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

121–130 of 842 posts

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

#121

Post by greenthrow »

goethes_kind wrote: post #100
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.

Why do you not believe in synthetic hydrocarbons? What else do you believe is a better alternative then?

Your questions are loaded. You're doing the religious person thing of "Well you don't believe in Jesus, so what do you believe in?" Just because I don't believe synthetic hydrocarbons are a good idea doesn't mean I have to have a replacement.

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

#122

Post by bitbang »

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…

Isn't this just a variant of what is already being done with molten salt solar towers?

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

#123

Post by lotharcable »

ben_w wrote: post #81
walrus01 wrote: post #4

We're going to need a lot of solar panels and an efficient way to transport power from a very sunny place to another location where the loads are. For instance: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pacific_DC_Intertie The pacific DC intertie right now often ends up being used to transport power from hydroelectric dams in WA/OR to California. But there's nothing to say that something couldn't function the other way if there…

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…

Money != Wealth

You can go ahead and force every billionaire to sell off everything they own and hand it to the government and all you end up with is a one time boost to government tax receipts.

That's it. One time boost. Next year those billionaires will be gone. There won't be new ones.

And it won't create any more food. It won't solve shortages. It won't create more solar panels. It won't create 1 mile of copper lines.

Because when the government goes and says "I need 40 million acres of solar panels"... Who is going to do that? Where is that going to come from?

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

#124

Post by TheLoafOfBread »

whimsicalism wrote: post #102
jshen wrote: post #59

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

Energy storage

Could you be more specific? Because battery energy storage barely works for houses and you can't build pump storage everywhere. Then there are few prototypes like Power-To-Gas which has promising prospect and rest is in level of sci-fi

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

#125

Post by zbrozek »

ben_w wrote: post #81
walrus01 wrote: post #4

We're going to need a lot of solar panels and an efficient way to transport power from a very sunny place to another location where the loads are. For instance: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pacific_DC_Intertie The pacific DC intertie right now often ends up being used to transport power from hydroelectric dams in WA/OR to California. But there's nothing to say that something couldn't function the other way if there…

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…

While your house wiring is typically copper, transmission and distribution wiring isn't. That's very-often aluminum. And as you point out, we make a huge amount of the stuff.

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

#126

Post by pydry »

billiam wrote: post #118
kortilla wrote: post #111

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What a bad take. The US alone effectively created that much money out of thin air during the pandemic. All of the countries combined printed far more. Doing the same for an energy project that might actually pay back (unlike the covid losses) is far less disruptive. Finally, the amount of money hidden away in tax havens by the rich is nothing compared to this. Don’t drag down something as important as the climate cri…

People that charge class warfare just don't want anything to change. Wealth accumulated by the rich mostly by burning dinosaurs is just as fictitious as any QE from the Fed.

It's only fictitious if Jeff Bezos is comparing his wealth to your wealth.

Try to tax it away and use it for something that would benefit everyone and suddenly it becomes a lot less abstract to him.

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

#127

Post by manmal »

ttyyzz wrote: post #106
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/

I keep reading that H2 storage is difficult, lossy, and dangerous. H2 gas stations have blown up every now and then. Has that changed?

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

#128

Post by Panzer04 »

mgerdts wrote: post #101
johncearls wrote: post #83

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Gas is (relatively speaking) quite clean, and presumably pure synthetic gas likely to be even cleaner.

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

#130

Post by adgjlsfhk1 »

manmal wrote: post #127
ttyyzz wrote: post #106

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

I keep reading that H2 storage is difficult, lossy, and dangerous. H2 gas stations have blown up every now and then. Has that changed?

no.
Post reply on HN