Skip to content(if available)orjump to list(if available)

Understanding Solar Energy

Understanding Solar Energy

131 comments

·March 20, 2025

bryanlarsen

Great article. Unfortunately his California duck curve graph only shows 2023. A graph including 2024 shows how batteries are dramatically flattening the duck curve:

https://cdn-ilcjnih.nitrocdn.com/BVTDJPZTUnfCKRkDQJDEvQcUwtA...

https://reneweconomy.com.au/battery-storage-is-dramatically-...

Calwestjobs

Hot water tank heated by electricity and powering on at noon is flattening curve. You can say hot water tanks are cheapest, simplest and fastest deployed energy storage device.

Solar + hot water tank can provide any house in US with 100% solar hot water (from PV!) for 80% of time, remaining 20 % of time you can have 10-99% solar heated water.

So we should focus on saying to people that if they buy solar and add electric heating element to hot water tank, then PV system will pay itself much sooner and their batteries will last longer. Becasue it is known and predictable load, you need hot water every day. And hot water is order of magnitude more energy then TV, lighting...

By lowering household usage like this we can make energy transition faster, cheaper.

Also proper construction - house heated only 10 days in a year - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5KHScgjTJtE

epistasis

Converting a gas water heater to electric and/or solar is one of the best bang for the buck on decarbonization too. Something that should be done before buying an electric car or swapping out your gas furnace for a heat pump. Though I'm terrible at following my own advice, I still have a gas water heater, just because I needed to replace my car and furnace before I needed to replace my water heater. That said, the sunk cost fallacy applies to carbon emissions just as hard as it does to dollars so I have little excuse for not replacing it except laziness (and space on the breaker panel...)

opwieurposiu

If you want to DIY a solar PV water heater I made a whole website about it with instructions and a simulator to estimate what your payback period could be.

https://www.pvh2o.com/

ipdashc

Is it a fallacy though? It doesn't make sense to buy a new EV if you still have a gas car that's working fine. In the same vein, I wouldn't want to throw out my gas furnace or water heater to replace with electric, creating waste and requiring the manufacturing of a new unit

MostlyStable

Slightly less convenient/has more impact on how we percieve our environment, but HVAC (the number 1 power use, hot water is #2), can also be a decently good battery, if your house is well insulated. Where I live, power is incredibly cheap over night, so I over-heat or over-cool my house (depending on season) overnight, and then let it gradually equilibrate during the day.

I realize that some people won't be willing to have a very warm/very cold house that gradually shifts to the more ideal comfortable range, but for people who are willing to deal with that (it personally doesn't bother me), it's a pretty easy way to shift a lot of power use and, if you have Solar or Time of Use billing, save a lot of money.

Calwestjobs

Yeah that too, but that has limits, for example european union regulates building industry in such way that every new build, rebuild has to be done in a way that your heating energy requirement is already lower than your hot water energy requirement. Because hot water energy usage can not go lower in current society, but buildings can be improved a lot. So yes as you said if building is modeled in software tools like OpenStudio ( Revit, archicad uses this sw developed in collaboration by NREL, ANL, LBNL, ORNL, and PNNL ) before build, to make building not waste energy and capture as much sun in cold period as possible then even such strategies can be used. You can not preheat/ precool 1870s handhewn cabin, all energy will be lost very fast. It sounds obvious to you and me but most people do not really understand this deeply enough to "click" in their heads.

time of use billing - tool to incentivie you to use "off-peak" power, but i guess it will be deprecated in favor of "realtime" billing in future, because there will be so much solar (almost zero $ per kWh on market) that your energy provider will incentivize you to draw energy during peak solar "activity" AND off-peak hours. it will be simpler for them to give you market price every 15 minutes window than 4hour window at same time every day.

opwieurposiu

I installed PV solar hot water at my house, works great. Makes about $2 a day worth of power.

