Comments
AJ_Gaming125 t1_iuft9xv wrote
Just a question, but could the war with Ukraine cause gas prices to go up to such a degree that governments decide to start replacing gas with renewable just because it's too expensive? Or are we gonna be stuck with the same because they don't want to put a little bit of money into it?
Surur t1_iuftqza wrote
> Just a question, but could the war with Ukraine cause gas prices to go up to such a degree that governments decide to start replacing gas with renewable just because it's too expensive?
It's definitely happening, but not just renewables, but any source (e.g. coal, nuclear)
For consumers, their only choice is home solar, and that is seeing a massive boom.
Overall the war in Ukraine is going to accelerate the move to renewables and heatpumps greatly.
AJ_Gaming125 t1_iufu5hz wrote
Let's hope so. Maybe a war might actually help the planet in the stupid way for once.
Catssonova t1_iuh0fo7 wrote
Genghis Khan was right????
x925 t1_iuhfc26 wrote
When will we see at home nuclear plants? I don't think it's fair that only corporations can own them just because it's "unsafe" or some nonsense.
Surur t1_iuhg1e9 wrote
I'm not a supporter of nuclear energy lol, but those people have advocated for neighbourhood-based pebble-bed reactors lol.
FearLeadsToAnger t1_iuhgl3j wrote
Who isn't a supporters of nuclear in 2022? What's your thinking?
Surur t1_iuhhkur wrote
It's very simple - nuclear energy has very long lead times (often a decade), is very expensive, and relies on a stable society for its entire existence, something which Ukraine and USA shows us is not guaranteed.
It's also centralised, vs many renewables which can be generated at home or at the community level.
HoriOri t1_iuhjfoo wrote
Those are very good and well thought out reasons. However, it does mean that much of the world will be burning gas for baseload power till we can get some decent buffers so we can use renewables entirely.
I personally don't think we have the time left, we needed to throw everything we've got at this problem 40 years ago.
Cynical_Cabinet t1_iugg16i wrote
Every country that has a government that isn't owned by the gas companies is already replacing gas and coal with renewables, because renewables have already been cheaper for a few years.
iwoketoanightmare t1_iuhgdce wrote
Solar on its own is cheap, Solar with a battery is a bit more expensive. The problem is replacing a base load orange with an apple doesn’t always do the job. Solar is great but only 50% of the time unless you add that second component.
viderfenrisbane t1_iuhvge4 wrote
That was my question reading this, what’s solar + grid scale storage cost? Isn’t that a more important number?
iwoketoanightmare t1_iuiln4p wrote
On a small scale such as my home, the battery side of things was 1.5x what the solar was. So if Solar is $20,000 installed, you're looking at another $30,000 for the storage.
Northman67 t1_iuhnctq wrote
The way it's looking the war with Ukraine is going to shut down Russian oil production when the pipelines back up because they have to constantly keep it flowing or it will freeze (it's winter hits in Siberia...... so soon) and destroy their equipment potentially bursting pipelines all across Russia. Reportedly the last time this happened it took them 10 years to get their stuff back online and they didn't have a disastrous shutdown like it's looking like they're going to have this time. Also last time they had plenty of Western oil experts to help with the process and that's not going to be available this time. If that happens then the entire supply of oil in the world changes and yes the price is going to go way way up. But the oil company pigs in the Saudi Arabian pigs are going to be super happy about that they're going to be making bank!!!!!!
No-Owl9201 t1_iujnbtl wrote
The winners from price hikes are all major oil exporters including Saudi, Canada, Iraq, UAE, USA, Norway, Kuwait, Nigeria, Brazil, Libya, Angola, Oman etc..... It's an ill wind etc etc....
mark-haus t1_iuhcrg8 wrote
Already happening, after a lot of european governments made emergency orders for new LNG terminals to replace some Russian piped gas they went on a renewables spending spree.
13Wayfarer t1_iuiompc wrote
We often a tendency when narratives are put out they done so in a silo. Why the statements are true in isolation they often ignore or do not consider possible solutions that maybe possible now or may come out of the backrooms in the short term or long term. Questions to be asked.
1- Can the oil-gas deficit be replaced from other sources and if yes how quickly and how cost effective?
2-Can the demand for oil-gas be reduced? Can they consume more effeciently? Can they source hydrocarbons from another source?
