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

91–100 of 223 posts

Re: Solar’s Future is Insanely Cheap

#91

Post by [deleted] »

pfdietz wrote: post #79
maallooc wrote: post #75

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Actually it does matter if it's not properly processed. Government research found those metals were contaminating landfills, and imposed restrictions. If you are interested in the facts, here are one. I believe in research done by my pro-PV government and scientists, not environmental shills and anti-science PV aficionados like you and this article. http://knrec.or.kr/file/2018%EC%8B%A0%EC%9E%AC%EC%83%9D%EC%9...

That does not display for me. Useless. Let me repeat: we have copper and stainless (chromium) steel pots and pans (or, in the case of stainless steel, surgical implants!) The idea that PV is dangerous because of those metals is absurd on its face. Chromium toxicity is from highly oxidized (hexavalent) chromium that will not be produced from Cr in ordinary structural materials. My priors for interpreting statements li…

[deleted]

Re: Solar’s Future is Insanely Cheap

#92

Post by 7thaccount »

lallysingh wrote: post #16
Barrin92 wrote: post #9

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm not sure about the resource costs of solar in particular but the question is a very salient one. Vaclav Smil has a great piece on this. "What I see when I see a wind turbine" "the quest for renewable electricity generation. And yet, although they exploit the wind, which is as free and as green as energy can be, the machines themselves are pure embodiments of fossil fuels. • Large trucks bring steel and other raw…

Sounds like a bullshit purity test.

No, the author is just saying we're still a long ways away from the true final goal of using no fossil fuels.

Re: Solar’s Future is Insanely Cheap

#93

Post by kanox »

Barrin92 wrote: post #9
undershirt wrote: post #4

Is solar just a stopgap tech? Like, do they still require fossil fuel energy to create, not to mention maintain and rebuild? And I know we’re now strip mining the ocean for battery metals. I don’t yet sense the sustainability in this amid all this economic hand-waving of “it’s getting cheaper”. (forgive my tone, i have a hard time of making sense of the big picture of renewables, hoping to eventually see how it actua…

I'm not sure about the resource costs of solar in particular but the question is a very salient one. Vaclav Smil has a great piece on this. "What I see when I see a wind turbine" "the quest for renewable electricity generation. And yet, although they exploit the wind, which is as free and as green as energy can be, the machines themselves are pure embodiments of fossil fuels. • Large trucks bring steel and other raw…

> the machines themselves are pure embodiments of fossil fuels. • Large trucks bring steel and other raw materials to the site, earth-moving equipment beats a path to otherwise inaccessible high ground, large cranes erect the structures, and all these machines burn diesel fuel. So do the freight trains and cargo ships that convey the materials needed for the production of cement, steel, and plastics. For a 5-megawatt turbine, the steel alone averages 150 metric tons for the reinforced concrete foundations, 250 metric tons for the rotor hubs and nacelles (which house the gearbox and generator), and 500 metric tons for the towers.

This is FUD. The mass of construction materials pads the quote but is not a useful measure of environmental impact.

Re: Solar’s Future is Insanely Cheap

#94

Post by Retric »

_-david-_ wrote: post #70
andy_ppp wrote: post #51

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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).

The light collecting portion of solar panels is extremely light weight. https://www.amazon.com/dp/B082FCZ4MD/ref=emc_b_5_t?th=1

59.2 by 26.5 inches or ~1 square meter Weight: 6.2 lbs.

If you looking at 12 square meters of space that’s 75 pounds though an integrated system would have plenty of options to save weight.

Solar panels are DC as are batteries so you don’t need an inverter.

Re: Solar’s Future is Insanely Cheap

#95

Post by bananabreakfast »

remmargorp64 wrote: post #73
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…

All they need to do is build mechanical/hydraulic systems for storing solar power during the day and unleashing it at night. For example, use solar power during the day to pump fluid from a lower reservoir into a higher reservoir, and then harness the energy of the water flowing from the higher reservoir into the lower reservoir through turbines. As long as your output energy is always coming from the turbines, and a…

You're wildly underestimating how complicated pumped hydro is.

For one thing, existing dams absolutely cannot be converted to pumped hydro. Dams do not store water below them. Water flows downstream because a dam is in a river. There is no water to pump uphill. Unless, of course, you also build a second dam very close downstream to create another lower reservoir. This is usually a bad idea, and better to just find better geography that will support a new pumped hydro dam.

Re: Solar’s Future is Insanely Cheap

#96

Post by maallooc »

pfdietz wrote: post #79
maallooc wrote: post #75

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Actually it does matter if it's not properly processed. Government research found those metals were contaminating landfills, and imposed restrictions. If you are interested in the facts, here are one. I believe in research done by my pro-PV government and scientists, not environmental shills and anti-science PV aficionados like you and this article. http://knrec.or.kr/file/2018%EC%8B%A0%EC%9E%AC%EC%83%9D%EC%9...