Calwestjobs

Congrats, using as much energy directly on site is crucial for fast and cheap energy transition of economy.

megaman821

Using a hot water tank as a battery is an incredibly simple idea. I wonder how much electric hot water heaters on a timer could flatten California's duck curve.

applied_heat

They have been controlling hot water tanks in New Zealand for decades… probably since the 70s. They use what they call a ripple signal by adding 400 hz on top of the 60 and then relays on your hot water tank detect the 400hz and switch it off

ok_dad

There’s a company doing that in Hawaii, I think it’s called “shift energy”. I interviewed with them, it seemed like a great operation, but a bit hobbled by being a startup in Hawaii. I respect it though, I’d do the same.

robomartin

Photovoltaic water heating is the worst possible idea (and use) for solar panels. Frankly, I have no clue why they are pushing this concept. Add to that electric stoves, ovens and cars and you have an expensive disaster in your hands.

Most of the homes around me have somewhere around 3.5 to 6.0 kW of installed solar. This is barely enough to support these homes. With changing rates and TOU billing, everyone is paying hundreds of dollars per month for electricity (between billed power and leasing costs). Wasting --because it would be wasting-- the energy they produce to heat water would cause every single one of these homes to go back to bills they were getting in the pre-solar era.

Electric water heaters run somewhere between 3KW and 5KW...which is crazy. In a place like SoCal, in the summer, your air conditioning system is going to consume that much power. The monumental increase in energy usage cannot be understated.

I have THERMAL hot water heating, similar to this:

https://www.stiebel-eltron-usa.com/products/solar-thermal-ho...

Just two to four panels are enough for most homes. Instead of burning gas or electricity to heat water, you run a little circulation pump and get water hotter than you can handle, by far. This is supplemented with gas to keep the desired temperature when the sun isn't up. I've been using these systems for well over 30 years, they work well and they are the smart way to make hot water from the sun. My 13 kW solar array isn't being used to inefficiently turn photons into electrons to then burn the energy making water hot.

dzhiurgis

My hot water heats up in less than 2 hours and if I don’t fire it up at night I won’t have hot water in morning.

At this point getting some batteries would likely be cheaper than new boiler + plumber to install it.

PaulDavisThe1st

It loses heat overnight, or you use all the hot water contents overnight?

andbberger

has PV finally overtaken solar hot water?

Calwestjobs

well just piping for hot water system is more expensive then PV panels.

But biggest expense is instalation costs(humans) so it depends how you calculate. But PV system can be used for hot water, tv, car, charging kids bikes, lawnmower etc. Solar thermal can be used only for hot water (or cooling if you use multistage heat pump but that is viable only in office buildings or hockey stadiums and such).

epistasis

And similarly the battery prices are very outdated. I don't blame the author for using those estimates, I frequently do too just because getting access to current data usually requires paying money.

But making decisions on that data without understanding that current prices and near-term prices will be about half of that price will lead to bad decisions. And when thinking 5-10 years out, not taking the full exponential drop in battery and solar prices is beyond foolish.

r00fus

Actual battery prices may be dropping but cost to install batteries to your solar installation in CA have not dropped - in fact they've gone up.

Not sure why this is the case.

epistasis

This is by design in the regulatory infrastructure, from local permitting offices all the way up to CPUC and rate structures.

We pay about $3/W for solar installation in the US, but Australia pays about $1/W.

For batteries, there's still a supply crunch and the only people getting really good prices are those people who buy in huge bulk or are willing to take a risk on a lesser known manufacturer. If you want well-proven brands the prices can still be very high for small purchases, and a solar installer is not going to want to take a risk with a new supplier.

These systems are not super complex, most technical people could figure them out fairly easily, and in fact off-grid disconnected systems are really easy to do. It's the grid tie that will kill you or first responders to your house, we have made the process of setting the whole thing up very expensive because nobody on the regulatory side has an incentive to make it straightforward and cheap. And since NEM3 killed solar in California, all the installers are barely scraping by and need to rely on very high margins on few projects.

ZeroGravitas

They also use the duck curve to represent energy demand, when it only reflects grid demand minus utility solar and wind.

There's nothing particularly confusing about the duck curve but it must be the most misunderstood (and/or misrepresented) graph in all energy.

doctoboggan

The company I work for (as a data engineer) does utility scale solar + battery installation and site management. We recently finished a large scale installation just outside of Las Vegas (by some measures the largest in the US). It was backed by a PE firm. Costs are getting so low, the tech so predictable, and with battery warranties around 20 years the PE firm is able to get pretty high return with a fairly low risk. They enter into a "power purchase agreement" with the utility so they know how much they will be able to sell the power for, and as long as we collect data on the batteries they will be able to be warrantied if there is an issue (but there rarely are issues).

