Hacker News Reader

Comment by robomartin | Hacker News Reader

BTW, without batteries the same solar system would cost about ten trillion. However, because you would be subject to the realities of solar power generation [0], the actual system would probably have to be at least three times larger...which brings us back to the 30 to 40 trillion range.

[0] Real 13 kW system daily output

https://i.imgur.com/LTMNDO1.png

View on HN

I think at scale, the method used in Chile with the Cerro Dominador[0] using CPVCSP could be adopted. Their system was about $1B for 210MW and has ~17.5 hours of storage.

So ~$4.76B for 1GW or ~$4.76T for 1000GW.

This also ignores future upgrades with would use sCO2 turbines vs typical steam and higher delta_C molten salts (typical delta_C now is only 300 for KNO3 + NaNO2 + NaNO3, but systems using CaCl2 + MgCl2 would have a delta_C of ~1500, and meta-material salts could be engineered with even higher delta_C) so the same solar fields can have even higher outputs.

[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cerro_Dominador_Solar_Thermal_...

Are you assuming batteries as the only storage to get to 100% renewables? If so, please don't make that bad assumption. It will be cheaper to shave off the last 10% or so with hydrogen rather than batteries. Also, adding wind to the solar reduces storage requirements.

You cant make statements like that without looking at the math. That's the problem. Every time I look at the reality of implementing such systems I run into the reality that the cost, complexity and timelines just don't align with the imagined benefits.

I could be wrong. You could be 100% correct. I just have not found evidence to support these ideas. It all sounds good until math and physics do their jobs.

Let's look at math. Specifically, let's look at the cost for renewables + storage to provide synthetic baseload, a drop-in replacement for baseload source like nuclear.

https://model.energy/

The $40/W figure you get is utter nonsense.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com