We're going to need a lot of solar panels(caseyhandmer.wordpress.com)
caseyhandmer.wordpress.com
We're going to need a lot of solar panels
https://caseyhandmer.wordpress.com/2022/07/22/were-going-to-need-a-lot-of-solar-panels/
822 comments
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 stockpiling on seasonal scales. Without stockpiling, and with intermittent production, things will get hairy in winter.
Put differently, you can turn up a gas plant, but you can't turn up a windmill or a solar panel. That scares me.
Batteries and similar technologies are great for daily variation, but their cost per capacity does not allow for practical seasonal storage. For this I imagine we need cheap bulk storage, and can accept low efficiency because we can fill the stockpile with the cheapest excess power.
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 stockpiling on seasonal scales. Without stockpiling, and with intermittent production, things will get hairy in winter.
Put differently, you can turn up a gas plant, but you can't turn up a windmill or a solar panel. That scares me.
Batteries and similar technologies are great for daily variation, but their cost per capacity does not allow for practical seasonal storage. For this I imagine we need cheap bulk storage, and can accept low efficiency because we can fill the stockpile with the cheapest excess power.
Northern Africa has a huge opportunity here - build infra that produces hydrogen gas year round, and then export it to Europe. The Sahara Desert is 8_600_000 km², which I imagine is _very sunny_ all year round.
If we produce considerably more electricity than we can use it becomes essentially free energy at those times. Then it could make sense to convert it into gas instead of extracting gas from the earth. Until then the extracted gas will be cheaper and overall more efficient. Local availability of natural gas can be a problem at times, tough.
I think methanol is even a better storage candidate.
https://phys.org/news/2022-06-holy-grail-catalysisturning-me...
Methanol is very nasty though. If it leaks, it leaves you blind or dead.
Leaking natural gas tends to leave you exploded, too...
Methanol can also explode (and set things on fire). In terms of a fire hazard they're both very bad.
Leaking methane rises, so it's not a huge problem. We have natural methane leaks all over.
There are natural gas leaks on a regular basis here in Europe. It only explodes with a fire source. People smell the gas leak and inform the fire station.
Only if it's doped. Pure methane is odorless.
Is it ever not doped though? At what point in the process do they put the smell in?
At the distribution point, usually. Some gas networks intended for industrial use don't contain the chemical that makes gas smell as that gas is an input in a chemical process, not burnt for heat.
[deleted]
I believe most natural gas floats though, right?
Are season-level storage facilities already in existence though? The great thing about natural gas is that Europe already has the storage (and distribution) infrastructure. It would be a waste not to reuse that infra.
With all due respect, looking at your numbers my hunch is that you need better insulation.
I know a person who has about 10kWp installed on a passivhaus here in latitude 59N and says that having a heat pump is overkill for them.
I know a person who has about 10kWp installed on a passivhaus here in latitude 59N and says that having a heat pump is overkill for them.
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 the country, you usually have space (but lack money), in the city, you lack space but can often work with a pretty good income (= build a new, energy optimized house).
Every house is different. If I build a new house today, of course this would look different.
The parameters widely differ between country and city: In the country, you usually have space (but lack money), in the city, you lack space but can often work with a pretty good income (= build a new, energy optimized house).
Every house is different. If I build a new house today, of course this would look different.
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 met, so living someplace modern (efficient/comfortable) is not necessarily an option based on price. So the next choice is relocating to a different country which has a more livable climate.
I love architectural history, but we would all be better off if modern engineering and design decisions were made on new structures to replace the grossly inefficient current ones.
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 met, so living someplace modern (efficient/comfortable) is not necessarily an option based on price. So the next choice is relocating to a different country which has a more livable climate.
I love architectural history, but we would all be better off if modern engineering and design decisions were made on new structures to replace the grossly inefficient current ones.
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.
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.
Not sure what part of the world you're in, but OP was describing Germany, and I'm in Netherlands. Both of these countries have pretty strict requirements for energy efficiency of new buildings. So at least here, it would be safe to assume that a < 10 year old home or apartment would be much more efficient (and comfortable) than a 30+ year old one.
Also, there's a new government initiative to provide incentives and special financing for property owners (who rent their property) to bring the efficiency of all properties up to a decent minimum level by 2030 if they wish to be allowed to continue renting them out. I imagine there may be some exclusions for certain very old properties, especially historical/monumental ones. But regardless, it should have a big positive impact.
Also, there's a new government initiative to provide incentives and special financing for property owners (who rent their property) to bring the efficiency of all properties up to a decent minimum level by 2030 if they wish to be allowed to continue renting them out. I imagine there may be some exclusions for certain very old properties, especially historical/monumental ones. But regardless, it should have a big positive impact.
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
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
From what I've seen with old country side houses in France just insulating the roof and the windows can already bring very good results (heat lost through walls is usually only around 25% of all the losses). A quick and cheap solution for the roof is to lose the attic and blow the isolating material directly on it.
yeah, there are so many old houses are still sitting around in Europe. My area almost every house was built in the late 1800s. Looks pretty nice, but insulation sucks.
That estimate seems insane. Was that a “we’re too busy, go away” estimate?
How big is the house?
How big is the house?
It is quite a standard 2-generations house (at that 1925 time), 250 m² and two apartments, + a base level with an office. I am not saying that this is the universal standard - but it is _a_ standard that I do see quite often here, especially if you look outside cities, where the turnaround for reconstructon of houses is slower.
.. and this was quite thoroughly calculated. I can tear down the house and build a new one, but apart from the waste of resources - building a new one will also cost minimum €200k - so I thought, why not 'oversize' PV, if it only costs €100k and can heat the house without improving on insulation?
To emphasize, this conclusion will likely not apply to the majority of people (especially here on HN) because as many have said here, parameters and contexts differ widely.
.. and this was quite thoroughly calculated. I can tear down the house and build a new one, but apart from the waste of resources - building a new one will also cost minimum €200k - so I thought, why not 'oversize' PV, if it only costs €100k and can heat the house without improving on insulation?
To emphasize, this conclusion will likely not apply to the majority of people (especially here on HN) because as many have said here, parameters and contexts differ widely.
Does the calculation stay the same looking decades ahead?
I'd have guessed that 200k to rip it down & build a new house that has great insulation - or even to just retrofit insulation and other upgrades to the existing building - would be expected to last longer before costing the same amount against to replace (and/or pricey maintenance/insurance of the more expensive PV, aircon etc.). And might therefore work out cheaper when looked at as a 50 year question rather than 1 year one?
I don't presume to know more than you, not only don't I know about your specific situation I also know very little about these subjects generally, I'm just curious.
I'd have guessed that 200k to rip it down & build a new house that has great insulation - or even to just retrofit insulation and other upgrades to the existing building - would be expected to last longer before costing the same amount against to replace (and/or pricey maintenance/insurance of the more expensive PV, aircon etc.). And might therefore work out cheaper when looked at as a 50 year question rather than 1 year one?
I don't presume to know more than you, not only don't I know about your specific situation I also know very little about these subjects generally, I'm just curious.
Yes, it is difficult and I don't think it is possible to come up with a solution that fits all. What limited I can say: Insurance for the PV is cheaper than insurance for the insulation. That is because more problems with insulation can appear (e.g. fire damage, moisture) than with PV. Insulation of old houses is also far more complex than PV (someone pointed that our here).
.. it was mentioned somewhere here, too: For some, the best solution will be to focus on reducing energy consumption; for other, the better option will be to focus on increasing local energy production. And a combination of both might be best for most.
.. it was mentioned somewhere here, too: For some, the best solution will be to focus on reducing energy consumption; for other, the better option will be to focus on increasing local energy production. And a combination of both might be best for most.
[deleted]
Wow that sounds too high. Maybe insulate only the parts you frequently use, perhaps?
No offense - but insulation doesn't really work like this. If you insulate only one part, you will get massive problems with moisture through heat transfer. With insulation of old houses, so much can go wrong and then the only solution _is_ tearing down the house and building a new one.
This is very interesting. I was told by some energy expert I could isolate 3 out of 4 outer walls and it would work fine. Do you have some documentation on the “moisture through heat transfer” issue?
I do not have one at hand, but you should find this in almost any guide. It is not complicated: If you insulate 3 walls and leave one wall untouched - this wall will always be the coldest. That means the water contained in your air will condensate always at this wall (because it is the local minimum), resulting in mould and mildew on this wall over time.
Now, there are all kinds of solutions and they all have caveats. As someone said here, old houses are build so that walls are semi-permeble, meaning that heat constantly wanders to the outside. That also means that the dew point is pretty far towards the outside in winter - water can get out of the house. If you insulate the inner wall, the dew point will move more towards the inside, meaning your walls will get wet and water will take longer to move outside. If you insulate the outside, water cannot get out at all - you must find another solution to get the moisture out of the house. It gets more complicated the more you dive into this topic.
Now, there are all kinds of solutions and they all have caveats. As someone said here, old houses are build so that walls are semi-permeble, meaning that heat constantly wanders to the outside. That also means that the dew point is pretty far towards the outside in winter - water can get out of the house. If you insulate the inner wall, the dew point will move more towards the inside, meaning your walls will get wet and water will take longer to move outside. If you insulate the outside, water cannot get out at all - you must find another solution to get the moisture out of the house. It gets more complicated the more you dive into this topic.
But your logic seems to indicate that only one wall will have condensation instead of 4. It’s still an improvement no?
You're concentrating 4 wall's worth of condensation onto just one wall. Instead of being spread out, all the moisture gets on the one wall.
No, that is not how condensation works, otherwise you would have automatically more condensation on the wall in a larger room. The amount of condensation on the walls is not dependent on the size of the room or the fact that it condensates on the other walls. It depends on air humidity, air temperature, wall temperature and finally, very important, wall humidity. Water will not keep on accumulating on the wall, it will reach an equilibrium at some point, when the wall itself has become moist. The fact there is condensation or not on the other walls has negligible impact on total air humidity, most of all in larger rooms. And that's the only factor out of the 4 I could imagine being impacted by condensation (or not) on the other walls.
Hence, I still do not understand the logic why isolating only a subset of walls instead of all of them would be a problem.
As I said, I had an energy efficiency specialist at my home which said that isolating 3 walls would be 75% as efficient as isolating 4 and totally recommended. So far, I have not seen any solid logic supporting the fact that isolating only 3 walls instead of 4 would *increase* the risk of mold compared to either, 4-walls all insulated, or, zero walls insulated.
Hence, I still do not understand the logic why isolating only a subset of walls instead of all of them would be a problem.
As I said, I had an energy efficiency specialist at my home which said that isolating 3 walls would be 75% as efficient as isolating 4 and totally recommended. So far, I have not seen any solid logic supporting the fact that isolating only 3 walls instead of 4 would *increase* the risk of mold compared to either, 4-walls all insulated, or, zero walls insulated.
The point is it won't reach an equilibrium. The outside of the house changes temperature with the day night cycle. The one uninsulated wall will be closer to the outside temperature than the other walls.
As the house cools at the end of the day the uninsulated wall will be colder than the other walls and if it's below the dew point condensation will form on it. If the temperature differential is high enough in comparison to difference in insulation between the walls then enough water will leave the air to keep the dew point below the temperature of the insulated walls and so that one wall will collect the majority of moisture (at 30C a meter cubed of saturated air carries about 30mls of water so yes condensation on a surface can heavily impact humidity). Once a wall becomes moist it will still acumulate water if it's below the dew point.
You likely will have seen real life examples of this when you look at single pane windows in otherwise insulated houses and seen them fog up/ have condensate form on them while the walls around them remain dry (if you haven't seen this but have been to houses with single pane glass in your area then condensation won't be an issue where you live).
As to your 75% efficiency point it will in fact have a lower efficiency as heat transfer increases with temperature differential. Since the room has a higher temperature differential with the outside the less insulated wall will be faster at transfering heat.
That is not to say that insulating 3 walls is a bad idea, it will almost certainly improve a rooms U value, but the worse the insulation on the remaining original wall, ceiling, and floor the less difference the 3 walls will make to the rooms U value and thus how quickly the room transfers heat.
As the house cools at the end of the day the uninsulated wall will be colder than the other walls and if it's below the dew point condensation will form on it. If the temperature differential is high enough in comparison to difference in insulation between the walls then enough water will leave the air to keep the dew point below the temperature of the insulated walls and so that one wall will collect the majority of moisture (at 30C a meter cubed of saturated air carries about 30mls of water so yes condensation on a surface can heavily impact humidity). Once a wall becomes moist it will still acumulate water if it's below the dew point.
You likely will have seen real life examples of this when you look at single pane windows in otherwise insulated houses and seen them fog up/ have condensate form on them while the walls around them remain dry (if you haven't seen this but have been to houses with single pane glass in your area then condensation won't be an issue where you live).
As to your 75% efficiency point it will in fact have a lower efficiency as heat transfer increases with temperature differential. Since the room has a higher temperature differential with the outside the less insulated wall will be faster at transfering heat.
That is not to say that insulating 3 walls is a bad idea, it will almost certainly improve a rooms U value, but the worse the insulation on the remaining original wall, ceiling, and floor the less difference the 3 walls will make to the rooms U value and thus how quickly the room transfers heat.
> Do you have some documentation on the “moisture through heat transfer” issue?
Warm/er air can hold more moisture than cold/cooler air. If part of the house is warm, and you happen to cook and/or shower in it, it will have a high moisture content.
But water vapour diffuses through-out an enclosure. So that water in a gaseous phase will equally spread everywhere (eventually).
When it reaches the uninsulated part/s of the structure, the air is colder and so can't hold as much moisture leading to condensation. Get lots of condensation, and you have an environment that is suitable for mold growth (which can then release spores in the air and mess up indoor air quality (IQA)). Not to mention that water is a universal solvent, and so will turn your structure (stone, masonry, concrete, wood) to mush over time.
The place of condensation will most likely be a surface that is a large temperature change: so in the winter your inside is warm, and your uninsulated outside walls are cold.
Warm/er air can hold more moisture than cold/cooler air. If part of the house is warm, and you happen to cook and/or shower in it, it will have a high moisture content.
But water vapour diffuses through-out an enclosure. So that water in a gaseous phase will equally spread everywhere (eventually).
When it reaches the uninsulated part/s of the structure, the air is colder and so can't hold as much moisture leading to condensation. Get lots of condensation, and you have an environment that is suitable for mold growth (which can then release spores in the air and mess up indoor air quality (IQA)). Not to mention that water is a universal solvent, and so will turn your structure (stone, masonry, concrete, wood) to mush over time.
The place of condensation will most likely be a surface that is a large temperature change: so in the winter your inside is warm, and your uninsulated outside walls are cold.
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 a sheet that's porous but not airtight outside the insulation, to reduce heat loss due to convection and also provide an extra layer of defense against moisture damage due to wind-blown rain.
This technique necessitates good ventilation (often powered) if it's used throughout the entire house. This is to avoid saturating the inside air with humidity due to breathing and other activity, itself leading to the condensation you're trying to avoid. It can sometimes be just on e.g. floors and ceilings. Then, the rest of the structure might still be leaky enough that mostly passive ventilation will do the trick.
Older houses handle the problem by just being so leaky that condensation won't be a problem.
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 a sheet that's porous but not airtight outside the insulation, to reduce heat loss due to convection and also provide an extra layer of defense against moisture damage due to wind-blown rain.
This technique necessitates good ventilation (often powered) if it's used throughout the entire house. This is to avoid saturating the inside air with humidity due to breathing and other activity, itself leading to the condensation you're trying to avoid. It can sometimes be just on e.g. floors and ceilings. Then, the rest of the structure might still be leaky enough that mostly passive ventilation will do the trick.
Older houses handle the problem by just being so leaky that condensation won't be a problem.
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.
Because you add the same amount of moisture (showers, cooking, breathing), and it needs to get out before it's was evenly over all 4 walls, now only one. Your total indoor humidity is going to go up because there is less taking care of it.
That said, insulation is still the right answer, but it ain't cheap. OP should probably tear down that beautiful old house for something more modern.
That said, insulation is still the right answer, but it ain't cheap. OP should probably tear down that beautiful old house for something more modern.
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.
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.
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).
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).
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).
Several floors were mentioned. Perhaps insulating one of them completely is an option then?
As far as I know, around 1,000 Euro / sqm is a good estimate for bringing a 200+ kWh/(sqm * a) house down to about 85-100 kWh(sqm * a)
> better insulation
better insulation is not cheap and therefore not everyone can afford to do it. Also the same people who want renewables are usually opposed to building new housing so there's that.
better insulation is not cheap and therefore not everyone can afford to do it. Also the same people who want renewables are usually opposed to building new housing so there's that.
The actual insulation is stupid cheap when you look at the ROI. However, installing in on an existing house is really tricky and you can cause a lot of moisture related damage if you do it in the wrong way.
