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

Chasing utopian energy: How I wasted 20 years of my life

briangitt.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

281–290 of 295 posts

Re: Chasing utopian energy: How I wasted 20 years of my life

#281

Post by dpierce9 »

fluoridation wrote: post #278
dpierce9 wrote: post #276

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Articbull is saying nuclear is better than solar for the energy system. He bases this on a claim that solar panels are inefficient along a number of dimensions. Look at his actual comments, they aren’t narrowly related to lab or theoretical efficiency (he is making points about land use, death, etc). There is no real concept of physical inefficiency there is only relative efficiency. And relative efficiency of Rankin…

> Look at his actual comments, they aren’t narrowly related to lab or theoretical efficiency (he is making points about land use, death, etc). I don't know about deaths, but the point about land use is related to theoretical efficiency. If an existing solar plant that is 20% was 100% efficient it could generate five times as much power in the same space, or generate the same power in a fifth of the land it currently…

If nuclear plants were twice as efficient that would be great too. They aren’t.

Land use isn’t relevant for rooftop solar. There is basically no opportunity cost.

Everything becomes less efficient over time. Sunpower warranties their panels for a 20% decline in performance over 25 years. That means a 20% efficient panel is warrantied to be 16% efficient after 25 years in the field. To put that in perspective, panels made 15 years ago were around 16% efficient. There isn’t a cliff and they are still useful.

Suppose you abandon the system for whatever reason. You go back to the steady state of not producing power on that site. There is again no cost.

I am not saying nuclear is bad. I am outright rejecting the claim that solar panels are inefficient on any dimension that counts. I think this argument about degradation is beyond silly. I also think you are an astroturfing troll.

Re: Chasing utopian energy: How I wasted 20 years of my life

#282

Post by fluoridation »

dpierce9 wrote: post #281
fluoridation wrote: post #278

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Look at his actual comments, they aren’t narrowly related to lab or theoretical efficiency (he is making points about land use, death, etc). I don't know about deaths, but the point about land use is related to theoretical efficiency. If an existing solar plant that is 20% was 100% efficient it could generate five times as much power in the same space, or generate the same power in a fifth of the land it currently…

If nuclear plants were twice as efficient that would be great too. They aren’t. Land use isn’t relevant for rooftop solar. There is basically no opportunity cost. Everything becomes less efficient over time. Sunpower warranties their panels for a 20% decline in performance over 25 years. That means a 20% efficient panel is warrantied to be 16% efficient after 25 years in the field. To put that in perspective, panels…

If you're going to assume bad faith then there's no point to the discussion.

Re: Chasing utopian energy: How I wasted 20 years of my life

#283

Post by dpierce9 »

fluoridation wrote: post #282
dpierce9 wrote: post #281

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If nuclear plants were twice as efficient that would be great too. They aren’t. Land use isn’t relevant for rooftop solar. There is basically no opportunity cost. Everything becomes less efficient over time. Sunpower warranties their panels for a 20% decline in performance over 25 years. That means a 20% efficient panel is warrantied to be 16% efficient after 25 years in the field. To put that in perspective, panels…

If you're going to assume bad faith then there's no point to the discussion.

I didn’t assume. I think you demonstrated. I agree there is no point.

Re: Chasing utopian energy: How I wasted 20 years of my life

#284

Post by seibelj »

thehappypm wrote: post #120
seibelj wrote: post #60

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If renewable is so radically better then why did the City of Boston automatically increase everyone's electricity bills by 30%, requiring customers to opt-out? https://www.bostonmagazine.com/news/2021/01/08/eversource-co... I keep hearing its so much cheaper, but renewables keep requiring dark patterns, more money, more subsidies. If it was so much cheaper it would just win automatically because of the market.

Boston doesn’t have a huge amount of renewable energy in our mix, sadly. Most of New England is fossil fuels. More renewables would make it easier to keep prices low.

But how does the narrative of “this is so impossibly cheaper and better” square with “we can’t build enough here so it’s 30% more expensive”. Either the region simply isn’t cost effective for solar / wind in which case we need nuclear to have any hope of clean energy, or renewables aren’t actually cheaper. If it was actually cheaper then it would just happen automatically.

Re: Chasing utopian energy: How I wasted 20 years of my life

#285

Post by macspoofing »

pfdietz wrote: post #280
macspoofing wrote: post #279

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>Look, all that the lack of domination of solar/wind shows at this time is that solar and wind are not yet cheap enough to displace already installed, capital-cost-sunk fossil-fuel-using plants which are not being charged CO2 fees. Even if solar/wind were free, they still can't displace fossil-fuels(i.e. they need coal or natural gas to serve as base load). That's the problem.

