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

131–140 of 197 posts

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

#131

Post by thx-2718 »

JumpCrisscross wrote: post #126
thx-2718 wrote: post #122

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So I think we're operating on different interpretations of the term 'militaristic'. Star Trek primarily depicts the Federations (of planets) Military on the frontier of their space. The society within the Federation is generally a democratic one and the use of Star Fleet is not to invade. "Starfleet's function was to explore unknown territory on the behalf of the Federation government, to defend the Federation and it…

> society within the Federation is generally a democratic one and the use of Star Fleet is not to invade Militaristic != imperial. If your society's smart and ambitious aspire to join your military, you're a militaristic culture.

You didn't read past that clearly.

If we can't even agree on the simple understanding and general meaning of a word or term it's kind of hard to have a useful discussion.

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

#132

Post by ftth_finland »

pfdietz wrote: post #115
pydry wrote: post #112

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Theyre not commercially available because theres no market for it not because theres anything infeasible about it - cost-wise or otherwise. The amount of deployed solar and wind around the world isnt even enough to turn off the gas turbines during the sunniest windiest days yet. Theres little point to electrolyzing gas into existence until it routinely overproduces and beyond existing storage capacity and by a lot. N…

And then, there is little reason to burn that gas in turbines until existing consumers of hydrogen (like ammonia plants) have had their fill of it. Even before it's used in turbines, it would operate as dispatchable demand. And when it's used in turbines, it will be mixed with natural gas at first. Below about 20% H2 existing combustors work fine.

To solve the emission problem we need to be able to turn 100% hydrogen in to electricity.

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

#133

Post by ftth_finland »

pydry wrote: post #112
ftth_finland wrote: post #98

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"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.

Theyre not commercially available because theres no market for it not because theres anything infeasible about it - cost-wise or otherwise. The amount of deployed solar and wind around the world isnt even enough to turn off the gas turbines during the sunniest windiest days yet. Theres little point to electrolyzing gas into existence until it routinely overproduces and beyond existing storage capacity and by a lot. N…

So, it's a solved problem? There are prototype/experimental 100% hydrogen combustion turbines?

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

#134

Post by ftth_finland »

_hypx wrote: post #124
0cf8612b2e1e wrote: post #87

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I do not understand why there is not more focus on fuel synthesis. If electricity becomes “free” for hours a day, even crummy roundtrip efficiency seems like a great option to soak up extra capacity and get long term (seasonal?) storage.

You are describing e-fuels. Hydrogen from excess renewables is the same idea. The critics are simply not paying attention to the fact that green energy is nearly free and therefore fuels made from it can also be nearly free.

The plants aren't free.

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

#135

Post by mikeyouse »

ftth_finland wrote: post #114
mikeyouse wrote: post #79

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The problem with nuclear is and has always been the opportunity cost. If you have $15 billion today -- you could tie it up for a decade and you might get a working 1GW reactor in 10 years (though probably more like 15). Or you could spend $1 billion/year and end up with probably 15GW of utility solar in the same time frame? Even at a 20% capacity factor instead of a 95% one, you'd be making far more money from Day 1…

> The problem with nuclear is and has always been the opportunity cost. What opportunity cost? What else are you going to spend the money on that gives you non-polluting 24/7 power output rain or shine? > If you have $15 billion today -- you could tie it up for a decade and you might get a working 1GW reactor in 10 years (though probably more like 15). The best time to build a nuclear power plant was 20 years ago. Th…

> What opportunity cost? What else are you going to spend the money on that gives you non-polluting 24/7 power output rain or shine?

The opportunity cost of dollars - nobody is going to spend $15 billion on nuclear when much better investments exist.

> We need days at a minimum, weeks for preference. 4 hours is nowhere enough.

Why in the world would you need that much storage? Obviously Finland + solar aren't 100% compatible given the latitude, but fairly extensive modeling shows a route to 99% renewable Australia with only 5 hours storage:

https://twitter.com/DavidOsmond8/status/1666297529418530816

Change the mix to favor wind resources and you could likely achieve the same in Finland with some modest investments in transmission infrastructure.

We would be in a better and cheaper world if we had built a nuclear-first grid 30 years ago -- but we didn't -- and it just doesn't make sense to try to do so now when much cheaper options exist.

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

#136

Post by CyberDildonics »

xyzzyz wrote: post #72
r00fus wrote: post #48

Earlier quoted context omitted.

For baseload power I agree, but looking at Zaporizhzhia in Ukraine, it's hard not to see the downsides of nuclear: it's vulnerable to water/cooling issues and can be weaponized by terrorists or an invading army. Solar has none of these issues, and is resilient/decentralized as well.

Same can be said about cities: they are vulnerable to water issues (if a city loses access to water, it’s a major disaster), and military can weaponize them as fortification. Does it mean that we shouldn’t build cities? No, obviously not, that’s silly: it just means that you have to make sure water is flowing, and that military invasions are hugely destructive.

That's a bizarre argument when the point being made is that solar is an alternative that doesn't have those problems.

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

#137

Post by colordrops »

MostlyStable wrote: post #108
colordrops wrote: post #105

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

I don't follow. How does it not help in the fight against climate change? It may be less effecient than central power but it still reduces emissions compared to fossil fuels, and it's not a zero sum game as it does not take away capacity from central power.

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

#138

Post by bwb »

crznp wrote: post #119
bwb wrote: post #77

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That isn't a good analogy. Cities have multiple water sources, and it is a very complex system. Not to mention we have special trucks and responses when that happens (at least in the USA). Nuclear has some problems.

Do cities have redundant water sources though? Not all of NYC's water goes through Hillview Reservoir, but it seems like a pretty serious vulnerability to me. It doesn't seem like a terrible analogy. But cities are worth the risk, can you say the same about nuclear plants? Most established designs can't operate as peaker plants, or even seasonal plants (eg: covering for solar in the winter when there is less sun and…

It is a good question, and I am not sure either.

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

#139

Post by JumpCrisscross »

thx-2718 wrote: post #131
JumpCrisscross wrote: post #126

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> society within the Federation is generally a democratic one and the use of Star Fleet is not to invade Militaristic != imperial. If your society's smart and ambitious aspire to join your military, you're a militaristic culture.

You didn't read past that clearly. If we can't even agree on the simple understanding and general meaning of a word or term it's kind of hard to have a useful discussion.

> You didn't read past that clearly

On what basis? Your own definition highlights glorification. That, to me, is the essence of a militaristic (versus martial) culture.

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

#140

Post by pydry »

ftth_finland wrote: post #133
pydry wrote: post #112

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Theyre not commercially available because theres no market for it not because theres anything infeasible about it - cost-wise or otherwise. The amount of deployed solar and wind around the world isnt even enough to turn off the gas turbines during the sunniest windiest days yet. Theres little point to electrolyzing gas into existence until it routinely overproduces and beyond existing storage capacity and by a lot. N…

So, it's a solved problem? There are prototype/experimental 100% hydrogen combustion turbines?

Yes

https://www.ge.com/gas-power/future-of-energy/hydrogen-fuele...

I would humbly suggest that in future you try to avoid using rhetorical questions to make a point when the rhetorical question can be answered by google.

The fact that these rhetorical questions carry what appears to be a distinctly anti environmental agenda doesnt exactly make this incuriosity better.

Post reply on HN