The house I live in, like everyone's in my street, is from the late 1800s. Insulating those houses from the outside is very expensive, to the tune of 200k, where the house is worth around 500k in the inflated environment we're in. At the very same time, I haven't found a single insurance company willing to insure the house after insulation for insulation related moisture damage.
This makes insulating this house an absurdly bad financial decision, since once you have moisture damage in any part of this material, you can basically demolish most of the walls since it soaks like a sponge.
Mind you, I have not started going into the pitfalls of the legality of even touching a house this old in Germany, where you have to deal with "Denkmalschutz".
Insulating new construction and retrofitting insulation are two absolutely different things and barely have anything to do with each other from the cost-benefit ratio.
This makes insulating this house an absurdly bad financial decision, since once you have moisture damage in any part of this material, you can basically demolish most of the walls since it soaks like a sponge.
Mind you, I have not started going into the pitfalls of the legality of even touching a house this old in Germany, where you have to deal with "Denkmalschutz".
Insulating new construction and retrofitting insulation are two absolutely different things and barely have anything to do with each other from the cost-benefit ratio.
Absolutely, and the thing about old houses is that they've evolved to keep moisture and ventilation in check without access to modern tech. Modern tech, as you point out, usually makes things worse.
My house in Sweden is from the 1950's and I still had to be _very_ mindful when adding insulation. The best thing I've found is cellulose-based insulation, basically shredded newspapers lined with salts and pressed to sheets. The can buffer a lot of moisture without developing mold.
My house in Sweden is from the 1950's and I still had to be _very_ mindful when adding insulation. The best thing I've found is cellulose-based insulation, basically shredded newspapers lined with salts and pressed to sheets. The can buffer a lot of moisture without developing mold.
Same here in Spain. But in this climate I don't need insulation anyway.. My energy costs are 60 euro a month in winter and 30 in summer. No point even trying to insulate.
Including heating/gas?
Yes included. I don't have gas heating anyway. Just a little plug-in electric radiator.
Is that not energy
Have you looked at hempcrete? I'm in France and have just started looking at better insulation for an old stone large property.
Interesting, why isn't the moisture on walls behind insulation ever an issue on new construction?
In addition to what was already said, there definitely is and has been many moisture issues on walls and exteriors in new construction. A condo building near me had to have its exterior completely torn off, and lots of sheathing, insulation, cladding, etc replaced due to a botched install of EIFS. Google for “EIFS failures.” This was a big problem in the 80s/90s or so but apparently it’s still happening, at least with subpar builders.
Because they use a dual layer construction with an air gap between the inner an outer walls. This gives space for condensation to occur and evaporate again without effecting the living space.
In old buildings with solid walls you can get condensation on the walls that will evaporate because the living space is heated and we'll ventilated. If you clad that wall in insulation you can prevent the evaporation which leads to damp problems.
In old buildings with solid walls you can get condensation on the walls that will evaporate because the living space is heated and we'll ventilated. If you clad that wall in insulation you can prevent the evaporation which leads to damp problems.
> Interesting, why isn't the moisture on walls behind insulation ever an issue on new construction?
Newer building codes have started to mandate more external insulation:
* https://www.buildingscience.com/documents/insights/bsi-001-t...
Depending on the climate zone, up to half the insulation may be mandated to be on the outside (behind some kind of cladding (brick, stucco, siding) to protect it from UV and bulk water).
Per the above article, by having the outside be insulation, your interior structure is kept warmer, and so condensation is less likely to occur.
Do a search for "Joseph Lstiburek" and "Matt Risinger", who have lots of articles and videos on building science.
* https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Building_science
Newer building codes have started to mandate more external insulation:
* https://www.buildingscience.com/documents/insights/bsi-001-t...
Depending on the climate zone, up to half the insulation may be mandated to be on the outside (behind some kind of cladding (brick, stucco, siding) to protect it from UV and bulk water).
Per the above article, by having the outside be insulation, your interior structure is kept warmer, and so condensation is less likely to occur.
Do a search for "Joseph Lstiburek" and "Matt Risinger", who have lots of articles and videos on building science.
* https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Building_science
Old constructions are diffusion open, meaning moisture can move freely in and out of it. New constructions are diffusion closed, meaning you have a steam barrier on the inside which blocks the moist indoors air from traveling into the walls. This however requires an airtight house and mechanical ventilation.
In the U.K. the people who want renewables tend to be under 40s that can’t afford to buy a house. Those that actively don’t want renewables tend to own their own home and may have a couple the let out.
Pretty much no-one actively doesn't want renewables. They might not want them built very near them, but that's different.
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 supervillain status.
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 supervillain status.
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 don't know if they are cheaper.
Finally, the point about renewables isn't only cost, it's also reliability. The subsidy I just mentioned falsely obviates the need for renewables to be reliable from a cost perspective, but that doesn't mean that needing a high base load (and higher the more we move to electric vehicles) isn't the most important thing to supply.
And none of that is about people "not wanting renewables".
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 don't know if they are cheaper.
Finally, the point about renewables isn't only cost, it's also reliability. The subsidy I just mentioned falsely obviates the need for renewables to be reliable from a cost perspective, but that doesn't mean that needing a high base load (and higher the more we move to electric vehicles) isn't the most important thing to supply.
And none of that is about people "not wanting renewables".
'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...
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...
"Nuclear would have won if it weren't for you meddling kids!"
Let's not forget the close ties between German politicians and Gazprom executives, among other issues..
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.
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.
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.
I'm not against them, but I think they should not be specially subsidised. Just pay what ever the market rate at the moment is. If it is not enough to cover investment too bad.
Surely they should be at least as equally subsidized as other energy sources, with the cost of external cleanup perhaps also factored in?
That would be fine with me, if every energy source had to pay its own negative externalities.
Will absolutely all of the externalities of mining, manufacturing and transport then be also applied to renewables?
Also, maybe if there is any risk of damage to surroundings like with hydro batteries there would be need to deposit amount of money that covers them fully.
Also, maybe if there is any risk of damage to surroundings like with hydro batteries there would be need to deposit amount of money that covers them fully.
Yes, they should. Otherwise we'll just drown in a hot sea of shit, only 50 years down the line. Everything needs to be sustainable, kind of by definition.
But as with any problem, let's first start with the stuff causing the damage.
Let's get oil and gas and coal to pay for EVERY negative externality.
But as with any problem, let's first start with the stuff causing the damage.
Let's get oil and gas and coal to pay for EVERY negative externality.
You wrote: <<Just pay what ever the market rate at the moment is.>>
This is positive ridiculous. Are you serious in 2022? Your electricity is surely mostly sourced from hydrocarbons. Are you paying "true cost"? Surely not. If electricity was suddenly twice the cost due to carbon costs (which is probably the true environmental cost), you would be shouting from your windows to build more solar panels and wind turbines.
This is positive ridiculous. Are you serious in 2022? Your electricity is surely mostly sourced from hydrocarbons. Are you paying "true cost"? Surely not. If electricity was suddenly twice the cost due to carbon costs (which is probably the true environmental cost), you would be shouting from your windows to build more solar panels and wind turbines.
It's not super expensive, really. And this is something that building codes can address - either via the gentle option of requiring all newly built dwellings to be thermally efficient, or the somewhat more assertive route of requiring any home sold to have adequate insulation.
> With all due respect, looking at your numbers my hunch is that you need better insulation.
With all due respect these are the kinds of "tiny" details that renewable enthusiasts conveniently forget. Yes, this person's house needs better insulation. As does everybody else's.
You can't just wave this away with "your math is wrong". These numbers reflect reality, not wishful thinking.
With all due respect these are the kinds of "tiny" details that renewable enthusiasts conveniently forget. Yes, this person's house needs better insulation. As does everybody else's.
You can't just wave this away with "your math is wrong". These numbers reflect reality, not wishful thinking.
I wish you would expand and clarify the point you are trying to make. Currently it sounds like you are angry at a group of enthusiasts.
I think for me and the OP it’s quite clear that optimizations can be made on production and consumption side. And in their circumstances financial reality says that increasing production is much cheaper, while possibly providing extra cash that would enable investment for reducing consumption, which in turn would lead to more income.
I think for me and the OP it’s quite clear that optimizations can be made on production and consumption side. And in their circumstances financial reality says that increasing production is much cheaper, while possibly providing extra cash that would enable investment for reducing consumption, which in turn would lead to more income.
> I wish you would expand and clarify the point you are trying to make.
The problem with people enthusiastically proposing renewables as the cheap solution to our energy needs is the thousand "little" details like the one above. Whose only mention is in the comments like "your math is wrong, invest in insulation".
No. The math isn't wrong. Bo, the consumption is correct and shouldn't "should be lower". Because it's directly indicative of the reality.
Yes, you have a couple of enthusiasts who can sink another X kiloeuro into rebuilding their house. For the absolute vast majority of users it's not a viable option.
So yes, the answer to "PV energy is almost enough in summer and not nearly enough in winter" isn't a dismissive "you're doing insulation wrong".
Also https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=32201039
The problem with people enthusiastically proposing renewables as the cheap solution to our energy needs is the thousand "little" details like the one above. Whose only mention is in the comments like "your math is wrong, invest in insulation".
No. The math isn't wrong. Bo, the consumption is correct and shouldn't "should be lower". Because it's directly indicative of the reality.
Yes, you have a couple of enthusiasts who can sink another X kiloeuro into rebuilding their house. For the absolute vast majority of users it's not a viable option.
So yes, the answer to "PV energy is almost enough in summer and not nearly enough in winter" isn't a dismissive "you're doing insulation wrong".
Also https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=32201039
Venting is fine but but is there a point you are trying to make? Besides the "some people blah blah" strawman?
I shouldn't put solar panels on my roof because it would not fix someone else's problems? What kind of logic is that?
I shouldn't put solar panels on my roof because it would not fix someone else's problems? What kind of logic is that?
I think they're trying to say that insulation (and probably other factors) is not just one person's problem but an issue of a huge scale, which is true. If solar works for you, then that's great, but for a lot of people (the majority?) it wouldn't work, or at least not without spending a very large amount of money to retrofit your house for it.
I think it's a good point even if stated quite poorly.
I think it's a good point even if stated quite poorly.
Let me put it this way: is me having solar panels making things worse for "the majority"? If so, how?
Because it sounded like the usual trope that if a solution does not fix all problems for all humans everywhere, than it it sucks and the person doing what they can is a naive fool, if not a straight up villain.
Because it sounded like the usual trope that if a solution does not fix all problems for all humans everywhere, than it it sucks and the person doing what they can is a naive fool, if not a straight up villain.
That is a very strange question. Who in this discussion has said that you having solar panels will make it worse for the majority?
What comments in this discussion are saying is that solar panels won't be cost effective, for some or possible the majority of people.
What comments in this discussion are saying is that solar panels won't be cost effective, for some or possible the majority of people.
I was responding to a very specific comment.
As for cost effective - subsidies. Big fat subsidies, especially for the poor countries. There are more important things than cost effective. We're all in this together
As for cost effective - subsidies. Big fat subsidies, especially for the poor countries. There are more important things than cost effective. We're all in this together
Cost is not really a valid reason not to pursue renewable. We need to switch to renewables no matter the cost, so as many people can survive as possible, and limit mass extinctions
> Cost is not really a valid reason not to pursue renewable.
If you have a money printer in the basement or free materials and slave labour, sure. In every other case it quite simply is.
> We need to switch to renewables no matter the cost
All true, but not relevant - we live in the real world where we make practical decisions. One of the aspects of that is not spending more than you have (for example so you can still eat).
If you have a money printer in the basement or free materials and slave labour, sure. In every other case it quite simply is.
> We need to switch to renewables no matter the cost
All true, but not relevant - we live in the real world where we make practical decisions. One of the aspects of that is not spending more than you have (for example so you can still eat).
Well in Germany at least they have legislative requirements for insulation on new builds (and have for years).
So that's an actual solution to the problem!
So that's an actual solution to the problem!
true, except most people don't live in new builds. As explained in other comments here, adding insulation to old buildings is highly non-trivial.
Thanks for the nice summary! I couldn't phrase it better.
How is this a tiny detail. We live in a passivhaus. We hardly ever heat. Improving insulation of old houses is an important aspect here. Reducing energy consumption is as important as generating and storing energy.
The point is that in some situations it can be more cost effective to generate additional energy than implement energy saving measures such as insulation improvements. My house was built in the 1600's it's very difficult to insulate properly.
Real Question: I see posts like this often on HN. Why not tear down these houses and rebuild with energy efficient ones? I know... blah. blah. blah. historical this and that... but do you want to suffer from 40+C summers? This is the price of history! Think about it. Really really! Please start tearing down these horribly inefficient houses that are "historical". We already do it for office buildings!
The issue is that it's ridiculously expensive. You have to pay an inflated price for an existing, perfectly fine home. Then you have to pay to have it demolished. Then you have to pay to build a brand new home. It's going to cost >2x what the resulting home is actually worth.
When the old homes decay to the point that they need to be torn down, then they will be. But destroying perfectly good houses is just too expensive in this market.
When the old homes decay to the point that they need to be torn down, then they will be. But destroying perfectly good houses is just too expensive in this market.
> Reducing energy consumption is as important as generating and storing energy.
Only if the efficiency is 100%. In practice it's lower than that, so reducing consumption is better than increasing production.
Only if the efficiency is 100%. In practice it's lower than that, so reducing consumption is better than increasing production.
Not sure how "better insulation" is something "renewable enthusiasts conveniently forget". We need better insulation either way.
I think what this person meant is the renewable enthusiasts treat insulation as something easily done whereas it will take 100 years to insulate the majority of houses in Europe in my view…
I know you are just illustrating an opinion and not meaning it literally, but I want to stress how ridiculous your number of 100 years is in reality.
The expected economic lifetime of a building in Germany is approximately 100 years. Which means that on average, the house will be torn down and rebuilt after at most 100 years, because additional upkeep would not make economic sense.
This means that if you do not change policy except mandating modern standards for new buildings (which is already done) and do literally jack-shit, the normal economic activity will have the problem sorted out in that timespan.
For reference: Of 22 million buildings in Germany, "only" 12.5 million are built before 1977.
The German government aims at having pretty much all buildings energetically renovated in 2050.
The biggest problem is that 1. there are many house-owners who literally do not give a shit even if they can save lots of money by an investment. Not everyone is economically minded and there is no political will (or legal basis) to force these people for their own good. And 2. for bigger apartment buildings etc. it is hard to do an invasive renovation while the units are occupied, limiting the scope of renovations to something that can be done in-place or one unit at a time or without affecting tenants.
The expected economic lifetime of a building in Germany is approximately 100 years. Which means that on average, the house will be torn down and rebuilt after at most 100 years, because additional upkeep would not make economic sense.
This means that if you do not change policy except mandating modern standards for new buildings (which is already done) and do literally jack-shit, the normal economic activity will have the problem sorted out in that timespan.
For reference: Of 22 million buildings in Germany, "only" 12.5 million are built before 1977.
The German government aims at having pretty much all buildings energetically renovated in 2050.
The biggest problem is that 1. there are many house-owners who literally do not give a shit even if they can save lots of money by an investment. Not everyone is economically minded and there is no political will (or legal basis) to force these people for their own good. And 2. for bigger apartment buildings etc. it is hard to do an invasive renovation while the units are occupied, limiting the scope of renovations to something that can be done in-place or one unit at a time or without affecting tenants.
>The expected economic lifetime of a building in Germany is approximately 100 years
Source?
Counter examples: my house is built 1908. Lots of other houses built around the same time in the area I live in. My parents live in a house from 1749. The entire village where they live is made of houses built 200+ years ago, it's written on the house in general, hence easy to check.
Hence I very much stand by my prediction it will take 100 years to isolate the vast majority of houses in Europe. Of course it's just a prediction based on my observations, I'm not an expert in the area.
Source?
Counter examples: my house is built 1908. Lots of other houses built around the same time in the area I live in. My parents live in a house from 1749. The entire village where they live is made of houses built 200+ years ago, it's written on the house in general, hence easy to check.
Hence I very much stand by my prediction it will take 100 years to isolate the vast majority of houses in Europe. Of course it's just a prediction based on my observations, I'm not an expert in the area.
> Source?
Assuming an economic lifetime of 70 to 100 years for new buildings is industry practice based on standards like DIN 276. You can find those numbers (with some variation) on pretty much every web page dealing with economics of building, for example here: https://www.bauprofessor.de/wirtschaftliche-nutzungsdauer-ge...
You can also approximately extrapolate that number from the source I have given you. (Which is based on a survey by the federal government of Germany) If approximately 50-60% of houses are older than 50 years, then assuming a approximately linear to progressive attrition curve you will get a number around 100 for the average lifetime.
