Hacker News Reader

It's not just that. Solar is already cheaper than other generation methods, except that it's intermittent. So it needs some kind of storage technology.

The batteries in electric vehicles are a storage technology, so all you have to do is charge your car while the sun shines. If you need the batteries anyway it makes much more sense to put them there so you can also stop burning gasoline.

Yeah I became convinced over the last couple of years that solar + batteries is pretty much the solution and all the technology is here, everything else (degrowth, nuclear) is a politically infeasible distraction. We need larger scale and faster adoption which is a whole set of challenges on its own (see CA lagging behind Texas for example in what is a complete self-own)

Solar + electric cars is an excellent solution for transportation. It's basically the whole problem gone as fast as you can build the new infrastructure.

But solar still has the same storage problem in the power grid. You need something to keep the lights on at night. Lithium batteries are cost effective when it means you can avoid the cost of the whole ICE powertrain and replace buying gas with cheap daytime solar -- which also means that the production capacity for lithium batteries is going to go there.

But then you start talking about electrifying heat, for which the peak demand is when it's colder. At night. And for that it makes sense to build some more nuclear reactors.

I’m encouraged by this graph https://ourworldindata.org/battery-price-decline - hopefully the trend can continue for a while longer!

Unfortunately, it looks like costs have stagnated in recent years: https://about.bnef.com/blog/lithium-ion-battery-pack-prices-...

This is a classic exponential curve, which infamously level out after they hit some kind of bottleneck. <insert Disco Stu meme>

It's possible that it will keep going long enough to be competitive, but it's not a safe enough bet to put all the eggs in one basket.

If we build a lot of nuclear reactors and then it turns out that storage becomes cheaper, it will cost an amount of money in line with what we currently pay to generate electricity, much of which will be paid by the investors who bet on the wrong horse. If we don't build a lot of nuclear reactors and then it turns out storage is not cheaper and so we keep burning fossil fuels, that is bad.

I’m with you on nuclear, I’m just pessimistic it’s possible today politically. I wish we all pulled a France back in the 60s, but it seems like the window on that has closed.

The main thing preventing nuclear is lobbying from fossil fuel energy companies and petroleum exporting countries. You often hear anti-nuclear claims from environmental groups, but follow the money and see who is financing them:

https://www.europarl.europa.eu/doceo/document/P-9-2022-00127...

But they lobby against anything that could practically reduce dependence on fossil fuels, not just nuclear. If you want to do anything about it you have to overcome that.

France in the 60s was a repressive colonial power with access to Uranium via their colonies.

I certainly hope we have learned the horrors of colonialism and won’t repeat that disastrous period.

Are you going to overbuild nuclear to cover the peaks? Or are you going to build for baseload and then need storage to cover the gaps?

How are you going to get people to build nuclear power plants when they could make more money on solar?

Who is going to pay to decommission nuclear power plants when they go bankrupt? Solar drives baseload plants bankrupt, which is why coal plants are going out of business.

> Are you going to overbuild nuclear to cover the peaks? Or are you going to build for baseload and then need storage to cover the gaps?

That obviously depends on the cost of storage relative to the cost of building more plants, but you don't even need to ask the question until after you've already built enough plants to replace all of the existing fossil fuel baseload, so let's start there.

> How are you going to get people to build nuclear power plants when they could make more money on solar?

Regulatory reform to address the maliciously, intentionally high cost of construction and operation, resulting in competitive prices.

> Who is going to pay to decommission nuclear power plants when they go bankrupt?

They don't get decommissioned because they don't result in that kind of bankruptcy. They cost a lot to build, but once they're built, they're going to exist for decades.

If something else turns out to be much cheaper the people who invested in it may get a below market rate of return, but still it doesn't get shut down, because the initial capital expenditure is a sunk cost that has already been paid. The incremental cost of continuing to generate power is much lower.

> Solar drives baseload plants bankrupt, which is why coal plants are going out of business.

Coal plants have a substantial fuel cost, which puts them at a disadvantage. They operate at a loss if the price of electricity drops below the price of coal, and then shut down, and then have to recover their capital costs by operating for fewer hours. Nuclear plants continue to operate at 100% output pretty much regardless of the price of electricity because their fuel cost is negligible. Notice that it's the existing coal plants going out of business and not the existing nuclear plants.

Nuclear also has untapped potential for things like cogeneration, thermal storage and on-site desalination, all of which would make it more cost competitive but are not currently being exploited.

Wind, Hydro, and batteries will all contribute to a significant baseload.

The only one of those which is actually baseload is hydro, which is already installed in most of the areas with suitable geography. You can't use wind without storage for electric heat or people will freeze to death.

Batteries are a storage technology, but we're going to be putting the bulk of battery production capacity into electrifying transportation for the foreseeable future.

First, it shouldn't be solar+storage but solar+wind+storage. Solar and wind work well together because wind is strongest at night.

