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

Global Solar Power Investment Will Top $1B per Day This Year

singularityhub.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

101–110 of 197 posts

Re: Global Solar Power Investment Will Top $1B per Day This Year

#101

Post by JumpCrisscross »

thx-2718 wrote: post #86
JumpCrisscross wrote: post #80

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I don’t understand the Star Trek reference. Can you elaborate Not OP, but Star Trek posits a post-scarcity economy and progressive values. (It also presents a militarized society.)

What would you say it's militarized? I mean, the command structure of Star Fleet mirrors the military, but as far I know the the mirror universe is the 'militarized' society.

> the command structure of Star Fleet mirrors the military

This. For someone with a longing for a culture that values duty, and with it, a sense of place and responsibility, a community with hierarchy, et cetera, Star Trek delivers. Today, those elements largely live within conservative America.

Re: Global Solar Power Investment Will Top $1B per Day This Year

#102

Post by pfdietz »

constantcrying wrote: post #92
pfdietz wrote: post #71

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The worst case of all renewable equipment being landfilled would be acceptable. Any recycling would just be icing on the cake. Also, the materials going into renewable infrastructure powering society will be small compared to materials going into society as a whole. If recycling can be done on the latter, it could be done on the former. If it can't be done on the latter, the former wouldn't matter. And the recycling…

If my optimistic math is right you need around a dozen solar pannels per person. If a third of energy is supposes to come from solar around a billion sollar pannels are needed. If you don't think longevity and recyclability matters on that scale, I think you should reconsider what "sustainable" means.

My point is that it's not an argument against renewables per se. If industrial society powered by nuclear (or unicorn farts) is sustainable, it implies recycling is either unnecessary or solvable.

Re: Global Solar Power Investment Will Top $1B per Day This Year

#103

Post by hef19898 »

thx-2718 wrote: post #86
JumpCrisscross wrote: post #80

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I don’t understand the Star Trek reference. Can you elaborate Not OP, but Star Trek posits a post-scarcity economy and progressive values. (It also presents a militarized society.)

What would you say it's militarized? I mean, the command structure of Star Fleet mirrors the military, but as far I know the the mirror universe is the 'militarized' society.

The mirror universe is fascist, and sexist and racist.

The normal one, well, everything is shown to be run by a military organization, Starfleet, ranging from exploration to first contact and diplomacy. Federation ambassadors are portrayed as spoiled, clueless clows. All while attributing Starfleet a clear moral superiority.

And even shows like DS9, the Maquis angle hints at some moral dilema regarding the occupied colonies, show that obedience, following orders and some higher moral principle trump whatever pro-Maquis Starfleet personl might think. Because after all, if the heros ignore protocol or orders they never stabd against Starfleet. Overall, it is pretty militaristic in nature.

Re: Global Solar Power Investment Will Top $1B per Day This Year

#104

Post by jacquesm »

JumpCrisscross wrote: post #83
jacquesm wrote: post #64

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's not how energy markets work. This is by design and whether or not you think it's fair isn't really all that important. Energy prices are determined by the most expensive source of the moment, not by the least expensive one.

> Energy prices are determined by the most expensive source of the moment Most expensive marginal source. More cheap solar shifts over that margin.

That's fair, but it would have to shift quite a bit still to get to the point where the marginal source would be a different one. Typically this is to all of the producers benefit (including the solar ones) so they tend to keep those most expensive sources alive at all costs.

Re: Global Solar Power Investment Will Top $1B per Day This Year

#105

Post by colordrops »

MostlyStable wrote: post #70
colordrops wrote: post #44

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Doesn't seem right to limit it at all, new or already installed. In fact they should be quadrupling down on incentives for solar considering climate change.

If what you care about is climate change, single home rooftop solar is a _terrible_ investment. It's dramatically harder and more expensive to install relative to large installations. For the same exact dollar, you get nearly twice the installed capacity with large scale installations vs. home scale.

Why not both? With rooftop, you further accelerate the growth of renewables, and you get the benefit of not being beholden to regulatory capture and corrupt central authorities when they decide to do something stupid with the central power supply, and you also build up resilience in the grid with less single points of failure.

Re: Global Solar Power Investment Will Top $1B per Day This Year

#106

Post by pfdietz »

ftth_finland wrote: post #98
pfdietz wrote: post #73

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Glad to hear someone else beating the hydrogen (or some e-fuel) drum for that last few percent.

