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

361–370 of 842 posts

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

#361

Post by ben_w »

zbrozek wrote: post #125
ben_w wrote: post #81

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

While your house wiring is typically copper, transmission and distribution wiring isn't. That's very-often aluminum. And as you point out, we make a huge amount of the stuff.

20.6 MT copper/year vs 64 MT aluminium/year, even using both that's still equivalent to about 17 years of current global production (which is a big but not impossible change over the timescales desired), but the price is still painful.

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

#362

Post by stewbrew »

BTW the author is the founder of a company called Terraform Industries. (Their for a commercial business strangely looking homepage: https://terraformindustries.com/.) This is funny because there is also a company called Terraform Power in the renewable business. The names of these two companies seem surprisingly close to me. Are these two somehow connected? Is this just ignorance on part of the author?

On their Twitter profile they talk about "Gigascale atmospheric hydrocarbon synthesis". Which is an interesting wording for a company that doesn't even have a proper homepage.

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

#363

Post by tppiotrowski »

betwixthewires wrote: post #360

All that gas and oil was once a massive biological solar panel, covering much of the ocean, absorbing sunlight, storing it, reproducing, growing only to get subducted and stored for us, like a battery. For a billion years. When I hear people talk about building solar panels to convert water and CO2 into methane gas for its explosive energy potential to meet our needs, mining pits in the ground all over the world, raz…

I think solar panels are a bit more efficient at converting sunlight > electricity than the chemical process of sunlight > photosynthesis > decomposition > burning fossil fuel. Take the ICE that only coverts something like 20% of fuel into motion, the rest is lost to heat. The electric motor is far more efficient.

You'd need to update your reasoning to take into account all the efficiencies lost in the fossil fuel creation and consumption in order to generate electricity.

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

#364

Post by tppiotrowski »

epistasis wrote: post #286
tambourine_man wrote: post #179

It’s been a while since I’ve read something that made me feel as excited and optimistic. I hope it pans out. It feels like early Intel days, seeing what costs would be if sales were orders of magnitude more than what they are and start selling at those prices now. A self-fulfilling prophecy of supply and demand.

The technology and economics are there for renewables. The big barrier is political. There is deeply entrenched ideological opposition to renewable energy at some (but not all) utilities, all the way to the leadership. And just because an energy source is the cheapest, doesn't mean that it will be the one chosen by the entrenched monopolies that are our utilities. There are lots of bad incentives out there.

I don't buy the political argument. If it made financial sense you could just build it and take all your profits to lobby the politicians but obviously the economics are not very profitable yet.

Edit: How did Tesla succeed is GM and the oil companies were supposedly going to use politics to keep the electric car from succeeding?

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

#365

Post by robocat »

adaml_623 wrote: post #90
ben_w wrote: post #81

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

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

Money is a river, not a lake.

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

#366

Post by ben_w »

nine_k wrote: post #215
ben_w wrote: post #81

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

Superconducting power transmission was first implemented back in 2014 [1]. Some progress has been made since then [2]. I bet we'll eventually see more of that, with superconducting materials steadily becoming more pliable and affordable, and liquid nitrogen being pretty cheap. Maybe we'll see hundreds of miles of such lines. It looks to me more realistic than land in Western Europe becoming cheap enough to install a…

I like superconductors, and I certainly hope they'll become viable, but "hundreds of miles" is a factor of at least 120 short of what's needed, and land for a GW of PV isn't that expensive even in western Europe, especially as PV can be present in pastureland at the same time as the animals.

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

#367

Post by choeger »

Helmut10001 wrote: post #320

People both underestimate and overestimate what PV can do. In summer and around noon, here in western Europe, there is so much PV-electricity produced that it is _almost_ enough to fulfill all demands. In winter, the amount is like a drop in the desert. I have built a 30 kWp PV at home 2 years ago - you would think this is quite big, for a private plant. It is not enough. If I want to power a heat pump (with drilled…

I think with 30kWp you should be able to heat enough sand to make it over the winter. It's a matter of space and finding someone to build you that heat storage.

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

#368

Post by bernardlunn »

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…

Yep & check out: https://xlinks.co/morocco-uk-power-project/

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

#369

Post by epistasis »

tppiotrowski wrote: post #364
epistasis wrote: post #286

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The technology and economics are there for renewables. The big barrier is political. There is deeply entrenched ideological opposition to renewable energy at some (but not all) utilities, all the way to the leadership. And just because an energy source is the cheapest, doesn't mean that it will be the one chosen by the entrenched monopolies that are our utilities. There are lots of bad incentives out there.

I don't buy the political argument. If it made financial sense you could just build it and take all your profits to lobby the politicians but obviously the economics are not very profitable yet. Edit: How did Tesla succeed is GM and the oil companies were supposedly going to use politics to keep the electric car from succeeding?

Make financial sense to whom? If solar is cheaper than natural gas, how does a utility profit from charging less? They are highly regulated, and are usually allowed to take a percentage as profit. So it's in their interest to take the more expensive option, depending on regulations

Saying that solar isn't cheap is just ignoring the past five years of cost data.

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

#370

Post by walrus01 »

zbrozek wrote: post #319
NavinF wrote: post #303

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Can confirm. Rates are 64% higher than the US average and 100% higher than a lot of states. I wonder what they do with all this money.

US average kWh is 14.77 cents while PG&E TOU-C starts at 37.460 and goes up to 48.902. So it's worse than you list. https://www.eia.gov/electricity/monthly/epm_table_grapher.ph... https://www.pge.com/tariffs/assets/pdf/tariffbook/ELEC_SCHED...

At that price of 37.4 cente per kWh and up I'm quite serious when I say that if I suddenly found myself owning a California house, I'd buy enough solar to meet my load needs, install a shitload of telecom grade 4000 cycle rated lifepo4 batteries (4.9kWh is about $1700 per module), charging setup, inverters etc and go off grid.

Maybe keep the grid link attached to a meter and 100A panel hooked up to nothing if needed for municipal compliance reasons.

Post reply on HN