Of course it could, in any number of ways. No, you don't need coal or natural gas to serve as baseload. One could, for example, make hydrogen, store that underground, then burn that when renewables are not directly available. If renewables are very cheap, one could simply heat some large thermal mass (rocks, sand) by resistive heating, then use that later to drive a thermal cycle. Babcock and Wilcox is commercializin…

Those are science projects that may not see widespread use for decades (if ever). Right now there are no alternatives for fossil fuel baseload.

Re: Chasing utopian energy: How I wasted 20 years of my life

#286

Post by pfdietz »

macspoofing wrote: post #285
pfdietz wrote: post #280

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Of course it could, in any number of ways. No, you don't need coal or natural gas to serve as baseload. One could, for example, make hydrogen, store that underground, then burn that when renewables are not directly available. If renewables are very cheap, one could simply heat some large thermal mass (rocks, sand) by resistive heating, then use that later to drive a thermal cycle. Babcock and Wilcox is commercializin…

Those are science projects that may not see widespread use for decades (if ever). Right now there are no alternatives for fossil fuel baseload.

This is what I was talking about when I dissed you for saying anything that wasn't existing yet couldn't exist. You need to censor your prejudices about renewable energy, your irrational dislike for it is leading you astray.

These are engineering projects, not science projects. They are becoming practical not because of huge advances in science fictional novelties, but because the economic context (where fossil fuels are going to be gone, one way or the other) is making approaches using largely off-the-shelf things competitive. Thermal storage, for example, is almost steampunk.

The big question with renewables is not whether it can do the job -- it clearly can -- it's which of the many subsidiary technologies will win.

Re: Chasing utopian energy: How I wasted 20 years of my life

#287

Post by shmeeed »

fluoridation wrote: post #278
dpierce9 wrote: post #276

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Articbull is saying nuclear is better than solar for the energy system. He bases this on a claim that solar panels are inefficient along a number of dimensions. Look at his actual comments, they aren’t narrowly related to lab or theoretical efficiency (he is making points about land use, death, etc). There is no real concept of physical inefficiency there is only relative efficiency. And relative efficiency of Rankin…

> Look at his actual comments, they aren’t narrowly related to lab or theoretical efficiency (he is making points about land use, death, etc). I don't know about deaths, but the point about land use is related to theoretical efficiency. If an existing solar plant that is 20% was 100% efficient it could generate five times as much power in the same space, or generate the same power in a fifth of the land it currently…

>Eventually they will need to be replaced or they will generate so little power that they may as well not be there. Since they need to be replaced over time then harvesting that 20% of sunlight is no longer free, but carries an ongoing resource cost. Is that more or less than the cost of getting the same total energy from a nuclear power plant?

Yeah, is it more or less? I don't know either. But finally we're getting to the core of the question instead of debating about the number of angels that can dance on the head of a pin.

So at the end of its lifetime, be that 50 or 100 years in, a nuclear plant will have to be replaced, too. Basically a sudden 100% degradation. What is the resource cost for that, why are we not talking about that in this context? Because it's not "ongoing"? What's the resource cost for cooling with increasingly sparse water bodies that due to climate change will be less and less suited for it over the lifespan of the plant, BTW degrading its efficiency? What's the resource cost of plant dismantling and disposal, which goes on for decades after a plant has ceased to produce power? Would you like to include nuclear waste disposal as an ongoing resource cost in the consideration? Where do you draw the line? Are there any reliable estimates about these externalities that don't range wildly depending on which faction informed them? Do we want go down that rabbit hole?

If not, then what's the point of fixating on this single aspect with regards to solar and solar only? Just because this one is a figure that's easy to quote out of context and sounds kinda bad? Can I make you realize that in this light it's hard to not think of this as deliberately cherry-picking an argument for argument's sake?

These are all retorical questions, of course. FWIW, I don't claim to have any definite answers on the topic, and actually I do think that nuclear and renewables will have to complement each other to varying degrees around the globe, depending on many factors. I'm just trying to get across why the specific point your're clinging to seems so extremely moot to me.

>Setting wind aside for the moment, why do you think the fact that solar panels are inefficient and degrade over time doesn't affect their viability as an alternative to nuclear power?

Because it's already correctly priced into the running costs, just as - I suppose its proponents will claim - the corresponding facts above are for nuclear. Also, as has been pointed out, the ever repeated claim of solar inefficiency is baseless in the most literal sense, due to the lack of a comparable reference point for nuclear. 20% is an entirely meaningless number as long as the system boundaries are drawn so arbitrarily that it's impossible to benchmark. To put it bluntly, what would be sufficiently efficient for your taste? 30%? 60? 90? Can you explain why? It's just apples and pears on this level, the only reasonable comparison could come from a much broader view that you're explicitly not interested in.

Anyway this discussion is going in circles. I'm not assuming bad faith on your side, but I don't think we'll come to an agreement either.

