatedly argues against this basic math doesn't have the best interest of the consumer in mind. Further, when there's a group of people who repeatedly argues the same illogical swill using the same phrasing as the others, it's a cult.
I could go on and on but I have learned that arguing with brainwashed people takes a lot of time and effort and most of the time, in the end, it ends in a stalemate. Most of the time, it reenforces them they are right and the other side is ignorant and "doesnt get it". No thank you.
On this very thread a person who actually designs and implements grid projects agreed that the only objective utility solar serves are those of the utilities themselves.
The reason why this person is provably correct is because you could come to the same conclusion from first principles as well. To most people, the above statement is a "duh!" moment.
They gave solid, clear, objective examples of how utilities have other much higher priorities than ensuring consumers have access to the most affordable, reliable, resilient power.
They further gave evidence and insight into how the way utilities fund their infrastructure projects actively make them opposed to what's good for the consumer, because decentralization and redundancy would collapse the value of existing collateral.
Now that's a high quality, high value, high merit discussion.
When someone comes and lectures me about how my dollars should go towards initiatives that absolutely do not help me, rather makes me even more dependent on a 3rd party that doesn't have me as their first priority, I dont care about what they have to say especially when I have options available where my dollars directly go towards initiatives that absolutely do help me.
The most generous interpretation I have of their motives is that they are brainwashed.
I would encourage beginning from first principles, gaining clarity into what the final objective is - to provide affordable, redundant, reliable, resilient power to the consumer or to ensure the utility has smoother operations and a tighter grip over the consumer and ensure the consumer is completely dependent on the utility?
If the brainwashing isn't complete and there's a tiny chance of a breakthrough, maybe changing domains would help?
What's better for a local economy that has willing, capable backyard farmers:
- allow them to sell their product that meets all regulatory requirements, to other willing consumers at the same market clearing price or
- destroy them completely and remove any incentives for them to grow, in favor of having a massive, centralized farm?
I have some experience with distributed energy generation and have met with senior utility executives many times while trying to implement some grant supported projects through my work.
It turns out that a big problem is that whenever we install local generation it costs utilities a ton of money. They bundle the cost of grid maintenance into their per kWh charges. These costs, which include debt service, maintenance, upgrades etc amount to 5-7 cents/kWh. Whenever you generate your own energy you cost the utility 5-7cents/kWh that they have to pay regardless of your usage.
This business model, which has bundled grid maintenance into usage costs means that utilities put up huge roadblocks for distributed generation. They say they love it, but they actually hate it. Utility executives have looked me in the eye and said as much.
It gets worse though, because energy infrastructure is backed by trillions in utility bonds. These "low risk" debt instruments are owned by national and private pension funds of mind boggling size. In order to bring about a distributed energy future the grid (and low pressure nat gas infrastructure) must be reorganized in a manner that is likely to make those bonds worthless. These background factors are definitely in play when you see these bait and switch enthusiastic green energy programs that turn out to be a regulatory quagmire when you dig into them. Public utilities and pension funds hate green energy, they are a major factor in west's pathetic performance when it comes to solar adoption vs China.
> It turns out that a big problem is that whenever we install local generation it costs utilities a ton of money
So a question:
- Lets hypothesize that distributed, decentralized systems cost way more than centralized systems
- If you agree with that hypothesis, can we next hypothesize that building a distributed, decentralized system that can support power on one block and can allow it to continue to stay on while the "central feeder line" (please tell me the proper word for this made up word is) to all the blocks is down, because that one block has a local distributed, decentralized power source, is of value to the community?
In the past, commercial factories were the only places that could afford this kind of redundancy but it feels to me, thanks to crashing prices of solar and batteries (I could never have imagined 12kWh brand new LFP could be purchased for $2k), this level of redundancy is now very much realistic at the consumer, residential level. It just doesn't work locally today because the utility poles lack the smarts to do the isolated switching and safe islanding. For example: one unsettled question today is if a lot of customers on one such island are on solar and the grid is down, how do we safely supply power within nominal specs to the whole of the island - but this isn't a physical unknown, we know how to solve it. It just is lacking implementation.
> These costs, which include debt service, maintenance, upgrades etc amount to 5-7 cents/kWh. Whenever you generate your own energy you cost the utility 5-7cents/kWh that they have to pay regardless of your usage
Capitalism has repeatedly proven its ability to cut costs down while improving QoS. I realize you really believe in the numbers you have been provided - that it costs a utility 5-7cents/kWh that they have to pay regardless of my usage, but before SpaceX, it used to cost multiple millions of dollars and years of planning and design to launch one rocket.
In this case the utility executives work for public utilities. So capitalism isn't to blame. It's about the incentives of the incumbent energy providers.
It is already cheaper to build the distributed energy solution you describe but making that change would require a massive restructuring of electricity and natural gas utilities. Such a restructuring would revalue the debt that backs the existing infrastructure. This would be a great thing for the average person but not for the people currently in charge of regulating what types of systems are allowed.
Costs of distributed energy may drop so low in the next 5-10 years that it will no longer be possible to keep things from moving to a micro grid network.
> but making that change would require a massive restructuring of electricity and natural gas utilities. Such a restructuring would revalue the debt that backs the existing infrastructure. This would be a great thing for the average person but not for the people currently in charge of regulating what types of systems are allowed
fair. I appreciated the insight in your original message - datapoints from industry insiders like yourself do help people like I gain some understanding of why we have to go in alone on this and not wait
> Public utilities and pension funds hate green energy, they are a major factor in west's pathetic performance when it comes to solar adoption vs China
No this statement is absolutely wrong. Here's why:
> west's pathetic performance when it comes to solar adoption vs China
China is dominating energy because the CCP doesn't care what their citizens think. They need energy and they are doing everything they can do to get it. They will put you behind bars at best or kill your family and demolish your house if it gets in the middle of a power line trench. For China, energy isn't a "nice to have" - they realize it's essential and they won't stop until they get there.
China is the person out in the mountains being chased by a hungry bear while we in the west is the person sitting in their air conditioned room debating whether to drive or take an Uber to have a drink with buddies.
News came out last week that you can buy a Chinese hypersonic missle for $100k - you can't even build a little two car garage where I am for double that price.
> Public utilities and pension funds hate green energy
Pension funds don't care whether energy is green or orange. What they hate are the horrible returns affected by all the stealing and grifting that happens in the name of "green energy".
Public utilities (atleast in the jurisdictions that I am aware of) love any infrastructure work - they are guaranteed a 10% ROI by the government on any approved infrastructure work they do. If you could work with them to build infrastructure to cremate just newborn kids and get it approved by the CPUC, they will happily start work on it tomorrow. The reason why they hate green energy is because after they've made their 10% ROI, they are now stuck with a power source that costs them more than their non-green sources and that hurts their razor thin margins.
However, as the customer - I don't care either about what public utilities and pension funds hate or don't.
What I do care about is having affordable and reliable power and I absolutely can get that with my own solar panels and batteries. The fact that it's green is a happy sideffect for most.
The reason why every home in the U.S. isn't overflowing with solar panels and batteries is because of regulation and government shenanigans making retail costs really high. Average people in Pakistan, South Africa and Lebanon certainly power their whole homes with solar panels and batteries but their governments don't have nonsense taffifs and fees on Chinese solar equipment.
Totally agree that regulations and government interference are the reasons we don't have cheap solar panels.
Those regulations and that interference result from the fact that in a distributed world the current utility bond value drops to zero. Utilities will not build infrastructure that makes their existing infrastructure lose value.
I recently negotiated with a government owned utility on a large solar project. They were 100% against it until I demonstrated that the project would never feed back to the grid and wouldn't reduce the amount of power we currently buy from them. Zero interest in distributed solutions on their side. They are focused on giant transmission line projects and hydro.
> They are focused on giant transmission line projects and hydro
Is that because of the scale they need to achieve to support the investment?
> until I demonstrated that the project would never feed back to the grid
Financial greed aside, and I mentioned this previously, feedback at a large scale isn't free especially if the impedance of the grid cannot be predicted - the frequency or voltage or both would spike. Monitoring for these conditions are expensive and addressing them is even more expensive - the cheapest solution is you do a shutdown until things stabilize but this is kinda catch-22 because that itself might have its own cascading effects.
Let me ask you this - if you were to update a local neighborhood (like a block or two of 1000 homes) distribution station, that all have their own solar and battery, where the homes could independently power themselves for a day - what changes or upgrades would you make to ensure they can share load for that one day when the larger grid is suffering an outage?
Now would that cost and complexity be lower or higher if instead, nothing was changed at grid scale at all but each of the individual 1000 homes doubled their own capacity (let's say 30kWh a day if you're OK with that)?
That land is producing food for cars. If we covered half in solar panels we’d have almost enough energy to power the country. Turn the other half over to food production and you’d come out ahead on both energy and food.
It's a common mistake to believe there isn't enough land to grow food, and that is simply false. We throw tons and tons of food away every year due to spoilage and other factors. Even in many parts of Africa scarcity of food is caused by waste and distribution problem than simply lack of arable land.
And when you think about the millions of lands used to grow bioethanol I think we can safely convert that for solar installation without worries.Agrovoltaic is also a practical approach for a lot of crops and farmers so that we can grow and produce electricity side by side.
We already produce enough food. Rooftop solar by definition is an inefficient use of resources.
Do you know how much land there is that is simply not worth farming on?
There are deserts everywhere.
Why do you assume that solar and production of food is mutually exclusive on that land? Agrovoltaics is a thing and can often have benefits to the growing of crops.
A roof is quite literally the worst place to put solar panels. Its a load most roofs are not designed for, and the whole point of a roof is to keep water out, which is compromised by attaching stuff to it.
The most efficient way to do large scale solar is with semi-local utility scale arrays with ultra efficient inverters and enormous chemical or hydro storage. We have a lot of unused land, that's not a problem
Kinda funny how we invented a carbon neutral fuel system but we are like "lets only use it as a 15% mix" vs trying to design new engines for pure ethanol. You could fuel your car with hooch you made from yard waste.
But is it carbon neutral?
How much energy in terms of calories does one get per acre?
What is the equivalent energy input in terms of diesel and so forth?
Why would you use diesel as input when you are making fuel? Just use part of the fuel you are making as input for the next crop.
We will have to see if Deere's new tractor which runs on E98 actually makes it to market.
The blunt question is:
>How many calories of energy to grow 1 calorie of corn (using modern industrial farming practices)
Another commenter said this ratio is 1.3 in favor of output.
Interesting --- does that also include considerations such as oil for lubrication and fertilizer sourcing?
Not sure. But not everyone uses fertilizer. No till is being more widely appreciated, getting nitrogen in the soil using cover crops that fix it from the atmosphere. Probably everything uses oil for lube including any alternative energy. Teslas still need greasing after all. They still have bearings and other moving parts.
Some crops can require as much as 10 calories of petrochemical energy to get 1 calorie of food energy when one takes such things into account --- corn (well, maize) is quite calorie dense/efficient in terms of land and other usages --- I'd be curious to see a full, comprehensive crunching of the values involved.
Well we are talking about ethanol production not corn for food. That is where the 1.3 ratio comes from. fuel input to fuel output.
Not unless your yard was ~5 acres and you did nothing with that land but grew corn for ethanol. And even if you could do that, there's nowhere near enough "yard' for every car out there. The math just doesn't math.
Correct me if I’m wrong but my understanding was that ethanol in gasoline was a result laws enacted due to corn farmers (or their state reps) lobbying for subsidies, not any intrinsic part of gasoline production
Damn I didn't know it was that bad. Ideally you'd grow algae from sewer waste and make fuel from that, but this is the US we're talking about.
Algae needs solar light, so you will have to flood a lot of land to get enough.
Also, in case of a war or blockade you can switch the corn use from etanol to food. You will have to eat tortilla and polenta for a year [1] but it's better than algae from seawater or famine.
Here we use sugar cane to produce etanol, it's more efficient because it's a C4 plant. I guess it's possible in the south of the US.
[1] It's not so bad in my opinion if you can mix some meat in the sauce.
>you can switch the corn use from etanol to food
Not that easily. Yellow dent corn is not edible without processing. So to switch that to food use you have to have factories to deal with it.
You'd be far better off taking the energy from panels and using it greenhouses to get human feed.
Yellow corn is very popular here in Argentina. Things I ate this or last week:
* Home made popcorn: made from whole yellow corn grains.
* Corn on the cob: Sweet yellow corn. We just learned that you can microwave them for 6 minutes instead of boiling.
* Polenta: Grinded yellow corn. Add milk, butter and as much cheese as possible. You can buy the precooked grinded corn, and it takes less than 5 minutes. Bonus points for a sauce with tomato, onion, peppers, and red chorizo. [1]
* Humita/Tamales: Put some grinded corn wrapped inside the corn husk and boil it. I had not eat them since a long time ago, but they use also yellow corn here. I like it, but it requires a lot of preparation.
We use white corn only for food related to our two independence day:
* Locro: Mix split white hard corn, beans, pumpkin pieces, potatoes, pieces of meat with bone and whatever you can find. Boil it for hours and hours and hours. I probably eat it once or twice a year. [2]
* Mazamorra (porridge?): Mix split white hard corn with sugar and probably milk. Boil it until it's soft, that may take a very long time. I think I eat it once or twice in my life, for some patriotic celebration.
[1] https://www.paulinacocina.net/como-hacer-polenta-con-tuco/25...
[2] https://www.paulinacocina.net/receta-de-locro-argentino/9829
PS: As a rule of thumb, if you want to cook Argentinean food, just look at the site of "Paulina Cocina". She has simple but tasty recipes.
Dent corn doesnt make popcorn nor can you eat it as sweet corn, it is a corn optimized for starch. If you want to eat it directly you must put a nixtamalization process on it or it doesn't have much nutritional value. Typically it's processed into starch process, or turned into fuel or fructose.
From https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dent_corn
> Dent corn is the variety used in food manufacturing as the base ingredient for cornmeal flour (used in the baking of cornbread), corn chips, tortillas, and taco shells. It is also used to make corn syrup.
After a quick search, you need "flint" corn instead of "dent" corn for polenta (it appears to be similar to grits). I guess in case of an emergency anyone is better than nothing.
Also, it would be much easier to switch if the people has the know-how. (I'm worried about the availability of enough seeds of the other corn.)
>Algae needs solar light, so you will have to flood a lot of land to get enough.
Algae is farmed at industrial scales in the ocean, today. Mostly in asia. US is very behind on this industry.
> Algae needs solar light
Same with corn
> so you will have to flood a lot of land to get enough. Not necessarily, just use pre-existing water treatment plants to grow algae, and vertical photobioreactors exist. Algae also has a much higher harvest rate versus corn, and if you only wanted to ferment the algal biomass into corn you'd have much higher yields than corn.
