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

241–250 of 314 posts

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

#241

Post by snozolli »

Teever wrote: post #231
iamerroragent wrote: post #221

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm sorry you don't enjoy our Coca-Cola, McDonald's, Apple, and Hollywood. I'm really really sorry that our Navy is used to protect trade. Terrible of the U.S. I'm sorry that the U.S. likes to have allies with democracies and a thriving, consuming, middle-class.

I'm always baffled by this sort of defensive and childish response that happens whenever someone makes legitimate criticisms of American foreign policy and expresses a desire for a world where their needs are given a higher priority. It hints at a deep-rooted inferiority complex in the American identity. Are things better than they were under American hegemony? Sure. Could they be even better if we weren't stuck in t…

whenever someone makes legitimate criticisms of American foreign policy and expresses a desire for a world where their needs are given a higher priority.

You think the grandparent comment is what you describe here?

Ironically, GGP's comment was a well thought out comment supporting American 'hegemony'.

I think you have your "lash out" backwards in this case.

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

#242

Post by Teever »

iamerroragent wrote: post #232
Teever wrote: post #231

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm always baffled by this sort of defensive and childish response that happens whenever someone makes legitimate criticisms of American foreign policy and expresses a desire for a world where their needs are given a higher priority. It hints at a deep-rooted inferiority complex in the American identity. Are things better than they were under American hegemony? Sure. Could they be even better if we weren't stuck in t…

I'm surprised you think this is a lash out? "Are things better than they were under American hegemony? Sure. Could they be even better if we weren't stuck in this local maximum, Absolutely." Yeah! Criticize America so it can be better but taking a stance that world would magically be better off without America, or even that the world doesn't want America while obsessively consuming American products seems rather chil…

You really think a three line "sorry, not sorry" reply isn't lashing out?

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

#243

Post by iamerroragent »

Teever wrote: post #242
iamerroragent wrote: post #232

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm surprised you think this is a lash out? "Are things better than they were under American hegemony? Sure. Could they be even better if we weren't stuck in this local maximum, Absolutely." Yeah! Criticize America so it can be better but taking a stance that world would magically be better off without America, or even that the world doesn't want America while obsessively consuming American products seems rather chil…

You really think a three line "sorry, not sorry" reply isn't lashing out?

No offense to you but I think you're really miss reading here and/or looking to interpret something that was meant to illustrate a point rather than be outright deliberately condescending which appears to be how you wish to interpret it.

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

#244

Post by snozolli »

tjbiddle wrote: post #57

My comment isn't directly related to the OP, but figured it'd be an interesting insight to share as it's very recent for me. Just finished a motorbike trip in Laos. Fun fact, their largest export is electricity. Would've never guessed that, right? 90% of the electricity they generate is exported to neighboring countries - mostly Thailand. 80% is renewable - Go Laos! But wait, it may be renewable... but turns out the…

It's the driest country I've been to in a while, many villages had their water access completely destroyed due to upstream dams.

Completely destroyed, or just no longer enough to support wasteful methods of irrigation? It's been over a decade since I was in SE Asia, but my impression was that they relied heavily on flooding fields for irrigation.

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

#245

Post by PaulDavisThe1st »

kragen wrote: post #143
PaulDavisThe1st wrote: post #115

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Just as a comparison, I did my own 6.7kWh ground mount array, so I can tell you that the materials costs (to a homeowner) for that were about US$13k. That was in 2020 - not sure how those costs have moved since then, but a significant part of the cost you're being quoted is labor.

i'd be interested in a rough breakdown of the costs if you happen to remember solarserver's photovoltaik preisindex makes it seem like that's about 10 percent pv modules and the rest is either retail markup (or tariffs) or balance of system; is that true?

Alas, I only remember that I paid what was then wholesale solar (OR) almost exactly $10k for the panels, racking, inverter, and the little optimizers that sit under every panel, then about $1k for the iron tubing for the rack, about $600 in concrete, and another $1500 on sundry electrical supplies (conduit, wiring, junction boxes etc.)

