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

581–590 of 842 posts

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

#581

Post by GekkePrutser »

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…

Same here in Spain. But in this climate I don't need insulation anyway.. My energy costs are 60 euro a month in winter and 30 in summer. No point even trying to insulate.

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

#582

Post by locallost »

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…

One of the points of the article is the exact opposite. Some places get less sun, but overall the disparity between the haves and havenots is a lot less than for fossil fuels. That it's decentralized is one of the strengths of renewable energy. Amory Lovins referred to this as "no instrument plays all the time, but the orchestra creates beautiful music". Not to mention that countries want to be energy independent, which would be another improvement to the situation we are currently in.

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

#583

Post by pfdietz »

manmal wrote: post #140
changoplatanero wrote: post #24

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What's a more efficient way to split water into hydrogen and oxygen: using electricity from a solar panel or using photosynthesis in a plant?

Another thing to consider: plants currently require a lot of natural gas or other fossil fuels to grow. Droughts and heat waves can disrupt production.

You are talking about use of natural gas to make nitrogen fertilizer; ammonia made with "green hydrogen" replaces this.

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

#584

Post by LadyCailin »

Ekaros wrote: post #546
robertlagrant wrote: post #515

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Pretty much no-one actively doesn't want renewables. They might not want them built very near them, but that's different.

I'm not against them, but I think they should not be specially subsidised. Just pay what ever the market rate at the moment is. If it is not enough to cover investment too bad.

That would be fine with me, if every energy source had to pay its own negative externalities.

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

#585

Post by pydry »

ekianjo wrote: post #569
pydry wrote: post #483

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Quoted post unavailable.

Lefties want new houses ? Thats a strange claim to make. The most left wing states in the US are the ones that build the least new buildings.

Rich corporate liberals are into trans rights, keeping abortion, etc. but they arent keen on new housing either. It puts a dent in their property portfolios.

Some people call these people "the left", I suppose, in which case yea they're not much keener on new housing than the rich corporate conservatives.

Theres also an element by which it is driven by high prices and loss aversion. A new homeowner with a $300k house and a 95% mortgage is gonna locally fight anything that drives up supply and drives them into negative equity even if their sympathies do trend left. Nobody fights new development as hard when prices are lower, which is probably partly why NY's strictest rent control (which drives down prices) coincided with the fastest building in the 60s.

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

#586

Post by rob_c »

jeffbee wrote: post #96
seltzered_ wrote: post #72

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"This story has been edited to clarify that panels containing toxic materials are routed for disposal to landfills with extra safeguards against leakage, and to note that panels that contain cadmium and selenium are primarily used in utility-grade applications."

That's slightly better but they should never have printed it. Imagine writing such a story about the tiny amount of lead in a million solar panels without mentioning that every car battery sold in California comes with more lead than 2000 solar panels combined. Edited to add: """…Current CdTe panels contain approximately 6 g/m2, resulting in cadmium emissions of 0.5g/GWh, equivalent to that of a coal fired power plan…

One thing is worse so another thing is not bad?

This is the same level of logic used against nuclear power, yes if we'd invested in this in the 80s and 90s (even the 00s) we wouldn't be having these conversations and Russia wouldn't be an energy superpower... I feel like a certain amount of "what's going with people" because I'm having to grow up with these decisions not embrace living through the era that made them...

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

#587

Post by jonnycomputer »

robertlagrant wrote: post #517
pydry wrote: post #483

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Quoted post unavailable.

They want new housing but often built by the government instead of evil property developers.

And new housing, .. but not built in their neighborhoods. Oh, and don't build over farmland or undeveloped green spaces.

Without being snarky, the problem here is that there is a tension between what people believe in general, and what they believe about their situations specifically, especially when they have an incentive to feel the opposite way about it. For example, people may know (or believe) that building duplexes and apartments in their neighborhoods will reduce their property values, or "ruin the character of the neighborhood" and so oppose them.

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

#589

Post by locallost »

bryanlarsen wrote: post #302
maerF0x0 wrote: post #297

Earlier quoted context omitted.

While the cost of the hardware has, many factors still apply such as efficiency and thusly the total area of solar required. You're right though that the book is not up to date, and getting long in the tooth in some aspects.

Efficiency has almost doubled since 2008 but more importantly efficiency at non optimal angles has improved even more. Put together he's off by about an order of magnitude in the amount of land required. The other factor that is missed is that solar panels are proving to be surprisingly non exclusive in their land usage.

People doubting there is enough land to be used for solar panels should check how much land is used for parking lots.

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

#590

Post by Helmut10001 »

otikik wrote: post #529
Helmut10001 wrote: post #336

Earlier 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?

No offense - but insulation doesn't really work like this. If you insulate only one part, you will get massive problems with moisture through heat transfer. With insulation of old houses, so much can go wrong and then the only solution _is_ tearing down the house and building a new one.
Post reply on HN