Live data from Hacker News

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

singularityhub.com

181–190 of 197 posts

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

#181

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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…

The Federation's national interests are driven by two primary objectives: the enforcement of the prime directive and the expansion of our alliance through the discovery and inclusion of planets and civilizations. These noble pursuits have formed the foundation of our society, aiming to foster peace, understanding, and cooperation among diverse species.

It is true that Starfleet, as the exploration and defense arm of the Federation, assumes a significant role in upholding these interests. Through its diplomatic efforts and scientific missions, Starfleet acts as an ambassador of the Federation, promoting peaceful relations and extending our shared values to uncharted territories. The use of soft power by Starfleet helps facilitate dialogue and cooperation, providing a platform for resolving conflicts and building alliances.

However, it is important to maintain a delicate balance between military and civilian authority. History has shown us that when the military assumes control over all aspects of civil administration, it is a rare exception and not the norm. Such a scenario tends to blur the lines between defense and governance, potentially leading to an imbalanced and potentially authoritarian society.

While Starfleet plays a crucial role in protecting the Federation and expanding its influence, it must coexist harmoniously with civilian institutions, where governance, legislation, and civilian oversight are essential. The principles of democracy, respect for individual rights, and the rule of law should guide our decision-making processes, ensuring that our society remains true to the values we hold dear.

By striking a balance between Starfleet's military capabilities and civilian administration, we preserve the essence of the Federation—a diverse, democratic alliance built on principles of exploration, cooperation, and respect. Through the concerted efforts of both civilian and military entities, we can ensure that the Federation continues to flourish without veering into the territory of a militaristic dictatorship.

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

#182
post #46

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> paired with just about all viable forms of green large scale storage (hydrogen, batteries, pumped storage). I'm skeptical that these can actually scale to the required level to provide baseload when renewables are unavailable. Don't forget to include EVs and electric heating, which we don't have in massive quantities today but will need to have in short order. (To be ultra-clear: I would never argue against more re…

Why are you skeptical? A blanket statement without an argument to back it up is not addressable or useful.

Because they've never been deployed at the scale we're talking about. They're unproven. Hydrogen is inefficient to make and hard to store safely; current battery tech isn't efficient enough and has resource limitations; pumped hydro requires certain relatively rare combinations of geographic properties. Are those solvable problems? Probably, hopefully, some day. Meanwhile, nuclear works right now and is well understood.

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

#183
post #174

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…

A hilarious thing about his argument is that it also would rule out nuclear.

Existing thermal burner reactors cannot power the world -- the cheap uranium they depend on would run out too quickly. So, one either needs breeder reactors or cheap seawater uranium extraction. And neither of those are available commercially.

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

#184

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You are selective in your concern. Is industrial society as a whole ok? It will produce much more waste that needs recycling that solar/wind will. If it is ok, then why would solar/wind not be? This smells of bad faith argumentation.

>You are selective in your concern. No. > It will produce much more waste that needs recycling that solar/wind will. And that is bad. > it is ok, then why would solar/wind not be? Not at all the question. Two things can be bad at the same time.

So, you're objecting to industrial society itself? Ok, we're done here. Back to your cave.

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

#185

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why are you skeptical? A blanket statement without an argument to back it up is not addressable or useful.

Because they've never been deployed at the scale we're talking about. They're unproven. Hydrogen is inefficient to make and hard to store safely; current battery tech isn't efficient enough and has resource limitations; pumped hydro requires certain relatively rare combinations of geographic properties. Are those solvable problems? Probably, hopefully, some day. Meanwhile, nuclear works right now and is well understo…

Those are vague, nebulous, handwavy arguments. Some (like the inefficiency of hydrogen) are dog whistles that fall apart on close examination of the applications for which hydrogen would be suitable. The geography for OFF RIVER pumped hydro is not rare at all; it's present basically anywhere there is sufficient vertical relief (feasible even in deserts), in enormous amounts.

The generic problem with "it can't be done" arguments is you are claiming all possible ways of solving a problem don't work. This is a very strong claim, and is not backed up by such vague arguments.

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

#186

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Because they've never been deployed at the scale we're talking about. They're unproven. Hydrogen is inefficient to make and hard to store safely; current battery tech isn't efficient enough and has resource limitations; pumped hydro requires certain relatively rare combinations of geographic properties. Are those solvable problems? Probably, hopefully, some day. Meanwhile, nuclear works right now and is well understo…

Those are vague, nebulous, handwavy arguments. Some (like the inefficiency of hydrogen) are dog whistles that fall apart on close examination of the applications for which hydrogen would be suitable. The geography for OFF RIVER pumped hydro is not rare at all; it's present basically anywhere there is sufficient vertical relief (feasible even in deserts), in enormous amounts. The generic problem with "it can't be done…

Woah, ease up, friend! We're on the same side! I agree these storage solutions are all worth investing in. They're going to be great solutions for many areas. I just think nuclear is a great and proven solution for many areas too. I absolutely don't think "it can't be done," I just think we should hedge our bets a bit and rely on the fantastic, proven solution we already have, in case the other solutions don't pan out.

