We're going to need a lot of solar panels • Hacker News Board

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

#181

Post by Aeolun » Sat, Jul 23, 2022, 12:51 AM UTC

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…

We don’t need to shift all necessary electricity from one end of the earth to the other right? Just the shortfall that a large number of batteries cannot deal with overnight.

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

#182

Post by Aeolun » Sat, Jul 23, 2022, 12:53 AM UTC

kortilla wrote: post #111

adaml_623 wrote: post #90

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

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…

> The US alone effectively created that much money out of thin air during the pandemic. All of the countries combined printed far more.

The difference being that most of that money ended up in rich people’s pockets, and are now causing a global economic crisis.

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

#183

Post by WalterBright » Sat, Jul 23, 2022, 12:55 AM UTC

walrus01 wrote: post #162

WalterBright wrote: post #150

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The communists have repeatedly done the equivalent, which is nationalizing industries. It never, ever produced better results.

Government owned, government built, government run regional monopoly electricity generators in North America are already the absolute cheapest dollars per kilowatt hour in the continent. It's not communism. I am referring to hydro quebec, and to the hydroelectric dams in central Washington State. Would you claim that if we had let the free market build those hydroelectric dams using private capital instead, that we w…

I read recently that Mexico was nationalizing part of its electric grid and user prices were expected to rise as a result.

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

#184

Post by philipkglass » Sat, Jul 23, 2022, 12:57 AM UTC

skybrian wrote: post #151

This article seems rather hand-wavy. I would have liked to seen more about what the physical and economic limits might be. In particular, how the cost of the solar panels themselves compare with all the other costs needed to get a working plant. Is industry going to learn to make cheaper land? How much can labor realistically be reduced?

See section 5.2 of this report:

"U.S. Solar Photovoltaic System and Energy Storage Cost Benchmark: Q1 2020"

https://www.nrel.gov/docs/fy21osti/77324.pdf

For a 100 megawatt utility-scale solar farm with one-axis sun tracking hardware built in the US, total costs come to $1.01 per watt-peak of direct current generating capacity. Solar modules account for $0.41 of that. Other hardware (inverters, electrical balance of system, and structural balance of system) accounts for $0.24. Installation labor and equipment is $0.11. The cost of land is tiny, too small to actually see in the stacked bar chart, but below $0.02.

Solar module costs can fall by another 70% before labor costs start to become an equally relevant cost element. There are already companies working on automating additional elements of solar farm construction. You can see a brief video of AES's Atlas robot for solar farm module installation here:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HRFDhHa3eKY

AES claims that with this robot, a crew of only 3 people can install a megawatt of panels in a week:

https://www.aes.com/reimagining-solar

You could install all the panels for a 100 megawatt solar farm like that analyzed above with 6 months and 12 people.

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

#185

Post by elil17 » Sat, Jul 23, 2022, 12:57 AM UTC

mgerdts wrote: post #60

There's a lot of optimism in this article. Perhaps too much as it seems to gloss over some important details. > Our process works by using solar power to split water into hydrogen and oxygen, concentrating CO2 from the atmosphere, then combining CO2 and hydrogen to form natural gas. Then later it talks about how much desert there is, implying it's a great place for low-impact solar. How do the electricity and power c…

Not a full answer to this issue yet there’s a lot of work being done in getting solids (either to landfill or to use for something) from desal brine.

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

#186

Post by Aeolun » Sat, Jul 23, 2022, 12:58 AM UTC

walrus01 wrote: post #162

WalterBright wrote: post #150

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The communists have repeatedly done the equivalent, which is nationalizing industries. It never, ever produced better results.

Government owned, government built, government run regional monopoly electricity generators in North America are already the absolute cheapest dollars per kilowatt hour in the continent. It's not communism. I am referring to hydro quebec, and to the hydroelectric dams in central Washington State. Would you claim that if we had let the free market build those hydroelectric dams using private capital instead, that we w…

> that we would have better results right now?

Think of the shareholders!

All that lost value could have gone to line their pockets, but instead it’s being used for the good of society (to be fair, probably to those same shareholders through different companies at exorbitant rates).

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

#187

Post by WalterBright » Sat, Jul 23, 2022, 12:59 AM UTC

toomuchtodo wrote: post #12

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.

Absolutely. California alone is curtailing enormous amounts of renewables, hundreds of thousands of MWh/month (depending on the season). That is literally clean energy being thrown away (which, depending on system design, is variably tolerable; you're balancing cost, transmission congestion, and renewables offsetting fossil combustion). More transmission, more batteries, more storage, more load shifting (both tempora…

California's oversupply problem is caused by, allow me to guess, fixed 24/7 electricity rates. These fixed rates remove all incentive for load shifting.

Make electricity cheap when the sun shines, and expensive at night, and the market will shift demand. There are lots of cheap and easy ways to shift demand, I've outlined several on HN.

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

#188

Post by WalterBright » Sat, Jul 23, 2022, 1:00 AM UTC

Aeolun wrote: post #186

walrus01 wrote: post #162

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Government owned, government built, government run regional monopoly electricity generators in North America are already the absolute cheapest dollars per kilowatt hour in the continent. It's not communism. I am referring to hydro quebec, and to the hydroelectric dams in central Washington State. Would you claim that if we had let the free market build those hydroelectric dams using private capital instead, that we w…

> that we would have better results right now? Think of the shareholders! All that lost value could have gone to line their pockets, but instead it’s being used for the good of society (to be fair, probably to those same shareholders through different companies at exorbitant rates).

> All that lost value could have gone to line their pockets, but instead it’s being used for the good of society

That is indeed the pitch the communists make. How is that working out for them?

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

#189

Post by shanghaikid » Sat, Jul 23, 2022, 1:01 AM UTC

China dominates industry.

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

#190

Post by NovaVeles » Sat, Jul 23, 2022, 1:01 AM UTC

greenthrow wrote: post #62

mgerdts wrote: post #60

There's a lot of optimism in this article. Perhaps too much as it seems to gloss over some important details. > Our process works by using solar power to split water into hydrogen and oxygen, concentrating CO2 from the atmosphere, then combining CO2 and hydrogen to form natural gas. Then later it talks about how much desert there is, implying it's a great place for low-impact solar. How do the electricity and power c…

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.

I am sort of in a middle ground on this. Hydrocarbons are near magic in terms of their physical properties and electric, as it stands currently, have major problems replacing them in some situations (aviation/shipping).

I don't think we will entirely replace them, not unless there is some big innovation. Which could happen. I think it is going to be a combination of, mass uptake in renewables that come to about 1/2 or 1/4th of the total energy we use today, gains in efficiency from using electric rather than combustible heat engines, hydrocarbons in those few places it still makes sense - and most importantly - rational use of energy! Planned public transport instead of private vehicles for instance. Some stuff more in line with the sustainability and permaculture stuff that was being developed in the 1970's.