TE
科技回声
首页24小时热榜最新最佳问答展示工作
GitHubTwitter
首页

科技回声

基于 Next.js 构建的科技新闻平台,提供全球科技新闻和讨论内容。

GitHubTwitter

首页

首页最新最佳问答展示工作

资源链接

HackerNews API原版 HackerNewsNext.js

© 2025 科技回声. 版权所有。

Why did renewables become so cheap so fast?

376 点作者 yurisagalov超过 4 年前

28 条评论

rossdavidh超过 4 年前
All true, but I think they&#x27;re missing the real issue here. Renewables (esp. solar and wind) are, yes, dropping in cost exponentially, and this means they are currently zooming past fossil fuels in terms of affordability. There&#x27;s an issue in regards to batteries, but that also seems to be on a learning curve that makes it better every year, so that won&#x27;t buy fossil fuels much more time.<p>Now, instead of rooting for that change, we can think about the actual consequences. It&#x27;s inevitable; fossil fuels are on the way out. What does that mean, besides lower carbon?<p>It means that countries which rely on fossil fuels for their economy, are going to see the same kind of crushing economic decline that, say, the UK coal industry has.<p>What do you suppose happens when, for example, Saudi Arabia can no longer feed itself? It just peacefully and gently starves to death?<p>To be clear, I&#x27;m not saying we should somehow try to prevent fossil fuels exiting the scene. The change in energy sources to lower-carbon ones is an old one, and there&#x27;s no way to stop it, nor should we try. Wood gave way to coal and then oil and then natural gas, and the process will continue with zero-carbon sources like photovoltaics. That&#x27;s a bullet that&#x27;s already been fired, and there&#x27;s no way to stuff it back inside the barrel of the gun.<p>But, do we really have a plan for the consequences, not only in Saudi Arabia but also every other nation that&#x27;s dependent on oil? Hint: we do not.
评论 #25284688 未加载
评论 #25283998 未加载
评论 #25283739 未加载
评论 #25287826 未加载
评论 #25284083 未加载
评论 #25285016 未加载
评论 #25283918 未加载
评论 #25283873 未加载
评论 #25283623 未加载
评论 #25290292 未加载
评论 #25284000 未加载
评论 #25286961 未加载
评论 #25284812 未加载
评论 #25287310 未加载
评论 #25285485 未加载
评论 #25287483 未加载
评论 #25285795 未加载
评论 #25284171 未加载
评论 #25287452 未加载
评论 #25287382 未加载
评论 #25285139 未加载
评论 #25287930 未加载
评论 #25287558 未加载
评论 #25285806 未加载
评论 #25286881 未加载
评论 #25285916 未加载
评论 #25284011 未加载
评论 #25288084 未加载
评论 #25287883 未加载
评论 #25287173 未加载
评论 #25298356 未加载
评论 #25285269 未加载
评论 #25288503 未加载
评论 #25285784 未加载
评论 #25284793 未加载
评论 #25283975 未加载
评论 #25284878 未加载
评论 #25287395 未加载
评论 #25283692 未加载
评论 #25285342 未加载
评论 #25284198 未加载
评论 #25285220 未加载
评论 #25284055 未加载
jhallenworld超过 4 年前
You know what&#x27;s amazing? Farmers in rural Pakistan choosing to prefer solar to irrigate their crops (panels + VFD&#x2F;inverter + 10 HP 3-phase motor):<p><a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.youtube.com&#x2F;watch?v=vfNgF0WTeCM" rel="nofollow">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.youtube.com&#x2F;watch?v=vfNgF0WTeCM</a><p>Or grinding wheat:<p><a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.youtube.com&#x2F;watch?v=_G2evJOiU9I" rel="nofollow">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.youtube.com&#x2F;watch?v=_G2evJOiU9I</a><p>The comments in these video are all about how much does it cost, what is your contact number, etc. Clearly this is a sea-change.<p>Also amazing that they all have cell phones :-)<p>The old system included 80+ year old hand-started diesel engines:<p><a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.youtube.com&#x2F;watch?v=8ZuqT7dgM08" rel="nofollow">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.youtube.com&#x2F;watch?v=8ZuqT7dgM08</a><p>These are very cool, but solar requires less man-power.
评论 #25285592 未加载
评论 #25284294 未加载
评论 #25287001 未加载
评论 #25286983 未加载
评论 #25287653 未加载
mrfusion超过 4 年前
I hate the argument that we’re just waiting for batteries now.<p>I think if we had variable pricing that matched the availability of renewables, consumers would shift quickly.<p>Say something like power costs .02&#x2F;kWh while the sun is shining and .30 when it’s not.<p>I’d charge my car at work. I’d put a timer on my dryer to turn on at 10am. They probably come out with a hot water heater that goes really hot during the day and coasts through the night. Same idea for your freezer.<p>Heck I’d even blast my AC to ten degrees below where I want it during the day and then ride out the night.