The batteries are by far the most expensive portion of the setup. The solar by comparison is dirt cheap. We have single axis tracking like mentioned in the article. Every day we fully charge the batteries, and discharge them in the evening.

algo_trader

> I work for (as a data engineer) does utility scale solar + battery installation and site management.

Did you build your own excel/python nightmare or is everyone using 3rd party management software for this?

> as long as we collect data on the batteries they will be able to be warrantied

Can you share some of the data? Beyond power in/out, do you monitor humidity, vibrations, temperature ?

doctoboggan

Our data pipeline looks like this:

hardware/PLC --modbus--> kepware --mqtt--> mosquito broker --mqtt--> mqtt2prometheustool --http--> Victoria Metrics

The mqtt2prometheustool is something we developed in house. I am looking at removing one or more of the above steps and using telegraf instead, as it can ingest OPCUA or modbus data directly.

We use excel files just as the output of our reporting tools. For analysis it's the standard python data science stack of pands/numpy/scipy. Most people work in Jupyter notebooks, and their tools are eventually moved to services in our k8s cluster.

Temp and voltage are the main "cell level" datapoints we collect. I don't think we have any vibration sensors at site now.

dalyons

how do you like it? I have a 20 year career in large scale consumer app/web/b2c tech, but i've always wanted to work in renewables. Is it easy enough to break into? Is there many non-hardware roles (i have no hardware skills)? any advice / vibes?

doctoboggan

It's a great job. I joined with no prior experience in the field, and none of the positions on my team require hardware experience.

sanj

One thing I haven't seen much coverage on is how to tap into the giant batteries we're driving around in our electric vehicles. These are much bigger than what's currently being deployed in houses.

The V2H standards are just now coming online: https://electrek.co/2025/02/21/nema-bidirectional-ev-chargin...

r00fus

V2L is one of the reasons I bought the car I did - instead of getting battery backup for the random outages that PG&E gifts us (literally power drops likely to happen whenever we gust over 25mph), I installed a 12 circuit transfer switch and my 75kWh battery in the car can provide reasonable backup without running cables throughout the house (reasonable = 1.9kW max so no hair dryers or running toaster oven + microwave at the same time).

Newer vehicles (like 2025 Ioniq5) can do 12kW throughput (and many trucks can do 9+ kW already).

Once V2H standards are confirmed and deployed I would be able to integrate the Car batteries with home batteries and solar.

PaulDavisThe1st

A Generlink would have simplied your transfer switch rewiring. Just connect the external 240V supply (be it your vehicle, batteries, or a fossil fuel powered generator), and the Generlink shuts down the grid connection and delivers to your regular main service panel. You might need to turn some circuits off when using it, but which circuits and when remains flexible and context dependent.

raphaelj

There might not even be any need for V2G or V2H.

Just charging your car when the demand is low is probably enough to drastically reduce the overall cost of the system. And this has basically no impact on the battery lifespan.

kieranmaine

A trial in the UK resulted in customers earning up to £725/year [1]. With increased renewables on the grid leading to increased flutucations in the wholesale price of electricity, providing V2G/V2H will further reduce a customer's electricity bill on top of the savings offered by smart charging eg. Charge Anytime Tariff is 7p per kWh for EV charging [2] vs 27p kWh average Apr - Jun 2025 [3].

1. https://www.kaluza.com/case-studies/case-study-kaluza-enable...

2. https://www.ovoenergy.com/electric-cars/charge-anytime

3. https://www.nimblefins.co.uk/average-cost-electricity-kwh-uk

zekrioca

High demand is not the sole reason for outages.

malchow

Arbitrary vehicle to home/home battery/grid connection is indeed coming in very short order.

https://enphase.com/ev-chargers/bidirectional

There are other products already available to do it (DCBel), and it can be hacked of course, but at the current moment everything comes with substantial corner case blind spots, mostly related to grid-forming/following switching and to the resilience of the power electronics.

CrzyLngPwd

I have been off-grid with a small solar generation system of 2.5kwh of solar and 3.6kwh of battery storage for a year.

