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

91–100 of 842 posts

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

#91

Post by walrus01 »

worik wrote: post #86
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…

> and an efficient way to transport power from a very sunny place to another location where the loads are The point of the article is to make synthetic hydrocarbons, so no, do not need HVDC so much.

My point was that maybe we should transport the electricity to where it needs to be used over high voltage long distance lines, rather than running an artificial hydrocarbon fuel generation process, storing it in tanks or pipelines, and then sending it to where it needs to be used, and feeding it into combustion engines.

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

#92

Post by elihu »

Another use of natural gas is to make fertilizer. Maybe you'd use a different process though if your end goal is to make ammonia? (I'm not an expert, but it seems you'd use electrolyzed hydrogen either way, but Haber Bosch reacts with nitrogen instead of CO2.)

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

#93

Post by standardUser »

jtolmar wrote: post #78
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…

Thank you, that is what I gathered, give or take. I guess I was just taken aback by the idea that instead of displacing natural gas we would use more energy to make natural gas. Seems like the ultra-gargantuan investments needed for this kind of transition would be better spent transitioning to a mostly-electric energy economy.

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

#94

Post by Dma54rhs »

Gwypaas wrote: post #85
jjk166 wrote: post #65

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Pumped reservoir storage is horrifically inefficient, environmentally terrible for the local ecosystem, and not scalable. You can't just go and build a reservoir anywhere you like. Chemical energy storage is simple, scalable, and allows for the easy movement of vast amounts of energy over great distances to be used anywhere with minimal changes to existing infrastructure.

When talking about pumped hydro the roundtrip efficiency usually is around 70-80%. Not even close to batteries but way more scalable. Chemical storage is horrific. Creating diesel and burning it in a turbine or similar you start at 40-50% for the burning phase, without even converting anything in the first place. If you go the fuel cell route you tend to end up somewhere at 40-60% efficiency. So no, the only use case…

How is it as scalable when you're at the mercy of the local geology? There are not that many places where pumped storage is viable, its not just pumping water up to some random hill.

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

#95

Post by whimsicalism »

metalliqaz wrote: post #44
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…

But the point of this article is that they extract carbon from the air to make hydrocarbon fuel, which can be transported using our existing infrastructure...

This is Hacker News, not "Hackers who read the article News"

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

#96

Post by jeffbee »

seltzered_ wrote: post #72
jeffbee wrote: post #54

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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."

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 plant. The majority of these emissions (77%) result from mining and utilization of the modules, therefore a comprehensive collection and recycling program would not reduce the environmental impacts of these panels. """ -- Brookhaven National Lab

So there you go. Even if you take all retired utility-grade thin-film PV panels, grind them to a fine powder, and scatter them in the biosphere, you still emit less Cd than a coal-fired power station.

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

#97

Post by whimsicalism »

_mhr_ wrote: post #74
dangerlibrary wrote: post #20

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Not the original poster and perhaps it was adversarial, but I think it is also pretty clear that they did not read the article. Of course, they won't admit that (who wants to admit not reading the article?) so they will reply contextualizing their point to the article.

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

#98

Post by walrus01 »

jp57 wrote: post #89
phkahler wrote: post #84

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>> I searched for "high voltage DC" in that article and didn't see a mention of it, or anything much else about long distance transport of power. Since they want to use solar/electricity to produce hydrocarbon fuels, there is no need to transport electricity. Make the fuels where the sun shines. Maybe build a pipeline or two out of the desert. I think it might be viable for aircraft even if ground transport eventuall…

But it seems they need places with ample sunshine and water to electrolyze. That rules out the American west, the Sahara, etc. If they can use seawater, then arid coastal areas could work.

They use vast amounts of seawater, storing the leftover brine, or crystallized salt in huge quantities will become a problem.

Existing medium sizee drinking water desalination plants already create a huge amount of brine.

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

#99

Post by whimsicalism »

walrus01 wrote: post #23
dangerlibrary wrote: post #20

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Quoted post unavailable.

I read the article, I disagree with the concept of using PV to generate artificial hydrocarbon fuels in general, as not a great business plan. It's not the best use of the technology when we should be bypassing that entirely. Go use excess PV to pump water uphill back into a reservoir or something if you need energy storage, not drive a complicated process to make artificial hydrocarbons to store in a tank and burn i…

Except we have millions of devices now that rely on hydrocarbons that will have to be transition... somehow?

And the infrastructure used to sequester carbon from the air can be turned around and deployed later when we want to sequester carbon without creating hydrocarbons.

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

#100

Post by goethes_kind »

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.

Why do you not believe in synthetic hydrocarbons? What else do you believe is a better alternative then?
Post reply on HN