评论 #25284508 未加载
评论 #25285226 未加载
评论 #25284918 未加载
评论 #25284500 未加载
评论 #25285395 未加载
评论 #25288256 未加载
评论 #25285616 未加载
评论 #25285565 未加载
评论 #25287007 未加载
评论 #25285223 未加载
评论 #25284027 未加载
评论 #25284478 未加载
评论 #25284351 未加载
评论 #25289088 未加载
评论 #25284510 未加载
评论 #25285234 未加载
gandalfian超过 4 年前
The Germans paid for it creating the market&#x2F;industry. Vast amounts. Then the Chinese thought it looked like a good industry to be in and threw unbelievable money at developing manufacturing capacity. If the Germans keep voting green and being parsimonious savers then we may yet get cheap batteries and survive.
评论 #25283527 未加载
评论 #25282510 未加载
评论 #25282425 未加载
评论 #25283760 未加载
评论 #25283416 未加载
sxates超过 4 年前
Personal anecdote - my house has two sets of solar panels on the roof - the first was installed in 2017, the second was just installed last month.<p>In 2017 my 6kw system cost $24,000 before any incentives (by SolarCity).<p>In 2020 my 7.8kw system cost $15,000 before any incentives (by Tesla).<p>Of that $15k, $4.3k was for the panels themselves, $2k for the inverter, $1k for mounting hardware, and $8k for installation.<p>It&#x27;s pretty shocking to me that in just 3 years the price per watt was basically halved, all in. Because looking at the breakdown, half the cost is in installation and presumably marketing and sales costs. Even if the panels themselves cost half as much, it would be a relatively small decrease in the total cost of the system.<p>I wonder what the practical bottom is - even if the panels were free, there&#x27;s a floor on the labor cost.
评论 #25284050 未加载
评论 #25283819 未加载
评论 #25285328 未加载
评论 #25283627 未加载
评论 #25286915 未加载
bregma超过 4 年前
The article says the world relies on fossil fuel for energy because it&#x27;s cheaper. That&#x27;s true. It doesn&#x27;t mention that the world relies on it because it&#x27;s reliable. It doesn&#x27;t disappear for 6 months of the year, or stop producing for 3 out of 5 days or during peak demand periods. Make renewables cheaper and more reliable and they will replace fossil fuels in a snap. Cheaper is not enough if it doesn&#x27;t do the job.
评论 #25281982 未加载
评论 #25287011 未加载
评论 #25281889 未加载
评论 #25282349 未加载
评论 #25281773 未加载
评论 #25282002 未加载
评论 #25281772 未加载
评论 #25281931 未加载
评论 #25282533 未加载
评论 #25283463 未加载
评论 #25283548 未加载
qPM9l3XJrF超过 4 年前
What appears to be missing from this discussion is that renewables are not enough:<p>&gt;Our hardest climate problems – the ones that are both large and lack obvious solutions – are agriculture (and deforestation – its major side effect) and industry. Together these are 45% of global carbon emissions. And solutions are scarce.<p>&gt;Agriculture and land use account for 24% of all human emissions. That’s nearly as much as electricity, and twice as much all the world’s passenger cars combined.<p>&gt;Industry – steel, cement, and manufacturing – account for 21% of human emissions – one and a half times as much as all the world’s cars, trucks, ships, trains, and planes combined.<p><a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;techcrunch.com&#x2F;2019&#x2F;02&#x2F;15&#x2F;how-to-decarbonize-america-and-the-world&#x2F;" rel="nofollow">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;techcrunch.com&#x2F;2019&#x2F;02&#x2F;15&#x2F;how-to-decarbonize-america...</a><p>We need to start putting just as much research effort into these areas as went into renewables.
评论 #25288845 未加载
评论 #25289096 未加载
km3r超过 4 年前
The graph shows solar becoming on par&#x2F; slightly cheaper then oil&#x2F;gas&#x2F;coal solutions over the past decade. If this trend continues we may see an energy revolution take place in the next 10-20 years. Data center costs will dive down, more places will become livable with always on AC&#x2F;heating. Even inefficient energy storage becomes viable with low enough prices (if solar is 70% cheaper than gas, then it can still compete with gas at night if the energy storage is more than 30% efficient or so, when in reality storage is close to 70-80% efficient). Humanity as a whole might even make it to a Type 1 Civilization with our increased usage. Carbon capturing even becomes a viable solution to climate change.<p>Just as rapidly changing CPU and internet speeds changed the world over the past few decades, so too will an energy revolution. I look forward to this new world and how we can use the innovations to solve todays problems.
