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

Semi-transparent solar panels allow concurrent production of crops and power

onlinelibrary.wiley.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

141–150 of 226 posts

Re: Semi-transparent solar panels allow concurrent production of crops and power

#141

Post by recuter »

Communitivity wrote: post #16

Not just crops and power. I know a guy whose startup is using transparent solar panels in Germany on eco-friendly buildings with grass on roofs, to get power and eco-cooling, as well as Oxygen production - at least that is how he explained it. The concept is called green-roofs. Unfortunately I don't remember his startup's name. A link with details about the concept, minus the use of transparent solar panels: https://…

"Dirt grass and a goat get you a LEED point - does the dirt grass and a goat make it work better? No! But you do feel better about yourself! Dirt is not insulation it's just freaking dirt"

- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joseph_Lstiburek (https://youtu.be/iHBYvqr2_io?t=2224)

Gotta love greenwashing. A real forward thinker would also start a second startup simultaneously to undo the damage green roofs will cause down the line to a building. :)

Edit: In case somebody misses the point the video from which the quote is sourced is well worth watching if you are curios about building science.

tl;dw - What is efficient and good for the environment is counterintuitive. Green roofs often cause more harm than good because reasons.

Re: Semi-transparent solar panels allow concurrent production of crops and power

#142

Post by ianai »

jameslk wrote: post #34
iancmceachern wrote: post #31

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Have you spent much time driving in the empty areas of the west? You can go 100 miles without even seeing a tumbleweed.

I've been living in the west my whole life and have traveled between Colorado to California through Nevada, Utah, Arizona, etc 7 or 8 times, so yes I've seen an empty western road before. Tumbleweeds was tongue in cheek but there's plenty of dirt, trash and other flying debris that will get baked onto a glassy surface out southwest.

3/4 of Nevada is owned by the federal government and is dry to the point no one wants to be there anyway. Including planets. From your list, you probably haven’t seen the part of the Southwest which I was referring to earlier. As others have said, too, maintenance is going to be a thing for any form of energy.

Re: Semi-transparent solar panels allow concurrent production of crops and power

#143

Post by ragebol »

Communitivity wrote: post #16

Not just crops and power. I know a guy whose startup is using transparent solar panels in Germany on eco-friendly buildings with grass on roofs, to get power and eco-cooling, as well as Oxygen production - at least that is how he explained it. The concept is called green-roofs. Unfortunately I don't remember his startup's name. A link with details about the concept, minus the use of transparent solar panels: https://…

I'm also considering making a green roof. Apparently, since the plants (sedum/stonecrops and mosses) help cool the roof, the solar panels on top of it are a bit cooler too increasing their efficiency.

It also helps retain some water so it does not go to the sewer directly after it rains of the roof and keeps the sewer from getting overloaded.

Another claimed benefit it is that a green roof helps reduce fine particulates in the air. And biodiversity etc etc.

Its kinda expensive to do right though, so maybe some time.

Re: Semi-transparent solar panels allow concurrent production of crops and power

#144

Post by LunaSea »

codefreakxff wrote: post #79
quotemstr wrote: post #70

Besides: nuclear power plants take up very little space. I really can't seriously people pushing solar, wind, and so on while they eschew nuclear power (and increasingly hydropower too). Fake environmentalists: "We have an existential crisis! We must change our energy strategy to save humanity!" Engineers: "That's quite a problem. Here's a way to solve it. It's called fission. Here are some power plant designs." Fake…

The tone of your post (being simultaneously dismissive and insulting to those who have a different view than you) is very trollish. The problem many people have with nuclear power are things like accidents making areas uninhabitable, radiation making people sick, disposal of waste rods is difficult, some materials can be used to make weapons, and the cost to make a safe plant are staggering and leading to cancellatio…

Renewables definitely have those downsides. Especially if you look at the recycling procedures of solar panels and led batteries.

cf: Other link on the front page of HN: https://www.wired.com/story/solar-panels-are-starting-to-die...

Re: Semi-transparent solar panels allow concurrent production of crops and power

#145

Post by Manfredo_1 »

philipkglass wrote: post #140
Manfredo_1 wrote: post #130

Earlier quoted context omitted.

By comparison, a plant of the same design as the Vogtle plant was built in China at a cost of $7.3B, yielding a cost of $3.17 per watt of output [1] - under 1/3rd of the solar cost with the required overproduction. The Vogtle plant is the first of its kind in the United States. First of a kind plants typically cost about twice as much as subsequent designs. Furthermore, you're not including the cost of storage for yo…

The paper you cited shows that 1.5x overproduction can get the US to 75% of electricity from solar and wind without building any storage. Every big construction project is cheaper in China than in the US. China can build a solar farm for $0.83/watt [1], half the cost I cited up-thread for an American solar farm. But I don't think that $0.83/watt is a credible construction cost for a solar farm in the US in 2020. Nor…

> The paper you cited shows that 1.5x overproduction can get the US to 75% of electricity from solar and wind without building any storage.

Right, without storage you have to scale back the percentage of electricity you get from intermittent sources. Like I said, without storage, renewables do not present a valid option for a carbon free source of energy.

I you want a US example of a nuclear plant construction, you can take the Diablo Canyon plant [1]. This is not only built in the US recently, but also in an earthquake prone area and thus needed more robust construction. It cost 13.8 billion in 2018 dollars. Plants constructed earlier are even more cost effective, even when adjusted for inflation. The Donald Cook plant [2] produces about as much as the AP1000 plant, for only 3.35 billion 2007 dollars. That's about 4.25 billion in 2020 dollars. And this isn't an anomaly. Plenty of plants built during the 70s were similarly cost effective [3] [4] You're picking an individual plant to inflate the cost of nuclear dramatically.