> Also, in case of a war or blockade you can switch the corn use from ethanol to food. You will have to eat tortilla and polenta for a year [1] but it's better than algae from seawater or famine.
True
> Here we use sugar cane to produce etanol, it's more efficient because it's a C4 plant. I guess it's possible in the south of the US. Agreed.
The corn is good for multiple purposes. In a pinch, you can eat it. Can't eat electrons. The panels are not recyclable either.
The article is just wrong. And only mentions energy used for heating in passing. Heating requires MASSIVE amounts of energy.
I should know bc I have a whole house battery and solar system (almost 30 kWh battery and 24kW solar). It keeps the lights on, but not heating. I live in a mild climate.
The reality is that battery/solar requires major quality of life and activity time shifting trade-offs.
People still build houses like energy is cheap and abundant. A properly insulated house in any temperate climate require very little heating or cooling.
Spend 50k on insulation that will last the life of the building instead of 50k on heating and cooling devices which will need constant maintenance and replacement + fuel and end up costing 10x more over the life of the building.
A modern house with modern insulation in a mild climate shouldn't even need a central heating system. You can get by with 500w toaster heaters in each room for the coldest time of the year
In the short term the math is usually bad. Can be a 20, 30, 40 year payback on insulation. For the builder? It’s almost for sure a loss unless he can play the green card. For any individual owner? They are likely to leave before they recoup a project like this. Appraisals on houses are price per square foot with a bedroom and bathroom modifier. Until people start pricing in energy efficiency in homes, say a price multiple of 0.8 to 1.2 based on the efficiency of the home? It’s going to be hard to math out. Which yes is sad.
I live in a moderately cold area and pay less than $2000 a year to heat a ~2000 square foot home. So something that improves the efficiency of the building would have to have a pretty low cost to even pay back at all.
There's probably a few lower cost things that I am overlooking, to the tune of netting out a few hundred dollars of savings after however many years they took to pay back.
> Can be a 20, 30, 40 year payback on insulation. For the builder?
In the UK, houses have energy ratings, which are largely not that useful, but they do allow estimated annual running charge.
The house that I live in we moved in and were spending ~1.7k on gas a year.
We needed to re-render the place, because it has a few missing pieces. we spent the extra £4 to put in 90mm of external wall insulation. We also had to replace the glazing. It was cheaper to get triple glazing (for some reason), however the results of that was that it was 6degrees warmer in winter, and 10 degrees (celcius) cooler in summer. Even with gas prices doubling, we spend about £70 on hotwater and heating.
There's also the simple reality that houses with better energy ratings are worth more when they are sold. If you own a house, it's a good way to lower your bills and increase the value of your house. The only thing you know for sure when you pay hundreds per month for gas is that it goes out of the chimney. Over ten years, that adds up. Most houses you can probably do some sensible things that definitely earn themselves back in that kind of period while also increasing the value of your property. The inconvenience and financing tend to be the big obstacle. Add incentives to the mix and it becomes an easy choice in a lot of places.
> For any individual owner? They are likely to leave before they recoup a project like this
How do you draw this conclusion? Like any other expensive, long-lasting part of the house, this should be seen as an asset which is “priced-in“ to the value of the building.
Maybe a law forcing disclosure of average heating/cooling bills in the listing would do the trick?
In northern Europe houses are insulated and have a rating. Cost to heat and electricity use are even standard part of a property listing and people do make it part of their total household cost calculation.
That's an appraisal problem. Even cars are valued on more things but they do have mpg plastered everywhere.
I could not retrofit my house for efficient heating with $50k. To do so would likely be cheaper to completely tear it down and rebuild.
same here. 1940's house with slate roof and vermiculite "insulation". You can't just use modern insulation techniques or blown-in foam because that would make exterior wood rot. You need to keep the air flowing the right way to dry out the wood.
Same here... my walls are brick that need to breathe or they will crack and crumble within years if sealed up too tight.
Same goes with the cinder block foundation. If insulated, it moves the freeze/thaw interface inside the block and then you end up with a failing foundation.
I have to clean the eaves of my house myself because nobody I hire will believe me that you can't point a pressure washer at the eaves without water getting inside the walls. "I'll just avoid the vents" doesn't work when you can see daylight between the roof and the wall all around the house.
I'm guessing you don't live in a place with tropical storms or really severe weather.
Where I am your house would flood when 80mph+ winds blow the rain up your walls.
Indeed, that is the case. However the house is only 55 years old, so a freak storm destroying it isn't out of the question.
And never mind ground-source heat pumps [1] (although I know the topic was specifically solar).
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ground_source_heat_pump
You don't even need to go that far, put 100m of tubing 2m underground and plug it in your heat recovery ventilation system, bam free winter freeze protection/pre warming and free summer cooling, all you need is a 30w pumps and you will save hundreds of kw per year
uh no... You still need a heat pump. The water coming from that system would be like 50 degrees, far too cold for heating.
I think my comment is pretty clear about the use case, this is obviously not water for your floor heating. You shouldn't even have that in a properly insulated house, way too much inertia.
There are electric floor heating graphene foils that put out 20w per sqm, they're more than enough, no moving part, no maintenance, no bs, not even 20% of the price of a hydro floor heating, you can even install them yourself
Heat recovery ventilation systems exchange inside air for outside air through an air to air heat exchanger (modern energy-efficient houses are built too tight for natural air exchange). If you make the incoming outdoor air an even 50°F (except when the outdoor temperature is between about 50° and 70°) then you spend less on heating and cooling.
Yes you're right and I don't disagree. But a 500w heater isn't going to cut it when it's 20F outside. You actually have to run the heat as hard as possible when the sun is shining so you have some thermal momentum going into the evening.
The end result is you're going to make big lifestyle changes to accommodate the energy. For example everyone sleeping in 1 bedroom and only cooking with an electric pressure cooker or low and slow with an induction range.
A house built to passive house standards requires less than 10w per sqm of peak heating demand, a 500w toaster will warm 50sqm, which is a decent room already.
There are passive houses built at 2000m altitude in the Alps, some are made of wood and have literal strawbales for insulation, there are no excuses left in 2026 not to build good houses, it's more economical, more practical, more comfortable, more ecological
You could put that 500W into a heatpump.
Probably because energy is cheap and abundant.
> A properly insulated house in any temperate climate require very little heating or cooling.
A "properly insulated" house still requires something around 0,5 W/m2/K. Modeling a moderate 120 m2 house in the coldest months when the temperatures hit 15-20 negative you still need 2,5 kW of heat with domestic hot water on top. Put in the efficiency of a heat pump and you are still easily looking at half a mega watt-hour per month. ~1MWh for a whole house is very reasonable number during winter months, sans electric mobility.
That's entirely unrealistic to cover with batteries with current battery technologies alone, electricity generation is absolutely REQUIRED. Windmills can help soften the blow and storage needs substantially, but the TFA is about solar, which is effectively absent during the winter.
> 0,5 W/m2/K.
That was a good number in 1980 lmao (or in the US maybe), passive houses are often 1/5th of that. I'm talking 25cm+ of rockwool in the walls, 40cm on the roof and triple pane windows, mostly facing south, reasonably shaped house that conserve heat by design, etc.
0.5 W/m²/K is a good value.... for a window, certainly not for the overall house, for a wall it wouldn't even pass code in most of Europe
> That's entirely unrealistic to cover with batteries with current battery technologies alone
It already is a reality for many people.
> passive houses are often 1/5th of that. > 0.5 W/m²/K is a good value.... <...> for a wall it wouldn't even pass code in most of Europe
There's a mix of miscommunication and wat. I'm using approximate floor area values here, not perimeter walls. 0.1 W/m2/K for a WALL is definitely not a "passive" house, that's barely A++.
> I'm talking 25cm+ of rockwool in the walls, 40cm on the roof and triple pane windows,
Yep, this gets you something like 0.5 realistic, maaaaybe up to 0.3 in the models.
> > > That's entirely unrealistic to cover with batteries with current battery technologies alone
> It already is a reality for many people.
Megawatt-hour level home-battery installs? Show us a picture. That's literally a room full of batteries. The actual reality is having ten or so kilowatt-hours to balance rooftop solar.
It costs a lot more than 50K to retrofit a house towards passive standards.
Not everyone has the capital (even with gov subsidies) to make those investments, and it's generally the people who need to save a few bucks on bills the most that DONT have the money.
I'm replying to someone who bought a 30kwh battery and 24kwp setup, in my country that's already classified as a "local energy provider" I think they're doing OK financially.
People still spend literal millions on poorly built and poorly insulated mcmansions today btw, it's not a money issue.
GP's argument is the marginal cost when building new is roughly that amount, not that any house can be retrofitted for that amount.
However, it's not that far off for retrofitting, if you do it when your siding already needs to be replaced. Add 3-5" XPS foam to the exterior of any standard house; if a basement you bring insulation several feet down and out below the ground. If cathedral ceiling, when replacing the roof you put 6-8" polyiso down over the sheathing before the new roofing material. If vented roof, get 1.5x code minimum blown in the attic. Air seal first, of course (1-hour of air sealing is the best ROI of anything you can do in an old house).
But nobody wants to put that money up.
Would you be willing to quantify what "mild" means to you, maybe in terms of a USDA zone? There are maps for both US and Europe:
https://planthardiness.ars.usda.gov/pages/map-downloads
https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:USDA_hardiness_zones...
Passive house standards first gained popularity in Germany and Scandinavia but it seems the principles have been adapted to quite a wide range of climate zones now.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Passive_house
Why shouldn't energy be cheap and abundant?
Take plants that can use enery from the sun 'freely'. Is it cheap for them? Not really when you look at the evolutionary battle between plant species. There is always another plant willing to take your place if you're inefficient, slow growing, not poisoning the ground around you, or some other trick to keep you alive.
Any means to keep energy cheap and abundant must be by force because it is not a natural order.
Not saying it shouldn't, I'm just saying it isn't. Housing should be free and taxes illegal but here we are. Some retard decides to go to war with Iran and it costs 30% more to tank your car, I'm not making the rules. Solar panels got 15% more expensive over night in my country too. What happens when they decide to mess around with China? They make 70% of batteries and panels.
24kW solar "to keep lights on" is a funny way to underplay it. My house "summer" electricity usage is 60kWh per month, including water pump, DHW, septic and work from home for 2 adults. So 3h of your PV production would power my house for a month!
Regarding heating - I live in cold climate. We had average daily temperature of -10c this january, with multiple lows at -25c, and most nights at -15c. The house is 116sqm. Our heatpump COP for that month was above 2, and we used 787kWh total to heat the house, which is not a lot, actually. At 15 cents per kWh it is 118 euros for heating, for the coldest month in a decade! Considering also that we do not pay for electricity since april until october (solar panels).
We also paid less than those houses which use natural gas, wood pellets, etc. We also do not need to do anything to keep house warm. Also, during summer months we could "drive for free" in EV due to free solar electricity.
All that just to counter your take on "major quality of life and activity time shifting trade-offs".
I live in a northern climate and I know multiple people who are net zero with solar+basic battery.
Proper insulation and good windows go a very long way. For instance, I set my heat to 66F during the day and 60F at night. When I wake up in the morning, the register is usually still above 60F.
66F is ridiculously cold to me, and I live in Canada where it can reach -40(F or C) in the winter. I would find that very uncomfortable and elderly people would be shivering constantly and highly susceptible to respiratory illness.
I have a modern cold climate air source heat pump which essentially needs to run 24 hours a day to maintain a stable 20C when the outdoor temperatures reach -15C. Below that, the heat pump shuts off and the furnace kicks in to provide emergency heating. My thermostat is a modern one with full time-of-day and day-of-week scheduling for heating and cooling, but it doesn't matter because the heat pump by itself is not able to swing the temperature up (by even half a degree) on its own, so this causes the furnace to kick in every time the schedule calls for a higher temperature, defeating the entire purpose of time-of-day scheduling.
I will also add that where I live (Southern Ontario) the sky is overcast 90% of the time during the winter. Solar panels, even somehow free of snow and ice, are going to produce almost nothing on those dark days. Add in the need to keep the panels free of snow and ice (presumably with heating, since nobody is going to be climbing around on their roof in the winter), and you'd likely reach energy net-negative trying to make use of them.
Modern heat pumps can heat efficiently at -25 degrees Celsius or even lower. Not sure if they are available in Canada, but in Scandinavia (similar climate) they are pretty common.
I also agree that 66F (about 19 degrees Celsius) is not comfortable during day time. It is fine for sleeping temperature. During winter homes in heating dominated climates typically have higher indoor temperatures. One advantage of lower inside temperature is that relative humidity stays slightly higher when it is very cold outside.
>66F is ridiculously cold to me...I would find that very uncomfortable and elderly people would be shivering constantly and highly susceptible to respiratory illness.
I know people who live in the Mediterranean and get by with no heating during the winter with indoor and outdoor tempuratures this low or lower, so it seems that one can be conditioned into doing so.
Perhaps it's the presence of more sunlight on average rather than the temperature that makes the difference.
You’re forgetting about humidity. Mediterranean climate has comfortable humidity year-round. Where I live, winter relative humidity is 0% because outdoor humidity is nonexistent from freezing temperatures.
Med climate isn't always great year round. They can get winds blowing down from the north that freeze the coast:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bora_(wind)
My temperature tolerance has varied quite drastically over my lifetime. Born in the south, raised mostly in Iowa as one of those kids who was wearing shorts as soon as the temp was above 20 degrees. To a pathetic SoCal resident who reaches for a jacket or hoodie when it hits 65 degrees. You absolutely do adapt and rather quickly.
“elderly people would be shivering constantly and highly susceptible to respiratory illness.”
At 66 degrees F? That sounds like put a sweater on if you’re chilly, not some near death extreme.
Any evidence that such an ‘extreme’ would cause issues?
It depends on how fat you are. Whales have blubber too.
People acclimatize pretty well if you let them. We keep our house at 65F all winter, and set the AC for 85F in the summer and everyone is pretty happy. The payback period on a good sweater is not very long.
85?!?
I've lived in extremely cold and extremely hot/humid places.
I cannot imagine setting the temp in the house that high.
Setting for command is different from actual temp. Plus, humidity is rarely accounted for. A good AC that lowers humidity from 90%+ to 30% and this 30°C home becomes quite comfortable.
Again, you're just built different :-)
I actually live on the same latitude as Ontario so -40F/C is not unusual. Add in windchill, and it gets even more common, given my windy location.
Yeah, I understand I'm probably an outlier at 66F. I was using the numbers more to point out how little a house temperature will drop with good windows and insulation.
What year was your house built? Do you have a whole-house humidifier?
My house was built in the late 1980s. It has decent insulation but not amazing. It still needs a lot of heating when temperatures plunge below -15C. I do not have a whole-house humidifier. I had one with my previous furnace but it had issues with mold in the filter and clogging of the condensate pump.
