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

651–660 of 842 posts

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

#651

Post by betwixthewires »

abvdasker wrote: post #480
betwixthewires wrote: post #422

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's not feasible, because our population is only currently possible due to the availability of energy. We can't have global supply chains, food and medicine moving across the world, much less being produced, without oil and gas. You simply don't reduce energy consumption beyond making TV illegal without starving more than half of the people alive today. It is by no means a solution, that's kind of my point. There is…

Ecofascism is a pretty unimaginative, lazy and downright illogical solution to the complicated problem of climate change. It's also morally and scientifically wrong.

I wholeheartedly agree. What's your point?

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

#652

Post by AtlasBarfed »

rocqua wrote: post #594
AtlasBarfed wrote: post #345

Earlier quoted context omitted.

But roof PV makes the grid more resilient, requires less grid, and the owners more independent. A huge portion of consumer electricity could be served with rooftop. It should scale with hot sunny days for A/C surges. It may be key to not overloading the grid with true mass market BEV adoption. And the article seems to miss that wind is still beating solar from the LCOE charts I've seen. They keep making the towers ta…

In Europe, roof PV is actually making the grid worse off when residential areas become over-producers. The capacity is not available to move the peak solar power away from residential areas or between residential areas. The grid is apparently designed for top down generation.

I don't think overproduction will be as big an issue once BEVs and cheaper home storage (sodium ion or other means) hit the mainstream.

Reverse metering is basically a shadow subsidy.

And I'm not arguing that the grid doesn't need to be adapted or needs work, but if we have a lot of home generation, then we don't need to worry as much about increasing overall grid capacity to handle BEV home charging.

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

#653

Post by jabl »

rocqua wrote: post #599
locallost wrote: post #582

Earlier quoted context omitted.

One of the points of the article is the exact opposite. Some places get less sun, but overall the disparity between the haves and havenots is a lot less than for fossil fuels. That it's decentralized is one of the strengths of renewable energy. Amory Lovins referred to this as "no instrument plays all the time, but the orchestra creates beautiful music". Not to mention that countries want to be energy independent, wh…

I wonder if depance between countries helps avoid wars. It certainly raises the costs, which prevents war being profitable.

See the German 'Ostpolitik', currently crashing down in flames, why that might not work out that well.

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

#654

Post by ratww »

JohnHaugeland wrote: post #557
ratww wrote: post #441

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The point is not that everyone should live in a passivhaus. The point is that better insulation can help reducing energy consumption. Not best: better. Those are two different words. No, you don't need a passivhaus, but the passivhaus example, which barely needs heating, is useful for demonstrating the efficiency of insulation.

> The point is that better insulation can help reducing energy consumption Yes, that's a wonderful tidbit that fans love to say. It's also about as relevant to the discussion at hand as giving tips of how not to spill your coffee on the deck to keep it dry is to a sinking boat. You can't solve climate change with better insulation. Sorry. Part of the problem with the discussion about climate change is that people who…

A lot of what you typed have nothing to do with my answer. You also seem to be making a lot of very uncharitable and unpolite assumptions about me that don't make sense at all, since I only posted one single message, so I'll assume you're under the impression that I am someone else. Sorry but I won't be dragged into an internet argument.

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

#655

Post by goodpoint »

dmitriid wrote: post #535
goodpoint wrote: post #512

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> it will take 100 years to insulate the majority of houses in Europe Citation needed. This number is absurd.

500 million people. So, around 200 million or so households. Each household (even if it's an apartment) needs both external and internal insulation improved. Same goes for things like stores, factories, schools, government buildings, and all other non-residential buildings. Most buildings are built before new energy standards ( https://ec.europa.eu/energy/eu-buildings-factsheets_en ). In some countries (esp. the Eadt…

Except the large majority of buildings are not going to last anywhere close to 100 years, and they will be very likely be replaced with better buildings long before that.

And most of the buildings that instead have a lifespan beyond 2122 are historical buildings built with very thick walls and they don't need insulation work beyond replacing windows.

There are many statistics on building lifecycle that you can easily find on the Internet.

So such estimation is really not grounded in reality.

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

#656

Post by Robotbeat »

krzyk wrote: post #627
Robotbeat wrote: post #601

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

On the contrary, it's far better suited to providing demand when solar is most available. It's far better than trying to fight the cold using solar. The tiny theoretical efficiency boost from lower temperatures and high sun is virtually irrelevant in comparison (and much more relevant to thermal power plant considerations).

Much of the world gets literally twice the sunlight as most of Germany and that's the annual average. When talking about the winter time, the difference can be more like a factor of 5 or more when taking into account heat needs.

I fail to see why people use northern Europe as the baseline for their solar arguments when it's clearly a cornercase, given a global perspective.

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

#657

Post by danaris »

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.

'Twas a bit of sarcasm in response to WalterBright's overly broad characterization of "communism".

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

#658

Post by pfdietz »

formerkrogemp wrote: post #648
pfdietz wrote: post #565

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"Nuclear would have won if it weren't for you meddling kids!"

Let's not forget the close ties between German politicians and Gazprom executives, among other issues..

Yes, I'm sure the near universal failure of nuclear to compete around the world is due to a conspiracy in Germany.

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

#659

Post by illiac786 »

Helmut10001 wrote: post #618
illiac786 wrote: post #615

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

I do not have one at hand, but you should find this in almost any guide. It is not complicated: If you insulate 3 walls and leave one wall untouched - this wall will always be the coldest. That means the water contained in your air will condensate always at this wall (because it is the local minimum), resulting in mould and mildew on this wall over time. Now, there are all kinds of solutions and they all have caveats…

But your logic seems to indicate that only one wall will have condensation instead of 4. It’s still an improvement no?

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

#660

Post by illiac786 »

marvin wrote: post #649
throw0101a wrote: post #637

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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…

Adding to this -- climates that have cold winters and a tradition for building well-insulated homes have detailed construction customs for how to deal with this. Today, it's generally solved by having an airtight sheet (plastic) between the insulation and the inner wall. Sometimes placed inside the insulation. This ensures a temperature gradient that will not cause condensation inside the house. You'll generally put…

I still don’t get why there would be *more* moisture on the uninsulated inner wall compared to before insulating 3 out of 4 walls.
Post reply on HN