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

We're going to need a lot of solar panels

caseyhandmer.wordpress.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

101–110 of 842 posts

Re: We're going to need a lot of solar panels

#101

Post by mgerdts »

johncearls wrote: post #83
greenthrow wrote: post #62

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It makes a lot more sense to transport the energy to the water than vice versa. I don't agree with their plan to make synthetic hydrocarbons, but they are right about solar. In 50 years solar will be so ubiquitous and cheap that people will be horrified that we kept burning fossil fuels and building nuclear plants for so long.

But this way is carbon neutral. Every CO2 molecule you pump out, started out as a CO2 molecule you took from the air. There is no reason to dislike fossil fuels, if they no longer come from fossils. It's the releasing of carbon from millions of years ago that's creating the excess.

Except for carbon monoxide, soot, etc., that contribute to a variety of health problems.

Re: We're going to need a lot of solar panels

#102

Post by whimsicalism »

jshen wrote: post #59
KennyBlanken wrote: post #49

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That and nobody has ever suggested that we rely solely on solar for energy needs. Wind, for example, is cheaper than solar (though solar is catching up.)

Wind and solar both need to be combined with something else because it’s not always sunny and windy.

Energy storage

Re: We're going to need a lot of solar panels

#103

Post by clomond »

johncearls wrote: post #83
greenthrow wrote: post #62

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It makes a lot more sense to transport the energy to the water than vice versa. I don't agree with their plan to make synthetic hydrocarbons, but they are right about solar. In 50 years solar will be so ubiquitous and cheap that people will be horrified that we kept burning fossil fuels and building nuclear plants for so long.

But this way is carbon neutral. Every CO2 molecule you pump out, started out as a CO2 molecule you took from the air. There is no reason to dislike fossil fuels, if they no longer come from fossils. It's the releasing of carbon from millions of years ago that's creating the excess.

But Neutral Capturing CO2 is not ‘energy cheap’ and therefore it is best when and where possible much of what we start capturing to rid it from the carbon cycle rather than re-introduce it.

Re: We're going to need a lot of solar panels

#104

Post by hutzlibu »

walrus01 wrote: post #57
silvestrov wrote: post #52

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There is sun enough in Spain and Italy (and even France and south Germany) that we don't need Morocco/Libya. Also: heat and dusty environments are really bad for efficiency. Better with a place where it rains once in a while. Today at 13:00 more than 38% of electricy in Germany was produced by solar panels! https://app.electricitymaps.com/zone/DE

that is a very good point and of course as much as possible should be generated domestically first. If you open a high res aerial view of any random french or german city right now and look at the roofs of how many warehouses and huge structures are presently covered in PV, versus how many could be covered in PV if we really wanted to, for instance.

We could also cover all the roads with PV, invest highly in saltwater batteries, the global grid , small, modular nuclear reactors, solar desalination, developement help for poor countries by building up a local solar industry etc. etc.

But the world is rather focused on war. Now in the ukraine, but taiwan is building up. I mean, a nuclear holocaust would also reduce CO2 emissions, but seriously, it is so frustrating that there are technological solutions to real problems, but they are just not seriously implemented. We could, but we don't. At least not on a global scale.

Re: We're going to need a lot of solar panels

#105

Post by Gwypaas »

Dma54rhs wrote: post #94
Gwypaas wrote: post #85

Earlier quoted context omitted.

When talking about pumped hydro the roundtrip efficiency usually is around 70-80%. Not even close to batteries but way more scalable. Chemical storage is horrific. Creating diesel and burning it in a turbine or similar you start at 40-50% for the burning phase, without even converting anything in the first place. If you go the fuel cell route you tend to end up somewhere at 40-60% efficiency. So no, the only use case…

How is it as scalable when you're at the mercy of the local geology? There are not that many places where pumped storage is viable, its not just pumping water up to some random hill.

The question rather is, how much pumped storage do you even need when you do geographical decoupling through HVDC interconnections?

Similarly, how bound are you to the local topology? The longest already existing HVDC line in China is 3,293 km (2,046 miles). That brings you from the Rockies to any location within continental US.