In the northwest corner of Massachusetts I converted an old school into an apartment building. I installed 2" of polystyrene on the outside and about a foot of cellulose in the ceilings. We relay on heatpumps for HVAC. I also installed a 50kW solar array. We don't start paying for heating until Nov/Dec and stop paying in Apr/May. Our Electric usage goes through the roof in Jan/Feb/Mar. Our weak point is that the exterior walls are about 40% windows. I hope to install better thermal shades which will cost about $80k. We also last fall installed a solar thermal array to for hot water and heat the hallway which is radiant floor. I would like to think we could achieve net-zero but I will likely need to expand the solar array by about 200%.
Thermal curtains are more effective than good windows. Good windows are minimally helpful.
Thermal curtains are a godsend. I remember reading about your journey and I hope it works out! I think it'd be money well spent.
In my last house, I replaced single pane windows with properly installed, sealed, and insulated double-hungs and it practically cut my heat bill in half. I agree that modern window to modern window replacement probably won't get you much, though.
Thank you for the encouragement. I have all the units rented. I'm now trying to balance upgrades to reduce energy costs vs. maintaining a cash horde.
Those brutally cold temperatures are really not compatible with most human beings
Weird because a significant number of humans beings in the USA immigrated at some point from a country in this climate.
Net zero. But not effectively zero. They sell energy during the day when no one needs it and buy it an night when we all need it. If we all switched to solar and heat pumps there would be blackouts and an energy crisis
Some thoughts on why I think this is wrong:
If no one needs it during the day, they can't sell it. That's not how markets work. Energy that is generated, needs to be consumed or else the grid breaks down. These two facts together mean, that the energy they sell is needed and used. Albeit they could generate and sell even more energy, if the energy could be stored or if the load could be shaped accordingly. The latter is a great way to lower energy costs.
Energy consumption during the night is low. So low, that night time electricity prices, which are lower than the daytime prices, are still a thing.
Heat pumps are an opportunity for load shaping. Buildings can be heated, when electricity is abundant and heated a few degree over the target temperature, if needed. The heat is stored inside the building and needs less heating during the night. That works quite well, especially here in Europe were buildings generally have good insulation and are made of brick, which can store a lot of heat.
What? They store the surplus in their batteries during the day and use it at night.
I genuinely do not understand why people are so afraid of solar. It's baffling.
Solar generates like 1/10 in the northern countries for half of the year. No batteries currently can solve this.
The problem with global ecological regulations is they never differentiate between countries on the equator or 30th parallel with countries around 60. They expect everyone to only run on sun and wind. It isn't possible. There has to be at least nuclear which is ridiculously expensive.
It's generally not an easy problem to solve otherwise it wouldn't be a problem anymore.
First sensible thing to do is to relax the expectations for countries like Poland that have no good way to compete with other countries energy wise because of geographical location that noone chooses.
It is extremely unfair to treat everyone the same even though every country has different energy resources.
There's a solution that costs less than fossil fuels, but it's a coordination problem and the USA is structurally unable to solve those anymore. I guess the Soviet Union wins the last laugh?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Drake_Landing_Solar_Community
Because the sun doesn't shine every day. Where I live, the sky is overcast 90% of the time in the winter. You can't charge the batteries during the summer and run them all winter.
They've fallen victim to a catastrophically easy scare tactic, unfortunately. "The sun only shines during the day therefore solar is bad!" Dumb, but easy.
In Toronto there is only daylight for 9 hours in winter
Yes surely some days are cloudy
So some days you get 5% capacity factor, and need some other energy source as well
So it harms the economics of the venture
Look at the profitability of companies building utility scale solar farms, they cost 100 million and the company hopes to get a 10% return and pay a 3% dividend.
They still have to contend with moving parts for tracking the angle of the sun, fans on inverters, contactors, clearing snow, mowing grass, site drainage, tornadoes etc, so sometimes it is not as easy as it sounds
All for a 7%? Why shouldn’t they just buy the s&p 500 and call it a day
And in my experience as someone who is actually trying to DO something, is exactly right.
But to be clear, it's less about night vs day and more about summer vs winter.
^ This.
I had a 20kWh array and 18kWh of batteries in Texas and it was GREAT in the summer. It'd start charging by 6am and be charged by 9am, even with simultaneous usage. Then we'd live off solar for the day (even with HVAC), go back on batteries around 9pm and they'd be out around 4am. No problem.
But during an overcast winter day, the stack wouldn't get power until 8/9, not make it to 50%, start discharging by 4/5pm, and be out by 10/11pm. It would easily be 8-10 hours where we were wholly dependent on the grid.
Not a problem, just a constraint to acknowledge and plan for.
At 66F, I struggle to do job because my fingers go numb and I can't touch-type well. If others have that problem, a small heat-lamp (like for a reptile cage) can locally heat just the area above the keyboard cheaply.
I use a desktop heating pad under my keyboard. It's an Apple thin, metal keyboard, which works really well for this. It uses about 20w.
These temperatures are non negotiable by my wife. Women will burn the planet.
[dead]
Respectfully, 30kWh is not much in this context. In 10 years every modern 2-car home will have 200kWh on the driveway just from the EVs; add a 100kWh whole home battery at a price point close to a 10kWh battery today and the calculus changes in most of the world.
The cost of materials going into modern batteries easily leaves room for another 10x reduction in price, IMO where this all is heading is obvious. Zero marginal cost will win every day of the week.
FWIW we run our cabin on 15kWh battery today year around, though we do run a small wood stove to supplant the heat pump on cold winter days.
40 kWH of storage and 9 kW of solar panels is all I need personally to live a 1st world lifestyle in the bay area mostly off-grid except for water and internet.
Bay Area is ideal climate to accomplish this.
PNW is fraught, amazing during the Summer, but underpowered in Winter. The best solution is overprovisioning panels by a factor of 4 or so if the room is available. Did a place up there and it's hugely overproductive half the year, and just under break even in the dead of Winter.
From the Bay area or so and down across the country is ideal for solar, passing through a lot of red states that ought to know better. Fun fact though: Texas has the most windmills of any state by a huge margin.
I bet you didn't even see the tragic farce when writing your solution. Land development requiring ”2-car homes" is the driver of the problem! An apartment only has to heat one or two walls facing the outside instead of 4. That's 50-75% right off the top of your energy usage, with the mean closer to 75%.
There's nothing farcical about wanting one's own space where there's space to have one's own space. I'm grateful to no longer be sharing walls with a domestic abuse couple on one side and a midnight banshee on the other wall when she got busy. Energy is cheap, people are exhausting.
And that gets into another coordination problem we're unable to solve. It's a solved problem to build apartments where you can't hear your neighbors, but the builders don't have incentive to spend the money upfront to do so and we add regulations to make it more expensive for them to do so. So people go on thinking "apartments suck" and not the correct "we shouldn't let people build apartments which suck".
Also, living in SFH isn't avoiding all problems. I'd rather live in a properly-built apartment than my old house when my neighbor left her dogs outside to bark for the entire work day, every single day, and all the city would do is fine her a hundred bucks every few months. (or if you want to say "rural", that's 1 a small fraction of the population and 2 I like hospitals).
And the usual engineer mindset to consider the options to be 1 or 0, no?
I just live far enough from the center of it all that I have a vacant quarter acre and thicker windows that happened when the last owner's mistakes caught up with me the current owner. For medical, I have UCSF, and for major medical, I have medical tourism, something I fully endorse from experience. And yes, not everyone can do that. And well, I can't touch my toes and they probably can. Life's funny that way.
No reason to be rude or hyperbolic - I agree with you that cars destroy communities and we should strive to reduce the need for cars and parking.
For solar powered homes specifically though, multi-story buildings are much harder to run solar powered from the simple ratios - even if you reduce energy use 75%, at 4 stories you are break-even in roof-ratio-to-energy-need. I’ve worked in this space a while, and it’s now pretty straight forward to run single-family homes 24/7/367 on solar in most of the world, but multi story buildings are much harder.
Nothing is ever simple or one-dimensional :)
I mostly agree with you, however...
You don't need to colocate solar at the point it's used. Utility solar is cheaper than rooftop, by multiple.
The last part isn't true. There's no way you're running a home, including heat, entirely of solar in the winter in the Upper Peninsula of Michigan.
Utility solar is cheaper in studies that do not factor in the cost of distribution, but the picture is much less clear when total system cost is considered - not having to pay for expanded distribution grids or new interconnects is a major benefit of residential production.
As for the last part not being true, can you clarify? The majority of the earths population lives between the 20th and 40th latitude, the band around the earth approximately between Madrid and the Sahara desert. Sure you can’t run a poorly insulated home in northern Michigan on solar year around without considerable expense, but that’s nowhere near where the majority of humanity lives.
> I should know bc I have a whole house battery and solar system
This is not really a qualification to speak on how the grid works, at all.
Actually having panels on your roof doesn't give you unique insight into how solar panels operate - there is extensive data out there, any PV installation can become a data source trivially.
> The reality is that battery/solar requires major quality of life and activity time shifting trade-offs.
One residence powering itself is not representative of how the grid works, and is not a good way to evaluate any power generation technology whether its PV, coal, nuclear, etc.
I'm actually trying to accomplish what the author is describing, so I have experience to talk about the difficulty of its implementation (unlike the author himself, who has zero experience with its implementation to speak of).
This is basically correct in the sense that we cannot simply just force everyone in, say, Minnesota to install electric baseboard heating, rooftop solar, and a battery pack, and then expect them to stay warm. There are periods of extended extreme cold and low solar flux where you would simply not be able to warm everyone's house - that's just physics.
But there are a lot of extra things you can do as an intermediate steps to dramatically close the gap. The main ones are:
1. Homes can be renovated to improve insulation 2. Cold weather heat pumps can handle most mild winter conditions efficiently 3. Electricity doesn't all have to be locally generated - it can be transmitted from other parts of the country. 4. You can keep using fossil fuel peaker plants, and still have incredible reduced overall emissions
The article is about utility scale solar and storage I believe not home installations. It also mentions towards the end that in cold norther climates adding wind to the mix makes sense
Like I said he grossly understates the energy demand we use in the United States for heating during the winter.
I believe a lot of that demand is due to there being no incentive to increase energy efficiency.
There are TONS of incentives to increase energy efficiency.
Most local electric and gas companies will do free energy audits. Many will offer rebates if you install tankless water heaters, heat pumps, and insulation. Installers get kickbacks from manufacturers and tax credits if you buy higher efficiency equipment. Lenders will give you 0% loans to fund it all. The Feds and many States offer tax credits for all of the above.
I've done every single thing on this list in the last 5 years, some in Texas, some in Indiana.
I believe it to be a question of physics and not incentives.
A wall is not a wall is not a wall.
A well built home with more insulation will, according to physics, lose less heat in any given scenario. So policies that push for things that improve buildings can reduce energy use.
Do you think we have reached peak building efficiency or something?
Kind of silly to think when we've invented materials like areogel.
Beyond the other better insulation comments, pairing electric with heat pumps that are SEER 10+ goes a long way to improve heating efficiency. Old resistive heaters are 1:1 on energy to heat, while newer heat pumps operate to much lower temperatures, and give you 1:10 or 1:15 electric:heat energy ratios.
My heat pump is SEER 19, and it can't heat my house below 25F. I think this is mostly due to it not being large enough - it was sized to cool my house on the hot summer days, and more energy needs to move on the cold winter days.
SEER, while a useful first-order approximation of efficiency, is for cooling and not heating. HSPF-V is for cold climates. Likely you just don't have a cold-climate heat pump which maintains full capacity down to -10°C (and some a little lower still), even before you get into appropriate maximum capacity.
That's not even close to correct. At the design lowest temperature (if <15°C), the very best get 2 COP, but most are 1.5 or lower. The problem is you have to accommodate the worst case.
The average of installed units is closer to 2.0 COP average, unfortunately. Multi-head units really drive down efficiency. A single-head Gree Sapphire can do 4-5 COP on average and that's the best you can get, so still nowhere near your guess.
> 1:10 or 1:15 electric:heat energy ratios
Under what circumstances? I've seen higher-end units that do maybe 1:5 in ideal conditions (heating to 68F when the ambient temp is 55F), but never seen units that do 1:10 or 1:15. This was about 2-3 years ago I did this research. Have things improved that drastically in the last few years?
things have not improved.
Too many folks here do not understand or care to appreciate the constraints of the real world. Heat pumps are excellent and relatively cheap but have limitations. One of the biggest limitations is that a heat pump's efficiency drops as ambient temperature drops. This is the worst possible situation for heating as the conditions when the risks of losing heat are the highest, are precisely the conditions when these devices are least efficient.
As long as they remain more efficient than resistive heaters down to the lowest temperatures you experience, it's a win. Heat pump efficiency is still improving. You can get heat pumps that can handle down to -35°C now with even better ones in the works.
I'm not questioning the merit of heat pumps. I should know because i have two in Ontario, Canada, one rated to -35 C and the other rated to - 25 C.
What i remain opposed to is this persistent idea that heat pumps work in all situations, for all people and for all time. They do not, and heat pumps create a unique set of problems that we might not be fully prepared for.
House heating does not require massive amounts of energy. What it requires is efficiency. I've seen a house in Canada that was heated with a single candle when not occupied. Triple wall, reflective foil in between the wall layers, vertical movement of air in the walls interrupted every 30 cm or so. Absolutely amazing. And it still had sizeable windows. If your house doesn't leak energy like a sieve you don't need to replace as much either. Between passive solar and some augmentation you can do fine on an extremely modest energy budget.
And Canada is not exactly the warmest country on the planet.
What's the actual effect you get out of that? Even half, 12 kW, would be an absolutte beast of heating (for a home), even with 'dumb' convection heating. With heat pumps 2-3 kW should really be enough.
There's simply not a lot of sunlight to go around during the winter and the battery capacity isn't large enough.
Keep in mind we WFH and homeschool so our house is used 24/7 and I think it's a good approximation for OP's goal.
> the battery capacity isn't large enough
This. You have enough generation to keep a mansion toasty, but you don’t have enough storage to last a long winter night.
You should store your solar energy as heat. You move the heat from outside or underground into your house with a heat pump where the heat storage lasts a week or more. You need very little solar to heat your house this way.
So for a mild climate your installer seems to have done you a disservice and probably overcharged you. You can heat an average house with solar for under $14K if properly installed.
The insulation matters a lot in home heating.
There isn't a lot you can reasonably do to something that is already there. I insulated my attic better, but there wasn't enough space to go as high as I wanted (I guess I could in the middle, but not around the edges). The thin walls are still thin, and not much I can do about it for a reasonable price. Likewise the windows are really bad, but the cost of good windows is large. By the time I insulated this house to modern standards I'm nearly half way to tearing it down and building something new (a complete destroy is a lot cheaper than trying to take something off without destroying the rest) - and a new house would get a lot of other benefits (I want a larger kitchen but there is no place to put it)
Which is why a lot of poorly insulated houses still exist - people have mostly done what can be done for a reasonable price, but anything that will make a difference is also very expensive with very long paybacks.