3- Can they substitute for oil and gas? How fast is green coming on? How much back tracking on green for the sort term tide things over gas-oil-nuclear?
4- What are the Boffins doing in the backrooms?
pinkfootthegoose t1_iuhl1vq wrote
that's a good reason to switch to solar.
n3w4cc01_1nt t1_iufxthj wrote
but not 10x more expensive in other places like the usa. it's like 3.50 nationally which is about the same it was in 2008 ($3.27) but with inflation it's actually cheaper than then. so unless it's higher than 4.51 in the us the consumer is still purchasing at a better rate.
lightscameracrafty t1_iugewcp wrote
That took a Herculean effort by the Biden admin tho, and there’s no guarantee OPEC, especially Saudi Arabia, is going to play ball again.
Besides it’s an apples to oranges comparison: solar is a technology while gas is a finite commodity. The first is only going to get cheaper as it scales and evolves, while the former is only going to get more expensive. That’s why the writing’s on the wall for carbon energy.
dramaking37 t1_iuhx5zd wrote
It's only cheaper because one is more expensive?? Thanks for the tip. Even if it is transient you're going to be better off on long term averages than demand spikes constantly.
If you live in the United States Texas's inability to plan for a freeze ended up costing everyone. Your rate increases are still paying for that debacle.
Solar gives you certainty that some dumb asshole politician in Texas doesn't end up costing you thousands of extra dollars because they don't want to plan for extreme weather.
Achillor22 t1_iujlpos wrote
Gas is also only going to continue to become more expensive while solar will only get cheaper.
Thebeatlesfirstlp t1_iuh0vsc wrote
dunderpust t1_iuhai53 wrote
Still massively more expensive than only a few years ago. The plunge from like 10x as expensive to 3x as expensive
EnergyTransitionNews OP t1_iufbixa wrote
Operating gas-fired power plants would be 10 times more expensive in the long-term than building new solar capacity in Europe, according to research from intelligence company Rystad. Their study uses the levelized cost of energy (LCOE) for gas and coal-fired power generation at different price levels and compares it to the LCOE of solar PV and wind.
If gas funds were invested in renewables instead, Europe could replace gas with solar and onshore wind power generation by 2028, when total capacity would reach 333 GW, Rystad forecasts. This estimate assumes a weighted average capital cost for the technologies of €1.3 per watt, as well as a two-year pre-development phase.
Unicorn_Colombo t1_iufuw14 wrote
LCOE is not a good measure. It ignores too much information.
dewafelbakkers t1_iuhmvnu wrote
These articles often ignore thing like LCOS and the overcapacity that would be necessary to build out for solar to replace current gas plants.
Lots of the very expensive gas plant arr as expensive as they are because they are peaker plants. Meaning they kick on and sell to the grid very quickly, on demand, and when demand is very high.
In order for solar and wind to be directly compared to these plants, you need to compare a set up that could directly replace these plants, and continue performing their same function.
This means enough storage capacity to reliably provide the mwhr needed for peak usage hours. This means building out capacity to reliably recharge that storage method even during peak use hours in the winter during a cold snap.
That's what should be compared price wise if the economics is concerned. 1mwhr of solar and wind is the same are 1mwhr from a battery is the same as 1mwhr from a lng plant, but the operating methods, the infrastructure, and the dispatchability and recharge times are very very different
Edit: and to be clear to anyone else reading this comment, I am pro solar and wind and batteries. I just think these surface level comparisons of gas versus solar costs lack the nuance to be useful and are ultimately disingenuous.
Tech_Philosophy t1_iuiit4z wrote
> you need to compare a set up that could directly replace these plants, and continue performing their same function.
Yeah, that would be battery storage, which has always been priced in to building renewables starting like 4 years ago. In fact, currently around the world the batteries are usually finished being set up before the solar/wind farm itself. Hawaii is a great example right now.
dewafelbakkers t1_iuj1omd wrote
The point I'm making is all these studies use very surface level analysis. For price comparison, the majority refer to and use lcoe only, and neglect to mention that Battery storage is an additional cost not included in those calculations. When those storage methods are included, the price comparison begins to balance. And when you are talking about a battery system with a large enough capacity that it is capable of reliably replacing a gas plant (by which I don't just mean matching capacity, but with a surrounding generating system able to meet normal demand and recharge the battery for when it's electricity is needed). When you consider a battery system with that much capacity, the lcos starts to increase dramatically, and given that neither can be implemented without the other is a carbon free future grid, you have to address both costs.
