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

711–720 of 842 posts

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

#711

Post by philipkglass »

katkatkatkatket wrote: post #331
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…

>The technology now exists to theoretically cover many hundreds of square km of Libya in photovoltaics and take the electricty to Europe It really doesn't. I'm a huge fan of back-of-the-envelope maths, and this idea raises some very fun questions. How big would the power line be, if the UK (where I live) was powered entirely by solar panels in the African desert? The UK's average instantaneous power consumption is ar…

Electricity consumption in the UK in 2021 was 294.4 TWh:

https://www.statista.com/statistics/322874/electricity-consu...

Annualized, that's an average power of 33.5 GW.

On http://gridwatch.templar.co.uk/ you can see in the yearly demand view that peak demand for the year was under 40 GW.

This initial estimate of 150 km^2 of desert solar farms is too small and your later estimate of 13,000 km^2 is too large. A conservative rule of thumb would be 10 megawatts (real power, annualized) per km^2 of solar farm, which would mean 3,350 km^2 of solar farms for 33,500 average megawatts. Note that solar farm area is larger than solar panel area because solar farms need space between racks of panels.

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

#712

Post by PeterisP »

Bombthecat wrote: post #494
the8472 wrote: post #485

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I calculated I would need about 70 to 80 kWp (optimized for winter sun angle, e.g. pretty steep modules at 60° or 70° that relatively produce less in summer, but more in winter). I know there are sun-following installations but those need expensive mechanics and control systems. Aren't there middle-ground solutions that can be manually adjusted twice a year?

If 70 to 80 is enough in winter,I would assume that it is enough in summer?

It depends on whether the price you're getting for that power is sufficiently different between winter and summer; because if your contract has a fixed price per kWh then optimizing for winter (which gets you a bit more power in winter, but a lot less power in summer - because in summer the "angle multiplier" gets applied to much more sunlight) is a bad decision.

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

#713

Post by pfdietz »

Ekaros wrote: post #686
pfdietz wrote: post #658

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

I blame the Green movement. Those people really just wanted to destroy the planet. Not limit global change...

I see. The Green movement is globally all powerful, and you explain away the fact that the world is still not a Green utopia by saying the Green movement isn't actually Green. This is awesome mental gymnastics!

The alternate explanation is that nuclear is a sick technology, and the Green movement is not responsible for its failure. Nuclear was so weak even a group as feckless as the Greens could have success against it.

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

#714

Post by PeterisP »

pfdietz wrote: post #613
tedk-42 wrote: post #595

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is wrong. Steel manufacturing happens near ports. We can't shift cities to electricity generation. We historically choose population centres in places with optimal conditions like having good water flow or natural protection with mountain ranges or good level land. Most industry needs access to transport with shipping being the cheapest.

We can shift production from port cities with expensive energy to port cities with cheap energy.

A good example is aluminum production in Iceland, which has a disproportionally huge aluminum refining industry (it makes almost as much aluminum as the whole of USA despite having literally 1000 times smaller population) simply due to the availability of cheap energy and access to ocean shipping.

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

#715

Post by jonnycomputer »

pawsforthought wrote: post #457
rektide wrote: post #75

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 s…

It’s known as agrivoltaics [1]. It works especially well with highly shade-tolerant crops like leafy vegetables, stone fruits, berries, etc., but also works with grazing or arable cultivation. There are various possible configurations of panels that still allow farm machinery to access the crop beneath, and the crop itself is protected from heat stress, wind, heavy rain, and hail. Shading reduces evaporative water lo…

Very interesting.

I do wonder how robust these would be to wind storms/tornadoes/hurricanes (like we tend to get in the US).

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

#716

Post by rahimiali »

could someone explain the benefit of storing energy as natural gas? once you burn it, doesn't it result in co2? doesn't that defeat the effort? also is natural gas really easier to pipe around than electricity?

I know I'm missing the point of the article so looking for helpful guidance.

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

#717

Post by baq »

_hcuq wrote: post #677
bryanlarsen wrote: post #307

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Transmission costs exceed production costs in many jurisdictions. Rooftop solar can often eliminate the need for very costly distribution upgrades.

The utilities should be forced to allow rooftop solar to run during network power outages. That would be a compelling incentive for some people.

Resynchronizing all those installations to the grid without a DC step in between (powerwall basically) will cause a lot of blown fuses in the best case.

Unless you mean that powerwalls are banned?

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

#718

Post by kesor »

Isn't this what trees do already?

And if trees don't do it "good enough", should we really replace the trees with technological mini-chemical-plants that will starve all of the CO2?

I don't get it.

Why do humans think their crazy ideas are better for nature, while at the same time it is obvious they are going to exterminate whole species when implemented.

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

#719

Post by qubitcoder »

illiac786 wrote: post #660
marvin wrote: post #649

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Most people know that hot air rises. It's helpful to think of airflow in terms of energy (temperature is a measure of the average kinetic energy of air molecules).

Hotter air has more energy and thus will naturally "flow" towards cooler areas with less energy until equilibrium is reached.

In this example, the higher temperature air holds more moisture. That moisture will be carried along and dispersed towards the cooler wall, where it could condensate.

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

#720

Post by UncleEntity »

vineyardmike wrote: post #374
pfdietz wrote: post #315

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Or, you know, we move industry out to be closer to the PV fields. Globally, energy intensive industry probably moves to places like Chile with very high insolation. Too bad, Europe.

> out to be closer to the PV fields All those crazy people moving to AZ and NV in the US did something right. Their energy costs to AirCon is going to need it. But actually this seems like it would position well certain parts of the US that are growing (sun belt).

It helps out a bunch that there is a nuclear power plant outside of Phoenix and the Hoover dam in Vegas generating all kinds of carbon-free electricity to power the air conditioning.
Post reply on HN