Solar, Wind and Battery Power Discussion

Off-topic replies.

We probably agree ““free”” should be in quotes, but for different reasons. I didn’t know a country so heavily regulated like the US is a free market.

Oh, so now South Africa, a heavily regulated and somewhat oppressed place, with people still infighting based on racial identity is the pinnacle of anarcho-capitalism? Got it. If SA was such a free market economy, Facebook and Google wouldn’t have their on-paper HQ in Ireland, but in SA. And no, Ireland isn’t a free market, it just has low taxes.

Just so everyone knows, China will not maintain its title of the “world’s manufacturing center,” because slowly the quality of living and the paychecks started moving up (which is a good thing for the people of China). The cycle is going to repeat itself though for a while, India is posed to become the next to own that title. After India, probably a country in South America, maybe Brazil or Argentina, after some companies start some heavily lobbying the government for lower taxes and less regulation, after which production will be moved over.

Texas tried to avoid federal regulations and ended up enforcing their own grid insanity. Funnily enough, the state law encourages people to live off-grid, but local zoning laws do the opposite, forcing people to connect to the grid. And when you’re forced into something, you’re basically ensuring that no matter what, someone will be getting paid. That’s not how markets work.

Letting that aside, as that was not my point, the reason I brought up the situation there, no matter the root cause, was for pointing out that people who had gas generators and other amenities came together and helped others. Other charities, like churches and co-ops opened their doors for people to come and in, stay warm and have something to eat.

One thing I miss from Europe (I lived a lot of my life in Eastern Europe) is the less reliance on electricity. There’s a lot more gas stoves, gas water heaters and at the countryside, wood heaters. The US and a lot of Western Europe is so dependent on electricity (electric water heaters, central AC, electric stoves etc.). These are really inefficient. Why in the world would you burn gas to produce electricity, have a lot of wasted heat, then use electricity to produce heat. It makes way more sense to use the gas to make heat directly.

^This.

It’s insane how we’re forced to separate recyclable trash in a separate bin, only to have both bins picked up by the same truck. Getting your trash to an actual disposal facility might be a better thing to do for the planet (besides, there’s some good things to find there, people throw away bricks and surplus construction materials that you can use for projects around your house - actual recycling).

Debt can only be paid if you have a sane spending policy, which neither the EU nor the US has. Funnily enough, Argentina got its first balanced budget in a long time, had a budget surplus from taxes and got the approval of the IMF (Argentina is the biggest borrower from the IMF). I don’t see the EU or US pay off their debts any time soon.

I agree. Being independent means being freer and allows you to live a better life. People are focusing too much on earning more money and become dependent on things outside of their control. Some people are smart enough to reverse that - don’t try to earn a lot of money, because that’s not a good security. Instead, try to live a life spending as little as possible and be sufficient enough that crisis won’t affect you.

You have no control over when either a greedy multi-billion $ corporation or some government agency or council suddenly decide to raise your prices on say electricity (since we’re on the topic of solar panels). Having some amount of control over the energy production allows you to act like nothing happened. Electric prices went up? Don’t really care, as I barely use any grid electricity. There’s a water shortage? I have enough potable water reserves to last a while, I’ll just have to shower a bit less often, until the situation improves. Gas stoves are now illegal? Don’t care, I cook with induction stoves and a solar oven. All the carpenters charge you an arm and a leg for a very piss-poor job? I have the tools and enough knowledge to do about 80% as good of a job for way less money and a bit more time spent on my side.

I agree with you. People get scammed by sales-people (as if that’s news). People should go solar where it makes sense, but people need to do their own calculations and size their systems appropriately. These sales people’s interest is to sell you as much capacity as they can get away with and charge you a lot of installation services. Very few people are likely to recover from that.

I’m a big fan of DIY, because one doesn’t need to be an electrician to do it (although it’s a good idea to call one to check out the installation before one powers it on). That saves money on sizing and offers the option to go small at the beginning and if demand it higher, it’s a very easy process to upgrade (when you install a system, you should leave some space for upgrading in the future, it’s not that much more expensive to add thick bus-bars and leaving a few spots empty).

I agree space might be a problem (but then there’s “hippies” like Kris De Decker who installed solar panels in an apartment he rents, so there’s some options for space savings and sustainable options - which lead to a lot of savings and independence).

