Solar energy solves global warming • Hacker News Board

Re: Solar energy solves global warming

#51

Post by slashdev » Tue, Jul 11, 2023, 4:43 PM UTC

narag wrote: post #49

hannob wrote: post #17

When considering synthetic chemicals made from solar energy, methane is probably one of the last you should consider. Making any type of chemical energy carrier comes with substantial losses, so whenever you can, using electricity directly is better. If you absolutely need a chemical energy carrier, the first one you will look at is hydrogen, because it's the simplest and you avoid all the direct air capture or other…

Making any type of chemical energy carrier comes with substantial losses The goal presented in the article seems to be cleaning the atmosphere, not generating chemicals. So H2 and ammonia would be irrelevant. And it's not so much about maximazing efficiency as not losing too much. The alternative should be other carbon-based chemicals, as useful as methane, needed in huge volumes and with a practical process of extra…

That’s nonsensical, because you burn the methane and put the carbon right back into the atmosphere. It didn’t clean anything. It’s merely a carbon neutral form of chemical energy. H2, ammonia, methanol would be just as carbon neutral.

Re: Solar energy solves global warming

#52

Post by mirko22 » Tue, Jul 11, 2023, 4:46 PM UTC

iSnow wrote: post #26

_aleph2c_ wrote: post #16

The nice thing about methane is that it's not too energy dense, so you can sell it to your population like gasoline. You may not want to give the population mini-nukes or vacuum energy generation from EVOs. We don't need to use solar panels though, we already have exceedingly cheap energy generation in the form of nuclear power. We also have inexpensive ways of transmuting the nuclear waste. We don't really have a en…

The problem with nuclear is that there is no cheap form factor of nuclear reactors available right here and now, it's all "in the future...". Current NPP designs have painfully high CAPEX, way more so than solar. And just slashing regulatory requirements to make it cheaper strikes me as unwise.

Well the solar stuff is in the future too :)

Re: Solar energy solves global warming

#53

Post by NickM » Tue, Jul 11, 2023, 4:48 PM UTC

hannob wrote: post #17

When considering synthetic chemicals made from solar energy, methane is probably one of the last you should consider. Making any type of chemical energy carrier comes with substantial losses, so whenever you can, using electricity directly is better. If you absolutely need a chemical energy carrier, the first one you will look at is hydrogen, because it's the simplest and you avoid all the direct air capture or other…

the first one you will look at is hydrogen, because it's the simplest

Simplest chemically != simplest to use in practice. There are already millions of miles of natural gas pipelines leading directly to peoples' homes, and those pipelines cannot be used with hydrogen (not to mention all the appliances they feed).

Renewable methane is a dead simple drop-in replacement for natural gas. None of the other alternatives you mentioned share that property, and I think you're seriously under-weighting the importance of it.

Re: Solar energy solves global warming

#54

Post by KingMob » Tue, Jul 11, 2023, 4:49 PM UTC

Another article that presumes capitalism will somehow put an end to global warming, when capitalism got us into this. The article spends all this time describing the economic benefits, which won't mean a damn thing when we're fighting wars over water and starving en masse from crop failures.

Capitalism has had 40 years to do something climate disruption, and instead, the hottest average days ever recorded all occurred in the last week.

Re: Solar energy solves global warming

#55

Post by mirko22 » Tue, Jul 11, 2023, 4:49 PM UTC

pfdietz wrote: post #45

leach wrote: post #19

Isn’t nuclear more stable and efficient than solar? Why is it not regarded as a solution

What do you mean by "efficient"? Engineering efficiency? They use different inputs, so comparing that is meaningless. Economic efficiency? No, they're much less economically efficient. That's why so much more solar (and wind) are being installed now instead of nuclear.

I doubt that somehow, reason we are pushing wind and solar is cos people think it is “green” and “renewable” and are scared of nuclear.

