Hacker News
points by Havoc 3 days ago | 0 comments
More stoked for when the same is said for storage.

Solar is cool but solar that can make it through the night and a couple cloudy days is way cooler

[–] AnthonyMouse 3 days ago
> Solar is cool but solar that can make it through the night and a couple cloudy days is way cooler

The fun part is that we're still well before the point when this even matters.

Almost 60% of the US grid is still fossil fuels, with around half of that still happening during the day. Which means you can get down to ~30% fossil fuels without any storage at all because all you do is go from burning fossil fuels during the day and at night to burning fossil fuels only at night.

[–] chii 3 days ago
> at night to burning fossil fuels only at night

only natural gas plants can do this. a coal plant cannot spin up just for the night and turn back off when the sun comes up - it's incredibly inefficient and probably causes more premature wear/tear too.

[–] Animats 3 days ago
Full startup and shutdown of a coal plant can take days, but throttling down to about half power during low-load periods is normal. Power plants do this every day. Late at night, load decreases and plants throttle down. Every morning, between 0600 and 0900 local time, there's "morning load take-up" as load increases.

The big issue is what's called "ramp rate" - how fast can output power be increased or decreased? This tends to be around 1% to 3% of capacity per minute. See Figure B-2 in [1], which is a detailed discussion of how to improve your coal-fired power plant's ramp rate.

Natural gas plants have much higher ramp rates, and for batteries, it's under a second. Nuclear plants can be ramped up and down, slowly, but since it's all capital cost, cutting output raises the price of the power.

[1] https://www.epri.com/research/products/3002012979

[–] Maxion 3 days ago
Yep, I live in Finland where we are quite far ahead of the curve when it comes to renewables and nuclear. This is one large problem. When it's winter and cold and dark, solar does not help. Wind only helps when its windy.

Batteries are coming, and will solve it, but it will still take time for them to be come cheap enough.

Only once we have ~7 days of storage (~100 GWh of storage) will we be able to get rid of the last fossil plants.

[–] olegp 1 day ago
Unrelated to the topic, but if you happen to live in Helsinki, you should join our HN meetup, if you haven't already: http://bit.ly/helsinkihn
[–] Maxion 1 day ago
Thanks oleg! I have, but have been lazy and not yet showed up :D
[–] pebbly_bread 2 days ago
>Batteries are coming, and will solve it, but it will still take time for them to be come cheap enough.

How long is the hope those batteries will last? There's surely no way Finland can run off battery power for even one month, much less a whole winter.

edit: perhaps I misunderstood and your comment on batteries was more related to the reliability of wind?

[–] weberer 2 days ago
Yeah, the batteries are for wind. There are some days when the wind barely blows at all. That's when electricity prices really spike.

Finland's power grid stats are open to the public. You can click the month view to see how the different power sources fluctuate.

https://www.fingrid.fi/en/electricity-market/power-system/

Also fun fact: a lot of solar panels in Finland are mounted vertically to walls rather than rooftops. That's because we're so far north that the sun just hangs around the horizon rather than going directly overhead. You end up catching more sunlight pointing directly south.

[–] dns_snek 2 days ago
Budgeting for over a month without power is unheard of. Extreme scenarios ("dunkelflaute") are measured on the order of hours, maybe days, and they get shorter and less frequent the larger the grid is.
[–] leonidasrup 3 days ago
"

"Increased rates of component life consumption due to thermal fatigue, mechanical fatigue and wear caused by differential thermal expansion comprise the bulking of cycling (costs)," according to the International Energy Agency's Coal Industry Advisory Board.

"Every time a power plant is turned on and off, the boiler, steam lines, turbine and auxiliary components go through unavoidably large thermal and pressure stresses," the National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL) wrote in a report on cycling costs published in April 2012.

"

https://www.reuters.com/article/business/energy/to-survive-c...

[–] IX-103 2 days ago
You don't get thermal and pressure stresses from throttling or even going into hot standby - the pressures and temperatures are the same, just the flow rate of steam changes. You only get thermal and pressure cycles from full shutdowns. As long as you keep the reactor/furnace warm then there's no issue here.
[–] Ericson2314 2 days ago
Well Coal is already cooked
[–] Havoc 3 days ago
Yeah the US will lag behind on this.

Other countries are better positioned. e.g. UK has really spiky wind energy. Right this second more than half the grid is wind. Which is both cool and problematic for managing the grid.

Grid scale cheap storage would dramatic help manage that chaos

[–] rob74 3 days ago
Other countries are better positioned already because they don't have an administration funded by the fossil fuel lobby - but even that doesn't explain some of the decisions, like preferring to reimburse $1 billion in already paid leases rather than letting a company build wind farms on the leased area (https://edition.cnn.com/2026/03/23/climate/trump-totalenergi...).
[–] Maxion 3 days ago
Spain suffered a black out partially due to the lack of momentum (spinning generators).

For Europe to get rid of more fossils without putting the grid at risk we will need more storage.

[–] Lio 3 days ago
I surprised we can’t, or rather don’t, make more use of tidal energy.

That and low energy density storage located at sea with the turbines.

[–] pyrale 2 days ago
The issue with this logic is that you build a cliff where, at some point, you need to massively invest in storage, and the storage industry hasn't had time to mature alongside the solar/wind industry.
[–] Ericson2314 2 days ago
Yeah it's crazy how many people are in denial of this.

Storage has been making impressive strides, but the cliff here (in storage and transmission, the latter of which we in the US still are sucking at) puts nuclear back in the running.

[–] AnthonyMouse 2 days ago
If you want sooner demand for storage in the form of batteries then electrify transportation.
[–] HDThoreaun 3 days ago
It doesnt make economic sense to serve the entirety of daytime electricity demand from solar without batteries. Youd have to tons of fossil fuel plants that turn off during the day and then back on every night. For solar to take the next step batteries are a requirement
[–] Panzer04 3 days ago
It's not quite as bad as that, since you don't consume fossil fuel resources when plants aren't running, but this is mostly a benefit for oil/gas plants, not coal (since the coal is likely useless without the power plant consumer anyway)
[–] shagie 3 days ago
Depending on the type of power plant, it can take quite a while to spin up (or down) one of them and get them to optimal power production.

https://www.eia.gov/todayinenergy/detail.php?id=45956

If you shut down by day, it can take multiple hours for it to be able to provide full load... and multiple hours for it to shut down cleanly. During this time it is producing power at less than optimal rates and/or using the fossil fuels to keep the wheels spinning and in sync with the grid so that they don't have to go through a phase matching period.

(aside for coal - note that it takes more than 12 hours for a coal plant to get running from a cold start)

[–] adgjlsfhk1 3 days ago
That's not really a problem. A spin up over a couple hours matches nicely with the slow sunset over a continent. The sun takes ~4 hours to go from a bit above the horizon in the east coast to a bit below the horizon on the west coast (solar panels make some power in twilight).

Wind also helps since wind makes more power at night, as does demand which is dramatically lower at night.

For coal, Great. Making coal economical is excellent. We should have banned it worldwide 20 years ago.

[–] adrianN 3 days ago
Solar+A couple of hours of batteries is already economically viable. The storage problem that is still expensive is bridging days/weeks of insufficient sun and wind.
[–] traceroute66 2 days ago
> The storage problem that is still expensive is bridging days/weeks of insufficient sun and wind.

It might help if the US wasn't so anti off-shore wind at the moment.

