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

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

#321

Post by adrianN » Sat, Jul 23, 2022, 5:03 AM UTC

pfdietz wrote: post #315

Retric wrote: post #300

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Land is just an example, running new HV power lines from ultra cheap land to consumers is another cost that’s not dropping. If hypothetically ~10% of costs are fixed the maximum theoretical cost reduction is 90%. Which the quoted 10% annual cost reductions in solar hit in 22 years. But more realistically the closer you approach theoretical maximum the more difficult it is to improve at the existing rate.

Or, you know, we move industry out to be closer to the PV fields. Globally, energy intensive industry probably moves to places like Chile with very high insolation. Too bad, Europe.

You'd need to move the people too. That can work, but it will take some time to do.

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

#322

Post by adrianN » Sat, Jul 23, 2022, 5:07 AM UTC

Aeolun wrote: post #182

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…

> 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.

If you used the money to build renewable infrastructure, most of the money would still end up in rich people's pockets, because typically it's rich people who own the means of producing infrastructure.

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

#323

Post by adrianN » Sat, Jul 23, 2022, 5:08 AM UTC

anu7df wrote: post #203

Aeolun wrote: post #182

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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.

I am not sure of that. If all that money ended up in rich people's pocket, never to see the light of day again we won't be having the inflation crisis. The money through various investments is now out in the open, driving up inflation. It is still unequally distributed and that is causing issues. If there was a magical way to distribute that money equally between everyone inflation won't be an issue. Unfortunately ma…

Rich people don't keep their money under the mattress. It's invested in assets that make it available to the economy.

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

#324

Post by dotancohen » Sat, Jul 23, 2022, 5:10 AM UTC

walrus01 wrote: post #234

Retric wrote: post #202

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The article suggested local production, good luck buying land anywhere close to NYC at 100$/acre. Mores law also failed several times. More revised his initial 1965 estimate for a doubling every year in 1975. He predicted various doubling rates with the weakest form being transistors on a single chip every 2 years starting in 1980. So, it’s current form isn’t an exponential increase in density but in terms of transis…

You're definitely not going to power all of NYC by rooftop solar, but also look at the size of the warehouse roofs (empty, no solar) in NJ just across the river, and out on long island. And Staten island. Etc. Empty land is not necessarily a requirement. Parking lot per-row shade structures that integrate PV panels on top are also a thing now, and there are sure a shitload of parking lots in NJ and out on long island…

I'm not from the area, but isn't Manhattan well known for its tall buildings? How would those buildings' shade affect solar panels closer to ground level, e.g. warehouse roofs and parking shade structures?

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

#325

Post by WalterBright » Sat, Jul 23, 2022, 5:11 AM UTC

Gibbon1 wrote: post #288

WalterBright wrote: post #187

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

I'm more likely to be dubious about the free markets supposedly unique ability to solve problems than not. But buying electricity at $50/mwhr at noon and reselling it at $200 mwh six hours later.

Solar power gets expensive at night.

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

#326

Post by WalterBright » Sat, Jul 23, 2022, 5:13 AM UTC

Teever wrote: post #253

WalterBright wrote: post #232

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The communists in Norway, like Russia, benefit enormously from pumping oil out of the ground, which goes to the government. In Norway's case, it's 20% of the GDP. Probably much more today with all the oil price increases.

Can you comment on the communists of Quebec? As a Canadian, this is what I find lacking in debate on American sites like Reddit or HN. Canada is very similar to the United States, another way of saying that is that Canada does things slightly different yet the results seem to be profoundly different than the States. Why is that, and what are we as Canadians doing that Americans and others around the world should atte…

I know next to nothing about Quebec, and so cannot contribute anything there.

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

#327

Post by hobofan » Sat, Jul 23, 2022, 5:13 AM UTC

mtlmtlmtlmtl wrote: post #314

amelius wrote: post #197

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Ban advertising, and let the world go back to yellow pages. A good first step towards solving the overconsumption problem.

Not sure why this is downvoted. Either advertising is effective to some degree, in which case banning it would necessarily help curtail consumption. Or it's ineffective, in which case it would necessarily save a ton of wasted resources and man hours. I would happily defend the position that advertising does more harm to society than good, if anyone is willing to reply in good faith instead of just cowardly downvoting…

It's downvoted because its a broad populist statement that isn't actionable in that form and doesn't provide any value to the discussion. In contrast your take is a lot more nuanced and something that actually can serve as a basis for fruitful discussion.

Banning advertisment outright is about as realistic as banning humans from communicating.

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

#328

Post by dotancohen » Sat, Jul 23, 2022, 5:14 AM UTC

tclancy wrote: post #113

walrus01 wrote: post #88

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't know of any long distance HV AC or DC transmission lines that use copper. It's all aluminum already.

I’ve heard it’s all ball bearings but that may be outdated.

Meaning that coal transported by train is still a major energy source? Globally that is still accurate unfortunately.

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

#329

Post by lazide » Sat, Jul 23, 2022, 5:14 AM UTC

elihu wrote: post #295

pclmulqdq wrote: post #204

Earlier quoted context omitted.

High voltage solves a lot of materials problems for wires. I assume that almost everything about superconductors is expensive to do, not just the raw materials, which makes it too costly (in both energy and money) to use them as wires.

I assume there's a really high fixed cost involved in creating a cable installation that's insulated and continuously chilled to liquid nitrogen temperatures, but maybe there's a break even point if the amount of current you're moving is large enough? I mean, if you're comparing with an aluminum or copper cable with a cross section measured in meters, that isn't cheap either. There might not be a break-even point. Ma…

The issue as well is catastrophic failures.

Superconductors get VERY exciting VERY quickly if they ever quench, and that is a property of the current and superconductor. You can't carry infinite current.

They may be more efficient, but they come with a whole host of challenges that make them difficult to use over long distances or in uncontrolled environments, which is pretty much what you'll have to deal with for long distance utility level power transfer.

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

#330

Post by adrianN » Sat, Jul 23, 2022, 5:16 AM UTC

leereeves wrote: post #80

gibolt wrote: post #69

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Solar is already extremely cheap, when costed out over it's minimal lifetime. At grid scale, it has dipped down to crazy levels. As you said, this trend will keep on going.

According to a couple of studies discussed in [1], solar is cheap, but storage is still expensive. 1: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cost_of_electricity_by_source#...

You can easily run a grid on 60% renewables with essentially no storage at all. We have a long way to go before 60% of the world's primary power consumption is switched to renewables.