Take example of Germany where they shut down the nuclear power plants just cos of popular pressure…

Re: Solar energy solves global warming

#56

Post by perlgeek » Tue, Jul 11, 2023, 4:49 PM UTC

hannob wrote: post #17

When considering synthetic chemicals made from solar energy, methane is probably one of the last you should consider. Making any type of chemical energy carrier comes with substantial losses, so whenever you can, using electricity directly is better. If you absolutely need a chemical energy carrier, the first one you will look at is hydrogen, because it's the simplest and you avoid all the direct air capture or other…

Once thing that's missing (from both the article here, and for example the whole hydrogen discussion in Germany) is the round-trip efficiency.

Now the author of the article would likely argue that with prices dropping as fast as they do, a 60% efficiency is just a few years delay away from being economically efficient. (A quick search came up with a 68% efficiency for fuel cells and "80% - 95%" for electrolysis, putting the whole thing at 54%-65%)

But I can't help but think we'll come up with something a bit more efficient, because that'll be more viable sooner, and more profitable in the long run.

Re: Solar energy solves global warming

#57

Post by BobbyJo » Tue, Jul 11, 2023, 4:51 PM UTC

msandford wrote: post #23

hannob wrote: post #17

When considering synthetic chemicals made from solar energy, methane is probably one of the last you should consider. Making any type of chemical energy carrier comes with substantial losses, so whenever you can, using electricity directly is better. If you absolutely need a chemical energy carrier, the first one you will look at is hydrogen, because it's the simplest and you avoid all the direct air capture or other…

Failing to understand the enormous amount of methane infrastructure (natural gas) and the utility of reusing it is also a mistake IMO. There's got to be tens of trillions of dollars in deployed methane infrastructure. To suggest that's a weak argument is baffling. Economics are real.

> There's got to be tens of trillions of dollars in deployed methane infrastructure

Highly doubt it is worth that much presently, so even if the investment was that large (which I doubt) we certainly aren't looking at walking away from that much presently.

The big reason to move away from methane is that gas delivery infrastructure is expensive to maintain, and nearly impossible to keep leak free. Reusing existing infrastructure implies investing in its maintenance, which may be more expensive than building new infrastructure for liquid fuel (which itself already exists).

Re: Solar energy solves global warming

#58

Post by mirko22 » Tue, Jul 11, 2023, 4:51 PM UTC

earthboundkid wrote: post #31

leach wrote: post #19

Isn’t nuclear more stable and efficient than solar? Why is it not regarded as a solution

Because Zaporizhzhia is one artillery shell away from irradiating the Dniper River.

That is completely untrue, one shell would not make a dent… but hey, it easier to spread FUD I guess…

Nuclear weapons exist after all…

Re: Solar energy solves global warming

#59

Post by mirko22 » Tue, Jul 11, 2023, 4:52 PM UTC

jussij wrote: post #38

leach wrote: post #19

Isn’t nuclear more stable and efficient than solar? Why is it not regarded as a solution

Nuclear power plants seem to take a long time to get right, which means they end up being very expensive. As an example, consider the new Olkiluoto-3 nuclear plant built in Finland. That reactor was commission just a few months ago, but its build was 12 years behind schedule. The delay to that project saw the original 3 billion Euro price tag more than triple with a final cost closer to 11 billion.

And they will be there for half a century as opposed to wind turbines and solar panels which will have to be replaced and are hard to recycle…

Re: Solar energy solves global warming

#60

Post by BobbyJo » Tue, Jul 11, 2023, 4:52 PM UTC

kibwen wrote: post #34

msandford wrote: post #23

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Failing to understand the enormous amount of methane infrastructure (natural gas) and the utility of reusing it is also a mistake IMO. There's got to be tens of trillions of dollars in deployed methane infrastructure. To suggest that's a weak argument is baffling. Economics are real.

There was just as much sunk cost into coal infrastructure, but that's not an argument against phasing out coal.

Not really. The reason coal was so popular was because you didn't really need any specialized infrastructure. It is a solid you can just ship using the same trains and trucks you use for TVs and apples. So you're really only giving up the mines and power plants.