I had to run a generator a number of times during the darker weeks, but now we have longer days. I don't recall when I last ran it.

With solar, or any off-grid system, the number one thing that needs to change is you.

Switch stuff off, get energy efficient things, use power tools and charge their batteries when the sun is shining, use gas for hot water and cooking, and a log burner for heat (If I had my time again I would use a back boiler for water heating during the winter, and solar for water heating the rest of the time).

When I lived in a typical house, I averaged around 12.5kwh per day. Now, it's around 2.5kwh per day.

PaulDavisThe1st

> a log burner for heat

for areas that experience winter, this is a decisive issue.

If you live in a passivhause-style home, air source heat pumps ("minisplits" for our US readers) may work, and you might be able (at least in the southwest of the USA, with high insolation during winter) to get away with local battery storage to cover your heating needs with PV.

But if you don't, PV-driven heating during the winter, even with the very high COP's of air source heat pumps, is not realistic without much larger battery systems than you could reasonably have on site.

Covering non-heating domestic electricity costs with PV these days is relatively easy, and we should do it as much as possible. Covering the heating part for places with winter climates (especially in areas with low insolation) is much, much harder and really requires effective grid infrastructure.

nick3443

Ground source heat pump might help close the gap

null

[deleted]

Veedrac

The author misses a perhaps unintuitive point: the cost of storage depends also on the cost of energy. By the time you've overbuilt 2x, a full extra 100% of your demand is sitting around literally free at odd hours.

Traditionally, moving energy around means batteries, and yes maybe your battery costs more than just generating new electricity from a less efficient new solar panel at odd hours. But batteries are optimized for energy being expensive, where losses are wasteful.

Consider this really simple, dirt cheap alternative: plug your free energy into a pool of water and collect the hydrogen from it. Burn the hydrogen later, and point the light at your idle solar panels. It's hellishly inefficient, but I repeat: the energy is free. You are only minimizing capital costs, at least until other people catch up and start shifting load some other way.

The sane point on this curve probably looks something along the lines of a mix of batteries and synthetic fuels powering existing fossil fuel plants. The nice thing about going all the way to synthetic fuels and not hydrogen is that long term storage becomes trivially cheap, so it starts offsetting your winter load as well.

GratiaTerra

Personal energy abundance and off grid independence is the good life and it means using all electric appliances and vehicles, heat pump and hot tub, powered by nonpolluting energy generation.

As the article alluded to, scale is important for this to work (although I get by fine using only thirty 400 watt panels (12kw) and this covers less than 30% of my roof).

As a remote worker, not commuting daily large distances is key to this system working. If I had to commute 60 miles every day I would need additional 10-15 panels to power the Ford Lightning EV truck, and if I was charging at night I would need six additional 100A 48v batteries.

Calwestjobs

In Czech republic - europe - they made law that says anyone can built up to 100 kWp solar array, without any building permits, township meetings, HOA nonsense etc. You want it, you can build it.

Best way to be independent of your neighbors polluting your air with their wood burning furnace is show them PV works, and is cheap.

GratiaTerra

Yes, this wasn't economically feasible 10 years ago due to the rapid improvement in batteries, inverters, heat pumps for air conditioning and water heating, etc. I've been living off grid over 20 years but its only recently that its at least as good as a connected 200 amp grid power service with ample 220v for residential needs.

null

[deleted]

triceratops

If you had to commute daily, wouldn't you buy a smaller commuter EV? Something from Hyunda or Nissan? The depreciation on that Lighting will be rough if you had to drive it 80 miles/day.

GratiaTerra

Yes, utility vehicles are by definition not ideal for personal commuting.

pjc50

Good longread.

What I'd like to have a better understanding of, and I'm hoping to crowdsource here, is exactly how the solar panel cost has come down so precipitously. Part of it is simply manufacture scaling - almost everything is much cheaper in large quantities. But part of it must be a thousand incremental tech advances. Things like the reduced kerf diamond wire saw.

Also of note: I think monocrystalline has won completely? People experimented with all sorts of alternate chemistries and technologies, like ion deposition and the extremely poisonous CIGS, but good old "Czochralski process + slice thinly" has won despite being energy intensive itself.

