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

461–470 of 842 posts

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

#461

Post by gonzo41 »

stevage wrote: post #293
walrus01 wrote: post #278

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Australia and its policy on coal mines and such seems like a bizarre version of USA Republicans. It's like English-colonialism Texas.

Yes, although with our recent election result, it looks like the tide may finally have turned. The pro coal government really sucked. They went from "we support renewables in theory but the economic case isn't there" to "we will do anything possible to continue to burn coal, including buying uneconomic coal power stations whose owners don't want to run them anymore'.

I never understood the laziness of the coal lobby, why would they not want to own the next new energy source en mass. They could have blanketed the hunter and all of FNQLD with arrays and just printed money. Such a classic stuffy old white man style way of trying to bend the world to their way of thinking. Though it did work for a while, I must admit.

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

#462

Post by guerby »

Helmut10001 wrote: post #373
choeger wrote: post #367

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Currently, it is cheaper though to "sell" the electricity in summer and "buy" it back in winter (even if it is at 10x the price I sold it for). Compared to private long term storage solutions. Most long term electricity storage solutions will yield electricity at prices above 80c/kWh here (even lithium ion is currently around 50 to 70c, if you calculate 10,000 hrs average lifetime of house batteries). And you cannot…

Current consumer friendly rack battery LFP prices are at around 400 EUR/kWh, here an example of a 5.12 kWh for 2100 EUR:

https://www.europe.sokbattery.com/product-page/sok-battery-1...

These are rated for 6000 cycles to 80% degration, so if we take an average of 90% assuming linear degration we will be able to output 6000 by 0.9 so 5400 kWh for each kWh of battery capacity before the battery reaches 80% of its original capacity.

400 EUR divided by 5400 is 0.074 EUR per kWh out the the battery, an order of magnitude lower than the 0.80 EUR per kWh you quoted.

These have low self discharge but capacity prices (price per kWh stored in the battery) are way too high to do seasonal storage.

Note: if you DIY the battery it's half the price: 150-200 EUR/kWh at the cell level currently.

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

#463

Post by brtkdotse »

Roritharr wrote: post #456
brtkdotse wrote: post #433

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The actual insulation is stupid cheap when you look at the ROI. However, installing in on an existing house is really tricky and you can cause a lot of moisture related damage if you do it in the wrong way.

The house I live in, like everyone's in my street, is from the late 1800s. Insulating those houses from the outside is very expensive, to the tune of 200k, where the house is worth around 500k in the inflated environment we're in. At the very same time, I haven't found a single insurance company willing to insure the house after insulation for insulation related moisture damage. This makes insulating this house an ab…

Absolutely, and the thing about old houses is that they've evolved to keep moisture and ventilation in check without access to modern tech. Modern tech, as you point out, usually makes things worse.

My house in Sweden is from the 1950's and I still had to be _very_ mindful when adding insulation. The best thing I've found is cellulose-based insulation, basically shredded newspapers lined with salts and pressed to sheets. The can buffer a lot of moisture without developing mold.

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

#464

Post by wheelerof4te »

What people don't realize is that solar power is not enough to support industrial production. Neither is hydro and wind power.

To have enough solar energy, you would need huge fields of panels where the sun shines bright. Panels block the sunlight beneath, so you can't plant anything where the panels are. On the other hand, you need space for agriculture. So, you see where the problem is.

Large wind turbines also need a lot of space to be efficient. And you can't just place those anywhere, either. Wind turbines need strong wind to work.

Hydro power plants need water flow to generate energy. So you can't have those anywhere, of course.

The only reliable and eco-firendly way to generate power are nuclear power plants. You can build them anywhere, they produce small waste per output and they require about the same space as any coal-based plant.

Sadly, you need good experts and no bad luck to operate them safely. Otherwise, we saw what happens.

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

#465

Post by badpun »

Roritharr wrote: post #456
brtkdotse wrote: post #433

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The actual insulation is stupid cheap when you look at the ROI. However, installing in on an existing house is really tricky and you can cause a lot of moisture related damage if you do it in the wrong way.

The house I live in, like everyone's in my street, is from the late 1800s. Insulating those houses from the outside is very expensive, to the tune of 200k, where the house is worth around 500k in the inflated environment we're in. At the very same time, I haven't found a single insurance company willing to insure the house after insulation for insulation related moisture damage. This makes insulating this house an ab…

Interesting, why isn't the moisture on walls behind insulation ever an issue on new construction?

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

#466

Post by Semaphor »

ekianjo wrote: post #399
jnsaff2 wrote: post #334

Earlier quoted context omitted.

With all due respect, looking at your numbers my hunch is that you need better insulation. I know a person who has about 10kWp installed on a passivhaus here in latitude 59N and says that having a heat pump is overkill for them.

> better insulation better insulation is not cheap and therefore not everyone can afford to do it. Also the same people who want renewables are usually opposed to building new housing so there's that.

> Also the same people who want renewables are usually opposed to building new housing so there's that.

What? Why would you think that?

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

#468

Post by gonzo41 »

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.

I am sort of a nimby, but there's nowhere wild to protect anymore. Thanks Starlink!

I am less and less sympathetic to groups standing in the way of clean energy production because of any aesthetics issue.

However, I don't live there so I won't judge, though a wind farm got knocked back near where I live because it'd look like a windfarm and it was the greenies who knocked it back.

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

#469

Post by leobg »

ttyyzz wrote: post #341
pfdietz wrote: post #270

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Hydrogen can be stored underground (and is), just like natural gas. This is much cheaper per unit energy storage capacity than storing energy in batteries.

there is a short term battery based storage but the long term storage for the winter months is the h2 storage. I think the system is very expensive but a cool prove of concept and for sure a step in the right direction.

Do you have an idea of how much that system costs? I mean if you could pay 100k once and be free of all energy bills for the lifetime of the house/the system it could be quite a value proposition. May Putin, OPEC and the government do what they want - you just do your own power and heat, with no more middlemen.

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

#470

Post by cinntaile »

JohnHaugeland wrote: post #419
isoprophlex wrote: post #349

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The catch is that power-to-gas tech described in the article will allow you to store the power produced in summer. Produce excess methane gas in summer, store with existing infrastructure, burn it for baseload/winter.

> The catch is that power-to-gas tech described in the article isn't real

The Sabatier reaction has been known since 1897. The Wiki article also gives some examples of Power-to-gas systems that were built, so I don't know why you claim it's not real. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sabatier_reaction
Post reply on HN