Of course a long tail exists, but 1. I was talking about economic costs, people might just like their houses and renovate even though it is financially not worth it, and 2. after 100 years the historical protection (Denkmalschutz) gets more and more relevant and is a whole different set of regulations.
Assuming an economic lifetime of 70 to 100 years for new buildings is industry practice based on standards like DIN 276. You can find those numbers (with some variation) on pretty much every web page dealing with economics of building, for example here: https://www.bauprofessor.de/wirtschaftliche-nutzungsdauer-ge...
You can also approximately extrapolate that number from the source I have given you. (Which is based on a survey by the federal government of Germany) If approximately 50-60% of houses are older than 50 years, then assuming a approximately linear to progressive attrition curve you will get a number around 100 for the average lifetime.
Of course a long tail exists, but 1. I was talking about economic costs, people might just like their houses and renovate even though it is financially not worth it, and 2. after 100 years the historical protection (Denkmalschutz) gets more and more relevant and is a whole different set of regulations.
I think you misunderstand what "economic lifetime" means here. It is mostly relevant for tax purposes.
In other words: if you build a house for $X and live in it then for tax purposes it is assumed that (on average) after a 100 years you must have been spending $X for maintenance so that you can sell the building for $X. If you have spent more money, then you can't deduct that from tax (exceptions exist).
Or in yet other words: if you don't spend anything for maintenance then after 100 years (on average) the building will be worth nothing, meaning that it will cost the same to rebuild it compared to fix it.
But since most people maintan their buildings, i.e. fix the roof when it starts leaking, fix the doors and windows when they break or are not airtight anymore etc., buildings are much older than 100 years. 100 years is the _minimum_ time before it's even worth to rebuild on average.
In other words: if you build a house for $X and live in it then for tax purposes it is assumed that (on average) after a 100 years you must have been spending $X for maintenance so that you can sell the building for $X. If you have spent more money, then you can't deduct that from tax (exceptions exist).
Or in yet other words: if you don't spend anything for maintenance then after 100 years (on average) the building will be worth nothing, meaning that it will cost the same to rebuild it compared to fix it.
But since most people maintan their buildings, i.e. fix the roof when it starts leaking, fix the doors and windows when they break or are not airtight anymore etc., buildings are much older than 100 years. 100 years is the _minimum_ time before it's even worth to rebuild on average.
These maintenance tasks are exactly what this discussion is about.
You will do major work on roof or facades every 50 years or so. This is exactly the opportunity where you pretty much get insulation for free.
After 100 years the house will have been all but structurally rebuilt once, just for upkeep reasons. You perform energetic renovations together with the upkeep tasks.
And when the house is old enough, the monument protection agency will even force you to do it by that time.
You will do major work on roof or facades every 50 years or so. This is exactly the opportunity where you pretty much get insulation for free.
After 100 years the house will have been all but structurally rebuilt once, just for upkeep reasons. You perform energetic renovations together with the upkeep tasks.
And when the house is old enough, the monument protection agency will even force you to do it by that time.
Let me quote you:
> The expected economic lifetime of a building in Germany is approximately 100 years. Which means that on average, the house will be torn down and rebuilt after at most 100 years, because additional upkeep would not make economic sense.
This is just wrong. An economic lifetime of 100 years does not mean that the (on average) buildings will be torn down and rebuilt after at most 100 years.
And I have already explained why that is. Please read my post again and try to understand it.
> You will do major work on roof or facades every 50 years or so. This is exactly the opportunity where you pretty much get insulation for free.
No. This is also just wrong. Yes, when major work on roof or facades have to be done, this is usually the best opportunity to also improve insulation. But you don't "pretty much get insulation for free". Unless you have a very uncommon definition of "pretty much for free".
Mind that I'm not saying that insulation isn't worth it or anything like that. I'm just pointing out that some parts of what you are writing are wrong. And the sources you cited are not supporting your claims. That's all.
> The expected economic lifetime of a building in Germany is approximately 100 years. Which means that on average, the house will be torn down and rebuilt after at most 100 years, because additional upkeep would not make economic sense.
This is just wrong. An economic lifetime of 100 years does not mean that the (on average) buildings will be torn down and rebuilt after at most 100 years.
And I have already explained why that is. Please read my post again and try to understand it.
> You will do major work on roof or facades every 50 years or so. This is exactly the opportunity where you pretty much get insulation for free.
No. This is also just wrong. Yes, when major work on roof or facades have to be done, this is usually the best opportunity to also improve insulation. But you don't "pretty much get insulation for free". Unless you have a very uncommon definition of "pretty much for free".
Mind that I'm not saying that insulation isn't worth it or anything like that. I'm just pointing out that some parts of what you are writing are wrong. And the sources you cited are not supporting your claims. That's all.
Please don't forget that my claim is in the context of somebody else claiming that insulating all housing in Europe would at least take 100 years.
Now you are literally redefining the terms I use and then quoting them back to me to argue your new semantics, are you serious?
On average, a house is considered to last 100 years in Germany. Call it economic lifetime or whatever else you want. I still stand by that claim, as it is common knowledge. I quoted specific numbers on the housing stock which are consistent with that claim (though no proof of causation, as there are plenty of reasons why we have a lot of new stock, for example in general rising number of buildings.)
And of course the insulation is not "for free", but the additional costs are usually worth it. I also mentioned that many people decide irrationally because they do not want the work associated with planning and ordering the maintenance to be performed.
None of this matters to show that the above mentioned claim how long renovation of the current housing stock will take is completely out of the world.
Note that I am by no means a civil engineer or architect, but following the discussion and researching the topics associated with the Energiewende in the different sectors for over a decade now. I may still well be wrong in this instance. But you won't convince me of that if you try to prove me wrong on semantics and just asserting that I were intellectually unable to understand your arguments. So please also state some relevant facts and sources to support your claims if you want to try further to convince me, otherwise continuing this discussion is probably a waste of time for me as we both will probably not learn anything new. Thanks.
Now you are literally redefining the terms I use and then quoting them back to me to argue your new semantics, are you serious?
On average, a house is considered to last 100 years in Germany. Call it economic lifetime or whatever else you want. I still stand by that claim, as it is common knowledge. I quoted specific numbers on the housing stock which are consistent with that claim (though no proof of causation, as there are plenty of reasons why we have a lot of new stock, for example in general rising number of buildings.)
And of course the insulation is not "for free", but the additional costs are usually worth it. I also mentioned that many people decide irrationally because they do not want the work associated with planning and ordering the maintenance to be performed.
None of this matters to show that the above mentioned claim how long renovation of the current housing stock will take is completely out of the world.
Note that I am by no means a civil engineer or architect, but following the discussion and researching the topics associated with the Energiewende in the different sectors for over a decade now. I may still well be wrong in this instance. But you won't convince me of that if you try to prove me wrong on semantics and just asserting that I were intellectually unable to understand your arguments. So please also state some relevant facts and sources to support your claims if you want to try further to convince me, otherwise continuing this discussion is probably a waste of time for me as we both will probably not learn anything new. Thanks.
> Assuming an economic lifetime of 70 to 100 years for new buildings is industry practice based on standards like DIN 276.
Sure, but that wasn't the standard 100 years ago. There are plenty of existing houses that are 100+ years old that will continue to stand for at least another 100 years.
Sure, but that wasn't the standard 100 years ago. There are plenty of existing houses that are 100+ years old that will continue to stand for at least another 100 years.
Your parents house was built in 1749. Do they pay the equivalent carbon tax to own a house like this? Unless it has been hyper-modernized, but the exterior remains old/ancient, I struggle to understand or support your argument.
More brutally: If you parents want to live in a house from 1749, should 1.5 billion people (probably more!) in South Asia be forced to live in unsustainable conditions (much high average annual temperatures) for the "history" of your parents' house? Absolutely not.
In contrast, if you support massive gov't subsidies and personal taxes to pay for the upgrade of these homes to 21st century energy standards, then... sure, no problem, they can live in a home from 3000 BC!
More brutally: If you parents want to live in a house from 1749, should 1.5 billion people (probably more!) in South Asia be forced to live in unsustainable conditions (much high average annual temperatures) for the "history" of your parents' house? Absolutely not.
In contrast, if you support massive gov't subsidies and personal taxes to pay for the upgrade of these homes to 21st century energy standards, then... sure, no problem, they can live in a home from 3000 BC!
You missed my point. I was saying that 100 years max lifecycle for a house is wrong in my view.
Europe is a big continent, even EU is so diverse.
A lot of people in Eastern Europe live in apartments and houses that can be insulated extremely cheap. There are even EU or government programs that make it affordable.
A lot of people in Eastern Europe live in apartments and houses that can be insulated extremely cheap. There are even EU or government programs that make it affordable.
It's not really "extremely cheap" and probably only refers to covering old buildings with external insulation.
Most of the Soviet-era panel apartment blocks (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Panel_building) have extremely shitty internal insulation, too. So you end up heating your neighbors, the street, the elevator shafts, stairwells etc.
You can't really fix that without extremely costly renovations.
Khrusschchyovkas (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Khrushchyovka) are marginally better due to materials used, but they are 50 years past their demolition date by now, and will be also very expensive to retrofit.
There is also an insane number of new construction in the past 30 years. Perhaps for the in-EU Eastern European countries regulations and standards work. Everywhere else it's "whatever we build, as cheaply as possible"
Most of the Soviet-era panel apartment blocks (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Panel_building) have extremely shitty internal insulation, too. So you end up heating your neighbors, the street, the elevator shafts, stairwells etc.
You can't really fix that without extremely costly renovations.
Khrusschchyovkas (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Khrushchyovka) are marginally better due to materials used, but they are 50 years past their demolition date by now, and will be also very expensive to retrofit.
There is also an insane number of new construction in the past 30 years. Perhaps for the in-EU Eastern European countries regulations and standards work. Everywhere else it's "whatever we build, as cheaply as possible"
I think having some insulation is better than having none. But yeah, if you want to do it properly, it would cost a lot more.
As for heating your neighbours, a lot of cities have city heating and is paid depending on how many people live in the apartment, so you don't care that much about it. Of course, some folks have gas boilers in their apartment (like me) but it won't make sense financially to insulate the inner walls.
I think it's the same for new buildings here too, if not worse. A lot of regulations aren't actually respected and because a lot of builders left for WE, there's a huge problem with finding skilled workers.
As for heating your neighbours, a lot of cities have city heating and is paid depending on how many people live in the apartment, so you don't care that much about it. Of course, some folks have gas boilers in their apartment (like me) but it won't make sense financially to insulate the inner walls.
I think it's the same for new buildings here too, if not worse. A lot of regulations aren't actually respected and because a lot of builders left for WE, there's a huge problem with finding skilled workers.
> Not everyone is economically minded and there is no political will (or legal basis) to force these people for their own good.
Not for their own good, but for the common good sure there is a legal basis. Eigentum verpflichtet.
Same direction as mandating solar panels for roofs.
Not for their own good, but for the common good sure there is a legal basis. Eigentum verpflichtet.
Same direction as mandating solar panels for roofs.
What I mean with legal basis is that the laws do not exist yet.
The constitution would allow these laws, even to the point of expropriation. But as long as the laws do not exist there is no legal basis to act on.
In case of conflict, there are some court rulings already, for example the highest court recently ruled that you may infringe on the neighbors property, if you need to insulate your walls in such a way that the thicker walls would then be on the neighbours property.
The constitution would allow these laws, even to the point of expropriation. But as long as the laws do not exist there is no legal basis to act on.
In case of conflict, there are some court rulings already, for example the highest court recently ruled that you may infringe on the neighbors property, if you need to insulate your walls in such a way that the thicker walls would then be on the neighbours property.
Much of eastern Europe, so not particularly rich or well run countries, went from zero (due to cheap Russian gas in Warsaw pact) to ~everything insulated (because trying to cut dependency on a mortal enemy) in less than two decades.
> it will take 100 years to insulate the majority of houses in Europe
Citation needed. This number is absurd.
Citation needed. This number is absurd.
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 Eadtern block) you probably need to teardown old buildings because you can't just simply insulate them (https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=32202169)
I'd say "100 years" is a conservative estimation
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 Eadtern block) you probably need to teardown old buildings because you can't just simply insulate them (https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=32202169)
I'd say "100 years" is a conservative estimation
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 find on the Internet.
So such estimation is really not grounded in reality.
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 find on the Internet.
So such estimation is really not grounded in reality.
> 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.
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.
No one can reliably predict this, this is my opinion simply. I thought that was clear.
Thank you. I couldn't have phrased it this well
You can usually improve insulation by popping down to the local DIY store and buying some rolls for your loft making a big difference.
Of course you can only do that once. And if you’re a landlord why would you pay your money to insulate when you wont save any money as your tenants are the ones paying the bills.
Of course you can only do that once. And if you’re a landlord why would you pay your money to insulate when you wont save any money as your tenants are the ones paying the bills.
Have you ever heard of mould? Moisture in the walls? Caused by shifting dew points. Your "just pop down to the hardware store" DIY insulation will do a lot of damage.
In some countries, you can't rent out homes that fall below a certain standard for insulation, and the efficiency is rated as part of every property sale, which internalises the cost savings and makes it worthwile.
> With all due respect these are the kinds of "tiny" details that renewable enthusiasts conveniently forget.
I mean generally it is well known that you cannot just put a lot of PV/Wind and things will work. A smart grid is needed, buffers and ideally great insulation although that is arguably important for every form of energy. Also at-home PV setups are meant to earn money/offset the energy bill. Autonomous energy supply is an after-thought that is interesting enough but has obviously not been possible with any other energy source before actually.
I mean generally it is well known that you cannot just put a lot of PV/Wind and things will work. A smart grid is needed, buffers and ideally great insulation although that is arguably important for every form of energy. Also at-home PV setups are meant to earn money/offset the energy bill. Autonomous energy supply is an after-thought that is interesting enough but has obviously not been possible with any other energy source before actually.
Well yes, but generally renewable enthusiasts are also saying "we need to improve our housing stock". That's another of the opportunities to improve people's lives that will come through necessary change.
surely 'improving housing stock' will require a lot of energy expenditures that might not be easy to calculate what the actual benefits are.
Housing energy models are well established - things like PHPP, which though a bit of a dog to use is well validated and cheap. Low and negative carbon techniques are also available - things like mycelium insulation, which notionally outperforms EPS (and even that pays for itself from a carbon perspective very quickly if used properly).
In a worst case scenario (no gas, no grid electricity), he could heat only one room instead of entire house.
In north-west eu maybe, in south-west not so much; I have had solar for 20 years in different houses in the south and it covers more than enough all year round (we are off grid). During the days, summer and winter, you can switch on whatever as it will never run out; during the night it obviously depends on the amount and quality of batteries. I have had 1 moment without power and that was a rare event for that location: snow covering the solar panels.
You're still seeing a large swing in insolation between summer and winter in SW Europe. You can tilt the PV arrays to increase winter production at the expense of summer (and at expense of overall production); did you do that?
Places without enough sun in the winter, and without enough wind, too, sometimes, will just import power. You might be able to draw down on HVDC transmission lines. But there will also be abundant solar farms in the tropics synthesizing ammonia for export. If the weather prediction says not enough wind, and your tanked ammonia would run low, and you can't book enough transmission line power, you just order a shipment, which will be substantially cheaper than NG, from anybody anywhere.
But you will have overbuilt a great deal of cheap solar capacity, because anytime it generates more than you can use, you can synthesize your own ammonia. First you fill your tanks, and then sell the rest.
In winter, the overbuild means you burn less of it. In summer, the excess ammonia will find an unlimited market because ammonia is so useful. It is fuel, it is fertilizer, it is refrigerant, it is feedstock for myriad chemical processes.
But you will have overbuilt a great deal of cheap solar capacity, because anytime it generates more than you can use, you can synthesize your own ammonia. First you fill your tanks, and then sell the rest.
In winter, the overbuild means you burn less of it. In summer, the excess ammonia will find an unlimited market because ammonia is so useful. It is fuel, it is fertilizer, it is refrigerant, it is feedstock for myriad chemical processes.
I had no idea ammonia had such properties, any recommended readings/video?
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 in fact not involve carbon at all, ideally)
Methane production has as an advantage that you can produce it using atmospheric carbon capture (pulling CO_2 from the air), which means it could theoretically contribute to reduction of greenhouse gasses. A downside of atmospheric carbon capture is that earth atmosphere CO_2 is fairly low (0.04%) .
(note: Atmospheric CO_2 capture is also proposed for Mars ISRU (In-Situ resource utilization), which is one reason why SpaceX is using methane engines for its upcoming generation of (mars) rockets. There's some synergies / extra investments to be had in working on CO2 capture technologies)
(note 2: Current modern methane and ammonia production/delivery tend to use fossil hydrocarbons as the hydrogen donor, rather than water electrolysis https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ammonia_production#Modern_ammo... )
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 in fact not involve carbon at all, ideally)
Methane production has as an advantage that you can produce it using atmospheric carbon capture (pulling CO_2 from the air), which means it could theoretically contribute to reduction of greenhouse gasses. A downside of atmospheric carbon capture is that earth atmosphere CO_2 is fairly low (0.04%) .
