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

171–180 of 197 posts

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

#171

Post by fooblaster »

ftth_finland wrote: post #91
fooblaster wrote: post #39

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This was the most comprehensive study I have read: [300 page pdf - warning] https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&url=https:/... I have always been skeptical that grid storage was the hidden cost of solar, and that multiple weeks of total grid output storage were needed, but this makes convincing arguments that only a few hours of storage is needed, even in difficult areas.

A few hours in nowhere near enough. In Finland solar produces no power three months of the year. The months before and after that are marginal. To add joy, there are windstill periods of days, sometimes more than a week, in winter. To add insult to injury, there isn't enough transmission capability to import all the renewable energy we would need to solely rely on renewables. There isn't enough hydro either so rely o…

did you read parts of the link at all?

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

#172

Post by ftth_finland »

pfdietz wrote: post #146
ftth_finland wrote: post #130

Earlier quoted context omitted.

How is your comment different from: "Combustion turbines for 100% hydrogen are not commercially available today."

It rejects the insinuation that this is somehow an obstacle to using hydrogen burning turbines in the future. And that insinuation is there, or else why did you bring that up?

> It rejects the insinuation that this is somehow an obstacle to using hydrogen burning turbines in the future.

There is no insinuation, it's just a statement of fact. Combustion turbines for 100% hydrogen are not commercially available today. We literally cannot burn 100% hydrogen at scale to provide utility power today.

We may be able to do so in the future, which would be great. Even better if we can do so without emissions and cheaper than other alternatives. But we cannot do so today.

Siemens thinks we can do 100% combustion turbines in about a decade or so. Time will tell. There may be obstacles or maybe everything goes swimmingly.

> And that insinuation is there, or else why did you bring that up?

I brought it up because it is a pertinent detail.

Hydrogen is touted as being the solution to storage for renewables. We are still far from that.

According to https://model.energy/ it might not be such an affordable solution. And even with 100% hydrogen combustion turbines there is the question of storage. Salt caves are cheap, steel storage tanks aren't.

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

#173

Post by _hypx »

ftth_finland wrote: post #169
_hypx wrote: post #143

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Same issue with wind and solar. Sure, you have to build them first, but afterwards it's a continuous stream of virtually free energy.

How much is virtually free? How much will each kWh generated from synthetic fuels cost?

As free as green electricity itself. You're just reusing the same attacks that were used against wind and solar.

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

#174

Post by pydry »

ftth_finland wrote: post #166
pydry wrote: post #140

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

> 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. It was not a rhetorical question. Furthermore the first hit on Google is: "GE, DOE Accelerating the Path towards 100% Hydrogen" The rest of the results are various reports of testing, research and trials. None of these refute the original quote from the 2023 Lazar…

>The rest of the results are various reports of testing, research and trials.

Right, coz the technology, which exists and is deployed, is being refined before being commercialized at scale ready for the future mass market opportunities that are, as I mentioned, yet to materialize.

>Sidestepping the incorrect use of "rhetorical", I do wonder what it is about facts and relevant questions that get under the skin of some people?

I found it kind of funny actually. The number and nature of questions suggested a high level of ignorance (e.g. this easily googled one) that was coupled with a overtly arrogant attitude. Hoisted on your own petard so to speak ;)

I can't be bothered to answer questions from somebody who uses a deluge of rhetorical questions to argue a covert or overt anti-environmental position in bad faith though. One google to prove you 100% wrong about is sufficient.

Pro tip: try to avoid histrionics about "what to do when the sun doesnt shine and the wind doesnt blow" in future if you want to sound less like a coal lobby pamphlet from 2012 ;)

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

#175

Post by ftth_finland »

fooblaster wrote: post #171
ftth_finland wrote: post #91

Earlier quoted context omitted.

A few hours in nowhere near enough. In Finland solar produces no power three months of the year. The months before and after that are marginal. To add joy, there are windstill periods of days, sometimes more than a week, in winter. To add insult to injury, there isn't enough transmission capability to import all the renewable energy we would need to solely rely on renewables. There isn't enough hydro either so rely o…

did you read parts of the link at all?

Yes, but it's 280 pages. Which parts in particular address long term storage?

Searching for "storage" gives very few hits. This was perhaps the most pertinent hit:

"IT IS GENERALLY NOT ECONOMICALLY FEASIBLE TO store electricity in bulk. The widespread deployment of new storage technologies and/ or high penetrations of electric vehicles may someday change this, but these developments are unlikely before 2030."

along with this:

"Compressed air energy storage (CAES) is the only other storage technology [other than pumped hydro] that has achieved long-term utility-scale operation. ... Only two utility-scale CAES facilities have been constructed worldwide: a 290 MW facility with two hours of storage in Huntorf, Germany, that entered commercial operations in 1978 and a 110 MW facility with 26 hours of storage in McIntosh, Alabama, that entered commercial operations in 1991."