[–] shagie 2 days ago
I live 900 miles from the coast. While the Great Plains are a good source of wind power ( https://www.eia.gov/energyexplained/wind/where-wind-power-is... - Iowa is 43 billion kWh of production - https://iuc.iowa.gov/regulated-industries/electric/iowas-ele... ), I believe it is generally a mistake to assume that power solutions that work for the Atlantic coast can provide power solutions half a continent away.
[–] HDThoreaun 3 days ago
The US uses around 4TWh of electricity a night. A battery with that capacity, to get through the night with no generation, would cost over a trillion dollars. Of course thered still be some generation at night, but still, using a battery just to get through the night is not even close to viable
[–] pinkgolem 3 days ago
You might want to update your numbers, 1 kwh is somewhere between 50€/kwh to 75 including electronics... No economics of scale, shipping included..

That makes 300B

Eu pricing

[–] GlibMonkeyDeath 2 days ago
That sounds like a lot right? But it isn't large compared to US wars to protect energy resources (>$4T just for post-9/11 wars), and the payback it would generate over decades to come. In fact, this level of investment is a total no-brainer, compared to the benefits it will generate (forget about even the climate benefits - just the other economic and defense benefits.)

And we can sure find those trillions when we want to: https://defensecommunities.org/2026/04/trump-requests-1-5-tr.... Or https://www.budget.senate.gov/chairman/newsroom/press/extend.... Or...

[–] adrianN 3 days ago
The war in Iraq cost a trillion dollars.
[–] traceroute66 2 days ago
> The US uses around 4TWh of electricity a night.

And if we subtract all those datacentres crammed with Nvidia GPUs ? ;)

If we're being honest here, the problem with the US is that it has always treated any sort of energy source as being infinite and has always been quite extravagant in its use of energy.

Whether a preponderance for gas-guzzling SUVs or datacentres the story is always the same. The US mentality is there will always be infinite oil in the pump and infinite electrons in the cable.

[–] jerven 2 days ago
Is that actually that much more than building 400GW worth of nuclear generation capacity (assuming 10 hours of nighttime)? I think that, that simple calculation shows that it is viable. Even a trillion is 1/32th of the US GDP. Construction over a decade should not stress the US economy at all.

I also think your trillion number is at least double the raw cell cost today.

[–] loomy7 2 days ago
Current li-ion pricing is $19 per kwh (BYD's latest cell's pricing), so a single battery that covers all 4TWh would come in at 76 billion dollars. Still a shit ton but reasonable.
[–] fpoling 3 days ago
Just by scaling up the existing technologies the full cost including installation and maintenance of a grid-scale battery in 5 years will be below 100 usd/kwh. So the price is max 400 billions or 1% of US GDP.
[–] thelastgallon 2 days ago
US has ~250 million cars. If they are all EVs (100KWh), it is 25TWh capacity.

Reserving 20% of that capacity to supply power back to the grid is 5TWh.

EVs can be charged for free during the day, ~20% of solar is lost due to curtailment. Even if a significant percentage (10 - 20%) of the people decide they are going on long drives from Florida to Vancouver and turn off supply-power-to-grid-for-money in the app, its fine, there are plenty of cars. It is the cheapest, most resilient, distributed and self-healing energy ecosystem. Only one problem, it won't make the super billionaires money. Unless it can be packaged in a way to make the super billionaires money, its a no go in US.

This infrastructure buildout costs nothing, people buy new cars all the time (~20M/year), just buy EVs instead. Because people are providing the capital and the storage infrastructure, they should be paid for it.

[–] bijowo1676 3 days ago
USA should explore Pumped Storage Hydropower more, it has same or better efficiency than battery storage and can use existing facilities like hydroelectric dams
[–] buckle8017 2 days ago
The largest pumped storage facility in the world is in the us.

It's also pretty old.

"USA should look into thing it practically invented" good meme

[–] bijowo1676 1 day ago
then why are we bothering with importing batteries from China if USA has solved the problem with pumped storage ???

dont you see the problem with USA solving the problem and USA still having a lack of energy storage issue ???

[–] shagie 3 days ago
Part of the pumped storage problem is "where can you do it?"

There's a good number of 'em: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Pumped-storage_hydroe...

https://www.ferc.gov/media/licensed-pumped-storage-projects-...

You'll see that most of them are in the Appalachian mountains and in the Sierra mountain range.

The one in Missouri is one of the interesting ones that isn't in either.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Taum_Sauk_Hydroelectric_Power_...

> The Taum Sauk pumped storage plant is a power station in the St. Francois mountain region of Missouri, United States about 90 miles (140 km) south of St. Louis near Lesterville, Missouri, in Reynolds County.

It has a hydraulic head of 860 feet and that represents the challenge - you need to find places in the US where you can get several hundred feet of elevation in a short distance.

Hypothetically, lets build one in Minnesota... Taum Sauk Mountain is the highest point in Missouri. The highest point in Minnesota is Eagle Mountain (in the boundary waters - you can't build there, pretend we can) ... the elevation to the top os 550 feet (about half what Taum Sauk provides) over 3.5 miles (Taum Sauk is just over 1 mile). ( https://maps.app.goo.gl/vHfWarwubaLvsf5z7 )

Much of the US is too flat for it to be useful.

[–] justincormack 3 days ago
Coal is a dead end anyway.
[–] rr808 3 days ago
That might work in The SouthWest of the USA, but the Northern bits dont get enough sun to get through the day, so you'll need fossil fuel plants all day night for the Winter. If they're there already its cheaper to use all day in the summer as well.
[–] acdha 2 days ago
It’s more expensive to use them all day: that’s the problem facing power plant owners where renewables are so much cheaper that they break the economics for power plants which were designed to run continuously but are more expensive when wind and solar supply is limited.

(That’s the answer for the northeast, too: New England has no shortage of wind all winter long and batteries don’t care where the electricity comes from)

[–] saltcured 3 days ago
Hmm, how much of that is base load versus the dramatic rise of natural gas plants that respond to dynamic demands? Even in daytime, I think you need storage to get rid of those, right?
[–] AnthonyMouse 2 days ago
> Even in daytime, I think you need storage to get rid of those, right?

Suppose that solar generates only during the day and only when it's not cloudy, and it's cloudy e.g. 10% of the time. Then you're using natural gas at night, but those natural gas plants still exist during the day, so you can also use them on the 10% of days that are cloudy and you're still replacing 90% of the daytime demand.

[–] kulahan 3 days ago
I don't know why this is downvoted. Solar and wind both essentially suck at anything other than baseline throughput. That doesn't mean they're useless, it just means that solar can't be our only solution unless we have, like... 30 breakthroughs tomorrow. We otherwise need something to handle spikes, which are both common and important, as well as periods when there is extended cloud cover even for typically-dark months.

Even if we handwave all the science needed to build batteries big enough to power cities for days, I don't think it's realistic to handwave the science needed to power a city for weeks. We don't even have enough oil for that.

"Power when it is inconvenient" is pretty much the basis for a modern society.

[–] crote 3 days ago
Solar panels still work just fine when it is cloudy, just with a lower output. And usually when it is cloudy it also tends to be a bit windy, so solar and wind nicely complement each other.

Heavy clouds and zero wind, for weeks? That's a once-a-century freak event. Just build gas peaker plants if you are worried about it. You could even add carbon capture, but constructing it might emit more than it will ever capture...

[–] dgudkov 3 days ago
> Solar panels still work just fine when it is cloudy, just with a lower output.

I assume you never tried measuring the output of a solar panel when it's cloudy. It's 10-15% of a sunny day. Closer to not working than working.

[–] bruce511 3 days ago
Depends on the cloud. Where I live I routinely get 50% generation on a "cloudy" day.