Second, you need to specify what kind of storage you are talking. We will need a lot less short-term storage for overnight than we need for cloudy, calm days. Batteries make sense for short-term storage but are too expensive for long-term. Generated fuels, like hydrogen, may work well for long-term storage and we'll them for other things.

Third, we can overbuild solar and wind. It might be cheaper to make 3x or 5x than needed. Finally, we are going to need extra energy for carbon capture and generating fuels.

> First, it shouldn't be solar+storage but solar+wind+storage. Solar and wind work well together because wind is strongest at night.

The trouble is they're both intermittent, even independent of time of day. For solar that's much less trouble because the demand is higher during the day, and aligns extremely well with air conditioning load in the summer.

But if you're relying on wind at night and then there isn't any, and you also have no solar because it's night, what's left?

> Generated fuels, like hydrogen, may work well for long-term storage and we'll them for other things.

At which point you have to add the cost of production, storage and generation facilities for some other generating technology.

> Third, we can overbuild solar and wind. It might be cheaper to make 3x or 5x than needed.

But how does that fix it? Sometimes it's calm for weeks, so your wind turbines are generating at 5% capacity for that long. Are you going to overbuild by 20x? Or build enough storage to power the entire grid for that long, even if you only use it for two weeks every three or four years?

> Finally, we are going to need extra energy for carbon capture and generating fuels.

This is a generic argument for building more of any kind of non-carbon generating capacity.

Wind turns out to be pretty reliable. It gets built in places that blow regularly. It is also more reliable offshore where they are building new capacity. Also, we will definitely need short-term storage to fill in solar into the evening and night. But night time usage is small, and things like charging cars can be delayed.

Overbuilding means that can use solar and wind more of the time. Partly because wind and solar are anti-correlated, partly because you build them in different spots, and partly because there is some energy being generated. 3x means that only need a couple weeks per year need backup. 5x means that couple days per year need storage.

The generated fuel production would already exist because need them as fuel. Repurposing natural gas storage should work for hydrogen and there is lots of that available. The power plants would need to sit around but should be able to convert natural gas to hydrogen.

> Wind turns out to be pretty reliable.

> 5x means that couple days per year need storage.

But that's the problem. If you need the long-term storage at all because you have a period with ~0 output from renewables, you then need to maintain enough generating capacity to run the whole grid from something else during that period, even if you only use it once a decade. Which is enormously expensive.

> But night time usage is small, and things like charging cars can be delayed.

The night time usage is about half the peak daytime usage during the summer, and a significantly higher proportion in the winter. And it will get even higher if we switch to electric heating from fossil fuels.

You already want to be charging cars during the day anyway because solar is cheaper, but none of that is included in the existing numbers because the current number of electric cars isn't a major proportion of power consumption. We could perfectly well charge electric cars entirely from solar, but you still need to handle the existing nighttime load with something.

> all the technology is here, everything else (degrowth, nuclear) is a politically infeasible distraction.

You need to replace fossil fuels with <whatever you think is the solution>. If you are convinced that solar + batteries can do it, then you need to rethink about orders of magnitudes.

Even nuclear cannot reasonably replace fossil fuels in the timeline that we need (i.e. before global instability that may well slow down many things). Solar is far behind.

Also never forget that we are living a mass extinction right now (it is happening, it is a measurable fact), and that is solely due to human activity in a world with abundant energy. If you find a solution to replace fossil fuels, you may save what remains to be saved on the climate front, but you will finish killing biodiversity. I don't know about you, but that is catastrophic to me.

Conclusion: we need to use much less energy, and therefore we need to be more minimalistic and stop growing just for the sake of growing. It's called "degrowth", but some people don't like that word because they think it means "go back to Middle Age". Instead it just means: engineers (like everybody else) need to work hard on clever solutions that rely less on energy. That's not Middle Age, it's just not the Silicon Valley world.

> Conclusion: we need to use much less energy

Your thinking is that we can't build solar panels and nuclear reactors fast enough, but we can build housing fast enough to move a significant fraction of the population to higher density areas where they don't have to drive as much? Because that's the low-hanging fruit on energy consumption, and it's a massive scale long-term construction project with significant political opposition.

And we should still do it, if only to get housing prices out of crazyland. But what makes you think we can do it any faster than we can build generation capacity?

I don't think I said that. Actually big cities are a problem themselves, because we need trucks to bring food to cities. So I don't think we want to have super big cities either.

I guess my point generally is that it is super hard to solve, because it touches everything. But it seems clear that we won't be able to compensate for fossil energy in the needed timeline. For nuclear plants, because it's super slow to build. For solar/wind, well we can't control them (if there is no sun, you get no photovoltaic energy) and we can't properly stock the energy they produce. And in any way, changing everything everywhere to work with electricity instead of fossil fuels is super hard, time consuming, and won't work for everything (oil is used for everything, not just cars).

So yeah, it's super challenging, it requires a lot of work and care everywhere. But the first step is to accept that we can't solve the problem by throwing more technology to it. We need to use technology wisely to get as much energy as we can, but in any case we have to drastically reduce our consumption, and therefore change society.