"Combustion turbines for 100% hydrogen are not commercially available today." https://www.lazard.com/research-insights/levelized-cost-of-e... How are you going to use hydrogen to generate electricity without generating CO2 and other emissions? How are you going to make e-fuel or other synthetic fuels cost effectively? Even if electricity is free, the plants aren't.

Industrial combustion turbines have been available for decades that burn hydrogen (in waste gases from various industrial processes, and also in jet engines adapted to burn hydrogen). It's just a matter of designing a combustor that works with the gas. This is known to be a solvable problem. If a particular high end gas turbine that's available today doesn't yet have a hydrogen combustor, that just means this solvable problem has to again be solved in this case.

Re: Global Solar Power Investment Will Top $1B per Day This Year

#107

Post by mastax »

vasco wrote: post #11
standardUser wrote: post #7

I get a little frustrated that all of the people who crapped all over solar power can now simply sit there quietly as it becomes a major component of electricity generation and pay no price for spreading anti-solar propaganda at such a historically critical juncture. I always found it particularly grotesque coming from the HN crowd, where an audience of mostly engineers and entrepreneurs seemed to have no problem fin…

My imagination still prefers nuclear! I don't mind solar projects but think it's a big mistake to not invest in nuclear.

Nuclear has been and is being invested in. Governments fund a huge amount of nuclear R&D and also often heavily subsidize plant construction. When utilities crunch the numbers to decide what to invest in building, they overwhelmingly don't choose nuclear. And yes, they are certainly taking into account intermittency, "base load" whatever you want to call it.

There are arguments to be made that decision-makers at utilities aren't taking into account certain factors, for example in deregulated markets like Texas where reliability has perhaps been under-rewarded by the market design. But I think one should be especially skeptical about arguments posted by laymen versus the experts who are actually putting their money where their mouth is.

Re: Global Solar Power Investment Will Top $1B per Day This Year

#108

Post by MostlyStable »

colordrops wrote: post #105
MostlyStable wrote: post #70

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If what you care about is climate change, single home rooftop solar is a _terrible_ investment. It's dramatically harder and more expensive to install relative to large installations. For the same exact dollar, you get nearly twice the installed capacity with large scale installations vs. home scale.

Why not both? With rooftop, you further accelerate the growth of renewables, and you get the benefit of not being beholden to regulatory capture and corrupt central authorities when they decide to do something stupid with the central power supply, and you also build up resilience in the grid with less single points of failure.

I'm not against rooftop solar. My parents have, what was, at the time of installation, the largest residential install in the state of CA. But rooftop solar is not a good use of resources for fighting climate change, which is what I was responding to.

Re: Global Solar Power Investment Will Top $1B per Day This Year

#109

Post by pfdietz »

danans wrote: post #58
ianai wrote: post #26

Earlier quoted context omitted.

My state proposed a grid battery solution that would have provided power for the entire state for up to 1-2 days IIRC. They didn’t approve it, but the budget wasn’t astronomical. I honestly wonder if the worry about off hours use is a little overblown. Infrastructure has a history of both being expensive up front and funded. Imagine if the US didn’t have highways and trying to explain all the impacts to the GDP that…

> My state proposed a grid battery solution that would have provided power for the entire state for up to 1-2 days IIRC. They didn’t approve it, but the budget wasn’t astronomical. I honestly wonder if the worry about off hours use is a little overblown. Which state? Currently, the production scale battery tech that's available (LiIon, LFP), isn't really cost effective for multi-day backup. It's used for very short t…

Also pumped hydro, pumped thermal, and resistive thermal.

Resistive thermal in sand at 1200 C is projected (based on lab estimates) to have a LCOS of ~$0.05/kWh and a round trip efficiency of 53%.

Re: Global Solar Power Investment Will Top $1B per Day This Year

#110

Post by constantcrying »

pfdietz wrote: post #102
constantcrying wrote: post #92

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If my optimistic math is right you need around a dozen solar pannels per person. If a third of energy is supposes to come from solar around a billion sollar pannels are needed. If you don't think longevity and recyclability matters on that scale, I think you should reconsider what "sustainable" means.

My point is that it's not an argument against renewables per se. If industrial society powered by nuclear (or unicorn farts) is sustainable, it implies recycling is either unnecessary or solvable.

I think environmental impact by producing billions of pannels of landfill is actually an argument against solar.

I am not against solar, by the way, but it is obviously an important consideration.

Post reply on HN