On a rainy day that drops closer to 20%.

As an aside - cloudy days avoid a problem I have with shade. In winter, at 3:30pm, the sun goes behind a tree and my production plummets to near zero. If there's cloud cover the sunlight is far more dispersed and there's no "shade".

[–] andsoitis 3 days ago
> On a rainy day that drops closer to 20%

And you’re still able to power your entire home? What if the rain lasts for a few days, which is pretty common in many places.

[–] stephen_g 3 days ago
Worst I've had over a day in the last few months on my home solar is about 25% of my maximum daily generation. It was one day in a very rainy week here in Brisbane Australia.

I did have one rainy day back in the middle of Winter that was 16% but that will end up being literally the worst day of the year.

[–] tialaramex 2 days ago
To be fair Australia is very sunny. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solar_irradiance

It also has relatively wealthy people, living in lots of individual housing units. If you wanted to design a country that's perfect for rooftop solar your imagination might come up with Australia.

That said, Australia ought to be able to run almost everything off solar given how sunny it is, and instead solar is a distant second behind coal for electricity production. So there's plenty of work left to do.

[–] zdragnar 3 days ago
That's every single winter where I live in the US. We don't have a word for it like the Germans do, though, we just call it January.
[–] PaulDavisThe1st 3 days ago
The good news is: you're on a national (or semi-national) grid, and conditions like that are more unusual than they are common across the USA.
[–] kulahan 3 days ago
You want us to transport energy 1500 miles? Cold, dark winters cover enormous swathes of the US - inconveniently, often at similar times. So what - we're turning Florida into a solar park so the rest of the nation can use that while they're dark?

Our energy grid can't currently handle the ability to charge electric haulers locally at any scale let alone to move an entire city's worth of energy, so the solution is not to 85x the national electric grid all at once.

[–] hunter-gatherer 3 days ago
Carbon capture makes little sense until fossil fuels have been replaced. I guess there are some Bio char technologies that might change the equation a bit, but watt for watt, you need to replace your carbon emissions first (generally speaking)
[–] saltcured 2 days ago
Yeah, thanks for that. I can only imagine someone reacted as if I am arguing against solar, which I'm not. It's just that you really need storage to phase out the natural gas peaker plants, since they need to deliver on-demand rather than as-available.

And, this gets even worse if you are also replacing baseload plants with solar, since the solar output is more variable than those old plants were, so now you need even more storage capacity to offset those dropouts at the same time you are handling demand peaks.

Sometimes, I think there is some magical thinking going on when people see solar panels work at a house without batteries, and they fail to recognize how much they depend on the grid for stability. If they ran in island mode, they'd quickly understand just how important storage is...

[–] adrianN 3 days ago
A week of low solar and low wind is a yearly or every-couple of years event that you definitely need to solve for a completely renewable grid.
[–] ZeroGravitas 2 days ago
A completely renewable grid is less important than electrifying the low hanging fruit of heating and transport.

Anything below 800g of CO2 (which means basically every current grid) means electrifying is a net win. Even the famously coal heavy South African grid is already past that barrier and even if it wasn't all grids are getting cleaner over time.

A grid that has maxed out wind and solar and then used only coal for 2 weeks would be one of the cleanest grids in the world right now, on par with France or Sweden.

Chasing 100% on a grid to satisfy the complaints of people who are concern trolling isn't smart nor necessary. What you need is bulk cheap electricity to allow you to reduce your heating and transport costs and clean your air at the same time.

[–] adrianN 2 days ago
It looks like we’re pretty much in perfect agreement, but I think it doesn’t hurt to already start planning what to do about the last couple of percent. These are all projects with long time horizons
[–] fpoling 3 days ago
Keeping coal plants around is cheap to cover that. Longer term things like producing ammonia during summer and converting it to electricity in fuel cells will allow to remove needs for fossil fuels completely.
[–] adrianN 3 days ago
I’d keep gas plants around, but anyway, you need to cover that case and can’t just handwave it away.
[–] fpoling 3 days ago
The main advantage of gas plants is that they support variability. In a world with enough battery storage to last for days that would be irrelevant. And as an insurance against rare events it is better to keep coal plants as transportation and storage of coal is vastly more resilient to interruptions.
[–] awesome_dude 3 days ago
Strictly speaking - a battery is stored potential energy

A common battery for grid level storage is pumped hydro - that is, use the peak power during the day(s) to push water from the bottom of an elevation to the top, and hold it there - bonus points if it captures water delivered from other solar processes (evaporation -> rain)

[–] kulahan 3 days ago
There are about 90 billion battery solutions - none of them are very efficient, cheap to manufacture, easy to manufacture/acquire materials for, and long-lasting all at the same time.
[–] acdha 2 days ago
Grid-scale sodium batteries are already in production, and there isn’t some kind of magic anti-technology shield which keeps the United States in the 1920s.

When talking about cost, it’s important to remember that solar+batteries are already cheaper and, unlike nuclear, happen on much shorter timescales. I’m not opposed to some nuclear plant starts but those guarantee a couple decades of increased pollution before there’s any chance whatsoever for carbon reduction, whereas solar can come online in a year.

[–] kulahan 2 days ago
Solar panels, of course, are also very dirty to manufacture. Simply bringing something online quickly is not a measure of overall efficiency.

You’re right, though, that nuclear is ALSO only a part of the solution. One day, it will be a major and necessary component of our grid, but we need to start tackling this carbon problem harder, and like… yesterday.

[–] perilunar 2 days ago
> Strictly speaking - a battery is stored potential energy

That's its function, but that does not make any device that stores energy a 'battery'. An electric battery is specifically a battery of electrochemical cells — Franklin invented the term as analogous to an artillery battery (a collection of guns).

Calling every form of stored energy a 'battery' is just dumbing things down for the masses.

[–] awesome_dude 16 hours ago
I gave a specific example (pumped hydro) - that's not electrochemical.

Maybe I did need to dumb it down more if that was missed.

[–] johnea 3 days ago
Typical non-informed incorrect opinion.

The overwhelming majority of generation and storage is best deployed at the point of use.

Grid scale anything, is a massive inefficiency.

The only reason grid and city scale is so prevalent in public discourse is because this is the only electricity the utility is paid for, and they are very actively impeding any other solution.

In the US, there is a very large inventory of flat roof industrial buildings, in the industrial parks that are using huge amounts of electricity. Covering all of those roofs with solar (especially here in the west US) would prevent a tremendous amount of grid scale generation, and implementing storage there would eliminate a large part of the transmission line upgrades the utilities are calling for.

The biggest problem in the US isn't technical, it's the governments desire to primarily support the solutions that are best at serving utility shareholder returns, instead of the technically superior solutions.

[–] prawn 3 days ago
How common is it that these industrial/commercial buildings have roof-top solar? If not common, what stops it?

It's quite common in Australia for commercial and residential.

[–] footydude 2 days ago
> How common is it that these industrial/commercial buildings have roof-top solar? If not common, what stops it?

One factor is weight - a lot of low-cost industrial units may well need modifications to the roof to strengthen them to be able to take the additional weight of solar panels.

Certainly where I work (science research facility in the UK) our business has only been able to install roof-top solar on a comparatively small proportion of our total roof space because a large amount of the seemingly viable space would require substantial works to make the roof strong enough for solar.