> Solar is already cheaper than other generation methods...

In a world that mostly relies on abundant fossil energy. We tend to ignore that and interpolate from "solar improved 3x in the last year, so in X years it will have replaced oil", but that is just wrong. Solar today depends on fossil fuel, and it is absolutely not a given that it can ever replace it (e.g. see next point).

> ... except that it's intermittent.

Yep. So it's not enough. We are at a point right now where it is very likely that what we cannot change anymore (the consequences of what we already emitted) will already cause global instability. I find it crazy that people have the faith to count on technology that does not exist yet.

We need to use (much, much) less energy, that is the only solution. People don't like the word "degrowth", so let's call it differently: let's say we need a "smarter society": less bullshit, less over-consumption, more efficient everything, more minimalistic everything. Probably cryptocurrencies, cheap rockets and SUVs are not part of this world, though.

The production of solar panels requires lots of energy which currently uses fossil fuels. But the whole point of making solar panels is to decarbonize energy. We will need to use fossil fuels for a while longer to make the transition.

You didn't mention why this transition isn't possible. There is also not enough green energy currently to stop using fossil fuels. It is either transition or death.

You mention things that have a small effect. They would be good to get rid but they won't get us there. To use much less energy, we would need to give up cars, trains, AC, and heat. You probably say we should bicycles, and we should, but guess what gets used to make bicycles. We might have to give up food since industrial agriculture is required to feed everyone.

> You didn't mention why this transition isn't possible. There is also not enough green energy currently to stop using fossil fuels. It is either transition or death.

Nope: I mean that green energy is just not capable of replacing fossil fuels, just by looking at orders of magnitude. Thinking that it is possible by extrapolating some graphs is just naive. It is not, that's all.

Of course we need to build alternatives (both nuclear plants and renewables), but they will only cover a fraction of fossil fuels. Don't under-estimate fossil fuels, they are extremely efficient energy.

> To use much less energy, we would need to give up cars, trains, AC, and heat. [...] We might have to give up food

That's the whole point of degrowth: prioritize what you can keep. Planes will mostly disappear, that's pretty much a fact. Food has to stay under some form, quite obviously (but meat will mostly disappear).

We are at a point where it is about survival: we need to organize our society and cities such that people don't starve in the next few decades. Let's be optimistic, I believe we can still keep a modern society. But probably we won't change smartphone every year, and people living in cities won't own a car.

Food accounts for 26% of emissions. 31% of that is meat. Nearly all of the usage is fossil fuels so decarbonizing electricity won't help unless electrify agriculture. Turn off the fossil fuels, the combine harvesters stop running and half of people die (the peasant farmers of Asia are fine). People mention permaculture as alternative, but that requires lots of labor. Is the plan that everybody becomes a peasant?

The problem with talking about smartphones and planes is that they aren't enough. For example, a big portion of energy usage is heating and cooling homes. Are you saying people need to give up AC and die in the summer? Or give up heating and die in the winter? Obviously, we should insulate houses, but like solar panels, that takes fossil fuels.

Agricultural machinery can be electrified. There are alternatives to fossil fuel fertilizers. Land use can be prioritized in such a way to significantly lower the need of chemical fertilizers while maintaining current yield. Lowering the production of meat and other animal products will yield much more consumed calories per grown calorie.

The transformation of agriculture is inevitable or we will all die.

Similarly homes can be insulated, roofs can be made of heat reflecting materials, trees can be grown to provide shade. We can build cooling centers in cities.

> Are you saying people need to give up AC and die in the summer?

I am precisely saying that we need to prioritize. I would rather survive the summer and not fly far away on holiday than die in the summer.

> Is the plan that everybody becomes a peasant?

Well big cities are a problem, and people working in services definitely rely on a society built on abundant energy.

I don't know exactly what the solution is. What I know is that our society is built on fossil fuel, and not only those are limited, but they are killing us. So we need to remove fossil fuels. Then looking at the numbers, it appears that we can't reasonably hope to replace fossil fuels entirely. Hence we have to use less energy, hence we have to degrow.

I hardly advise reading https://www.amazon.com/World-Without-End-Blain-Christophe-eb..., that's from a well-known french engineer.

All scenarios where we rely entirely on renewables assume we can scale storage (or very special locales where there is abundant hydro or reliable year-round favourable weather).

But to make knowledge scalable storage simply does not exist beyond maybe 48hrs. It may well come, but it's not here.

For some reason some people assume it is not a problem.

It's 50%. It's significant, as much as gas car economy improvements over a few decades. We should of course still take it, but it's not nearly enough.

We need a order of magnitude improvement to make the globally growing car use remotely sustainable. Reducing car usage can be done many ways, eg ensuring gas is taxed enough that gas-based cars don't stay in everyday use, and developing non car transport and urban structure.

The only nuance is that it's often better to continue using your existing car than buying a new ev. That's the only situation I've heard any real suggestions that ice is more environmental than an ev.

What's the story for safe disposal/recycling of used batteries?