You're absolutely right that the next reactor design isn't going to be affordable. First of a kind production is always the most expensive. Nuclear power gets cheaper with repeated constructions of the same design. You don't need to re-build the manufacturing pipeline to make components, staff become experienced in construction, and other benefits.

This is why France's nuclear program was one of the most successful. They standardized on 3 designs, and built serial production of those same 3 designs. The APR is expensive precisely because it's one of the first large plants that France has built in decades, and they don't have that advantage of serial production.

This is also why nuclear plants built during the 1970s in the US are much more cost effective than the ones built today. The US was building a lot of nuclear plants, and so it benefited from this economy of scale.

1. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diablo_Canyon_Power_Plant

2. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Donald_C._Cook_Nuclear_Plant

3. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Byron_Nuclear_Generating_Stati...

4. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Braidwood_Nuclear_Generating_S...

Re: Semi-transparent solar panels allow concurrent production of crops and power

#146

Post by dehrmann »

samatman wrote: post #122
dehrmann wrote: post #65

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I do worry somewhat about devastating desert ecosystems by paving over them with PV panels, but we're so far from that being a problem right now.

Depends on the desert ecosystem. Most desert ecosystems have a wretched excess of sunlight, and lack moisture. Solar panels treat both of these: they capture a lot (but by no means all) of the sunlight, and serve as a nice, concentrated condensing surface for dews. You can see this at a panel farm in dry areas: there's often a nice row of green in front of each panel, precisely where the condensing dew drips off them…

Deserts aren't necessarily things to be "treated." We definitely don't want the entire world to be a desert, and the growth of the Sahara is somewhat troubling because of what it signals, but saying they have a "wretched excess of sunlight" and are fit to be exploited by humanity is the same attitude that got us in our current energy predicament.

Re: Semi-transparent solar panels allow concurrent production of crops and power

#147

Post by hutzlibu »

recuter wrote: post #141
Communitivity wrote: post #16

Not just crops and power. I know a guy whose startup is using transparent solar panels in Germany on eco-friendly buildings with grass on roofs, to get power and eco-cooling, as well as Oxygen production - at least that is how he explained it. The concept is called green-roofs. Unfortunately I don't remember his startup's name. A link with details about the concept, minus the use of transparent solar panels: https://…

"Dirt grass and a goat get you a LEED point - does the dirt grass and a goat make it work better? No! But you do feel better about yourself! Dirt is not insulation it's just freaking dirt" - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joseph_Lstiburek ( https://youtu.be/iHBYvqr2_io?t=2224 ) Gotta love greenwashing. A real forward thinker would also start a second startup simultaneously to undo the damage green roofs will cause dow…

I don't really like having to watch some youtube video, to get the counterpoint, all presented in a non friendly way.

So do you have some facts, you want to share, why green roofs, a method for example used in scandinavia for a long time, is bad, if done right?

Because you quote ... is not a smart one. Because dirt is definitley insulation. And soild is more than dirt btw.

Re: Semi-transparent solar panels allow concurrent production of crops and power

#148

Post by hutzlibu »

BurningFrog wrote: post #112
Communitivity wrote: post #16

Not just crops and power. I know a guy whose startup is using transparent solar panels in Germany on eco-friendly buildings with grass on roofs, to get power and eco-cooling, as well as Oxygen production - at least that is how he explained it. The concept is called green-roofs. Unfortunately I don't remember his startup's name. A link with details about the concept, minus the use of transparent solar panels: https://…

The oxygen claim doesn't inspire confidence. Plants don't produce any useful amount of oxygen, and real scientists know that.

So what on this earth is producing useful amounts of oxygen then?

Re: Semi-transparent solar panels allow concurrent production of crops and power

#149

Post by Nasrudith »

samatman wrote: post #125
Retric wrote: post #19

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Rooftop photovoltaic is currently more expensive, less efficient, and surprisingly dangerous to install. Solar thermal designs actually benefit from being on rooftops. As to dust, economies of scale make a huge difference. It’s rarely worth it, but using a farm truck to spray water across miles of panels is much more efficient than tens of thousands of homeowners doing the same.

It's also unattractive, which should matter to us. Much of the distinctive beauty of traditional building in sunny areas comes from the roofs. Solar tiling, which is still not a mature technology, doesn't add danger: we have to put something on a roof, and if installing solar tile takes extra time, it isn't by much. And it looks good. Less efficient and more expensive? Sure. But as the meme would have it, it's free r…

Why do they count as unattractive? It seems that the "definition" of eyesore is wholey independent of aesthetics and entirely based upon if it is functional and new. Old windmills, steam engine trains, and canals are considered quaint, wind turbines, shipping canals and modern trains are considered "visual pollution". Modern art fixtures often deliberately defy all rules of structure and aesthetics and don't get tarred with this. I only have weird hypothesises as for why.

Re: Semi-transparent solar panels allow concurrent production of crops and power

#150

Post by amelius »

Grakel wrote: post #2

There's no shortage of open area to put solar panels. If we put a (nearly) continuous strip in every highway median, that would be a huge step forward, and still take up practically zero useable space. Even 1% of the federally owned land in the sun belt would generate an enormous amount of power.

Maintenance in the middle of the road sucks ...
Post reply on HN