Perovskites remain an unknown quantity.

philipkglass

The article posted by wolfram74 is part one of two, covering solar PV history up through the early 1980s.

Here's part two of the series with more recent history: https://www.construction-physics.com/p/how-did-solar-power-g...

Even this fairly long two-part discussion misses some of the more important technical developments of the past 20 years.

Converting trichlorosilane to pure silicon via CVD growth in Siemens-type reactors is now much more energy efficient due to changes in rod geometry and heat trapping via reactor design. A significant minority of purified silicon is now manufactured via even more efficient fluidized bed reactors.

The solar industry is dominated by Czochralski process monocrystalline silicon, but it's now continuous Czochralski: multiple crystals grown from a single crucible, recharging the molten silicon over time; the traditional process used a crucible once and then discarded it.

The dominant silicon material has switched from boron doped p-type silicon to gallium doped p-type silicon (mentioned by pfdietz) to phosphorus doped n-type silicon (used by the currently dominant TOPCon cell technology as well as heterojunction (HJT) cells and most back contact cells).

Changes in wafering that you mentioned (like the reduced kerf diamond wire saw) have reduced silicon consumption per wafer and therefore per watt, even holding cell technology constant.

The dominant cell technology has moved from Al-BSF to PERC to mono-PERC to TOPCon. Heterojunction and back-contact cells are not yet dominant, but they are manufactured on a multi-gigawatt scale and will probably overtake TOPCon eventually. Each one of these changes has eked out more light conversion efficiency from the same area of silicon.

Cells mostly still use screen-printed contacts made from conductive silver pastes, much like 20 years ago, but there has been continuous evolution of the geometry and composition of applied pastes so that silver consumption per watt is now much lower than it used to be. This is important because silver has the highest cost per kilogram of any material in a typical solar panel, and it's the bottleneck material for plans to expand manufacturing past the terawatt scale.

Wafer, cell, and module manufacturing have become much more automated. That reduced labor costs, increased throughput, and increased uniformity.

angleofrepose

Thank you and other commenters for the great rundowns here. I'm interested in a related question and I wonder if you or others could point me in the right direction: why was the mainstream consensus around solar power (and/or batteries) apparently so wrong for so long? More specifically -- and maybe a better question -- why didn't progress in solar and batteries happen sooner?

I'm less interested in blame than in a systems analysis of how in the last half century powerful players seem to have missed the opportunity to start earlier investment in solar and battery technology. Solar and batteries are unique in energy infrastructure, as even any casual observer knows by now, and is certain to change many aspects of politics, industry and culture. It seems an inevitability that energy infrastructure will evolve from large complex components towards small and simple components, and I'm interested in engaging with the history of why "now" is the moment, rather than decades ago.

KennyBlanken

Battery progress was in some ways slowed but also accelerated by oil companies who kept buying up patents on solar and battery stuff that looked promising, and then sat on the patents, refusing to license it.

One oil company bought Cobasys, which owned all the NiMH patents. Thereafter, Cobasys refused to license NiMH batteries to anyone making a vehicle, except large ones like transit busses. Several early EVs used NiMH batteries until Cobasys was acquired and set up the restrictions.

This really lit a fire under researchers and battery industry to try and improve lithium ion, which had hit the market in the early 90's. Once the price of Lithium Ion started falling, the market very quickly forgot about NiMH batteries. In about ten years prices have fallen to one fifth of what they were. That fall has slowed, but it's still dropping.

pjc50

> why didn't progress in solar and batteries happen sooner?

The rate of progress in cost reduction has been astonishing. It's unlike anything except Moore's Law. This catches people out.

As well as the usual suspects: cheap fossil fuels, failure to take global warming seriously, belief that nuclear power would see similar exponential cost reduction rather than opposite, and of course anti green politics.

But if 95% cost reduction is the result of not taking it seriously, would taking it seriously earlier have been even better? Hard to say.

mjamesaustin

It's a false assumption that technological progress happens automatically or even that it's based upon the passage of time.

Progress happens as a result of many choices made by individuals to invest time and energy solving problems. Why is solar rapidly improving now? Because way more people are invested in making it better.