评论 #25288534 未加载
albertop超过 4 年前
Too bad that low cost is invisible for the consumers. California has one of the most, if not the most, expensive electricity in spite of years of investment in renewables.
评论 #25283685 未加载
评论 #25282052 未加载
评论 #25281871 未加载
评论 #25281722 未加载
评论 #25281679 未加载
评论 #25282025 未加载
评论 #25281680 未加载
ncmncm超过 4 年前
One very hopeful, usually neglected point is that we don&#x27;t need to produce anywhere near the same amount of renewable energy as the total enthalpy (raw energy content) of the carbon sources to maintain the same level of service.<p>Electric vehicles convert power to motion several times as efficiently as internal-combustion equipment (except ships and aircraft), so much less total energy is needed to move the same mass of (especially) people and cars. This is most immediately visible in the current usefulness of electric scooters.<p>(Big ships are already 70+% efficient, so there is less room for improvement. Small aircraft can claim benefits similar to cars, but airliners will suffer losses converting to (e.g.) LH2 or LCH4, and&#x2F;or after the electric motors have worked; but there is still room for some improvement.)<p>Similarly, and surprisingly to many, the same applies to building heating systems, where better than 300% efficiency of heat pumps means that 1 kW of electric power produces 3+ kW of warm air. (The extra 2 kW comes from outside air.<p>So, today, while we still get more than 80% of raw energy from petroleum, renewables driving electric systems already have reduced that to 60% of actual delivered service.
99_00超过 4 年前
This is the source they are using: <a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.lazard.com&#x2F;perspective&#x2F;levelized-cost-of-energy-and-levelized-cost-of-storage-2020&#x2F;" rel="nofollow">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.lazard.com&#x2F;perspective&#x2F;levelized-cost-of-energy-...</a><p>Does lazard include subsidies in their numbers or not? I can&#x27;t figure it out.<p>I&#x27;m having trouble making sense of the lazard report, but to me it seems that it does, and ourworldindata.org is using their numbers while claiming they are without subsidies.
评论 #25282478 未加载
评论 #25284277 未加载
评论 #25281850 未加载
评论 #25282040 未加载
BurningFrog超过 4 年前
So fossil fuels, at least for power generation, is already obsolete. Fantastic!<p>Since the power plant replacement cycle is much slower than for phones, it will take a while to propagate the shift, but it is already inevitable.
评论 #25281667 未加载
_carbyau_超过 4 年前
The issue for me is that it doesn&#x27;t matter how cheap they are.<p>Australian government approach is largely to subsidize homeowners to put solar panels on their roof. (They do do other things too! But billions in home owner subsidies...) The main incentive of course is they then have cheaper power bills for not much outlay.<p>If you rent, nearly nothing. You&#x27;d have to have a generous landlord or luck out on a house someone has already done and then moved from. The latter will admittedly will become more common over time.<p>If you live in an apartment, nearly nothing. While it is technically possible to put solar on the roof the extra complications of body corporate make it largely a non-starter. Besides, in truely large apartment buildings the roof top space is tiny compared to the number of apartments so the benefit is minimal anyway.<p>So for now, only standalone homeowners get this benefit. And while I am not sure, I suspect reducing homeowners customer costs shifts the cost burden for the grid slightly more to others.<p>I just want the government to fund society wide infrastructure to benefit <i>everyone</i> in society...
评论 #25283974 未加载
评论 #25283970 未加载
biren34超过 4 年前
