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

Why Energy Storage Is About to Get Big – And Cheap

rameznaam.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

201–210 of 231 posts

Re: Why Energy Storage Is About to Get Big – And Cheap

#201

Post by lotsofmangos »

beat wrote: post #198
lotsofmangos wrote: post #154

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I am not anti-nuclear, I am just anti-nuclear (of the type that is useful for enriching for weapons) for the global solution to electrical power, given that for a general solution you need something that politically, you don't worry too much about your enemies having. Look at the situation with Iran for instance. Any development of nuclear there is viewed with extreme suspicion, even while we are trying to reduce glo…

The Iran situation highlights what I said in the first place - not only is nuclear not a technical option for the majority of the world, we would be actively hostile to it for a lot of countries. So basically, the nuclear > solar position is, consciously or unconsciously, relegating parts of the world to permanent poverty, deliberately leaving them behind. And again, take a remote village. Give them electricity and d…

I have talked to engineers from oil and gas as well as from nuclear industries about solar. The oil and gas folk generally like it and have an eye on the jobs, whereas the nuclear folk haven't looked into it and claim it is pointless. One of them even thought that the incoming solar is far less than we use and spat his drink out when I told him the actual numbers involved.

Re: Why Energy Storage Is About to Get Big – And Cheap

#202

Post by lotsofmangos »

cwp wrote: post #115
DennisP wrote: post #110

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I wrote a couple pro-nuclear comments here. I'm perfectly happy with wind and solar and think we should roll it out as fast as we can, as well as nuclear. Many of the wind/solar advocates, on the other hand, are strongly anti-nuclear. Given the state of the climate that just doesn't make sense to me. All these technologies have their own advantages, and we should use each where it's most effective.

Agreed. The only objection I have to wind and solar is that they are insufficient. We should use them as much as possible, but we're going to need nuclear if we want to replace fossil fuels.

We use ~ 20 terawatts

Incoming solar hitting the ground is ~ 89,000 terawatts

At current conversion efficiencies and accounting for transmission losses, this translates to an area of about twice the size of Portugal spread out globally.

Re: Why Energy Storage Is About to Get Big – And Cheap

#203

Post by lotsofmangos »

luch wrote: post #169
nextw33k wrote: post #167

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I am very much pro-nuclear. I argue against wind and wind alone, it is a very unreliable source of energy, I think it is crazy to rely on gusts of wind to power a population. Nuclear is the only technology which offers a base load without burning fossils. Solar I am happy with, it could be better than nuclear but the storage problem needs solving before it gets onto everyone's roof. That's another problem with solar,…

I live in France, where nuclear energy is dominant, and I can tell there are some serious issues with nuclear power. First, nuclear can be extremely inefficient since it's heavily centralized : I have friends working for energy distributors telling me they can lose more than half the energy between the power plant and the client's house. More importantly, nuclear waste disposal and power plant cleaning costs are heav…

solar panels cost more in energy to produce than they give back during exploitation for example

The EROEI for solar is around twice that of wind and oil, but it is definitely not negative.

Re: Why Energy Storage Is About to Get Big – And Cheap

#204

Post by [deleted] »

dang wrote: post #138
melling wrote: post #122

Earlier quoted context omitted.

One little jab in the entire thread by me. Not mean spirited but an accurate description of what people do. All in all, I thought I was quite patient and I explained why I thought we can, and should try, to have more intelligent discussions on HN. I'm afraid that I didn't convince the other guy. "HN comments sections cannot be more than superficial" Anyway, I'm sure the moderators will figure it out before we become…

I take the point, but one thing we've learned in trying to have a sizeable online forum where the values are 'civil and substantive' is how destructive the little jabs can be. If we're to have the intelligent discussion you speak of, we all need to edit our jabs. It takes discipline, and there's a cost (a certain blandness), but it's necessary. I've had to learn this the hard way, and am far from the only one. I've o…

[deleted]

Re: Why Energy Storage Is About to Get Big – And Cheap

#205

Post by diminoten »

dang wrote: post #138
melling wrote: post #122

Earlier quoted context omitted.

One little jab in the entire thread by me. Not mean spirited but an accurate description of what people do. All in all, I thought I was quite patient and I explained why I thought we can, and should try, to have more intelligent discussions on HN. I'm afraid that I didn't convince the other guy. "HN comments sections cannot be more than superficial" Anyway, I'm sure the moderators will figure it out before we become…

I take the point, but one thing we've learned in trying to have a sizeable online forum where the values are 'civil and substantive' is how destructive the little jabs can be. If we're to have the intelligent discussion you speak of, we all need to edit our jabs. It takes discipline, and there's a cost (a certain blandness), but it's necessary. I've had to learn this the hard way, and am far from the only one. I've o…

The point regarding literary wit is well taken, and I think it works so wonderfully in "real" literature is the difficulty and delay in responses. Folks have to be pretty vindictive to carry their gut angry response all the way through to publishing, whereas here, all I have to do is hit "reply".

