Hacker News Reader

This is all true except for the fact that storage is not incredibly expensive anymore, which invalidates every single conclusion you reach. Storage is now reasonably affordable, and the trend suggests it will soon be incredibly cheap.

Which will make the problems of the rich disappear and the problems of the poor and the state ... worse. (because the costs of the state are paying off loans for expensive generation, costs which they recover from the poor)

The state can default on the loans too. It sucks and it will make future financing more difficult. But it remains an option. No such thing as risk-free lending.

... which would cut off imports in a non-self-sufficient state (Pakistan is a country that if it ever were isolated internationally, the people would just start dieing). For the poor the situation is simple: either they pay the loans or they lose everything they have and probably even die of hunger.

A lot of muslim and African states are in that boat. If the US, yes, the international monetary system is under US control, frankly because nobody else will pay for it. If the US ever decides not to cover Pakistan's debts starvation is exactly what will happen in Pakistan.

Idk there have been other examples of bigger sovereign defaults - Argentina (multiple times), Thailand, Mexico - that didn't have anything like that effect. I'm not an economist or an expert on this topic. But investors losing their money due to changing market conditions is pretty common.

Not true.

The largest battery systems in operation are primarily designed for short-duration grid support rather than long-term, multi-day backup. They can even bridge a single windless night.

And this is talking about short term mismatch between supply and demand in a 24 hour cycle. If you consider the need to account for the yearly seasonal generation variation (which is far more dramatic as most of the developed world is situated on high latitudes) battery storage becomes even more problematic due to the absurd capital expenditures for a resource that you'd have to charge with a dramatic production supply during the summer months to slowly discharge during the winter.

People have been misled with the convenient lie of LCOE for too long, when what really matters are the true system costs. We don't even have in place the supply chain to sustain this, and I am not even talking about Lithium or Cobalt, I am talking about plain old Copper.

Then, there are the capital requirements for recycling and decommissioning, as the useful life of such systems is unfortunately not something to write home about.

Think about it. We have spent too much time and money on solar and wind, money that could have been spent on nuclear power. The clock is ticking, replacing our grid with solar may be the wet dream of big finance, but it is not a reasonable solution, it is about time we stop wasting our time with it.

Absolutely true.

I don't know why you're even talking about nuclear when that's not something an individual can do at their scale. It's not relevant to this conversation. But everything you've just said about it is wrong.

LCOE, when LCOE is calculated correctly, is absolutely the right measure and absolutely includes the true system cost including storage to bring it up to a similar level of availability and decommissioning (incidentally decommissioning is way higher cost for nuclear than batteries so it's weird that you try to cite it).

Even if we switch gears from talking about individual generation to grid scale generation nuclear done safely is simply too expensive. Solar and battery storage are cheaper than it in sunny places today, they were cheaper than it in sunny places a year ago, and their price is and has been consistently falling exponentially while nuclear's price stays about constant.

Those prices are including the absolutely massive subsidies that are given to nuclear, in every form from government investment in the technology to government absorbing the vast majority of the insurance cost by not requiring they are insured to anywhere close to even a small fraction of the full amount of damage they could cause in a worst case disaster.

The only fantasy here is that nuclear is somehow going to suddenly buck the trend of staying at about constant price and start falling in price even more exponentially than solar and batteries have been to catch up. Spending money on nuclear only serves to prolong the climate crisis by taking away money from actual scalable solutions like solar that can outcompete with fossil fuels on cost.

You don't build storage for yearly cycles, you build it for daily cycles (which is affordable today) and overbuild solar to account for seasonal variation in generation and demand. Note that even things like nuclear have to be overbuilt for seasonal variation in demand, and to account for the fact that there is maintenance and sometimes some of your plants are down.

I was obviously talking about grid scale, that's what matters.

I have solar Li-ion and hybrid inverters at my home, basically because I foresee more frequent blackouts in the future. Part of the cost of my system is generously paid by poorer consumers, because I still have net-metering in my country (talk about subsides).