I have real problem with this discussion of &quot;cheap&quot; when it comes to wind and solar.<p>1. The marginal cost per kWh is calculated based on amortizing upfront costs over 20+ years, and those schedules have often proven to be quite optimistic.<p>2. The marginal cost per kWh is only a small piece of the puzzle when it comes to intermittent power sources.<p>The proper cost needs to attribute the cost of matching supply and demand. The supposedly easy answer is storage, but storing electricity is hard. Grid scale batteries are quite expensive and general deployment would cause a very real spike in the cost the raw materials. With proper accounting, the cost of renewables are not cheap at all, as proven by Germany and California.<p>3. The renewables industry likes to downplay the sheer volume of fossil fuels required to manufacture the parts. The energy ROI on this is quite poor, and in many cases, we would have been better off skipping the intermediate step and burning the oil and gas directly.
评论 #25285487 未加载
评论 #25285425 未加载
评论 #25287544 未加载
评论 #25285685 未加载
ed25519FUUU超过 4 年前
Confronting and solving the duck curve[1] and producing high duty-cycle electricity during non-sunlight hours is going to be a real challenge. We&#x27;re at the point now where states will often <i>pay</i> other states to take excess renewable electricity during peak hours. What&#x27;s the point in cheaper when we&#x27;re already effectively throwing away electricity?<p>I personally don&#x27;t believe batteries are going to do it. The world needs too many batteries. They&#x27;re an important part but they aren&#x27;t going to cut it, especially not fast enough.<p>The kind of power we need starts with an &quot;N&quot;.<p>1. <a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.energy.gov&#x2F;eere&#x2F;articles&#x2F;confronting-duck-curve-how-address-over-generation-solar-energy" rel="nofollow">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.energy.gov&#x2F;eere&#x2F;articles&#x2F;confronting-duck-curve-...</a>
评论 #25282184 未加载
评论 #25282850 未加载
评论 #25283468 未加载
marshray超过 4 年前
&gt; Fossil fuels dominate the global power supply because until very recently electricity from fossil fuels was far cheaper than electricity from renewables. This has dramatically changed within the last decade. In most places in the world power from new renewables is now cheaper than power from new fossil fuels.<p>This is the thing our great-grandkids will ask us about. (&quot;were you alive back when?&quot;)<p>Millenia from now, historians will not talk so much about the commercialization of electric power. They will divide time between the &quot;pre-industrial&quot; and &quot;post-solar&quot; eras, because that&#x27;s what will be visible in the fossil layers.
评论 #25281994 未加载
jamez1超过 4 年前
Subsidized polysilicon produced from coal in Xinjiang is a much larger contributor than the technology improvements.<p><a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.pv-tech.org&#x2F;news&#x2F;wacker-chemie-blames-chinas-polysilicon-support-for-750-million-impairment" rel="nofollow">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.pv-tech.org&#x2F;news&#x2F;wacker-chemie-blames-chinas-pol...</a>
kokey超过 4 年前
I don&#x27;t think we can assume costs will keeping coming down in a kind of linear fashion. To get to 50% renewable energy it probably will and I think this will happen by itself because there&#x27;s a clear financial benefit to it. For the other 50% this may be difficult, but this is where carbon taxes probably will have to fill the gap, but this could also mean things like biofuels and carbon capture and a whole bunch of unconventional things we haven&#x27;t even dreamed of yet will be cost competitive to further expansion of renewables.
tommilukkarinen超过 4 年前
The article shows how competition and increased demand drop the solar and wind price. How obvious when you think about it, technologies that are based on building plants have limited competition, or even legislation that prevents competition, so there is no similar drive for price. While panels can be made anywhere and installed by normal people.
JoeAltmaier超过 4 年前
I wonder if the Solar death rates are under-reported. Installation and maintenance has significant risks. Folks fall off roofs all the time, and usually die.
peter303超过 4 年前
Government subsidies stimulated the virtuous circle. Remember dry fossil fuel well costs are fully deductible too. Eventually both could be phased oit.
killjoywashere超过 4 年前
The price of solar dropped because China put it in their five year plans about for about the last 4 plans to dominate that market.