Re: Chasing utopian energy: How I wasted 20 years of my life

#288

Post by fluoridation »

shmeeed wrote: post #287
fluoridation wrote: post #278

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Look at his actual comments, they aren’t narrowly related to lab or theoretical efficiency (he is making points about land use, death, etc). I don't know about deaths, but the point about land use is related to theoretical efficiency. If an existing solar plant that is 20% was 100% efficient it could generate five times as much power in the same space, or generate the same power in a fifth of the land it currently…

>Eventually they will need to be replaced or they will generate so little power that they may as well not be there. Since they need to be replaced over time then harvesting that 20% of sunlight is no longer free, but carries an ongoing resource cost. Is that more or less than the cost of getting the same total energy from a nuclear power plant? Yeah, is it more or less? I don't know either. But finally we're getting…

>What is the resource cost for that, why are we not talking about that in this context?

Presumably because nobody knows it. Personally, I'm not aware of any nuclear power plant that has been replaced. I also don't know why one would need to replace the entire plant and not just the core and possibly surrounding structures.

>Would you like to include nuclear waste disposal as an ongoing resource cost in the consideration? Where do you draw the line?

I don't think a line should be drawn anywhere. If we're talking about sustainability and total impact, we should look at all the facts, otherwise we're drawing conclusions off incomplete data. It should be possible to reduce the entire situation down to a single "impact per Joule" value that's comparable between any two power production systems, and every impact that's caused in order to produce that Joule (mining, land use, pollution, etc.).

>If not, then what's the point of fixating on this single aspect with regards to solar and solar only? Just because this one is a figure that's easy to quote out of context and sounds kinda bad? Can I make you realize that in this light it's hard to not think of this as deliberately cherry-picking an argument for argument's sake?

The point is that treating rooftop solar as "free" because it's supposedly a one-time cost is at best naive, at worst disingenuous. I have no interest in making nuclear look good or solar look bad, but let's call a spade a spade. Neither of them has zero impact on the environment. Pretending that they do means we're not making rational decisions.

>Also, as has been pointed out, the ever repeated claim of solar inefficiency is baseless in the most literal sense, due to the lack of a comparable reference point for nuclear.

I wouldn't say it's baseless. The figures on efficiency by themselves are measurable and true. It is true, though, that nothing can be said to be (in)efficient in an absolute sense, for the reasons you say. That's why I never said "solar panels are inefficient". All I said on the matter was that efficiency in this sense is exactly the same kind of efficiency that an IC engine has, because, as I said, dpierce9 was trying to reframe the discussion for no reason. Well, I don't think it was for no reason.

>Because it's already correctly priced into the running costs, just as - I suppose its proponents will claim - the corresponding facts above are for nuclear.

I'm not sure either are. Is the pollution caused by semiconductor production, or as you mentioned the warming of natural waters used as coolant, priced into the corresponding products?

>the only reasonable comparison could come from a much broader view that you're explicitly not interested in.

Yes, I agree, that's the only reasonable comparison. I would be interested in that if anyone came forward with an actual analysis from which we could derive a figure like the one I mentioned above.

Re: Chasing utopian energy: How I wasted 20 years of my life

#289

Post by Splendor »

macspoofing wrote: post #241
Splendor wrote: post #61

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So the government is both promoting the lie and preventing the transition?

The government isn't preventing any transition. There is no transition. Wind/Solar cannot replace fossil fuels. But it is a talking point of every politician that wants to be seen as environmentally conscious to talk about a potential transition. I think some of those politician know that can't happen and they are lying about it. I think some of those politicians don't know that it can't happen and will never work.

You realize you said this in your previous comment right?

> ...and corrupt politicians are preventing that transition.

Re: Chasing utopian energy: How I wasted 20 years of my life

#290

Post by macspoofing »

pfdietz wrote: post #286
macspoofing wrote: post #285

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Those are science projects that may not see widespread use for decades (if ever). Right now there are no alternatives for fossil fuel baseload.

This is what I was talking about when I dissed you for saying anything that wasn't existing yet couldn't exist. You need to censor your prejudices about renewable energy, your irrational dislike for it is leading you astray. These are engineering projects, not science projects. They are becoming practical not because of huge advances in science fictional novelties, but because the economic context (where fossil fuels…

>This is what I was talking about when I dissed

Ha. Dissed? Is this high school?

>These are engineering projects, not science projects. They are becoming practical not because of huge advances in science fictional novelties,

You equivocate between things that are ready and proven NOW versus things that may be ready in the future. This is a common method of argument with proponents of wind and solar.

How about this: There are around a thousand cities in the world with a population of 750,000 or more. When you show me one of those cities powered by wind/solar/choose-favorite-storage (not even to 100%, but maybe to 90%), then maybe we can say that wind/solar can do the job.

Right now that number is 0 (and there are no near to mid-term plans to change that) so I think you have to have a little bit of humility with respect to wind/solar viability.

Post reply on HN