Utilize renewables to have bidirectional flow compared to traditional hydro.

Re: We're going to need a lot of solar panels

#106

Post by ttyyzz »

leobg wrote: post #79

What would interest me: Can I do this locally, at the site of the consumer? Take the unused PV output of my house in summer to fill my house’s tank with natural gas for use in winter? Is that something that would be technically feasible today?

Hydrogen. This is my neighbor: https://hoermannsolar.de/wohnen-im-wasserstoffhaus/

Re: We're going to need a lot of solar panels

#107

Post by zizee »

thatcherc wrote: post #35
walrus01 wrote: post #10

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If the $ per Wh cost from PV is extremely low it's also possible to use electrical heating elements to store heat in tanks of something that melts and stays hot for long periods of time (for building heating purposes). Or to use cheap mid day electric power when the sun is up to generate gigantic blocks of ice that can then be used with cooling loops to air condition buildings.

One of my favorite high(ish)-concept energy storage proposals takes the "store heat in tanks of something that melts and stays hot for long periods of time" is the "sun in a box"[0] idea: use excess electricity to heat silicon up to an incandescent 4500 deg F. Later, when you want to extract the store energy, just shine some of that incandescent light into some super efficient multi-junction solar panels! Sounds pret…

Cool concept! Any efficiency numbers available? I couldn't see any in the linked press release.

Re: We're going to need a lot of solar panels

#108

Post by pas »

adaml_623 wrote: post #90
ben_w wrote: post #81

Earlier quoted context omitted.

A global grid was my favourite solution until recently. The problem is that it needs the combined cables to have cross section in the order of a few (3?) square meters (at 640 kV), and that in turn is in the order of 52 years of global copper production (we make more aluminium than copper but Al is a worse conductor). Using even higher voltages makes everything much easier, and the cables’ combined cross sections may…

The good news is that humanity has saved up a few trillion for emergencies. The bad news is that it's been saved up and hidden in tax havens. Pity

the problem is the allocation of the resources in the real economy. the copper production goes somewhere currently. if half of that suddenly would go to making these super long distance cables that would cause brutal inflation for a lot of things that depend on copper. (sure, eventually it would increase supply too.)

Re: We're going to need a lot of solar panels

#109

Post by gibolt »

leereeves wrote: post #80
gibolt wrote: post #69

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Solar is already extremely cheap, when costed out over it's minimal lifetime. At grid scale, it has dipped down to crazy levels. As you said, this trend will keep on going.

According to a couple of studies discussed in [1], solar is cheap, but storage is still expensive. 1: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cost_of_electricity_by_source#...

For grid scale, batteries add a lot of value. They can pay for themselves rather quickly since they react far quicker than spinning up FF peakers.

Real world example, one of the biggest batteries in the world likely will be paid off in 2-3 years: https://electrek.co/2018/09/24/tesla-powerpack-battery-austr...

Re: We're going to need a lot of solar panels

#110

Post by jtolmar »

standardUser wrote: post #93
jtolmar wrote: post #78

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Terraform Industries has a process for converting atmospheric CO2 and water into hydrocarbons (particularly "natural" gas), at the cost of a huge amount of electricity. Because solar panels keep getting cheaper and oil doesn't, they think they can out-compete the cost of oil in some markets (sunny with expensive oil) in the near future, and more places over time if solar power keeps getting cheaper. The author hopes…

Thank you, that is what I gathered, give or take. I guess I was just taken aback by the idea that instead of displacing natural gas we would use more energy to make natural gas. Seems like the ultra-gargantuan investments needed for this kind of transition would be better spent transitioning to a mostly-electric energy economy.

If you're a central planning committee trying to solve for the best outcome under physical constraints, nothing beats nuclear power and railroads.

If you're living in an economic system where investment is primarily determined by rate of profit, then you need to identify a solution where everyone involved is making more money than they would be without you. So it's very important they're competing with oil on economic terms while increasing demand for solar.

Post reply on HN