Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Solar’s Future is Insanely Cheap

rameznaam.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

61–70 of 223 posts

Re: Solar’s Future is Insanely Cheap

#61

Post by arthurcolle »

Barrin92 wrote: post #30
arthurcolle wrote: post #24

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This seems a little silly - of course to develop future technologies we need to use existing technologies. Imagine debating using an abacus to develop a computer - "ah but we must remain pure to the hopes, dreams and philosophies of what the computer aspires to be." Yeah, ok. I'll be over here funding wind turbine companies, you can debate the merits of the methodology and strategies of funding green tech with petrol…

I don't understand your comparison at all. Given that the primary problem that a wind turbine seeks to solve is environmental, the environmental costs in making the turbine have to be considered. There's no relationship to computers here, it's not a question of philosophical purity, but of correct evaluation of the costs and benefits of a technology.

Ok, let's brainstorm - how do we build wind turbines without the 150 year history of industrialization, accumulated knowledge of how to build real, physical things that accomplish the goals of 100% renewable energy? I'm all ears. Maybe I'm missing something - always happy to hear solutions to real, extant problems.

Re: Solar’s Future is Insanely Cheap

#62

Post by pfdietz »

qaq wrote: post #14
maheart wrote: post #12

I recently watched the documentary "Planet of the Humans". For context, the writer of the documentary is an environmentalist. One of the stated points was that solar and wind cannot be relied upon 24/7 -- to account for the lack of reliability, you need to have a backup power generator (e.g. coal power plant) running. The thing about coal plants (does it apply to natural gas plants too?) is that if you "idle" them, t…

0? You can have utility scale storage and Nuclear as backup

Nuclear would be ridiculously uneconomical as a backup. You either run nuclear as baseload or you don't bother.

Re: Solar’s Future is Insanely Cheap

#63

Post by Scoundreller »

ph0rque wrote: post #44

This tells me that until fossil plants are mostly shut down (and perhaps afterward), we will continue to have negative electricity prices at times. It might be a profitable idea to buy extra energy storage capacity to get paid for storing energy at certain times, then sell it when it is high demand.

I just wish the negative electricity prices reached the non-industrial consumer.

If it reached me, I'll have an Arduino controlled hot water heater, furnace and fridge/freezer dynamically turning on/off to take the most advantage of prices pronto.

Re: Solar’s Future is Insanely Cheap

#64

Post by dumbfoundded »

Scoundreller wrote: post #56
sephamorr wrote: post #28

Power markets are more complicated than most people realize. One thing to note is that solar power can be cheaper than gas, but still not be economic. The fact of the matter is that an intermittent kWh is not as valuable as an on-demand reliable kWh to a utility who's number 1 priority is reliability. Even as solar is acquired at lower and lower prices, if evening power is generated by expensive and inefficient gas t…

Or just smarter appliances. Plenty of opportunities for thermal banking/battery banking. Most of my loads, on average, don't need to run that exact second . I don't mind if my hot water tank super-heats water in the middle of the day for the rest of the day. If electricity is really cheap, my freezer can jump into overdrive. I don't need my clothes to dry in the next hour, just over the next 8. I don't care if my fri…

I think the point is that in any case, price isn't a finish line for solar to replace everything. This process will be much longer and require lots of infrastructure changes in multiple places.

Re: Solar’s Future is Insanely Cheap

#65

Post by pfdietz »

maallooc wrote: post #58
pfdietz wrote: post #50

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"Grave danger" from what?

That just dumping old solar panels into the landfill will cause Cu, Pb, As, Cr to spread into the ground effectively contaminating it. The government is trying to ban dumping it and trying to impose a responsibility to manufacturers to properly recycle and decontaminate it, which will cost about 4~5 times more than dumping.

Oh no, copper! Chromium! Next you're going to tell me of the fiendish plot to incorporate these into pots and pans to poison us all.

There is no reason to include As in PV. There are anti-renewable propaganda screeds that pretend otherwise ("look! GaAs PV cells are a thing, therefore all PV uses As!")

That leaves lead. Lead has been used for connections, but it is being phased out, not least because of EU environmental regulations. The PV cells themselves do not need lead.

I suspect you are just repeating anti-renewable lies here.