Having said all that, do I know if that price tag is higher? I don't. But ultimately I support renewable energy. Wind solar batteries other methods of storage nuclear etc. I think these direct price comparisons are flawed at best and disingenuous at worst and are generally bad arguments.
My argument for renewable energy and for nuclear more and other green tech is the same - i think the initial price tag for these things is higher than the fossil fuel status quo but it doesn't matter how much it costs to implement these new technologies, it much be done as quickly as possible and by any means possible and damn the price tag.
sziehr t1_iug28hb wrote
This is just simple. Solar installed costs x has a known life of y and a maintaining cost of z. These are things any accountant worth there salt will crunch and go sure let’s do they over these wild swings up and down of oil or gas speculation drilling.
Then there is direct cost to a grid they are again relatively fixed. The big issue with solar is not how many megawattts I can field it’s how I store it for the no sun periods.
Cynical_Cabinet t1_iuggfvh wrote
In the short term, solar displaces gas during the day which can massively decrease the amount of gas being burned. In the long term, more diverse network of renewables and storage will displace gas entirely.
JePPeLit t1_iuhb8bz wrote
>The big issue with solar is not how many megawattts I can field it’s how I store it for the no sun periods.
We would probably need some wind and maybe even nuclear for the night, but there are many ways to make solar more useful, including east-west transmission cables and demand response (for example charging your car or producing green hydrogen when the sun is strongest)
lightscameracrafty t1_iugf1zt wrote
that seems like not a particularly huge issue given that battery tech seems to be evolving at the same rapid click as renewables.
sziehr t1_iugjncw wrote
Fun fact storage does not mean chemical always. Tva runs a pumped hydro system to move water up and down a hill. There is a place in California doing molten salt. Chemical fast first responders will be critical going forward period , however bulk storage they may or may not win, and that’s ok
OriginalCompetitive t1_iugfvdy wrote
That’s is definitely not the case. Battery technology on utility scale has barely budged for years, and it’s still far from clear whether a practical solution will even be physically possible.
grundar t1_iuglbah wrote
> Battery technology on utility scale has barely budged for years
That is not accurate -- annual installations grew by 4x in just the last 2 years (6.3GW vs. 1.6GW globally), in large part due to the 89% cost reduction in pack prices.
Total grid storage solution prices haven't fallen by as much due to the other components (and seem to have risen this year due to supply chain issues), but in general battery grid storage has been changing rapidly in both cost and (especially) scale.
manugutito t1_iuife1f wrote
I think while it's good to know the power these batteries can provide, the capacity is ultimately more important. I wager if they work at 6.3 GW they would use up the stored energy quite quickly. Such a system could be very useful e.g. in a nuclear+renewables scenario, i.e. to get rid of gas peakers. The batteries can take care of the peaks while nuclear ramps up/down with load following.
grundar t1_iuiiwiu wrote
> I wager if they work at 6.3 GW they would use up the stored energy quite quickly.
Yes -- they're typically 4h systems.
As a point of interest, 600GWh is modeled to be enough for 90% clean electricity for the entire US (sec 3.2, p.16), supporting 70% of electricity coming from wind+solar (p.4). That's 150GW of 4h systems, vs 15GW planned installation from 2021 to 2024, so a significant increase but not unreasonably so, especially with the rate of growth of battery manufacturing.
> The batteries can take care of the peaks while nuclear ramps up/down with load following.
That would absolutely be effective (and nuclear can absolutely load-follow if designed for it), but nuclear is being added at <1/10th the scale of renewables and will take 20 years to scale up, so simple logistics have already baked in wind+solar+batteries as the drivers of decarbonizing our energy supply.
It doesn't even really matter at this point if nuclear is better and cheaper; it's just not getting built in anywhere near large enough amounts to play a meaningful role in new decarbonization before about 2040.
(That being said, I do think the US and EU should start building nuclear again so they'll have an additional source of clean energy available to deploy at scale in the mid-century. It may end up not being needed, but better to have it available and not need it than to need it and not have it available.)
cyberdork t1_iuh6m4f wrote
Nice growth, but those are extremely tiny numbers for what’s actually needed.
