We're going to need a lot of solar panels • Hacker News Board

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

#621

Post by Teever » Sat, Jul 23, 2022, 2:08 PM UTC

vasco wrote: post #460

Teever wrote: post #253

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Can you comment on the communists of Quebec? As a Canadian, this is what I find lacking in debate on American sites like Reddit or HN. Canada is very similar to the United States, another way of saying that is that Canada does things slightly different yet the results seem to be profoundly different than the States. Why is that, and what are we as Canadians doing that Americans and others around the world should atte…

Quebec has a communist government? Wikipedia tells me liberal / constitutional monarchy.

[flagged]

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

#622

Post by steve76 » Sat, Jul 23, 2022, 2:13 PM UTC

mmaunder wrote: post #153

The trouble with our current system is that the answer to environmental catastrophe is to make more stuff. And the entities that make the stuff have an incentive to pursue models that see them continue to make that stuff and sell it. Creating a solar panel that never needs to be replaced is a business failure. Selling the same number of electric cars next year, instead of more, is a business failure. Not consuming mo…

No post body was provided.

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

#623

Post by danaris » Sat, Jul 23, 2022, 2:15 PM UTC

ncmncm wrote: post #526

Terr_ wrote: post #294

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I get the feeling that one could shorten it to "solation" and it would still have the same meaning, etymologically-speaking. Like inflammable/flammable.

Exsolation might find a use. Big mirrors at L2 to reflect sunlight to solar farms at night? They would need to focus very precisely, from a million miles off.

I would think "exsolation" would either be

a) what the sun does

or b) a potential (though IMO somewhat nutty) geoengineering project to simply reflect a bunch of sunlight back into space before it heats us up.

What you're describing sounds like maybe "resolation"? (Though also sounds like it's increasing the total amount of insolation, and thus would accelerate climate change...it's actually very similar to the soletta mirror designed to do exactly that, described in Lois Bujold's _Komarr_, part of the Vorkosigan space-opera saga.)

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

#624

Post by Retric » Sat, Jul 23, 2022, 2:16 PM UTC

ncmncm wrote: post #398

Retric wrote: post #149

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The author is making the classic mistake of assuming exponential trends continue indefinitely. Solar installs are becoming dominated by non solar panel costs. Some of those can continue to get cheaper, but land costs for example aren’t dropping. As to long distance power transmission and solar, it’s less about local vs long distance transmission of power but redundancy of generation. Batteries you discharge nightly v…

There is absolutely no need to buy land to put solar on. So, land cost may be exactly zero. Solar coexists synergetically with many other uses, most particularly reservoirs and canals, where it cuts evaporation and biofouling and runs cooler, thus more efficiently (up to 2x vs desert); and pasture, where it also cuts evaporation, and the livestock can duck under to get out of sun and rain, and keep weeds down; and cr…

There is no free lunch here. Worker safety, installation costs, maintenance, etc seriously favor installing solar on cheap land rather than as part of mixed use.

It’s not just about people falling off roofs, the kW people can install per hour goes down. Similarly you rarely stick solar trackers on roofs and can’t on simple floating platforms while the majority of grid installs use at least single axis tracking which provides more power in the morning and evening.

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

#625

Post by steve76 » Sat, Jul 23, 2022, 2:19 PM UTC

jillesvangurp wrote: post #475

mmaunder wrote: post #153

The trouble with our current system is that the answer to environmental catastrophe is to make more stuff. And the entities that make the stuff have an incentive to pursue models that see them continue to make that stuff and sell it. Creating a solar panel that never needs to be replaced is a business failure. Selling the same number of electric cars next year, instead of more, is a business failure. Not consuming mo…

So, the good news is that we can generate all the power we will ever need from the sun using cheap solar panels that will last a very long time. You are mixing up a few trends here. The world population is expected to peak at around 10 billion people end of this century. Some places will indeed have shrinking populations but that isn't true everywhere. Aside from genocide at a really monstrous scale, the reality of a…

[dead]