Not very much to go on, now is there.

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

#176

Post by ftth_finland »

_hypx wrote: post #173
ftth_finland wrote: post #169

Earlier quoted context omitted.

How much is virtually free? How much will each kWh generated from synthetic fuels cost?

As free as green electricity itself. You're just reusing the same attacks that were used against wind and solar.

Asking questions is attacking, now is it? What are we, snowflakes?

Can you please answer the question with dollars and cents? Or if you don't know, say so.

Green electricity isn't free. Neither will synthetic fuels be.

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

#177

Post by ftth_finland »

pydry wrote: post #174
ftth_finland wrote: post #166

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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. It was not a rhetorical question. Furthermore the first hit on Google is: "GE, DOE Accelerating the Path towards 100% Hydrogen" The rest of the results are various reports of testing, research and trials. None of these refute the original quote from the 2023 Lazar…

>The rest of the results are various reports of testing, research and trials. Right, coz the technology, which exists and is deployed, is being refined before being commercialized at scale ready for the future mass market opportunities that are, as I mentioned, yet to materialize. >Sidestepping the incorrect use of "rhetorical", I do wonder what it is about facts and relevant questions that get under the skin of some…

I strongly recommend you acquaint yourself with a dictionary. Look up "rhetorical". I can suggest other words also.

> I can't be bothered to answer questions

Well, I can't blame you if you don't know or can't articulate answers.

> One google to prove you 100% wrong is sufficient.

Sure, I'll take the bait. What is your one true google then?

> Pro tip: try to avoid histrionics about "what to do when the sun doesnt shine and the wind doesnt blow". its so 2012 ;)

Here's another pro tip: go outside. Observer. You will see and feel that the sun doesn't always shine and the wind doesn't always blow. You can even find occasions when both meteorological phenomenons occur.

Then look at electrical generation charts. Note that both sun and wind production varies. Note that low or zero generation of both occurs.

I mean, this is basic kindergarten stuff. I can't believe I have to spell out the obvious to somebody that can both read and right. Don't know about the comprehension part, tho.

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

#178

Post by thx-2718 »

JumpCrisscross wrote: post #139
thx-2718 wrote: post #131

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

> and to use it aggressively to expand national interests and/or values

> Militarism has been a significant element of the imperialist or expansionist ideologies of many nations throughout history

> predominance of the armed forces in the administration or policy of the state (see also: stratocracy and military junta)

What parts of that can you not understand are clearly in contrast to the society of the Federation?

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

#179

Post by _hypx »

ftth_finland wrote: post #176
_hypx wrote: post #173

Earlier quoted context omitted.

As free as green electricity itself. You're just reusing the same attacks that were used against wind and solar.

Asking questions is attacking, now is it? What are we, snowflakes? Can you please answer the question with dollars and cents? Or if you don't know, say so. Green electricity isn't free. Neither will synthetic fuels be.

Is green electricity suppose to be nonviable now? If you can accept that green electricity, which will be the dominate source of unexpected cost, is going to be very cheap, then anything predominately made from it will also be very cheap.

This is a repeat of the anti-wind and solar attacks because it is the same general principle. Basically an appeal to the unknown that the new green technology couldn't possibly be cheap, despite plenty of evidence that cost is dropping or that there is no expensive supply chain.

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

#180

Post by hef19898 »

thx-2718 wrote: post #178
JumpCrisscross wrote: post #139

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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.

> and to use it aggressively to expand national interests and/or values > Militarism has been a significant element of the imperialist or expansionist ideologies of many nations throughout history > predominance of the armed forces in the administration or policy of the state (see also: stratocracy and military junta) What parts of that can you not understand are clearly in contrast to the society of the Federation?

National interests: Enforcing the prime directive and expanding the Federation through the discovery, and inclusion, of planets and civilisation. Also, diplomacy seems to mainly handled by starfleet, so soft power is handed over to the military. This also covers the aggressive expension bit.

Starfleet is portrayed as the defining element of the Federation. And throughout history, the military handling all aspects of civil admin was a very rare exception. Even just the majority is extemely rare. Once the military controls it, well, we are beyond a militaristic society and squarely in military dictatorship territory.

Post reply on HN