Solar Is Cheapest Electricity in History, U.S. DOE Aims to Cut Costs 60% by 2030 • Hacker News Board

Re: Solar Is Cheapest Electricity in History, U.S. DOE Aims to Cut Costs 60% by 2030

#211

Post by Hypx » Sat, Mar 27, 2021, 6:11 AM UTC

Manfredo_1 wrote: post #210

Hypx wrote: post #208

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Grids are not 100% green. So by your definition they're not green either.

An electric car is as green as the grid that powers it. But a hybrid will never be green even if the grid is 100% green because it still burns fossil fuels. Same with a turbine that consumes a mixture containing natural gas. If your generator uses fossil fuels it's emitting carbon dioxide.

And there's not a single grid that's green, since they all produce CO₂. Even zero emissions grids like wind and solar still produce CO₂ during manufacturing.

And remember just how far up your own asshole you are with this: You've reject 90% hydrogen gas turbines, future gas turbines of only nine years from now, or even steam power plants running on 100% hydrogen. At this point your rationale is so dishonestly unfair it allows zero wiggle to justify any kind of electric cars. So time to admit you were wrong, not red herring your way out of this.

Re: Solar Is Cheapest Electricity in History, U.S. DOE Aims to Cut Costs 60% by 2030

#212

Post by Manfredo_1 » Sat, Mar 27, 2021, 6:27 AM UTC

Hypx wrote: post #211

Manfredo_1 wrote: post #210

Earlier quoted context omitted.

An electric car is as green as the grid that powers it. But a hybrid will never be green even if the grid is 100% green because it still burns fossil fuels. Same with a turbine that consumes a mixture containing natural gas. If your generator uses fossil fuels it's emitting carbon dioxide.

And there's not a single grid that's green, since they all produce CO₂. Even zero emissions grids like wind and solar still produce CO₂ during manufacturing. And remember just how far up your own asshole you are with this: You've reject 90% hydrogen gas turbines, future gas turbines of only nine years from now, or even steam power plants running on 100% hydrogen. At this point your rationale is so dishonestly unfair…

I didn't reject future hydrogen gas turbines. In fact, I'm the one who brought them up. That's the entire point I'm making: hydrogen gas turbines are still in development. If hydrogen gas turbines already exist, why are GE, Siemens, and others talking about how they plan to develop hydrogen gas turbines by 2030 or 2040? They're not off the shelf technology, because they aren't even on the shelf yet.

Im going to bed now, and I should have realized I was being trolled much sooner.

Re: Solar Is Cheapest Electricity in History, U.S. DOE Aims to Cut Costs 60% by 2030

#213

Post by Hypx » Sat, Mar 27, 2021, 6:36 AM UTC

Manfredo_1 wrote: post #212

Hypx wrote: post #211

Earlier quoted context omitted.

And there's not a single grid that's green, since they all produce CO₂. Even zero emissions grids like wind and solar still produce CO₂ during manufacturing. And remember just how far up your own asshole you are with this: You've reject 90% hydrogen gas turbines, future gas turbines of only nine years from now, or even steam power plants running on 100% hydrogen. At this point your rationale is so dishonestly unfair…

I didn't reject future hydrogen gas turbines. In fact, I'm the one who brought them up . That's the entire point I'm making: hydrogen gas turbines are still in development. If hydrogen gas turbines already exist, why are GE, Siemens, and others talking about how they plan to develop hydrogen gas turbines by 2030 or 2040? They're not off the shelf technology, because they aren't even on the shelf yet. Im going to bed…

Gas turbines that can run at 90% hydrogen and have existed for decades, still doesn't count as "existing" for you. And you still are pretending that steam power plants running on hydrogen don't exist.

The fundamental problem is that you have created an argument that's so up your own asshole that it doesn't sense, and if applied to anything else nothing is green. All because you can't admit you were wrong. Everything else you're saying is just a red herring.

> Im going to bed now, and I should have realized I was being trolled much sooner.

You're projecting again.

Re: Solar Is Cheapest Electricity in History, U.S. DOE Aims to Cut Costs 60% by 2030

#214

Post by Manfredo_1 » Sat, Mar 27, 2021, 6:50 AM UTC

Hypx wrote: post #213

Manfredo_1 wrote: post #212

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I didn't reject future hydrogen gas turbines. In fact, I'm the one who brought them up . That's the entire point I'm making: hydrogen gas turbines are still in development. If hydrogen gas turbines already exist, why are GE, Siemens, and others talking about how they plan to develop hydrogen gas turbines by 2030 or 2040? They're not off the shelf technology, because they aren't even on the shelf yet. Im going to bed…

Gas turbines that can run at 90% hydrogen and have existed for decades, still doesn't count as "existing" for you. And you still are pretending that steam power plants running on hydrogen don't exist. The fundamental problem is that you have created an argument that's so up your own asshole that it doesn't sense, and if applied to anything else nothing is green. All because you can't admit you were wrong. Everything…

> And you still are pretending that steam power plants running on hydrogen don't exist.

Yet again, you originally said we could use gas turbines for hydrogen storage. Not steam turbines. Of course steam turbines can easily be run off hydrogen, you don't need compressor blades, combustors, or anything special. Just a source of heat, a boiler, and a steam turbine. This is less efficient, so there's good reason to develop hydrogen gas turbines.

