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

Solar energy solves global warming

unchartedterritories.tomaspueyo.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

111–119 of 119 posts

Re: Solar energy solves global warming

#111

Post by pfdietz »

mirko22 wrote: post #67
goethes_kind wrote: post #47

Which is easier: 1. Build solar and wind, anywhere across the globe to 4x overcapacity, and then use power-to-gas technology to store the energy into synthetic hydrocarbons, which can be plugged directly into our current infrastructure. 2. Reinvent the whole of society to run on lithium batteries.

Spending all that money on nuclear is easier, and in long term, better option along side with using wind and solar for daily spikes.

This is completely wrong. Nuclear is more expensive. The optimal strategy going forward likely involves no new nuclear construction.

Solar/wind and nuclear do not play well together. The former will push the latter completely out of the market unless nuclear becomes considerably cheaper (and that is a forlorn hope, given the history of the technology.)

Re: Solar energy solves global warming

#112

Post by rich_sasha »

foxyv wrote: post #110
rich_sasha wrote: post #105

Earlier quoted context omitted.

But I guess you can make a lot of methanol in summer and burn it in winter, storing it cheaply for months. Batteries so far seem maybe ok at balancing diurnal power generation / use patterns but not seasonal storage.

Yeah, it is definitely not a bad idea for heating fuel, feed chemical, racing fuel, jet fuel, etc... Just replacing the natural gas produced methanol would be nice. However, wind energy has high availability in the winter and batteries would make up for blizzards and shortfalls. Canada is having a lot of good results from wind energy. In addition, they make a ton of energy from hydroelectricity. Every country is diff…

> However, wind energy has high availability in the winter and batteries would make up for blizzards and shortfalls.

North European winters are dark, cloudy and often windless, not for 6 hours but for days at a time.

Re: Solar energy solves global warming

#113

Post by _hypx »

foxyv wrote: post #109
_hypx wrote: post #106

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why would it be difficult in a car? It is the same principle as a compressed air car: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Compressed-air_car

A turboexpander in a car would add an obscene amount of cost to an already expensive fuel cell vehicle. Also, it would be a fire and explosion hazard requiring a ton of maintenance.

That sounds completely unsubstantiated. Nothing involved here is that complicated or expensive. In fact, the whole thing should cost less than a comparable BEV given how little raw material you need. And if properly designed, it should be perfectly safe.

Re: Solar energy solves global warming

#114

Post by mirko22 »

pfdietz wrote: post #111
mirko22 wrote: post #67

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Spending all that money on nuclear is easier, and in long term, better option along side with using wind and solar for daily spikes.

This is completely wrong. Nuclear is more expensive. The optimal strategy going forward likely involves no new nuclear construction. Solar/wind and nuclear do not play well together. The former will push the latter completely out of the market unless nuclear becomes considerably cheaper (and that is a forlorn hope, given the history of the technology.)

History if it working reliably and providing best base load power supply over 70years?

And if you’re referring Chernobyl and Fukushima try seeing how many people die cos of burning coal… It might put things into perspective

Re: Solar energy solves global warming

#115

Post by pfdietz »

mirko22 wrote: post #114
pfdietz wrote: post #111

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is completely wrong. Nuclear is more expensive. The optimal strategy going forward likely involves no new nuclear construction. Solar/wind and nuclear do not play well together. The former will push the latter completely out of the market unless nuclear becomes considerably cheaper (and that is a forlorn hope, given the history of the technology.)

History if it working reliably and providing best base load power supply over 70years? And if you’re referring Chernobyl and Fukushima try seeing how many people die cos of burning coal… It might put things into perspective

History of it being expensive and having poor (or negative) learning effects.

The coal point there is completely inane, as we were not discussing coal as an alternative.

Re: Solar energy solves global warming

#116

Post by mirko22 »

pfdietz wrote: post #115
mirko22 wrote: post #114

Earlier quoted context omitted.

History if it working reliably and providing best base load power supply over 70years? And if you’re referring Chernobyl and Fukushima try seeing how many people die cos of burning coal… It might put things into perspective

History of it being expensive and having poor (or negative) learning effects. The coal point there is completely inane, as we were not discussing coal as an alternative.

What do you mean by poor learning effects?

I was assuming that by history mean nuclear is not safe so I brought up coal.

From the sources I can find it shows nuclear being as expensive as offshore wind.

