Hacker News Reader

Comment by KennyBlanken | Hacker News Reader

"Coal remains the cheapest energy source in the north."

You're about ten years behind on that claim.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cost_of_electricity_by_source

Note the charts showing solar and on-land wind dropped past coal ten years ago and kept dropping while coal has flatlined.

Also note that nuclear is getting to be four times the cost of solar. And solar is still dropping.

And before you screech about "wHaT aBOut WHen tHe SUn gOES dOWn!1!", google "cost of battery storage trends"

Hint: it's dropped to one fifth the cost it was ten years ago. It dropped 15% this year, and that's with an increase in demand of 50%. Economies of scale and competitive pressures are causing battery prices to fall like a rock.

Think about that for a second: when Tesla Powerwall was introduced (2015) the batteries in them cost 5x what they do today.

View on HN

The cost of coal went up because of regulation. I am in favor of that.

But take away the regulations - and guess what happens.

Coal is condensed energy buried in the ground and cheap to extract.

Solar and battery is high tech, mainly coming from china with the domestic production allmost died out in europe. One global escalation and the solar prices will rise - and the coal will still be there.

I am arguing against blind optimism. Not against renewables.

I think you may be comparing fuel supply for a coal plant with installing a new PV plant.

The demand of the "alternative" climate change sceptics is, to not phase out the coal plants, but have them running.

If you look at the source above, you will find that the coal prices start to rise with the implementation of renewable energy laws and tighter regulation for coal plants.

In general, a coal plant is a quite simple technology, compared to solar panels. And if all fails and if you are cold, you can just burn them. It is for a reason, that german slang for money is "coal" ("Kohle").

Coal to be warm is simple.

Coal to run a power plant, via turbines, is significantly more complicated than solar panels.

"Coal to run a power plant, via turbines, is significantly more complicated than solar panels."

A modern high tech coal plant maybe, with all the digital control, automation and filters maybe. But the basic tech is from the 19.century. A average metal workshop could build one with some time.

But solar panels? That requires high tech in all of the production steps.

You need some high quality chemical sources to make the solar panel, but once it's made it's just a fancy slab of glass that spits out power. I find that pretty simple.

Both of them require high tech to produce, now that you have to consider things like quicksilver emissions limits when setting up a plant. Measuing parts per billion and tuning the process to minimise emissions is high tech. But that's a distraction.

The key difference is that operating a coal power plant involves a logistics chain from a coal mine in a desert in Australia, and operating a PV plant involves wiping dust from the panels. One global escalation and the logistics chain is in trouble — while the panels will still be there.

The problem still exists up north where solar produces about zero energy for months. Of course, wind power is option there.

For Northern Europe there’s also hydro power. Norway is basically all hydro power plants and is well connected to its neighbours.

And there’s trash burning power (with district heating). Norway, Sweden and Denmark has a few of those. Possibly others in the region as well.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com