That does not display for me. Useless. Let me repeat: we have copper and stainless (chromium) steel pots and pans (or, in the case of stainless steel, surgical implants!) The idea that PV is dangerous because of those metals is absurd on its face. Chromium toxicity is from highly oxidized (hexavalent) chromium that will not be produced from Cr in ordinary structural materials. My priors for interpreting statements li…

Wow, typical shill ignoring facts. How can I win an argument when you have this amazing logical basis?

>1 to 10 is dangerous

>3 and 4 is not dangerous, so you are completely wrong, and I can't see your facts so it's useless and wrong, go solar!

Yeah, I'll trust my government and scientists and professors who actually have degrees in the field more than you, thank you very much. Oh yeah, in your opinion they are coal industry shills so they are just "wrong", aren't they? lol

Downvote all you want, I don't give a f. But you can't change the truth.

Re: Solar’s Future is Insanely Cheap

#97

Post by bananabreakfast »

sephamorr wrote: post #54
CapitalistCartr wrote: post #39

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Solar all day, NG all night would be a major improvement over our current system. Especially as batteries get better.

Depending on where you are, that's pretty close to what's happened. Right now (4pm), the California ISO is generating 73% from renewables+hydro, 7% nuclear, and the balance gas. Naturally, the night replaces solar with gas. This is largely how California has reduced electricity emissions to their current levels.

And that nuclear power is just from a single plant!

Re: Solar’s Future is Insanely Cheap

#98

Post by pfdietz »

anesmike wrote: post #67
dbspin wrote: post #45

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

The EROEI of renewables is good and getting better. There is nothing in their manufacture that would be impossible without fossil fuels.

Re: Solar’s Future is Insanely Cheap

#99

Post by Retric »

rootusrootus wrote: post #52
TheGrim-888 wrote: post #47

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Correct me if I'm wrong, and I quite possible could be, but from a quick Google search, I'm seeing numbers of anywhere 200Wh/mile to 350Wh/mile for a Tesla. If we're generous and assume only 200Wh/mile, then 40 miles of range translates to an energy consumption of 8,000Wh. A 100 watt solar panel, producing the full 100 watts, would take 80 hours of perfect sunlight to produce enough power for an extra 40 miles of ran…

Here's a recent analysis: https://teslatap.com/articles/solar-vehicle-roof-analysis/ To me it looks like it will never be a meaningful solution, due simply to physics.

That has several really bad assumptions by assuming all solar roofs need to fit on an existing Tesla‘a roof.

> The usable clear area of a Model S glass roof is 42” x 45”

A Model S is actually 195.9” by 77.3 (ex. mirrors). Assuming a reasonable shaped solar car using 75% of that surface is covered in panels that’s 12x the area. But you also gain from panels covering the sides of the vehicle.

Further “Because the vehicle roof is flat, it collects less light than if it was positioned at the optimum angle to the sun.“ as I said your not limited by the roof. “Lastly, we lose at least 10% more due to the safety glass,” we don’t need glass and that’s already part of panel efficiency numbers. “and the inverter/charging is only 81% efficient.” Solar panels and batteries are both DC so you don’t need an inverter, the charge discharge efficiency of lithium ion can be over 90%.

San Francisco 5.34kWh/m * .3 efficiency * 7.33 square meters = 11.7kW/day /.3kW per mile = 35 to 39.14 miles in San Francisco depending on how much your charging the battery with plenty of areas getting more sunlight. Using the highest efficiency panels currently produced that goes up significantly, but cheap 30% efficient panels seems like a more reasonable mid term prediction.

PS: Example of a flexible 1m panel zero glass required at under 300$/m: https://www.amazon.com/dp/B082FCZ4MD/ref=emc_b_5_t?th=1

Re: Solar’s Future is Insanely Cheap

#100

Post by lifeisstillgood »

Scoundreller wrote: post #77
maallooc wrote: post #68

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>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 const…

It's common here to have 150L+ water tanks. Can take it from 50C to 75C and then let the anti-scald valve temper the output when drawing. OK on the freezer. Could still take the fridge down to 2C. The concept of the fridge taking a break while running other loads is to reduce peak draw current. If everyone did that, it would make the grid more stable.

The general point made here is really interesting though - a large number of our appliances (domestic and small business) can easily be time-agnostic if built for it. It may take a decade or two to replace the fleet but boy, just think of the opportunities replacing every appliance globally presents - this is on the order of a new Tesla (the disruptive company) for each appliance.

Scheduling exchanges, where your local grid sub-station can get your bids for usage and put it into a grid wide exchange, scheduling your car to charge itself at 3:34 am using 24Wh or whatever.

We become ever more interconnected - this is the real rental economy - renting not a lawn mower for an hour but renting power. You think privacy is bad on your phone - wait till your washing machine sends "soiled underpants on at 3pm - any bids" to half the planets solar providers

- Washing machines (Replace the concrete with water balloon, choose latest time to complete)

- Lights (mostly I think these will be LEDs drawing off a panel on our roof. We don't need that much light.

- too tired to do this but a study on this must exist somewhere?

Post reply on HN