61–70 of 98 posts
I’m no rocket scientist but surely it’s cheaper to build more panels and batteries on Earth? Launching stuff into orbit is expensive in cash and emissions.
Presumably, they believe there will be advances in technology such as space based construction techniques or mining asteroids for resources that will make it a viable option.
I’m no rocket scientist but surely it’s cheaper to build more panels and batteries on Earth? Launching stuff into orbit is expensive in cash and emissions.
Not many places to build solar panels in Japan. They tried building on mountain faces but shoddy construction by yakuza linked companies lead to landslides[0] and many dead people a couple of years ago. For the record, I live in a remote mountainous (snowy) region and have panels generating 10kw on my roof. It generates really well 8 months out of the year. 2 months of snow and another couple of months for the rainy…
But you really depend on the grid for energy storage it seems. There is no technology available to consumers that can load shift and/or store energy for 2 months.
In practice, this means you waste your excess electricity (or perhaps, sell it to the grid so that someone else can use it), but then still rely upon Natural Gas peakers for those other two months.
> If the govt is willing to reintroduce subsidies and raise the fees in tariffs, a lot more people would be willing to install them.
More solar in this scenario means that everyone involved runs out of electricity in those 2 months.
A degree of the grid can be solar, but not everybody. We should get as many people on solar as is reasonable, but energy storage (especially on the scale of months) simply is science fiction.
Back in the real world, there will be 2 months+ of fossil fuels to support the lifestyle you've chosen. It's better than 12 months of fossil fuels, but we aren't at a technological level where we can ignore the natural gas plants quite yet.
But we can mitigate their use.
I’m no rocket scientist but surely it’s cheaper to build more panels and batteries on Earth? Launching stuff into orbit is expensive in cash and emissions.
I'm guessing it's because Japan doesn't have the Sahara Desert.
Solar panels lose efficiency when hot. The best locations are sunny but cool, like Germany. Not deserts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Not many places to build solar panels in Japan. They tried building on mountain faces but shoddy construction by yakuza linked companies lead to landslides[0] and many dead people a couple of years ago. For the record, I live in a remote mountainous (snowy) region and have panels generating 10kw on my roof. It generates really well 8 months out of the year. 2 months of snow and another couple of months for the rainy…
> I’m still generating more than I use in a year But you really depend on the grid for energy storage it seems. There is no technology available to consumers that can load shift and/or store energy for 2 months. In practice, this means you waste your excess electricity (or perhaps, sell it to the grid so that someone else can use it), but then still rely upon Natural Gas peakers for those other two months. > If the g…
Nuclear, hydroelectric, etc. Lots of places do not get a majority of their electricity from fossil fuels. Washington (and Canada) use a ton of hydro power. https://www.eia.gov/state/?sid=WA
I’m no rocket scientist but surely it’s cheaper to build more panels and batteries on Earth? Launching stuff into orbit is expensive in cash and emissions.
Limiting your future and imagination based on what is possible and practical right now is not how we advance as a civilization. Presumably, they believe there will be advances in technology such as space based construction techniques or mining asteroids for resources that will make it a viable option.
Mining the asteroids is an activity where payback periods are measured in decades, plural. Space is big. Rockets are slow, and so are orbits.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> I’m still generating more than I use in a year But you really depend on the grid for energy storage it seems. There is no technology available to consumers that can load shift and/or store energy for 2 months. In practice, this means you waste your excess electricity (or perhaps, sell it to the grid so that someone else can use it), but then still rely upon Natural Gas peakers for those other two months. > If the g…
> Back in the real world, there will be 2 months+ of fossil fuels to support the lifestyle you've chosen. Nuclear, hydroelectric, etc. Lots of places do not get a majority of their electricity from fossil fuels. Washington (and Canada) use a ton of hydro power. https://www.eia.gov/state/?sid=WA
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Back in the real world, there will be 2 months+ of fossil fuels to support the lifestyle you've chosen. Nuclear, hydroelectric, etc. Lots of places do not get a majority of their electricity from fossil fuels. Washington (and Canada) use a ton of hydro power. https://www.eia.gov/state/?sid=WA
And you can pump water up the mountain using solar in the day and use it in the night and on rainy days.
Furthermore, water restrictions (especially in the West) force the dams to release water even when electricity isn't needed. Because people need water to drink. A dam can serve multiple masters... but one of those masters will take priority. In most cases, water-rights will take priority over energy storage.
That is to say: we can't store energy reliably in dams that are being used for water rights management. We can release water _and_ generate electricity, but the "choice" as to water rights management vs energy storage is contradictory. Storing energy longer means "not releasing water". While serving the water/drinking needs of the downstream communities means "releasing the water".
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> I’m still generating more than I use in a year But you really depend on the grid for energy storage it seems. There is no technology available to consumers that can load shift and/or store energy for 2 months. In practice, this means you waste your excess electricity (or perhaps, sell it to the grid so that someone else can use it), but then still rely upon Natural Gas peakers for those other two months. > If the g…
> Back in the real world, there will be 2 months+ of fossil fuels to support the lifestyle you've chosen. Nuclear, hydroelectric, etc. Lots of places do not get a majority of their electricity from fossil fuels. Washington (and Canada) use a ton of hydro power. https://www.eia.gov/state/?sid=WA
Washington has not only lots of mountains and streams... it has excess water. Excess that can be used for energy storage.
In contrast, the Colorado River / Hoover Dam may generate a ton of electricity. But if you slurp up water in reverse, you might have a riot. The Colorado River water rights are oversold, there's not enough water to satisfy everybody.
-----------
Nuclear cannot spin up or down economically. Well... okay. It can shut itself off and spin down, but its... not economical. When you spend $Billions on a plant, and it shuts down, you lose a lot of energy in practice.
Nuclear Plant economics are about running the plant at 100% as much as possible, in the hopes of making back the money you spent to build the darn thing in the first place.
If you're shutting down Nuclear Plants 10-months of the year, and only spinning them up for the 2-months where solar is inadequate, the nuclear power plants will go out of business rather quickly. They're just too expensive to build, and the fuel costs are basically nil (so you might as well run nuclear for all 12-months of the year).
----------
Natural Gas peakers are the opposite. The fuel is very expensive, but the plants are very cheap. You can in fact, run a peaker the minority of the time. Maybe only 20% or 30% of the year, and still make plenty of money.
So when we are realistically talking about "Oh, my energy needs work for 10 months, but just gotta figure out the last 2 months of the year", the solution is always going to be natural gas.