Proper windows make a huge difference, too.
And then you need proper ventilation systems once you "fix" insulation
Do you have a high efficiency heat pump, or how are you heating?
First question should be: what latitude?
Because where I live around 55th this winter we had five straight weeks below -15c / 5f daily average plus enough snowfall that it was infeasible to clean anything but the most major roads.
Solar is out of question in these conditions and when thermal pump fails you have to evacuate. When just grid electricity fails you have to either have some sort of stored fuel backup or evacuate.
The article is typical handwavy crap which is popular among people living in what amounts to subtropics who can't even imagine how crazy they sound to most everyone else.
> The article is typical handwavy crap which is popular among people living in what amounts to subtropics
To be fair, 90% of the population lives within 45 degrees of the equator. If we're talking about global energy solutions for CO2 reduction, we can go a long way just by focusing on what works in these areas of the globe.
The article does also point out that hydro/wind are going to be important at higher latitudes in winter, but they also acknowledge that they don't account for seasonal variation in demand. That's the biggest flaw I can find in the analysis.
FWIW: I'm down in a mild arid climate at 35N, and yeah, 90% of our winter days are nearly sunny, even when the lows are in the teens. It's a different world for sure.
Most space heating is in the Northern parts though, so those are the ones that need to be addressed. There are solutions that are a pareto improvement, but it's a coordination problem and the USA is sufficiently broken and unable to solve those.
> so those are the ones that need to be addressed.
Make energy so expensive that people have to move away or burn their old house.
You'd think, but then you get Northeastern states paying poor people thousands of dollars a year to keep their oil heat going.
> "... handwavy crap ..."
handwavy argument. Yes, in the (sub)tropics the argument is even stronger pro-PV, not the least because it'll give you the opposite of heating - aircon - for free right when you need it. And considering summer heatwaves as have been seen the last few years "way north", that benefit will extend that way even if you wouldn't bother considering letting it "assist", if not fully replace, your heating. That said though, for 50° polewards and above, if you wanted to use PV in winter orient the panels vertically. If you can clad your too floor with shiplap larch so you can with PV panels. Given the price of timber ... there's a plan.
(only saying handwaving goes both ways)
> The article is typical handwavy crap which is popular among people living in what amounts to subtropics who can't even imagine how crazy they sound to most everyone else.
Most everyone else? Only about two percent of the Earths population live above the 55th parallel. There’s a big gulf between that and the ‘subtropics’.
I don’t disagree that solar/battery isn’t the answer for 100% of power needs, let alone 100% of heating needs, but if we got to even 50% we’d be in a lot better situation than we are now.
Heat pump is what I would have expected to be suitable for a setup like that. How big is the house I wonder.
I imagine my system is probably sufficient to keep an 800 sqft house comfortably warm in a climate where it goes down to the 20s in the winter.
Is a 30 kWh battery considered massive? My F-150 lighting has a 143 kWh battery.
Yes 30 kWh battery is considered large. It takes up a full 6 slot 2u rack in my garage and cost around $8k. In the context of OP's goals it's larger than what 99% of people in the world will ever have.
Approximately 1% of people in the world currently have an EV with a more than 30 kWh battery... and we're very early in the adoption curve of EVs and other large batteries.
Owning an electric vehicle is a lot different than having a house wired with solar panels and a battery and inverter.
As far as I understood it, it only talks about electricity, so that doesn't seem like a contradiction to me. I think some electrification of heating is expected in 2030, but not that much bigger than it is now.
Do check that your heater isn’t doing something ridiculous. A while back I helped someone debug a Mitsubishi Electric system on which the installer had set the fan speed control to high instead of auto (it’s an easily accessible setting on the thermostat). I forget exactly how much power was saved, but IIRC it was well over 30kWh/day.
I don’t know where all that energy was going. I expected some improvement but not anywhere near that much.
I'm not sure how sustainable it is at scale but I know someone who winters off a woodburning stove. They basically get their wood for free from trees that come down in their yard or people's yards that they know. They use a hydraulic woodsplitter to manage splitting all the wood.
Note that the article title has "the world" in it, immediately limits his specific claims to 80% of the world nearer the equatorr as most of the people in the world have more need for cooling than heating.
He even has a map that covers this and multiple paragraphs of discussion about high latitudes and wind in winter.
This is a large pv system for what I assume is a single family home. Do you have resistive in floor heating or an electric boiler feeding radiators? I imagine you could easily run a half dozen mini-splits drawing 500-1000w each, or a centralized heat pump. Happy to help if you can give more details.
Heating is mostly affected by the roof insulation and really should not be done with electricity alone. It's just not efficient.
Cooling, on the other hand, is brutally expensive without living in basically an air tight Styrofoam box (or underground).
The article should have explored that aspect further but it's not all or nothing. For example, a geothermal setup could significantly offset the amount of energy required to heat a home.
Well obviously lights aren't using up much of that power, you're powering everything else too.
where are you? that is a massive amount of solar in any place at a reasonably low latitude. Is your house enormous or are you heating your house with resistive heating?
If you need to heat/cool your home, is that really mild?
Isn't it all relative? Cooling actually isn't a problem at all with solar. I can run my AC full blast during the summer and still get the batteries fully charged before evening.
Heat pumps help quite a lot, thanks to Carnot's law
Heat pump efficiency noticeably drops off after 25°F. Which is when you really start to need it!
Gonna go off on a limb and guess that you live in North America where the state of the art in single-family homes is double-pane windows and thin outer walls made of cardboard and pressboard, clad with "luxurious" vinyl siding. I mean no offense to you guys. It is what it is.
My home is less than 5 years old and has the highest R-value fiber insulation I could find before moving to spray foam.
People just really underestimate how much energy it takes to produce heat, and how little energy a solar system produces in the winter. Double whammy!
My house in the bay area runs at <1kW per hour most of the time and the sunlight is more than enough to keep it above 65F most of the year. Maybe you need LED lights because when I'm not there, it's ~150W per hour.
Of course actual data like this is downvote heresy! Go for it! Also, bite me.
That power use seems reasonably believable. I'm in the Puget Sound area where we get less sunlight than you and our winters are colder, and I just made a graph of my daily electricity use for 2025 [1]. My house is all electric.
I had 219 days with under 24 kWh use, i.e., drawing an average under 1 kW. I got an EV in mid April that year which I charged with the included level 1 charger until getting a 12 kW EVSE installation in I think May. (2024, the last year with no EV charging, had 240 days under 24 kWh).
Almost every day that was over 30 kWh after that was a day when I charged the car which was typically on a Saturday which is also typically when I do laundry which includes about 5 kWh for the clothes dryer.
I was puzzled by the large number of days near or above 50 kWh in February. The end of 2025 doesn't look like it is setting up 2026 for that high a usage. I just checked the weather records and it doesn't look like that was a particularly cold time.
I just made another graph just showing February 2024, 2025, and 2026, and a third showing January of those 3 years, and both show that in 2026 I'm using quite a lot less power (except for the EV charging) than in the prior years.
I've not changed any habits...but in November 2025 I had my house weatherized. They added a lot more insulation under the house (I already had sufficient attic insulation) and did blower tests and sealed everything that was leaking, and it appears this cut energy use by somewhere in the 10-20% range.
It seems then early 2025 appears so high because the end of 2025 is showing the effects of weatherizing.
[1] https://imgur.com/a/QAnOvm7
I build off-grid camper vans for a living and install solar + lithium battery systems regularly. The technology has matured a lot in the last few years. What used to take a massive roof array and a bank of heavy lead-acid or AGM batteries to run basic appliances now fits in a fraction of the space with lithium. The limiting factor in real-world installs isn't the panels or the batteries anymore, it's getting customers to right-size the system for their actual usage instead of what they think they'll use. People consistently underestimate idle draws and overestimate how much sun they'll get. Scale that mindset problem up to a national grid and I imagine the challenge is the same.
I build off-grid electrical campers (Mercedes eSprinter) with extended 600kWh batteries (11 times more battery capacity than the default model) and charge them from solar panels at home. I disagree with your negative mindset, people who ride in my eCamper quickly learn you can go 100% solar and use you camper at home to store all neighborhood solar and even charge other EVs from our eCamper battery. We make our own parallel battery cell dis/charger to extent the LFP battery life to 20000 charges (one a day for 50 years).
Wow, that's big! I'm curious, how much does the 600kWh battery cost nowadays? Amazing that the tech has got to a point this is even possible
15kWh 48V LFP battery around $1800 with low quality battery management system in metal box on wheels. Car batteries need more expensive inverters if you want to fast charge them (150kW-950kW) and super fast discharge them while driving fast (>100 kW). Thus my 600kW extender comes to almost $62000 for vans and small trucks. Cheaper if installed as house battery. The Mercedes eSprinter 56kW van costs around $80000 new but we sell 3 year old vans like this for $4000 without battery. So refurbished and converted to eCamper with 1800 mile range you pay $6700. You can drive 3000 km (almost 1860 miles) with this battery in the eSprinter and eCamper. A normal size car would go twice as far with this battery but it's big and heavy enough that you need to tow it in a trailer.
The crucial point though is the charging/discharging inverter (converter) that I purpose built (printed circuits boards) and a change to the car firmware. Without it the car will reject the battery, your acceleration would be less and it also would not last the same amount of discharge cycles. My battery electronics works fine for cars, trucks, boats, house and neighborhood batteries (up to 6mW per shipping container).
We build entire smart grids around the batteries, solar panels and tiny houses. https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Merik-Voswinkel/publica...
Wait, you put 600kWh of batteries on a sprinter van?!? I wanna know more...that's insane (base eSprinter is like ~115 kWh, right?)
eSprinter 2022 is 56kWh. In Europe I'm limited in the size of a battery by the total legal weight of van and it's trailer combined. So I can not tow more weight than 600KWh LFP batteries with this particular van. But with $0.01 cost per kWh it only cost $60 (52,08 Euro) for a full charge, good for 2000 km (Amsterdam to southern Spain). So even though I carry 5.5-6 times as much weight as a small city car around, it cost me a lot less than having a tiny battery and charging at commercial chargers with $0.40-$0.90 fees per kWh. And a lot less than gasoline (benzine) or diesel.
Also the larger battery means the individual cells can be pulse charged much slower and each cell individually at the rate where it doesn't damage that much. I measure the temperature, voltage and current of each cell so they never overheat. This is how I get many more cycles out of each cell so they last 50 years. It is also safer, with thousands of temperature measurements several times per second not a single sell gets warm, and if they ever do it is because it is damaged and we can immediately disconnect it and tell the driver where to locate it and remove it.
For a truck these thousands of battery cells discharging slowly in parallel becomes the reason all trucking companies will be forced to switch from diesel to electric, it is several times cheaper per mile or km. Lower energy cost, lower maintainace, lower downtime, longer life. The only thing you would want is that the maximum weight limit per truck goes up so you can ship more per trip. Right now you ship little kilo's if you carry a heavy battery. But charging with your own solar at home base is so much cheaper that it is worth to do two trips versus 1 trip with diesel.
The reason electric trucks are not yet everywhere is that the truck makers ask ridiculous amounts for battery cells that are still wired in series and discharged too fast to last long. Simply bad design. We need a disruptive electric truck startup and we need a disruptive battery startup. Investors welcome...
I love this! Thanks for the detailed response, super interesting
Thank you. I hardly get to explain the techology I 'invent' (power chips, power router, parallel battery charger, car firmware, charging (station) software, simulation software) because the investors customers only want to hear that its cheaper or sells better (then Tesla). Or that besides going from 4000 to 20000 dis/charge cycles you also prevent any li-ion fires and have fire alarm sensors on every battery cell. The main thing I would like to shout from the rooftops is: Not a single battery on the planet charges their battery cells in parallel as we do, they all shorten their cell lifetime by charging/discharging them to fast in series, what will damage all battery cell types but especially the li-ion.
It is the same with the article we are commenting on here: if people just listen to the statistics, the simulations and the actual market developments they would see that 100% solar+battery is the cheapest energy.
The simple message is Solar is by far the cheapest energy: below 1 dollar cent per kWh and that will fall a lot more in the next decade until we get to 'a squanderable abundance of free and clean energy' as Bob Metcalf puts it https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=axfsqdpHVFU Batteries still double the cost of that solar but these prices are falling rapidly too. It is already cheaper to have solar nearby than transmit it over a distance of a few miles.
More in my earlier comments weeks and months ago https://news.ycombinator.com/threads?id=morphle
Why are the prices in the USA so much higher?
Also: when we last spoke you were talking about energy storage solutions. How has that progressed recently?
$0,01 per kWh from solar, that is the price worldwide on the condition that they sell you the panels at a reasonable price and don't overcharge you on all the other parts like micro-inverters, field or rooftop installation, permitting and labour. That adds up to around 5 cent for rooftop solar in Australia for example (including everything). 1 cent is for solar panels lasting 50 years (with 20% degradation over decades), we refer to such prices as Levelised Cost Of Energy (LCOE) over lifetime. It halved in the last 10 years for solar and it will halve again (20% cost reduction on each doubling of manufactured capacity). Similar for batteries, they also go down around 20% each year.
1 kWh Wind, or Hydro, Thermal and other renewables do not go down as much in cost price because they have mechanical or chemical components that do not last as long as solar cells and need maintenance and repair.
We keep the cost low by group buying in bulk at wholesale prices (a shipping container with 770 panels for 20-30 houses) with our coop instead of premium installer prices by the electrotechnical or building companies. If you let our Fiberhood coöperative in the US install your solar, batteries, tiny house or eCamper you do not pay these high tariffs, we have enough panels pre-tariff. So you still can hit 1 cent per kWh but only if you get the decent installers and sellers.
Our energy storage solutions have widened. First you timeshift all electricity use of the car, house or neighborhood into daylight hours when the sun shines. This means a bunch of electronics and software changes. Next we build termal storage solutions, you can store heat much cheaper than electricity. You move heat around with a heat pump. Or you heat your water tank with a datacenter computer in your water tank (for free). In summer you store solar electricity in ice. Or you store it in iron, aluminum, glass or silicon by melting ore and purifying, You embodied the solar electricity into the purified ore. In northern and southern latitudes you need 10 to 50 times more solar panels to heat houses during cold winters. This means you have large overcapacity in summer that you can sell as embodied iron, etc. Batteries are only needed to store for the hours there is no sunlight during 24 hours, no need to store longer. The cheapest place is to store it in the electrical cars in your neighborhood. That is why we install our own brand ev car chargers in the neighborhood of the panels. In contrast, Tesla chargers overcharge you a factor of 34 to 76 and that's partially because its fossil energy and transmitted over hundreds of miles.
