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

The Ute Tribe will construct one of the largest solar farms in the US

ksut.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

261–270 of 302 posts

Re: The Ute Tribe will construct one of the largest solar farms in the US

#261

Post by lazide »

soulofmischief wrote: post #207
nonethewiser wrote: post #193

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Panels are a commodity at this point. I hate to say it but mineral extraction, processing and panel manufacturing will be way more expensive than importing from China. Prerequisites for manufacturing panels here at an even remotely competitive price includes reducing labor costs and extracting/refining minerals at scale. I absolutely agree we should onshore solar production but simply onshoring manufacturing isnt the…

> Will probably always have to utilize low foreign wages This mindset lies at the center of neoliberalism and should be examined with nuance and perspective, since the quality of each individual's experience can vary wildly in a market which accepts such inequalities as necessary for the health of the overall system.

And in a global economy, that is much easier to do because there is no common power to enforce otherwise.

Though, notably, the experience between someone in Mississippi and New York City is already wildly different.

Re: The Ute Tribe will construct one of the largest solar farms in the US

#262

Post by dgacmu »

bboygravity wrote: post #198
nonethewiser wrote: post #193

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Panels are a commodity at this point. I hate to say it but mineral extraction, processing and panel manufacturing will be way more expensive than importing from China. Prerequisites for manufacturing panels here at an even remotely competitive price includes reducing labor costs and extracting/refining minerals at scale. I absolutely agree we should onshore solar production but simply onshoring manufacturing isnt the…

Is that really cheaper though taking into account that the cheap ones (and perhaps the expensive ones too) have a lifetime of about 50 years and cannot be recycled at all? That doesn't sound sustainable at all to me.

They can be recycled; currently at a cost of about $18/panel, which isn't great (landfilling is cheaper), but there's reason to think that cost can drop some as they improve the process.

https://www.renewableenergyworld.com/solar/solarcycle-to-bui...

The nice thing about them is that they're pretty simple compared to a lot of modern electronics. More hope about recycling them than piles of old computers.

Re: The Ute Tribe will construct one of the largest solar farms in the US

#263

Post by midtake »

nonethewiser wrote: post #193
sciencesama wrote: post #191

Earlier quoted context omitted.

May be start the manufacturing facility here and start panel manufacturing here itself !!

Panels are a commodity at this point. I hate to say it but mineral extraction, processing and panel manufacturing will be way more expensive than importing from China. Prerequisites for manufacturing panels here at an even remotely competitive price includes reducing labor costs and extracting/refining minerals at scale. I absolutely agree we should onshore solar production but simply onshoring manufacturing isnt the…

Relying on China as a trade partner, who has been hostile to the US in every way except kinetic, is a hidden cost of those "cheap" panels. Is China's an economy whose growth you want to willingly contribute to? That is sort of like not reading the geopolitical room.

Re: The Ute Tribe will construct one of the largest solar farms in the US

#264

Post by AtlasBarfed »

cornholio wrote: post #205
AtlasBarfed wrote: post #199

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The LCOE cost advantage of alternative energy vs ... everything ... at this point is well known and calculated in Lazard's yearly LCOE study. Nuke advocates do themselves no favors playing shell games and weasel words with the economics. Nuclear is expensive. The nuclear industry needs to figure out how to make it a lot cheaper. And no, it's not just the NIMBY regulation. The legacy nuke industry has a ton of deeply…

Solar is cheaper when you have a flexible and well interconnected grid capable of smoothing out, say, a cloud passing over Ute nation land and abruptly pulling 1GW out of the grid. That kind of grid costs money and we have no idea how much and how achievable it is. The alternative, grid scale storage for the full rated power, is still insanely expensive and makes renewables completely uncompetitive. Yes, nuclear is g…

Considering that full economies of scale and technology has not yet been matured in solar certainly, and possibly wind, and certainly in battery storage...

Look, you're treating the current LCOE numbers and making the (mistaken or disingenuous) implication that solar/wind won't fall EVEN FURTHER, but they almost certainly will.

With solar, there is perovskites and many other avenues of improvement in the core technology. Both wind and solar will still drop in price from increased economies of scale. And battery storage is going to plummet with sodium ion in the near term, and hopefuly sodium-sulfur techs in the future in addition to whatever grid-specific use cases are developed.

So it's true! Nobody know how much renewables will cost... or HOW LITTLE they will cost... in the long run.

Existing already-built nuclear is woefully noncompetitive, but I'll take it for grid levelling over gas turbine and (ugh) coal, so keep the lights on.

But NEW nuclear? What price are you targeting? I would guess in the timespan of a new nuke plant construction (10 years), solar will drop by 50%-60% in costs (inflation adjusted), and I think wind still has 33% drops coming. I mean, how does a sensible person approve a nuclear project with this degree of uncertainty/evolution/revolution in power costs?

And if you want to talk uncertainty in cost of electricity, the unreliable final construction and operation costs of nuclear are much more unreliable from that standpoint.

