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

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

#631

Post by brtkdotse » Sat, Jul 23, 2022, 2:39 PM UTC

GekkePrutser wrote: post #581

Roritharr wrote: post #456

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Including heating/gas?

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

#632

Post by epistasis » Sat, Jul 23, 2022, 2:43 PM UTC

tppiotrowski wrote: post #401

epistasis wrote: post #369

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Make financial sense to whom? If solar is cheaper than natural gas, how does a utility profit from charging less? They are highly regulated, and are usually allowed to take a percentage as profit. So it's in their interest to take the more expensive option, depending on regulations Saying that solar isn't cheap is just ignoring the past five years of cost data.

Natural gas runs on cloudy days and at night. Taking a bus is cheaper than flying, but if you want to get somewhere fast you need to fly. Price is just one metric.

In the US, the rare instances of more open markets for electricity generation markets, like ERCOT, and seeing wind/solar/storage dominate over natural gas in new deployments.

This wouldn't happen unless they actually were cheaper.

However, regulated monopolies in other parts of the country have no incentive to innovate or use newer technology. Thus they make their five year plans (usually called IRPs) with opaque financial models with out-of-date costs, leading to bad decision making.

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

#633

Post by zbrozek » Sat, Jul 23, 2022, 2:43 PM UTC

ben_w wrote: post #361

zbrozek wrote: post #125

Earlier quoted context omitted.

While your house wiring is typically copper, transmission and distribution wiring isn't. That's very-often aluminum. And as you point out, we make a huge amount of the stuff.

20.6 MT copper/year vs 64 MT aluminium/year, even using both that's still equivalent to about 17 years of current global production (which is a big but not impossible change over the timescales desired), but the price is still painful.

Aluminum has higher specific conductivity than copper by mass. So if you think you need 1 MT of copper conductivity, you can do the job with 0.5 MT of aluminum.

Aluminum is also quite abundant. Rate limits will be political rather than production. That's not to say this is a realistic idea or that it's worth doing, just that it isn't unthinkable on a resource basis.

https://www.anixter.com/en_us/resources/literature/wire-wisd...

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

#634

Post by pbourke » Sat, Jul 23, 2022, 2:48 PM UTC

I was confused about something in this article. After the natural gas is synthesized, it’s pumped into the existing NG infrastructure for heating and electricity generation? Doesn’t that emit CO2 into the atmosphere once again? Or is it such that CO2 removed >> CO2 added?

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

#635

Post by djenendik » Sat, Jul 23, 2022, 2:50 PM UTC

As others have pointed going carbon neutral is a good step, but should we should keep in mind the CO2 ppm that will be reached at the neutrality point. Is this something that we can live with?

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

#636

Post by JohnHaugeland » Sat, Jul 23, 2022, 3:03 PM UTC

ZeroGravitas wrote: post #572

JohnHaugeland wrote: post #549

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Ah, yes, a reaction. Can you show me this actually in use literally anywhere on earth for this job, 125 years later? Where would I go to buy some atmosphere derived gasoline? You're confusing that something could theoretically be done with that it's a real thing that can be relied on today at scale to save the planet If this was a real, practical thing, it would be in use. We fight wars over this stuff. If the thing…

What are you going to do with the atmosphere derived gasoline that you couldn't do better, cheaper and cleaner with cheap electricity? That's why no one is making it at scale. We're rapidly expanding renewable production at an amazing pace, as the article discusses, but we are very much still in the "stop burning fuels and directly electrify processes instead" stage, because that is currently cheaper even without inc…

I just want to make sure that I'm understanding correctly.

You're saying that yes, we can economically make gasoline from the air today, and that the reason we don't is all the renewable production we're ramping up?

That everyone just decided not to sell carbon negative cheap gasoline?

I guess it's silly to ask why you believe that we can do this, based on no plant ever having been built with tens of billions of incentives available, huh? Probably can't get any evidence?

I don't think we're going to be able to see eye to eye on this. Thanks for the conversation

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

#637

Post by throw0101a » Sat, Jul 23, 2022, 3:17 PM UTC

illiac786 wrote: post #615

Helmut10001 wrote: post #590

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

This is very interesting. I was told by some energy expert I could isolate 3 out of 4 outer walls and it would work fine. Do you have some documentation on the “moisture through heat transfer” issue?

> Do you have some documentation on the “moisture through heat transfer” issue?

Warm/er air can hold more moisture than cold/cooler air. If part of the house is warm, and you happen to cook and/or shower in it, it will have a high moisture content.

But water vapour diffuses through-out an enclosure. So that water in a gaseous phase will equally spread everywhere (eventually).

When it reaches the uninsulated part/s of the structure, the air is colder and so can't hold as much moisture leading to condensation. Get lots of condensation, and you have an environment that is suitable for mold growth (which can then release spores in the air and mess up indoor air quality (IQA)). Not to mention that water is a universal solvent, and so will turn your structure (stone, masonry, concrete, wood) to mush over time.

The place of condensation will most likely be a surface that is a large temperature change: so in the winter your inside is warm, and your uninsulated outside walls are cold.

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

#638

Post by BatFastard » Sat, Jul 23, 2022, 3:21 PM UTC

pbourke wrote: post #634

I was confused about something in this article. After the natural gas is synthesized, it’s pumped into the existing NG infrastructure for heating and electricity generation? Doesn’t that emit CO2 into the atmosphere once again? Or is it such that CO2 removed >> CO2 added?

Indeed that NG that is burned adds to CO2, but its considered neutral since it was derived from atmospheric CO2. We still need sinks for CO2 that will be removed to atmosphere. But at least we can do it cost efficiently.

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

#639

Post by throw0101a » Sat, Jul 23, 2022, 3:25 PM UTC

badpun wrote: post #465

Roritharr wrote: post #456

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

Interesting, why isn't the moisture on walls behind insulation ever an issue on new construction?

> Interesting, why isn't the moisture on walls behind insulation ever an issue on new construction?

Newer building codes have started to mandate more external insulation:

* https://www.buildingscience.com/documents/insights/bsi-001-t...

Depending on the climate zone, up to half the insulation may be mandated to be on the outside (behind some kind of cladding (brick, stucco, siding) to protect it from UV and bulk water).

Per the above article, by having the outside be insulation, your interior structure is kept warmer, and so condensation is less likely to occur.

Do a search for "Joseph Lstiburek" and "Matt Risinger", who have lots of articles and videos on building science.

* https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Building_science

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

#640

Post by throwaway2037 » Sat, Jul 23, 2022, 3:27 PM UTC

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.

You wrote: >

This is positive ridiculous. Are you serious in 2022? Your electricity is surely mostly sourced from hydrocarbons. Are you paying "true cost"? Surely not. If electricity was suddenly twice the cost due to carbon costs (which is probably the true environmental cost), you would be shouting from your windows to build more solar panels and wind turbines.