throwaway12319超过 4 年前
The &quot;safest and cleanest&quot; chart is VERY misleading when in comes to nuclear.<p>It completely ignores the LONG-TERM risk for human survival: catastrophic release of large quantities of active fuel or waste (due to events like war, terrorism, natural disasters).
评论 #25283359 未加载
评论 #25283338 未加载
jillesvangurp超过 4 年前
If you look at where investors put their money, it&#x27;s very clear that the learning effects have already convinced them that renewables provide the best ROI. It&#x27;s not even a debate or a hypothetical outcome. This happened years ago. Price parity for wind&#x2F;solar happened about seven years ago in most markets. The learning curves that this article talks about have not slowed down since and the result of that is that is that prices are no longer similar but at this point obviously cheaper (2-3x).<p>What&#x27;s more interesting is what is going to happen next: they prices going to be an order of magnitude cheaper; and then another one. And this is going to happen quickly. And unless something changes, it&#x27;s happening on a predictable timeline even. Investors and policy makers are already taking decisions based on this.<p>The effects of a two orders of magnitude change in pricing are both easy and hard to predict. The easy part is predicting that we will not merely use renewables to replace non renewables. Or put differently, an order of magnitude change in price will be paired with an order of magnitude increase in demand. The world electricity right now is a bit over 30 PWH (peta watt hour) per year, give or take. Normal linear growth would probably get us to 50-100PHW in a couple of decades. However, orders of magnitude changes in prices (10x, 100X, 1000X) could put us on a different path where we are producing hundreds, thousands or even tens of thousands of PWH of electricity. Like this half of this century.<p>People worried about storage: Elon Musk is building TWH battery factories right now. A few decades from now we might have hundreds or thousands such factories: enough battery production to store current electricity production for about a year every year. And bear in mind that batteries can be used more than once. A single TWH worth of batteries with about 3000 cycles would store about 3PWH of energy; we only need ten such factories to get to 30PWH. Back of the envelope math is fun.<p>That&#x27;s all easy part to predict but it may be hard for people to wrap their heads around the numbers. Exponentials are hard for people&#x27;s intuitions. The only uncertainty here is how long the learning curves will apply. The most pessimistic perspective on that would be that thousands of R&amp;D projects, startups, research institutes are going to fail 100% starting right now and the learning curves will flat line completely and immediately. Any other perspective means that 10x is 100% certain to happen in 15-20 years and 100x would be extremely likely by 2060 or so. I hope to still be around by then. I could be off by an order of magnitude (both ways) and basically the only change would be the years in this paragraph would change a little.<p>The hard part is predicting what we&#x27;ll actually do with this energy. There&#x27;s no shortage of interesting applications that are essentially cost bottle-necked on energy. Synthetic fuels, clean water, heavy industry, transport, mass transit, etc. all benefit from orders of magnitude changes in pricing for energy. This is a massive economic opportunity.<p>What that also means is that the learning curves this article talks about will start impacting the cost of things that currently don&#x27;t have them. Including most of our legacy fossil energy infrastructure. A gas plant burning fossil methane doesn&#x27;t benefit from this learning curve. The same plant burning methane produced from thin air using excess solar&#x2F;wind does: that becomes cheaper to operate as the price of solar&#x2F;wind drops.<p>Current fossil fuel energy consumption is going to be a rounding error when you consider the demand increase fueled by a 100x drop in electricity prices. Eventually, fossil fuel is going to be beyond irrelevant as we&#x27;ll literally be able to synthesize the entire current demand for that orders of magnitude cheaper than current prices. All forms of fossil fuel exploitation will grind to a halt because of that. That&#x27;s good news.