Re: The Ute Tribe will construct one of the largest solar farms in the US

#265

Post by defrost »

krupan wrote: post #257
XorNot wrote: post #223

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Recycling is not a magic word for "cheap". Landfilling a bunch of panels every 50 years is fine: they're "just" sintered sand.

Yes because land is free, according to solar power proponents

Cheap in equatorial areas suitable for massive solar farms with expected daytime tempretures of 40-50 C, yes.

Free, not exactly, but certainly affordable.

https://www.pv-magazine-australia.com/2022/04/08/andrew-forr...

For scale reference those solar farms | cattle stations are to provide power to mining operations that ship almost a billion tonnes of iron ore per annum (and remove a factor of overburden) consuming major amounts of fossil fuel in the process.

Work is also underway to upgrade trains that roll that billion tonnes to the coast down a 600m height differential to recoup energy.

See: Infinity train.

You appear to be carrying some beef about "solar power proponents" being unrealistic hippy socialists rather than multi billion dollar industrialists.

Re: The Ute Tribe will construct one of the largest solar farms in the US

#266

Post by krupan »

codersfocus wrote: post #256
SoftwareMaven wrote: post #228

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There is an ecological cost to miles and miles of solar panels. Desert ecosystems are extremely fragile, and these kinds of projects can be very damaging. It’s not just wasteland. (Said as a desert Southwest denizen and lover who gets the impression that many people think, “oh, there’s no trees? It’s unimportant land.”) I want the Utes to have success in this, but I don’t want the general attitude to be “trash the de…

There is the concept of "agrivoltaics" where solar and agriculture can be colocated. Apparently, certain fruits and veggies grow better with a bit of shade provided by solar panels.

That's not a desert anymore

Re: The Ute Tribe will construct one of the largest solar farms in the US

#267

Post by dgacmu »

krupan wrote: post #257
XorNot wrote: post #223

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Recycling is not a magic word for "cheap". Landfilling a bunch of panels every 50 years is fine: they're "just" sintered sand.

Yes because land is free, according to solar power proponents

The amount of material in solar panels is tiny compared to our other landfill-destined refuse streams, and it needs to be compared to the analogous waste streams from other forms of energy generation. Nuclear creates long term storage needs. Coal creates tailings. Fracking pollutes groundwater.

The US installed about 32 GW of solar in 2023. (1)

A modern 395W bifacial solar module (2) weighs 25.7kg; about 65g per watt.

That's about two million metric tons of solar panels to handle every year. In contrast, the US produces about 73 million metric tons of plastic waste per year. We landfill a total of about 131 million metric tons per year (3) -- and that's ignoring that things like coal tailings aren't accounted for in landfilling amounts. We produce and burn about 534 million metric tons of coal per year.

The numbers are large but the relative cost of solar panels 50 years hence is likely extremely tolerable compared to the alternatives.

(1) https://www.seia.org/news/solar-installations-2023-expected-...

(2) https://signaturesolar.com/hyundai-395w-bifacial-solar-panel...

(3) https://www.epa.gov/facts-and-figures-about-materials-waste-...

Re: The Ute Tribe will construct one of the largest solar farms in the US

#268

Post by krupan »

Just like damming rivers to generate carbon free energy turned them into lakes and changed the climate and ecosystems that we are trying to preserve, paving over many square miles of land with solar panels (that will all end up in landfills eventually) will change ecosystems and climates. Carbon gas is not the only thing we need to be focused on if preserving our earth the way it is is our goal.

Low carbon and low footprint options like nuclear should be our top priority. All this focus on wind and solar power is a distraction from real long-term solutions to preserving our ecology and climate.

Re: The Ute Tribe will construct one of the largest solar farms in the US

#269

Post by tomrod »

krupan wrote: post #268

Just like damming rivers to generate carbon free energy turned them into lakes and changed the climate and ecosystems that we are trying to preserve, paving over many square miles of land with solar panels (that will all end up in landfills eventually) will change ecosystems and climates. Carbon gas is not the only thing we need to be focused on if preserving our earth the way it is is our goal. Low carbon and low fo…

> we are trying to preserve

That's the trick of it. Turns out "leave nothing but footprints, take nothing but pictures" philosophy doesn't scale. We can respect andanage nature while recognizing we are part of it too.

Re: The Ute Tribe will construct one of the largest solar farms in the US

#270

Post by mcbishop »

nonethewiser wrote: post #193
sciencesama wrote: post #191

Earlier quoted context omitted.

May be start the manufacturing facility here and start panel manufacturing here itself !!

Panels are a commodity at this point. I hate to say it but mineral extraction, processing and panel manufacturing will be way more expensive than importing from China. Prerequisites for manufacturing panels here at an even remotely competitive price includes reducing labor costs and extracting/refining minerals at scale. I absolutely agree we should onshore solar production but simply onshoring manufacturing isnt the…

A counterpoint: Qcells has been expanding their Georgia (U.S.) solar factories. 8.4GW capacity by the end of the year (which is the equivalent of like... 15 typical centralized power plants). Labor costs are lower in the south. But, overall, I agree with you.
Post reply on HN