Semi-transparent solar panels allow concurrent production of crops and power • Hacker News Board

Re: Semi-transparent solar panels allow concurrent production of crops and power

#71

Post by ben_w » Sun, Aug 23, 2020, 5:42 PM UTC

manfredo wrote: post #44

toomuchtodo wrote: post #37

Earlier quoted context omitted.

They are [1]. It’s a self reinforcing cycle. For example, batteries are already cheaper than most gas peakers. That demand (along with EVs demand, primarily Tesla) ramps manufacturing capacity, realizing further cost declines along the way. Remember, the sun and wind are free once the turbines and panels are installed (both which last at least two decades). That’s what fossil and nuclear are competing against, and it…

Yes, the capacity is increasing. But there's still a massive disconnect between the amount of battery storage required to make renewables usable and the capacity that exists. The link I posted already factors in increasing demand, but the amount of battery production in these projections is still orders of magnitude lower than what is requires. 3 weeks of energy storage in the US works out to 240 TWh given its daily…

What feels like an obvious solution (and is therefore probably wrong), is that excess renewable production can mitigate that in two ways:

1. Instantaneous excess can electrolyse water, producing hydrogen which can be converted into methane and stored/used in existing natural gas systems.

2. Overcapacity in good times implies proportionally higher production in bad times, lowering the storage requirements.

Re: Semi-transparent solar panels allow concurrent production of crops and power

#72

Post by masklinn » Sun, Aug 23, 2020, 5:43 PM UTC

dehrmann wrote: post #61

hirundo wrote: post #7

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"if the government were to take over the Sahara Desert, there would be a shortage of sand in five year" -- Milton Friedman (exaggerating, somewhat) Better to put them on home roofs, and arrange for them to be owned by the homeowners, designed so that the occupants are (literally) empowered when the grid is mismanaged, as in California. On highway medians control is more centralized, and they would require more mainte…

It's most efficient to put the panels in a centralized location with high amounts of sunlight on mounts that track the sun. You get significantly higher yield because of the tracking and the location, and maintenance is cheaper because it's centralized. The fact that you see far more home installations than farms means farms aren't economically viable, neither is home PV without subsidies, but people buy into the "em…

The balance of tracking mounts is not trivial.

They increase efficiency a lot (up to 40% for dual-axis trackers) but they also decrease ground a lot coverage, they increase cost of installation and cost of ownership, and they decrease availability.

Re: Semi-transparent solar panels allow concurrent production of crops and power

#73

Post by epistasis » Sun, Aug 23, 2020, 5:46 PM UTC

Causality1 wrote: post #23

khawkins wrote: post #21

Only people who spend most of their life in densely crowded cities could think that the planet has so little space that you'd need to grow crops underneath solar panels for efficiency's sake.

Indeed. This reminds me of the "let's drive on top of our panels" stupidity. I suppose it could have practical applications in space colonization.

A lot of farmers are leasing their land to solar developers because it provides guaranteed, stable payments.

Though "we" as a whole are not limited by land, individual economic actors are limited by how much land they own.

Additionally, interconnection to the grid and node congestion are becoming larger percentages of the cost of solar, since they are roughly constant as the cost of solar plummets. Farms are somewhat ideal for medium size solar installations because they often have significant existing grid connections that are underutilized.

Now that we have economical solar tech, the actual implementation of solar installs will be highly dependent on regulations, economic motivations of individual economic agents, the knowledge and intelligence of thistle agents, and combinations with existing infrastructure. (For example, we are seeing batteries being installed in old fossil fuel plants, so that we can reuse those super expensive grid connections.)

Re: Semi-transparent solar panels allow concurrent production of crops and power

#74

Post by guerrilla » Sun, Aug 23, 2020, 5:46 PM UTC

quotemstr wrote: post #70

Besides: nuclear power plants take up very little space. I really can't seriously people pushing solar, wind, and so on while they eschew nuclear power (and increasingly hydropower too). Fake environmentalists: "We have an existential crisis! We must change our energy strategy to save humanity!" Engineers: "That's quite a problem. Here's a way to solve it. It's called fission. Here are some power plant designs." Fake…

> only those technologies that agree with my aesthetics!"

This is an exceptionally bad straw-man [1].

1. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_power_debate

Re: Semi-transparent solar panels allow concurrent production of crops and power

#75

Post by orev » Sun, Aug 23, 2020, 5:48 PM UTC

quotemstr wrote: post #69

gdubs wrote: post #46

Our area of Oregon recently banned new solar farms on the grounds that it detracts from the beauty of the landscape – a wine region with lots of tourism. Ironically, that very beauty is threatened by the changing climate, which clean energy could help mitigate.

Let's be real for a second. Climate change isn't going to destroy Oregon's wine-growing regions within our lifetimes. A solar farm will change it within months. You can support or oppose solar farm bans according to your liking, but you should do so on the basis of facts. The two forces aren't even close to equal in magnitude and timing.

The “not within my lifetime so who cares” trope has been around for decades, and guess what? Climate change is happening faster than anyone imagined, mostly because scientists can only present findings on things they are certain about, which makes the predictions conservative. Most people are already seeing the impact of climate change, and if it’s not visible to you personally, it has never been easier to seek out information on those that are. If you really can’t see past your own lifetime and feel that you should be able to take whatever you want from the planet simply because you don’t need to deal with the repercussions, then you are not part of human society and are free to leave the planet at any time.

