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

601–610 of 842 posts

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

#601

Post by Robotbeat »

Helmut10001 wrote: post #320

People 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…

This is Northern Europe, tho. 95% of the world’s population gets much, much better solar…

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

#602

Post by rocqua »

ben_w wrote: post #81
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…

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…

Did you take into account that transmission cables are usually hollow? Due to the skin effect, most current runs through the edge of a cable, so by hollowing out the cable you can remove a part that doesn't carry much current.

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

#603

Post by swores »

Helmut10001 wrote: post #527
switch007 wrote: post #458

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That estimate seems insane. Was that a “we’re too busy, go away” estimate? How big is the house?

It is quite a standard 2-generations house (at that 1925 time), 250 m² and two apartments, + a base level with an office. I am not saying that this is the universal standard - but it is _a_ standard that I do see quite often here, especially if you look outside cities, where the turnaround for reconstructon of houses is slower. .. and this was quite thoroughly calculated. I can tear down the house and build a new one…

Does the calculation stay the same looking decades ahead?

I'd have guessed that 200k to rip it down & build a new house that has great insulation - or even to just retrofit insulation and other upgrades to the existing building - would be expected to last longer before costing the same amount against to replace (and/or pricey maintenance/insurance of the more expensive PV, aircon etc.). And might therefore work out cheaper when looked at as a 50 year question rather than 1 year one?

I don't presume to know more than you, not only don't I know about your specific situation I also know very little about these subjects generally, I'm just curious.

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

#604

Post by Ekaros »

LadyCailin wrote: post #584
Ekaros wrote: post #546

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Will absolutely all of the externalities of mining, manufacturing and transport then be also applied to renewables?

Also, maybe if there is any risk of damage to surroundings like with hydro batteries there would be need to deposit amount of money that covers them fully.

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

#605

Post by zbrozek »

walrus01 wrote: post #370
zbrozek wrote: post #319

Earlier quoted context omitted.

US average kWh is 14.77 cents while PG&E TOU-C starts at 37.460 and goes up to 48.902. So it's worse than you list. https://www.eia.gov/electricity/monthly/epm_table_grapher.ph... https://www.pge.com/tariffs/assets/pdf/tariffbook/ELEC_SCHED...

At that price of 37.4 cente per kWh and up I'm quite serious when I say that if I suddenly found myself owning a California house, I'd buy enough solar to meet my load needs, install a shitload of telecom grade 4000 cycle rated lifepo4 batteries (4.9kWh is about $1700 per module), charging setup, inverters etc and go off grid. Maybe keep the grid link attached to a meter and 100A panel hooked up to nothing if needed…

That's pretty much what I'm doing, and for that reason.

I don't have a great explanation for why it isn't happening faster, but I predict a substantial exodus from the California grid. Especially so in places with gas bans or among folks who electrify of their own accord.

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

#606

Post by pclmulqdq »

pydry wrote: post #503
pclmulqdq wrote: post #498

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In 2020, as I understand it, Bill gates sold less than 1% of MSFT on the open market there: his holding went from a bit over 2% to a bit over 1%. He had been steadily selling over the last two decades. Contrast that with Jeff Bezos, who owns 10% of Amazon, or Elon Musk who owns over 20% of Tesla. Half of Gates's holding is nothing in comparison to half of Bezos's. When you sell large share blocks like Gates did, you…

Overall he sold about 44% of the company. He had about 45%. The guy above was telling me this would drive the price down. You know what actually happened though. The share price went up. The "billionaire shares are imaginary meme" is just a rhetorical trick designed to confuse the economically illiterate. The only interesting thing about this meme is figuring out where it came from and how it was so efficiently pumpe…

Oh yeah, he sold it very, very slowly, over 20 years. The hypothetical I was responding to is suggesting that these billionaires' fortunes be liquidated within a year.

Even so, you don't know how much higher the price of MSFT would be if not for Gates's selling. Other factors just drove the price up faster than he drove it down.

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

#607

Post by MrMan »

dmitriid wrote: post #382
jnsaff2 wrote: post #347

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I wish you would expand and clarify the point you are trying to make. Currently it sounds like you are angry at a group of enthusiasts. I think for me and the OP it’s quite clear that optimizations can be made on production and consumption side. And in their circumstances financial reality says that increasing production is much cheaper, while possibly providing extra cash that would enable investment for reducing co…

> I wish you would expand and clarify the point you are trying to make. The problem with people enthusiastically proposing renewables as the cheap solution to our energy needs is the thousand "little" details like the one above. Whose only mention is in the comments like "your math is wrong, invest in insulation". No. The math isn't wrong. Bo, the consumption is correct and shouldn't "should be lower". Because it's d…

Cost is not really a valid reason not to pursue renewable. We need to switch to renewables no matter the cost, so as many people can survive as possible, and limit mass extinctions

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

#608

Post by uhtred »

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…

> The technology now exists to theoretically cover many hundreds of square km of Libya in photovoltaics and take the electricty to Europe through a sub-sea cable

I thought we were trying to move away from being dependent on other countries for energy

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

#609

Post by jonnycomputer »

oceanplexian wrote: post #13
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…

On one hand it’s an interesting engineering challenge, but I am always perplexed how covering hundreds of square km of an ecosystem with glass is “good for the environment”. It sounds like something future generations will shake their heads at while trying to dispose of all the toxic waste.

34,000 square kilometers [1] have already been disturbed for surface coal mining.

Two points about that:

- existing energy sources already do a huge amount of damage to land (and in places like West Virginia, particularly environmentally sensitive land)

- that's land that can already be converted to solar without significant harm being done (the harm has already been done)

[1]: https://www.gem.wiki/The_footprint_of_coal

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

#610

Post by oblio »

Ekaros wrote: post #604
LadyCailin wrote: post #584

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

Will absolutely all of the externalities of mining, manufacturing and transport then be also applied to renewables? Also, maybe if there is any risk of damage to surroundings like with hydro batteries there would be need to deposit amount of money that covers them fully.

Yes, they should. Otherwise we'll just drown in a hot sea of shit, only 50 years down the line. Everything needs to be sustainable, kind of by definition.

But as with any problem, let's first start with the stuff causing the damage.

Let's get oil and gas and coal to pay for EVERY negative externality.

Post reply on HN