[HN Gopher] Solar generates fifth of global electricity on summe...
___________________________________________________________________
Solar generates fifth of global electricity on summer solstice
midday peak
Author : dotcoma
Score : 83 points
Date : 2024-06-22 20:18 UTC (2 hours ago)
(HTM) web link (ember-climate.org)
(TXT) w3m dump (ember-climate.org)
| grecy wrote:
| I did my part. I just wrapped up installing a 7.3kW system on my
| roof at 49.5degN.
|
| Yesterday was the highest day of output so far, 50.17 kWh
|
| I'm extremely happy and can't stop checking the app. Our first
| bill just came in, -$57.
| stavros wrote:
| I really like rooftop solar, as an idea. It might not be the
| cheapest way to generate electricity, but it's good to know you
| aren't as dependent on the grid. It's like having your own
| vegetable garden.
|
| Hopefully, with advances in battery technology, homes can
| become completely independent of the grid.
| blondie9x wrote:
| I wish it was this simple. All energy is still borrowed.
| Mining and producing and disposing of solar panels is still
| very energy intensive.
|
| Renewable energy is a piece of what needs to be a much larger
| effort to fight climate change.
| stavros wrote:
| Sure, it's energy intensive, but if that energy comes from
| the sun, who cares?
|
| I don't understand we keep using "energy intensive" as a
| euphemism for "emits carbon". The two aren't synonymous.
| Energy-intensive processes aren't a problem at all, the
| problem is dirty energy generation processes. Fix your
| energy generation, and there's no problem.
| cogman10 wrote:
| There's a (diminishing) correlation that shouldn't be
| ignored. I'm not saying we should abandon solar because
| of that correlation but it should at least be factored
| in.
|
| For example, I think it's a dumb idea to turn every road
| into a "solar road" just because "who cares".
| stavros wrote:
| I was replying to a specific argument: That producing
| solar panels is energy-intensive, and thus bad (this part
| was implied). My counterargument is that energy-intensive
| is irrelevant when you've got basically-free, clean
| energy.
|
| If your energy is dirty, fix your energy. Don't make
| downstream consumers feel bad instead.
| cogman10 wrote:
| I don't disagree, just taking the conversation a slightly
| different direction as I think you'll agree that the "it
| takes energy to make renewables" argument is generally
| made in bad faith.
|
| I think there is irresponsible consumption of solar
| panels, particularly when it's done more as a
| performative action rather than actually producing power
| to be used.
| mlyle wrote:
| Yah. I am glad we are deemphasizing residential solar.
|
| Utility-scale solar has better capacity factors and
| installation economics.
|
| I think it's going to be barely possible to keep our
| current quality of life and reach a low-CO2 economy. We
| have limited resources, and even if a residential solar
| panel "pays back" its energy in 2.5 years, we are better
| off putting it in a desert where it will pay back that
| energy in a year.
| mulmen wrote:
| What about the economies of scale? Does/did residential
| solar create enough demand to ramp up utility scale
| production?
| XorNot wrote:
| The oil companies all rebranded themselves as energy
| companies over a decade ago, my presumption is it was a
| convenient part of a long term promotional plan to mix up
| the definitions to get the environmental movement to
| fight itself. Same as how the idea of a "carbon
| footprint" was sponsored out into the world by the same
| people.
|
| The trick to good propaganda is to create something that
| makes you say "well I know it's propaganda, but this
| doesn't seem so wrong..."
| dgacmu wrote:
| Yes, you have to analyze the embodied energy, but solar
| panels are energy positive within 1-2 years these days:
| https://www.quora.com/How-much-more-energy-do-solar-
| panels-p...
|
| It's really a no-brainer up to a certain amount of your
| grid mix (and that amount can be quite high).
| cogman10 wrote:
| This is an old trope that's not longer accurate pretty much
| across the board for renewables/batteries.
|
| Also.. Mining for solar panels has never been the major
| energy cost. Solar panels are primarily silicon (re: sand).
| The actual energy expensive part for them is/was melting
| the sand into glass. Even the next major element, aluminum
| for the brackets, accounts for far more energy expenditure
| than the mining of the doping agents.