[–] kulahan 2 days ago
In the US, there is a slowly-growing trend of covering parking lots with solar panels, rather than buildings. You can put up very cheap i-beans + corrugated metal structures with the added benefit of shading cars. It doesn't work everywhere, but in sunny - and especially dry - regions, it's great.

edit: I could see this working well in AUS and USA because we've got lots of space and sun. Might be harder in Europe and northern Asian regions

[–] acdha 2 days ago
It’s becoming common but the current administration has been highly committed to preventing that because it cuts into their fossil fuel donors’ business.
[–] missinglugnut 2 days ago
You're not making any sense. If things worked like you say, the industrial manufacturers would just put solar on their roofs, save a bunch of money, and that'd be the end of the story.

If rooftop solar power were so economically efficient, the manufacturing companies would get far more shareholder money lobbying for rooftop solar than utilities can make lobbying against it. But your conspiracy thinking doesn't account for this.

Heavy machinery uses dramatically more power than the roof space above it can produce. And you can't shut the factory down every time there is a cloud in the sky, so you need a utility hookup that can power the whole factory anyway.

The grid is the technically superior solution. That's why megacorps with capital and lobbying might keep willingly connecting to it.

[–] IAmBroom 2 days ago
Your first paragraph is nothing but an ad hominem. You lost all credibility there.
[–] jillesvangurp 3 days ago
Usually solar and storage are a package deal these days for grid scale solutions. Mostly, storage is not really about providing long term storage but short term. It used to be that the sweet spot that makes the most economic sense was something like 2 or 4 hours of power (relative to the maximum output of the solar panels) but these days batteries are a lot cheaper and 8 hours or more is becoming fairly common. The point of storage is not really to cover for all the downtime when the sun doesn't shine but to give grid operators enough lead time to bring online extra generation or buy capacity on the open market and adjust their planning. Mostly a few hours is all they need to ensure the grid stays up and running through daily peak usage windows.

In aggregate, grid operators have a lot of other tools at their disposal via flexible pricing, flexible demand, and automated systems that can adapt to this to e.g. charge cars when there is a surplus of energy, turn on/off water boilers, etc. There's a lot of innovation around this topic in this space. This by the way is as much as making sure generated power doesn't go to waste than it is about ensuring there is enough power. They use batteries to time shift excess power to when they can utilize it.

Interconnected grids means that e.g. an operator in Denmark can import/export to and from the UK, Norway, Germany, etc. On a windy day they'll be exporting wind power. On a sunny day, they might add some solar to that mix. When there's no wind or sun in Denmark, they might pull in Scottish/German wind, Norwegian hydro, Swedish nuclear, etc. Batteries are being deployed all over the place at a pace that is only exceeded by the pace at which solar is being deployed. Whenever there's a surplus energy, batteries get charged up. It's very rare for all of the available generation to disappear all at the same time for long enough to drain all the batteries. And for those times of course fossil generation is still a thing as well, and will be for decades to come. There are a lot of gas based plants throughout Europe. As well as some nuclear plants of course. Singling out the EU market here but it's going to be similar elsewhere.

The point here is that there's no need to pair solar setups with days/weeks/months worth of storage. A few hours goes a long way.

[–] banktops 2 days ago
Ignoring want energy independence, this would be true.
[–] nicoburns 3 days ago
Good news: batteries on are a similar exponential curve. Just a decade or so behind.
[–] johnea 3 days ago
Its important to qualify that:

A decade or so behind, in the US.

If the US didn't block import of Chinese tech, we could have electrified a decade ago.

The tech available at the current moment, is even more capable of replacing petroleum based electricity.

But our government is banning Chinese tech to serve our outdated industries instead of importing it to serve the population.

As any wise country would do when faced with superior technology, we should import it with the condition of technology exchange. Chinese manufacturers should be training US workers and industrial ownership how to produce cheap, efficient, sodium batteries.

This benefits the populous immediately, and the industries are able to advance into the current century's tech.

[–] noduerme 3 days ago
>>> As any wise country would do when faced with superior technology, we should import it with the condition of technology exchange.

If it were a matter of industrial protectionism against a country which was not hostile, not authoritarian, didn't rely on slave labor, etc., then I'd agree with you. Countries have other pressing reasons besides immediate economic advantage to prevent this sort of thing.

To greatly oversimplify: Japan fought against opening their markets, as did China, out of political and social concerns for the stability of their states, far more than economic ones.

[–] johnea 1 day ago
I would still argue that this is another reason to pursue technology exchange, to make the tech available outside of that oppressive country...

The people of the US would still benefit immediately by access to cheap batteries and solar...

[–] 0xbadcafebee 3 days ago
The US is far more hostile than China, also relies on slave labor, and is so increasingly authoritarian that our country's domestic & foreign policy now resembles a 3rd world dictatorship.

Doesn't matter though. The big mistake was allowing manufacturing to be exported from the US to begin with. Nearly any advanced technology we use or wish to produce is now dependent on China. They control not only the advanced manufacturing process, but also the refinement of rare earths (we can mine it but not refine it) and have cheaper labor. Not only can't we make tech without them, we can't sell it at competitive prices. Things will soon get worse as robotics and vertical integration makes Chinese products even cheaper and better quality. And we can't compete on robots because China controls that production chain too.

The smart play would be to build up our own green energy sector to gain cost savings, while investing in its manufacturing, so we can eventually compete and support ourselves (which Biden and Obama passed funding for). Trump eliminated all that when he came back, because the oil companies wanted more profits, they literally don't believe climate change is real, and they have no idea how diplomacy works. We could've had cheap battery, wind, and solar manufacturing in the US. Not anymore.

[–] leonidasrup 3 days ago
You should visit the Tibet region and ask the locals. But:

1. As a US citizen, you would probably not a get permit necessary for entering the Tibet region.

2. If you could get a permit for Tibet region and go there, you would be followed by police officers dressed in civilian clothing. The locals would be quite hesitant to speak to you.

(Source: been there long ago, seen it). China has many qualities, but freedom is not one of them.

[–] noduerme 3 days ago
Nor are civil rights, or civil litigation for that matter.

I don't think the poster you're responding to is writing in good faith; they're either an agent of an authoritarian power, or blind to the difference of being one.

People in China can say anything the government approves of, but they can't say "long live freedom and democracy," unless they want to be executed.

Neither, I suspect, will Chinese AI models make any statement in sympathy with personal freedom, democracy, or human rights; it would come at the expense of the people who paid to train those models, and that can't be allowed.

[–] motionlessveloc 3 days ago
Fun fact: there are huge government-sponsored posters proclaiming Freedom (自由) and Democracy (民主) through China, because they're two of the official twelve Core Socialist Values.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Core_Socialist_Values

[–] noduerme 3 days ago
>> The US is far more hostile than China, also relies on slave labor, and is so increasingly authoritarian that our country's domestic & foreign policy now resembles a 3rd world dictatorship.

As a child of immigrants from the Soviet Union, and also as someone who knows people still resident in authoritarian dictatorships: This is patently ridiculous. Everything else in your post is a spray of nonsensical policy points and predictions. You led off with the tell. Frankly, it makes everything you say afterward sound like what an authoritarian enemy government would want people in the US to think about their own country.

What you wrote in your first sentence is either (a) wildly misinformed (like, you have no idea what life is like in an authoritarian country with actual slave labor, which is an insult to the people who do currently live there), or (b) intentionally nefarious (like, you work for such a country, in a capacity to minimize the distinction between their system of autocracy and the United States' democracy). If it's (a), study at least a little bit of the history of mass murder in the 20th Century. If (b), well, we live in a free country so you can spew whatever garbage you want. Interestingly, we have not been overtaken by any of the dictatorships that have sprung up in Eurasia over the past hundred years, and I don't think we will be soon.