Re: Why Energy Storage Is About to Get Big – And Cheap

#206

Post by classicsnoot »

ghshephard wrote: post #168
Animats wrote: post #158

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Antenna towers get hit all the time, and the transmitters and receivers survive if installed properly. First, there's a spark gap between the antenna and ground, with big metal contacts, copper or silver, a short distance apart. That diverts most of the lightning bolt to ground. Then the feed line for the antenna has a big inductor, a coil made of heavy busbar, usually in a grounded can. This is often placed through…

You seem to know a lot about this, so all I can do is reiterate that when we take our electronics to florida to be tested, our QA guys make it clear that no company's electronics are designed to survive a lightning strike - including ours. (Though we are designed to resist a 22 calibre bullet). We install a lot of lightning arrestors, mandatory in Florida, São Paulo, Singapore -- and we seem to do fine in those areas…

From all i have read, direct strikes on gear is a grab bag of destruction. I've read that in the Vietnam Conflict guys would get shot and the bullets would bounce off of their skin [strange effect of velocity, turbulence, and chance], so i bet there are examples of "look mom, no destruction" but i tend to side with you, at least as the guy managing this project: at no point am i going to say "cannot fail", "works everytime" or any version of the two. If you have never been to Maine, it is beautiful. If you have never built in Maine, don't get attached. The sea wind destroys everything. I kept my tools covered every day on a 42 day stint except 1, and the rust is ubiquitous. So i build to fail. The real question is, how long can i draw out the failure?

Re: Why Energy Storage Is About to Get Big – And Cheap

#207

Post by classicsnoot »

emiliobumachar wrote: post #173
stickfigure wrote: post #101

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm certain there's a perfectly logical answer to this question, but I couldn't find it in 5 minutes of googling: Why can't the ocean be used as ground?

Very good question. I've posted it to Stack Exchange, let's see if someone answers. http://electronics.stackexchange.com/questions/164898/can-th...

Judging from the (limited) SO responses, coupled with what i was told by the guy i am working for, the degradation of the cables makes the idea cost ineffective. Also, and i cannot stress this enough, in Maine you do not fluck with the Lobstermen. You don't even do anything that could be construed as tampering with their routines. Dudes are the hells angels of the small boat world. The thought of trying to explain why i look like i am cooking their profits before they can haul them up gives me the willies...

Re: Why Energy Storage Is About to Get Big – And Cheap

#208

Post by classicsnoot »

ochoseis wrote: post #119
stickfigure wrote: post #101

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm certain there's a perfectly logical answer to this question, but I couldn't find it in 5 minutes of googling: Why can't the ocean be used as ground?

My guess is that it'd be dangerous for those who might be swimming when a storm quickly moves in.

the water is a flat 40 F. average depth is 50' in the center. The Reach has an average flow (in/out) speed of 6 knots (underwater). The Reach moves about 1 trillion gallons of water every 6 hours between high and low (may sound hyperbolic; look up the Moosabec Reach). The tidal variation between high-to-low is ~14'. In a perfect world i would submerge a tidal generator in the deep point and power my island project AND Jonesport-Beals, but as i stated before Lobstermen do not like change, so i am pretty sure a giant underwater propeller is not on the menu... i digressed; the only swimmers are the seals, the sharks, and the daft.

Re: Why Energy Storage Is About to Get Big – And Cheap

#209

Post by classicsnoot »

classicsnoot wrote: post #30
toomuchtodo wrote: post #18

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Wind and solar have a fairly beneficial failure scenario (ie nothing happens, save for the few turbines that have destroyed themselves during adverse conditions). You'll never be able to compete with that, fission, fusion, whatever. We still don't know where to put the waste, we still refuse to acknowledge the ability to reprocess said waste, and so forth. You don't even need more storage to run wind and solar as bas…

In my limited experience [1 windmill that i am currently working on] the biggest issue we are facing is lightning strike. The windmill is located on a small island .6 miles off of the coast of Maine. the structure rises 20+ feet over the tops of the trees. The Seawind is pretty consistent so wind seemed like a good idea, but the first strike fried the innards of the turbine and compromised the lines running to the ba…

So i am going to keep a journal on this project. I must be honest that the windmill overhaul is at the top of my punt list due to the multifaceted danger [climb up, remove topper, winch down, climb down, reverse&repeat, inline battery array, wicked wind in the west] but there are a number of other cool things i am doing there: rebuilding an articulating dock, re routing the water system, planning and implementing a solar system, repairing roads, rewiring structures, and preforming black magic rituals to curse the monsters at HughesNet [jk but serious]. We are going to play around with using Pi s or Arduinos for some of the management tasks, and the Ranger Power Management system is pretty cool, if dirt simple and dangerous to mess up. All this to say, if you are interested and have any advaice for my team and i, please hit me here. I will start posting a journal and pics when we start Phase I. The island is Norton Island in Downeast/Acadia right next to Jonesport-Beals [setting for SKs The Fog]. The organization that runs the writer's residency can be found here: http://www.easternfrontier.com/ aaaand i just realized it is EFF... lol. No relation.

Re: Why Energy Storage Is About to Get Big – And Cheap

#210

Post by 7952 »

tertius wrote: post #160
toomuchtodo wrote: post #95

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Stop blaming it on the tech. I want reactors that are simple enough to be cheap and easy. Find a way to put people in charge who aren't irresponsibly incompetent then. Until then, nuclear isn't a feasible option.

As noted by another commenter Nuclear, per kWh produced, is actually (without adding the boogieman factor) pretty safe.

Yes I agree. But my original comment concerned making it safe and afforable. That is the real challenge.
Post reply on HN