My message is that to reach 1 cent per kWh we need to solar electrify all our infrastructure https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iEOPx2X-EtE
Also Trump doubling solar panel prices with tarifs and shutting down subsidies is wrong, it makes it much more expensive. Add an oil third world war however does help, we sold double solar, batteries and evs in the last month.
I doubt that issue scales to the national grid at all... national grids tend to dictated in size by more or less market forces not careful pre-planning... and capacity planning for new projects tends to have actual data about energy demand and weather patterns and so on.
And what the market doesn’t solve the grid operator solves using ancillary markets.
Very nice. I have my eyes on Lithium-Titanate cells for my house, I can't wait until they go down in price enough. Weight and energy density are not an issue, but safety is and those cells are very good in that sense.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lithium-titanate_battery
LFP is safe and is under $100/kwH.
> Scale that mindset problem up to a national grid and I imagine the challenge is the same.
Except that we have raw data there? The only question is how fast it grows, but since we're transitioning that's mostly a question of how fast you decommission fossil plants.
Yeah, agreed. It's a lot easier to be empirical when the scale of the requirements is quite literally unimaginable without just dealing with raw numbers.
Germany’s renewables rollout would like a word….
If you mean what they started in the 90s? That's not what this is about. The conversation was about not being able to rightsize today.
Germany did jumpstart their market successfully but that was in a wildly different time. Want to talk about what a typical KWp of installed solar cost at the time?
Hindsight....
Germany has only a tiny portion of their total energy needs on renewables - if we’re being honest about the definition of ‘total energy needs’.
Like in the camper van scenario, if we include winter heating and transportation? Oh boy.
It’s getting better, but if we’re really honest very far from the truth
there is a youtube video I watched where an RV guy converted as many appliances and gadgets on his vehicle to Direct DC as he could, saved a lot on wastage from DC-AC-DC conversions.
We need mundane home DC solutions.
There's https://currentos.org/ working on it.
Thank you for sharing! that's an interesting project.
While I agree with underestimating capacity, the problem only really applies to off grid.
For regular homes, it just means less savings.
It means some other infrastructure (fossil fuels?) needs to take up the slack, and people underestimate actual costs at larger scales.
It’s the big issue in Germany for instance - it’s all fun and games until Winter.
Which is fine, since you're still reducing your reliance on the grid.
However, when you're off grid, underestimating capacity means your SOL and need to buy a generator and burn fuel on-site.
Germany has more wind in winter, so traditionally has more production of renewables in winter months.
It has dramatically higher thermal heat demands in winter - far higher than is compensated for by that. Even if everyone switched to heat pumps.
True, but higher demand for heating in winter is not specific to Germany. In the end, Germany will likely need to import energy anyway - just as it does today. But this means this question may not be the most relevant.
Huh? It highlights the relevance. It’s easy to handwave ‘imports’ away - but import from whom, and how do they make the energy?
One could import it as ammonia from locations that can produce a lot of it via solar.
And? Any coal not used in summer is coal not dug up.
Just my 2c but I think the biggest thing we could do is to reduce the regulatory burden, cost, and complexity associated with installing roof mounted solar. This should be something that can be approved and installed in a week, and should be a half the price (put another it should have a double digit roi) . Right now all of the economics of home solar are consumed by regulation/complexity and the contractors / solar installation companies.
At the consumer scale the biggest thing we could do is follow the german model of panels that can be plugged into an outlet and installed in an hour by any homeowner (with the same capacity limits and requirements on the panels electronics to protect the grid/line workers during power outages).
That said I'm pretty sure that grid-scale solar is the future of most solar energy, not home solar. It's just cheaper to do things in bigger batches.
This statement is 100% correct, but I think is wrong - utility scale solar is 100% more efficient and cheaper to build at scale, the problem is finding large parcels of land to put it on that are close to where the power consumption is, as well as the complexity and cost associated with grid interconnection (and transition if it not close to demand)
Edit: though if we ever get to self driving cars there should be a whole lot of parking lots in metro areas that aren’t needed.
Balcony solar legislation is well underway in dozens of states. But the capacity is still very small. Like 10% of a household.
There's been a wave of legislation[1] introduced in the US to legalize so-called "balcony solar," small grid-tied solar systems that plug into a regular household outlet with zero permitting or interconnect requirements. This is already common in Europe, it's mildly complicated by our split-phase system but not much.
The reason for the high burden today is people have developed an inflated sense of how much the kWh they generate is worth. They install massive systems on their roofs to try to "cancel out" their power bill by exporting their entire daily power consumption over the course of a few sunny hours, which (when all their neighbors do the same) ends up being a costly burden for grid operators who then pass the costs on to users without panels. Smaller systems focused on immediate, local consumption rather than export are much better for the grid which is why they have support.
1. https://www.canarymedia.com/articles/solar/balcony-solar-tak...
"Costly burden" is an incredible statement. The utilities get what is effectively free electricity generation. Remember every solar customer still pays the grid connection fee, which goes to maintain the grid.
They love to market a "green energy" plan where they pay you 3c for your exported power and charge somebody miles away 25c for it!
It's a true statement and a real problem. These wildcat megawatt-scale generation facilities built on top of suburban neighborhoods produce an un-curtail-able midday oversupply of electricity driving energy prices into the negative.
The power has to go somewhere, SoCal grid operators have to pay real money to neighboring grids to accept the energy being generated while also paying the homeowner who generated it. No grid connection fee comes close to covering this, it's paid for by increasing rates for everyone else. Net metering was a stupid deal cooked up by politicians who are incapable of systems thinking, or simply decided appealing to suburban voters was more important than grid stability.
It's getting better[1] but still a problem, and the solutions being pursued are: discourage export in favor of onsite storage (done by NEM 3.0) and encourage smaller solar installs (balcony solar).
1. https://www.caiso.com/content/monthly-market-performance/jan...
I'll believe they're serious about this problem when they stop charging TOU customers PEAK DEMAND prices during the duck curve.
They're soaking out of both sides of their mouth.
100% this. If it was DIYable, its an order of magnitude cheaper.
I have leftover panels from an off grid install, and its extremely hard to get an approved permit for a small roof solar array + off the shelf AIO (Ecoflow/Anker)
What's the challenge you're seeing?
While I'm pro renewables and the article is technically correct (it could work), I don't think this is optimal. What's optimal is using a mix of mostly (>90-95%) renewable technologies for generating power supplemented by gas (short term) and nuclear (long term).
Additionally, there's a lot of stuff that can be done with cables and batteries that we aren't currently doing to over come daily, seasonal, and weather related variation in power output of wind and solar. Put cables north-south to compensate for seasonal drops in solar output. Put them east-west to have solar power in the evenings/early mornings. Off shore and on shore wind can produce a lot of power and the way high pressure and low pressure systems (aka. weather) work, if the wind is not blowing locally that just means it is blowing elsewhere. Having a lot of solar and wind all over the place and cables to move the power around evens out all the peaks and dips. The rest is just using batteries, pumped hydro, and other storage to add enough buffers.
That gets you quite far. Another point here is that people think in rigid "must cover everything 100% of the time", which is valuable but we actually do have a lot of flexibility. You can choose when to charge your car (at night, or at noon), when to run your dishwasher, etc. And does a data center need to be at 100% capacity 100% of the time no matter the cost? Flexible load is a thing. And we can use automation to control it, flexible pricing to incentivize when there are surpluses or shortages, etc. This btw. also neuters the whole "baseload" argument. Baseload power is non flexible power that becomes a problem when we have too much of it. Flexible power is power you can turn off when there's too much of it. The reason energy prices are high in a lot of places is that we have too much of really expensive base load that drives the pricing even if the wind and sun shines for free and gets curtailed. That lack of flexibility is a problem.
That's how we could get to 90% over the next few decades. The remaining 10% is harder / more expensive. Gas peaker plants make a lot of sense to fill that gap. Replaced by nuclear long term. Nothing against that but it's just stupidly expensive and slow to realize. There's no need to build new gas plants for that; we have plenty already.
If you’re one of the many companies working on reaching this goal, in defiance of everyone in this thread and elsewhere insisting it will never work, I’d like to work with you.
I’ve worked with all of the largest solar, battery and EV companies, as well as America’s largest electric utilities, building complex analytics software to enable the clean energy transition. I’m looking for my next role to continue moving the needle on eliminating fossil fuels. Find me here: https://matthewgerring.com
I emailed you. You can work with us as it is a booming market in Europe and Ukraine (and probably in China too), you could expand our market into the USA. We build charging stations, big batteries (see my other posts in this thread and in my HN profile), Enernet smart grids and entire solar only neighborhoods (houses, solar, batteries, fast internet, water and sewage infrastructure) remotely, all based on 100% solar. From $40K per tiny house.
This would be more believable to skeptics if it wasn't all pro-arguments and theory. If you don't cover the cases in which it doesn't work, or at least mention the arguments against, it reads as propaganda.
The thing that reads the most false is the economics. A 480W solar panel is like $90 on sale, they're dirt cheap. A dozen of them is $1,080. But an installed solar+battery system tied to the grid is more like $30,000, and that's not covering the cost of replacing damaged equipment (lightning is a thing). That's just one home, using certified equipment.
For nation-states to do solar and battery, they need land, capital, and skilled labor that most nations don't have. Then there's the fact that not all nations get enough sun, or the fact that you must have a stable backup supply (not just for "cloudy days", but also emergencies and national defense), and multiple sources of equipment so your entire nation's energy isn't dependent on one country (China). Only about 10-20 nations on earth could switch to renewables for the majority of their energy in the next 10 years.
Or you are somewhere in Africa and have no electricity anyway so you start on something renewable.
African countries are some of the poorest on the planet. It takes a very large capital investment, in addition to skilled labor, to energize a nation. They often have other bigger issues to deal with. It's often way cheaper to pay for humans to mine coal, produce charcoal, extract oil (not uncommonly a private company - or a country like China - extracting the resources and making a big profit, or giving a loan with a huge interest payment).
But let's look at a single off-grid DIY example. First you need the expertise to hook it up. If you have the skill, it still isn't cheap if your economy is weak. It requires saving money for a capital purchase, something people all around the world struggle with. And when there are payment programs, they're often exploitative.
It's not like people in Africa aren't aware solar power exists. If it was cheap and easy, everyone would have done it already.
Last year PRC brrrted out enough solar panels whose lifetime output is equivalent to annual global oil consumption. AKA world uses about >40billion barrels of oil per year, PRC's annual solar production will sink about 40billion barrels of oil of emissions in their life times. This is at 50% solar manufacturing utilization. Once battery scales, can displace current global oil via solar ~10 years. Less if solar production also globally scales. Looking at 10/15/20 years to displace most global oil, lng, coal. Well the discretionary bits / economic consumption.
Providing 90% of power is not "powering the world".
It really helps to also have a complementary storage technology with low capacity capex, even if the round trip efficiency is lower. This would complement batteries in the same way ordinary RAM complements cache memory in a computer.
The article specifically notes the following:
>We can get far without worrying about the last 5-10%. The solutions for the last 5-10% could be fossil fuels in the short-term, long-duration storage as it matures, or easily storeable e-biofuels.
So then they are wrong. The last 5-10 percent is the hardest part and it's the one consumers complain the most about! You can't run a factory on 90% power availability
But you _can_ run it on 90% solar plus 10% fossil fuels to achieve 100% power availability, which is what GP and the article suggest.
The issue is that to achieve that you can't just build 90% solar plus 10% fossil fuels. You would need to build 100% solar + 100% fossil fuels for the 10% of the time solar doesn't work.
If you build batteries on the scale that the article suggests (and is probably going to happen in the real future) you can use batteries charged from fossil fuels.
It's a few percent dirtier (round trip losses) but in return you can use gas plants that are 50% more efficient to charge them rather than run peaker plants.
And of course that's ignoring wind which is nearly as cheap as solar and anti-correlated with it.
That's fair, batteries are somewhat useful for peaking even in a world powered 100% by fossil fuels so there's some infrastructure that can be shared. And even on a cloudy day solar output isn't 0%. But I'm skeptical the overlap here is significant enough to invalidate my basic point, though I admit it's a big simplification.
Reality is extremely complicated, so realistically the exact mix of solar + fossil fuels that makes sense is going to depend on a huge number of factors and vary from region to region depending on weather, fuel costs, construction costs, transmission costs, and probably a thousand other things I haven't thought of. The best thing to do is stay out of the way of both industries and let the market sort all of that complexity out.
I would speculate the result of that is going to be a lot more renewables than currently exist, mainly due to the drastic reduction in the cost of solar and batteries that has been occurring over the last few decades, but I don't think it'll be 100% or even 90% renewables either (expect perhaps in the extremely long term). Time will tell.
It helps that the cost of a simple cycle gas turbine power plant (before the recent data center demand spike) is around $600/kW, maybe a factor of 20 cheaper per kW than a nuclear power plant. So backing up the whole grid with such generators wouldn't be that expensive.
Good thing it's already built then! Well, of course it cost money to maintain though.
Yes, but if you need to have all that infrastructure anyway it no longer makes sense to compare the cost of solar+batteries with the cost of fossil fuels because you actually need to have both.
If you compare the total cost of solar with just the fuel cost of fossil fuels (ignoring its CapEx and non-fuel OpEx) that swings the equation a lot.
Infrastructure cost for 100% is the same as infrastructure cost for 10%? That's not true. The distribution network is the part that can't be scaled, but it can also be reused for either source, so it doesn't double in cost.
No, I'm saying infrastructure cost for 100% is the same as infrastructure cost for 100%. You can't build 10% as much fossil fuel infrastructure and expect it to carry 100% of the load when solar isn't working. And obviously I'm talking about generation here, not distribution.
That's not carbon neutral. You can use synthetic fuels to make it fully carbon neutral (way easier to store than the often-proposed H2) but that's really just another battery.
You can run anything on 90% renewable and anything else for the remaining 10%.
As my house is on hydro-energy and everything is electric, I'm currently on 100% renewable and majors factories around me are the same.
Yes, hydro isn't available everywhere, just like solar or wind isn't, but wherever it's possible, we should have it.
Sure but I think if solar really did provide 90% of the world's electricity it wouldn't be inaccurate to say it powered the world.
(Heating and transport are harder to solve of course.)
It would be inaccurate in that it would not, in fact, be powering the world.
The bigger deceit in the statement was the implication that only batteries were needed to "power the world". This. Is. Wrong.
Yes, one can. The issue is that it requires synchronization.
The goal of getting to renewables is to not remove every carbon source but to slow the rate of change so we can adapt. 90% meets that.
The goal ultimately is to get to 100% non-fossil fuel. CO2 is removed so slowly from the atmosphere that emissions have to go to nearly zero (preferably, to less than zero) or else we're just delaying disaster.
The point I was making before, btw, was that renewables can get to 100%, but doing it with just batteries as storage is really stupid in many places. Batteries, while necessary and very useful, are not a panacea. In a place like Europe, adding the complementary low capex storage could cut the cost in half (otherwise, excessive overprovisioning of solar, wind, and/or batteries are needed.)