[–] 0xbadcafebee 2 days ago
I love how nobody asks me to give evidence or examples. You don't want to find out you're wrong.
[–] noduerme 2 days ago
Sure, give evidence and examples.
[–] clarionbell 3 days ago
>> As any wise country would do when faced with superior technology, we should import it with the condition of technology exchange.

Europe tried doing that. And our green technology sector promptly collapsed, because it couldn't compete with Chinese undercutting our prices. The only thing left now are wind turbines, but Chinese are making inroads there too. In the meantime, the green transition barely moved a needle when energy shock arrived in 2022 or this year. Rendering rest of our industry, especially chemical industry, uncompetitive.

[–] WarmWash 3 days ago
All fine and dandy until your grid goes mysteriously offline the day after China moves on taiwan.
[–] jacquesm 3 days ago
Call me paranoid. I have a couple of inverters here that are grid connected and I made sure everything that allowed outside connectivity in the box mysteriously stopped working. A little bit of RF knowledge goes a long way with stuff like that. It was interesting to see how many ways it tried to do this. Fortunately it kept working even without connectivity. Configuring the things is a pain though, the display and buttons are clearly not meant to be used that way but it does work.
[–] noduerme 3 days ago
That's not paranoid.

Paranoid is me testing the plates I bought off amazon for lead, and throwing away the bathtub mat which smelled like petroleum waste. I'm fairly convinced that the goal of that ruthless dictatorship is to poison, degrade and infiltrate every single household abroad in every way possible. A fast attack might be to bring as many devices offline as possible, but the slow attack is simply to lower people's intelligence by hardware or software methods (e.g. TikTok, Qwen... or, let's say, not notifying anyone for a few months that a new SARS virus had escaped a lab). Everything that comes out of communist China is warfare, even if it looks like a plush toy.

[–] andsoitis 3 days ago
> But our government is banning Chinese tech to serve our outdated industries instead of importing it to serve the population.

It protects American companies who operate in the green energy generation and storage arena from Chinese competition.

[–] reactordev 3 days ago
No, it protects fossil fuel energy companies from having to retool and change.
[–] andsoitis 3 days ago
It does that too, but it would be unbalanced to not also recognize it protects green energy companies in America from Chinese competition.

Not only does Chinese competition get blocked, but governments are incentivizing green energy. For instance, just recently it was reported that Tesla’s $10B solar factory could get 35 years of tax breaks in Texas (Oil Capital!!!)

https://electrek.co/2026/10/23/tesla-solar-factory-texas-35-...

[–] noduerme 3 days ago
Sorry, which country in the world burns the most coal? https://worldpopulationreview.com/country-rankings/coal-cons...
[–] banktops 2 days ago
China of course. But they are not hobbled by energy ideologies. China is pragmatic and still increasing coal and nuclear power depending on what works.
[–] Schiendelman 3 days ago
Honestly, it's not even doing that. Thing that would really push the US ahead would be the tax breaks we had until a couple years ago.
[–] blitzar 3 days ago
> protects American companies who operate in the green energy generation

Wont someone think of the big beautiful clean coal companies

[–] toss1 2 days ago
Yup. Forcing technology exchange is exactly what China demanded of the US to get access to its markets, specifically to gain the advantage it now has.

Access to US markets conditioned on full tech exchange with US battery and automakers would be a fair exchange (and would likely require some temporary support of US automakers so they survive the transition).

[–] pfdietz 3 days ago
Diurnal storage is solved by batteries. Longer term storage will very likely be solved. For several days, cheaper batteries (perhaps with lower specific power). For longer periods, either thermal storage or e-fuels.
[–] ben_w 3 days ago
My guess is seasonal will be handled with flow batteries. A big tank and cheap-ish electrolyte, with the expense being in the electrodes sized for whatever max power is required. Tanks good for multiple cubic meters worth of liquid storage aren't exactly difficult to find, nor to place in a garden.

Then again, I'm basing this opinion on a recent-ish video from NightHawkInLight: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eq7fR9ISuCw

[–] pfdietz 3 days ago
Flow batteries might be ok for a week or so, but their market window has been shrinking as Li-ion has gotten cheaper.

The technology I'm most excited about is ultra low capex thermal, as being done by Standard Thermal. Capital cost per unit of energy storage capacity as low as $0.10/kWh(th), so it can work with seasonal storage and just a few tens of charge/discharge cycles over its lifespan.

Standard Thermal has raised $11M and is building in Germany, where they say they can deliver 365/7/24 solar resistive heat (400 C or perhaps 600 C) for half the cost of heat from burning natural gas there.

[–] cyberax 3 days ago
Flow batteries keep coming up again and again, but they just don't work well in practice. The power density of electrodes is too low to be practical, and this is a fundamental problem.

A regular 18650 cell has about 0.1 square meters of electrode surface. And you have thousands of these cells in a car battery, resulting in literal football fields of electrode area.

[–] TheCoelacanth 2 days ago
Seasonal will be handled with wind-power (tends to produce more power when solar is producing less), building extra (power being too cheap in the summer is a great problem to have) and long-distance power transmission (plenty of sun in the southern US or southern Spain even in the winter).
[–] ben_w 2 days ago
Those all help, to be sure. Personally, in my "if I was king of the world" fantasies, I'd make a global power grid. Aluminium production is actually high enough already for genuinely antipodal connectivity at 1 Ω, though it could also be grown fairly easily if this needed to be done faster than a timescale of decades or it turns out 1 Ω isn't low enough resistance. Main limit is global geopolitical issues, hence "if I was king of the world".
[–] pfdietz 2 days ago
Wind certainly helps, but there's a question of what will happen to the relative cost of wind and solar in the future. Solar seems to have a steeper experience curve.
[–] rr808 3 days ago
Wood burning heat is perfect compliment to solar in remote areas.
[–] bryanlarsen 3 days ago
Agreed, e-fuels seem to be far and ahead the front-runner.

We can get to 95% using just short term storage. I suspect that most jurisdictions will just say "95% is good enough" rather than paying for ridiculously expensive long term storage.

We've got the nat gas capability already; keeping it around for the 5% is quite inexpensive, making the massive investment in long term storage for marginal benefit hard to justify.

OTOH, while the premium for e-fuels seems excessive, if you're only running that nat gas plant 2 days a year that premium is not so scary.

[–] pfdietz 3 days ago
> Agreed, e-fuels seem to be far and ahead the front-runner.

For covering Dunkelflauten? Yes.

For seasonal storage with a prolonged discharge (so, low power/storage capacity ratio)? I think thermal storage wins there.

[–] cyberax 3 days ago
I just don't see it with thermal. You have to pay the Carnot tax, and you also need humongous amounts of material.

E.g. 100 GWh (4 days of 1GW thermal power) with a 100C temperature swing (you can't go down all the way to room temperature) will need around 3.6*10^4 tons of sand. That's a lot.

Honestly, power-to-gas sounds like the only reasonable way for now. In theory, with SOFC (Solid Oxide Fuel Cells) for power generation, it can beat the steam cycle.

[–] Panzer04 3 days ago
36000 tons... doesn't actually sound like that much? That's a ~30x30m cube of dirt.

But I have no reference for the cost of setting up such a storage and how it compares to battery or hydro.