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

#246

Post by htfu »

pastacacioepepe wrote: post #150
looping__lui wrote: post #130

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You need a viable military in an advanced and wealthy society. If you disagree you are imho naive. A military coup is one of the largest risks to any society. The “best” people to serve the military are the young people that stand to lose their country and have a million things that they get excited about - except going to war and fighting. A society itself needs to protect itself.

Coups always happen through a complicit or indifferent army. Having no army (except some small elite corps) seems the best way to prevent coups to me. Also you don't need weapons and war to resist. It's much more effective to perform civil disobedience on a mass scale. Paralize the country and refuse to obey. Gandhi docet. It's also what Ukraine should do instead of sacrificing entire generations of their men and wom…

That'll work as long as the attackers are unwilling to simply murder civilians. Did you somehow miss Bucha?

They're not protecting their land, they're protecting themselves. If a significant portion gets shot either way it's better to at least be able to shoot back, no?

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

#247

Post by robomartin »

danhor wrote: post #239
robomartin wrote: post #226

This article is a mess. Energy is NOT power. Reporting on energy (which is what the original publication does; and even they confuse it) is almost pointless. We need power. Not energy. Let me explain. There is no such thing as a useful measure of energy reliability. Energy is the accumulation of power over time. Here's a super simplistic example to illustrate the point: You spend all day walking through the desert. Y…

Both are great, since while the daily cycle is a problem with solar, the seasonal variations are a far larger issue (since much mobe energy storage is needed). But both complement each other. Wind is stronger in the winter and solar is strong in the summer. The best consistency is achieved when both are used, not one or the other.

No, not really. That's the impression most people have. For example, solar, in the northern hemisphere, is --to use your term-- stronger in March/April, not the summer. This is due to the panel negative temperature coefficient.

> The best consistency is achieved when both are used, not one or the other.

No. Wind with approximately three hours of storage is about 95% reliable.

Once again, it's about power, not energy.

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

#248

Post by simplicio »

epistasis wrote: post #95
simplicio wrote: post #63

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Electrical transmission and distribution costs dwarf the cost of solar generation, 1x-5x the cost of solar generation, and you have to beef all that up for utility scale solar. Also, the interconnection queues for attaching your project to the grid are getting astronomically long now, and this is one of the biggest impediments to new renewable generation. One of the most valuable assets of a coal generation sites is…

Those costs are paid either way though, aren't they? At least, it seems that close to 100% of houses with roof-top solar are still grid connected, so I don't really see how they'd achieve any savings related to transmission and distribution.

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

#249

Post by yodsanklai »

Georgelemental wrote: post #133
adrianN wrote: post #7

Nice. The economics of renewables are really hard to beat. I hope we speed up the construction speed and at the same time electrify more sectors.

The economics of renewables are hard to beat until night falls and the wind stops blowing, at which point the cost jumps to $infinity/MWh

And also wind/solar rely on cheap fossil energy for their construction.

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

#250

Post by pastacacioepepe »

htfu wrote: post #246
pastacacioepepe wrote: post #150

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Coups always happen through a complicit or indifferent army. Having no army (except some small elite corps) seems the best way to prevent coups to me. Also you don't need weapons and war to resist. It's much more effective to perform civil disobedience on a mass scale. Paralize the country and refuse to obey. Gandhi docet. It's also what Ukraine should do instead of sacrificing entire generations of their men and wom…

That'll work as long as the attackers are unwilling to simply murder civilians. Did you somehow miss Bucha? They're not protecting their land, they're protecting themselves. If a significant portion gets shot either way it's better to at least be able to shoot back, no?

> Did you somehow miss Bucha?

Wars tend to allow for this kind of tragedy to happen. Much harder to slaughter people during a civilian disobedience act that is globally covered by media. Brutal repression of demonstrations also causes much more outrage, basically backfiring if your intent is to stop them. Any dictator worth a shot knows this very well.

> If a significant portion gets shot either way it's better to at least be able to shoot back, no?

False dychotomy. People who protest the war in Russia are being arrested, not shot in the streets. So why do you think that would happen in this case? Because "Russians are Orcs"?

Post reply on HN