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

In Europe, wind and solar overtake fossil fuels

e360.yale.edu

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

131–140 of 809 posts

Re: In Europe, wind and solar overtake fossil fuels

#131

Post by direwolf20 »

slavik81 wrote: post #86
boringg wrote: post #48

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I mean physics would dictate that shade impacts performance but if you are able to break the laws of physics I am impressed!

Shade on older solar systems would impact energy production disproportionally. You would typically see dramatic reductions like 50%-80% reduced output due to 10-20% shade. New shade-tolerant solar systems are closer to being proportional.

This is because a string of panels in series are limited by the weakest link — if one cell is fully shaded, it blocks electricity flow through it, and therefore through the whole string. Bypass diodes mitigate that to some extent. But with electronics costs still falling, it's now possible to use more smaller inverters to connect the solar array to the grid, each one with its own separate string, or even an individual panel (which is a series string of cells).

Re: In Europe, wind and solar overtake fossil fuels

#132

Post by direwolf20 »

DetectDefect wrote: post #22
testing22321 wrote: post #4

Solar prices in the US are criminal, protecting oil and gas who bought all the politicians. Canada here. 7.6kw on our roof for $0 out of pocket thanks to $5k grant and $8k interest free loan. It makes 7.72Mwh per year, worth $1000. Tight valley, tons of snow. We put that on the loan for 8 years, then get $1000 per year free money for 20 years or so. Biggest no brainer of all time. Dad in Victoria Australia just got 1…

Missing from your calculus is the cost of creating, cleaning, maintaining and eventually replacing the hardware. None of that is "free" - it is merely externalized to a vulnerable population or to your future self.

Solar panels last practically forever. Despite the official lifetimes of 25-30 years, that was a conservative estimate for budgeting purposes, and they're still working after that time, with moderately reduced efficiency (around 70-80%).

Re: In Europe, wind and solar overtake fossil fuels

#135

Post by toomuchtodo »

direwolf20 wrote: post #127
cromka wrote: post #108

Earlier quoted context omitted.

And, credit where credit is due, it's all thanks to China.

The one country that still produces goods rather than switching to complete financialization!

"How are you so successful?" "Oh, well, we build you know. It's a dying art. Have you tried it?"

Re: In Europe, wind and solar overtake fossil fuels

#137

Post by jf22 »

DetectDefect wrote: post #59
boringg wrote: post #50

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Not supporting OP because I think hes backwards on the matter. However in Canada the electricity that is being burned isn't coal based - so you need to compare the actual grid not some hypothetical grid.

[flagged]

I'd disagree the fervor is religious.

I think it's more frustration. Pointing out there is a maintenance cost to infrastructure is silly and doesn't add to the discussion.

We all know materials have to be shaped into machines to extract energy.

Re: In Europe, wind and solar overtake fossil fuels

#138

Post by arrrg »

raincole wrote: post #10
mekdoonggi wrote: post #2

Curious if this will eventually change China's calculus with regards to Russia. If Europe is a big customer for Chinese exports, and Russia is antagonizing, it seems like China would have an incentive to put pressure on Russia. It already seems like Russia is positioned to be completely subservient to China in the future.

If Europe were a big customer for Russia energy, it seems like Russia would have an incentive to not antagonize it. Oh, see how well it went.

It worked until it didn’t. That’s how it goes. Peace is always hard work and irrational actors (in terms of: well being of people, not necessarily aspirations of empire) can muck everything up.

Economical co-dependency is a good tool for increasing the price of going to war and making it irrational. It’s also not a zero sum game and tends to profit both sides. However, it can suck if you do it with non-democratic regimes and autocratic rulers who trample human rights.

So between France, Germany, Poland and all the other EU members it‘s keeping the continent at peace and generally does not suck because it‘s between broadly democratic nations. It also benefits each one massively and makes things possible like a common electric grid that increases reliability in general. So nearly all upside.

I do think economic cooperation with the Soviet Union and later Russia - much, much more limited than between EU members - was helpful in cooling tensions and making the world a bit safer, sure, but Russia has clearly behaved in a way that makes that no longer a good idea.

Re: In Europe, wind and solar overtake fossil fuels

#139

Post by kieranmaine »

p0pularopinion wrote: post #88

I'm curious as to how this will shift once the shift towards more electrification continues. This is only about electricity generation, not total power consumption. Nowadays, for very energy intenive things like heating or driving a car, fossil fuels still are more prevalent than electric alternatives. Once demand shifts in favor of the electrified alternatives, electricity demand is continuing to raise (although not…

Regarding the affect of EV adoption on electricity consumption the site https://robbieandrew.github.io/EV/ has some interesting data. I'd recommend looking at the following graphs:

* Distance travelled by passenger cars in Norway

* EV electricity consumption and total power generation in Norway

EVs now make up approximately 1/3 of miles travelled, but the increase in total electrcity consumption is fairly small.

Post reply on HN