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

Solar panel made with ion cannon is cheap enough to challenge fossil fuels

extremetech.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

101–110 of 161 posts

Re: Solar panel made with ion cannon is cheap enough to challenge fossil fuels

#101

Post by jurjenh »

r00fus wrote: post #63
tomkinstinch wrote: post #54

Earlier quoted context omitted.

We can build power plants in the middle of the desert and ship power out. The technology exists; we just haven't done it yet. Transmission losses are not a concern for superconducting cables (though maintaining the cryostat jacket is). Such cables are currently being proven before being used in larger grid connections. http://spectrum.ieee.org/energy/the-smarter-grid/superconduc... http://www.htstriax.com/columbus.ht…

Forget supercondictivity, what about HVDC [1]? HVDC can be as efficient as 97%, compared with the US average of 93%. That 4% "inefficiency tax" would likely pay for long-haul HVDC connectors (as outlined in one of Obama's 2008 energy proposals) within years. [1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/High-voltage_direct_current#Adv...

New Zealand has had a 600V HVDC link from the South Island to the North Island for quite some years - most of the power is generated by the hydro lakes in the south, then delivered via a 610km link to a substation in the north, where it is fed into the normal high-voltage transmission grid.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HVDC_Inter-Island

So it is a proven technology to have this as a long distance link (been in operation since 1965) and it is capable of bi-directional power transfer as well.

Re: Solar panel made with ion cannon is cheap enough to challenge fossil fuels

#103

Post by m_for_monkey »

tomkinstinch wrote: post #54
ChuckMcM wrote: post #52

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I agree the particle accelerator is pretty cool, of course transporting power around the globe is not as easy as stringing a wire, for every mile of wire you lose power due to the resistance of the wire. This is the problem of 'power transmission'. This is the same reason you can't build nuclear power plants in the middle of a desert 500 miles from anywhere and ship the power out sadly. That being said, at .40/watt y…

We can build power plants in the middle of the desert and ship power out. The technology exists; we just haven't done it yet. Transmission losses are not a concern for superconducting cables (though maintaining the cryostat jacket is). Such cables are currently being proven before being used in larger grid connections. http://spectrum.ieee.org/energy/the-smarter-grid/superconduc... http://www.htstriax.com/columbus.ht…

The real problem is that a nuclear power plant needs a staff of several hundred people. They can't travel 500 miles every day to work to the middle of a desert. Even if they wanted to relocate there, they would have to build a little town to serve these people and their families, and now we are back to the original problem.

Re: Solar panel made with ion cannon is cheap enough to challenge fossil fuels

#104

Post by jes5199 »

SpiderX wrote: post #98
tomkinstinch wrote: post #54

Earlier quoted context omitted.

We can build power plants in the middle of the desert and ship power out. The technology exists; we just haven't done it yet. Transmission losses are not a concern for superconducting cables (though maintaining the cryostat jacket is). Such cables are currently being proven before being used in larger grid connections. http://spectrum.ieee.org/energy/the-smarter-grid/superconduc... http://www.htstriax.com/columbus.ht…

Most of the power loss is related to using AC instead of DC.

Citation needed?

Re: Solar panel made with ion cannon is cheap enough to challenge fossil fuels

#105

Post by Andaith »

rosser wrote: post #78
cop359 wrote: post #77

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Forget about superconductivity. How about flywheels?

Flywheels are for energy storage , not transmission.

I think he means install them for each house, store the non-peak surplus energy, and then use it during peak times.

Re: Solar panel made with ion cannon is cheap enough to challenge fossil fuels

#107

Post by greedo »

greedo wrote: post #41
nextparadigms wrote: post #23

This is why I welcomed the backlash and even some of the sensationalism regarding the nuclear explosion in Japan. Even if I realize that nuclear energy could be safe and it's good to have an alternative that is cheap enough to compete with coal, I'd still wish we'd spend all those billions switching from nuclear and putting most of them into renewable energy technologies, which should be the future. The arguments aga…

The idea that solar, wind and geothermal energy can replace nuclear power for electricity generation in my lifetime (the next 35 years) ignores the reality of how much electricity we consume and how it is currently generated. Here's a link to a graph created by the Lawrence Livermore Lab that quickly illustrates the miniscule impact of doubling, tripling, or even quadrupling the three primary alternative energy sourc…

Gah, sorry about that:

http://static.keithhennessey.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/03/...

Re: Solar panel made with ion cannon is cheap enough to challenge fossil fuels

#108

Post by greedo »

danmaz74 wrote: post #47
greedo wrote: post #41

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The idea that solar, wind and geothermal energy can replace nuclear power for electricity generation in my lifetime (the next 35 years) ignores the reality of how much electricity we consume and how it is currently generated. Here's a link to a graph created by the Lawrence Livermore Lab that quickly illustrates the miniscule impact of doubling, tripling, or even quadrupling the three primary alternative energy sourc…

But renewable energies could replace nuclear (and other sources) for new plants that will be built in the future. Nuclear has a very high initial cost, and shutting down current plants while they're still efficient and safe enough wouldn't be a sound choice, but for replacements of ageing plants and for new constructions cheaper and cheaper renewable energies could realistically displace them in the next decades.

According to Wikipedia, the largest solar facility generates 354MW of electricity (assuming ideal conditions). In contrast, the recently approved AP1000s at the Plant Vogtle Georgia site each generate 1100 megawatts, rain or shine.

So if the best solar facility, using 1600 acres of land can only provide 1/3 of one new reactor, your math just won't work.

Re: Solar panel made with ion cannon is cheap enough to challenge fossil fuels

#109

Post by fleitz »

ChuckMcM wrote: post #52
ck2 wrote: post #4

That is some amazing technology right there, almost fun to read because it sounds like science fiction but it's real. And privately designed/built/owned particle accelerators? It's definitely a new era. What if one day the other side of the globe getting sunlight powered the grid for the other half? Of course this would require very peaceful nations on each continent, so even if we had the cost-effective technology n…

I agree the particle accelerator is pretty cool, of course transporting power around the globe is not as easy as stringing a wire, for every mile of wire you lose power due to the resistance of the wire. This is the problem of 'power transmission'. This is the same reason you can't build nuclear power plants in the middle of a desert 500 miles from anywhere and ship the power out sadly. That being said, at .40/watt y…

Somehow for hydro electric damns it works perfectly fine to send 2.73 GW 500+ miles. Look at the WAC Bennett damn in Northern BC which supplies power to Washington, Oregon and California, or Churchill Falls which supplies 5.7 GW of power to Quebec and New York.

Re: Solar panel made with ion cannon is cheap enough to challenge fossil fuels

#110

Post by greedo »

danielharan wrote: post #45
greedo wrote: post #41

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The idea that solar, wind and geothermal energy can replace nuclear power for electricity generation in my lifetime (the next 35 years) ignores the reality of how much electricity we consume and how it is currently generated. Here's a link to a graph created by the Lawrence Livermore Lab that quickly illustrates the miniscule impact of doubling, tripling, or even quadrupling the three primary alternative energy sourc…

Only we're doubling production of wind turbines every 2-3 years. With each doubling, prices come down, as they do with every other manufactured artifact from computers to TVs to washing machines. Look out for 35 years. Is it still minuscule?

Considering how unpopular wind energy is in some areas due to either killing a large number of raptors, or "despoiling" the view from Martha's Vineyard, I doubt the production will continue to double indefinitely.
Post reply on HN