I don’t agree with complicated installation and maintenance, but I’m not sure where you’re coming from. People like Will Prowse show you how to do stuff yourself (for free on youtube, or you can buy his book). Solar installations can be very minimal and very maintainable. If you plan ahead, even upgradable.

It’s more about battery replacement. It doesn’t matter that they barely use any, they still use some (way more electricity than a microcontroller would). And using ice as a “store of energy” makes sense. Water is available anywhere. In certain cases, sun might not always be available for prolonged periods (like Iceland or Greenland). Heck, I had a friend in Germany who stored his food outside on his window sill during winter (the whole neighborhood was doing the same). He probably didn’t need to do that, but it was more of an exercise (and since it was more of a local cultural thing, why not).

Actually, have you heard of the “Solar Protocol?” It’s a decentralized server software that serves websites from the places that have the most solar input, to save on the battery of the servers that are running at night.

So, like a Content Delivery Network (CDN) that prioritises clean energy availability over geographic proximity. Clever!

1 Like

I share the same view that solar isn’t feasible at scale…

I see the growth of solar being exclusively driven by state adoption not the private sector. Considering the massive subsidies over many years the growth of solar has been extremely poor. The idea was that economy of scale was supposed to take effect at some point and growth would start happening organically but at this point I think it’s safe to say that it hasn’t and even further, that it won’t.

Absolutely, without question yes.

I struggle to find reason to believe that when the subsidies dry up that solar will remain viable on it’s intrinsic merits.

2 Likes

Fossil fuels were used to generate electricity for street lighting as far back as the late 1870s following a Russian engineer’s demonstration at the 1878 Paris world fair. The generation was subsidised by local governments.

Roll on nearly 150 years and, according to the International Monetary Fund:

Globally, fossil fuel subsidies were $7 trillion or 7.1 percent of GDP in 2022 … Subsidies are expected to … rise to $8.2 trillion by 2030

FACT: Fossil-fuel-based electricity production has always been subsidised.

If fossil-fuel-based electricity production was “viable on it’s intrinsic merits” then you would presume that subsidies would have been withdrawn decades or even a century ago. Since that has not happened — according to your own logic — fossil-fuel-based electricity generation is not viable.

That now places you in an uncomfortable situation. Since electricity has always been subsidised, and there is no sign of that ending, you have to either:

  1. Accept the reality that “the electrical grid” you know and love wouldn’t even be possible without subsidies, and so grudgingly accept that subsidies aren’t as terrible as you thought they were, and should probably be cut some slack, or

  2. Continue to argue against solar on the basis of it “not being viable without subsidies” whilst knowing that fossil-fuels aren’t, either — rendering you intellectually-dishonest and a hypocrite.

So… what’s it going to be?

PS: Please don’t take the above as a personal attack. I’m just pointing out that the “subsidy” argument is fundamentally flawed. Anyone who holds it is in a similar position.

1 Like

What’s the feasibility of this? I feel like this is one of those “if it’s feasible, it’s obviously good” things.

1 Like

many such instances

government subsidies
outlaw your competitors and receive blank checks from governments that are more concerned with climate change than manufacturing their own semi conductors.

2 Likes

Just in Europe:

Red lines indicate submarine power links already in operation. (Some have been for decades.) Green is decided/under construction. Blue is planned.

Full list of HVDC projects.

And the record-breaking inter-continental HVDC that should be operational by 2030:

1 Like

Nordic wind power ate $800,000,000 in 6 years then went bankrupt.

If feasible, it would have succeeded.

2 Likes

This is a solar discussion.

“Solar can’t work without subsidies because one wind project failed” is not even an argument.

The entire “subsidy” argument is fundamentally flawed, as detailed previously. You only have two choices. What’s it going to be?

PS: As much as I like wind, solar has the lowest LCOE and there’s nothing in the works that will change that. What that means is that once solar and wind have eaten fossil-fuel’s and nuclear’s lunch, they will turn on each other… and solar will win.

That wasn’t my logic at all… that’s a straw man.

Twisting my claim that solar should be advancing on it’s own merits which I don’t believe it is, into because fossil fuels (which I didn’t even mention) are also subsidized I have no choice but to accept your point of view or admit that I’m a “intellectually dishonest hypocrite”… but don’t take it personally.