Still_Study_6059 t1_iuhcdtb wrote
Always starts small though, doesn't it? If it grows by 4x times every 2 years for the foreseeable future, where are we in say 10 years?
Buttercream91 t1_iuhhkx0 wrote
We will be 102,400% better than we are today, or 1024 times better.
Still_Study_6059 t1_iuhsx11 wrote
And that's with the same pace, who knows what'll be invented by then.
Lord_Snowfall t1_iugo4ve wrote
Which isn’t an advancement in the technology.
The simple and sad fact is battery technology isn’t improving that much; and while people like to pretend it’s all renewable batteries aren’t. In fact the minerals are quite finite and China is the source for a lot of them.
In reality we should be building nuclear power plants and investing in Hydrogen Fuel Cells but nobody wants to do that so we pay lip service and keep relying on fossil fuels.
Surur t1_iuh2j0c wrote
You obviously have your bias but what will you say when batteries are made of salt?
miklosp t1_iuhd0wr wrote
You can downvote /u/Lord_Snowfall as much as you want, he is currently right. Salt/graphene/iron/solid-state batteries will be great, once we can produce them at the quantity we need them. Annual installations grew, but rare metal prices have also skyrocketed and mining capacity is becoming a bottle neck.
I haven't seen any credible time-scale for storage scaling up to make solar/wind viable or cheap apart from peak hours.
We can hope this will change in next couple of decades. Currently germany is burning coal (and wood) after a decade and billions of investment in renewables.
Surur t1_iuhd6yd wrote
> he is currently right.
Good thing we are in r/futurology, right?
miklosp t1_iuhdytv wrote
Agree. And we're talking about how to get to a sustainable energy production in the future. Denying where we're currently and what's needed in the future won't help us.
Surur t1_iuhehrx wrote
>Denying where we're currently
So this was simply a lie.
> The simple and sad fact is battery technology isn’t improving that much;
I have no idea what you think you are defending. /u/Lord_Snowfall was simply wrong. In every point.
Let me break it down for you:
> Which isn’t an advancement in the technology.
This is a lie, since the fall in storage is largely due to LFP batteries, a new battery technology.
> The simple and sad fact is battery technology isn’t improving that much; and while people like to pretend it’s all renewable batteries aren’t
This is a lie, since the elements in batteries can be completely recycled and re-used. LFP batteries are constantly improving, such that 50% of new teslas are currently powered by them. This is due to improved power density.
> In fact the minerals are quite finite and China is the source for a lot of them.
Another lie. Lithium is abundant, and come from all over the world, mainly Australia and south America, currently, but potentially even USA.
So why are you supporting somewhat so ignorant?
Lord_Snowfall t1_iuhl6rs wrote
No; you pretending the tech has improved massively doesn’t make it true.
Lithium Phosphate Batteries are less energy dense than traditional Lithium-Ion batteries using other methods; and since we’re talking about them being used on scale as a reliable solution (I.E. being very energy dense and able to easily store mass amounts of power) being less energy dense is not an advancement.
No; the components cannot be completely recycled. In fact Lithium is considered non-renewable which is why we’re looking at things like Sodium Batteries. Even more importantly the parts that are recyclable don’t matter when they’re never recycled.
And no
https://www.cbc.ca/amp/1.6433301
https://www.wardsauto.com/industry-news/expert-warns-china-calling-shots-ev-battery-materials
The materials do not simple come from all over the world and “mainly Australia and South America” they come mainly from China who, unlike the rest of the world, has actually built up the industry and capacity for it. And the materials they don’t source locally mainly go to China. Ignorance is pretending China isn’t dominating the game in batteries just because it’s an inconvenient fact.
Surur t1_iuhqybd wrote
> Lithium Phosphate Batteries are less energy dense
We are talking about stationary storage, so density does not matter much. If you don't understand this, what else don't you understand?
> No; the components cannot be completely recycled. In fact Lithium is considered non-renewable
Low, WTF?
> The researchers found that batteries they made with their new cathode-recycling technique perform just as well as those with a cathode made from scratch. In fact, batteries with the recycled cathode both last longer and charge faster.
> The materials do not simple come from all over the world and “mainly Australia and South America” they come mainly from China
You obviously have a major Dunning-Keurig effect going on, so further conversation with you will only be a waste of time.
