Hacker News Reader

Comment by fallingknife | Hacker News Reader

Everybody always says that solar + storage is cheaper. And sometimes there are even studies to support it. But if that's true where is it?

View on HN

China mostly:

2021 figures:

> China was the biggest contributor, adding 121 GW to the continent’s new capacity. Europe and North America—led by the USA—took second and third places respectively, with the former adding 39 GW, and the latter 38 GW.

81% of new electricity generaton build globally was renewables last year.

I don't dispute the economics of renewable generation on the existing grid. I'm talking about storage as replacement for baseload, which is purely hypothetical at this point. Right now we have very small scale storage as peaker capacity, but not as a baseload replacement.

Storage doesn't replace baseload.

Did the pumped hydro dams they built alongside nuclear power plants replace the baseload? No, they took the cheap energy that was produced at times when it wasn't needed and provided it back at peak times. They literally increased the base load by propping it up when it would otherwise droop at night (mostly).

Storage does, in fact, supply base load. That is its purpose.

Today, storage runs (i.e. supplies) when electricity prices peak, which broadly matches high demand.

It charges, when electricity prices are low, which generally means off peak overnight.

In a future renewable grid, with zero dispatchable power it might be used on occaision to help meet the baseload, but it's almost certainly going to be used more during demand peaks, because that's when most electricity is used. Maybe in equatorial regions with a lot of solar, not much wind and no other energy sources it'll share baseload duties with the solar that charges it during the day, but unless the term baseload has lost all meaning (which I fear it has) storage is not ever providing baseload, since that would imply supplying that amount constantly and storage needs to absorb more energy than it returns.

I can't see a definition of 'baseload' provider that storage meets that solar doesn't for example.

That does not discuss storage AT ALL.

True solar with storage is not economical.

PV + storage is cheaper than nuclear:

https://www.lazard.com/perspective/levelized-cost-of-energy-...

(you have to compare cost of nuclear on first page with wholesale PV+storage energy on subsequent pages).

Storage cost is falling even faster than solar. Renewables + storage beats everything, hands down.

They are building massive pumped hydro storage too. A lot of closed-loop PHS is being built by China. Closed loop PHS doesn't have same ecological issues as traditional dams, but is not as trendy as batteries and has almost same political issues as traditional dams in west. So, it is generally ignored.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_pumped-storage_hydroel...

In fact, there are NO studies that demonstrate that solar or wind AND STORAGE, are able to produce CONSISTENT power for a full year anywhere.

The only studies you'll see are that they proved to be economical on a certain day, or maaaybe overnight. ...but there are zero studies that any solar and/or wind (even combined), can provide consistent power for a full year. ...because that is not currently possible with economical tech.

It’s worse than that. Storage can, at best, provide for some interval of backup while wind/solar aren’t providing enough power.

The problem is that “100 year”, “1,000 year” or worse events will require more than currently stored. Then, potentially millions of people will be at risk of injury or death from cold or heat.

Reliable generation of at least enough to cover survival seems necessary.

That's what hydrogen (stored underground at a storage capacity cost of $1/kWh) is for.

> “100 year”, “1,000 year” or worse events

Okay, then we can keep gas power stations around for another 100 years and only turn them on for the few days they are needed. Probably, though, after 50 years we will have solved climate change and energy storage (or wiped ourselves out) anyway.

Anytime local storage runs low and transmission line capacity is exceeded, you order a shipment of synthetic ammonia or hydrogen from the tropics. There will be plenty competing for your business.

Top five countries with the highest wind energy capacity in 2020

    China – 288.32 GW. ...
    United States – 122.32 GW. ...
    Germany – 62.85 GW. ...
    India – 38.63 GW. ...
    Spain – 27.24 GW.

This means nothing if you don't factor in storage, or at least measure the CONSISTENT power output.

These are just PEAK numbers that are totally useless when planning a grid.

So, factor in storage. And, those are not peak.

Waiting for the CO2 taxes to rise high enough to drive off fossil fuels.

Many people support CO2 taxes to raise the price of fossil fuels when gas prices are low. When gas prices are high I see very few people cheering it on or attempting to claim credit for all their great work to raise the price.

It's tough to really get that ball rolling if that's your goal due to this marketing issue.

Without CO2 taxes, we're globally screwed. I expect they will be forced through, and confiscatory tariffs on trade with countries that refuse to impose them.

It's hard to say how it will go. It's entirely possible carbon capture will become cheap enough that a couple of rich countries can just capture all the necessary carbon for the whole globe and it will be a rounding error in their budget. Then other countries can burn all the oil/coal they want and it will only be a local pollution problem rather than an existential risk to the globe.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com