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

481–490 of 842 posts

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

#481

Post by hgomersall »

bryanrasmussen wrote: post #390
hgomersall wrote: post #351

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Well yes, but generally renewable enthusiasts are also saying "we need to improve our housing stock". That's another of the opportunities to improve people's lives that will come through necessary change.

surely 'improving housing stock' will require a lot of energy expenditures that might not be easy to calculate what the actual benefits are.

Housing energy models are well established - things like PHPP, which though a bit of a dog to use is well validated and cheap. Low and negative carbon techniques are also available - things like mycelium insulation, which notionally outperforms EPS (and even that pays for itself from a carbon perspective very quickly if used properly).

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

#482

Post by badpun »

WalterBright wrote: post #191
andrepd wrote: post #152

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Prosperity of the 80s? You mean the era that signalled the end of the post-war golden age of capitalism and brought about hyper-financialisation (which led us to the 2008 catastrophe from which we still haven't recovered) and the decline of tax progressiveness and public services (which supercharged wealth inequality back to gilded age levels)? Many of our current problems can be traced back to changes which occurred…

Decline of public services? Government social spending has increased enormously since the 80s. I'm amused you're blaming 2008 on Reagan.

When you deregulate stuff, the catastrophic results usually don't come immediately. If they were to come immediately, it would be blatantly obvious to everyone that it's a bad idea, and hence deregulation wouldn't happen. So, in practice, most of deregulation happens in areas where it's good for short-term and bad/catastrophic for long-term.

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

#483

Post by pydry »

Semaphor wrote: post #466
ekianjo wrote: post #399

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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?

No post body was provided.

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

#484

Post by badpun »

kragen wrote: post #142
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 article we're commenting on is about a moderately efficient way to transport power from a very sunny place to another location where the loads are: you manufacture methane in the sunny place and then ship it to where the load is, either through a pipeline, through a liquefaction terminal, or after an additional process step such as hydroxylating it into methanol. This also provides long-term grid-scale energy sto…

> In a lot of cases, though, it might be cheaper just to build ten times as much solar panel capacity

All these ideas about plastering the world with millions of tons of solar panels makes me worry about what happens in say 50 years from now. Recycling all of that stuff may prove to be pointless from economic perspective and we may end up with millions of tons of dead pannels in a small-country-sized landfill.

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

#485

Post by the8472 »

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 calculated I would need about 70 to 80 kWp (optimized for winter sun angle, e.g. pretty steep modules at 60° or 70° that relatively produce less in summer, but more in winter).

I know there are sun-following installations but those need expensive mechanics and control systems. Aren't there middle-ground solutions that can be manually adjusted twice a year?

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

#486

Post by bartwe »

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…

Sounds like the next step should be long-term at-home storage through generation of solid or liquid fuels.

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

#487

Post by nl »

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…

Surely utility level wind power can fill parts of that gap?

Utility level solar is much more effective too of course.

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

#488

Post by the_why_of_y »

WalterBright wrote: post #230
defrost wrote: post #228

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"never ever" is both a strong claim and ridiculous. I'll take the Australian Snowy River Hydro scheme over the mess in Texas any day.

How about the California power system?

I find the one in Texas much more impressive.

https://arstechnica.com/science/2021/09/preliminary-report-l...

While Texans froze and natural gas-fired power plants tripped offline during a February cold snap, natural gas traders and pipeline companies made up to $11 billion in just nine days.

https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2021/07/11-billion-in-9-...

“I will say we understand that it would be unacceptable to just have customers bear the cost on their monthly bill and as if anybody could pay for that,” Gold-Williams said. “So we are working diligently - the financial services team is working diligently, trying to figure out ways to truly spread that cost, potentially maybe, you know 15 - I mean, 10 years or longer to try to make it affordable. We don’t have that fully assessed.”

https://www.ksat.com/news/local/2021/02/19/skyrocketing-pric...

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

#489

Post by pydry »

walrus01 wrote: post #159
Retric wrote: post #149

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The author is making the classic mistake of assuming exponential trends continue indefinitely. Solar installs are becoming dominated by non solar panel costs. Some of those can continue to get cheaper, but land costs for example aren’t dropping. As to long distance power transmission and solar, it’s less about local vs long distance transmission of power but redundancy of generation. Batteries you discharge nightly v…

With bulk PV panels by the pallet already at something like $0.42 per STC watt the majority of a residential or small commercial install is already dominated by the cost of labor and other components. I could theoretically go out and buy a pallet load of twenty, 360W rated, 72 cell panels at something like $160 per piece, costing something like $3,200 + $400 LTL freight. But it's going to cost way more than that to p…

This is why covering big box stores with solar panels is generally more economic. Flat roofs with lots of space.

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

#490

Post by nl »

dmitriid wrote: post #382
jnsaff2 wrote: post #347

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I wish you would expand and clarify the point you are trying to make. Currently it sounds like you are angry at a group of enthusiasts. I think for me and the OP it’s quite clear that optimizations can be made on production and consumption side. And in their circumstances financial reality says that increasing production is much cheaper, while possibly providing extra cash that would enable investment for reducing co…

> I wish you would expand and clarify the point you are trying to make. The problem with people enthusiastically proposing renewables as the cheap solution to our energy needs is the thousand "little" details like the one above. Whose only mention is in the comments like "your math is wrong, invest in insulation". No. The math isn't wrong. Bo, the consumption is correct and shouldn't "should be lower". Because it's d…

Well in Germany at least they have legislative requirements for insulation on new builds (and have for years).

So that's an actual solution to the problem!

Post reply on HN