this post was submitted on 17 Nov 2023
994 points (98.6% liked)

Technology

34520 readers
636 users here now

This is the official technology community of Lemmy.ml for all news related to creation and use of technology, and to facilitate civil, meaningful discussion around it.


Ask in DM before posting product reviews or ads. All such posts otherwise are subject to removal.


Rules:

1: All Lemmy rules apply

2: Do not post low effort posts

3: NEVER post naziped*gore stuff

4: Always post article URLs or their archived version URLs as sources, NOT screenshots. Help the blind users.

5: personal rants of Big Tech CEOs like Elon Musk are unwelcome (does not include posts about their companies affecting wide range of people)

6: no advertisement posts unless verified as legitimate and non-exploitative/non-consumerist

7: crypto related posts, unless essential, are disallowed

founded 5 years ago
MODERATORS
 

Solar now being the cheapest energy source made its rounds on Lemmy some weeks ago, if I remember correctly. I just found this graphic and felt it was worth sharing independently.

Source: https://ourworldindata.org/cheap-renewables-growth

(page 2) 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] MonsiuerPatEBrown@reddthat.com 8 points 10 months ago (5 children)

I want a battery in my house big enough for me to lose power for 2 days and still cook with electric stove and have hot water from water heater.

That is my dream for every house. To be able to have a stable power well from some kind of battery fed by a solar + grid sharing. To be able to offer extra power to a neighbor if they need it for a project or a party or help however.

I don't want to be energy isolated from the grid. I want to be energy insulated and be of the grid.

load more comments (5 replies)
[–] HeavyRaptor@lemmy.zip 7 points 10 months ago

I know it's basically a physical impossibility but here hoping to another 89% in the next 10 years (compared to today)

[–] Trollivier@sh.itjust.works 7 points 10 months ago

I wish hydroelectricity was there.

[–] guyrocket@kbin.social 6 points 10 months ago (3 children)

Price of onshore wind is about as low as solar.

I'd like to add wind to my solar eventually. Multi-modal makes a lot of sense to me. Pretty sure my solar installers don't do that and I have no idea who does do that...if anyone. I'll investigate someday.

[–] uis@lemmy.world 6 points 10 months ago (5 children)

What happened to Nuclear option?

[–] gnygnygny@lemm.ee 5 points 10 months ago (2 children)
load more comments (2 replies)
[–] MrEff@lemmy.world 4 points 10 months ago* (last edited 10 months ago)

Huge up front costs.

https://world-nuclear.org/information-library/economic-aspects/economics-of-nuclear-power.aspx

"On a levelized (i.e. lifetime) basis, nuclear power is an economic source of electricity generation, combining the advantages of security, reliability and very low greenhouse gas emissions. Existing plants function well with a high degree of predictability. The operating cost of these plants is lower than almost all fossil fuel competitors, with a very low risk of operating cost inflation. Plants are now expected to operate for 60 years and even longer in the future...."

"World Nuclear Association published Nuclear Power Economics and Project Structuring in early 2017. The report notes that the economics of new nuclear plants are heavily influenced by their capital cost, which accounts for at least 60% of their LCOE. Interest charges and the construction period are important variables for determining the overall cost of capital. The escalation of nuclear capital costs in some countries, more apparent than real given the paucity of new reactor construction in OECD countries and the introduction of new designs, has peaked in the opinion of the International Energy Agency (IEA). In countries where continuous development programmes have been maintained, capital costs have been contained and, in the case of South Korea, even reduced. Over the last 15 years global median construction periods have fallen. Once a nuclear plant has been constructed, the production cost of electricity is low and predictably stable."

TLDR: If you weren't already on the nuke train when it was going, the upfront costs are too much to make it worth it this late in the game. You are better off just getting solar/wind + battery. If you already invested in nuke, then you are good to keep updating them.

load more comments (3 replies)
[–] bionicjoey@lemmy.ca 6 points 10 months ago (5 children)

Are the renewables including cost of storage in this graphic? Batteries are a lot more needed with wind and solar since they aren't always available.

Also, I'd imagine nuclear would enjoy a similar level of success if there were more countries willing to invest in nuclear.

load more comments (5 replies)
[–] Hupf@feddit.de 4 points 10 months ago (1 children)
[–] Kecessa@sh.itjust.works 4 points 10 months ago (1 children)

Where's hydro? Because it would be a straight line at the bottom...

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] Acters@lemmy.world 4 points 10 months ago* (last edited 10 months ago)

It's wild to me that 19% difference between the drop of on shore wind and solar to the same price point is massive, like that extra 19% drop in solar is quite literally more than half of the solar previous cost, about $230.

load more comments
view more: ‹ prev next ›