No, they can't, not unless we get rid of the fossil fuel lobby, which pretty much runs the world these days. Which isn't surprising, given that fossil fuels are the largest industry ever created by mankind. If you compare it to anything else which was actively harmful and yet big money tried to convince you it wasn't (like tobacco, alcohol, or really anything else), there is nothing that huge. So it isn't surprising that the industry fights change.
EV adoption has been successfully held back mostly by PR, Germany shifted from nuclear to coal and gas, the US president is doing everything to dismantle anything that isn't fossil fuel and promotes fossil fuels, the list goes on.
I think this sells the German energy mix short - fossil fuel has been on a steady decline in the energy mix for about 2 decades now.
Comparing 2020[^2] to 2025[^1]:
- renewables (solar+wind) went from 181 TWh to 219 TWh
- fossil (coal+gas) stayed constant (177 TWh and 179 TWh)
So I'd say we switched from nuclear (60TWh in 2020) to renewables & imported nuclear - but the long-term trend is towards renewables.
[1]: https://www.ise.fraunhofer.de/en/press-media/press-releases/... [2]: (pdf) https://www.ise.fraunhofer.de/content/dam/ise/en/documents/N...
I realize there is a lot of verbal gymnastics going on around this issue, and the word "renewables" is being used a lot, but my point still stands.
Another way to look at your numbers is that had the nuclear plants not been turned off, fossil (coal+gas) could have been reduced by 60TWh.
But they weren't reduced. They remained the same.
From the point of view of the fossil fuel industry: WIN!
The fossil fuel lobby can only do so much. Solar has gotten so cheap it's taking over on its own. Companies are doing it for no reason other than the math makes sense. EV batteries are nearing that point too. You can only keep BYD out of the US for so long.
The fossil fuel industry is fighting a rearguard action at this point.
> Germany shifted from nuclear to coal and gas
Sure, but you're attributing this, deliberately or not, to the wrong cause. It wasn't that the fossil fuel industry somehow won - it was range of factors possibly including geopolitics, some existing plants aging, an emotional response to the Fukushima nuclear disaster, and the Green lobby.
Basically, they voted to kill nuclear without a solid plan for an alternative, and coal/gas is the default option for filling the gaps left in the absence of timely and sufficiently rapid investment in other technologies.
Hmm. After former chancellor (Schroeder) heavily pushed Russian gas pipelines (Nord Stream 1 and 2) and then swiftly moved to working for Russian state-owned energy companies, including Nord Stream AG, Rosneft, and Gazprom, I have a different outlook on things.
One can never discount lobbying and influence behind the scenes, but Schroeder finished being Chancellor in 2005, which was six years before the initial post-Fukushima vote in question, and even longer since various aspects of the plan continued to be supported by various politicians.
He'd be a spectacularly successful lobbyist if your suspicion is correct.
Why would I assume Schroeder is the only politician under the influence of Russia or any of the fossil-fuel industry businesses?
I mean yeah, but $100 a barrel makes it difficult to argue.
>We can get far without worrying about the last 5-10%. The solutions for the last 5-10% could be fossil fuels in the short-term, long-duration storage as it matures, or easily storeable e-biofuels.
I think a lot of people truly dont get this.
Those days when the wind isnt blowing, the sun isnt shining and the batteries and pumped storage are depleted can be easily handled with, e.g. power2gas.
It's pretty expensive (per kwh almost as much as nuclear power) but with enough spare solar and wind capacity and a carbon tax on natural gas it becomes a no brainer to swap natural gas for that.
Nonetheless this wont stop people saying "but what about that last 5-10%?" as if it's a gotcha for a 100% green grid. It isnt. It never was.
The article ignores hydropower. The numbers/prices look a lot better with solar + wind + hydro + battery.
Norway runs almost entirely on hydropower. Sweden has a lot.
Iceland runs on hydropower and geothermal.
I’m happy to be wrong about this globally, but in my neck of the woods the readily exploited hydro resources are already exploited to 90% of their capacity and have been for 100 years. Hydro is in many ways the ultimate renewable energy, but that’s been true since electrification and we’ve been using it as part of the energy mix since then. I’d love to be wrong but my understanding is that there isn’t a huge amount of untapped new hydro capacity available without having severe impacts on ecosystems
Hydro in Norway goes very well with windmills in Denmark.
Very simplified:
Wind blows mostly in Denmark during the day, so Norway stops hydro during the day and imports electricity from Denmark's windmills.
During night the wind is mostly still in Denmark so windmills don't produce much and Denmark imports from Norway's hydro.
In this way you can stretch the capacity from hydro using windmills even though Norway isn't a good place for windmills.
Also what is probably used in your country is Pumped-storage hydroelectricity . During the day you pump water into the reservoir using wind/solar energy and discharge e.g at night .
In the last decade or so hydro generation has grown about as much as solar and wind (they all basically grow about the same amount as global nuclear generation, hydro doubling and wind and solar growing exponentially from basically zero).
So it's not going to take off like solar but it's a big chunk of relatively clean electricity production and it's often basically a byproduct of managing water supplies. It also pairs really well with renewables as even without pumps it has a degree of flex and storage.
This is even more true with international grid connections. Europe in a cold spell? Solar countries import, wind & hydro export. Europe in a heat wave? Flip the switches the opposite direction.
Hydroelectric capacity is largely built out, so you can look at current generation mix to see how much it is likely to contribute.
In the US capacity is likely to go down (dams are expensive and many time old dams are removed instead of being rebuilt).
And nuclear is already in the 5-10% range in the US, so if we just maintained that level, we could get carbon free.
No, because most of that nuclear generation would be during times it wasn't needed. The residual 5-10% in the renewable + batteries world is highly nonuniform, utterly unsuited to being covered by nuclear.
No, you couldnt. Nuclear power is not dispatchable.
> Nuclear power is not dispatchable.
I mean it is, its just slower.
but if you have batteries, then you can divert the power to the batteries to keep them topped up.
While technically possible, given that the vast majority of the cost is capex and not fuel and given that it is already five times the cost of solar and wind when producing at 100% 24/7, setting literal piles of cash on fire might be more economic than using it to dispatch electricity.
If you're using it to charge batteries it's just five times more expensive than equivalent solar or wind.
French nuclear stations are roughly as fast as combined cycle gas (to turn off at least)
The point is, with enough battery, you don't need fast despatch for things like water/gas/nuclear, because the battery does that for you. In the UK the 11gwhr we have (about 1/2-1/3 of one hours consumption) is more than capable to do the balancing.
Bit of a cop out headline, should have said "will power the world".
Even boring staid organisations are predicting solar will be more than half the planet's electricity supply by 2050 which is I think enough to say it powers the world.
EVs are essentially a giant battery on wheels. Seems there is a good opportunity to configure them as bidirectional power banks for your local grid. You could rewire all parking slots to have a plugin that acts as a bidirectional power station. Imaging how much power could be moved around with such a grid! This would require a major investment in power transmission layouts, but a city full of batteries on wheels.
California has registered around 1M Teslas alone. So this is like having a 1Mx80kwh = 80GWh battery at your service. As a reference, the largest solar + storage facility in California is around 3.2 GWh.
It's nice for an emergency, and almost all EVs can do that already.
But people pay extra to put the batteries over wheels because they need to haul charged batteries around. It's not normally useful to discharge them locally.
Just charging your car when electricity is cheap and avoiding times when it is scarce would solve most of the issues, provided there is a dynamic pricing system in place.
No idea why this has been downvoted. There is a lot of demand for this, and at least one company actively working on orchestrating home and EV batteries with the grid: https://www.amber.com.au/amber-for-evs
World's economy and based on oil and gas and It is not easy to switch to an alternative. Because it will also mean to change all the geopolitical relations around the globe
As enthusiastic as I am about that I'd love to see grid scale storage move more towards something like sand batteries. Stuff you can buy for dollars per ton and move with an excavator seems like a better bet than lithium batteries.
If we want flakey renewables to be the backbone (which we should)...then we needs serious scale on storage side.
Batteries for voltage regulation and quick response is good though
It's important to note that electricity is 21% of the World's energy demand, according to the IEA[1]. This implies that if we could 10x solar, and figure out how to convert some of that to liquid fuels with decent efficiency, we could become sustainable for all energy.
[1] https://www.iea.org/world/energy-mix
That's a very silly way to compare energy usage.
For example, you're counting all the energy in the gasoline that gets loaded into a car, not the useful work that the gasoline actually produces. Gasoline gars typically are only able to convert 20-30% of their fuel into propulsion.
Counting the energy in the fuel loaded into engines is like counting the amount of energy in the sunlight hitting a solar panel.
Similar things go for heating by the way. A modern heat pump often has a coefficient of performance of around 3x, meaning that for every joule of electricity you put into the pump, you can heat up a house with 3 joules of heat, so 3x as efficient as heating the house with combustion.
I don't see why anyone would balk at the idea of using backwards compatible fuel sources, synthesized using a sustainable process powered by solar energy.
Replacing ALL of the liquid fueled devices in the world impractical, to the point of absurdity, to do. Where would we get electric versions of the Emma Mærsk[1] and her sister ships in a reasonable timeframe? Where would all the infrastructure come from to build out the grid to handle the charging load? Where are the ports with that kind of power capability coming from?
What about the world's aviation? There are no viable ways to do air transport on a large scale using battery power.
The world is optimized for liquid fuels, it would make far more sense to synthesize them from low cost solar power during the day, and accumulate the quantities required, rather than rip and replace every single industrial engine on the planet.
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emma_M%C3%A6rsk
2/3rds of that other 79% is wasted as unwanted heat, so we only need to replace 1/3rd of 79% (~26 percent points) so slightly more than double the current clean energy supply.
An extensive explanation of this "primary energy fallacy":
https://ember-energy.org/latest-insights/reframing-energy-fo...
What about STORING excess power and delivering it during the day at a same level ? That is a critical part! I remember last time it was too expensive.
At temperate latitudes, summer/winter is a bigger deal than day/night. To the point where it makes sense to orient fixed panels tilted south and you still get a 2-3x difference in daily capacity between the seasons.
Related is the other comments here that mention air-conditioning is largely a non-issue if you spec for year-round solar. If you are generating 3x as much energy in July compared to January, and January can power your house, then the A/C is basically free.
You can buy a full day's worth of energy storage with an array of LiFePO4 batteries for less than the typical 3% estimate of annual home improvement and maintenance costs you should be budgeting for as a homeowner. The cost problem usually comes from the labor and every solar installation company seemingly being ran by scam artists.
Thats whats driving the buildout in places like spain.
Solar power is in curltailment most days, so to make money solar operators need to add batteries to take free energy and shift it to the ultra expensive parts of the day.
grid-scale batteries are accelerating more rapidly than anyone thought a few years, it’s not really seen as an unsolvable problem anymore
Because solar energy production doesn't just vary by time-of-day, it also varies seasonally. Where I live, winter solar production collapses due to decreased daylight hours and cloud cover. At the same time, energy use skyrockets due to heating demand.
We would need a lot of batteries to be able to charge during the summer and drain during the winter!
Tell me you didnt read the article without telling me.
Elon said the same thing about the US a decade ago.
"a fairly small corner of Nevada or Texas or Utah."
https://www.pcmag.com/news/elon-musk-running-us-on-solar-req...
See you next decade when we're saying the same thing and not doing it?
Musk was proposing about 1.2TW of solar capacity, the US installed about 250GW since then and is currently installing about 50GW a year and is projected to have 770GW by 2036 in a decades time.
So the US is probably over-delivering compared with many things Elon has proposed delivering himself.
Apples and oranges though. One is a massive public works program and the other is private.
Before anyone cries about the environmental cost of lithium, concrete batteries are a thing and are far more ideal for grid storage.
You mean gravity batteries using concrete weights? A scam for suckers.
Nope: https://news.mit.edu/2025/concrete-battery-now-packs-ten-tim...
So, about two orders of magnitude lower specific energy than Li-ion batteries. The extra cost per kg had better be damned small or this won't pencil out.
1/2 the 'cost' of electricity is borne by grid operators, which are usually regulated monopolies. They are generally overstaffed, inneficient bureaucracies. I'm not against public service obviously but I don't think that's the issue, rather it's just related to 'monopoly' provider status.
Hydro One in Ontario was by far the largest occupant on the Sunshine list (>$100K salaries) and have always been. They pay dramatically above market wages, have more staff than they need. It's the 'old boys clubs of old boys clubs'.
If energy prices drop, they will be able to charge more money to justify more 'infra', staff and expanding budgets.
The best thing we could ever do is get rid of our dependency on the energy grid.
If our homes could be powered like our cars ... that would be amazing and open up a ton of competition in a landscape which now has almost no competition.
That said - there are definitely theoretical efficiencies at scale and if we did get rid of the grid, we may never be able to get it back.
It's plausible that 'decentralized energy' may be very advantageous in that it puts a lot of competitive pressure on the centralized elements. Then we get the best of both worlds.
Edit: value chain and institutional power dynamics is the only real way to look at all of these systems. It's incredibly naive to think that some arbitrary technology is going to change any landscape. Case and point is this issue itself - that we 'grow' fuel instead of doing something arguably more efficient is a function of structural power.
> solar PV installed cost 384 €/kWp
Is this grid-scale solar ? It can’t be rooftop - there is nobody in the UK who will install a 5kW rooftop system for £2k. The quotes I’ve had recently have been closer to £10k.
Yes. It literally says:
> The cost assumptions assume utility-scale solar panels and batteries in large parks. Smaller-scale rooftop solar and home batteries would cost 2-3 times more.
I've installed domestic solar several times. The main cost isn't the panels or the inverters - it's the scaffolding, labour, and wiring improvements in the home. If you have a tall or complicated house, it'll cost more.
Fuel price varies dramatically with respect to geographic area. It seems reasonable to factor that in especially if geographic area is factored in to solar capacity.
I'd like to see some focus on cheap thermal storage as PV is terribly inefficient for heating. Especially in the winter months.
Once you take politics out of solar, EVs and batteries we’re all in agreement. Do your part, do your fair share, don’t wait.
I wish it made sense to do residential solar where I am. It probably does technically, but i hate the idea of spending a ton on a system and then STILL have to pay my power company; if you are connected to the grid at all where I am, you pay the power company $5/kw/month of solar capacity and your excess sell-back rates are insanely bad (0.03/kwh, vs billed usage rate at $0.17/kwh)
The next generation of home batteries will be a game changer. It will do for home energy storage what Lithium-Ion has done for laptops, phones and vehicles and it will be a lot safer too.
If you could install solar at ~150% of the cost of utility scale solar it’d make a ton of sense, but at 300%+ it’s hard to make the math work
They can and they will. In the longer term there simply won't be anything else.