|
| Even for windmills, the major energy cost isn't mining,
| it's the smelting the steel for the tower.
|
| Renewable energy is a piece of the puzzle and not
| everything. It's a major and important piece. Switching the
| grid away from fossil fuels accounts for a huge portion of
| emissions and renewables are some of the fastest and
| cheapest to deploy solutions currently.
| mrshadowgoose wrote:
| It is that simple. "Energy intensive" is irrelevant. On
| average, a solar panel will capture more energy in its
| lifetime than the amount used to create and eventually
| recycle it.
|
| So please stop repeating that useless whine.
| redserk wrote:
| It's interesting seeing the difference in how solar is
| usually talked about versus backup generators.
|
| Whole-home generators are expensive and get used rarely but
| are often justified as a "just in case". Solar doesn't enjoy
| this kind of leniency, unfortunately.
|
| Being less dependent on the grid has many benefits that get
| ignored over a perceived return on value.
| briHass wrote:
| At least around here, backup generators are for outages
| that happen when solar would be mostly useless: heavy
| storms or during Winter.
|
| Cheap and safe batteries paired with solar will help, but
| the capacity will likely still be an issue for extended
| outages.
| epistasis wrote:
| An islanding solar system with storage is not useless
| during storms or the winter, it still generates during
| the day. Not sure where your "around here" is, though.
| jaggederest wrote:
| Sadly at least where I live the backup generators are well-
| used, winter and summer alike. There was a period of about
| a year where we went no more than a week or two between
| power outages. Absolutely a lifesaver, when you have a
| freezer full of frozen goods.
|
| In this context I'm saving my pennies for a solar and
| battery set up - it both makes financial sense when
| connected to the grid, and obviates the annoying side
| effect and high cost of running the backup generator during
| outages, unless they're extremely lengthy.
| overstay8930 wrote:
| Whole home generators are miles cheaper than a solar-
| battery setup. I can get 10kw of backup power tied into my
| house for 5k with an automatic switch, but that barely
| covers the labor costs for a solar system, and you still
| have to buy the rest of it.
|
| Sure you can DIY it and get close, but most people are not
| going to do that.
| epistasis wrote:
| Once you add in the costs of additional transmission needed
| for utility scale solar, rooftop solar is extremely
| competitive.
|
| Especially as transmission capital costs start to skyrocket,
| and solar capital costs plummet.
|
| I have yet to see an economic argument in favor of utility
| scale solar over residential solar that takes into account
| the T&D upgrades necessary from utility scale solar.
| bobthepanda wrote:
| We will need both, or at least something else, since not
| every building has a rooftop that can generate sufficient
| solar.
| epistasis wrote:
| Agreed. I think we will also start to see lots of
| industrial sites that have their own utility scale
| installs that don't even feed back into the grid, and are
| used directly, and coupled with thermal or chemical
| storage.
| HPsquared wrote:
| It's a testament to how inefficient "the system" is that
| rooftop solar is economical for a lot of people.
| energy123 wrote:
| I'm surprised more conservatives in the West don't like it.
| It's the ultimate individual independence from the government
| and corporations. Individual sovereignty over your energy
| needs. Instead they want to rely on a foreign dictator and
| government-funded transmission lines. Bizarre.
| mulmen wrote:
| This isn't an interesting line of thinking because it
| depends entirely on your definition of conservative.
| There's nothing surprising (or interesting) about a straw
| man.
| HPsquared wrote:
| Same with EVs. You can generate your own electricity a hell
| of a lot easier than making your own gasoline.
| Sytten wrote:
| How expensive is the electricity in your area? I think here it
| is so cheap that might not be worth the installation cost
| (though that did drop a whole lot lately).
| zdragnar wrote:
| That's the trick. On one of the longest days of the year, OP
| got ~$5 worth of electricity where I live.
|
| The payoff can be long, and people often forget to account
| for the added cost to home insurance to cover the panels in
| that.
|
| OTOH, if where you live electricity is more expensive or
| labor is cheaper, it can be a really nice addition without
| too long a wait to make it back. The company I talked to said
| I get too much shade to be worth installing (150 foot tall
| trees near my house) so I'll be waiting awhile before I get
| mine even if electricity prices go up, sadly.