(note: Atmospheric CO_2 capture is also proposed for Mars ISRU (In-Situ resource utilization), which is one reason why SpaceX is using methane engines for its upcoming generation of (mars) rockets. There's some synergies / extra investments to be had in working on CO2 capture technologies)
(note 2: Current modern methane and ammonia production/delivery tend to use fossil hydrocarbons as the hydrogen donor, rather than water electrolysis https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ammonia_production#Modern_ammo... )
This seems like a gold mine! thanks for the info.
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.
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.
Ammonia is liquid at room temperature under moderate pressure (~10 atm), so that is its usual form for storage and transport.
Ammonia is favored as the refrigerant in industrial cooling systems, but not domestic or automotive for safety reasons.
Ammonia may be burned in ordinary combined-cycle gas turbines and ship engines, requiring only new plumbing, because it corrodes some metals. The ship-building industry is already gearing up for the transition to ammonia fuel. Purely electrical synthesis production capacity will be low through 2026, because factories for synthesizers are still under construction.
Ammonia is favored as the refrigerant in industrial cooling systems, but not domestic or automotive for safety reasons.
Ammonia may be burned in ordinary combined-cycle gas turbines and ship engines, requiring only new plumbing, because it corrodes some metals. The ship-building industry is already gearing up for the transition to ammonia fuel. Purely electrical synthesis production capacity will be low through 2026, because factories for synthesizers are still under construction.
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.
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 electricity supply that we should expect this usage modality in, at most, niche cases."
"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 electricity supply that we should expect this usage modality in, at most, niche cases."
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.
The electricity->fuel step struggles to heat 50%, which is not a deal breaker compared to other sources.
The hard bit is storing hydrogen.
It might be less cost effecient at the moment. But I kinda like the decentralized nature of it.
The whole article is basically about the question if solar power will continue to drop in price and if power-to-gas tech can have a similar drop in price. If those two are true then power-to-gas will become economical viable to the point where people could use it to store power produced in the summer to be burned for baseload/winter. It will also mean that pure hydrogen and pure oxygen, in compressed storage, will be is expected to reach a point where they are too cheap the meter.
Of course we are not there now. 2030 maybe? 2040?
Of course we are not there now. 2030 maybe? 2040?
> The catch is that power-to-gas tech described in the article
isn't real
isn't real
The Sabatier reaction has been known since 1897. The Wiki article also gives some examples of Power-to-gas systems that were built, so I don't know why you claim it's not real. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sabatier_reaction
Ah, yes, a reaction.
Can you show me this actually in use literally anywhere on earth for this job, 125 years later?
Where would I go to buy some atmosphere derived gasoline?
You're confusing that something could theoretically be done with that it's a real thing that can be relied on today at scale to save the planet
If this was a real, practical thing, it would be in use. We fight wars over this stuff.
If the thing you want to use to save the world hasn't been done at scale, you probably can't get it there in the ten years we have left.
In all of history, only one of these has ever been made at the megawatt scale. Audi built one in 2013. They took it down three years later because it didn't actually work. It was supposed to provide fuel for 1300 cars, but it couldn't produce 1/10 of what it was supposed to
Yes, I see that you can find things in search engines
No: this is not a real option for saving us from climate change
Can you show me this actually in use literally anywhere on earth for this job, 125 years later?
Where would I go to buy some atmosphere derived gasoline?
You're confusing that something could theoretically be done with that it's a real thing that can be relied on today at scale to save the planet
If this was a real, practical thing, it would be in use. We fight wars over this stuff.
If the thing you want to use to save the world hasn't been done at scale, you probably can't get it there in the ten years we have left.
In all of history, only one of these has ever been made at the megawatt scale. Audi built one in 2013. They took it down three years later because it didn't actually work. It was supposed to provide fuel for 1300 cars, but it couldn't produce 1/10 of what it was supposed to
Yes, I see that you can find things in search engines
No: this is not a real option for saving us from climate change
What are you going to do with the atmosphere derived gasoline that you couldn't do better, cheaper and cleaner with cheap electricity?
That's why no one is making it at scale.
We're rapidly expanding renewable production at an amazing pace, as the article discusses, but we are very much still in the "stop burning fuels and directly electrify processes instead" stage, because that is currently cheaper even without including long term externalities, so even in lawless or suicidal nations self-interest makes it happen.
But the relatively small markets that fossil fuels will retreat to as electrification takes hold will soon be under threat too, for purely economic reasons adding extra impetus for change to happen.
Most of those will just use hydrogen directly, further reducing the market for gasoline, but again even gasoline will be replaced with renewable derived fuels for whatever obscure uses we still have for it, because it will be cheaper.
That's why no one is making it at scale.
We're rapidly expanding renewable production at an amazing pace, as the article discusses, but we are very much still in the "stop burning fuels and directly electrify processes instead" stage, because that is currently cheaper even without including long term externalities, so even in lawless or suicidal nations self-interest makes it happen.
But the relatively small markets that fossil fuels will retreat to as electrification takes hold will soon be under threat too, for purely economic reasons adding extra impetus for change to happen.
Most of those will just use hydrogen directly, further reducing the market for gasoline, but again even gasoline will be replaced with renewable derived fuels for whatever obscure uses we still have for it, because it will be cheaper.
I just want to make sure that I'm understanding correctly.
You're saying that yes, we can economically make gasoline from the air today, and that the reason we don't is all the renewable production we're ramping up?
That everyone just decided not to sell carbon negative cheap gasoline?
I guess it's silly to ask why you believe that we can do this, based on no plant ever having been built with tens of billions of incentives available, huh? Probably can't get any evidence?
I don't think we're going to be able to see eye to eye on this. Thanks for the conversation
You're saying that yes, we can economically make gasoline from the air today, and that the reason we don't is all the renewable production we're ramping up?
That everyone just decided not to sell carbon negative cheap gasoline?
I guess it's silly to ask why you believe that we can do this, based on no plant ever having been built with tens of billions of incentives available, huh? Probably can't get any evidence?
I don't think we're going to be able to see eye to eye on this. Thanks for the conversation
I thought I was clear.
We can do anything that atmospheric gasoline or normal gasoline could do cheaper without any gasoline at all.
Therefore there is no market for atmospheric gasoline, and the only reason there is a market for normal gasoline, is because the costs are hidden for now.
It is not "economic" to live off credit cards just because you don't bother to open the letters telling you how much you owe and you plan to be dead before they come to collect.
We can do anything that atmospheric gasoline or normal gasoline could do cheaper without any gasoline at all.
Therefore there is no market for atmospheric gasoline, and the only reason there is a market for normal gasoline, is because the costs are hidden for now.
It is not "economic" to live off credit cards just because you don't bother to open the letters telling you how much you owe and you plan to be dead before they come to collect.
> > > The catch is that power-to-gas tech described in the article
> > isn't real
> We can do anything that atmospheric gasoline or normal gasoline could do cheaper without any gasoline at all.
You have now completely exited the original discussion
Please exit argument autopilot
> > isn't real
> We can do anything that atmospheric gasoline or normal gasoline could do cheaper without any gasoline at all.
You have now completely exited the original discussion
Please exit argument autopilot
Your claim was it wasn't real. Which is factually incorrect. If you mean something else you should properly articulate what you mean instead.
I mean what I said, thanks.
What we're discussing is people using search engines to identify mechanics. This is not a thing that has been built.
This is an idea, not a real thing.
You haven't shown any actual examples of this having been built.
We can see that Wikipedia page, sure, but there are lots of Wikipedia pages for things that were never built. Those are not real things. It has to have existed to be real.
It's kind of wild having to explain what the word "real" means.
If these devices are real, can you show me one that actually exists or existed, instead of Wikipedia pages talking about what they would be?
The page referenced does not mention any real ones.
It seems like you're making claims that they are real, to respond to someone asking for examples, and didn't give any examples
I have to admit, it's pretty exhausting how solar fans always end up relying on devices that have never been built to explain why they're the right choice
What we're discussing is people using search engines to identify mechanics. This is not a thing that has been built.
This is an idea, not a real thing.
You haven't shown any actual examples of this having been built.
We can see that Wikipedia page, sure, but there are lots of Wikipedia pages for things that were never built. Those are not real things. It has to have existed to be real.
It's kind of wild having to explain what the word "real" means.
If these devices are real, can you show me one that actually exists or existed, instead of Wikipedia pages talking about what they would be?
The page referenced does not mention any real ones.
It seems like you're making claims that they are real, to respond to someone asking for examples, and didn't give any examples
I have to admit, it's pretty exhausting how solar fans always end up relying on devices that have never been built to explain why they're the right choice
There are many chemical plants synthesizing chemicals in large quantities: ammonia, ethanol, etc.
Until 10 years ago, the cheapest primary fuel was all fossil fuel based, so making synthetic fuels from fossil fuels is simply a loss in efficiency.
Only in the last decade, for the first time, renewables are a cheaper form of primary energy, creating motivation for a fuel producing energy plant R&D.
BTW: instead of raging at people with your own definition of "real" and "not real" it may help to talk in terms of Technology Readiness Level as used by eg NASA. I can see why you say electricity to synthetic fuel "isn't real" but its not "not real" in the same way perpetual motion is not real.
Until 10 years ago, the cheapest primary fuel was all fossil fuel based, so making synthetic fuels from fossil fuels is simply a loss in efficiency.
Only in the last decade, for the first time, renewables are a cheaper form of primary energy, creating motivation for a fuel producing energy plant R&D.
BTW: instead of raging at people with your own definition of "real" and "not real" it may help to talk in terms of Technology Readiness Level as used by eg NASA. I can see why you say electricity to synthetic fuel "isn't real" but its not "not real" in the same way perpetual motion is not real.
> There are many chemical plants synthesizing chemicals in large quantities: ammonia, ethanol, etc.
There sure are. Zero of them, however, produce gasoline or kerosene from air.
Many, many substances cannot be produced in chemical plants currently.
.
> Until 10 years ago, the cheapest primary fuel was all fossil fuel based
It still is, by leagues. The only reason that isn't showing up in the market is a blend of tax and subsidy (which I agree with.)
Notice what they use on the ocean, where there aren't laws.
.
> making synthetic fuels from fossil fuels is simply a loss in efficiency.
This would be true if anyone had ever actually made it work at scale.
We're much earlier in that process than you seem to believe. The processes that people are talking about are things you can demonstrate in a beaker. These are not things that have even been industrialized at small scale, let alone at large scale.
There's decades of work involved in figuring something like that out. You don't just go "here's the money, build one."
It might be a good idea to watch some of those old Nova specials about Percy Lavon Julian, one of the greatest American chemists in history. Not only are the social angles interesting - he was a black man in the 1950s, but also a source of great wealth to an American dynasty, so you had various factions of old white people fighting over whether or not to be racist - but also his story is crucially informative here.
Mr Julian did invent and discover some plastics and other synthetics, yes, but that wasn't his important work.
His important work was taking "yeah this should be possible" and turning into "yes, we can do this cheaply at scale."
The reason he was so valuable is that that is much, much more difficult than the primary research.
I agree, the primary research has been done.
The things that people are bringing up aren't even the best examples; MIT's solar trees from 2002 do rings around this stuff in efficiency and productivity both per pound construction and per acre construction, and can be built relatively easily from already commercialized parts.
The problem is, once we're done being Cory Doctorow and being blown away by what should be possible, someone has to actually sit down and do the hard work of figuring out how to do it at scale, and then raising the money to do so, and then building several generations of factory until they get it right.
And yes, this will get done, sure.
But there's a /time/ /limit/ here.
Climate change is already putting island nations underwater, putting salt into major city aquifers, has been forcing the Army to relocate Louisianans for 30 years and now it's four states. Our water situation is getting to states suing each other and talking about piping seawater into Middle America to keep lakes wet.
I love the process you're describing, and I agree that it will eventually succeed, but I do not believe there is any realistic chance it will succeed in time for this specific challenge.
.
> instead of raging at people
(sigh)
.
> your own definition of "real"
"Has existed" is the common, dictionary definiton of real.
Why aren't vampires real? They haven't existed yet.
Why isn't strong AI real, even though it seems like it should be possible given the simulation argument? It hasn't existed yet.
Why aren't consumer jetpacks real, even though working jetpacks have been on demo for 100 years? Nobody's made them yet.
You know that 30 foot tall robot that some guy in Japan made for a TV show? Why isn't the American response to it real, even though we have all the same technology that one guy in a garage has? Because nobody's made it yet.
Why isn't a man with one son's daughter real, even though he can have children? Because knowing that something is possible doesn't make it real.
It's very strange to me that you think this is somehow "my definition."
.
> its not "not real" in the same way perpetual motion is not real.
I never said anything about perpetual motion.
There sure are. Zero of them, however, produce gasoline or kerosene from air.
Many, many substances cannot be produced in chemical plants currently.
.
> Until 10 years ago, the cheapest primary fuel was all fossil fuel based
It still is, by leagues. The only reason that isn't showing up in the market is a blend of tax and subsidy (which I agree with.)
Notice what they use on the ocean, where there aren't laws.
.
> making synthetic fuels from fossil fuels is simply a loss in efficiency.
This would be true if anyone had ever actually made it work at scale.
We're much earlier in that process than you seem to believe. The processes that people are talking about are things you can demonstrate in a beaker. These are not things that have even been industrialized at small scale, let alone at large scale.
There's decades of work involved in figuring something like that out. You don't just go "here's the money, build one."
It might be a good idea to watch some of those old Nova specials about Percy Lavon Julian, one of the greatest American chemists in history. Not only are the social angles interesting - he was a black man in the 1950s, but also a source of great wealth to an American dynasty, so you had various factions of old white people fighting over whether or not to be racist - but also his story is crucially informative here.
Mr Julian did invent and discover some plastics and other synthetics, yes, but that wasn't his important work.
His important work was taking "yeah this should be possible" and turning into "yes, we can do this cheaply at scale."
The reason he was so valuable is that that is much, much more difficult than the primary research.
I agree, the primary research has been done.
The things that people are bringing up aren't even the best examples; MIT's solar trees from 2002 do rings around this stuff in efficiency and productivity both per pound construction and per acre construction, and can be built relatively easily from already commercialized parts.
The problem is, once we're done being Cory Doctorow and being blown away by what should be possible, someone has to actually sit down and do the hard work of figuring out how to do it at scale, and then raising the money to do so, and then building several generations of factory until they get it right.
And yes, this will get done, sure.
But there's a /time/ /limit/ here.
Climate change is already putting island nations underwater, putting salt into major city aquifers, has been forcing the Army to relocate Louisianans for 30 years and now it's four states. Our water situation is getting to states suing each other and talking about piping seawater into Middle America to keep lakes wet.
I love the process you're describing, and I agree that it will eventually succeed, but I do not believe there is any realistic chance it will succeed in time for this specific challenge.
.
> instead of raging at people
(sigh)
.
> your own definition of "real"
"Has existed" is the common, dictionary definiton of real.
Why aren't vampires real? They haven't existed yet.
Why isn't strong AI real, even though it seems like it should be possible given the simulation argument? It hasn't existed yet.
Why aren't consumer jetpacks real, even though working jetpacks have been on demo for 100 years? Nobody's made them yet.
You know that 30 foot tall robot that some guy in Japan made for a TV show? Why isn't the American response to it real, even though we have all the same technology that one guy in a garage has? Because nobody's made it yet.
Why isn't a man with one son's daughter real, even though he can have children? Because knowing that something is possible doesn't make it real.
It's very strange to me that you think this is somehow "my definition."
.
> its not "not real" in the same way perpetual motion is not real.
I never said anything about perpetual motion.
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
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 point to things that already exist, then what you're talking about isn't going to be ready in time.
I have been pretty clear that I am not going to be convinced by "could be." It's not clear why people insist on continuing to try.
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 point to things that already exist, then what you're talking about isn't going to be ready in time.
I have been pretty clear that I am not going to be convinced by "could be." It's not clear why people insist on continuing to try.
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.
Goodbye.
> I mean what I said, thanks.
You said "isn't real", that's literally all you said. It's good that you have since clarified what you meant, but next time define what you mean from the start.
Either way the plant in Germany is still operational, the one Audi had. It's operated by Kiwi AG and it's located in Werlte.
> I have to to admit, it's pretty exhausting how solar fans always end up relying on devices that have never been built to explain why they're the right choice
Don't make so many assumptions. Pointing out something exists doesn't really give you any info on whether I am a solar fan or not. It also doesn't mean I believe it is the right choice.
You said "isn't real", that's literally all you said. It's good that you have since clarified what you meant, but next time define what you mean from the start.