[–] adgjlsfhk1 3 days ago
The ~grid scale design of this for reference is somewhere around 200mx200mx50m for above ground, or ~100m cube (or bigger) for quarry infill. Such a design is going to get crushed by battery/hydro over the hours/days, but wins on cost for seasonal usage.
[–] pfdietz 3 days ago
The cost of putting dirt in a pile is $1-2/ton.
[–] cyberax 3 days ago
The biggest expense will be the pipework inside that pile. That you won't be able to service easily. And you'll also need a LOT of insulation around it to prevent heat from leaking out too quickly.
[–] PaulDavisThe1st 3 days ago
so $36-72k for days of 1GW of power? Sounds pretty cheap to me ...
[–] pfdietz 3 days ago
The temperature swing can be much greater than 100 C. Heat can be extracted as a wave passing through the store, then heat added back by reversing the flow. It would operate like a counterflow heat exchanger.

View another way: if we hook several piles in series, then lukewarm air from a first mostly discharged pile can be directed into later piles for more heating. In the continuous limit this is the concept I described above.

[–] cyberax 3 days ago
> The temperature swing can be much greater than 100 C.

No, because your steam will be at a lower temperature as you draw down the heat, bringing down efficiency.

[–] adgjlsfhk1 3 days ago
Realistic designs for this can achieve 450C delta t. Your energy store can store at ~1000C (slightly below rock melting point), and run steam turbines with a hot side of 600C and a cool side of 150C.

Over the season, your sand drops from ~1000 to ~600 (which is fine since your power needs drop in the spring)

[–] pfdietz 3 days ago
That is wrong, and I already explained why.
[–] bryanlarsen 3 days ago
Sure, thermal is great where it's possible. But there aren't that many places where district heating is viable.
[–] pfdietz 3 days ago
I'm not talking about district heating. I'm talking about high temperature storage for conversion back to electricity. Round trip efficiency could be around 40%, better than green hydrogen burned in combined cycle plants.
[–] bryanlarsen 3 days ago
Standard Thermal's website's front page only covers heat delivery; did you mean to link to somewhere else?

Those are 2 very different use cases.

Thermal is low rate extraction. It's 1 cycle per year, but the extraction is performed over months so is low rate.

Electricity long term storage is high rate extraction. It's only used a few times a year, but when it is used it needs to cover roughly 100% of the entire grid's needs. I doubt thermal storage is suitable for high rate extraction, but I'd love to be wrong.

Edit: rereading your parent comment you seem to think thermal is suitable for a different use case? Could you elaborate further? When is "prolonged discharge" useful?

[–] pfdietz 3 days ago
That's what they're focusing on to start with, but the temperature is high enough to drive heat engines to make power. There's more on the concept at the seed company's (Orca Sciences) web site and at Austin Vernon's blog.

https://www.orcasciences.com/articles/standard-thermal

https://austinvernon.substack.com/p/building-ultra-cheap-ene...

They talk about temperature up to ~600 C, which I believe is limited by the desire to use cheap steal (much hotter and creep becomes a problem). This is also perhaps not coincidentally about the temperature of steam from a coal fired boiler, so one of the eventual goals is to repower retired coal fired power plants with this storage providing the heat instead of coal combustion.

You're right this is not good for something needed "a few times a year" for relatively short periods, for example to cover Dunkelflauten. Combustion of an e-fuel is better for that. But it's well suited to seasonal storage of solar energy, as that would be extracted over months, more or less continuously. The resistive heaters should also be much cheaper per W than electrolyzers.

[–] anakaine 3 days ago
13kW on the roof and a 48kW battery. It produces on cloudy days, and battery alone can last 3-4 days with regular unmoderated use with 6 adults at home. That includes split system air-conditioners on eco mode.

It produces enough on cloudy days to still.top the batteries up to full.

I had a day recently where production topped 80kW and was exporting bulk before late afternoon grid production limiting kicked in. That's a lot of juice, and Ive basically not touched the grid in 7 months.

[–] kleiba2 2 days ago
Sounds awesome! How much was your upfront investment if you don't mind me asking?
[–] losvedir 2 days ago
Where are you located? I hear comments like this and get excited and then find out they're based in, like, Australia. Whenever I look into it here in Chicago, it seems I won't get nearly the same production on cloudy days, and especially in winter.
[–] jauntywundrkind 3 days ago
Most of our chemistries are targeting things like cars and consumer electronics.

Ideally we see people like Form Energies, using iron-air (rust) batteries, for much easier to scale storage. https://www.technologyreview.com/2026/10/06/1145020/2026-cli...

[–] dieselgate 3 days ago
Aren’t lead acid batteries great for this purpose? They have advantage over lithium in stationary setups because weight is not an issue and they can be “daisy chained” many many times. I’m unaware of more cutting edge alternatives and the way the electrical companies handle solar is confusing IME
[–] rcxdude 3 days ago
Lead acid batteries don't much like being cycled heavily. Even the ones explicitly designed for it (the average car battery is not) have about a tenth of the lifespan of lithium ion.

LiFePO4 is probably the chemistry best suited to it ATM. Lasts a long time, more stable, pretty cheap, and just a bit less energy density than other lithium ion options. Sodium-ion is looking promising but only just entering the market AFAIK.

[–] mnw21cam 2 days ago
A tenth is perhaps an exaggeration. It depends on how you count your lifespan.

A lead-acid battery mainly ages by cycle count. If you keep a decent quality battery charged up, and don't regularly discharge it too much, then there are claims they will last ten years. If you discharge them excessively each day, then you'll kill them really quickly.

A LiFePO4 battery has a quoted cycle count. But really what matters is simply elapsed time - the battery will last about ten years if it isn't abused, and you'll be hard-pressed to actually do that many cycles in that ten years. It ages mainly by elapsed time, not cycle count.

I used to argue that for an off-grid solar solution, you should get lead-acid batteries with capacity so that you are normally never discharging below 70%, and that this was still cheaper than getting LiFePO4 batteries with smaller capacity that you would discharge down to 20% each night. The lead-acid would then give you a larger reserve capacity for those instances where the weather is foul for a bit longer than normal and you don't get meaningful charging.

However, since then LiFePO4 batteries have continued to decrease in price, there are new Sodium batteries available now, and I haven't done the calculations again - the best option may have switched over, or it may be so close that it doesn't really matter which one you choose.

[–] foobarian 2 days ago
It looks like sodium is another step change on top of LiFePO4. I look forward to see it scale
[–] ElevenLathe 3 days ago
Does this mean LA would be a feasible option for longer-cycle storage, IOW keeping a reserve topped up most of the year for those duldrums weeks with little solar or wind?
[–] rcxdude 3 days ago
I think it still loses out to lithium-ion on cost/kWh, and batteries in general are still a bit expensive for storage on the timescale of months.
[–] adgjlsfhk1 3 days ago
For long term storage, the right batteries don't exist yet (commercially). The good options are going to be one of sodium ion, flow batteries, or thermal batteries.
[–] Schiendelman 3 days ago
In addition to the fact that it doesn't really work better for that either, it's just not as safe as lithium iron phosphate.
[–] sieve 3 days ago
I dumped my 24V dual LA battery setup for a single 24V LFP battery for my inverter/UPS backup. LFP supposedly has a 10-15y life based on the 4-5000 charge cycles most cells claim. Sodium ion is on the way as well. My setup gives me about 10-12h of backup for critical loads (my PC, lights, fans).

I have a 5 kWp solar plant that produces ~25kWh per day, but it is grid-tied. I considered a hybrid setup with LFP battery back up, but decided to separate the two systems to avoid a single point of failure.

[–] literalAardvark 3 days ago
They're not great.

LiFePo4 however is excellent and reasonably low cost these days

[–] thiht 3 days ago
"PO" not "Po" (I was wondering what Polonium was doing in here lol)
[–] saltcured 3 days ago
Whatever it is doing, it won't be doing it for very long ;-)
[–] adjejmxbdjdn 3 days ago
We can simulate storage with overcapacity and broader geographical distribution networks, even if storage doesn’t become as cheap.