| Retric wrote:
| The ROI calculation can be a little tricky because solar can
| be a low risk leveraged investment with tax free returns.
| Remember money you don't need to spend isn't taxable.
|
| So for most home owners it's easily worth it. While from a
| worker safety, economic, and even environmental standpoint
| rooftop solar is terrible compared to grid solar as an
| individual homeowner you can often get subsidies.
| bumby wrote:
| > _So for most home owners it's easily worth it._
|
| Can you elaborate on how you arrived at that conclusion? At
| least where I live, the math didn't work out. It seemed
| like smarter conservation was a much better alternative. A
| couple portable/window A/C units that pay for themselves
| within a year or two made a heck of a lot more sense than
| $30k of solar on a roof already at half it's life. Maybe
| when it's time to replace my roof I'll reconsider, but the
| payback didn't seem there. (FWIW, I probably average <
| $100/mo in electricity.) I know conservation can go against
| human nature, but it sure seems like the better option for
| me.
| sponaugle wrote:
| That is awesome. I live in the PNW (Oregon,45degN) and the
| summers here are fantastic for solar power. I have a 20.2kW
| system on my roof and crank out 100-120 kWh a day in the summer
| months. I can store 42kWh, and push the rest back to the grid
| at full cost return.
| sitkack wrote:
| Thank you for saving our water!
| Waterluvian wrote:
| Very exciting and satisfying! What's the current break even
| date?
| grecy wrote:
| I'll need to see a whole 12 months of output before I can be
| sure. I suspect winter production will be well down,
| especially on heavy snow weeks (we get a lot here).
|
| Roughly, it looks like it will make about $1000 worth of
| power per year, and the price of power here is already locked
| in to go up between 5% and 12% per year, basically forever.
|
| I'm right on $8k out of pocket, which is on a 10 year
| interest free loan. So if I just put the savings from my old
| electricity bill into the loan, in 10 years it will be gone,
| and I'll just free power for 20 or so years after that.
|
| One day I'll build a garage, cover that in solar too, then
| get an EV so I don't have to ever buy gas again.
| einpoklum wrote:
| Despite the upbeat title, we need to remember that we are well
| past time to stop emitting large amounts of carbon into the
| atmosphere. And yet, solar, wind, storage discharge, other
| renewables( and possibly SMR nuclear temporarily) are not even
| _close_ to replacing fossil fuel energy sources. The charts do
| not suggest reaching anywhere near zero emissions from
| electricity generation by 2030, and that's when we ignore the
| contribution of the production of solar panels and related
| systems.
|
| So, while the trend is positive - this is still disappointing and
| worrying news.
| oezi wrote:
| We want to get to net zero by 2050 not 2030. At the current
| growth of 2-3% per year plus some acceleration we might get
| there.
| chippiewill wrote:
| We want to get to net zero by _2020_ , not 2030 or 2050, we
| just say 2050 because it's way too late to do 2030, let alone
| 2020
| energy123 wrote:
| That's the power sector which is less than half of emissions,
| and it's the most easily addressable part of the problem. We
| need to be accelerating faster somehow. China has the
| manufacturing capacity but is struggling to sell panels at
| the clip it can make them.
| Retric wrote:
| IMO it is close. ~40% of the world's electricity is from low
| carbon sources like solar, and that number is already
| increasing by over 1.5% per year and accelerating.
|
| People get concerned about 100% carbon free, but really once
| you hit 90+% the specific year you hit zero becomes less
| relevant. Spending 1 more year at 50% is worse than 5 years
| under 10%.
| ThinkingGuy wrote:
| Summer solstice*
|
| *In the northern hemisphere
| Retric wrote:
| Yep 20% of global _Global_ power when Australian solar is
| dealing with the shortest day of the year and near the equator
| it's just a normal day.
|
| Though obviously the northern hemisphere has a disproportionate
| percentage of total solar installs.
| walrushunter wrote:
| That's pretty bad for the northern hemisphere's solstice. It
| should be way higher than that.
___________________________________________________________________
(page generated 2024-06-22 23:00 UTC)