Either way the plant in Germany is still operational, the one Audi had. It's operated by Kiwi AG and it's located in Werlte.
> I have to to admit, it's pretty exhausting how solar fans always end up relying on devices that have never been built to explain why they're the right choice
Don't make so many assumptions. Pointing out something exists doesn't really give you any info on whether I am a solar fan or not. It also doesn't mean I believe it is the right choice.
> You said "isn't real", that's literally all you said.
Until you can show me one that's been built, that remains correct.
.
> Either way the plant in Germany is still operational, the one Audi had. It's operated by Kiwi AG and it's located in Werlte.
That's a different plant doing different work in a different city, which was built by different people and never owned by Audi. That plant produces hydrogen from water, not gasoline from air. That plant could never do either half of the work (1. from air, 2. to gasoline) that was being discussed in this thread.
The Audi plant I brought up was in Dresden, on the other side of the country, 350 miles / 550 kilometers away.
.
> Don't make so many assumptions.
Uh.
.
> Pointing out something exists doesn't really give you any info on whether I am a solar fan or not.
That wasn't about you. That was about the ancestor posts I was talking to originally.
Until you can show me one that's been built, that remains correct.
.
> Either way the plant in Germany is still operational, the one Audi had. It's operated by Kiwi AG and it's located in Werlte.
That's a different plant doing different work in a different city, which was built by different people and never owned by Audi. That plant produces hydrogen from water, not gasoline from air. That plant could never do either half of the work (1. from air, 2. to gasoline) that was being discussed in this thread.
The Audi plant I brought up was in Dresden, on the other side of the country, 350 miles / 550 kilometers away.
.
> Don't make so many assumptions.
Uh.
.
> Pointing out something exists doesn't really give you any info on whether I am a solar fan or not.
That wasn't about you. That was about the ancestor posts I was talking to originally.
Can you link to the plant you refer to?
This plant is in Wertle and it produces e-gas by splitting water into H2 and O2 and in the next step the H2 reacts with CO2 to give CH4. https://www.audi-mediacenter.com/en/press-releases/new-audi-...
This plant is in Wertle and it produces e-gas by splitting water into H2 and O2 and in the next step the H2 reacts with CO2 to give CH4. https://www.audi-mediacenter.com/en/press-releases/new-audi-...
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.
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.
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.
If you're on a farm, then vertical bi-facial aligned west/east, or even north/south, or some mix, can radically shift the power output as required.
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S266695522...
https://ars.els-cdn.com/content/image/1-s2.0-S26669552220002...
The summer peak drops but the winter rises to compensate. Daily peak is spread out too, which helps match heat pumps that like to run continuously and battery storage can cycle twice per day.
Figures for Germany, but Norwegian researchers suggest it has benefits at their latitude too.
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S266695522...
https://ars.els-cdn.com/content/image/1-s2.0-S26669552220002...
The summer peak drops but the winter rises to compensate. Daily peak is spread out too, which helps match heat pumps that like to run continuously and battery storage can cycle twice per day.
Figures for Germany, but Norwegian researchers suggest it has benefits at their latitude too.
I have a small 5kWp PV at home, with a small lithium storage (8kWh) just to cover my arse in case of outage, since here (French Alps) there is a very big day-night thermal delta it's very good in summer, where at night I just need the VMC in passive mode and A/C only during the day, for the rest it's enough for heating sanitary water almost ONLY from the Sun, winter included, and to run some appliances (dishwasher, washing machine etc) in self-consumption. Doing more is needed for trying to charge an EV from PV during the day, likely the double at minimum, but to heat the house in winter OR:
- I need a very expensive battery (60kWh/~30k€ at least just to avoid big daily deep discharge cycles) who might or might not last 10 years with an expensive geothermal heat-pump 15k€ at least;
- I need a giant insulated, probably underground for mere easiness of design, pool and PV plant (I do not know how to estimate but surely few swimming pools of water and enough PV to heat it) to store enough heat for the night.
Both options are ridiculously expensive especially since they still NOT give autonomy since they can support day-to-day winter IF the Sun shine enough, witch might but also might not happen. Perhaps in a future H₂ from hydrolysis will be on sale to offer a fuel-cell third option, but I imagine it will be even more expensive.
So far it's still FAR, FAR, FAR, cheaper using the grid + an emergency wood based heating. Long story short I might accept investing (I'm actually in the planning stage) a 15kWp or so PV for an EV charging (WFH so without daily car usage) but trying more is just money gifted to some company pocket. Oh BTW that's JUST for private homes. We also have public buildings AND industry...
- I need a very expensive battery (60kWh/~30k€ at least just to avoid big daily deep discharge cycles) who might or might not last 10 years with an expensive geothermal heat-pump 15k€ at least;
- I need a giant insulated, probably underground for mere easiness of design, pool and PV plant (I do not know how to estimate but surely few swimming pools of water and enough PV to heat it) to store enough heat for the night.
Both options are ridiculously expensive especially since they still NOT give autonomy since they can support day-to-day winter IF the Sun shine enough, witch might but also might not happen. Perhaps in a future H₂ from hydrolysis will be on sale to offer a fuel-cell third option, but I imagine it will be even more expensive.
So far it's still FAR, FAR, FAR, cheaper using the grid + an emergency wood based heating. Long story short I might accept investing (I'm actually in the planning stage) a 15kWp or so PV for an EV charging (WFH so without daily car usage) but trying more is just money gifted to some company pocket. Oh BTW that's JUST for private homes. We also have public buildings AND industry...
The question is, if complete energy autonomy is even that desirable. From an economic perspective I think it makes sense to use the grid as a kind of battery. Sell surplus energy to the grid in summer, buy it back in winter (ideally renewable) and let the utilities deal with the headache of balancing supply/demand and storage.
Also, solar panel efficiency is still increasing at a steady pace. A gain of 50% compared to the average efficiency of currently sold panels seems to be achievable in a couple of years. 20% vs. 30% could be all you need to improve your calculation.
Also, solar panel efficiency is still increasing at a steady pace. A gain of 50% compared to the average efficiency of currently sold panels seems to be achievable in a couple of years. 20% vs. 30% could be all you need to improve your calculation.
> 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?
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?
70-80 degree tilt will produce a lot more at latitude 45+ from Nov. 1st to end of February, but at the expense of much less production kWh per month during the rest of the year.
In an off grid totally battery reliant pv system such as for some telecom applications you design the PV for December, worst month of the year for kWh production. If it will "survive" December and provide enough for the load to run 24x7 then it'll be fine for the rest of the year. At high latitudes this cha mean a 75-80 degree tilt facing south.
In an off grid totally battery reliant pv system such as for some telecom applications you design the PV for December, worst month of the year for kWh production. If it will "survive" December and provide enough for the load to run 24x7 then it'll be fine for the rest of the year. At high latitudes this cha mean a 75-80 degree tilt facing south.
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.
I think with 30kWp you should be able to heat enough sand to make it over the winter. It's a matter of space and finding someone to build you that heat storage.
Currently, it is cheaper though to "sell" the electricity in summer and "buy" it back in winter (even if it is at 10x the price I sold it for). Compared to private long term storage solutions. Most long term electricity storage solutions will yield electricity at prices above 80c/kWh here (even lithium ion is currently around 50 to 70c, if you calculate 10,000 hrs average lifetime of house batteries). And you cannot use lithium ion for long term storage, you would need H2, or heat storage solutions.
Current consumer friendly rack battery LFP prices are at around 400 EUR/kWh, here an example of a 5.12 kWh for 2100 EUR:
https://www.europe.sokbattery.com/product-page/sok-battery-1...
These are rated for 6000 cycles to 80% degration, so if we take an average of 90% assuming linear degration we will be able to output 6000 by 0.9 so 5400 kWh for each kWh of battery capacity before the battery reaches 80% of its original capacity.
400 EUR divided by 5400 is 0.074 EUR per kWh out the the battery, an order of magnitude lower than the 0.80 EUR per kWh you quoted.
These have low self discharge but capacity prices (price per kWh stored in the battery) are way too high to do seasonal storage.
Note: if you DIY the battery it's half the price: 150-200 EUR/kWh at the cell level currently.
https://www.europe.sokbattery.com/product-page/sok-battery-1...
These are rated for 6000 cycles to 80% degration, so if we take an average of 90% assuming linear degration we will be able to output 6000 by 0.9 so 5400 kWh for each kWh of battery capacity before the battery reaches 80% of its original capacity.
400 EUR divided by 5400 is 0.074 EUR per kWh out the the battery, an order of magnitude lower than the 0.80 EUR per kWh you quoted.
These have low self discharge but capacity prices (price per kWh stored in the battery) are way too high to do seasonal storage.
Note: if you DIY the battery it's half the price: 150-200 EUR/kWh at the cell level currently.
Your calculations are interesting for day to day peak shaving, but as you noted yourself, these batteries are way to expensive for seasonal storage. Depending on the insulation on your house, one of those would maybe contain enough power for 0.3-1 hour of power-use in the winter.
Sand is heat storage, not electricity storage. Storing heat can be much simpler and much more economical (considering that heat is the majority of your energy consumption).
30KW STC rating of PV panels does not product much cumulative kWh at all in December and January at latitudes 40+. Forget the sand he just doesn't have the watt hours to run electric heaters at all.
> 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.
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.
Just wondering, isn’t it viable to have Solar arrays in the Sahara/equator regions and have the power transmitted to temperate zones? Is the transmission the issue? Is it politics? Super conductors? I’d love to know why we can’t have a follow the sun global grid…
There is a plan afoot to cable electricity from an Australian solar farm to Singapore, so these things may be in the future: https://suncable.energy/
Politics.
Look what's happening to Germany with Russian gas.
Surely utility level wind power can fill parts of that gap?
Utility level solar is much more effective too of course.
Utility level solar is much more effective too of course.
This is Northern Europe, tho. 95% of the world’s population gets much, much better solar…
Other places get much more heat, which is not good for solar.
On the contrary, it's far better suited to providing demand when solar is most available. It's far better than trying to fight the cold using solar. The tiny theoretical efficiency boost from lower temperatures and high sun is virtually irrelevant in comparison (and much more relevant to thermal power plant considerations).
Much of the world gets literally twice the sunlight as most of Germany and that's the annual average. When talking about the winter time, the difference can be more like a factor of 5 or more when taking into account heat needs.
I fail to see why people use northern Europe as the baseline for their solar arguments when it's clearly a cornercase, given a global perspective.
Much of the world gets literally twice the sunlight as most of Germany and that's the annual average. When talking about the winter time, the difference can be more like a factor of 5 or more when taking into account heat needs.
I fail to see why people use northern Europe as the baseline for their solar arguments when it's clearly a cornercase, given a global perspective.
Much of the world lacks what Germany (and Europe in general) has: industry. You can supply industry using solar, because it is needed during the day mostly. Yes, the output in winter is 10x smaller, that's why we need also other power sources (at least until we have a way to store electricity effectively).
What's the purpose of solar farm in Sahara? Lack of a need for electricity (except AC, but not many there can afford it) and transferring power over long distances is not effective.
For home heating there are other energy sources, not as clean (well maybe except wind, which blows during winter also): coal, gas, oil and nuclear.
What's the purpose of solar farm in Sahara? Lack of a need for electricity (except AC, but not many there can afford it) and transferring power over long distances is not effective.
For home heating there are other energy sources, not as clean (well maybe except wind, which blows during winter also): coal, gas, oil and nuclear.
Sounds like the next step should be long-term at-home storage through generation of solid or liquid fuels.
Given the increasing duck-curve [https://elements.visualcapitalist.com/the-solar-power-duck-c...] of solar energy production, this makes sense to me, economics and efficiency concerns aside.
How viable in terms of performance/(cost+trouble) it is to motorize panels to change only horizontal angle, without full tracking?
Wasn't the article exactly about this need for a massive over capacity of installed PV, and that it still is possible to do?
Have you considered https://www.KryonEngine.org ?
What im looking at?
A perpetual motion machine. ("Free Energy" has long been a used as a synonym by those who believe it is imminently possible.)
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 was enough willpower and budget to cover, for instance, a huge chunk of the desert near Edwards AFB in CA with hundreds of megawatts of photovoltaics.
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.
The technology now exists to theoretically cover many hundreds of square km of Libya in photovoltaics and take the electricty to Europe through a sub-sea cable, or series of cables. It's a matter of the political will and budget to do it.
https://powertechresearch.com/the-worlds-longest-submarine-h...
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 was enough willpower and budget to cover, for instance, a huge chunk of the desert near Edwards AFB in CA with hundreds of megawatts of photovoltaics.
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.
The technology now exists to theoretically cover many hundreds of square km of Libya in photovoltaics and take the electricty to Europe through a sub-sea cable, or series of cables. It's a matter of the political will and budget to do it.
https://powertechresearch.com/the-worlds-longest-submarine-h...
The same author has a really good blog article with the math showing that it's cheaper to build solar locally in places with poor insolation than it is to build high voltge DC lines to bring it in from sunnier places.
https://caseyhandmer.wordpress.com/2020/12/27/the-future-of-...
https://caseyhandmer.wordpress.com/2020/12/27/the-future-of-...
The author is making the classic mistake of assuming exponential trends continue indefinitely. Solar installs are becoming dominated by non solar panel costs. Some of those can continue to get cheaper, but land costs for example aren’t dropping.
As to long distance power transmission and solar, it’s less about local vs long distance transmission of power but redundancy of generation. Batteries you discharge nightly vs weekly or monthly have very different cost vs benefits. You can minimize the risks of panels failing to recharge batteries by adding 0.1-4x more panels, or import from somewhere unlikely to have a shortfall when you need power.
A HVDC grid between 8 locations looks rather different than one between 2.
As to long distance power transmission and solar, it’s less about local vs long distance transmission of power but redundancy of generation. Batteries you discharge nightly vs weekly or monthly have very different cost vs benefits. You can minimize the risks of panels failing to recharge batteries by adding 0.1-4x more panels, or import from somewhere unlikely to have a shortfall when you need power.
A HVDC grid between 8 locations looks rather different than one between 2.
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 cropland, where it cuts water and heat stress, often increasing yield. Siting on industrial and warehouse roofing makes roofs last longer.
Agriculturally, bifacial fence-rows running north-south are easiest and cheapest to deploy, and collecting most in morning and afternoon better matches demand curves.
Siting solar panels in deserts will soon be recognized as very stupid. They collect dust and run hot, cutting their output often in half. Siting them in single-use arrays not in desert is almost as bad.
Just now Utah is frantic about the Great Salt Lake drying up and then blanketing the region in toxic dust. Cover it over with solar panels, and it will fill back up.
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 cropland, where it cuts water and heat stress, often increasing yield. Siting on industrial and warehouse roofing makes roofs last longer.
Agriculturally, bifacial fence-rows running north-south are easiest and cheapest to deploy, and collecting most in morning and afternoon better matches demand curves.
Siting solar panels in deserts will soon be recognized as very stupid. They collect dust and run hot, cutting their output often in half. Siting them in single-use arrays not in desert is almost as bad.
Just now Utah is frantic about the Great Salt Lake drying up and then blanketing the region in toxic dust. Cover it over with solar panels, and it will fill back up.
In California I believe that they're given that a try over a stretch of canals. As long as they are robust to windy weather, and don't interfere with water fowl, then sounds like a win-win.
There are so many parking lots, where cars just bake in the sun, that would benefit from solar parking roofing. Cars would have to cool less, and the landowners would have another steady stream of income (its the upfront costs that are the problem as always).
TBH I look forward to a time where you can pull into a supermarket, shaded by solar panel roof, and I can hook up my EV to charge while I'm pulling groceries from the shelves. (Not that I expect the solar to be able to provide all the power needed for EV charging).
There are so many parking lots, where cars just bake in the sun, that would benefit from solar parking roofing. Cars would have to cool less, and the landowners would have another steady stream of income (its the upfront costs that are the problem as always).
TBH I look forward to a time where you can pull into a supermarket, shaded by solar panel roof, and I can hook up my EV to charge while I'm pulling groceries from the shelves. (Not that I expect the solar to be able to provide all the power needed for EV charging).
California has also built on reservoirs; see Healdsburg. But "floatovoltaics" are done much more thus far in southeast Asia.
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.
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.
And here in France, local environmental NGOs are starting to prevent any solar project installed on fields (even with the crops still growing underneath), on the ground "officially", that is ruins the countryside view ; and, "innofficiallt", on the grounds that it's corporations that are installing the panels, ergo it's bad.
https://www.revolution-energetique.com/pourquoi-ces-habitant...
https://www.revolution-energetique.com/pourquoi-ces-habitant...
The French need to process ideas more, but they do get there in the end. Panels will be cheaper when they do.