Nuclear power is one of the most insanely regulated industries due to the misinformed work of science denier green militants and populist politics. Talking about subsides ignoring all the red tape nuclear is a common tactic behind the propaganda of big finance and big green corrupt interests.

LCOE is absolutely the right measure only in two cases:

1) You have a financial interest on selling intermittent power or/and 2) You're hopeless ignorant about both the physics and the economics of a power grid.

> I was obviously talking about grid scale, that's what matters.

As demonstrated by the fine article, it is not the only scale that matters.

> Nuclear power is one of the most insanely regulated industries due to the misinformed work of science denier green militants and populist politics.

Nuclear power is a highly regulated industry for two very very good reasons

- It's incredible destructive power if you cut corners. See chernobyl and then realize that it was far from a worst case and every nuclear power plant has the capacity to do 1000x worse than that if enough corners are cut. No other form of energy, not even fossil fuels with global warming, comes close in terms of potential downside per kwh generated. And humans inevitably cut corners in the absence of a strong regulatory regime.

- It's incredible destructive power if weaponized, potentially resulting in species ending wars.

You're showing your own ignorance with regards to LCOE.

It’s not reasonably affordable by any real “middle class” metric and the impact a reliable grid has on the industrial and commercial base of an economy is being undervalued by an utterly laughable degree during these discussions. Westerners and rich folks take it for granted as a fact of life at this point.

The duck curve is a rounding error when discussing energy storage.

The storage needed to turn solar into a reliable (as any comparable fossil fuel power plant) dispatchable source of power, plus the cost of the solar in the first place, costs less than other sources of dispatch-able power (like gas) in sunny places per kwh.

It also scales down better (though not perfectly).

Either you can afford it (both storage and solar), or you can't afford power at all, or you don't live in a sunny place.

Ignoring sunk capital costs into other energy infrastructure of course. If you already have a working nuclear power plant you're not going to save money by randomly turning it off and switching to something else, for instance.

Well, I certainly can’t make a couple weeks of battery storage pencil out vs. a fossil fuel generator at this point.

The math actually gets worse once you get into combined cycle natural gas at scale.

You I suppose could make an argument that load curtailment is cheaper than planning for the current grid reliability everyone has gotten used to over the past 50 years, but it would be a societal shift.

Seasonal energy storage is what is interesting to discuss, and of course is where that last 2% of grid reliability comes from. It’s also the most expensive part of running a grid. The first watts are basically free, the last are very expensive.

I’d love to be proven wrong within the next decade though! I just personally don’t see the battery storage price going down at the same rates it has been simply due to structural raw material input cost reasons - short of a breakthrough in chemistry. I think we are getting close to the maximum savings achieved by economies of scale with current technology.

You shouldn't need a couple weeks of battery storage - if you're in a sunny place. For example Las Vegas should be able to reach 97% uptime of constant energy supply (greater than your typical fossil fuel plants uptime) by building ~17 hours worth of storage and ~6x the amount of power needed in the nameplate capacity of the solar panels. Even a slight bit of curtailment, the kind already done on western grids, to reduce load when the weather calls for a bunch of clouds, or uncorrelated energy production (e.g. wind, which won't necessarily go down on the odd cloudy day, or for on-grid cases just transmission lines to solar somewhere else, or a backup generator), pushes that much further to 100%.

Seasonal energy storage is uninteresting, you just overbuild the energy production instead. This is already done for every existing type of energy production to account for seasonal variation in demand.

If batteries became cheap enough where you could do days instead of hours affordably it pushes this sort of calculus into less sunny places as well, and there's every reason to think that they will become that cheap (perhaps not cheap enough to make weeks reasonable though).

> Seasonal energy storage is uninteresting, you just overbuild the energy production instead. This is already done for every existing type of energy production to account for seasonal variation in demand.