Nascent technologies almost always face an uphill battle because they compete against extremely optimized legacy technologies while themselves having no optimization at first. We only get to the current rapid period of growth because enough people pushed us through the early part of the S curve.

epistasis

Solar and batteries got cheaper when we scaled up and built a lot. You have to pay current prices to get the next price drop, because it's all learning by doing.

If we had pushed harder in the 80s, 90s, and 2000s, solar might have gotten cheaper sooner. Solar fit in at the edges of the market as it grew: remote locations for power, or small scale settings where running a wire is inconvenient or impractical. The really big push that put solar over the edge was Germany's energiwende public policy that encouraged deploying a ton of solar in a country with exceptionally poor solar resources; but even with that promise of a market, massive scale up was guaranteed.

It's in many ways a collective action problem. Even in this thread, in 2025 you will see people wondering when we will have effective battery technology, because they have been misinformed for so long that batteries are ineffective that they don't see the evidence even in the linked article.

Also, most people do not understand technology learning curves, and how exponential growth changes things. Even in Silicon Valley, where the religion of the singularity is prevalent and where everyone is familiar with Moore's law, the propaganda against solar and batteries has been so strong that many do not realize the tech curves that solar and batteries enjoy.

A lot of this comes down to who has the money to spend on public influence too, which is largely the fossil fuel industry, who spends massive amounts on both politicians and in setting up a favorable information environment in the media. Solar and batteries are finally getting significant revenues, but they have been focused more on execution than on buying politics and buying media. They have benefited from environmental advocates that want to decarbonize, without a doubt, but that doesn't have the same effect as a very targeted media propaganda campaign that results in zealots that, whenever they see an article about climate change, call up their local paper and chew out the management with screaming. Much of the media is very afraid of right wing nuts on the matter and it puts a huge tilt on the coverage in the mass media in favor of fossil fuels and against climate science.

justanotherjoe

In terms of resource extraction needed for the batteries and the panels, how sustainable is it? The way I understand it is that you can't really repair broken panels and batteries... Can we still make these after, let's say, 500 years? I have no conception at all in this topic...

pjc50

No, but I don't see a good reason why you can't recycle the cells especially given they contain a thin layer of silver. Google already finds local recycling firms, since it's required by WEEE.

(The 500 years question has issues for all the other sources of energy as well!)

ZeroGravitas

Yes, batteries are getting better at such a rate that you can recycle old batteries at end of life, lose 10% of the material in that process and build a new battery with new tech and less material that is better than the original.

The resource extraction issue is more than these are so useful we're going to build an ever growing amount of them.

Luckily they're made from widely available materials, with even more widely available substitutions possible e.g sodium batteries.

adgjlsfhk1

You can't repair, but you can recycle (although doing so likely isn't very profitable until the exponential price decrease stops)

doctoboggan

My understanding is that China recognized the potential of solar power around 20 years ago and decided they wanted to be the world's manufacturing hub for solar panels. The government invested in R&D early, and today we are reaping the fruits of that investment.

The same thing is happening now with storage, but western governments are weary of losing that battle as well. To address this massive tariffs were put in place by the previous US administration, and are likely to be increased by the current administration. Hopefully this doesn't slow down the production of batteries, but instead just moves the production out of China and into other countries, but that remains to be seen.

cman1444

Wary not weary

wolfram74

You're in luck! The author's earlier piece on the subject attempts to address that exact question. Learning curve effects and piggy backing off the computer chip industry are major factors if I recall, but I haven't reread the piece in a while.

https://www.construction-physics.com/p/how-did-solar-power-g...

pfdietz

CdTe is still out there, from First Solar, but it's not much of the market (and has scalability problems due to the need for tellurium, even if the active layer is much thinner than in silicon cells.)

One little advance that swept the industry a couple of years ago was replacement of boron as a dopant by gallium. Boron doped silicon has light induced degradation, which was determined to cause a small loss in efficiency due to formation of boron trapping centers under prolonged light exposure. Gallium-doped silicon doesn't have this problem.

danans

> Therefore, they believe, we should deemphasize solar in favor of “firm” sources of energy like gas turbines, next-generation nuclear or advanced geothermal.

One cool thing about advanced geothermal is that it can load follow solar like natural gas does today: ramp down when solar is abundant and ramp up when it is not. That could come from slowing the turbines, or even by storing the extracted heat (in molten salt) during peak solar hours and using it to turn the turbines to meet peak demand or overnight.