I would say on the contrary, French people start stuff pretty much at the same rate as everyone else, as long as things are done under the radar. But the moment a topic becomes twitter-fodder, we develop pockets of resistance, and, all clichés aside, "being in a pocket of resistance" is at the earth of French persona. (We still teach kids and conservatives that Asterix and De Gaulle won their wars.)
We had three presidential candidates running on a platform of "windmills are ugly, let's not do that", and at least three on the platform of "nuclear plants are dangerous, let's not do that". I'm kinda worried that "solar panels are ugly, let's not do that" is gaining traction; and I wonder who's going to be the first to oppose dams, but there's a niche.
We had three presidential candidates running on a platform of "windmills are ugly, let's not do that", and at least three on the platform of "nuclear plants are dangerous, let's not do that". I'm kinda worried that "solar panels are ugly, let's not do that" is gaining traction; and I wonder who's going to be the first to oppose dams, but there's a niche.
[deleted]
There is no free lunch here. Worker safety, installation costs, maintenance, etc seriously favor installing solar on cheap land rather than as part of mixed use.
It’s not just about people falling off roofs, the kW people can install per hour goes down. Similarly you rarely stick solar trackers on roofs and can’t on simple floating platforms while the majority of grid installs use at least single axis tracking which provides more power in the morning and evening.
It’s not just about people falling off roofs, the kW people can install per hour goes down. Similarly you rarely stick solar trackers on roofs and can’t on simple floating platforms while the majority of grid installs use at least single axis tracking which provides more power in the morning and evening.
Nobody uses solar trackers anymore. And "falling off" is not a thing anybody does out in a field.
So, you are concern trolling, and badly. That is unwelcome here.
Too, anybody not already handy with putting up fencing is no farmer.
Finally, sunshine really is as free as anything ever, and the buckets are cheap and getting cheaper.
So, you are concern trolling, and badly. That is unwelcome here.
Too, anybody not already handy with putting up fencing is no farmer.
Finally, sunshine really is as free as anything ever, and the buckets are cheap and getting cheaper.
You don’t know what your talking about.
Permian Energy Centre is a just completed 460MW project in Texas that uses 1 axis solar trackers. This continues the trend of ~70% of US grid scale installs use single axis tracking, even though it’s a tiny slice of the home market at scale it’s a clear win.
Yes they are more expensive per kWh, but a better match the demand curve means higher profits.
Permian Energy Centre is a just completed 460MW project in Texas that uses 1 axis solar trackers. This continues the trend of ~70% of US grid scale installs use single axis tracking, even though it’s a tiny slice of the home market at scale it’s a clear win.
Yes they are more expensive per kWh, but a better match the demand curve means higher profits.
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 put those 20 on my roof or ground mounts and make them useful.
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 put those 20 on my roof or ground mounts and make them useful.
I think the situation is even more extreme than you say.
https://www.solarserver.de/photovoltaik-preis-pv-modul-preis... has €0.43 per watt peak (STC watt) only for high-efficiency panels, the kind you buy when you're tight on space (or the cost of your installation is dominated by the cost of labor, as you say). "Mainstream" is €0.33/Wp and "low cost" is €0.22/Wp.
Also, these costs seem to be much higher as a result of the current supply-chain crisis. The low point so far was August 02020, with high-efficiency panels at €0.30/Wp and low-cost panels at €0.16/Wp. Probably at some point shipping will get back to normal and prices will go even lower than that.
https://www.solarserver.de/photovoltaik-preis-pv-modul-preis... has €0.43 per watt peak (STC watt) only for high-efficiency panels, the kind you buy when you're tight on space (or the cost of your installation is dominated by the cost of labor, as you say). "Mainstream" is €0.33/Wp and "low cost" is €0.22/Wp.
Also, these costs seem to be much higher as a result of the current supply-chain crisis. The low point so far was August 02020, with high-efficiency panels at €0.30/Wp and low-cost panels at €0.16/Wp. Probably at some point shipping will get back to normal and prices will go even lower than that.
I was basing that off a fairly pessimistic cost of $0.42 USD/STC watt for a single pallet quantity. Going well beyond single pallet quantities the cost drops quite a lot.
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 maximum raw production per panel, if you can ramp the plants up and down, so aim them south. I've been deploying, both for my solar and for some other residential projects I'm helping with, east-west facing panels, to get production up as early in the morning as possible and run it late. You get less kWh per panel than south facing, but you get a system that, on a good day, is producing from sunup to sundown, even when those set far north of east/west. Out here, peak days are almost 45 degrees north of E/W for sunrise/sunset.
Iron Ridge XR1000 and some locally welded frames work pretty darn well for this sort of thing, if you have the ground area for it.
This project (CO2 to CH4) would benefit from maximum raw production per panel, if you can ramp the plants up and down, so aim them south. I've been deploying, both for my solar and for some other residential projects I'm helping with, east-west facing panels, to get production up as early in the morning as possible and run it late. You get less kWh per panel than south facing, but you get a system that, on a good day, is producing from sunup to sundown, even when those set far north of east/west. Out here, peak days are almost 45 degrees north of E/W for sunrise/sunset.
Iron Ridge XR1000 and some locally welded frames work pretty darn well for this sort of thing, if you have the ground area for it.
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.
Why can't you put the panels on an electric swivel? I assume it's significantly more expensive? Why?
A sun tracking ground mount that goes on a steel pole and can take the wind loading of just six 1.65 x 1.0 meter size 60 cell panels costs considerably more to buy, ship and install than the panels themselves. These days if you need more kWh per month your money is much better spent buying more fixed mount panels.
You can - trackers are absolutely a thing, and historically tended to be used a lot. Back when solar was $10/W. Adding even $5/W for tracker structure and equipment was far cheaper than additional solar panels.
Now, with panels sub-$0.50/W, you can accomplish the same thing (more power) for far less money by just putting more panels on. You get less production per nameplate panel watt, but the total system costs are usually lower. And you can push your DC:AC ratios pretty high if you want - cap your inverter out on sunny days, but still get more power on cloudy days. It just depends on what you're trying to optimize for.
I still see trackers on occasion - they're cool. But the only place they're useful is if you have some stiff limit on nameplate capacity. Out here, you're limited to a 25kW system for residential, and you can't exceed your local transformer capacity in panel area - not inverter output (why, I have no idea, I've gotten a range of BS reasons that mostly center around somehow changing the system, blowing up the transformer, and then the power company being on the hook for a new transformer). So if you want to run a large "residential" site (think a ranch or something like that with a bunch of outbuildings), you can hit the 25kW limit quickly, and then need to go to a tracker to increase kWh generated on your 25kW system.
But outside edge cases like that, just put more panels on. The systems I'm helping people with are mostly A-frames, with east-west facing panels for long solar days, and a fairly high DC/AC ratio. I've got 7kW of panel on 6kW of inverter, though I rarely see the inverter past 4500W, which is by design - I don't like pegging out power electronics for long periods of time, and prefer to run things at 80% of design load or lower for longevity reasons.
Now, with panels sub-$0.50/W, you can accomplish the same thing (more power) for far less money by just putting more panels on. You get less production per nameplate panel watt, but the total system costs are usually lower. And you can push your DC:AC ratios pretty high if you want - cap your inverter out on sunny days, but still get more power on cloudy days. It just depends on what you're trying to optimize for.
I still see trackers on occasion - they're cool. But the only place they're useful is if you have some stiff limit on nameplate capacity. Out here, you're limited to a 25kW system for residential, and you can't exceed your local transformer capacity in panel area - not inverter output (why, I have no idea, I've gotten a range of BS reasons that mostly center around somehow changing the system, blowing up the transformer, and then the power company being on the hook for a new transformer). So if you want to run a large "residential" site (think a ranch or something like that with a bunch of outbuildings), you can hit the 25kW limit quickly, and then need to go to a tracker to increase kWh generated on your 25kW system.
But outside edge cases like that, just put more panels on. The systems I'm helping people with are mostly A-frames, with east-west facing panels for long solar days, and a fairly high DC/AC ratio. I've got 7kW of panel on 6kW of inverter, though I rarely see the inverter past 4500W, which is by design - I don't like pegging out power electronics for long periods of time, and prefer to run things at 80% of design load or lower for longevity reasons.
A world powered by PV will be mostly powered by larger scale ground mounted PV, not by PV on the roofs of homes and businesses.
But roof PV makes the grid more resilient, requires less grid, and the owners more independent. A huge portion of consumer electricity could be served with rooftop. It should scale with hot sunny days for A/C surges. It may be key to not overloading the grid with true mass market BEV adoption.
And the article seems to miss that wind is still beating solar from the LCOE charts I've seen. They keep making the towers taller and taller for better economies of scale.
And the article seems to miss that wind is still beating solar from the LCOE charts I've seen. They keep making the towers taller and taller for better economies of scale.
In Europe, roof PV is actually making the grid worse off when residential areas become over-producers. The capacity is not available to move the peak solar power away from residential areas or between residential areas. The grid is apparently designed for top down generation.
I don't think overproduction will be as big an issue once BEVs and cheaper home storage (sodium ion or other means) hit the mainstream.
Reverse metering is basically a shadow subsidy.
And I'm not arguing that the grid doesn't need to be adapted or needs work, but if we have a lot of home generation, then we don't need to worry as much about increasing overall grid capacity to handle BEV home charging.
Reverse metering is basically a shadow subsidy.
And I'm not arguing that the grid doesn't need to be adapted or needs work, but if we have a lot of home generation, then we don't need to worry as much about increasing overall grid capacity to handle BEV home charging.
Do residential peaks coincide with A/C use (daytime, hot weather)? At these times, do you know what portion of energy use by ducted A/C might be covered by a 5-10kW home system?
Our council is currently promoting group buying discounts for solar and/or battery systems, and the state government had been running solar installation rebates/credits for several years.
Our council is currently promoting group buying discounts for solar and/or battery systems, and the state government had been running solar installation rebates/credits for several years.
I always liked perusing https://sunelec.com because they have interesting per-pallet or per-container pricing
plentiful wattage would be an interesting DIY project.
plentiful wattage would be an interesting DIY project.
[deleted]
> but land costs for example aren’t dropping.
In the US, land is widely available at around $1000/acre. The current cost to cover that with PV is around $100,000/acre (depending on the fill factor).
So, land costs are not a substantial obstacle to reduction in the cost of PV energy.
In the US, land is widely available at around $1000/acre. The current cost to cover that with PV is around $100,000/acre (depending on the fill factor).
So, land costs are not a substantial obstacle to reduction in the cost of PV energy.
Land is just an example, running new HV power lines from ultra cheap land to consumers is another cost that’s not dropping.
If hypothetically ~10% of costs are fixed the maximum theoretical cost reduction is 90%. Which the quoted 10% annual cost reductions in solar hit in 22 years. But more realistically the closer you approach theoretical maximum the more difficult it is to improve at the existing rate.
If hypothetically ~10% of costs are fixed the maximum theoretical cost reduction is 90%. Which the quoted 10% annual cost reductions in solar hit in 22 years. But more realistically the closer you approach theoretical maximum the more difficult it is to improve at the existing rate.
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.
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'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.
Namibia may become the Iceland of solar energy. The desert comes right down to the ocean.
> 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).
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.
That NPP evaporates large amounts of water (obtained from the waste water stream of the area). It would probably be better for Phoenix if it were replaced with non-thermal generation and the water reused for other purposes.
You'd need to move the people too. That can work, but it will take some time to do.
1000 per acre, maybe in the Mojave desert with a parcel size over 1000 acres. Acreage near anything that isn't a ghost town is well into 10-20k per acre. Land has an inherit scarcity. Investment funds and even other countries are buying up US Land quickly. Land is always the problem. Proximity and transition are also a problem.
> Acreage near anything that isn't a ghost town is well into 10-20k per acre. Land has an inherit scarcity.
If you look in Zillow you'll see that's very wrong.
If you look in Zillow you'll see that's very wrong.
He didn't say that the trend would go forever. He said that he didn't see a reason for them to slow down in the near term, we could still be at the beginning of a sigmoid curve.
While it's true that land costs aren't dropping, rural land is still very cheap and due to the nature of solar power it could be almost free.
For example, here in Chile most solar plants are in the middle of the desert. Even if that land had to be paid for, my guess is it's VERY cheap.
While it's true that land costs aren't dropping, rural land is still very cheap and due to the nature of solar power it could be almost free.
For example, here in Chile most solar plants are in the middle of the desert. Even if that land had to be paid for, my guess is it's VERY cheap.
[deleted]
The Atacama Desert has the best solar resource on the planet.
> Some of those can continue to get cheaper, but land costs for example aren’t dropping.
The great thing about solar is that you can put a lot of it directly on rooftops in most places. Obviously not on top of skyscrapers in NYC, but there are plenty of homes and businesses with ample room for panels.
The great thing about solar is that you can put a lot of it directly on rooftops in most places. Obviously not on top of skyscrapers in NYC, but there are plenty of homes and businesses with ample room for panels.
Rooftop solar is now far more expensive than utility scale solar. As a renter who subsidies this through my electricity bills I don’t understand why I should be subsidising more artisanal scale generation for homeowners at 3x the price of utility scale solar.
Transmission costs exceed production costs in many jurisdictions. Rooftop solar can often eliminate the need for very costly distribution upgrades.
Certainly not in California where the transmission cost savings from rooftop solar are less than 1% per kWh vs the 200% increase in costs vs utility scale solar.
https://www.latimes.com/opinion/story/2022-03-28/solar-rooft...
Your article says that production is 7 to 9 cents and that distribution is 10 to 20 cents.
The problem is that rooftop solar is not lowering those distribution costs in any substantial fashion.
The problem is that rooftop solar is not lowering those distribution costs in any substantial fashion.
That underlies my thought on roof top solar. Big picture we can build out twice as much utility scale solar for the same expenditure of resources. If homeowners are going to spend $$ on something replacing gas furnaces with heat pumps would be better.
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?
Unless you mean that powerwalls are banned?
Mostly because it gets it installed.
I’m vaguely attached to a utility scale deal trying to happen. The land owners are interested, the utility is interested, and there isn’t much around the site. Still the details might kill the deal- they can’t agree where the HV lines will run, the utility wants a bit more land than the owners want to lease, access details and liability concerns are coming up, etc…
Utility scale solar is the future but rooftop solar gets installed NOW because each deal is simpler.
Now why my utility isn’t building out solar fields in the massive amounts of land they own around their coal and oil fired plants…
I’m vaguely attached to a utility scale deal trying to happen. The land owners are interested, the utility is interested, and there isn’t much around the site. Still the details might kill the deal- they can’t agree where the HV lines will run, the utility wants a bit more land than the owners want to lease, access details and liability concerns are coming up, etc…
Utility scale solar is the future but rooftop solar gets installed NOW because each deal is simpler.
Now why my utility isn’t building out solar fields in the massive amounts of land they own around their coal and oil fired plants…
Maybe you can help steer the project toward a dual use of a reservoir or pasture.
When you don't have to pay rent on land, you don't need to pack the panels cheek by jowl. Pasture doesn't normally generate much revenue, per acre, and it tends to be all at once, so something producing year-round is a welcome buffer. The livestock keep down weeds and benefit from shelter, so are healthier.
On water, the panels are kept cool and therefore both notably more efficient, but also last much longer. Nobody knows yet how much longer. They cut evaporation and biofouling.
When you don't have to pay rent on land, you don't need to pack the panels cheek by jowl. Pasture doesn't normally generate much revenue, per acre, and it tends to be all at once, so something producing year-round is a welcome buffer. The livestock keep down weeds and benefit from shelter, so are healthier.
On water, the panels are kept cool and therefore both notably more efficient, but also last much longer. Nobody knows yet how much longer. They cut evaporation and biofouling.
Moore's law will eventually stop, too. But people have been predicting the end for 50 years and it still looks like it has at least another 10 to go. It seems quite clear that solar costs will continue to drop exponentially until the end of the decade, which is all the author's assumptions need.
Land in a desert can cost as little as a few hundred dollars per acre, so it's far from being a dominant factor. And in other places solar is often a secondary use of the land.
Land in a desert can cost as little as a few hundred dollars per acre, so it's far from being a dominant factor. And in other places solar is often a secondary use of the land.
The article suggested local production, good luck buying land anywhere close to NYC at 100$/acre.
Mores law also failed several times. More revised his initial 1965 estimate for a doubling every year in 1975. He predicted various doubling rates with the weakest form being transistors on a single chip every 2 years starting in 1980.
So, it’s current form isn’t an exponential increase in density but in terms of transistors on a single chip. If density actually doubled every 2 years then starting from 1971 an Intel 4004 @ 188 t/mm then we should have hit 6 million t/mm in 2001 and 197 t/mm in 2011. Except chips only broke 6 million in 2012 (11 years late) and are nowhere near 197 million t/mm in 2022.
Mores law also failed several times. More revised his initial 1965 estimate for a doubling every year in 1975. He predicted various doubling rates with the weakest form being transistors on a single chip every 2 years starting in 1980.