It’s the only thing that is interesting, considering you just hand-wove that last 3% of reliability away with vague “backup generators” and “transmission lines to other places”. Both immensely expensive items if they are idle 97% of the time.

I’m not interested in the least about having my grid availability at 97% - in a cherry picked location ideal for solar.

I’m totally fine overbuilding nameplate capacity for my solar field - already plan to by about 8x due to where I live. Panels are cheap! At least that problem seems more or less solved.

The issue is I have no realistic means to store that energy for even days much less weeks when the sun doesn’t shine. A small wind turbine can help a bit, but doesn’t get rid of the need for a backup generator.

The same holds true at grid scale currently - which is both a more important topic and more interesting to discuss than some rich tech bro being able to brute force his off-grid solar+battery install.

Someone needs to back that last 3% with something like a combined cycle natural gas plant. That amount of capital investment sitting idle is exceedingly expensive. The only thing you are saving much money on vs. running it all-out is fuel costs - you still need to staff it.

A national grid sounds pretty neat, but would both be crazy expensive and is so politically untenable that I don’t expect to see it seriously even discussed in my lifetime. Just a small amount of time spent in the rural areas of the country made me realize how utterly impossible it would be due to NIMBY.

Again, to me at least that last 3% is where everyone hand-waves and makes it someone else’s problem. At some point though you run out of other people’s power.

I do wish we had not destroyed our nuclear industry into irrelevance, as 50 more years of experience and hands-on construction knowledge pushing that tech forward might have had us in a far different place today!

And fwiw I do hope I’m wrong. Perhaps energy storage gets to the point we can keep a fully reliable inexpensive grid for the common folks and industry to rely upon. I’ve certainly been wrong before!

You understand that fossil fuel and nuclear plants are typically less reliable (have a lower availability factor) than that right? Every form of power generation has downtime, and needs balancing with other types or accepting that downtime. Solar tradeoffs low mechanical complexity for higher environmental dependence, but ends up with similar (in fact less) downtime here under unfavorable assumptions (100% of energy coming from a single point source of solar, constant energy load not your typical lower energy from consumption energy at night, no ability to shed load with price signalling or curtailment).

The last 3% is left alone because it's the fair comparison to other energy sources... tilted in the direction of favoring the other energy sources.

> It’s the only thing that is interesting, considering you just hand-wove that last 3% of reliability

The 3% issue doesn't come from seasonal variation, it comes from short term weather patterns where you might have a week of heavy cloud cover. Seasonal variation is trivially solved by simply increasing the multiplier on nameplate capacity (and the 6x for Los Vegas includes that increase). It's always going to be easier to generate an extra 25% energy than to store 25% of your energy produced in summer and use it in winter.

> “backup generators” and “transmission lines to other places”. Both immensely expensive items if they are idle 97% of the time.

On the contrary both things that exist anyways. Every place that cares about consistent power already has backup generators for when nonsense happens like power poles being blown over. Transmission lines exist to allow sale of excess production. It's only at tiny scales where these things aren't pre-existing and at those tiny scales overbuilding solar and batteries even more is so much cheaper than the alternatives (like building redundant gas plants disconnected from the grid, or even just redundant diesel generators) that they win by a mile.

An understated win of the storage model here is that these generators don't have to be able to supply the entire load, they just have to be turned on in advance when the weather forecast says there might be a problem to slow the drain on the batteries.

PS. I don't know what country you're from, but it seems a bit crazy to me that you apparently used to have a nuclear industry but apparently don't have a national grid... If you have actual weeks where the sun doesn't shine and no grid... you aren't in a sunny place... so you can still brute force it of course but done efficiently a lower percentage of solar makes sense.

Fossil Fuel and Nuclear Plants are extremely reliable, surpassed only for coal. You're doing a rhetorical sleight of hand by deliberately confusing scheduled downtime with reliability.

