logoalt Hacker News

Ajedi32yesterday at 4:19 PM4 repliesview on HN

The issue is that to achieve that you can't just build 90% solar plus 10% fossil fuels. You would need to build 100% solar + 100% fossil fuels for the 10% of the time solar doesn't work.


Replies

ZeroGravitasyesterday at 4:43 PM

If you build batteries on the scale that the article suggests (and is probably going to happen in the real future) you can use batteries charged from fossil fuels.

It's a few percent dirtier (round trip losses) but in return you can use gas plants that are 50% more efficient to charge them rather than run peaker plants.

And of course that's ignoring wind which is nearly as cheap as solar and anti-correlated with it.

show 1 reply
pfdietzyesterday at 5:39 PM

It helps that the cost of a simple cycle gas turbine power plant (before the recent data center demand spike) is around $600/kW, maybe a factor of 20 cheaper per kW than a nuclear power plant. So backing up the whole grid with such generators wouldn't be that expensive.

pingouyesterday at 4:25 PM

Good thing it's already built then! Well, of course it cost money to maintain though.

show 1 reply
pishpashyesterday at 4:41 PM

Infrastructure cost for 100% is the same as infrastructure cost for 10%? That's not true. The distribution network is the part that can't be scaled, but it can also be reused for either source, so it doesn't double in cost.

show 1 reply