mike_n超过 4 年前
I worked for a solar co in the US for a while, 10yrs ago or so. It was a very interesting time, the hardware (solar panels, inverters) part of our Cost of Goods Sold fell considerably over the course of a few years. I&#x27;ll suggest a few reasons, as I saw them: 1) Larger-scale, fully-automated manufacturing facilities were coming online. Some mfrs were reputable and high-quality, some not so much. But the abundance of supply caused these vendors to compete for business on price&#x2F;warranty&#x2F;etc terms, which drove down our cost to build systems. 2) Lots of developers were also bidding for projects, and utilities forced solar&#x2F;wind developers to compete to offer lower prices for their power. 3) Government&#x2F;utility subsidies helped get manufacturing facilities up and running, and made marginal projects more affordable to build&#x2F;buy. Some incentive programs were well-designed, some were not. The markets that offered the best total return to investors got done first -- the lowest-hanging fruit for solar was in areas with relatively good sun, expensive grid power, and perhaps some extra tax&#x2F;etc subsidies. Same idea for wind (or any infrastructure or real estate investment, really). 4) Attractive project margins encouraged lots of developers to enter the market, which increased competition and resulted in innovation in business models and processes. 5) Manufacturers scaled up further to satisfy increased demand, resulting in lower hardware costs. 6) Larger investors started angling for a slice of the action. VCs were looking for unicorns, MBA students were looking for jobs. Bankers wanted to make loans and do IPO&#x2F;M+A work. Big renewable projects&#x2F;portfolios of &gt;$100M are pretty much the minimum interesting size deal for big project financiers, small deals don&#x27;t move the needle for them. In fact, if you can put $1B+ to work in a responsible manner, that&#x27;s even better. Banks are risk averse and renewables were a new&#x2F;unproven (and thus risky) asset class, and in the early days it was hard to get any sort of financing, at any rate. As more projects demonstrated good ROI, more banks did the work to understand the (hardware&#x2F;warranty&#x2F;operational&#x2F;etc) risks and became willing to lend in this sector. The IRS issued clear guidance on some tax issues which further reduced uncertainty (=risk) for would-be investors. As more financiers entered the market, they competed for deals and the cost of capital for high-quality developers&#x2F;borrowers fell by several %. 7) Over time, the subsidy programs faded away, but (as intended) during that time hardware costs fell considerably. As developers got more experience, they also got better at reducing ancillary costs (sales, development, legal, etc).<p>And so it goes, a nice virtuous cycle of competition, some subsidies to help a nascent industry, decent deal economics for investors and early adopters, and manufacturing scale-up.
skocznymroczny超过 4 年前
Are they also so cheap without subsidies? I feel like without subsidies and without carbon taxes, they are no match for fossil fuels.
评论 #25287072 未加载
mikewarot超过 4 年前
Solar powered engines have been around since Mouchot had the first models working in Tours in 1865. The fact is renewable energy was always a choice, just not the cheapest in the short run.<p><a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;en.wikipedia.org&#x2F;wiki&#x2F;Augustin_Mouchot" rel="nofollow">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;en.wikipedia.org&#x2F;wiki&#x2F;Augustin_Mouchot</a>
评论 #25281634 未加载
konjin超过 4 年前
By ignoring most costs.<p>Saying renewables are cheap when it&#x27;s sunny or windy is like saying coal is cheap at the mine.<p>For some reason people realize that distance in space is a problem. But distance in time is something that we can&#x27;t wrap our heads around.<p>It would cost trillions to build up enough storage capacity in the grid to time shift the power needed, or to build a grid capable of moving power between regions on the scale of continents.