Fortunately that doesn’t seem like it will be an issue since battery storage costs are also seeing an exponential reduction.

[–] dominicrose 3 days ago
Electricity is cheaper at night but only 20% of my consumption is at night, so I wouldn't mind if the situation was reversed.

I guess using electricity to heat during the night could be an issue, but we could also accept to let the temperature drop.

[–] masklinn 3 days ago
Around here late morning to mid afternoon (11 am to 4 pm) is now off-peak, alongside the old 10pm to 6 am.
[–] Maxion 3 days ago
With enough renewables the cost peaks are in the morning and evening when the sun is rising/setting and people are at home cooking.
[–] kulahan 3 days ago
There's also, like... winter. I'm fairly sure there's a calculation somewhere you could determine the number of deaths this will cause with pretty good accuracy.

Solar is never gonna be a complete solution. At the end of the day, we could do it more efficiently by just building suns here on earth for the panels, but of course then you've achieved fusion and you're already generating more than solar could ever hope to. We shouldn't hinge our future on half of a technology.

[–] TheCoelacanth 3 days ago
There's still sun during the winter; you just need more solar panels for the same amount of energy. Also, there tends to be more wind during the winter, so wind power makes a good complement to solar.
[–] kulahan 3 days ago
So the winter, by definition, will always generate less? or we're just like... covering up a bunch for half the year or something? I don't get your point.

My larger point is that solar is only ever going to be a piece of the puzzle at best. In space it might be quite nice, but otherwise it's kinda goofy to invest too much in.

[–] lostlogin 3 days ago
> My larger point is that solar is only ever going to be a piece of the puzzle at best.

Doesn’t that apply to any power source?

[–] kulahan 2 days ago
Correct
[–] TheCoelacanth 3 days ago
With the way prices are trending, soon solar power is going to be the cheapest power source even in the winter. No one is going to complain that electricity is too cheap during the summer.
[–] kulahan 2 days ago
Only if we give up on nuclear and enhanced geothermal and continue subsidizing it massively so we can force it to be cheapest
[–] TheCoelacanth 2 days ago
Nonsense. It's going to be the cheapest no matter what.
[–] Maxion 3 days ago
In lower latitudes, yes. Where I live December has an average of 4 hours of sunlight (yes, the entire month).
[–] jmyeet 3 days ago
Fusion, I hate to say it, is a pipe dream. Why? Because any fusion reactor loses a ton of energy to fast neutrons, which have the added negative of destroying the reactor. So-called aneutronic fusion (eg using He3) isn't zero neutrons. It's just fewer neutrons.

Stars don't have this problem because they're very large so there's only so far neutrons can go.

[–] kulahan 3 days ago
This is such a weird thing to assume is just impossible in physics, I don't quite know how to respond other than "yes, there are many unsolved problems in every energy sector, which is why it's an open question where we go from here"
[–] jmyeet 3 days ago
I've heard every counterargument a million times at this point. And they fall into one of two buckets:

1. Stars do it. Yes. But stars also have size and gravity, something no nuclear plant will ever have; and

2. "People once said X was impossible" ie the Galileo Gambit. Just because Galileo was mocked for his heliocentric model but was later proven right does not mean everything is possible.

Thing is, I'm not even talking about physics. I'm talking about engineering. Something not only has to be possible but it has to be technically viable and sufficiently cheap. Put it this way: would you pay $60 billion for a 1GW power reactor with a lifespan of 30 years and an annual maintenance cost of $2B? Even if the fuel was completely free the wholesale cost per MWh would be ~$600. Nobody would build that.

Fusion research has been going on for decades and the best we've done thus far is fire a laser for about a second to induce a fusion reaction and also spend billions building magnets to try and contain a turbulent fluid at 100 million degrees, which, again, will do nothing about the neutrons that will destroy that vessel.

The joke is that fusion is always 50 years away and always will be. If you're an optimist it's always 30 years away and always will be.

[–] kulahan 2 days ago
I’m just glad we finally, today for some reason, have the ability to determine what will and won’t ever be possible with physics. It’s also crazy to me that we know fusion so thoroughly we cannot reliably perform it but we know it’s possible to do but we also know it’s impossible to do for extended periods.

You should inform nuclear physicists and engineers of your new-to-mankind knowledge.

Did you know we once argued over whether or not to close the patent office because “everything had already been invented”? This isn’t the Galileo concept, it’s recognizing we’ve only been doing global hard science as a species for like 50 years.

[–] garbagewoman 3 days ago
Energy storage, on the other hand, has endless solutions which exist right now
[–] kulahan 1 day ago
Yeah and they’re all terrible. Why do you think nobody is building energy storage at massive scale? Don’t be silly.
[–] garbagewoman 1 day ago
No need to be condescending
[–] breakyerself 3 days ago
The cheaper solar gets the more of a gold rush there has been to develop projects/technologies that take advantage.
[–] boringg 3 days ago
Its also tricky to defend in war prone locations.

I think solar is amazing and we need more of it - but I can't stand this solar and storage go at it alone mentality. It's pretty thickheaded to discount the other forms of energy that we can use and will need.

[–] rgmerk 3 days ago
In practice, in Ukraine distributed solar power has been an increasingly important source of resilience in their power supply system.

There are legit reasons to push back against “solar and batteries everywhere” but I find it hard to credit resilience in a conflict situation as one of them.

[–] boringg 2 days ago
I probably should have clarified -- I'm not referring to forward bases or front line operations. That location would be fantastic for solar. I'm talking utility scale solar operations deployed in large areas -- quite easy to knock out as it is a huge surface area and not particularly robust.

This isn't a reason not to go with solar+batteries everywhere. This is an observations of the product weak points and why it isn't the only solution in the chain.

[–] Gigachad 3 days ago
I think I'd rather a solar panel array be bombed than a nuclear power plant.

Solar has the advantage that it can be widely distributed on buildings rather than in just a few centralized locations.

[–] viktorcode 2 days ago
A nuclear plant in a war zone is a dirty bomb waiting to be set off, which is incredibly easy to do, technically. Gas and coal plants are also end up being easy targets, as the war in Ukraine has shown. The most reliable one is solar because of how distributed it is. You can knock off one solar field, but then there are rooftops. You really need to destroy a city if you want to get it rid of power completely.

(Diesel power generators also work, but they require constant fuel supply, which can be complicated in a war zone)

[–] zardo 3 days ago
I don't see how anything would be more resilient than solar.
[–] daveevad 3 days ago
Gravity just needs mass not fusion but your point remains.
[–] epistasis 3 days ago
Won't be long, battery installation is bigger by GW than wing or gas:

https://www.eia.gov/todayinenergy/detail.php?id=67205

But for the most part it will trail solar, because the first chunk of the solar doesn't really need storage. But once there's a healthy percentage of solar, all new solar will have storage or it won't get paid.

[–] cavoirom 2 days ago
I don't think the winner takes all mindset can be applied in electricity generation. But I think the clever arrangement between these technologies will work:

- Solar.

- Wind.

- Nuclear.

- Pumped hydro.

- Battery.

[–] killingtime74 2 days ago
Cloudy days don't matter if you over provision. You can add way more panels than your inverter can handle to account for the cloudy days. Night is another story, of course.
[–] jacquesm 3 days ago
This is solvable, but it will require international cooperation on a scale that is unlikely. But you wouldn't need any storage at all, just a large number of long distance HVDC lines to move the energy from wherever the sun is shining to where it isn't.
[–] ericd 2 days ago
It's a nice thought, but the strategic implications make it very hairy, and international trust isn't going in the right direction for that. But within large countries like the US with very varied climates, it seems like we really should.
[–] leonidasrup 3 days ago
It solvable but very expensive.