So, it’s current form isn’t an exponential increase in density but in terms of transistors on a single chip. If density actually doubled every 2 years then starting from 1971 an Intel 4004 @ 188 t/mm then we should have hit 6 million t/mm in 2001 and 197 t/mm in 2011. Except chips only broke 6 million in 2012 (11 years late) and are nowhere near 197 million t/mm in 2022.
You can get land in upstate NY for $1000/acre. There's a lot of cheap rural land even on the east cost.
Arguing that Manhattan is expensive therefore PV doesn't work is like arguing Manhattan is expensive therefore agriculture doesn't work.
Arguing that Manhattan is expensive therefore PV doesn't work is like arguing Manhattan is expensive therefore agriculture doesn't work.
Edit2: Closest found was 9k per acre a little over 250 miles away.
You can find much cheaper than that. For example, at $1128/acre:
https://www.zillow.com/homedetails/0-Ward-Loomis-Rd-Oxford-N...
(~214 miles from Oxford NY to Manhattan by road)
(search in Zillow by county)
https://www.zillow.com/homedetails/0-Ward-Loomis-Rd-Oxford-N...
(~214 miles from Oxford NY to Manhattan by road)
(search in Zillow by county)
250 miles is a totally normal distance for high voltage AC electrical transmission lines.
Running normal high voltage lines 250 miles isn’t free, and that cost should be part of the comparison used.
Also, the cheapest land I found was 4k/acre, still well above pfdietz’s estimate.
Also, the cheapest land I found was 4k/acre, still well above pfdietz’s estimate.
I don't think I've posted any land cost estimates, elsewhere in this thread I mentioned how many warehouse roofs in NJ, Staten island and long island have no solar on them.
[deleted]
You're definitely not going to power all of NYC by rooftop solar, but also look at the size of the warehouse roofs (empty, no solar) in NJ just across the river, and out on long island. And Staten island. Etc.
Empty land is not necessarily a requirement.
Parking lot per-row shade structures that integrate PV panels on top are also a thing now, and there are sure a shitload of parking lots in NJ and out on long island.
Empty land is not necessarily a requirement.
Parking lot per-row shade structures that integrate PV panels on top are also a thing now, and there are sure a shitload of parking lots in NJ and out on long island.
I'm not from the area, but isn't Manhattan well known for its tall buildings? How would those buildings' shade affect solar panels closer to ground level, e.g. warehouse roofs and parking shade structures?
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 advocates continue to advocate for this wealth transfer from the poor to the well off.
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 advocates continue to advocate for this wealth transfer from the poor to the well off.
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.
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.
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.
Moore's law already stopped - since Intel's 10nm process was delayed by 5 years. The exponential grown continues, but a lot slower than predicted by Moore.
Even that "exponential" growth is a not a thing anymore. There are factors which make it less obvious (growing TDPs of modern CPUs and GPUs; going wider, i.e. increasing the number of CPU cores, instead of faster; making chiplets and building cpus out of them instead of big single dies), but these factors only postpone the inevitable (there's only so many levers you can pull and most of them have already been pulled). We're a couple years away from the silicon limit, the 2nm situation already looks grim.
I mean, it is our best/easiest bet for future power generation. I can totally see why more money keeps being pumped into it.
Either more efficient panels, cheaper panels, or simply a greater manufacturing capacity are all fine for securing the energy needs of the planet.
And we won’t have to worry about running out anytime in the next billion years or so.
Either more efficient panels, cheaper panels, or simply a greater manufacturing capacity are all fine for securing the energy needs of the planet.
And we won’t have to worry about running out anytime in the next billion years or so.
Well the author points out with data to back them up that people have incorrectly assumed many times along the way that the exponential trend was about to end, while in fact it's accelerating.
Wow shoutout to insolation being an amazing word
I get the feeling that one could shorten it to "solation" and it would still have the same meaning, etymologically-speaking.
Like inflammable/flammable.
Like inflammable/flammable.
Exsolation might find a use. Big mirrors at L2 to reflect sunlight to solar farms at night? They would need to focus very precisely, from a million miles off.
I would think "exsolation" would either be
a) what the sun does
or b) a potential (though IMO somewhat nutty) geoengineering project to simply reflect a bunch of sunlight back into space before it heats us up.
What you're describing sounds like maybe "resolation"? (Though also sounds like it's increasing the total amount of insolation, and thus would accelerate climate change...it's actually very similar to the soletta mirror designed to do exactly that, described in Lois Bujold's _Komarr_, part of the Vorkosigan space-opera saga.)
a) what the sun does
or b) a potential (though IMO somewhat nutty) geoengineering project to simply reflect a bunch of sunlight back into space before it heats us up.
What you're describing sounds like maybe "resolation"? (Though also sounds like it's increasing the total amount of insolation, and thus would accelerate climate change...it's actually very similar to the soletta mirror designed to do exactly that, described in Lois Bujold's _Komarr_, part of the Vorkosigan space-opera saga.)
Hah, just re-read (or to be precise, re-audiobook-listened) to Komarr last week. I kind of want a side-novel following Auditor Vorthys now... although I imagine he's already something of a time-seasoned Leo Graf.
Wouldn't exsolation just be albedo and/or radiative cooling?
HVDC or interconnects (losses are tolerable with enough renewables generation, considering existing curtailment), battery storage, and renewables generated ammonia for on demand combustion (chemical storage) will meet these needs. "Build, Baby, Build", with my apologies to Sarah Palin.
Edit: with 1200GW of renewables capacity, the US has produced 20% of its energy from renewables this year, more than nuclear. Based on the interconnect queue, extrapolate future generation mix accordingly.
https://www.publicpower.org/periodical/article/renewables-do...
> There was a total of 1,400 gigawatts (GW) of capacity in interconnection queues across the country as of year-end 2021, of which 1,300 GW was solar, wind and energy storge capacity, according to the report, Queued Up: Characteristics of Power Plants Seeking Transmission Interconnection. The installed capacity of the United States is 1,200 GW.
> Although not all the projects are likely to reach fruition, the total still represents a milestone. “The sheer volume of clean energy capacity in the queues is remarkable,” Joseph Rand, a senior scientific engineering associate at LBNL, said in a statement. “It suggests that a huge transition is underway, with solar and storage taking a lead role.”
https://emp.lbl.gov/sites/default/files/queued_up_2021_04-13...
Edit: with 1200GW of renewables capacity, the US has produced 20% of its energy from renewables this year, more than nuclear. Based on the interconnect queue, extrapolate future generation mix accordingly.
https://www.publicpower.org/periodical/article/renewables-do...
> There was a total of 1,400 gigawatts (GW) of capacity in interconnection queues across the country as of year-end 2021, of which 1,300 GW was solar, wind and energy storge capacity, according to the report, Queued Up: Characteristics of Power Plants Seeking Transmission Interconnection. The installed capacity of the United States is 1,200 GW.
> Although not all the projects are likely to reach fruition, the total still represents a milestone. “The sheer volume of clean energy capacity in the queues is remarkable,” Joseph Rand, a senior scientific engineering associate at LBNL, said in a statement. “It suggests that a huge transition is underway, with solar and storage taking a lead role.”
https://emp.lbl.gov/sites/default/files/queued_up_2021_04-13...
If the $ per Wh cost from PV is extremely low it's also possible to use electrical heating elements to store heat in tanks of something that melts and stays hot for long periods of time (for building heating purposes).
Or to use cheap mid day electric power when the sun is up to generate gigantic blocks of ice that can then be used with cooling loops to air condition buildings.
Or to use cheap mid day electric power when the sun is up to generate gigantic blocks of ice that can then be used with cooling loops to air condition buildings.
Absolutely. California alone is curtailing enormous amounts of renewables, hundreds of thousands of MWh/month (depending on the season). That is literally clean energy being thrown away (which, depending on system design, is variably tolerable; you're balancing cost, transmission congestion, and renewables offsetting fossil combustion). More transmission, more batteries, more storage, more load shifting (both temporal and geographic)? All of the above.
https://www.caiso.com/informed/Pages/ManagingOversupply.aspx
https://www.caiso.com/informed/Pages/ManagingOversupply.aspx
California's oversupply problem is caused by, allow me to guess, fixed 24/7 electricity rates. These fixed rates remove all incentive for load shifting.
Make electricity cheap when the sun shines, and expensive at night, and the market will shift demand. There are lots of cheap and easy ways to shift demand, I've outlined several on HN.
Make electricity cheap when the sun shines, and expensive at night, and the market will shift demand. There are lots of cheap and easy ways to shift demand, I've outlined several on HN.
In most of California (served by PG&E) it's really expensive during the day, blisteringly expensive in the evening, and really expensive at night.
> really expensive during the day
Doesn't really seem to fit with having surplus power.
Doesn't really seem to fit with having surplus power.
I blame the CPUC for basically everything regarding the crappiness of being a grid customer in California. PG&E is exactly the result you'd expect to get in our regulatory environment.
Our regulators rubber stamp every tariff plan the company puts forth, and lets them get a larger profit margin on capex vs opex. So of course the optimal strategy is to run all equipment to failure and replace it with maximally expensive everything as frequently as possible.
Torching the state is the business plan.
Our regulators rubber stamp every tariff plan the company puts forth, and lets them get a larger profit margin on capex vs opex. So of course the optimal strategy is to run all equipment to failure and replace it with maximally expensive everything as frequently as possible.
Torching the state is the business plan.
PG&E also has to pay for occasionally burning half the state.
Can confirm. Rates are 64% higher than the US average and 100% higher than a lot of states. I wonder what they do with all this money.
US average kWh is 14.77 cents while PG&E TOU-C starts at 37.460 and goes up to 48.902. So it's worse than you list.
https://www.eia.gov/electricity/monthly/epm_table_grapher.ph...
https://www.pge.com/tariffs/assets/pdf/tariffbook/ELEC_SCHED...
https://www.eia.gov/electricity/monthly/epm_table_grapher.ph...
https://www.pge.com/tariffs/assets/pdf/tariffbook/ELEC_SCHED...
At that price of 37.4 cente per kWh and up I'm quite serious when I say that if I suddenly found myself owning a California house, I'd buy enough solar to meet my load needs, install a shitload of telecom grade 4000 cycle rated lifepo4 batteries (4.9kWh is about $1700 per module), charging setup, inverters etc and go off grid.
Maybe keep the grid link attached to a meter and 100A panel hooked up to nothing if needed for municipal compliance reasons.
Maybe keep the grid link attached to a meter and 100A panel hooked up to nothing if needed for municipal compliance reasons.
That's pretty much what I'm doing, and for that reason.
I don't have a great explanation for why it isn't happening faster, but I predict a substantial exodus from the California grid. Especially so in places with gas bans or among folks who electrify of their own accord.
I don't have a great explanation for why it isn't happening faster, but I predict a substantial exodus from the California grid. Especially so in places with gas bans or among folks who electrify of their own accord.
Oh wow. Of course I can’t login to PG&E and confirm that because “Your Account is currently unavailable due to planned maintenance”. Bunch of thieves.
Edit:
$385.06/1033kW = $0.37/kWh
A couple of servers really screws over the electric bill.
Edit:
$385.06/1033kW = $0.37/kWh
A couple of servers really screws over the electric bill.
I'm more likely to be dubious about the free markets supposedly unique ability to solve problems than not.
But buying electricity at $50/mwhr at noon and reselling it at $200 mwh six hours later.
But buying electricity at $50/mwhr at noon and reselling it at $200 mwh six hours later.
Solar power gets expensive at night.
[deleted]
Yeah that's the source of the arbitrage.
One of my favorite high(ish)-concept energy storage proposals takes the "store heat in tanks of something that melts and stays hot for long periods of time" is the "sun in a box"[0] idea: use excess electricity to heat silicon up to an incandescent 4500 deg F. Later, when you want to extract the store energy, just shine some of that incandescent light into some super efficient multi-junction solar panels!
Sounds pretty wild but apparently scales up very well thanks the to square cube law.
[0] - https://news.mit.edu/2018/liquid-silicon-store-renewable-ene...
Sounds pretty wild but apparently scales up very well thanks the to square cube law.
[0] - https://news.mit.edu/2018/liquid-silicon-store-renewable-ene...
Cool concept! Any efficiency numbers available? I couldn't see any in the linked press release.
You would better pump in heat, and sell the cold.
A sand battery prototype in Finland is recently in the news. Has a lot of appealing features for local energy systems. https://interestingengineering.com/worlds-first-sand-battery
> electrical heating elements
Very inefficient compared to heat pumps or even peltiers for that matter.
> store heat in tanks
Oh I already do something similar at home for sub-ambient cooling but I wouldn’t call it cheap.
> If the $ per Wh cost from PV is extremely low
IMO this is roughly equivalent to saying “assume that you could clone dinosaurs, and that you could fill a park with these dinosaurs, and that you could get a ticket to this ‘Jurassic Park,’ and that you could stroll throughout this park without getting eaten, clawed, or otherwise quantum entangled with a macroscopic dinosaur particle”: https://scholar.harvard.edu/files/mickens/files/thisworldofo...
Very inefficient compared to heat pumps or even peltiers for that matter.
> store heat in tanks
Oh I already do something similar at home for sub-ambient cooling but I wouldn’t call it cheap.
> If the $ per Wh cost from PV is extremely low
IMO this is roughly equivalent to saying “assume that you could clone dinosaurs, and that you could fill a park with these dinosaurs, and that you could get a ticket to this ‘Jurassic Park,’ and that you could stroll throughout this park without getting eaten, clawed, or otherwise quantum entangled with a macroscopic dinosaur particle”: https://scholar.harvard.edu/files/mickens/files/thisworldofo...
>> If the $ per Wh cost from PV is extremely low
> IMO this is roughly equivalent to saying “assume that you could clone dinosaurs, and that you could fill a park with these dinosaurs, and that you could get a ticket to this ‘Jurassic Park,’ and that you could stroll throughout this park without getting eaten, clawed, or otherwise quantum entangled with a macroscopic dinosaur particle”
The premise of the article is that the $/Wh cost from PV will become extremely low, faster than most people think. Do you have a reason to believe this is inaccurate?
> IMO this is roughly equivalent to saying “assume that you could clone dinosaurs, and that you could fill a park with these dinosaurs, and that you could get a ticket to this ‘Jurassic Park,’ and that you could stroll throughout this park without getting eaten, clawed, or otherwise quantum entangled with a macroscopic dinosaur particle”
The premise of the article is that the $/Wh cost from PV will become extremely low, faster than most people think. Do you have a reason to believe this is inaccurate?
A global grid was my favourite solution until recently. The problem is that it needs the combined cables to have cross section in the order of a few (3?) square meters (at 640 kV), and that in turn is in the order of 52 years of global copper production (we make more aluminium than copper but Al is a worse conductor).
Using even higher voltages makes everything much easier, and the cables’ combined cross sections may need to be less (depending on how much lower the maximum demand at night is) or more (depending on future increases in daytime demand).
Downside is that’s still order-of a few trillion dollars, close to the same as the cost of 36 TWh of batteries (i.e. global overnight only), and we’re likely to make those batteries anyway for the electric cars and when their condition deteriorates enough to be taken out of the cars they're still good enough for grid storage.
Using even higher voltages makes everything much easier, and the cables’ combined cross sections may need to be less (depending on how much lower the maximum demand at night is) or more (depending on future increases in daytime demand).
Downside is that’s still order-of a few trillion dollars, close to the same as the cost of 36 TWh of batteries (i.e. global overnight only), and we’re likely to make those batteries anyway for the electric cars and when their condition deteriorates enough to be taken out of the cars they're still good enough for grid storage.
While your house wiring is typically copper, transmission and distribution wiring isn't. That's very-often aluminum. And as you point out, we make a huge amount of the stuff.
20.6 MT copper/year vs 64 MT aluminium/year, even using both that's still equivalent to about 17 years of current global production (which is a big but not impossible change over the timescales desired), but the price is still painful.
Aluminum has higher specific conductivity than copper by mass. So if you think you need 1 MT of copper conductivity, you can do the job with 0.5 MT of aluminum.
Aluminum is also quite abundant. Rate limits will be political rather than production. That's not to say this is a realistic idea or that it's worth doing, just that it isn't unthinkable on a resource basis.
https://www.anixter.com/en_us/resources/literature/wire-wisd...
Aluminum is also quite abundant. Rate limits will be political rather than production. That's not to say this is a realistic idea or that it's worth doing, just that it isn't unthinkable on a resource basis.
https://www.anixter.com/en_us/resources/literature/wire-wisd...
Aluminum production is also tightly coupled to electricity production, so cheaper power could lead to cheaper aluminum in a positive feedback loop.
I don't know of any long distance HV AC or DC transmission lines that use copper. It's all aluminum already.