They are in many ways a great complement for each other.

losvedir

This is a great summary of the situation. I've been thinking about installing solar panels on my house, and been thinking about these same sorts of issues. Unfortunately, for my situation here near Chicago, things are much worse than the author's Atlanta: winter requires tons of energy here because it's very cold, and we have even less sun then.

It's one of the things that makes me think about wanting to move to Texas or Phoenix or something. Ample year round sun, and the big energy expense: climate control, corresponds much better to when you have it (you need to "cool" in the summer and the day). It rubs me the wrong way that here, our big energy cost is heating in the winter. It doesn't fit well with the utopian solar future I'm envisioning.

danans

Assuming you would stay in Chicago for other reasons, the solution for a high heating bill is 1) air seal and upgrade insulation in your house, and then 2) replace your furnace with a low temperature heat pump.

Chicago has electricity prices 25% lower than the national average. If you want to see an example in your area, watch Technology Connections heat pump videos on YouTube.

bityard

Air seal and upgrading insulation: correct me if I'm wrong, but that implies either tearing open all of the exterior walls or ripping off all of the siding, no? If so, it feels like it would take a LONG time to recoup the cost of materials and labor for that job, unless there was literally no insulation in there to begin with.

Alex is a smart guy, and he makes a lot of convincing agruments in favor of heat pumps, but the thing he consistently sweeps under the rug is that for about half the US (and all of Canada), the annual cost to run a heat pump sits well between a natural gas furnace and resistive heating. And the further north you go, the more it shifts to the right. I run the numbers every few years and for my specific house, I'd pay 30% more to run a heat pump instead of a furnace. (Before factoring in the cost of the unit itself and installation labor.)

Where I live, the only way heat pumps make economical sense is if natural gas gets dramatically more expensive, or if solar gets cheap enough that every household can afford a roof full of solar panels and a basement full of batteries. (Which to be honest is kinda my dream situation anyway.)

pfdietz

We had an insulation upgrade recently when we ripped out our gas furnace and put in a heat pump. The biggest improvement was from spraying foam into the space below the first floor, where it rests on the outer basement walls. There had been too much air leakage there. There was also attic insulation upgrading. No walls had to be penetrated.

The house (built just a decade ago) feels much better insulated now.

doctoboggan

I second the other reply. I live in Chicago and installed an air source heat pump. (Mitsubishi hyper heat). Its served me well for two winters so far. My next step is probably to replace all my windows and doors to get better efficiency.

thelastgallon

The duck curve can be easily flattened by using vertical panels which extend the production of solar a few hours in each direction. Vertical panels take no space (think every fence; or on farmland with enough space for big machinery to move), better performance (because heat isn't trapped), panels are always clean (daily gust of wind takes care of it). I'm sure there are many HN discussions on vertical panels.

Ringz

The great (!) article misses the holy grail of the Energiewende in the chapter „Addressing the challenges of solar intermittency“: a intercontinental smart grid. As shown by data of ENTSO-E in Europe a power system plays a crucial part to overcome intermittency problems of renewables.

zizee

How do the costs of long distance, high voltage lines compare to batteries for addressing solar intermittency??

ZeroGravitas

There seems to be a real cultural obsession with going off grid, that this article reflects.

It's therefore confusing if they're talking about a nation/state or a household.

For a household, assuming you don't want to disconnect from the grid, the calculation is about how to offset as much of your energy costs you can displace with solar, and how to shift cheap energy from overnight with batteries as well as time shift solar generstion. A different and in many ways more interesting question in the abstract while also more practical too.

SigmundA

With net metering going away now people want batteries for self consumption, then the grid becomes a backup.

In my area we still have net metering but the grid tends to go down a lot with even a mild storm, so many have backup propane generators, however some like me are doing whole house solar with batteries for backup instead, it cost 3x as much but pays you back over time with little maintenance compared to a generator.

I will admit there is a prepper aspect, with well and septic and solar the only thing I need is food which I can try and grow. The Sol-Ark inverter in my install even offers EMP hardening which I almost went for :).

Getting grid hookup in rural property can be expensive or impossible depending on where you are at, solar with satellite internet means no problem wherever you want to build if done right.