Earlier quoted context omitted.
Quoted post unavailable.
Quoted post unavailable.
No post body was provided.
We're going to need a lot of solar panels
551–560 of 842 posts
Re: We're going to need a lot of solar panels
#552Earlier quoted context omitted.
Yes, absolutely - the house is a pretty big country side house from 1925, not uncommon in Germany. But (almost) impossible to insulate efficiently. My estimates where €150k to €200k, just for the insulation, windows, and renewed heaters. In comparison, an 'oversized' 70 kWp PV only costs €100k, and also returns some income when not all of the power is used. The parameters widely differ between country and city: In th…
Wow that sounds too high. Maybe insulate only the parts you frequently use, perhaps?
As far as I know, around 1,000 Euro / sqm is a good estimate for bringing a 200+ kWh/(sqm * a) house down to about 85-100 kWh(sqm * a)
Re: We're going to need a lot of solar panels
#553People 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…
The question is, if complete energy autonomy is even that desirable. From an economic perspective I think it makes sense to use the grid as a kind of battery. Sell surplus energy to the grid in summer, buy it back in winter (ideally renewable) and let the utilities deal with the headache of balancing supply/demand and storage.
Also, solar panel efficiency is still increasing at a steady pace. A gain of 50% compared to the average efficiency of currently sold panels seems to be achievable in a couple of years. 20% vs. 30% could be all you need to improve your calculation.
Re: We're going to need a lot of solar panels
#554Earlier 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…
Money != Wealth You can go ahead and force every billionaire to sell off everything they own and hand it to the government and all you end up with is a one time boost to government tax receipts. That's it. One time boost. Next year those billionaires will be gone. There won't be new ones. And it won't create any more food. It won't solve shortages. It won't create more solar panels. It won't create 1 mile of copper l…
Those billionaires will no longer be buying politicians in the following years either. Perhaps it’s worth doing just for that effect alone.
Re: We're going to need a lot of solar panels
#555Earlier 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.
AFAIK H2 is way more difficult to contain than natural gas, as the molecules are so tiny. Very hard to build a container that doesn't continuously leak the gas.
Hydrogen has been stored underground in multiple places. This is not some speculative technology, it actually exists. The problem you describe is not a blocker. Granted, underground storage is at a larger scale than for an individual. Storing hydrogen in your home is probably not a good idea. Storing thermal energy underground, on the other hand, could make sense for seasonal storage. Ground source heat pumps essentially do that.
Re: We're going to need a lot of solar panels
#556Earlier quoted context omitted.
Quoted post unavailable.
You make some good points in the middle of the edgy writing, but how do you think people get to the point of proving out new technology? You'd be shouting at the magic black gold people too back in the day. How would it light people's houses and require a full grid installation, and fires and blackouts, when candles already fix the real world problem.
No post body was provided.
Re: We're going to need a lot of solar panels
#557Earlier quoted context omitted.
Quoted post unavailable.
The point is not that everyone should live in a passivhaus. The point is that better insulation can help reducing energy consumption. Not best: better. Those are two different words. No, you don't need a passivhaus, but the passivhaus example, which barely needs heating, is useful for demonstrating the efficiency of insulation.
> The point is that better insulation can help reducing energy consumption
Yes, that's a wonderful tidbit that fans love to say.
It's also about as relevant to the discussion at hand as giving tips of how not to spill your coffee on the deck to keep it dry is to a sinking boat.
You can't solve climate change with better insulation. Sorry.
Part of the problem with the discussion about climate change is that people who've never actually looked at the numbers feel the emotional need to take the position of an expert and explain what will help.
And yes, if a car is rolling down the hill at you, at some level, technically, throwing a grape at it will slow it down.
But not enough to matter.
When you take the time to put your solution in the specific context of the discussion, and take a look at how big the impact is, you realize "oh wait, no, this actually isn't a valid line of thought."
You might as well try to solve the national debt with a ten dollar bill.
You're missing way, way too many zeroes.
In order to stop climate change, we must go carbon negative. Energy reduction does not change carbon dynamic spread, and cannot solve the problem without reducing our energy spend to zero.
I enthusiastically recommend that you read some work by the academics before continuing. These are not new ideas, and they have been roundly and thoroughly debunked for decades.
It turns out that yes, we have thought of insulation. This was not a curve ball. Owens Corning has so thoroughly advertised it to us that by the time I said their name, we all shared a memory of their mascot, its song, and their theme color.
There is a reason that absolutely nobody who's got actual traction in the field is offering improved insulation as a solution.
The reason Passivhaus is a good example is simple: they claim a 90% reduction in carbon, and when they tried to get LEED certified, LEED said "actually you increase carbon, we're not certifying you."
You're listening to marketing, and trying to hold it up as engineering. Every time you attempt to google for this, please do yourself a favor, and check whether the text you're looking at is word for word identical to their marketing materials.
Try a university study. None of them say it's a benefit, and there have been tons.
Respectfully, no, weird houses that make carbon worse aren't going to fix this either. Thanks for understanding.
Re: We're going to need a lot of solar panels
#558Earlier quoted context omitted.
Quoted post unavailable.
I don't see how this relates to this discussion other than by spamming this subthread.
I appreciate that you don't see how a direct answer to your question, where you asked what you don't understand and it was spelled out for you, doesn't relate to the discussion.
I agree, your attempt to make the world's energy problems about the way you live personally in a Passivhaus doesn't relate to this discussion. That was kind of my point, as well as the point of several other people who've replied to you so far.
You might as well ask why everyone doesn't just live in an igloo. It's because they don't work in the places that most people live, like downtown. And if you try to ask the company "hey, I see that you claim you reduce carbon by 90%, why wouldn't LEED certify you, they only require 30%," the company will quickly change the topic.
I'll try it a little differently.
"If your solution doesn't work for 99.99% of humans, your solution just doesn't work."
No, I wasn't selling anything. This wasn't spam. But, you knew that.
I was making a good faith attempt to answer the question you asked.
Re: We're going to need a lot of solar panels
#559Earlier quoted context omitted.
I think what this person meant is the renewable enthusiasts treat insulation as something easily done whereas it will take 100 years to insulate the majority of houses in Europe in my view…
You can usually improve insulation by popping down to the local DIY store and buying some rolls for your loft making a big difference. Of course you can only do that once. And if you’re a landlord why would you pay your money to insulate when you wont save any money as your tenants are the ones paying the bills.
In some countries, you can't rent out homes that fall below a certain standard for insulation, and the efficiency is rated as part of every property sale, which internalises the cost savings and makes it worthwile.
Re: We're going to need a lot of solar panels
#560Earlier quoted context omitted.
But if you drive most non-renewables out of business in the process, you'll have a lot of outages at night.
Germany runs on about 50% renewable electricity and doesn't have outages at night.
I see we're not discussing the same thing. I was talking about the cost of solar and storage, Germany uses more wind and a lot of biomass and hydro.
But I'm happy to discuss this too. That 50% figure is a peak (achieved when conditions were favorable) and ignores imported electricity.
According to [1], renewables accounted for 41% of power production in Germany in 2021, but only 16.1% of primary energy consumption.
AIUI, that difference comes from (a) imports and (b) the fact that primary energy consumption also includes heating and transport, two sectors that often aren't directly powered by electricity yet, but which must be before an economy can stop consuming non-renewable energy.
1: https://www.cleanenergywire.org/factsheets/germanys-energy-c...