Please… talk about intellectual dishonesty…

I’m interested in discussing solar not entertaining absurd logical fallacies and veiled personal attacks so you and I are done.

If anyone else has examples of thriving communities springing up due to solar energy in any form please share but afaik there still aren’t any. I really though the mirror based collectors and molten salt storage setups were going to be viable but even that seems to have failed to gain traction.

1 Like

Yeah ,this is the sort of thing I’m looking at for feasibility. Guess we’ll have to watch it.

2 Likes

If every energy source is subsidised then why do you want to deny solar the same advantage? Why should solar be expected to advance on its own merits when no other energy source has done so or is doing so?

You can’t hold up one energy source to a strict standard, while giving every other source a free pass.

I, for one, think that all subsidies should be eliminated for all energy sources. Level the playing field. Do that and we’d find out very quickly which ones are truly viable.

1 Like

I’m not holding solar to a “strict standard”… the standard is simply viability at scale and yes, other energy sources have proven viable on their merits. Hydro is the standout in renewables; the viability of nuclear has never really been in question just if the dangers were acceptable; and fossil fuels have been proven viable countless times… Texas, Saudi Arabia, Venezuela, etc. prosperity and fossil fuels go hand in hand for a reason.

Subsidies have their place especially when it comes to projects like the tar sands that only become viable at an enormous scale, but they should be to get things off the ground before being repaid in full within a reasonable time frame, not indefinitely.

I hope solar advances at some point because it seems like we should be able to tap into that power source but we still seem to be missing some advancement that will push it over the hump. I suspect the solution may be more low tech than high tech but I think we need to invest more in advancing the cost efficiency of either capture, storage, conversion or all of the above before investing more in conventional solar installations.

1 Like

You seem to be using the word “viability” in a number of different ways… so let’s just clarify that and get on the same page, shall we?

Technical viability (“can this technology power non-trivial grid demands”) has been proven for decades for all of the power sources. The various dinosaur juices, nuclear, hydro, wind and solar. All of them. Absolutely undeniable fact. Even one nano-second of research by anyone will show this to be true. It’s so obvious that I suspect you can’t possibly be talking about this sort of viability. This sort of viability has nothing to do with subsidies.

Economic viability (“can this technology power non-trivial grid demands in a profitable manner”) is a different sort of viability. You say that “other energy sources have proven viable on their merits” but that is simply not true. You seem to be using the phrase “on their merits” to mean “without subsidies”. Nearly 150 years of continuous subsidies has proven that fossil-fuels cannot do this. At the very least, it proves that we don’t know if any fossil-fuel-based electricity is actually viable on its merit, because there has never been a period in human history when it has been produced without subsidies.

( At this point it should be noted that I’m talking generally and globally here. I’m not cherry-picking particular cases. Just because one generator worked at a particular time and place in history doesn’t mean anything. You can’t extrapolate from cherry-picked examples. Just because RandomWell TX didn’t get subsidies in 1931 doesn’t mean that “oil” wasn’t subsidised in 1931. Oil is a fungible commodity — once a barrel of the stuff enters the global supply chain the particular well it came from becomes irrelevant. )

You also say that “the viability of nuclear has never really been in question”, which is also untrue. Nuclear now has a LCOE 3x that of solar. It is the most expensive form of energy. No-one with a functioning brain shops around for the most expensive petrol/gas to put in their car, so there is no reason to think that anyone with a functioning brain will want to buy 1 kWh of nuclear for the same price as 3 kWh of solar. The reality is that “the viability of nuclear has never been more in doubt than it is now in 2024”. Geopolitics (i.e. US proxy wars) are currently causing some, shall we say, ‘turbulence’ in the transition process… but assuming they are resolved without WW3 the economic fundamentals will reassert themselves and nuclear will continue its decades-long drift into obscurity.

At the end of the day, electrical energy is a commodity. The average consumer doesn’t care in the slightest where the energy comes from — they just want their power bill to be as low as possible. Niche applications/use-cases are irrelevant to the discussion. When it comes to commodities, the mass market always buys at the lowest price it can. That means the energy source with the lowest Levelised Cost of Electricity (LCOE) is what will be purchased. Utility-scale solar has the lowest LCOE… so that’s what is already being preferentially purchased by anyone who can get their hands on it.