The costs of large number long distance HVDC lines with accompaning invertor stations would be as expensive as a electric generation based on nuclear power.

[–] jacquesm 3 days ago
I don't think that is true. The bigger problem is the international cooperation required, as well as that such a system would be vulnerable to attacks.
[–] leonidasrup 3 days ago
" The cost of the electrical equipment that brings the offshore renewable energy from the wind turbines to the shore is in the same range as the cost of the wind turbines themselves. The future offshore grid will need tens of billions of Euros of investments in HVDC transmission infrastructure. For instance, Dutch-German transmission system operator TenneT has contracted 30 G€ for such connections in the North Sea. "

https://blog.sintef.com/energy/future-hvdc-grids-yes-please-...

[–] jacquesm 3 days ago
Yes. Those links will be built anyway. Once you have them it isn't a huge stretch of the imagination that you could cross connect them. Check out a map of how many of those we have now, compare with two years ago or so and see how fast the buildout is. North-South links would take care of the seasonal variation and East-West links would lengthen the day.
[–] leonidasrup 2 days ago
> Those links will be built anyway.

Those links and the associated large costs, were not necessary in the past. I would like to note that, the amounts of electricity produced each year in Europe didn't change much for the past 40 years.

https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/electricity-mix?tab=line&...

I understand the low production costs of solar power, but in many discussions the associated costs of upgrading electric grid and building large scale electric energy storage systems are swept under the rug and not assigned to a electric grid dominated by solar power.

Like this BBC article, which compares costs of solar vs. nuclear, when the comparison should be costs of solar+HVDC+storage vs. nuclear.

[–] jacquesm 2 days ago
They simply weren't possible. HVDC relies on semiconductors that are relatively new.
[–] JumpCrisscross 3 days ago
> More stoked for when the same is said for storage

Batteries have use in war and power. It will likely scale faster than PV. What we need is the second derivative, so production of the latter can be turbocharged just before battery production is about to break through.

[–] fpoling 3 days ago
Batteries already kill peaker plants as a grid-scale battery that lasts 4 hours became cheaper than running natural gas turbine to cover the evening demand peak.
[–] holgerschurig 2 days ago
Solar can definitely make it through a couple of cloudy days.

This is because people that bring that argument act like every house is it's own electric island. But that's far from the truth. In developed countries the electric grid is HIGHLY interconnected. Look at this beautiful map: https://www.entsoe.eu/data/map/

So, how likely is it that it's cloudy in Bulgaria and Spain and Germany and UK and Hungary and and and ...

(It's only the US that decided to mis-design their grid. Instead of one united, where each one can help the others, they have 4 different grid. That is also one of the reason why the SAIDI --- duration of power interruptions per customer and year --- is so terribly bad).

Also, if you buy your solar cells to work with ambient light, put them into east-west (instead of south) and use an inverter that doesn't use 50W just for itself --- then you can also get power WHEN it it cloudy. Enough to sustain e.g. your router, fridge etc. Not enough to charge an EV.

But... for a day-night-cycle we have local batteries. They got cheap in the last 5 years. I mean, the cheaper ones arrive at 100 €/ kWh.

And finally: no one every proposed that "a single solution is all we need". We don't need just Ford passenger cars. We also need vans. And trucks. And buses.

By limiting your thinking artificially to "How can I oppose a situation where ONLY solar panels provide power" you're doing your own reasoning power no favor. The starting premises is already faulty, almost like a strawman attack (invent some bogus scenario, attack that scenario, hope that others that can't think sharp fail for this bad reasoning).

The fun thing is that people like you post this again and again, in every discussion. Since years. As if you're unable to learn that the world isn't only "one solar island next to another solar island". Why is it so hard to understand that a grid is inherently connected? And that we have a multitude of ways to generate electric power?

[–] eriktrautman 2 days ago
Solar that can make it through the seasons is the coolest.
[–] d3rockk 3 days ago
It's encouraging- when one part improves usually the others follow.
[–] toomuchtodo 3 days ago
https://www.iea.org/commentaries/global-battery-markets-are-...

- Battery energy storage has grown at an exceptional pace, with global installations increasing more than 20-fold in storage capacity over the past five years. This growth has been driven by falling battery prices, abundant supply and relatively short project lead times. As variable renewable generation expands in many markets, battery storage is becoming an important source of flexibility and resilience for power systems, while also representing a growing commercial opportunity for battery manufacturers.

- However, more than 90% of battery storage applications rely on LFP batteries that are almost exclusively supplied from China, which accounts for almost all global manufacturing capacity and the associated technical expertise. Korean producers are investing to scale up LFP battery production that can offer an alternative, but they face intense competition from established, lower-cost Chinese producers in an oversupplied market.

https://www.iea.org/commentaries/battery-storage-is-scaling-...

- Battery storage now accounts for around 18% of installed dispatchable capacity in Australia, compared with 7% in China, 5% in the United States and 4% in Europe – underlining how rapidly batteries are becoming an important part of the electricity systems in some regions.

https://www.ess-news.com/2026/06/02/global-battery-additions...

Battery storage is right behind the solar adoption curve. Net zero in five years? Probably not. Ten to fifteen years? Almost assured considering rate of change and the overall economics (assuming ~1TW/year of solar PV deployment and enough battery storage to soak up that low carbon generation while also providing grid services to replace thermal generation grid support [voltage, frequency, etc]).

(China is curtailing renewables equal to the annual combined generation of Spain and the Philippines every six months, and India about ~100-120GW/month due to not enough battery storage, for example)

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=50132343

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=50198882

[–] theoreticalmal 3 days ago
I am desperate to find a battery inverter that can be used to supplement my existing grid-tied home solar setup. I only need about 5kW and 10kWh of batteries, but everything I can find is geared towards whole-home power at like 12kW. Way way more than I need. I understand I’m in the minority and there’s probably not a market, but I’d love to find something
[–] toomuchtodo 3 days ago
Unfortunately, the market is somewhat bifurcated between what Anker, Jackery, Ecopower provide and stepping up to Base Power, Powerwalls, and other bigger system components.

My recommendation would be to see if Ecopower storage and inverters are a good fit for your use case. If you're feeling adventurous, you could build your own battery pack, but I only recommend if you are knowledgeable and confident. This comes with substantial property and life safety risk, only proceed if you know what you're doing and understand the risk (I'll work on my high voltage EV battery packs, but only with a helper nearby holding a 2x4, for example).

https://hackaday.com/tag/battery-pack/

[–] _carbyau_ 3 days ago
Transparency: I live in a 240v land, I have a Siggen.[0]

Not sure whether other brands could be better but there seem to be various options that would suit. If you are in 120v land you may need to check if there are models to suit.

Its largely modular, inverter sits on top of modular batteries in 8-9kw chunks.

But they are app-infested. IE wants a wifi connection, app on your phone to their servers... etc etc.

I hate it, but the wife likes it. This is a recent thing so I am still working out if there are possible solutions for privacy and control over my own objects.

[0]https://solarbatterysupermarket.com.au/products/sigenergy-ba...

[–] lostlogin 3 days ago
> IE wants a wifi connection

Their car charger was doing my head in.

I pulled it apart and found an Ethernet plug and it was a complete game changer.

But: the app and their servers remain.