Nuclear could have powered the world easily and we could have done it with 1960s technology. And we could easily do electricity and heating with nuclear quite easily. The only thing that's actually tricky is synfuels and solar/battery doesn't solve that. High temperature reactors using heat to create hydrogen is arguable the better path to synfuels then electrolysis.
And we can go to 100% of electricity from nuclear, we don't have to have this dumb argument about 'the last 5-10%'. Because its reliable.
And if you actually do the math nuclear would have been cheaper then all this nonsense we have been doing for 30 years with wind, solar and batteries. The cost of the gird updates is like building a whole new infrastructure. With nuclear, the centralized more local networks are perfectly reasonable.
I did some scenarios starting in Year 2000 or Germany to all nuclear, vs wind (off-shore, on-shore), and solar (partly local partly brought in) and batteries. The numbers aren't even close, nuclear would have been the much better deal. Even if you are very conservative and don't account for major learning effect that countries like France had when building nuclear.
That said, even with nuclear, having a few Lithium batteries that can go all out for 1-2h is actually a good deal. Its really only about peak shaving the absolute daily peaks. What you don't want is having to build batteries that can handle days or weeks.
Making hydrogen from water and solar light is certainly better than using nuclear energy for that.
There is no reason for consuming valuable nuclear fuel, for which better uses exist, instead of using free solar light.
The efficiency of converting solar energy into hydrogen is already acceptable. The same is true for the efficiency of converting hydrogen and concentrated carbon dioxide into synthetic hydrocarbons, which are the best means for long term energy storage, and also for applications like aircraft and spacecraft.
The least efficient step remains concentrating the diluted carbon dioxide from air.
While the efficiency of converting solar energy and water into hydrogen by artificial means is already better than that of living beings, the living beings are still much more efficient in converting H2 and CO2 from air into organic substances.
Besides improving the efficiency of the existing techniques, an alternative method of CO2 capture would be the genetic engineering of a bacterium that would produce some usable oil from H2 and air, with an improved productivity over the existing bacteria, which use most of the captured energy to make substances useful for them, not for us, so unmodified bacteria would not have a high enough useful output.
> Making hydrogen from water and solar light is certainly better than using nuclear energy for that.
Using heat is the most efficient and if you use nuclear heat directly, and you don't have to go to the step of converting to electricity, you get huge efficiency.
> There is no reason for consuming valuable nuclear fuel
Nuclear fuel is not valuable once you have a closed cycle. Fuel cost are already only a few % of total nuclear cost and in a closed cycle would be almost nothing. As soon as you breed fuel from fertile material the cost is basically 0.
> The efficiency of converting solar energy into hydrogen is already acceptable.
It requires a very large plant to do in many small batches and cost 20x what hydrogen costs from natural gas. Its not efficient and will not be for the next 20+ years at least.
> The only thing that's actually tricky is synfuels and solar/battery doesn't solve that. High temperature reactors using heat to create hydrogen is arguable the better path to synfuels then electrolysis.
Found this interesting: https://phys.org/news/2026-02-microbial-eco-friendly-butanol.
IIRC nuclear doesn't really work well as the last 5-10%. Start-up and shut-down for nuclear reactors is a slow process. When it's generating, it needs to just keep on generating. Not so quick to dial down or up just because the wind is(n't) blowing.
It's not that slow. They can ramp up and down over hours, and those demand patterns are known in advance. Combine with battery, pumped storage, or synfuel generation to soak up excess power during low demand times, and use that to provide peaker capacity during high demand times.
The problem is the economics. They’re just horrifyingly expensive to build. The equivalent to each new large scale reactor in GWe requires tens of billions in subsidies.
The next problem comes from incentives. Why should anyone with solar or storage buy this expensive grid based nuclear electricity?
Why should their neighbors not buy surplus renewables and instead pay out of their nose for expensive nuclear powered electricity?
EDF is already crying about renewables cratering the earning potential and increasing maintenance costs for the existing french nuclear fleet. Let alone the horrifyingly expensive new builds.
And that is France which has been actively shielding its inflexible aging nuclear fleet from renewable competition, and it still leaks in on pure economics.
The French have used their nuclear system for 20+ years as a giving tree.
The forced EDF to sell nuclear at very cheap prices to fossil fuel companies and then buy it back at much higher price.
The French forced EDF to give subsides to solar even when that actually hurts their economics.
The French randomly in the 2010s decided to replace nuclear in a short time-frame (completely 100% unrealistic) but it sounds good to politicians. And they decided to delay all maintenance and didn't do any of the upgrades many other nations did.
Once of the secrets of French nuclear is, that their grandfather were so good in providing them these nuclear plants, the french absolutely suck at running them. Other countries like the US and ironically Germany managed to run their reactors at higher factors.
The problem is the solar is cheap when its being produced and makes the economics of base lose worse, without actually solving base load. Solar has been cross subsidized this way for a long time. And has been more explicitly subsidized. But its a private good, it helps only private people, it is negative on a system level.
Once you think on a systemic level, how to provide reliable energy for a whole country, nuclear is not more expensive and France saved a huge amount of money buy doing what they did.
> Why should anyone with solar or storage buy this expensive grid based nuclear electricity?
If somebody privately wants to build solar/storage that's fine, but they should get no support. Also prices should be adjust to actually reflect peak demand. Historically the way the system operated is with much simpler pricing models because it was understood that everybody shares in this infrastructure. In such a situation, the majority of people wouldn't build solar and batteries.
But really, the question we should ask, what the best thing to run a modern economy on and the German solution of 'lets build a massive electricity pipeline to solar farms in Greece' isn't a great model.
All this new energy transfer infrastructure is incredibly expensive. It cost at least as much as the generation itself, and sometimes more.
People disliking renewables always say this.
Then when asked what method to price in the Swedish nuclear fleet having ~50% of capacity offline multiple times last year and France famously having 50% of the capacity offline during the energy crisis I always get crickets for answers.
It’s apparently fine when nuclear plants doesn’t deliver, but not renewables.
The difference with renewables is that it’s even easier to manage. Their intermittency is entirely expected and the law of large numbers ensure we never have half the capacity offline due to technical issues at the same time.
> Once you think on a systemic level, how to provide reliable energy for a whole country, nuclear is not more expensive and France saved a huge amount of money buy doing what they did.
Given that new built nuclear power costs 18-24 cents per kWh and won’t come online until the 2040s what you’re trying to tell me is that multiplying the current electricity cost 3-4x and creating a self made energy crisis isn’t so bad.
The French made a good choice half a century ago. The equivalent choice in 2026 are renewables and storage.
Just look at the proposed EPR2 fleet. A 11 cent per kWh CFD and interest free loans. Summing up to over 20 cents per kWh for the electricity. With the first reactor coming online at the earliest in 2038.
It’s just complete insanity at this point.
> All this new energy transfer infrastructure is incredibly expensive. It cost at least as much as the generation itself, and sometimes more.
The 10 GW HVDC links being built costs €20B. That’s equivalent to the subsidies needed for one new large scale reactor. Then you have the market price of electricity on top of that.
Are you starting to realize the conundrum?
France has treated its nuclear fleet like literally shit. They have literally delayed maintenance because the government believed that they were just about to replace all nuclear with renewables. In addition to that, France has so much nuclear that they have become incredibly lax in operating their nuclear, they take ages to do basic shit most other countries do in just a few days. All of this is literally just related to the French government of the last 10-20 years not giving a shit about nuclear.
The reality is that in most western countries even 50+ year old nuclear plants often have an 80% uptime and usually are down at times when the capacity is not needed. If a government properly cares for their reactors, up-times of 90-95% are very possible.
Switzerland has a capacity factor of 90% with some of the oldest reactors in the world.
> The difference with renewables is that it’s even easier to manage. Their intermittency is entirely expected and the law of large numbers ensure we never have half the capacity offline due to technical issues at the same time.
The fact is that is overall much less available and much less flexible on when you do the generation and when you want more or less energy.
> Given that new built nuclear power costs 18-24 cents per kWh and won’t come online until the 2040s what you’re trying to tell me is that multiplying the current electricity cost 3-4x and creating a self made energy crisis isn’t so bad.
Nuclear is to slow is something renewable fans have been arguing since the 1970s.
The fact about cost is that on a system level its cheaper and France has been able to have cheaper energy then Germany for the last 50+ years.
Once you don't just look at generation but total cost, including all the cost of building out the grid, the cost is much higher. And if you ever want to be 100% renewable you better have weeks of battery at least, and that is a thing people barley calculate. Gas peakers plants will remain the solution for a very long time and when gas prices go up, it will cause an energy crisis.
In addition you will need to replace the wind energy far sooner.
In addition, with nuclear, a huge part of the cost is going to salaries of local highly educated people and technicians. You capture much more of the value in your own economy for the next 60+ years.
> Given that new built nuclear power costs 18-24 cents per kWh and won’t come online until the 2040s what you’re trying to tell me is that multiplying the current electricity cost 3-4x and creating a self made energy crisis isn’t so bad.
> Just look at the proposed EPR2 fleet. A 11 cent per kWh CFD and interest free loans. Summing up to over 20 cents per kWh for the electricity. With the first reactor coming online at the earliest in 2038.
The West has so totally and completely fucked the industry and did every possible thing wrong for the last 30 years. And now we are paying for it. This is what 30+ years of renewable orthodox has brought us, high energy prices and a complete collapse of the nuclear industry. France has dropped all its advanced reactor as well now we are building EPRs again. Its beyond sad.
What we could build are APR1400 units like in the UAE. If you do a proper build, yes it takes 10 year for the first to finish but after you start a new years 3 years later, and then another every year and then 2 each after that and later 3 each year. In 20 you can build pretty much as much capacity as you need and your learning curve is going to be amazing, likely you will finish a new build in less then 5 years at much lower cost. The problem is if you only look at 'when will the first reactor finish' instead of 'how fast can we build 20 reactors'.
Capital-recovery component for APR1400 alone works out to about 3.2–4.3 US¢/kWh at 5–7% financing, but this is for only 4 reactors built in with no background. But we should finance this with government bonds directly, so really capital alone is only 2 USc/kWh and less as build cost go down the learning curve. The fuel cost is also only 3-4 USc/kWh (hopefully we again have reliable European fuel and reduce the price further, another thing destroyed by the last 30 years). And operation and maintenance around 10USc/kWh isn't crazy for a proper fleet with centralized staff training and local industry.
As with everything in nuclear, one nation building 1 plant is going to be expensive and makes the numbers look worse then they are. And remember this was build in a country with no experience and no train workforce and only 4 reactors built, not the 10s of reactors people should build. A country like Poland could easily do a 20 year flash build program, and that would be much faster for them then Poland.
> The 10 GW HVDC links being built costs €20B. That’s equivalent to the subsidies needed for one new large scale reactor. Then you have the market price of electricity on top of that.
> Are you starting to realize the conundrum?
Try looking up total grid upgrade cost if you want to achieve 100% renewables. We are literally talking the same amount of money as all the generation combined. I heard interviews with people responsible for even only part of Germany where they admitted they will have to go to private markets to fund 100+ billion $ in investments. And these investors will want their money back. Total grid cost will be higher then to total cost of renewable installs. And of course wind turbines need to be rebuilt.
But I guess Germany is making it easier on itself by losing so much industry that they have fewer problems in the future for renewables to solve. Germany by the way since 2018 is spending 50 billion $ per year on direct energy subsidies. Yes that is partly heating but France because of its cheap electricity has far more heating converted to electric. So it is related to electricity policy.
What I want is rock solid energy that is reliable and served from a simple centralized grid, nuclear + 1-2h battery peak shaving with lithium or sodium batteries. Anything longer then that isn't great. Not some scheme where we somehow hope that the combination of Greek solar and Danish wind produce enough, and then trying produce hydrogen in Canada and ship it to Germany, or whatever other nonsense people want to come up with.
The current proto-market system has all the wrong intensives built in and we were much better of in a system where there was simply one centralized utility that made rational engineering choices about how to get cheap energy to everybody.
Not to mention that having a well functioning nuclear industry has lots of other advantages that 'buy solar panels from China' doesn't bring.
Demand following for nuclear is possible (after all, if you produce 10X but the demand suddenly drops to 7X, what you can always do is to "dump" 3X worth of steam instead of injecting it in the turbine), but because the cost of nuclear is mainly upfront, it is not cost efficient at all.
If it costs 10X dollars upfront to build a nuclear central that can produce 10X energy, then if you run it at 100%, it will cost 1 dollar per 1 unit of energy. If you follow the demand, you will not produce 10X, but let's say to illustrate maybe 5X, and it will cost 2 dollars per 1 unit of energy.
You are right about storage as a way to help with demand following, but if you build enough storage capacity, then you basically have solved "for free" a big part of the problem linked to the intermittence of renewables. In this case, you have the choice between building an expensive nuclear central and a distributed cheaper renewable generation.
I'm not saying it demonstrate renewables are better, but that it is true that nuclear is not the obvious winner it looks like before we look into the practical details.
No, nuclear storage needs to be optimized for 1-2h peaks, if you build a renewable system you need, much, much more. And you have much more localized peaks and valleys depending on weather and such.
So basically, you can put some battery next to every nuclear plant and otherwise use the same grid.
For renewable you need a much more complex grid with much more battery.
Why do you say "optimized for 1-2h peaks"? The typical electricity demand has a trough during the night for few hours, then a first peak in the morning, than a second less-deep trough in the middle of the day (sometimes with a bump around lunchtime), than a second bigger peak in the afternoon for 3-4 hours. And of course this varies with season, day of week, regions, ...
Not sure why you are saying that renewable you need "much more battery": the overlap of generation means that you already have a "baseline" of generation even with renewables (sure, I know about dunkelflaute, but they are as frequent as unexpected shutdown of nuclear site), and therefore in both case, the game is mainly to "move the peaks around" which requires about the same capacity.
Not sure why you are saying the renewable led to a much more complex grid either. Sure, with a naive simplified grid, nuclear works well. But in practice, the modern grid is complex, and adding more nuclear does not really reduce the complexity.
Also, nuclear or not, having EV or heat-pump will be needed for decarbonisation, and therefore the demand becomes even more complex. With EV and heat-pump, local solar+battery is also a smarter choice. So it means that some storage will need to be built on the consumer site directly, even with nuclear.
I'm not saying that in some situation at the end of the computation, nuclear is not the best option, but it is not at all as simple as having a clear winner. Also, the reality is that you need to work with the uncertainties, so it is not like one solution has a score of 75 and the other has a score of 70, so the first is the obvious choice, it is more like one solution has a score of 75 +- 15 and the other 70 +- 5 (or even asymmetric errors), so you cannot directly conclude the first solution is the best. I think the conversation would be way more healthy if we could just avoid over-simplify into a pro-nuclear vs. pro-renewable partisan battle.