Money that comes from spot purchases on energy markets funnels through to the generator’s bottom line, and that spurs subsequent investment. Solar’s low LCOE is precisely what has driven the booming investment in solar for the last several years… and is why the adoption rate is exponential — as seen in the graph at the top of this thread.

It’s not a case of hoping or wishing that solar can be successful. Solar already has been successful. In fact, the race is already over and solar won. Now it’s just lapping the competition for lols.

There are zero technical hurdles to overcome, and no need for efficiency gains. Grid-scale solar, as is, has won. Any improvements will just result in the competition being brushed aside that much faster.

The grid is currently structured around spinning turbines. Solar doesn’t need turbines, so if you were to create a new grid from scratch, it wouldn’t look like the current one — there would be no talk of ‘baseload’ or ‘inertia’, for example. But “there can only be one” grid, so solar has to fit in. As high-LCOE sources are financially ruined and retired, the crusty parts of the grid that serve them will be phased out. Batteries and interconnects both have a part to play in that process.

Ultimate viability (“can this technology completely power the entire grid”) is the final type of viability. Solar cannot currently do this because of the structural reasons mentioned above, and because it hasn’t scaled up enough yet. The problem isn’t that solar can’t power a grid… it’s that solar can’t power our current grid as long as dinosaurs are stomping around. Once the high-LCOE dinosaurs die out, and network managers no longer need to pander to them, the network will be reconfigured “the solar way”. That’s when we will see Electrical Grid 2.0 emerge and enjoy the benefits of that. That will happen when solar is providing north of 75% of the power to the grid… and will happen in different parts of the world at different times.

Australia will probably be the first country to upgrade to Grid 2.0. We already have some states where solar+wind supply basically all of our annual electricity needs, but our national grid includes a few states that still have dinosaurs stomping around. The nation’s energy ministers are developing an “Orderly Exit Management Framework” to manage the death of the dinosaurs as we speak, so the writing is clearly on the wall and the transition will be Real Soon Now™.

tl;dr: Solar is undeniably both Technically and Economically viable. All fundamental problems were solved years ago. The only obstacles that remain are structural grid problems that will take care of themselves as solar scales up and high-LCOE energy sources are phased out. Solar won the LCOE race about half a decade ago and is now lapping the competition for fun. The only question that remains is how quickly the other energy sources will admit defeat and hang up their boots. When that happens, solar will be Absolutely viable and the grid will be remade in its image.

There will exist, for all eternity, niche use cases for all forms of energy generation. Those use cases are irrelevant. Just as the Internet has subsumed virtually all other communications networks, an interconnected global energy grid will subsume virtually all others. Eventually energy will flow across national boundaries and continents as transparently as information does now. The source of the overwhelming majority of that energy will be the sun. Basic economics will Make It So.

3 Likes

So the current disinformation is that solar panels cause climate change (during use!), and wind farms cause storms? How convenient!

The lack of shame in the people making this shit up is just astounding to me. (I can’t believe it’s just an innocent, gross misunderstanding of the physics involved since it’s so easy to look up how climate change actually works.)

While I realise the futility of debating you @TryTwiceMedia on this subject (anything factual will likely only cause you to dig deeper into the disinformation swamp), I find energy and environment interesting and actually took the time to look this up. Maybe someone else finds it interesting as well!

  • It turns out that by absorbing energy and transporting it elsewhere, solar panels actually cool down their local surroundings somewhat. On a larger scale this effect is almost perfectly cancelled out by that same energy contributing to e.g. heat islands in cities, as could be expected.
  • Similarly, wind turbines remove energy from the atmosphere by slowing the wind down. Just like a high-rise, this increases turbulence in the wake and cause higher wind speeds around the object. So it seems wind farms cause storms just like large cities cause storms! (Except wind turbines reduce their impediment to the wind in high winds, by feathering or shutting down completely, so when it actually matters they should have virtually no effect on the surrounding wind speeds.)

Here’s another article on the (very minute) direct effects of large scale wind power on climate. (The net effect compared to burning fossile fuels is of course huge, but we all know that already…)

1 Like

What kind of hasbara is this?

