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

For the first time, renewable energy generation beat out coal in the US

popsci.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

161–170 of 314 posts

Re: For the first time, renewable energy generation beat out coal in the US

#161

Post by kragen »

acidburnNSA wrote: post #151
kragen wrote: post #147

Earlier quoted context omitted.

amusing units √(kilowatt hour / 480 g) = 2700 m/s √(kilowatt hour / 800 g) = 2100 m/s 480 g is 60% of 800 g so i guess my vaguely remembered percentage was about right wrt co₂ reduction i think carbon capture is probably going to be necessary

Grams CO₂-equiv emitted per kWh of electricity generated are the units used by everyone, e.g. the IPCC to quantify the carbon intensity of energy sources. E.g. for a graph of data from IPCC, see [1]. Again, 480 is not all-inclusive. If you look at the whole system, gas is no better than coal, due to wellhead and pipeline leaks of methane, a potent greenhouse gas. [1] https://whatisnuclear.com/img/lifecycle-carbon-emi…

i wish they'd use si units like kilograms per joule, or joules per kilogram, which works out to s²/m² and permits direct comparison with the energy density of fuels

a kilowatt hour per 800 g works out to 4.5 megajoules per kilogram, which makes it easy to see that we're in the right ballpark (the energy density of coal itself is less than an order of magnitude higher) and that we're talking about delivered work rather than just thermal power

Re: For the first time, renewable energy generation beat out coal in the US

#162

Post by passwordoops »

peoplefromibiza wrote: post #155
rapsey wrote: post #136

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Chinese panels are cheap because they use slave labor to produce them.

Honest question: so why aren't iPhones cheap? EDIT: thanks for all the answers, IIUC it boils down to "nobody cares if a luxury item from a western company is built on slavery, the only thing that matters is that poor people who built it cannot afford it"

Because people are willing to pay the price point. In places I've been, rule of thumb for pricing is usually 3x BoM. I've heard (sorry no reference, just word of mouth) Apple targets at least 5x.

Side-note: if anyone believes the idea that companies pass savings to the consumer... Well I have a nice bridge in Brooklyn they might be interested in

Re: For the first time, renewable energy generation beat out coal in the US

#163

Post by nroets »

peoplefromibiza wrote: post #155
rapsey wrote: post #136

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Chinese panels are cheap because they use slave labor to produce them.

Honest question: so why aren't iPhones cheap? EDIT: thanks for all the answers, IIUC it boils down to "nobody cares if a luxury item from a western company is built on slavery, the only thing that matters is that poor people who built it cannot afford it"

Because Apple sets the price according to what people are willing to pay. The price isn't directly related to the manufacturing cost or the development cost.

Re: For the first time, renewable energy generation beat out coal in the US

#164

Post by landemva »

rapsey wrote: post #136
nroets wrote: post #116

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why should the US try to lead solar panel technology ? China has many talented engineers and plenty of venture capital. I'd prefer them to invest it in solar panel manufacturing and power electronics rather than social media, ai or Telco technology.

Chinese panels are cheap because they use slave labor to produce them.

And significantly less burdensome manufacturing pollution rules. The West exported manufacturing pollution to developing countries and named it 'free trade'.

Re: For the first time, renewable energy generation beat out coal in the US

#165

Post by lube »

rainsford wrote: post #124
nroets wrote: post #116

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why should the US try to lead solar panel technology ? China has many talented engineers and plenty of venture capital. I'd prefer them to invest it in solar panel manufacturing and power electronics rather than social media, ai or Telco technology.

Relying on a non-friendly country for something so crucial as energy is generally not a great position to be in, particularly if that country has rival world power ambitions. Europe and Russia have provided a great recent example of why you don't want to be reliant on potential enemies for your energy needs, and while the situation between the US and China is not the same and solar is different than fossil fuels, it'…

I think your vision is too US centric, US hegemony lead to disruptions to foreign nations like afghanistan, iraq, libya, etc. My pov from latinamerica is that my country could be next, and neither your culture nor your "business class" seems the future(we reflect your cultural hegemony with our version of shitty role models), si why not challenge US hegemony?

