Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Solar energy solves global warming

unchartedterritories.tomaspueyo.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

61–70 of 119 posts

Re: Solar energy solves global warming

#61

Post by mirko22 »

NickM wrote: post #50
leach wrote: post #19

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

Because it's currently much more expensive than solar and wind, even when you factor in the costs of dealing with intermittency. Even if public perception weren't an obstacle, and even if you didn't have to deal with waste storage, and even if building nuclear plants wasn't a glacially slow process, it just doesn't make economic sense to focus on nuclear anymore.

For example, Germany is pushing for solar and wind cos Siemens is producing those and its popular cos people somehow think there are no drawbacks to them… They could have operated their nuclear plants for at least another decade of there was political will for it…

Re: Solar energy solves global warming

#63

Post by Veedrac »

pfdietz wrote: post #7

A problem with making methane is some will leak, and in the short to medium term methane is a very powerful greenhouse gas. A step before making methane is making hydrogen. If you can get away with just using hydrogen, it will be more efficient than going through the extra steps to make methane.

There's a useful principle of focusing on the big picture items first, moving off non-renewable methane by doing the easiest thing that works. Hydrogen is at least marginally cleaner than methane, but if it's cheaper to change methane supplies than rebuild an industrial plant, that's still most of the win!

Re: Solar energy solves global warming

#65

Post by civilized »

goethes_kind wrote: post #47

Which is easier: 1. Build solar and wind, anywhere across the globe to 4x overcapacity, and then use power-to-gas technology to store the energy into synthetic hydrocarbons, which can be plugged directly into our current infrastructure. 2. Reinvent the whole of society to run on lithium batteries.

It's a great question! I'd like to think we have good answers or are hard at work on them, but I don't know where to find them.

Re: Solar energy solves global warming

#66

Post by perlgeek »

mirko22 wrote: post #55
pfdietz wrote: post #45

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

Speaking of Germany... their subsidies to wind and solar energy helped dramatically drive down the cost of both: https://energytransition.org/2016/01/how-germany-helped-brin...

This was done due to environmental factors, not as a financial instrument.

> and are scared of nuclear.

That part is definitely true. After seeing that even a high-tech nation like Japan couldn't keep their nuclear reactors safe, nuclear was no longer seen as a viable option.

Re: Solar energy solves global warming

#67

Post by mirko22 »

goethes_kind wrote: post #47

Which is easier: 1. Build solar and wind, anywhere across the globe to 4x overcapacity, and then use power-to-gas technology to store the energy into synthetic hydrocarbons, which can be plugged directly into our current infrastructure. 2. Reinvent the whole of society to run on lithium batteries.

Spending all that money on nuclear is easier, and in long term, better option along side with using wind and solar for daily spikes.

Re: Solar energy solves global warming

#68

Post by feoren »

stickyricky wrote: post #12
pfdietz wrote: post #7

A problem with making methane is some will leak, and in the short to medium term methane is a very powerful greenhouse gas. A step before making methane is making hydrogen. If you can get away with just using hydrogen, it will be more efficient than going through the extra steps to make methane.

Doesn't methane break down in the atmosphere relatively quickly? I think the goal of this proposal is to reduce CO2 in the atmosphere. Producing hydrogen doesn't contribute to that goal (which isn't to say its a bad idea only that the hydrogen production facilities can exist independently of this proposal).

If you turn 100kg of CO2 into Methane you get about 36kg. Methane is somewhere around 25x (potentially 31x) worse for global warming than CO2 by weight, so you end up with 909kg of "Carbon Dioxide equivalent", or CO2e. Let's say 2% of that leaks to atmosphere, and you burn the other 98%. Burning the 98% gets you back 98kg of CO2 (it's just the reverse process), plus 2% of that 909kg CO2e, and you end up with 116kg of CO2e, starting with 100kg. You've made global warming worse.

In fact any percentage leaking back to atmosphere (and it will) makes the numbers look pretty bad. You need a significant portion going to plastics or some other sequestered use for this to actually be a net benefit.

Re: Solar energy solves global warming

#69

Post by NickM »

mirko22 wrote: post #61
NickM wrote: post #50

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Because it's currently much more expensive than solar and wind, even when you factor in the costs of dealing with intermittency. Even if public perception weren't an obstacle, and even if you didn't have to deal with waste storage, and even if building nuclear plants wasn't a glacially slow process, it just doesn't make economic sense to focus on nuclear anymore.

For example, Germany is pushing for solar and wind cos Siemens is producing those and its popular cos people somehow think there are no drawbacks to them… They could have operated their nuclear plants for at least another decade of there was political will for it…

Continuing to operate existing nuclear plants seems like a good idea, but that’s a totally separate debate than whether we should build new ones.

Re: Solar energy solves global warming

#70

Post by psychlops »

KingMob wrote: post #54

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 occurre…

Seems a reasonable assumption given the history of every other economic system that existed.
Post reply on HN