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

41–50 of 842 posts

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

#41

Post by dangerlibrary »

walrus01 wrote: post #23
dangerlibrary wrote: post #20

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Quoted post unavailable.

I read the article, I disagree with the concept of using PV to generate artificial hydrocarbon fuels in general, as not a great business plan. It's not the best use of the technology when we should be bypassing that entirely. Go use excess PV to pump water uphill back into a reservoir or something if you need energy storage, not drive a complicated process to make artificial hydrocarbons to store in a tank and burn i…

Until energy density of batteries improves by a couple orders of magnitude, we're at least going to need hydrocarbons to fly planes, no?

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

#42

Post by bilsbie »

oceanplexian wrote: post #13
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…

On one hand it’s an interesting engineering challenge, but I am always perplexed how covering hundreds of square km of an ecosystem with glass is “good for the environment”. It sounds like something future generations will shake their heads at while trying to dispose of all the toxic waste.

You just space them out a bit and life will thrive all around them. A lot of species will appreciate the shade.

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

#43

Post by NavinF »

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.

> electrical heating elements

Very inefficient compared to heat pumps or even peltiers for that matter.

> store heat in tanks

Oh I already do something similar at home for sub-ambient cooling but I wouldn’t call it cheap.

> If the $ per Wh cost from PV is extremely low

IMO this is roughly equivalent to saying “assume that you could clone dinosaurs, and that you could fill a park with these dinosaurs, and that you could get a ticket to this ‘Jurassic Park,’ and that you could stroll throughout this park without getting eaten, clawed, or otherwise quantum entangled with a macroscopic dinosaur particle”: https://scholar.harvard.edu/files/mickens/files/thisworldofo...

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

#44

Post by metalliqaz »

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…

But the point of this article is that they extract carbon from the air to make hydrocarbon fuel, which can be transported using our existing infrastructure...

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

#45

Post by [deleted] »

StrictDabbler wrote: post #22
walrus01 wrote: post #17

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm not saying pave over the mojave desert with PV, exactly, rather that a dry salt pan or ecosystem that has an absolute minimum of flora and fauna would be preferable. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Endorheic_basin creating massive hydroelectric dam reservoirs also has ecological costs in terms of toxic waste it would surely be preferable to the percentage of electricity right now that is generated using gas, heavy…

Unfortunately the inhabitants of the Mojave turned down a major solar power project last year because of ecological disruption", aka "this wouldn't be pretty on our nature hikes." Perhaps we can use the Salton Sea? It is at least acknowledged as a truly destroyed ecosystem.

[deleted]

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

#46

Post by gregschlom »

akira2501 wrote: post #39

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,…

It sounds like you didn't read the article. They aren't talking about putting solar panels everywhere, they're talking about using massive amounts of solar panel in a specific location and use the energy to convert the CO2 in the air into methane.

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

#47

Post by walrus01 »

dangerlibrary wrote: post #41
walrus01 wrote: post #23

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I read the article, I disagree with the concept of using PV to generate artificial hydrocarbon fuels in general, as not a great business plan. It's not the best use of the technology when we should be bypassing that entirely. Go use excess PV to pump water uphill back into a reservoir or something if you need energy storage, not drive a complicated process to make artificial hydrocarbons to store in a tank and burn i…

Until energy density of batteries improves by a couple orders of magnitude, we're at least going to need hydrocarbons to fly planes, no?

maybe, but it's also a national embarrassment that most of the major population centers in the US Northeast seemingly cannot be connected by 350 km/h high speed rail such as what China has very rapidly built since 2010. Flights of 1-2 hour duration between many locations in North America should be replaced with rail in most scenarios.

either the political will or budget to do this apparently does not exist.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/High-speed_rail_in_China

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

#48

Post by bullfightonmars »

woah wrote: post #3

Is this better or worse than the one where they are cooking corn husks to make oil to squirt into the ground?

These are orthogonal concepts this is an attempt to create a carbon neutral hydrocarbon for energy use, the other is an attempt at carbon negative sequestration.

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

#49

Post by KennyBlanken »

gregschlom wrote: post #46
akira2501 wrote: post #39

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,…

It sounds like you didn't read the article. They aren't talking about putting solar panels everywhere, they're talking about using massive amounts of solar panel in a specific location and use the energy to convert the CO2 in the air into methane.

That and nobody has ever suggested that we rely solely on solar for energy needs. Wind, for example, is cheaper than solar (though solar is catching up.)

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

#50

Post by jjk166 »

oceanplexian wrote: post #13
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…

On one hand it’s an interesting engineering challenge, but I am always perplexed how covering hundreds of square km of an ecosystem with glass is “good for the environment”. It sounds like something future generations will shake their heads at while trying to dispose of all the toxic waste.

Hundreds of square km is not a lot, and the ecosystems where these systems would be installed are typically not rich havens of life. The US's power consumption would require about 6000-9000 sq km of solar panels (assuming ~15% efficiency) For comparison in the US there are about 13000-33000 sq km of parking lots, 93000 sq km of alfalfa cultivation, 69000 sq km of fallow agricultural land, and the mojave desert is about 124000 sq km. Yeah with gross mismanagement you might jeopardize the survival of some rare lizard or something, but it's a very far cry from a silicon wasteland.
Post reply on HN