(also not sure about "you can put some battery next to every nuclear plant and otherwise use the same grid", why is this not true for renewable too? Just compute the average production of the site, and put storage that will charge when the site produces more than the average and discharge when the site produces less, and you get the same situation as the nuclear site (they may still have period of no generation, the same way nuclear sites have unexpected shutdown). Especially that with a renewable site, the cost is lower so the site owner can invest more in storage and manage it themselves: storage is part of the black box, the grid does not need to know, stay the same and no complexity is added)
Renewable (solar for example) needs enough battery to cover the 12-18 hours a day where the sun isn't shining or is at too low an angle to effectively capture by solar panels. This is far more than covering a few hours of load peak. Solar might actually be a decent peaking power source, as it tends to peak at the same time as demand. But it's not a good base load source; it needs far too much battery buffer.
My point is that to follow the demand, you need ~12 hours of capacity: the trough is during the night around 1-4 am, the peak is mainly in the afternoon around 5pm. So if you have a battery for nuclear, you will charge it during the night and discharge it ~12 hours later.
Not sure about your 12-18 hours, it looks like you want to use the energy during the night, while it is the trough and does not require energy.
The problem isn't technical dispatchability, it's economic dispatchability. A nuclear plant operated at 5-10% capacity factor would be ludicrously uneconomical, even to just operate.
It's not a technical limitation, it's economic. The cost of nuclear is almost all in building (and decommissioning) the plant, the fuel is almost free. So you want to produce flat out as long as you can get almost any positive price for the output.
First of all its not that slow, and when you know when you need it, at what point in the day, so you can ramp up in anticipation.
Also, the claim that nuclear is slow to change is a limitation of current nuclear plants, more modern plants could be far better. Some designs are very much load following.
Nuclear reactors make awful targets in a conflict, not sure having many around is generally a good idea if conflict is a risk and there are alternatives.
Exactly right. Who wants to live any where near a nuclear reactor in a conflict between countries or general war. Despite a country not having nuclear weapons, targeting the nuclear reactors of other countries, is almost as good.
It's very clear now that infrastructure of all kinds are increasingly fair game. Nuclear reactors, data centers, water processing plants, hospitals... Both sad and ridiculous, but that's the level of insanity reached.
> and there are alternatives
That's a big if, though. Solar and batteries require globalisation, based on fossil fuels.
I feel like nuclear reactors are a better choice.
> in a conflict, not sure having many around is generally a good idea
On the other hand, blowing nuclear reactors could be considered a big escalation. We see with Iran and Ukraine that it's not exactly the first thing one wants to target.
For shipping?
Wind, Tidal or geothermal are also around, for example.
My point was that photovoltaic is "an alternative" to nuclear reactors, but an alternative that relies on globalisation. Nuclear reactors... much less.
For many nations that is really not the primary reason to choose infrastructure. And even if that is your goal. Then building a 500MW reactor you can drop in the ground is likely a pretty decent solution.
Need to drop it really deep - which 500MW reactor is available for that?
China understands this, parts of the EU understands this. The US is currently dead set on betting on the wrong technology, and it's going to put them so far behind.
Imagine a world where people didn't care about labeling new things "woke", and instead could all sit down and say, "we're going to make major investments in next generation infrastructure to ensure our capacity and independence."
The American shale gas/fracking boom really distorted a lot of things. The strategic energy situations of the United States, the EU, and China were all pretty similar in the late 20th Century: major dependence on OPEC-controlled oil and gas. Post-fracking, the US strategic energy situation has diverged from the others.
This difference leads indirectly to things like the current "not war" in Iran. (Iran's geography already gives it strong bargaining power via pressure on energy markets. It would have an even stronger hand if the US was not capable of energy independence).
The long term impacts on climate changes are even more negative. It's hard to supplant a cheap, ubiquitous energy source with strong negative externalities when those externalities are subtle, gradual, and strongly denied via propaganda by entrenched interests.
China burns significantly more coal than the USA and Europe combined and has no environmental laws standing in the way of their nuclear power plants.
Imagine a world where people don't care about labeling new things as "regressive" or "anti-environmental"
China's coal use is shrinking recently, and their solar investment is in the hundreds of GW annually.
Don't look at where the ball is, look at where the ball is going.
China is doing that because they are profitable, not because they care about the environment. Why would they care the coal use?
Having lots of cheap energy is always boosts industry and reduces cost of living for everyone. The way China accomplished that was by investing heavily in every sort of energy and building large scale infrastructure, instead of adding roadblocks at every stage.
China doesn't have much oil or natural gas but they have lots of coal so that's their backup until they can get enough renewables built.
> China burns significantly more coal than the USA and Europe combined [...]
And the USA burns more natural gas than China, and the USA burns more oil than China.
All this simply reflects both using the fossil fuels they have the most abundant, reliable, and cheap supply of when they need to burn fossil fuels.
> China burns significantly more coal than the USA and Europe combined
Which is expected when both Europe and the US outsourced most manufacturing to China. It's actually surprising China is so low given they're literally the factory of the world
I agree and lets not label something as dangerous or expensive if it can be made to be affordable and safe. "As of 2026, 59 nuclear power plants are operational in mainland China, second globally to the United States, which has 94." "There are over 28 further plants under construction with a total power of 32.3 GW, ranked first for the 18th consecutive year"
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_power_in_China
Apart from the current administration's absolutely hilariously bad governing, the US economy really only cares about profit. The same is going to happen to any country with outsized income inequality.
> the US economy really only cares about profit
Which would be ok if we more effectively were able to include externalities into company's overhead, instead of constantly subsidizing them.
This argument would make more sense if Chinese companies were all going out of business due to their governments heavy investments in solar and batteries.
Which is a good thing because solar + batteries is literally the easiest way to make profit currently, and will get more profitable year over year.
They're not anti-renewables as a bet, they're anti-renewables strategically. If you like going to war, you can power your warfighting apparatus much easier with a gas tank than a battery. If you want better defense, you don't depend on hostile nations for your energy needs. The US wants to double down on oil because it likes to fight wars and it's paranoid about defense.
There are influential people who make lots of money when the US Govt forces the country to rely on fossil fuels.
This is just incorrect. The politics in the US say one thing but the market is going in the other direction. 2026 additions to the US grid will be almost entirely renewables - 6.3 GW of natural gas / 86 GW total means ~93% of new additions to grid capacity are renewable [1]. A quarter of the electricity in the US is now generated by renewables [2] and growing rapidly. The states with the largest amount of renewable electricity generation are wildly different politically, but all agree that renewables make the most financial sense [3].
[1] https://www.eia.gov/todayinenergy/detail.php?id=67205 [2] https://www.semafor.com/article/03/03/2026/us-renewables-hit... [3] https://www.integrityenergy.com/blog/the-top-10-states-pavin...
Unsure why you're getting downvoted. I know politics is generally frowned upon here but this is absolutely relevant to the conversation.
Nice, we can get rid of nuclear dangers entirely
No, no they can’t. As has been explained over and over again by people who know better. Someday yes when the tech improves (changes) dramatically. But that’s not today.
solar WILL power the world.
Note that we had the technology to do this affordably as of about 2008, when lithium iron phosphate (LiFePO4) batteries became widely available for about $10-12 each (I had to look that up). They were definitely available at low cost ($6) by 2018:
https://web.archive.org/web/20180201203013/https://www.18650...
Looks like sodium-ion (Na-ion) 18650 batteries at 1.5 Ah have about 1/2 the capacity of LiFePO4 18650s at 3.5 Ah, and are about twice the price, so lets call them 4x the price per energy stored:
https://www.radicalrc.com/item/Sodium-Na-Ion-Battery-18650-3...
https://ogsolarstore.com/products/sodium-ion-cells-3-1v-batt...
https://coulombsolutions.com/product/12v-sodium-ion-battery/
Battery prices halve about every 4 years:
https://pv-magazine-usa.com/2024/03/06/battery-prices-collap...
So we can project that Na-ion batteries will have the same price per kWh as today's LiFePO4 in perhaps 8 years, or around 2034, if not sooner. That will negate the lithium supply chain bottleneck so that we're limited to ordinary shortages (like copper).
500 W bifacial solar panels are available for $100 each in bulk, so there's no need to analyze them since they're no longer the bottleneck. A typical home uses 24 kWh/day, so 15-20 panels at a typical 4.5 kW/m2 solar insolation provide enough power to charge batteries and still have some energy left over, at a cost of $1500-2000. Installation labor, electricians/licensing, inverters and batteries now dominate cost.
The sodium ion battery market is about $1 billion annually, vs $100 billion for lithium ion. It took lithium about 15-20 years to grow that much. So whoever gets in now could see a 1-2 orders of magnitude return over perhaps 8-15 years. I almost can't think of a better investment outside of AI.
-
I've been watching this stuff since the 1980s and I can tell you that every renewable energy breakthrough coincides with a geopolitical instability. For the $8 trillion the US spent on Middle East wars since 9/11, we could have had a moonshot for solar+batteries and be at 90+% coverage today. Not counting the other $12 trillion the US spent on the Cold War. Fully $20 trillion of our ~$40 trillion US national debt went to funding endless war, with the other $20 trillion lost on trickle-down tax cuts for the ultra wealthy.
We can't do anything about that stuff in the short term. But we can move towards off-grid living and a distributed means of production model where AI, 3D printing, permaculture, and other alternative tech negates the need for investment capital.
In the K-shaped economy, the "if you can't beat 'em, join 'em" phrase might more accurately be stated "if you can't join 'em, beat 'em".
The "storeable fuel
This comment section is so weird. This seems like a decent analysis to me. It also backs up what's been pretty obvious for some time: solar is the future. Yet we have:
- Pointing out the corn ethanol scam. Ok, that's fair. We would be better of spending money on renewables. No argument there;
- Multiple people arguing that solar hasn't goten more mature, more effective and that battery technology really hasn't gotten better. No sources mind you, just opinion;
- Another busy thread based on an uncited claim that this doesn't account for US heating costs. And tthere are a lot of people who seem to think not having efficient insulation in houses is an expression of freedom in some way;
- There's the naive idea that the profit motive will somehow solve all this. Bless your heart;
- Probably the least surprising thing is that the pro-nuclear people piped up and tried to make this about nuclear and failed. Sorry but nuclear is one of the most expensive forms of electricity and there's no real way to get around that.
I normally don't expect such anti-solar sentiment here.
Here's the real problem with renewables politically: if you produce 1GW of solar and it produces 2TWh of electricity in year 1, it'll probably 2TWh in years 2-30 with very little maintenance. That's bad in our system because some private company doesn't get to keep profiting.
Let's compare that to an oil well. If you drill wells and make them produce 100kbpd (barrels pe day) of crude and some quantity of natural gas in year 1 then in year 2 it produces 80-85kbpd. In year 3 it's ~70kbpd. In year 4 it's 55kbpd. By year 5 it's less than half what it was originally. This is for the Permian basin and it's called "decline rate".
So to maintain the amount of oil and gas you need, you need to be constantly drilling new wells and bringing them online to replace the lost capacity. That's good for business because all that exploration and digging is more profit opportunity.
Evenw ith coal, you need people and machiens to keep digging up the coal.
Our entire electricity sector is sold a lie that the private sector is somehow better at providing electricity and then everything is built around a massive wealth transfer from consumers and the government to the already wealthy.
That's really why renewables aren't popular in the modern political climate.
[dead]
[dead]
[dead]
[dead]
Disappointed the article doesn't transmission of electricity and how little the loss is. People are quite surprised that it's like 3.5% per 1000 km.
We could just build out huge solar farms in AZ and transmit it accordingly. We did it for railroads, why not here?
That number is improbably low. Transmission losses from local power plants to consumers is on the order of 10%.
Cite, please?
That's the number quoted in wikipedia [1] for HVDC power transmission. I.e. it only applies for long distances, not short distances.
China's been building a bunch of these at those kinds of distance . The technology definitely works.
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/High-voltage_direct_current#Ad...
We'll replace the fossil fuel cartel with the wind/solar/battery cartel and everything will be better. Right.
By 2050 is the important caveat. That's assuming constant production of batteries at the current scale and production.
It also assumes we figure out how to economically recycle materials from batteries (and total recovery may never be possible). Grid scale lithium batteries have an effective lifecycle of 15 years. In this potential future, global lithium reserves would actually start getting choked up before the 2050 goal.
Nuclear is inevitable and we all need to stop pretending otherwise.
We already have an electric grid we don’t need to build a new one from scratch just replace infrastructure that gets to old and add more for whatever extra demand shows up.
Obviously other energy sources are going to exist and non solar power will be produced, but nuclear is getting fucked in a solar + battery heavy future. Nuclear already needs massive subsidies and those subsidies will need to get increasingly large to keep existing nuclear around let alone convince companies to build more.
Nuclear costs are massively skewed by the compliance costs.
Reactors that only took 5 years to build before ALARA are still safely running 80 years later. The 15-20 year build and certification time for new reactors is purely made up. The countries that are building our battery and solar pipeline (China, South Korea, Japan) are all building nuclear domestically at 1/3 of the cost of us.
More importantly, for cobalt and lithium - we still exclusively rely on natural raw resources that are still very cheap. Meanwhile we have established reserves of fissile material for thousands of years.
Maybe it won't be in the near future, or even in our lifetime, but there is no way the human race does not turn to nuclear eventually.
> Maybe it won't be in the near future, or even in our lifetime, but there is no way the human race does not turn to nuclear eventually.
We already use nuclear, if you mean fission as a primary energy source…
Batteries don’t consume lithium, battery recycling doesn’t consume lithium, we a literally use the same lithium for hundreds of billions of years. So the only way humans are going to be forced to use nuclear is when the stars die.
I don’t think humans will last that long, but if they do I’m unsure what technology they’ll be using. Theoretically dumping matter into black holes beats nuclear, but who knows.
Compliance costs are there because the government takes up the burden of accident costs. If the government does that, you can expect the government to then have a say in how things are designed and operated.
> Grid scale lithium batteries have an effective lifecycle of 15 years. In this potential future, global lithium reserves would actually start getting choked up before the 2050 goal.
I think the long-term solutions here are not grid-scale lithium batteries, but pumped hydro, flow batteries, or compressed air. Lithium batteries have just gotten a bit ahead on the technological growth curve because of the recent boom in production from phones and EVs, but liquid flow batteries can be made using common elements, and are likely to be cost-effective once the tech gets worked out better.
So: I don't think we can say "lithium energy storage is unfeasible large-scale and long-term" and thus conclude that nuclear is inevitable, unless we also look at all the other storage alternatives.
The main reason lithium batteries are used in cars and electronics is because they offer some of the best energy storage per kilogram. That's really important for something meant to be portable, but it's completely irrelevant for a large permanent installation.
> That's assuming constant production of batteries at the current scale and production.
That's a terribly pessimistic assumption when production has been scaling exponentially, and cost per kWh dropping exponentially.