Re: Semi-transparent solar panels allow concurrent production of crops and power

#76

Post by guerrilla » Sun, Aug 23, 2020, 5:51 PM UTC

quotemstr wrote: post #69

gdubs wrote: post #46

Our area of Oregon recently banned new solar farms on the grounds that it detracts from the beauty of the landscape – a wine region with lots of tourism. Ironically, that very beauty is threatened by the changing climate, which clean energy could help mitigate.

Let's be real for a second. Climate change isn't going to destroy Oregon's wine-growing regions within our lifetimes. A solar farm will change it within months. You can support or oppose solar farm bans according to your liking, but you should do so on the basis of facts. The two forces aren't even close to equal in magnitude and timing.

It's already partially responsible [1] for negatively impacting Northern California's wine growing and this year could be worse.

1. https://www.nationalgeographic.com/science/2019/10/climate-c...

Re: Semi-transparent solar panels allow concurrent production of crops and power

#77

Post by gbrown » Sun, Aug 23, 2020, 5:51 PM UTC

qayxc wrote: post #33

yellow_lead wrote: post #28

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Aren't there setups that can do both as well? i.e charge battery first and send excess to the grid?

The setups have to be separate (e.g. different outlets for mains and solar) to protect the grid. Even a small home solar installation puts out enough power to easily kill unsuspecting maintenance personell working on the grid, for example. So the utility company has to have 100% control over he mains at all time for safety reasons (i.e. your meter must never run backwards). If they cut the power (e.g. for maintenance…

That's not true, you can have an inverter setup which fails over to a battery backup when the grid goes down. It's also done all the time with natural gas generators.

The setup is more expensive, and it does have to meet certain requirements, but it is definitely an option.

Re: Semi-transparent solar panels allow concurrent production of crops and power

#78

Post by brokencode » Sun, Aug 23, 2020, 5:52 PM UTC

quotemstr wrote: post #70

Besides: nuclear power plants take up very little space. I really can't seriously people pushing solar, wind, and so on while they eschew nuclear power (and increasingly hydropower too). Fake environmentalists: "We have an existential crisis! We must change our energy strategy to save humanity!" Engineers: "That's quite a problem. Here's a way to solve it. It's called fission. Here are some power plant designs." Fake…

So you think caring about nuclear waste along with CO2 emissions makes someone a fake environmentalist? Nuclear waste is highly toxic and difficult to store and transport safely.

Also, have you ever heard of Chernobyl or Fukushima? Nuclear reactors are great in certain ways, but can be catastrophically bad too.

Hydro also can cause a significant environmental impact, flooding natural habitat and interrupting water routes for different animals.

Solar and wind aren’t perfect either, but the idea is to try to chose a power source that is as clean as possible.

Re: Semi-transparent solar panels allow concurrent production of crops and power

#79

Post by codefreakxff » Sun, Aug 23, 2020, 5:54 PM UTC

quotemstr wrote: post #70

Besides: nuclear power plants take up very little space. I really can't seriously people pushing solar, wind, and so on while they eschew nuclear power (and increasingly hydropower too). Fake environmentalists: "We have an existential crisis! We must change our energy strategy to save humanity!" Engineers: "That's quite a problem. Here's a way to solve it. It's called fission. Here are some power plant designs." Fake…

The tone of your post (being simultaneously dismissive and insulting to those who have a different view than you) is very trollish. The problem many people have with nuclear power are things like accidents making areas uninhabitable, radiation making people sick, disposal of waste rods is difficult, some materials can be used to make weapons, and the cost to make a safe plant are staggering and leading to cancellation of projects.

Renewable sources don’t have these downsides. Are they ugly? Not any uglier than a concrete dome and cooling systems of a nuclear power plant. You can bet wine country does not want a nuclear plant in their valley either. I think it’s perfectly reasonable to zone land usage appropriately.

Re: Semi-transparent solar panels allow concurrent production of crops and power

#80

Post by nxc18 » Sun, Aug 23, 2020, 5:56 PM UTC

dehrmann wrote: post #61

hirundo wrote: post #7

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"if the government were to take over the Sahara Desert, there would be a shortage of sand in five year" -- Milton Friedman (exaggerating, somewhat) Better to put them on home roofs, and arrange for them to be owned by the homeowners, designed so that the occupants are (literally) empowered when the grid is mismanaged, as in California. On highway medians control is more centralized, and they would require more mainte…

It's most efficient to put the panels in a centralized location with high amounts of sunlight on mounts that track the sun. You get significantly higher yield because of the tracking and the location, and maintenance is cheaper because it's centralized. The fact that you see far more home installations than farms means farms aren't economically viable, neither is home PV without subsidies, but people buy into the "em…

Empowerment isn’t really a fantasy if there are rolling blackouts but your own power is still on. Sadly, not a hypothetical in California.

Im thinking just from a national security/redundancy/risk reduction standpoint it makes sense to move more generation closer to demand. There are lots of single points of failure in our power grid currently.

Edit: this is assuming the solar setup is designed to enable use when power is out; I assume homeowners who care about empowerment would make that investment, but you know what they say about assuming.