Re: Solar’s Future is Insanely Cheap

#66

Post by code_duck »

Barrin92 wrote: post #30
arthurcolle wrote: post #24

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This seems a little silly - of course to develop future technologies we need to use existing technologies. Imagine debating using an abacus to develop a computer - "ah but we must remain pure to the hopes, dreams and philosophies of what the computer aspires to be." Yeah, ok. I'll be over here funding wind turbine companies, you can debate the merits of the methodology and strategies of funding green tech with petrol…

I don't understand your comparison at all. Given that the primary problem that a wind turbine seeks to solve is environmental, the environmental costs in making the turbine have to be considered. There's no relationship to computers here, it's not a question of philosophical purity, but of correct evaluation of the costs and benefits of a technology.

How does it compare the environmental costs of all the materials, equipment, research and degradation related to fracking and ocean drilling?

Re: Solar’s Future is Insanely Cheap

#67

Post by anesmike »

dbspin wrote: post #45
maheart wrote: post #12

I recently watched the documentary "Planet of the Humans". For context, the writer of the documentary is an environmentalist. One of the stated points was that solar and wind cannot be relied upon 24/7 -- to account for the lack of reliability, you need to have a backup power generator (e.g. coal power plant) running. The thing about coal plants (does it apply to natural gas plants too?) is that if you "idle" them, t…

None - the documentary is full of half truths, out of date information, pseudoscience and outright lies. It's been absolutely torn apart both by the research community and the environmental movement. Some examples: https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2020/apr/28/climate-... https://www.commondreams.org/views/2020/05/05/real-problem-m... https://medium.com/@btincq/10-reasons-planet-of-the-humans-g...

Renewables are just a technology totally dependent on fossil fuels from birth to burial. The book by Charles Hall , Energy Return on Investment, opened my eyes to the true nature of renewables . Once fossil fuels are gone, renewables will soon follow.

Re: Solar’s Future is Insanely Cheap

#68

Post by maallooc »

Scoundreller wrote: post #56
sephamorr wrote: post #28

Power markets are more complicated than most people realize. One thing to note is that solar power can be cheaper than gas, but still not be economic. The fact of the matter is that an intermittent kWh is not as valuable as an on-demand reliable kWh to a utility who's number 1 priority is reliability. Even as solar is acquired at lower and lower prices, if evening power is generated by expensive and inefficient gas t…

Or just smarter appliances. Plenty of opportunities for thermal banking/battery banking. Most of my loads, on average, don't need to run that exact second . I don't mind if my hot water tank super-heats water in the middle of the day for the rest of the day. If electricity is really cheap, my freezer can jump into overdrive. I don't need my clothes to dry in the next hour, just over the next 8. I don't care if my fri…

>I don't mind if my hot water tank super-heats water in the middle of the day for the rest of the day.

Water does not have the capability to store much energy.

>If electricity is really cheap, my freezer can jump into overdrive.

Your freezer can't if it's not a ammonia refrigerant. You will actually be wasting energy.

>I don't care if my fridge/freezer takes a break

Your fridge actually does not use electricity constantly. It detects the temperature and run the motor, stops it when it reaches the desired temp. It's already having a break.

Re: Solar’s Future is Insanely Cheap

#69

Post by Scoundreller »

3fe9a03ccd14ca5 wrote: post #8

I'm actually quite shocked at how much energy is produced by solar, especially when compared to residential wind turbines. Panels are efficient, and when it's sunny, you're juicing. The real challenge is of course bringing down cost of storage, which is the key to make solar systems efficient (not just cheap).

> residential wind turbines

Wind has a scalability problem. Residentially, it's only a good sell as a backup supply for when solar isn't cutting it to hopefully prevent generator use. And even that's a tough economic argument.

Towers have huge economies of scale, both in total size and height. So the turbines just keep getting bigger and bigger because it's more and more cost effective.

Re: Solar’s Future is Insanely Cheap

#70

Post by _-david-_ »

andy_ppp wrote: post #51
_-david-_ wrote: post #40

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>A hypothetical cheap ~30% efficient solar panel could add something like 40 miles of range per day to a car in ideal conditions. Does this take into consideration the increased weight of the solar panel and any additional equipment?

Could it not be built into the roof directly! This is a great idea as presumably people who don’t use their car a lot need not leave it charging permanently and if you run out of battery you can just wait (if it’s sunny enough).

I am not positive but I am guessing that solar panels as the roof would weight more than the regular car material?

I am not really an expert on electricity but there could also be additional equipment involved as well (inverters, transformers, etc).

Post reply on HN