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

#626

Post by valenterry » Sat, Jul 23, 2022, 2:20 PM UTC

yayachiken wrote: post #616

valenterry wrote: post #576

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think you misunderstand what "economic lifetime" means here. It is mostly relevant for tax purposes. In other words: if you build a house for $X and live in it then for tax purposes it is assumed that (on average) after a 100 years you must have been spending $X for maintenance so that you can sell the building for $X. If you have spent more money, then you can't deduct that from tax (exceptions exist). Or in yet o…

These maintenance tasks are exactly what this discussion is about. You will do major work on roof or facades every 50 years or so. This is exactly the opportunity where you pretty much get insulation for free. After 100 years the house will have been all but structurally rebuilt once, just for upkeep reasons. You perform energetic renovations together with the upkeep tasks. And when the house is old enough, the monum…

Let me quote you:

> The expected economic lifetime of a building in Germany is approximately 100 years. Which means that on average, the house will be torn down and rebuilt after at most 100 years, because additional upkeep would not make economic sense.

This is just wrong. An economic lifetime of 100 years does not mean that the (on average) buildings will be torn down and rebuilt after at most 100 years.

And I have already explained why that is. Please read my post again and try to understand it.

> You will do major work on roof or facades every 50 years or so. This is exactly the opportunity where you pretty much get insulation for free.

No. This is also just wrong. Yes, when major work on roof or facades have to be done, this is usually the best opportunity to also improve insulation. But you don't "pretty much get insulation for free". Unless you have a very uncommon definition of "pretty much for free".

Mind that I'm not saying that insulation isn't worth it or anything like that. I'm just pointing out that some parts of what you are writing are wrong. And the sources you cited are not supporting your claims. That's all.

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

#627

Post by krzyk » Sat, Jul 23, 2022, 2:29 PM UTC

Robotbeat wrote: post #601

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…

Other places get much more heat, which is not good for solar.

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

#628

Post by rfrey » Sat, Jul 23, 2022, 2:32 PM UTC

WalterBright wrote: post #188

Aeolun wrote: post #186

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> that we would have better results right now? Think of the shareholders! All that lost value could have gone to line their pockets, but instead it’s being used for the good of society (to be fair, probably to those same shareholders through different companies at exorbitant rates).

> All that lost value could have gone to line their pockets, but instead it’s being used for the good of society That is indeed the pitch the communists make. How is that working out for them?

The notion that government supplied infrastructure, which enables private industry to flourish, is somehow communist, would probably make even Ayn Rand pause for a second. From roads to electricity to clean water, government infrastructure has been part of the American success story since the 18th century.

It's only the radical "right wing" (scare quotes because they bear no resemblance to "right wing" thought from before the 90s) that have challenged the government role in giving American industry the tools they need for success.

To call government funded infrastructure "communist" is the clearest illustration of the Overton Window I think I've ever seen.

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

#629

Post by zbrozek » Sat, Jul 23, 2022, 2:32 PM UTC

pydry wrote: post #591

robertlagrant wrote: post #517

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

Private property developers simply dont want to build affordable housing. The margins are just lower than they are for luxury housing. Who would choose to make 4% profit when you could make 20? They do lobby hard to remove building regulations in the name of building more affordable housing but they never actually build it unless local government actively forces them to with some of those regulations they hate, at wh…

They're always going to build the highest margin product for which there is demand. You're not going to get cheap housing until there is abundance. It's simple supply and demand.

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

#630

Post by z9znz » Sat, Jul 23, 2022, 2:36 PM UTC

Helmut10001 wrote: post #336

jnsaff2 wrote: post #334

Earlier quoted context omitted.

With all due respect, looking at your numbers my hunch is that you need better insulation. I know a person who has about 10kWp installed on a passivhaus here in latitude 59N and says that having a heat pump is overkill for them.

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…

I live in a house in a village in the Netherlands. The house is from 20-150 years old, depending on which section you're in.

It is cold as f in this place all winter. It's also hot as f in these new 37 degree summers.

So the question is, is the problem the old homes, or our insistence to live in inefficient buildings in places with poor climates?

Of course in this country, there's more demand for housing than can be met, so living someplace modern (efficient/comfortable) is not necessarily an option based on price. So the next choice is relocating to a different country which has a more livable climate.

I love architectural history, but we would all be better off if modern engineering and design decisions were made on new structures to replace the grossly inefficient current ones.