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

811–820 of 842 posts

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

#811

Post by alvah »

rob_c wrote: post #586
jeffbee wrote: post #96

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's slightly better but they should never have printed it. Imagine writing such a story about the tiny amount of lead in a million solar panels without mentioning that every car battery sold in California comes with more lead than 2000 solar panels combined. Edited to add: """…Current CdTe panels contain approximately 6 g/m2, resulting in cadmium emissions of 0.5g/GWh, equivalent to that of a coal fired power plan…

One thing is worse so another thing is not bad? This is the same level of logic used against nuclear power, yes if we'd invested in this in the 80s and 90s (even the 00s) we wouldn't be having these conversations and Russia wouldn't be an energy superpower... I feel like a certain amount of "what's going with people" because I'm having to grow up with these decisions not embrace living through the era that made them.…

Unfortunately for the idealists among us, life is full of trade-offs.

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

#812

Post by alvah »

wheelerof4te wrote: post #464

What people don't realize is that solar power is not enough to support industrial production. Neither is hydro and wind power. To have enough solar energy, you would need huge fields of panels where the sun shines bright. Panels block the sunlight beneath, so you can't plant anything where the panels are. On the other hand, you need space for agriculture. So, you see where the problem is. Large wind turbines also nee…

You should probably read the article, before writing a highly-downvoted comment answering a completely different article.

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

#813

Post by dmitriid »

goodpoint wrote: post #655
dmitriid wrote: post #535

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

> 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.

We need a quote on that. And no, "bulidings last on average 100 years without doing anything to them" is not it.

"Replaced with better buildings" inevitably means "displacing large swaths of population". Because you can't just wave a magic wand and replace houses. For the past 4 years I've lived in a district built in th 60s. So, 60 years ago. If you're telling me that those dozens of building with hundreds of people living in them will be just up and replaced, you're delusional.

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

#814

Post by intrasight »

Mil0dV wrote: post #787
intrasight wrote: post #244

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"Never underestimate the bandwidth of a station wagon full of tapes hurtling down the highway." –Andrew Tanenbaum, 1981 We deliver everything else by road. We should deliver power by road. The roads are already there. Once most long-distance trucking is done by robot (~10 years me thinks), there will be plenty of bandwidth. We need "standard units of power" (Sups) that are interchangeable with and usable with everyth…

This is undesirable in the same way shipping water via trucks is a lot less efficient than using pipes. For some use cases where electricity doesn't work, trucks with e.g. methane could work. For everything else it's just way to inefficient to convert, store, transport and then convert it again. Same issue with hydrogen - from source to force applied in a car, it's 22% efficient, compared to 79% for an EV.

In many places, lines aren't going to be built. So the question is what's the best way to move power via road?

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

#815

Post by throw0101a »

illiac786 wrote: post #721
qubitcoder wrote: post #719

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 coo…

I do see your point, you believe the air near the uninsulated wall will have even more moisture because it’s now the only cold wall out of 4 walls. So all the moisture goes there instead of being split in 4. But a wall will stop condensating water when reaching a certain degree of humidity. So I’m not entirely convinced one can simply divide the amount of humidity in the air by the amount of uninsulated walls (or sqm…

> I do see your point, you believe the air near the uninsulated wall will have even more moisture because it’s now the only cold wall out of 4 walls. So all the moisture goes there instead of being split in 4.

The air will not have more moisture, but rather all the moisture problems will be towards/on the uninsulated wall.

> But a wall will stop condensating water when reaching a certain degree of humidity. So I’m not entirely convinced one can simply divide the amount of humidity in the air by the amount of uninsulated walls (or sqm).

Condensation will never stop on a cold wall until all the moisture in the air is removed. If you boil a pot of water the air will fill with moisture, and the entire house will have a high humidity. But because one particular wall is cold because of a lack of insulation the condensation (water going from vapour to liquid phase) will be concentrated on that particular wall.

The condensation will continue to occur as long as you continue to add moisture to the air via cooking and bathing (hot showers, baths).

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

#816

Post by illiac786 »

throw0101a wrote: post #815
illiac786 wrote: post #721

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I do see your point, you believe the air near the uninsulated wall will have even more moisture because it’s now the only cold wall out of 4 walls. So all the moisture goes there instead of being split in 4. But a wall will stop condensating water when reaching a certain degree of humidity. So I’m not entirely convinced one can simply divide the amount of humidity in the air by the amount of uninsulated walls (or sqm…

> I do see your point, you believe the air near the uninsulated wall will have even more moisture because it’s now the only cold wall out of 4 walls. So all the moisture goes there instead of being split in 4. The air will not have more moisture, but rather all the moisture problems will be towards/on the uninsulated wall. > But a wall will stop condensating water when reaching a certain degree of humidity. So I’m no…

Say you have a room completely insulated except for 1 sqm. Will the entire moisture condensate on 1sqm? That could represent 1cm of water on the wall, that's physically impossible. There's a maximum amount of moisture that can condensate per unit of surface, it cannot be infinite. Where does the water go after condensating? Even if you consider it drips down and stays on the floor, the amount of water on the wall at any given time still has a maximum.

That's the bit I am missing here, it just does not add up, condensation is not something that simply keeps accumulating water on a wall if it's cold enough, there's a saturation at some point. The question is, how fast is this saturation reached? If it's fast, then isolating one out of 3 walls may not create additional moisture on the non-insulated wall.

Sorry, I hope I don't come over as being stubborn, I'm genuinely interested in insulating (I have to do it at some point), I just like to understand things and so far I do not understand why isolating 3 walls out of 4 would generate additional moisture on the remaining wall.

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

#817

Post by pfdietz »

PeterisP wrote: post #714
pfdietz wrote: post #613

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Namibia may become the Iceland of solar energy. The desert comes right down to the ocean.

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

#818

Post by JohnHaugeland »

ratww wrote: post #654
JohnHaugeland wrote: post #557

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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.

Seems like every time extremist solar fans try to say "I don't understand why everyone doesn't just do it my way, which doesn't work unless you engage in exotic housing outside of cities," and someone points out why that doesn't actually work, they take it like a personal attack

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

#819

Post by JohnHaugeland »

cinntaile wrote: post #798
JohnHaugeland wrote: post #795

Earlier quoted context omitted.

1. I brought the Dresden plant up. You started arguing about some other plant and tried to pretend that it was the Dresden plant multiple times, even though the one you brought up is on the other side of the country. Now, you're suddenly an expert on the Dresden plant? Stop it. 2. You're attempting to say that "diesel isn't gasoline," when you previously tried to bring up a hydrogen plant. Stop it. 3. No, they also p…

You're just embarrassing yourself at this point, which is fine I guess but I can't be bothered anymore.

I'm sorry that you cannot admit your clearly stated mistakes, and need to interact using insults. Good luck

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

#820

Post by ncmncm »

konschubert wrote: post #791
Kim_Bruning wrote: post #619

Earlier quoted context omitted.

https://www.oxfordenergy.org/wpcms/wp-content/uploads/2020/1... Pure hydrogen has some handling difficulties which might be solved by binding it to carbon (eg in Methane: CH_4), or to nitrogen (eg in Ammonia: NH_3). Ammonia production has as an advantage that nitrogen is available in large quantities in the earth's atmosphere (78%), and ammonia production and usage can therefore _theoretically_ be carbon-neutral (and…

One thing to note: CH_4 burns cleaner than NH_3.

Not unless you are burning it with pure oxygen.

Ammonia is injected into NG in gas turbines to scavenge N to stop NOx production: N is better at binding to N than to O. So, you just burn your NH3 slightly rich.

Post reply on HN