Re: For the first time, renewable energy generation beat out coal in the US

#166

Post by landemva »

kragen wrote: post #142
throwaway2037 wrote: post #112

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Thank you for saying this out loud. Let me preface by saying that I am not a shill for big electricity companies. The cost of electricity, including green energy, and "net metering" needs to including the cost of transfer -- basically "big wires". Most people are delusional about the cost of transfer. One idea: Force generation and electricity transfer to be separate companies. Today, they are frequently a single com…

by 'transfer' do you mean distribution, transmission, or the kind of grid operation carried out by isos and rtos with the right pricing incentives, rooftop solar ought to decrease the amount of transmission capacity required rather than increasing it, by generating the required power closer to the point of use

Who transmits electricity to the house at night? The lines will be sized for full loads.

Re: For the first time, renewable energy generation beat out coal in the US

#167

Post by marcosdumay »

simplicio wrote: post #63
jillesvangurp wrote: post #25

Earlier quoted context omitted.

One thing that's often overlooked in statistics like this is roof top solar because it's just not that easy to account for. In places like Australia, where double digit percentages of homes have solar and where building codes are actually being changed to require solar panels, this is a non trivial amount that is putting a lot of pressure on energy suppliers to adapt. Effectively whole states are running on solar whe…

I don't really understand the advantage of rooftop solar over just putting the same number of solar panels in a field somewhere. Id think it would be a lot cheaper to install the panels in one-place then having to distribute them to a bunch of differently shaped and oriented roof tops, and cheaper to have a few large inverters instead of a bunch of small ones.

You don't have greedy third parties exploiting monopolies over the electricity you consume.

By all means, it should be much cheaper to make large solar farm on some suitable place and buy the electricity from there. The fact that it isn't can't be explained by technical factors.

Re: For the first time, renewable energy generation beat out coal in the US

#168

Post by kragen »

landemva wrote: post #166
kragen wrote: post #142

Earlier quoted context omitted.

by 'transfer' do you mean distribution, transmission, or the kind of grid operation carried out by isos and rtos with the right pricing incentives, rooftop solar ought to decrease the amount of transmission capacity required rather than increasing it, by generating the required power closer to the point of use

Who transmits electricity to the house at night? The lines will be sized for full loads.

transmission lines do not connect to houses, so it is not clear that you understand the distinction i am asking about

Re: For the first time, renewable energy generation beat out coal in the US

#169

Post by goatlover »

adrianN wrote: post #22
anovikov wrote: post #19

It's so funny to read discussions of "whether or not renewables are viable for replacement of all or most of electricity needs in the U.S.". Here in Europe, we have it figured many years ago and are replacing fossil-fueled generation at a crazy rate, will probably push it to a niche use (gas peakers to fill void when there's neither sun or wind and before enough electrolyzers are put online), in less than 10 years.

"A crazy rate" that is unfortunately still much too slow to limit warming to 2° or below.

Was limiting warning below 2° ever realistic? I can't understand why 1.5° when it was clear to everyone that there was no way in hell that is happening. Why not set a realistic goal and try to figure out the best way to deal with the consequences?

Re: For the first time, renewable energy generation beat out coal in the US

#170

Post by acidburnNSA »

kragen wrote: post #161
acidburnNSA wrote: post #151

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Grams CO₂-equiv emitted per kWh of electricity generated are the units used by everyone, e.g. the IPCC to quantify the carbon intensity of energy sources. E.g. for a graph of data from IPCC, see [1]. Again, 480 is not all-inclusive. If you look at the whole system, gas is no better than coal, due to wellhead and pipeline leaks of methane, a potent greenhouse gas. [1] https://whatisnuclear.com/img/lifecycle-carbon-emi…

i wish they'd use si units like kilograms per joule, or joules per kilogram, which works out to s²/m² and permits direct comparison with the energy density of fuels a kilowatt hour per 800 g works out to 4.5 megajoules per kilogram, which makes it easy to see that we're in the right ballpark (the energy density of coal itself is less than an order of magnitude higher) and that we're talking about delivered work rathe…

I disagree. Sometimes when you're trying to quantify something specific, it's best to use units that are topical. If you want to talk about how much CO₂ the production of a kWh of electricity (not heat) that different sources of electricity use, mass CO₂ per kWh electric generated is the most useful and intuitive unit. Differences in thermal efficiency, etc. do not matter if you're focused on getting a kWh-electric for the smallest amount of lifecycle CO₂. This is especially important when comparing non-thermal sources (hydro, wind, solar) alongside thermal sources.
Post reply on HN