Lord_Snowfall t1_iuhjkx6 wrote
Considering Sodium Batteries are less energy dense than Lithium Batteries with the benefit not being power level but cost and material availability; I won’t be saying that our battery tech has significantly advanced in terms of storage.
It’s still not like we’ll be able to replace the combustion engine in a Boeing 747 with Batteries when they’re sodium instead of lithium.
Or think of it like this: look at your phone and computer. Over the years how much has their processing power increased? How much has their storage increased? Compare that with how much their battery has increased. The original iPhone had a 1400 mAh lithium-ion battery and max 16 GB storage and 412 mhz 90nm processor. The 14 Pro Max has a 3.46 ghz 4nm processor, up to 1 TB of storage and 4323mAh Lithium-ion battery. The battery is simply the least improved part of the phone, and that’s because battery tech hasn’t really advanced that much.
Surur t1_iuhktqp wrote
This all obviously depends on your definition of advance.
Lower cost is definitely an advance in my book.
Lord_Snowfall t1_iuhlflm wrote
We were talking about using batteries for mass storage of power to power the power grid; which is storage capacity. sziehr’s comment was literally “It’s how I store for the no sun periods”. Cost isn’t really the issue; it’s having the capacity to actually store the necessary power which is storage which we haven’t really advanced on.
Edit: Since you responded then immediately blocked me in a sad attempt to avoid having your points addressed I’ll just add my reply here.
Not really. Cost is an issue and a big one, but not really the main one. Or at least not the only major one. Part of the cost issue is from not simply the battery, but the inefficiency. You need way more power than what you want to store and a battery for one house would be huge. And the batteries don’t last that long.
Building fleets of battery farms across the world to store energy just isn’t really feasible and no matter how cheap you make them they simply aren’t efficient enough to deal with things like intercontinental flights.
We’ve seen this with things like California where they built 4 massive battery farms just 2 years ago and still has to utilize rolling black outs.
As to your other comment:
Being Stationary doesn’t really change the game that much. Yes it ignores the weight/size issue for planes but space is still at a premium. Maybe you live in North Dakota and have all the space in the world but I’m not sure how you expect England or Spain or India to have the space to build massive fleets of battery farms.
For your Cathode thing, cool? Not sure what you think you’re proving but the Cathode is just one part and it’s Metal Oxide, not Lithium.
And I said the minerals for batteries, not one single mineral and the sites I linked you spell it out. Focusing on Lithium is meaningless except to pretend like you’re right when you’re not.
Surur t1_iuhq0kl wrote
Cost is the main issue.
[deleted] t1_iuhl1k1 wrote
[deleted]
[deleted] t1_iuhl2u8 wrote
[deleted]
grundar t1_iugufoq wrote
> The simple and sad fact is battery technology isn’t improving that much
That is not accurate.
Compared to a decade ago batteries have 5x the energy density and 1/9th the cost while charging 20x as fast (17kW in 2010 vs. 350kW today).
> while people like to pretend it’s all renewable batteries aren’t. In fact the minerals are quite finite and China is the source for a lot of them.
That is not accurate.
The largest global source of lithium is Australia, which produces more of it than all other nations combined.
China is the major source of rare earth elements, but lithium batteries use no rare earth elements.
Some lithium battery chemistries use cobalt, but LFP does not, and LFP is expected to reach almost 50% market share in the next few years. It's also very well suited to grid storage, as its pros (longer cycle lifespan, greater thermal stability) are significant while its cons (lower energy density) are mostly irrelevant for grid storage.
> In reality we should be building nuclear power plants and investing in Hydrogen Fuel Cells
Neither one of those are being produced at a scale large enough to drive decarbonization over the next 10-20 years.
Like it or not, the only clean technologies being produced at a large enough scale to meaningfully drive decarbonization of global energy supply over the next 10-20 years are wind, solar, and (lithium) batteries. There are other excellent technologies that may have an impact later (notably next-gen nuclear), but those are being installed at <1/10th the scale and scaling those up will take 20 years, by which time most of the decarbonization work will have already taken place.
For a task as large as overhauling the world's energy supply, scaling up manufacturing capacity is a huge component of making it happen. That scaling has already taken place for wind and solar -- they will be 120% of new electricity added between now and 2030 -- and is taking place right now for batteries and EVs. That scaling has not taken place for nuclear ot hydrogen fuel cells, so the real-world logistical requirements of scaling mean that those technologies will not contribute significantly to decarbonization until around 2040.