And I can’t find any sources on how expensive is to store energy produced by solar to provide base loads over night…

Re: Solar energy solves global warming

#117

Post by pfdietz »

mirko22 wrote: post #116
pfdietz wrote: post #115

Earlier quoted context omitted.

History of it being expensive and having poor (or negative) learning effects. The coal point there is completely inane, as we were not discussing coal as an alternative.

What do you mean by poor learning effects? I was assuming that by history mean nuclear is not safe so I brought up coal. From the sources I can find it shows nuclear being as expensive as offshore wind. And I can’t find any sources on how expensive is to store energy produced by solar to provide base loads over night…

You assumed wrong. I was talking about history of nuclear's economics. It has failed to show good learning effects (that is, getting cheaper as more units are built.) If anything, it has shown negative learning effects -- getting more expensive as more units are built.

Contrast this to photovoltaics, which have declined in cost by something like a factor of 300 since they came on the market. PV has shown a robust learning rate of 20% cost reduction per doubling of cumulative production.

It should be no surprise that nuclear is sputtering to extinction with such poor cost trends. In contrast, all the competing technologies -- solar, wind, storage -- are showing excellent learning. So, it's only a matter of time until nuclear dies.

Re: Solar energy solves global warming

#118

Post by mirko22 »

pfdietz wrote: post #117
mirko22 wrote: post #116

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What do you mean by poor learning effects? I was assuming that by history mean nuclear is not safe so I brought up coal. From the sources I can find it shows nuclear being as expensive as offshore wind. And I can’t find any sources on how expensive is to store energy produced by solar to provide base loads over night…

You assumed wrong. I was talking about history of nuclear's economics. It has failed to show good learning effects (that is, getting cheaper as more units are built.) If anything, it has shown negative learning effects -- getting more expensive as more units are built. Contrast this to photovoltaics, which have declined in cost by something like a factor of 300 since they came on the market. PV has shown a robust lea…

So it cheaper and faster to build, however I still see no solution for base loads and land usage, which as far as i can tell nuclear is a minute fraction of land usage as opposed to solar and specially wind. Some estimates put this at 1/400 for nuclear vs solar and 1/2000.vs wind where nuclear produces constant power supply as opposed to “renewables”.

So there seems to be natural bounds as to how much these can grow and how much land surface they take and thus damage.

Plus, we haven’t put as nearly as much time last 30 years coming up with better nuclear devices as we did in renewables.

So even if you are right about the current prices I don’t see that as a nuclear problem but populist problem, since people are scared of nuclear waste but seem to be ok with destroying the marine and land habitats.

Hey, let’s wait for another decade and see where it takes us.

Re: Solar energy solves global warming

#119

Post by pfdietz »

mirko22 wrote: post #118
pfdietz wrote: post #117

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You assumed wrong. I was talking about history of nuclear's economics. It has failed to show good learning effects (that is, getting cheaper as more units are built.) If anything, it has shown negative learning effects -- getting more expensive as more units are built. Contrast this to photovoltaics, which have declined in cost by something like a factor of 300 since they came on the market. PV has shown a robust lea…

So it cheaper and faster to build, however I still see no solution for base loads and land usage, which as far as i can tell nuclear is a minute fraction of land usage as opposed to solar and specially wind. Some estimates put this at 1/400 for nuclear vs solar and 1/2000.vs wind where nuclear produces constant power supply as opposed to “renewables”. So there seems to be natural bounds as to how much these can grow…

Land usage is not a problem at all, if you do the arithmetic. That you bring this up tells me you're parroting anti-renewable talking points in bad faith rather than presenting reasoned objections.

As for base load, we can estimate the cost of covering for intermittency of renewables to produce synthetic baseload. It ends up cheaper than nuclear. A key part of this in some locations (such as Europe) is to use hydrogen in addition to batteries for storage.

> Plus, we haven’t put as nearly as much time last 30 years coming up with better nuclear devices as we did in renewables.

We've spent much longer than 30 years trying with nuclear. The first nuclear power plant on the grid was in the 1950s. Huge investment was made in civilian nuclear back in the day. If less is being invested now it's because nuclear has demonstrated it's unattractive, not because we didn't give it more than enough chances.

The "oh poor nuclear is just misunderstood" argument is common nuke bro defensive thinking. No, nuclear's problem is $$$. The people with money are negative on nuclear because they see scammers trying to sell them crap all the time (in nuclear's case, via grossly lowballed cost projections), and they've learned to say no.

Post reply on HN