Alright, now you are white knighting, thinking you doing some good for some tribal people. Africa has many states and a super national organization. They have languages, cultures, histories, parliaments, presidents and a choice to work together.
Either it is racism or sheer lack of knowledge to think that this is neo colonialism.
Funnily enough, that is happening…
https://youtu.be/uXMrtofTQu0 sadly it is in German, but it is about the ecocide the US companies are doing in Scandinavia, by buying cheap land and impacting the nature there. This has nothing to do with working together. This is the same like when
https://youtu.be/fuxdd97LQcg

I don’t anyone disagrees.

I didn’t know that. Let me know more about it. I was talking about ZAs Eskom

Because most countries noticed how stupidly expensive it was to pipe gas to every home and how extremely dangerous it is.

In Europe people seperate different ways but common is: paper cardboard, plastics, bio compost, glass, plastic and glass bottles
In Germany you also seperate clear and coloured glass as clear shouldn’t have any impurities. Also they have bottles that get cleaned and re used.

Bottle recycling should be introduced in every country as the money you pay for the bottle is returned to the one who brings it back. If it is high enough, very low income people can live off it, and middle income is not incentivised to throw it into the wild.

If you look at Germany, almost all small private companies that have solar farms…

Do you mean this? Seems like another case of “government don’t care about manufacturing jobs”. And that was quite early days, I remember everyone “hating” on Wind because it was cheaper and going to outcompete the other options. So all the other producers putting massive campaigns and restrictions to block them. Like this is literally a joke in GTA5.

Why not stop the subsidies for all of them and see how it goes. Or move all the subsidies to renewables? Why not Fusion?

Wonder where all that oil is going to…

Oh yea, combustion engines and plastic… both that we have way too much of and nobody wants to stop producing.
I don’t if you have noticed but a lot of worlds oil comes from Saudi Arabia and the USA.

That is the difference between me and you. You get the idea that renewables are cheaper by reading some theoretical studies. I get the idea that renewables are more expensive by looking at the real world and what is happening in said world.
See Microsoft, see Marathon, see Amazon…

Not really. Maybe it moves to other places but climate change unfortunately leads to more rain, not less. Evaporation is not a thing. Every single dried out river had less rain or people took more out of it, evaporation has basically no impact.

Real capitalism would pay for externalities (Carbon tax). Totally agree with you.

This is the money quote right there!
Solar and wind alone don’t work.

“But what about Germany? Germany is at 60% renewables with wind and solar”

Lots of things are wrong about Germany as example.

  • Counting biomass as renewables. Biomass is a highly diesel, water and land intensive thing to do. It is not just “waste” and corn does not magically turn into electricity. USA is facing the same problem. If you are interested in this, go watch the John Oliver episode about corn. It is a great example why subsidies most of the time have a horrible outcome.

  • Germany works, because it is interconnected with the rest of Europe, and the rest of Europe is not using renewables (at large). The system would not work, if the rest would also switch to renewables. Germany imports more than it exports. But even more important, you can see that it is produced at the wrong time by looking at the price. Germany sometimes pays 12 cents for imports, while it exports in the same month for 3 cents.

But there is also something very good about Germany. Electricity is not the only energy that Germany uses. Steel and other energy intensive productions use gas as a heat source that experts estimate is close to the yearly electricity consumption of 630TWh.
So Germany could build up tons of excessive PV production and produce hydrogen when there is overproduction. But then again, this would require massive investments. They haven’t managed to get to 100% renewables, and they should double that and build a hydro infrastructure? All while natural gas is dirt cheap?

Another thing lot of people don’t get is that you can’t predict the future based on past results. If that were true, we could all get rich at the stock market :grin:
Growth does not have to be exponential.
We had this discussion in Tesla forums. 50% y on y growth used to be the norm in the old days. Same goes for EV sales, for renewables, everything.

If you thought that EU renewable production would continue to grow exponentially, 2023 was disappointing.

We will move more and more to renewables. But it will take time. You could speed up the transition by taxes. But that would hurt the rich the most, because they are the ones producing the most emissions. That is why I would not bet on taxes :neutral_face:

Hawaii, Australia, Svalbard prove you wrong you know :slight_smile:

O rly?

image

You really need to stop citing that Fossil Fuels Inc. newspaper, it is giving you such a warped world view…

1 Like

2 Likes

This varies a lot year over year.
2023 was the first year since 2003 where Germany had net-imports of electricity:

2 Likes