It doesn't even matter if they're better techologies, it's just a matter of the sheer time it takes to build out supply chains, manufacturing capacity, and other logistics.
lightscameracrafty t1_iugh5ig wrote
Care to provide some sources because that is not even close to the consensus view in the data I’ve seen.
Kinexity t1_iugjnsu wrote
This may be true but the problem is that gas and solar do not perform the same function. Solar is day only and proportional to amount of sun light while gas is on demand which means you can't just replace gas with solar.
netz_pirat t1_iugu10o wrote
maybe not all, but an awfull lot. Because thankfully, we tend to use most energy during the day.
johndeuff t1_iuiq0cu wrote
Eh no, Most use is during night/winter.
netz_pirat t1_iuj5zl2 wrote
Not sure where you are located, but typically use during the day, when businesses are operating, people are cooking, washing,... Is higher than during the night.
In addition, in sunny areas the correlation between "it's so hot we need an ac" and "sun's out we get solar power" is not that bad.
Mtbruning t1_iuhbvyb wrote
To just name one solution, pumped hydro can be a non-battery solution to the non daylight hours. Water moved against gravity during the day to move mini-turbines at night. There are solutions. We just need to unleash our creativity.
Kinexity t1_iuhg6tg wrote
You need:
- Place for two reservoirs with height difference
- With natural environment you're willing to destroy It's not all shine and rainbows. If it was that easy we would spam them everywhere.
Mtbruning t1_iuhhf57 wrote
-
Depending on the efficiency every water tower in the country could be converted.
-
we could convert all the area currently devoted to power lines and relay stations.
For every problem you can mention there is a solution that creates a better environment (pun intended) than the current layers of infrastructure that we live with right now. Pumped hydro is just one. There is also batteries, wind, geo-thermo, wave, biochemical, hydrogen and others we haven’t even conceived of yet.
Kinexity t1_iuhk6f1 wrote
Problem is energy density and it has no simple solution. Yes, you can convert water tower into little battery but how much energy is it even going to store? Quick napkin math based on typical water tower from Google (50m in height, 4 million litres) gives us only about 555 kWh. The less energy storage we need, the better. Hydrogen could replace gas for on demand power but it's inefficient to turn power into it and back. Wind sometimes blows, sometimes doesn't just like with the sun. I'm hearing geo-thermal constantly but I have yet to hear how is it supposed in countries where there isn't that much heat in the ground compared to eg. Iceland where they have fuckton of it. Wave has yet to prove itself unless you talk here about tidal power. Batteries - energy density problem, resources problem in case of chemical ones. Biochemical - never heard of that one, you're free to drop some sources. Each of those solutions comes with problems of their own which aren't that simple to mitigate. Yes, you can use them together and maybe from combining many problematic solutions get somewhat reliable power but that takes effort and many governments don't like effort.
Mtbruning t1_iuhqfst wrote
The problem is that we have been controlling the price of fossil fuels and not allowing the power of actual capitalism to reward innovation. In the past 20 years the price of oil have ranged from $127 to 18 dollars a barrel while the price of gas has stayed relatively stable. In any other industry this would be considered price fixing. It is not in our national interest to stay with resources that require price controls to keep it stable. We need energy independence and renewables will provide that. Maintaining our current system is only benefiting those who currently control those resources and many of them are bad actors.
pinkfootthegoose t1_iuhlb6n wrote
convenient how you didn't mention batteries. yes you can replace gas with solar.
[deleted] t1_iuhxwkw wrote
[deleted]
manugutito t1_iuigc2o wrote
They were literally replying to a comment that brought forward pumped hydro...
Kinexity t1_iuhlvaw wrote
What kind of "got ya" moment is this? Batteries require fuckton of rare resources (at least chemical one like li-ion, slightly different with those liquid salt ones etc. but they have yet to scale up in production). You can deploy them on some scale (single houses, smaller towns) but it's unrealistic to think it's a solution viable at nation or global scal.
pinkfootthegoose t1_iuho0jm wrote
lithium is not rare numbskull and they are already being deployed at scale. Most people that get home solar already get batteries to go with it. It's part of the package. and nobody said that the batteries had to be lithium.
do you know what is a limited resource? gas
ChildrenAreOurDoom t1_iuhxug2 wrote
batteries mean strip-mining the earth and/or dredging the ocean floor.
