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

821–830 of 842 posts

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

#821

Post by robertlagrant »

pfdietz wrote: post #713
Ekaros wrote: post #686

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

Greenpeace etc have long protested against nuclear, and have boogeymanned their way into the public consciousness on this topic. It's conceivably set us back decades and released millions of extra tons of CO2 in the process.

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

#822

Post by cinntaile »

JohnHaugeland wrote: post #819
cinntaile wrote: post #798

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

I can accept my mistakes, can you? The plant in Dresden is apparently no longer producing fuels and it also made gasoline, my mistake.

I'll repeat what I previously said. Power-to-gas refers to gas fuels (this includes LNG), it doesn't refer to liquid fuels such as gasoline. E-gas in this case refers to synthetic methane, it doesn't stand for e-gasoline. This entire thread is focused on creating synthetic methane (the Sabatier process mentioned in the Terraform Industries article), you referred to a plant from 2013 so naturally I assume it's the e-gas plant that opened there since that is the topic at hand and e-gas is a gas. The plant in Wertle is not a hydrogen plant, but it produces hydrogen as part of the Sabatier process. Yes, you mentioned Dresden but it didn't produce the gas this topic is about and it started producing in 2014...

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

#823

Post by Schroedingersat »

Helmut10001 wrote: post #320

People both underestimate and overestimate what PV can do. In summer and around noon, here in western Europe, there is so much PV-electricity produced that it is _almost_ enough to fulfill all demands. In winter, the amount is like a drop in the desert. I have built a 30 kWp PV at home 2 years ago - you would think this is quite big, for a private plant. It is not enough. If I want to power a heat pump (with drilled…

> I have built a 30 kWp PV at home 2 years ago - you would think this is quite big, for a private plant. It is not enough. If I want to power a heat pump (with drilled holes), e.g. to cover the heating for the house from November - February, 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).

Have you considered a thermal battery? A cubic meter or ten of NaOH solution can store a surprising amount of energy, and can be charged during summer/spring/autumn with simple solar modules consisting of black pipes in glass.

Even if you only store half the energy needed for some of December and January, it halves the needed size of modules.

Hydrogen electrolysis is also shockingly cheap, if there were some safe, small scale storage this issue would be solved.

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

#824

Post by Schroedingersat »

m12k wrote: post #409
isoprophlex wrote: post #349

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The catch is that power-to-gas tech described in the article will allow you to store the power produced in summer. Produce excess methane gas in summer, store with existing infrastructure, burn it for baseload/winter.

From the article: "Just as converting chemical energy in the form of fuel into electricity endures 45-75% thermodynamic losses, converting electricity back into chemical fuels loses 60-70% of the energy in the process. Converting solar power into natural gas only to burn it in a gas turbine power plant could help with long term seasonal energy storage but is so much less cost competitive than other ways to stabilize…

If the chemical fuel can work in a fuel cell, then where it's relevant (high latitudes in winter), you can get 100% efficiency in the chemical->used energy step by using the fuel cell for heating.

The electricity->fuel step struggles to heat 50%, which is not a deal breaker compared to other sources.

The hard bit is storing hydrogen.

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

#825

Post by adrianmonk »

dotancohen wrote: post #328
tclancy wrote: post #113

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I’ve heard it’s all ball bearings but that may be outdated.

Meaning that coal transported by train is still a major energy source? Globally that is still accurate unfortunately.

