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

31–40 of 842 posts

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

#31

Post by distrill »

fermentation wrote: post #5

In every game of Factorio I've played I didn't realize just how many solar panels I'd needed until I was hitting my power limits and in desperate need of more. The problem being that manufacturing these takes... power.

tbh i just skip solar panels. it's such a grind. by the time i can make them at scale, i need so many of them, and i hate placing them. even with pretty OP construction bots it's not worth the effort IMO.

this might be mitigated if you tile something that can self expand, but even then you'll have to AFK or just have this going on for hours while you don't have access to the power you're trying to generated.

i end up scaling coal as far as i can and then rushing nuclear. nuclear is also a grind but at least you have to place them less frequently.

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

#33

Post by seltzered_ »

intrepidhero wrote: post #14

I get sabatier and electrolysis but what is a CO2 concentrator? Or rather how does it work? I thought that was the expensive and relatively unknown part of the process. Aside: Sweet company website https://terraformindustries.com/

Website seems like the opposite of one of their competitors, https://www.prometheusfuels.com/

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

#34

Post by walrus01 »

bequanna wrote: post #26
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…

> The technology now exists to theoretically cover many hundreds of square km of Libya in photovoltaics and take the electricty to Europe through a sub-sea cable Climate benefits aside, how in the heck is this an improvement over the current situation? Long-term I really don't think it is prudent for Europe to rely on potentially unfriendly nations to provide them with energy.

realpolitik would tell me that a scenario where europe was highly dependent on libya (or morocco, or other north african countries) for electricity would be vastly preferable to a scenario being dependent upon russia for gas pipeline supplies.

if sufficiently threatened europe could summon enough political will to require libya to do its bidding through threat of sanctions and adverse action against it, worst case, military force to set up a cooperative libyan puppet regime. the balance of the size of the economies and population of western europe as a whole vs libya is very different than western europe vs russia.

not exactly something that can be done with a nuclear armed state the size of russia.

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

#35

Post by thatcherc »

walrus01 wrote: post #10
toomuchtodo wrote: post #9

Earlier quoted context omitted.

HVDC or interconnects (losses are tolerable with enough renewables generation, considering existing curtailment), battery storage, and renewables generated ammonia for on demand combustion (chemical storage) will meet these needs. "Build, Baby, Build", with my apologies to Sarah Palin. Edit: with 1200GW of renewables capacity, the US has produced 20% of its energy from renewables this year, more than nuclear. Based o…

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 pretty wild but apparently scales up very well thanks the to square cube law.

[0] - https://news.mit.edu/2018/liquid-silicon-store-renewable-ene...

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

#36

Post by outworlder »

changoplatanero wrote: post #24
AdamTReineke wrote: post #16

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is better. Terraform believes they can make methane from the air for cheaper than it can be extracted from the ground, leading to a preference for "carbon neutral" fuels. Part of their thesis though is the requirement for solar to keep getting cheaper and cheaper (as it has). Excess manufactured methane could also be injected underground, presumably.

What's a more efficient way to split water into hydrogen and oxygen: using electricity from a solar panel or using photosynthesis in a plant?

That is a good question.

Do you have any uses for the plant, or does it create interesting byproducts for you? Photosynthesis is not very efficient, but it is great at making complex organic molecules like sugar or cellulose.

But a plant needs more than power. It needs nutrients, usually in the form of fertilizer.

They also don't generally make hydrogen, not directly at least.

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

#37

Post by outworlder »

AdamTReineke wrote: post #18
intrepidhero wrote: post #14

I get sabatier and electrolysis but what is a CO2 concentrator? Or rather how does it work? I thought that was the expensive and relatively unknown part of the process. Aside: Sweet company website https://terraformindustries.com/

Their white paper covers it, linked from their site. > CO2 concentration is performed using a closed lime/calcite calcination cycle, operating at ambient temperature and pressure. https://caseyhandmer.wordpress.com/2022/02/03/terraform-indu...

Can I borrow one for my Sodastream? :)

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

#38

Post by seltzered_ »

rob_c wrote: post #15

And a lot of so far non existent recycling technologies and resources...

This is an important point. There was a recent article inquiring the issues in recycling solar panels installed 20-25 years ago: https://www.latimes.com/business/story/2022-07-14/california... .

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

#39

Post by akira2501 »

A monoculture of generation and distribution technologies is not a desirable outcome from an engineering perspective. Your goal shouldn't be to put PV everywhere and then just "solve the distribution problem." You're almost certainly going to make things worse that way.

Also.. if you have excess residential electrical supplies, I'd think a good goal would be to get electricity to the people that don't have it first, rather than imagining new industrial processes that rely on continued excesses to function.

It all smacks of thinking that the Earth is a giant inconvenient ledger that just needs to be balanced, at any cost, apparently.

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

#40

Post by outworlder »

If we forget about where the power is coming from for the moment, wasn't the US Navy experimenting with fuel synthesis? Did that go anywhere?

A nuclear powered carrier has no use for fuel itself, it only stores fuel for aircraft operations. Having the ability to make fuel on site with all the excess cheap electricity seems to be a game changer.

Wondering what happened to it. That is the latest I can find: https://www.autoevolution.com/news/us-navy-aircraft-carriers...

300k grant? That's peanuts for something that has incredible potential.

Obviously, I'm looking at future civilian applications for the tech.

Post reply on HN