You're the one who first brought up steam turbines when you changed the goal posts to saying we could repurpose coal plants instead of gas turbines.

And good night.

Re: Solar Is Cheapest Electricity in History, U.S. DOE Aims to Cut Costs 60% by 2030

#215

Post by Hypx » Sat, Mar 27, 2021, 7:22 AM UTC

Manfredo_1 wrote: post #214

Hypx wrote: post #213

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Gas turbines that can run at 90% hydrogen and have existed for decades, still doesn't count as "existing" for you. And you still are pretending that steam power plants running on hydrogen don't exist. The fundamental problem is that you have created an argument that's so up your own asshole that it doesn't sense, and if applied to anything else nothing is green. All because you can't admit you were wrong. Everything…

> And you still are pretending that steam power plants running on hydrogen don't exist. Yet again, you originally said we could use gas turbines for hydrogen storage. Not steam turbines. Of course steam turbines can easily be run off hydrogen, you don't need compressor blades, combustors, or anything special. Just a source of heat, a boiler, and a steam turbine. This is less efficient, so there's good reason to devel…

Exactly! You went so far up your own asshole in denying the existence of hydrogen combustion in industrial use that you even forgot about steam turbines. The whole point was showing how ridiculous it was to go this far. It would be easy to sacrifice a bit of efficiency for a simpler system that's guaranteed to work and the basic premise would've been the same. No one until you came along did anyone thought there could be any doubt that hydrogen gas turbine couldn't do the job.

You could saved yourself all this trouble by just admitting you were wrong.

Re: Solar Is Cheapest Electricity in History, U.S. DOE Aims to Cut Costs 60% by 2030

#216

Post by flgb » Sat, Mar 27, 2021, 7:46 AM UTC

kragen wrote: post #92

flgb wrote: post #63

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Not in Australia, where we have much more roof-top solar (and which is less than half-the-price installed of roof-top in the US)

Interesting! Do you have any idea why it's so much cheaper?

Hyper-competitive low-margin market, many very efficient vertically-integrated solar sales businesses (sales, installation, logistics), lower selling costs (very engaged consumers), most homes single story so lower installation costs, and lower permitting and connection costs.

Re: Solar Is Cheapest Electricity in History, U.S. DOE Aims to Cut Costs 60% by 2030

#217

Post by elihu » Sat, Mar 27, 2021, 7:55 AM UTC

fpgaminer wrote: post #200

elihu wrote: post #140

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I wonder what the limits are on transmitting power around the world? Like, if we wanted to connect Northern Africa to the North American power grid, how feasible would it be, and what would the losses and power capacity be? It seems that with all the interest in using ReBCO tape in tokomaks due to its ability to transmit more power at higher temperatures than the materials that preceded it (used, for example in ITER)…

I dunno, back of the envelope says you'd only lose 33% with today's HVDC lines from North Africa to North America. The ocean will sink the lost energy for us. And we can make up the difference with more solar/wind, which is cheap. Superconducting would be nice to have, but doesn't seem necessary.

Huh, that's actually not bad. That makes the idea of connecting Asia/Africa/Europe with the Americas for 24-hour solar power seem doable. I assume it would be tremendously expensive to build, but also have substantial benefits long into the future.

Re: Solar Is Cheapest Electricity in History, U.S. DOE Aims to Cut Costs 60% by 2030

#218

Post by VBprogrammer » Sat, Mar 27, 2021, 9:39 AM UTC

c0nsumer wrote: post #109

Qwertious wrote: post #99

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Obvious solution that I'm sure has already been considered: dig down 1000 meters and build the "below" reservoir there. Even if the "above" reservoir is at ground level, you'll still get 10x the storage.

The water needs to go somewhere to generate power. Most water tables are much closer to the surface than 1000 meters. Meaning, the water would have no way to go without pumping it back up...

That is where the storage presumably comes from, you use the excess energy to pump water out of the hole. I think the whole thing would be just as geology dependant as the conventional arrangement but with the added expense of digging down 1000m.

Re: Solar Is Cheapest Electricity in History, U.S. DOE Aims to Cut Costs 60% by 2030

#219

Post by mtalhaashraf » Sat, Mar 27, 2021, 9:42 AM UTC

The intermittent problem is the one that worries me the most.

As an engineer, if I think really long term, I would like to couple water storage with energy storage. I think water will itself need to be stored in a better manner. And I would store it in tunnels at different heights. And optimize that height difference for maximum potential energy.

The tunneling tech would advance faster when it serves both of these functions and things like Hyperloop.

Re: Solar Is Cheapest Electricity in History, U.S. DOE Aims to Cut Costs 60% by 2030

#220

Post by mtalhaashraf » Sat, Mar 27, 2021, 9:45 AM UTC

elihu wrote: post #217

fpgaminer wrote: post #200

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I dunno, back of the envelope says you'd only lose 33% with today's HVDC lines from North Africa to North America. The ocean will sink the lost energy for us. And we can make up the difference with more solar/wind, which is cheap. Superconducting would be nice to have, but doesn't seem necessary.

Huh, that's actually not bad. That makes the idea of connecting Asia/Africa/Europe with the Americas for 24-hour solar power seem doable. I assume it would be tremendously expensive to build, but also have substantial benefits long into the future.

The level of dependency on others and the associated risks would likely discourage this