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

751–760 of 842 posts

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

#751

Post by opo »

10u152 wrote: post #389
opo wrote: post #317

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Rooftop solar is far more expensive than solar put on land. The cost of rooftop solar (particularly homeowner solar) is usually hidden by implementing a big subsidy to wealthy consumers that is paid for by less wealthy consumers - sort of a reverse robin hood scheme. We are well past the point where anyone can argue we should subsidize rooftop solar because we need to help build a fledgling industry - yet I see solar…

Why is rooftop solar more expensive? Mounting structure is there, grid supply is there, no issues with weeds/grasses, generally up in the air etc. Rooftops are unused space.

You can see the cost differences here:

https://www.lazard.com/perspective/levelized-cost-of-energy-...

Rooftops are unused space, but the land use is generally a small part of the cost. Utility scale solar has real economies of scale compared to one-off small installations on someone's roof.

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

#752

Post by danielscrubs »

z9znz wrote: post #630
Helmut10001 wrote: post #336

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes, absolutely - the house is a pretty big country side house from 1925, not uncommon in Germany. But (almost) impossible to insulate efficiently. My estimates where €150k to €200k, just for the insulation, windows, and renewed heaters. In comparison, an 'oversized' 70 kWp PV only costs €100k, and also returns some income when not all of the power is used. The parameters widely differ between country and city: In th…

I live in a house in a village in the Netherlands. The house is from 20-150 years old, depending on which section you're in. It is cold as f in this place all winter. It's also hot as f in these new 37 degree summers. So the question is, is the problem the old homes, or our insistence to live in inefficient buildings in places with poor climates? Of course in this country, there's more demand for housing than can be…

Currently living in a rich area, 20 stories very modern high apartment complex. The first thing I thought when stepping into the apartment for the first time with its massive windows was “jikes the windows are leaking heat like crazy”. In my old home that was 60 years old it had way better insulation (with triple layered windows).

What I’m trying to say is that this is about incentives, not about how old things are. The modern building let their tenants cover the AC cost while the old one had water heating instead included.

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

#753

Post by bob29 »

JohnHaugeland wrote: post #744
bob29 wrote: post #732

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm not one to argue etymology. Apparently nothing is real until it's realized. So "not being real" is meaningless and we should discuss whether something is "able to be realized". Can fuels by synthesized at industrial scale? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sasol I'm sure the goalposts just moved LOL

> we should discuss whether something is "able to be realized". Cool story. Are you about to say "well what if we can realize the way to realize it" when I point out none of the industrial work is done, none of the process work is done, none of the factories are built, none of the laws are drafted, none of the money is raised, none of the functionaries are settled, and none of the customers are online? If you can't p…

If you think none of the industrial, process, or scientific work is done, you are incapable of decomposing the problem into its constitutent parts and recognizing the existance of most of its constituent parts in other parts of industry.

Goodbye.

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

#754

Post by betwixthewires »

brazzy wrote: post #740
betwixthewires wrote: post #707

Earlier quoted context omitted.

300TW is 1.2% of 26000TW, not 0.12%. Where do we get this 300TW number from? Does this include heating in winter, cooling in summer, fuel for moving goods and people in cars, trains, ships, airplanes, agriculture future energy consumption, and the energy needed to remove CO2 that has been created as per the proposal in the article at the top of this thread? So the sun shone, for a billion years, to keep it simple, 26…

Quoted post unavailable.

No post body was provided.

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

#755

Post by [deleted] »

nl wrote: post #496
ncmncm wrote: post #398

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There is absolutely no need to buy land to put solar on. So, land cost may be exactly zero. Solar coexists synergetically with many other uses, most particularly reservoirs and canals, where it cuts evaporation and biofouling and runs cooler, thus more efficiently (up to 2x vs desert); and pasture, where it also cuts evaporation, and the livestock can duck under to get out of sun and rain, and keep weeds down; and cr…

Here in Australia (where it gets pretty hot) a bunch of places have started putting solar panels over carparks. They are great because they shade the cars, and often the installation cost is $0 because the installer will sign a X year agreement with the occupier to provide electricity at Y cost for a number of years.