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

#187

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There's a tradeoff between the cost of excess solar/wind and the capacity factor of the electrolysers. You can get a handle on where the tradeoffs lie by looking at optimizations using historical weather data. https://model.energy/ For Finland, the 2030 assumptions number (for "synthetic baseload" from renewables + storage) is just under their "EPR" number (which may be a bit optimistic, given your experience with an…

That's a very interesting site. I got Average system cost [EUR/MWh]: 101.9 which is more than nuclear, when solving for renewables + storage + hydrogen.

As I said, Finland is one of the worst locations for renewables. There, nuclear remains at least within spitting distance of being competitive.

But as I also said elsewhere in these comments, this just means Finland (and other nearby countries at high latitude and without good wind resources) will become energy ghettos. They will lose their energy intensive industries. You will not be able to compete in such industries with countries where solar seasonality is low and insolation is very high. This means your energy consumption per capita will be depressed. Can a nuclear industry survive powering a handful of such disadvantaged countries? Maybe they'll just import energy from elsewhere (hydrogen can be piped like natural gas; while it has less energy per unit volume it also has considerably lower viscosity, reducing pumping costs.)

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

#188

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Those are vague, nebulous, handwavy arguments. Some (like the inefficiency of hydrogen) are dog whistles that fall apart on close examination of the applications for which hydrogen would be suitable. The geography for OFF RIVER pumped hydro is not rare at all; it's present basically anywhere there is sufficient vertical relief (feasible even in deserts), in enormous amounts. The generic problem with "it can't be done…

Woah, ease up, friend! We're on the same side! I agree these storage solutions are all worth investing in. They're going to be great solutions for many areas. I just think nuclear is a great and proven solution for many areas too. I absolutely don't think "it can't be done," I just think we should hedge our bets a bit and rely on the fantastic, proven solution we already have, in case the other solutions don't pan ou…

Nuclear is not a great and proven solution. It's a terrible solution, because it costs too much. All sorts of terrible solutions are available if we discard cost consideration. Cost is an inescapable part of engineering.

Nuclear has the disadvantage that they've been trying for longer than either of us have been alive to make it cheap, and it hasn't worked. This real world evidence can't be easily dismissed, especially when competing technologies have crashed in cost by orders of magnitude over that time.

Note that my position here would be revised completely if nuclear were, unexpectedly, to become much cheaper. But at this point I can't take mere promises of cost reduction as anything other than sales talk of that kind that has proven false too many times in the past, too many times to accept the facile excuses that it's always someone else's fault.

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

#189

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Woah, ease up, friend! We're on the same side! I agree these storage solutions are all worth investing in. They're going to be great solutions for many areas. I just think nuclear is a great and proven solution for many areas too. I absolutely don't think "it can't be done," I just think we should hedge our bets a bit and rely on the fantastic, proven solution we already have, in case the other solutions don't pan ou…

Nuclear is not a great and proven solution. It's a terrible solution, because it costs too much. All sorts of terrible solutions are available if we discard cost consideration. Cost is an inescapable part of engineering. Nuclear has the disadvantage that they've been trying for longer than either of us have been alive to make it cheap, and it hasn't worked. This real world evidence can't be easily dismissed, especial…

> It's a terrible solution, because it costs too much.

That's a reasonable position, and I think reasonable people can disagree here. I disagree for two reasons:

1) I think (could be wrong) the cost is largely regulatory. I suspect (could be wrong) that we could streamline that without sacrificing real safety and dramatically lower the cost.

2) Even still, the cost is absolute peanuts compared to the cost of climate change. Even the famous $30B Georgia plant cost less than the world's richest individual spent so he could smash a social media network against the wall like a toddler with a Tonka truck. The US Military gets about 100 of those plants in funding every single year. It's really not that much money in the grand scheme of things, when you're talking hundreds of trillions of dollars in damage about to smash us in the face. IMO we need to stop counting pennies here and really actually tackle this problem.

But yes, absolutely agreed it is relatively expensive compared to other solutions, and it should be a priority to get that cost down. I just don't think it's so expensive that it's disqualifying. And, again, I think reasonable people can disagree here.

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

#190

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Are there any news in regards to recycling or operation length? Solar obviously "works" if it has the surrounding infrastructure, like storage and weather. Hopefully green energy subsidies can end soon.

Green subsidies can end when the mission is accomplished (saluting guy emoji)

How bad faith can you get?
Post reply on HN