←back to thread

Solar power has begun to transform the world’s energy system

(www.newyorker.com)
353 points dmazin | 5 comments | 09 Jul 25 12:31 UTC | HN request time: 0s | source
Show context
rel_ic ◴[10 Jul 25 13:39 UTC] No.44520938[source]▶
Renewable energy is great, but we're not replacing fossil fuels with it, we're just adding more energy usage. And our energy usage is destroying the environment.

Don't let these advancements in solar make you think things are getting better. We need to reduce fossil fuel usage, not just increase solar usage.

https://pocketcasts.com/podcasts/b3b696c0-226d-0137-f265-1d2...

replies(9): >>44521010 #>>44521628 #>>44521789 #>>44521802 #>>44521954 #>>44522009 #>>44522223 #>>44523270 #>>44524628 #
amarait ◴[10 Jul 25 13:44 UTC] No.44521010[source]▶
What replaces fossil fuels is some kind of breakthrough in batteries. At the moment its getting better every year were currently at less than $100 per KWh which is crazy but needs to be improved for allowing more off the grid energy consumption
replies(8): >>44521191 #>>44521234 #>>44521257 #>>44521565 #>>44521793 #>>44521920 #>>44521958 #>>44522105 #
1970-01-01 ◴[10 Jul 25 15:12 UTC] No.44521958[source]▶
Does not necessarily need to be a battery. Flywheels, heat, and even synthesis of fuels are also solutions to the problem.
replies(1): >>44522017 #
1. cogman10 ◴[10 Jul 25 15:19 UTC] No.44522017[source]▶
If you look at the energy density, cost/kwh, and lifetime maintenance of most of those, you'll find that batteries handily win. Further, batteries have room for innovation and growth in all those categories.

We won't, for example, make a more cost-efficient flywheel or heat storage. They are effectively as efficient as they'll ever be.

IMO, it necessarily has to be batteries. The other alternatives are nowhere near as good.

replies(2): >>44522192 #>>44522217 #
2. qiqitori ◴[10 Jul 25 15:35 UTC] No.44522192[source]▶
On the other hand, you need to buy a new set of batteries every 15 or so years. The other things you mentioned generally don't need regular replacement, and when they do, it's not the whole setup.
replies(1): >>44522334 #
3. EvanAnderson ◴[10 Jul 25 15:38 UTC] No.44522217[source]▶
At grid scale I'd imagine that pumped hydroelectric storage would beat batteries for TCO, but there are significant geographic constraints.
replies(1): >>44522360 #
4. cogman10 ◴[10 Jul 25 15:49 UTC] No.44522334[source]▶
You don't need to replace the whole setup, just the batteries. All the power electronics and interconnects are already there and will last as long as they last.

You also don't technically need new batteries almost ever. Batteries (typically) don't really die, they just lose capacity. After a 15 year runtime instead of storing 10mWh they now store 7mWh. That's still 7mWh. After another 15 years it'll be down to around 5mWh.

5. cogman10 ◴[10 Jul 25 15:51 UTC] No.44522360[source]▶
I mean, it is a literal pipe dream :)

Batteries can be deployed nearly instantly. My power company is planning on building a new battery plant next year, it announced it the year prior.

I know a pumped hydro plan that has literally been in the works for the last 20 years and shows no sign of actually being started (still being planned).