You keep on citing dubious numbers from the Big Green lobby, but the reality is. There's not a single place on this planet where after a certain threshold of penetration solar and wind haven't made supply less reliable, haven't caused economic sustainability issues to generators and haven't made power absurdly more expensive to customers.

Not to mention the frequently forgotten issues of toxic waste in production and decommissioning, the toxic fire hazard of giant battery banks and the pathetic short useful life of intermittent power infrastructure. Not to mention the environment impact of such big land gobblers, cynically overlooked by the same folks that decided to destroy nuclear with mountains of bureaucratic red tape deliberately created to suffocate it by ignorant green politicians.

Solar may have a bigger place, in countries with plenty of sun like Brasil, the Middle East or North Africa where residential and commercial consumption peaks with air conditioning usage during peak solar production, and with long days, but even then, absent some magical storage technology that doesn't exist yet, with limits.

Pretending scheduled downtime and rare emergency shutdown of dispatchable power sources are the same as intermittent sources of power is getting to the point of a disingenuous argument. They are not remotely comparable, and they are typically not correlated outages. You simply overbuild these sources by a tiny percentage to account for such things - no one cares if 5% of your nuclear goes offline randomly. It’s not the same thing as 100% of your solar going away at exactly the same time.

Cherry picking Las Vegas - a desert - for solar is also somewhat silly. The midwestern US would be much more like a global average. I could also choose Alaska if you want silly arguments.

Seasonal also doesn’t mean seasons - it means seasonal in the mathematical statistical sense where every 5-10 years in a spot you get a week or two of both sun not shining and little wind output. No amount of overbuilding capacity will ever solve for that - you need energy storage or available dispatchable sources in the form of chemical, hydrocarbon, hydro, or nuclear.

The last 3% is almost all that matters when you are talking grid reliability for the masses and industry. Factories cannot operate without reliable sources of power, and asking every major consumer of power to have backup generation on-site is a massive amount of capital overhead. And completely untenable for perhaps 60% or more of residential consumers.

I’d love to be wrong, but watching everywhere that is getting close to solar and wind saturation is pretty telling. Basically every watt of solar at this point needs to be backed by a dispatchable power source or it’s going to end horribly. It’s great that we were able to replace burning fossil fuels when conditions are favorable - but we need to be real and recognize the costs involved here.

Investing in the natural gas power industry was the easiest layup I ever had investing since this was so predictable in the 2020-2021 green power delusion era. It was obvious to anyone that if solar projects went ahead as projected that natural gas was coming along with it.

I love solar and wind generation and want to see it spammed everywhere possible. I just hate the grifters that currently are endemic to it.

All these problems become solved if you have realtime market pricing.

Nobody would bother to install rooftop solar if daytime power was super cheap on every sunny day, yet expensive at night when their solar isn't working.

Wouldn't this model price out poor people? Doesn't that mean the most vulnerable people cant afford the services when they need them most, ie max hot/cold?

Changing the utility to a market sort of defeats the point of trying to optimize the utility.

A typical user still pays the same on average in a market.

Just they might pay more in some hours and less in others.

Some market systems have gotten bad press over huge bills (eg. Texas), but that only happens when only a small chunk of users participate in the market, whilst others are on fixed pricing and therefore don't care about usage.

When everyone participates, supply and demand make sure the price never goes super high, simply because there are enough people who will turn off stuff to save money.

It’s better to give welfare / benefits directly to help poor people in that situation, rather than fix prices to make energy appear artificially scarce during daylight and abundant at night.

On the contrary right now poor people are subsidizing fat cats like me that were early enough to have net metering

My solar system has a battery than smooths out the generation over a day or two so that I can satisfy my night time demand too.

This exact issue lead me to follow the grid orchestration research out of the Oak Ridge Laboratory. The building blocks already exist to enable this. An interconnected smart network of renewables can become a stabilizing force in the overall grid. Off-peak storage would still be required, but would no longer need to be "stabilizing" (turbine or other similar generator), and can be simple batteries.