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

71–80 of 842 posts

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

#71

Post by mgerdts »

greenthrow wrote: post #62
mgerdts wrote: post #60

There's a lot of optimism in this article. Perhaps too much as it seems to gloss over some important details. > Our process works by using solar power to split water into hydrogen and oxygen, concentrating CO2 from the atmosphere, then combining CO2 and hydrogen to form natural gas. Then later it talks about how much desert there is, implying it's a great place for low-impact solar. How do the electricity and power c…

It makes a lot more sense to transport the energy to the water than vice versa. I don't agree with their plan to make synthetic hydrocarbons, but they are right about solar. In 50 years solar will be so ubiquitous and cheap that people will be horrified that we kept burning fossil fuels and building nuclear plants for so long.

Making hydrocarbons for airplanes and maybe for cargo ships makes sense unless the power density of batteries increases dramatically. Creating hydrocarbons to put into commuter cars and trucks that traverse developed regions sounds like a bad idea.

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

#72

Post by seltzered_ »

jeffbee wrote: post #54
seltzered_ wrote: post #38

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is an important point. There was a recent article inquiring the issues in recycling solar panels installed 20-25 years ago: https://www.latimes.com/business/story/2022-07-14/california... .

That is pure fossil industry propaganda. There is no cadmium in ordinary terrestrial solar panels. The lead, if it’s there at all, is in the solder and easily recovered by a pass through a 300-degree intake process. All of the solar panels installed in California, ever, would easily fit in the parking lot of Dodgers stadium, stacked to a reasonable height. They are non-toxic, insoluble bulk crystalline materials.

"This story has been edited to clarify that panels containing toxic materials are routed for disposal to landfills with extra safeguards against leakage, and to note that panels that contain cadmium and selenium are primarily used in utility-grade applications."

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

#73

Post by mgerdts »

greenthrow wrote: post #62
mgerdts wrote: post #60

There's a lot of optimism in this article. Perhaps too much as it seems to gloss over some important details. > Our process works by using solar power to split water into hydrogen and oxygen, concentrating CO2 from the atmosphere, then combining CO2 and hydrogen to form natural gas. Then later it talks about how much desert there is, implying it's a great place for low-impact solar. How do the electricity and power c…

It makes a lot more sense to transport the energy to the water than vice versa. I don't agree with their plan to make synthetic hydrocarbons, but they are right about solar. In 50 years solar will be so ubiquitous and cheap that people will be horrified that we kept burning fossil fuels and building nuclear plants for so long.

> It makes a lot more sense to transport the energy to the water than vice versa.

That’s my gut feeling as well. Perhaps the location of the consumer of the hydrocarbons would change that in some cases.

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

#74

Post by _mhr_ »

dangerlibrary wrote: post #20
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…

Quoted post unavailable.

I've never made a comment on HN commenting on someone else's tone, but I've seen this exact response, word for word, a lot recently on many posts. I don't like this trend. I find it to be adversarial and in bad faith. Suppose they did read the article. Are they likely to reply to you defending themselves? Next time, please address the actual content of their comment instead.

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

#75

Post by rektide »

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.

It'a really weird but there's a surprisingly growing base of farming amid a solar farm, where apparently many plants just cant stand the pure sun & benefit from some periodic shade during the day. I dont know how much I believe it but combined agriculture/solar use seems perhaps legit to be a thing.

Also, solar panels dont seem that difficult to recycle. There's already a decent & growing reclaimation market. Giant slabs of polysilicon, with perhaps some glass & metal casing, plus some bus-bars. Strip & toss into a chewer.

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

#76

Post by jjk166 »

changoplatanero wrote: post #24
AdamTReineke wrote: post #16

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is better. Terraform believes they can make methane from the air for cheaper than it can be extracted from the ground, leading to a preference for "carbon neutral" fuels. Part of their thesis though is the requirement for solar to keep getting cheaper and cheaper (as it has). Excess manufactured methane could also be injected underground, presumably.

What's a more efficient way to split water into hydrogen and oxygen: using electricity from a solar panel or using photosynthesis in a plant?

Electrolysis is orders of magnitude more efficient, but your equipment isn't self replicating.

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

#77

Post by marcosdumay »

outworlder wrote: post #37
AdamTReineke wrote: post #18

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Their white paper covers it, linked from their site. > CO2 concentration is performed using a closed lime/calcite calcination cycle, operating at ambient temperature and pressure. https://caseyhandmer.wordpress.com/2022/02/03/terraform-indu...

Can I borrow one for my Sodastream? :)

You may not like the 850°C operational temperature at home.

But the cold part of the cycle, that actually concentrates the CO2 is fun to do at lab-scale, you just have to buy the CaO (and prepare for it becoming very hot).

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

#78

Post by jtolmar »

standardUser wrote: post #30

Can anyone provide a summary of this blog post? I am finding it strangely tricky to follow.

Terraform Industries has a process for converting atmospheric CO2 and water into hydrocarbons (particularly "natural" gas), at the cost of a huge amount of electricity.

Because solar panels keep getting cheaper and oil doesn't, they think they can out-compete the cost of oil in some markets (sunny with expensive oil) in the near future, and more places over time if solar power keeps getting cheaper.

The author hopes to encourage a huge investment in solar power, which would be good for the planet and people in general (and unstated, also Terraform's bottom line).

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

#79

Post by leobg »

What would interest me: Can I do this locally, at the site of the consumer? Take the unused PV output of my house in summer to fill my house’s tank with natural gas for use in winter? Is that something that would be technically feasible today?

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

#80

Post by leereeves »

gibolt wrote: post #69
greenthrow wrote: post #62

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It makes a lot more sense to transport the energy to the water than vice versa. I don't agree with their plan to make synthetic hydrocarbons, but they are right about solar. In 50 years solar will be so ubiquitous and cheap that people will be horrified that we kept burning fossil fuels and building nuclear plants for so long.

Solar is already extremely cheap, when costed out over it's minimal lifetime. At grid scale, it has dipped down to crazy levels. As you said, this trend will keep on going.

According to a couple of studies discussed in [1], solar is cheap, but storage is still expensive.

1: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cost_of_electricity_by_source#...

Post reply on HN