[deleted]

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

#756

Post by kortilla »

Aeolun wrote: post #182
kortilla wrote: post #111

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What a bad take. The US alone effectively created that much money out of thin air during the pandemic. All of the countries combined printed far more. Doing the same for an energy project that might actually pay back (unlike the covid losses) is far less disruptive. Finally, the amount of money hidden away in tax havens by the rich is nothing compared to this. Don’t drag down something as important as the climate cri…

> The US alone effectively created that much money out of thin air during the pandemic. All of the countries combined printed far more. The difference being that most of that money ended up in rich people’s pockets, and are now causing a global economic crisis.

No it didn’t. If it all just ended up in rich people’s pockets it wouldn’t have caused this kind of inflation and supply shortages for all of these every day items.

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

#757

Post by kortilla »

ben_w wrote: post #440
anu7df wrote: post #203

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I am not sure of that. If all that money ended up in rich people's pocket, never to see the light of day again we won't be having the inflation crisis. The money through various investments is now out in the open, driving up inflation. It is still unequally distributed and that is causing issues. If there was a magical way to distribute that money equally between everyone inflation won't be an issue. Unfortunately ma…

I don't claim to know the full causes of the current inflation issues, but inflation can also be caused by a reduction in productivity, not just by an increase in money supply.

There needs to be a reduction in productivity while everyone magically staying at the same income levels though to keep demand high.

The rapid increase in just human labor prices seems to indicate that money is making it to people somehow because COVID didn’t kill enough of the labor force to have that kind of effect.

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

#758

Post by JohnHaugeland »

cinntaile wrote: post #747
JohnHaugeland wrote: post #743

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I see that you're continuing to flog the wrong plant by the wrong people for the wrong process, after that was pointed out to you. I can link to it, but I gave you more than enough information to Google it.

This is the 2013 Audi e-gas plant. It is now run by Kiwi AG, the CEO there is the previous boss at Audi e-fuels. So yes, please link what you mean. Also nobody is talking about making gasoline from air, just to clarify. The process is described in the linked article, it is the same process as the one that this entire topic is about and it is the one I just described.

> This is the 2013 Audi e-gas plant.

As was already explained, no, that was in Dresden.

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

#759

Post by kortilla »

8note wrote: post #248
kortilla wrote: post #111

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What a bad take. The US alone effectively created that much money out of thin air during the pandemic. All of the countries combined printed far more. Doing the same for an energy project that might actually pay back (unlike the covid losses) is far less disruptive. Finally, the amount of money hidden away in tax havens by the rich is nothing compared to this. Don’t drag down something as important as the climate cri…

Haven't the covid losses already paid back? We aren't in absolute catastrophe

No. They won’t be paid back until the government gets an excess of at least that much in tax revenue.

Something mitigating an ongoing can be expensive, have the intended positive effect immediately, but not be paid back for a long time (or sometimes ever).

Federally subsidized flood insurance is a much smaller scale example. There are many places in Florida and the gulf in general where houses get destroyed by hurricanes and have to be rebuild for $X every 20 years when we only collect maybe 25% of $X in premiums.

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

#760

Post by kortilla »

pydry wrote: post #212
pclmulqdq wrote: post #209

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It would become a lot less real too. The wealth of people who mostly get it from stock ownership is a complete fiction, driven by the scarcity of shares on the open market. If Jeff Bezos dumped his entire holding in AMZN shares, the whole company would be worth a lot less. Not due to any sort of magical effect of Jeff Bezos, but due to the market being flooded with supply.

I guess this means if a hypothetical Bill Gates sold off the vast majority of the 45% of Microsoft stock he owned then the company would then be worth a lot less? It really is weird how frequently I see the view you espouse and how nobody who repeats it seems to consider the clearest, most obvious counterexample that so completely disproves it.

Well what you stated never happened, so not sure what there is to disprove. It took Gates a significant amount of time to wind down his ownership stake in Microsoft.
Post reply on HN