It's a reference to the movie Fletch. The main character is an investigative reporter. In one scene, he poses as an airplane mechanic. The real airplane mechanics are not very convinced, and he tries playing it off by saying, "It's all ball bearings nowadays."

https://youtu.be/SjJYNZirQCU

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

#826

Post by throwtheacctawy »

rocqua wrote: post #564
Helmut10001 wrote: post #320

People both underestimate and overestimate what PV can do. In summer and around noon, here in western Europe, there is so much PV-electricity produced that it is _almost_ enough to fulfill all demands. In winter, the amount is like a drop in the desert. I have built a 30 kWp PV at home 2 years ago - you would think this is quite big, for a private plant. It is not enough. If I want to power a heat pump (with drilled…

What I found cool about the synthetic natural gas, is that Europe already has really good seasonal storage of natural gas. Hence the infrastructure is available for summer-time generation of gas using solar abundance that we use in winter for heating. To my mind, it is seasonal load shifting that is Europe's long term energy problem. Winter energy demand has a bottom that needs to be met. We used to ensure this by st…

No post body was provided.

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

#827

Post by konschubert »

Syonyk wrote: post #311
walrus01 wrote: post #159

Earlier quoted context omitted.

With bulk PV panels by the pallet already at something like $0.42 per STC watt the majority of a residential or small commercial install is already dominated by the cost of labor and other components. I could theoretically go out and buy a pallet load of twenty, 360W rated, 72 cell panels at something like $160 per piece, costing something like $3,200 + $400 LTL freight. But it's going to cost way more than that to p…

It should run you about $0.75/W to install them and hook them in for a grid tie system, maybe a hair more. Interestingly, that's the same for roof mount (with rapid shutdown) or ground mount (without rapid shutdown). Costs vary slightly depending on what you're doing in terms of panel orientation and inverter DC:AC ratio (if it's not 1.2 or greater, add more panels). This project (CO2 to CH4) would benefit from maxim…

No, the project here would still benefit from some more evenly spaced production. If they can run their plant at peak just for 4 hours a day instead of, say, 8, it will take much longer to get back the capital investment.

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

#828

Post by ClumsyPilot »

danielscrubs wrote: post #752
z9znz wrote: post #630

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.…

Indeed. for example UK has the most expensive and some of the worst buildings in EU, I have seen soviet buit homes that are better than some newbuilds over here. The word of the market is 'never buy a newbuild' because you never know what they fucked up.

The stories sound like comedy: entire block of flats was built the wrong way round, someone moved into theyr flat and found the balcony was missing - the balcony door just led to a 30 meter drop. They forgot to lay cable down for internet, so a new block only has 8 megabit ADSL. The building I am in, they made the holes for fire sprinkles in the wrong place - so there is a hole in the ceiling, but nothing behind it. The sprinkler is 20 cm away from it, inside the ceiling, and if something goes wrong it won't actually be able to pop out

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

#829

Post by ClumsyPilot »

illiac786 wrote: post #816
throw0101a wrote: post #815

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. 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…

'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. '

' I do not understand why isolating 3 walls out of 4 would generate additional moisture on the remaining wall.'

you gey problems with mold way before you are anywhere near 'the physical limir of condensarion'. You dont want to be near it.

The question is not whether the amount of consensation will double or quadruple. It is weather you will have mould problems. If your wal starts getting wet, you will have mould peoblems.

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

#830

Post by ClumsyPilot »

robertlagrant wrote: post #685
ZeroGravitas wrote: post #528

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There's a very obvious paper trail of people not wanting renewables. As the article notes this price decline was predictable decades ago, but you can't really blame people for being dubious about predictions. Maybe the people who got it right were just lucky. But since real actual installed wind and solar became cheaper a while ago, the people still openly arguing against renewables slide ever close to cartoon superv…

People thinking renewables wouldn't be cheaper aren't people who don't want renewables. Why would they even get a mention?. I'm not convinced enough people know that renewables are cheaper to make the latter claim you're making. For example, in some places as soon as renewables come online they get priority access to demand, and other fuel sources get the leftovers. That's still a subsidy, just by another name. So I…

'That's still a subsidy, just by another name. So I don't know if they are cheaper.'

yeah, but fossil fuels get subsidies of all sorts, not just polluting for free, but even things like leaving the british taxpayer to pickup the bill for cleaning up old infrastructure they no longer need

https://www.theguardian.com/business/2019/jan/25/british-tax...

Post reply on HN