There is no easy way out.
pinkfootthegoose t1_iui4vkz wrote
no it does not. unlike oil and coal right?
you have fallen for the Nirvana fallacy
lightscameracrafty t1_iuhz4uq wrote
> solar is day only
Not with batteries and other storage mechanisms.
> proportional to the amount of sun
It will definitely require a lot more physical space for the arrays than gas costs, but the tech is much cheaper so you can make up for limits in uptake by laying down more PV.
> you can’t just replace gas with solar
You could. Either way no one’s trying to do that - instead the goal is to replace gas with solar, wind, geothermal, and nuclear together.
JWKAtl t1_iuhp3ve wrote
The answer is megaflow batteries. The concept is a battery made up of tanks of liquid. The challenge is to find liquids which are inexpensive and safe.
The current technology seems to be focused on vanadium, but scientists have been working on even simpler solutions. Believe it or not, there's been a lot of research in this area involving rhubarb.
RogerAceFTW t1_iui8u7k wrote
You can if you have a battery bank large enough to store the solar energy enough to get you through the night, I mean get that and you get a self-sustaining generator and you're pretty much set to go cheap electricity that will never go out
RogerAceFTW t1_iui8xk6 wrote
Unless we get EMP'd......
JKJ420 t1_iuh5hdl wrote
The linked site is full of misleading articles. Not a great source of news.
Also. The user who posted this is most likely affiliated with the site. Just look at their post history.
Mtbruning t1_iuhc4s7 wrote
But are they wrong? The cost of staying with fossil fuels has become a national security issue. Renewable energy is the key to our countries future in more ways than one.
JKJ420 t1_iuhdop8 wrote
I'm 100% in on renewables! It's terrible sites and articles I have a problem with :-).
Omnizoom t1_iuhtmg3 wrote
The only issue is this doesn’t include storage of electricity for these to run during periods with no or little sunlight
Nuclear is cheap as well but it’s a large investment for a large output and has to much social stigma but it’s 10000x cleaner then fossil fuels…
Tombfyre t1_iuiliox wrote
I figure with the continued falling prices for renewables, and storage to some degree, we're going to continue to see increasing adoption of these methods of energy generation. As per the article, if solar is already quite a deal cheaper than gas, and is only getting more-so, then adoption just keeps on making sense. Guess we'll find out just how fast this starts to go up the adoption curve.
FuturologyBot t1_iufosmv wrote
The following submission statement was provided by /u/EnergyTransitionNews:
Operating gas-fired power plants would be 10 times more expensive in the long-term than building new solar capacity in Europe, according to research from intelligence company Rystad. Their study uses the levelized cost of energy (LCOE) for gas and coal-fired power generation at different price levels and compares it to the LCOE of solar PV and wind.
If gas funds were invested in renewables instead, Europe could replace gas with solar and onshore wind power generation by 2028, when total capacity would reach 333 GW, Rystad forecasts. This estimate assumes a weighted average capital cost for the technologies of €1.3 per watt, as well as a two-year pre-development phase.
Please reply to OP's comment here: https://old.reddit.com/r/Futurology/comments/yhraj6/new_solar_capacity_10_times_cheaper_than_gas_says/iufbixa/
[deleted] t1_iuhaxby wrote
[removed]
ComputerSong t1_iuhjqpf wrote
10 times is waaaaay low. It’s already cheaper to build a new solar array than it is to refuel a natural gas power plant once.
gh0stwriter88 t1_iuhsq6d wrote
Cost per kwh isn't a useful metric....for comparing different types of fuel.... total cost per mi driven would be including cost of the vehicle itself.
thelazycamel t1_iuhyu9k wrote
I think the southern European countries are missing out on a great opportunity with solar farms, im sure they can provide enough kw/h to supply their own needs but also export to northern Europe, I live in south of Spain and recently had solar installed, we are producing 2 to 3 times our requirements, excess goes to the electricity company and we get credits for it.
[deleted] t1_iui6nql wrote
[removed]
LordElfa t1_iujmlfx wrote
Great thing about solar is you aren't reliant on any other country to provide fuel.
AstronomerWaste8145 t1_iuiepzv wrote
Solar and wind are intermittent and therefore unsuitable for base loads. I have solar which provides more than my needs and I sell the excess back to the utility. I also included batteries.
Solar and wind will require storage to be of much value and to replace fossil fuels. This will at least double their cost and this should be included in the calculation. On the other hand, fossil fuels impose external costs due to CO2 emissions, therefore raising their prices significantly above the market price. We need to look at pumped hydro and invest more in storage technologies.
ThePrem t1_iuhhp78 wrote
It depends on what you are doing with it...powering lights and some electronics in Florida? Sure. Heating a house in NY in February? Not so much
These studies ignore too many variables
lightscameracrafty t1_iuhzj7j wrote
> heating a house in NY in February
Lol what? It’s not only theoretically possible, it actually gets done in that state and in even colder climates all the time.
ThePrem t1_iuie93i wrote
I live in NY and can assure you that electric heat is a rarity.
I am not saying its not physically possible...but its not nearly as cost effective. The calculation isn't the same. You require more solar panels to get the same amount of power due to less efficiency.
Also electric heat is 60% less efficient when producing heat (which is why its so rare). So you need to produce significantly more energy to get the same heating output. Its not a cost for 1kw solar to cost for 1kw gas comparison....its 3:1.
Someplace where there is little heating required and lots of sun will have a drastically different number than somewhere where its cold/dark.
lightscameracrafty t1_iuirk0a wrote
You’re shifting the goalposts. Plenty of NY homes are electrifying now, especially because it ends up being more cost effective than gas. The fact that gas prices keep hopping off the rails here every winter while solar is getting cheaper and cheaper is only going to exacerbate this trend.
> electric heat is less efficient
Please source this assertion as it flies entirely against the prevailing scientific consensus.
> cold/dark
Again, this is nothing but a hollow truism and completely ignores the last couple of decades in building science and scientific achievement in PV. Sorry but it just doesn’t seem like you have any idea what you’re talking about.
ThePrem t1_iuje61g wrote
I think you are confused...people are electrifying but generally not for heat. Here is a good reference for heating power sources and pros/cons and why electric heat is less efficient. This is generally accepted among the HVAC industry and is not anything controversial.
Basically it boils down to gas burning hotter than an electric coil and getting more efficient heat transfer due to a higher temperature difference between the air you are trying to heat and the heat source.
https://hbmcclure.com/is-an-electric-furnace-an-energy-efficient-option/
I also don't think its controversial to suggest that there is variability in solar panel efficiency in different regions. I provided a link below that shows the difference. Someplace like Arizona where there is more direct sunlight for longer periods in the day will have a higher efficiency than Iceland where theres 5hrs of daylight in the winter and its overcast often.
https://globalsolaratlas.info/map
The cost benefit analysis for someone in NY who uses more heat and has lower efficiency with their solar panels is completely different from someone who lives in Florida where there is a low heat load and plenty of sunlight.
Again, I am not sure what I am saying that is so controversial or shifting goal posts.
seekknowledge4ever t1_iufu81m wrote
Only now, when the climate is collapsing these changes are brought up.
If solar is cheap now, it would also be cheaper back twenty, thirty years ago if money had been poured into R&D back then - and the change to renewables would have been in full swing by now.
Yet- facing self-destruction - only now we scramble to catch up and stop relying on fossil fuels.
Manawqt t1_iuh5iaa wrote
> facing self-destruction
We're not facing self-destruction. Read the latest IPCC report or watch this short video based on it. Yes, things will get tough, and they will get expensive, and we should do everything we can to prevent it, but we will get through it.
AftyOfTheUK t1_iug0mjh wrote
>If solar is cheap now, it would also be cheaper back twenty, thirty years ago if money had been poured into R&D back then
You're failing to notice the survivor bias in this scenario.
Surur t1_iufcrzi wrote
This is mainly because gas has become very, very expensive.
From the article:
> Europe has seen skyrocketing gas prices since the drop in Russian gas exports, with spot prices on the Netherlands-based Title Transfer Facility (TTF) rising to an average €134 ($135.15)/MWh so far this year. Rystad forecasts prices will stabilize at around €31 per MWh by 2030, which puts the LCOE of existing gas-fired plants closer to €150 per MWh.