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
https://youtu.be/SjJYNZirQCU
I doubt copper would be used in that kind of thing. It's worse, but not that much worse.
Energy storage might not be an issue in a decade or so. There's no law of physics saying they can't make batteries without conflict metals. Eventually someone's going to invent a battery made of some cheap hydrocarbon you make by the tanker car, or that compressed Co2 turbine system will turn out to be the real deal, or they'll figure out magnesium air, etc.
Energy storage might not be an issue in a decade or so. There's no law of physics saying they can't make batteries without conflict metals. Eventually someone's going to invent a battery made of some cheap hydrocarbon you make by the tanker car, or that compressed Co2 turbine system will turn out to be the real deal, or they'll figure out magnesium air, etc.
Copper is used in applications where the conductor is volume constrained. Transmission lines are not volume constrained, they are mass constrained. Aluminum is superior there: its electrical conductivity divided by density is higher than copper.
A clear majority of utility storage will not be batteries, just because cheaper methods will be favored.
The cheapest will rely on E = Fx, where F is air pressure, or gravity, or buoyancy. But liquified anhydrous ammonia, despite being more costly to make, will be extremely popular because it is easy to transport and store, and is fantastically useful for many purposes.
The cheapest will rely on E = Fx, where F is air pressure, or gravity, or buoyancy. But liquified anhydrous ammonia, despite being more costly to make, will be extremely popular because it is easy to transport and store, and is fantastically useful for many purposes.
I think that depends on battery tech. If they get magnesium air or metal free organic flow working I would imagine it would probably be chosen over mechanical methods.
Ideally I suspect you don't really want utility storage anyway, you want something so cheap, small, and renewable you can do point of load storage and have a bit of grid independence, and not need as much transmission infrastructure.
Ideally I suspect you don't really want utility storage anyway, you want something so cheap, small, and renewable you can do point of load storage and have a bit of grid independence, and not need as much transmission infrastructure.
Point of use storage costs a lot more.
Superconducting power transmission was first implemented back in 2014 [1]. Some progress has been made since then [2].
I bet we'll eventually see more of that, with superconducting materials steadily becoming more pliable and affordable, and liquid nitrogen being pretty cheap. Maybe we'll see hundreds of miles of such lines. It looks to me more realistic than land in Western Europe becoming cheap enough to install a gigawatt of solar panels here and there.
[1]: https://www.extremetech.com/extreme/182278-the-worlds-first-...
[2]: https://energycentral.com/news/shanghai-opens-world-leading-...
I bet we'll eventually see more of that, with superconducting materials steadily becoming more pliable and affordable, and liquid nitrogen being pretty cheap. Maybe we'll see hundreds of miles of such lines. It looks to me more realistic than land in Western Europe becoming cheap enough to install a gigawatt of solar panels here and there.
[1]: https://www.extremetech.com/extreme/182278-the-worlds-first-...
[2]: https://energycentral.com/news/shanghai-opens-world-leading-...
I like superconductors, and I certainly hope they'll become viable, but "hundreds of miles" is a factor of at least 120 short of what's needed, and land for a GW of PV isn't that expensive even in western Europe, especially as PV can be present in pastureland at the same time as the animals.
Money != Wealth
You can go ahead and force every billionaire to sell off everything they own and hand it to the government and all you end up with is a one time boost to government tax receipts.
That's it. One time boost. Next year those billionaires will be gone. There won't be new ones.
And it won't create any more food. It won't solve shortages. It won't create more solar panels. It won't create 1 mile of copper lines.
Because when the government goes and says "I need 40 million acres of solar panels"... Who is going to do that? Where is that going to come from?
You can go ahead and force every billionaire to sell off everything they own and hand it to the government and all you end up with is a one time boost to government tax receipts.
That's it. One time boost. Next year those billionaires will be gone. There won't be new ones.
And it won't create any more food. It won't solve shortages. It won't create more solar panels. It won't create 1 mile of copper lines.
Because when the government goes and says "I need 40 million acres of solar panels"... Who is going to do that? Where is that going to come from?
>Because when the government goes and says "I need 40 million acres of solar panels"... Who is going to do that? Where is that going to come from?
1) the empty arid land where we would put 40 million acres of solar panels is for the most part already owned by a state or national level government. go look at a map of how much of nevada is controlled by the BLM for instance.
2) governments already pay for electrical generation through nuclear power plants, building hydroelectric dams, etc. the question would be to apply that same money to building giant ground mount PV instead.
1) the empty arid land where we would put 40 million acres of solar panels is for the most part already owned by a state or national level government. go look at a map of how much of nevada is controlled by the BLM for instance.
2) governments already pay for electrical generation through nuclear power plants, building hydroelectric dams, etc. the question would be to apply that same money to building giant ground mount PV instead.
Arid land will soon be recognized as the worst place to put solar farms.
Those billionaires will no longer be buying politicians in the following years either. Perhaps it’s worth doing just for that effect alone.
How is this related to the parent comment? I don't get what you are talking about here.
The communists have repeatedly done the equivalent, which is nationalizing industries. It never, ever produced better results.
France is buying out the remainder of EDF (France’s commercial nuclear fleet operator) for €10 billion, so we’re going to get another chance to observe the experiment.
https://www.theguardian.com/business/2022/jul/19/france-to-p...
https://www.theguardian.com/business/2022/jul/19/france-to-p...
It's not going to be any different. They're buying EDF because the current situation of their nuclear capacity is a shitshow.
Government owned, government built, government run regional monopoly electricity generators in North America are already the absolute cheapest dollars per kilowatt hour in the continent.
It's not communism.
I am referring to hydro quebec, and to the hydroelectric dams in central Washington State.
Would you claim that if we had let the free market build those hydroelectric dams using private capital instead, that we would have better results right now?
It's not communism.
I am referring to hydro quebec, and to the hydroelectric dams in central Washington State.
Would you claim that if we had let the free market build those hydroelectric dams using private capital instead, that we would have better results right now?
> that we would have better results right now?
Think of the shareholders!
All that lost value could have gone to line their pockets, but instead it’s being used for the good of society (to be fair, probably to those same shareholders through different companies at exorbitant rates).
Think of the shareholders!
All that lost value could have gone to line their pockets, but instead it’s being used for the good of society (to be fair, probably to those same shareholders through different companies at exorbitant rates).
> All that lost value could have gone to line their pockets, but instead it’s being used for the good of society
That is indeed the pitch the communists make. How is that working out for them?
That is indeed the pitch the communists make. How is that working out for them?
Show me any large scale infrastructure project that has been realized by private enterprises without massive government subsidies. How is your privately funded highway or rail system working out for you?
> How is your privately funded highway or rail system working out for you?
Well, we get lovely toll gates about every 10 miles. Happily they’ve been automated so you can more or less just cruise on, but the constant “that’ll be $3, that’ll be $4, that’ll be $3.50” while you are driving can get on your nerves.
Well, we get lovely toll gates about every 10 miles. Happily they’ve been automated so you can more or less just cruise on, but the constant “that’ll be $3, that’ll be $4, that’ll be $3.50” while you are driving can get on your nerves.
The notion that government supplied infrastructure, which enables private industry to flourish, is somehow communist, would probably make even Ayn Rand pause for a second. From roads to electricity to clean water, government infrastructure has been part of the American success story since the 18th century.
It's only the radical "right wing" (scare quotes because they bear no resemblance to "right wing" thought from before the 90s) that have challenged the government role in giving American industry the tools they need for success.
To call government funded infrastructure "communist" is the clearest illustration of the Overton Window I think I've ever seen.
It's only the radical "right wing" (scare quotes because they bear no resemblance to "right wing" thought from before the 90s) that have challenged the government role in giving American industry the tools they need for success.
To call government funded infrastructure "communist" is the clearest illustration of the Overton Window I think I've ever seen.
You mean like china who has 10,000 high speed rails running every day producing the cheapest PV cells and lifted their population out of poverty? Let's just let Elon Musk get richer at the 3 trillion dollar mark he might let us have ONE tunnel.
It isn't, not when there is a better _commercial_ system in the world. If the "invisible hand" was real, great. As it has been a constantly manipulated and managed construct within the world of global finance from the moment Adam Smith shared it with anyone, it completely ceased to have any meaning going forward other than license to savage.
Economics isn't science or maths when you get past the micro level. It is psychology.
If there is a Capitalist society that also has a deep respect for mental health, I say it only exists in Science Fiction from the 50s and 60s.
The goals of communism are pure and true, but insanely unrealistic considering we're talking about humans who still instinctually believe in a reality where scarcity is anything other than a human construct.
On the other hand, naturally, barely restrained capitalism is just going to be a giant cancer where the rich feast off the poor until it all goes down in flames.
What's needed is a shared sense of morality, community and survival across our species.
History says we're fucked.
Economics isn't science or maths when you get past the micro level. It is psychology.
If there is a Capitalist society that also has a deep respect for mental health, I say it only exists in Science Fiction from the 50s and 60s.
The goals of communism are pure and true, but insanely unrealistic considering we're talking about humans who still instinctually believe in a reality where scarcity is anything other than a human construct.
On the other hand, naturally, barely restrained capitalism is just going to be a giant cancer where the rich feast off the poor until it all goes down in flames.
What's needed is a shared sense of morality, community and survival across our species.
History says we're fucked.
It's working out great for the communist governments of Quebec and Washington State. The communists in Norway also seem to be doing ok.
The communists in Norway, like Russia, benefit enormously from pumping oil out of the ground, which goes to the government. In Norway's case, it's 20% of the GDP. Probably much more today with all the oil price increases.
Can you comment on the communists of Quebec? As a Canadian, this is what I find lacking in debate on American sites like Reddit or HN.
Canada is very similar to the United States, another way of saying that is that Canada does things slightly different yet the results seem to be profoundly different than the States.
Why is that, and what are we as Canadians doing that Americans and others around the world should attempt to copy and improve upon?
Canada is very similar to the United States, another way of saying that is that Canada does things slightly different yet the results seem to be profoundly different than the States.
Why is that, and what are we as Canadians doing that Americans and others around the world should attempt to copy and improve upon?
I know next to nothing about Quebec, and so cannot contribute anything there.
Most dams are privately owned.
https://www.fema.gov/sites/default/files/2020-08/fema_living...
https://www.fema.gov/sites/default/files/2020-08/fema_living...
"never ever" is both a strong claim and ridiculous.
I'll take the Australian Snowy River Hydro scheme over the mess in Texas any day.
I'll take the Australian Snowy River Hydro scheme over the mess in Texas any day.
How about the California power system?
I find the one in Texas much more impressive.
https://arstechnica.com/science/2021/09/preliminary-report-l...
While Texans froze and natural gas-fired power plants tripped offline during a February cold snap, natural gas traders and pipeline companies made up to $11 billion in just nine days.
https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2021/07/11-billion-in-9-...
“I will say we understand that it would be unacceptable to just have customers bear the cost on their monthly bill and as if anybody could pay for that,” Gold-Williams said. “So we are working diligently - the financial services team is working diligently, trying to figure out ways to truly spread that cost, potentially maybe, you know 15 - I mean, 10 years or longer to try to make it affordable. We don’t have that fully assessed.”
https://www.ksat.com/news/local/2021/02/19/skyrocketing-pric...
https://arstechnica.com/science/2021/09/preliminary-report-l...
While Texans froze and natural gas-fired power plants tripped offline during a February cold snap, natural gas traders and pipeline companies made up to $11 billion in just nine days.
https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2021/07/11-billion-in-9-...
“I will say we understand that it would be unacceptable to just have customers bear the cost on their monthly bill and as if anybody could pay for that,” Gold-Williams said. “So we are working diligently - the financial services team is working diligently, trying to figure out ways to truly spread that cost, potentially maybe, you know 15 - I mean, 10 years or longer to try to make it affordable. We don’t have that fully assessed.”
https://www.ksat.com/news/local/2021/02/19/skyrocketing-pric...
I'm Australian and as a nation we're considerably more "communist" than can be found in the US .. with many major public funded infrastructure projects historically established, a global AAA credit rating, a minimum living wage since 1900, national health, functioning democracy, etc.
There are numerous counter examples to your overly broad "never ever" claims here.
There are numerous counter examples to your overly broad "never ever" claims here.
I read recently that Mexico was nationalizing part of its electric grid and user prices were expected to rise as a result.
I would claim that, yes, private capital would generate power more cheaply with those dams, but that isn't the only reason those dams are there. They serve several alternative functions (ie preventing flooding, keeping lakes full) that a free marketeer would not do.
However, dams are cheap enough for power generation that even with government inefficiency involved in their construction and operation, the power is so cheap that it doesn't matter.
However, dams are cheap enough for power generation that even with government inefficiency involved in their construction and operation, the power is so cheap that it doesn't matter.
I thought that question got empathically answered when Ontario hydro was privatized and split and went to hell together with our electricity prices.
Same with Ontario vs Manitoba or Quebec car insurance etc. Some things just suck when they're privatized - they focus on short term gain and end up with lousy infra and long term preparedness. I think HN has a pretty solid consensus on private telecom monopolies vs municipal fiber as well.
Back to topic, I thought most of usa private power monopolies are basically in dire straits from infra upkeep and maintenance and grid - there's a lot of bright knowledgeable folks on HN so I would genuinely appreciate comment if I'm way off base in my ignorant ways.
Same with Ontario vs Manitoba or Quebec car insurance etc. Some things just suck when they're privatized - they focus on short term gain and end up with lousy infra and long term preparedness. I think HN has a pretty solid consensus on private telecom monopolies vs municipal fiber as well.
Back to topic, I thought most of usa private power monopolies are basically in dire straits from infra upkeep and maintenance and grid - there's a lot of bright knowledgeable folks on HN so I would genuinely appreciate comment if I'm way off base in my ignorant ways.
As a limiting case, a private system can't do it cheaper than a public one. A private system needs to skim profits off the top, which will always limit how cheap it can go
"Your margin is my opportunity." ~Jeff Bezos
Private is cheaper if there is competition. Monopolies are always more costly, public or private.
Private is cheaper if there is competition. Monopolies are always more costly, public or private.
Private is not always cheaper — the NHS comes to mind as a counter-example, and is cheaper in part because the British government gets to act as a monopsony.
While competition can indeed help illuminate new solutions, competition can also come in the form of different political parties and international comparisons.
While competition can indeed help illuminate new solutions, competition can also come in the form of different political parties and international comparisons.
"You cheap, underpaid labor is my wealth. Thanks for the trip to space, nerds." - Jeff Bezos
Aramco has done great though
We don’t need to shift all necessary electricity from one end of the earth to the other right? Just the shortfall that a large number of batteries cannot deal with overnight.
I'm curious if anyone knows the cost/benefit analysis of HVDC over aluminum cables versus using high-temperature superconductors like ReBCO tape. Maybe supply of yttrium is a bottleneck preventing large-scale use of ReBCO?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rare-earth_barium_copper_oxide
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rare-earth_barium_copper_oxide
High voltage solves a lot of materials problems for wires. I assume that almost everything about superconductors is expensive to do, not just the raw materials, which makes it too costly (in both energy and money) to use them as wires.
I assume there's a really high fixed cost involved in creating a cable installation that's insulated and continuously chilled to liquid nitrogen temperatures, but maybe there's a break even point if the amount of current you're moving is large enough? I mean, if you're comparing with an aluminum or copper cable with a cross section measured in meters, that isn't cheap either.
There might not be a break-even point. Maybe ReBCO tape is just more expensive per amp it can transport than ordinary conductive metals like aluminum. Maybe HVDC lines can be boosted to arbitrarily high voltages such that you never need huge cables in the first place.
There might not be a break-even point. Maybe ReBCO tape is just more expensive per amp it can transport than ordinary conductive metals like aluminum. Maybe HVDC lines can be boosted to arbitrarily high voltages such that you never need huge cables in the first place.
The issue as well is catastrophic failures.
Superconductors get VERY exciting VERY quickly if they ever quench, and that is a property of the current and superconductor. You can't carry infinite current.
They may be more efficient, but they come with a whole host of challenges that make them difficult to use over long distances or in uncontrolled environments, which is pretty much what you'll have to deal with for long distance utility level power transfer.
Superconductors get VERY exciting VERY quickly if they ever quench, and that is a property of the current and superconductor. You can't carry infinite current.
They may be more efficient, but they come with a whole host of challenges that make them difficult to use over long distances or in uncontrolled environments, which is pretty much what you'll have to deal with for long distance utility level power transfer.
A lovely idea, but it will not happen anytime soon because states consider energy independence to be of existential geopolitical importance.
Did you take into account that transmission cables are usually hollow? Due to the skin effect, most current runs through the edge of a cable, so by hollowing out the cable you can remove a part that doesn't carry much current.
The good news is that humanity has saved up a few trillion for emergencies. The bad news is that it's been saved up and hidden in tax havens. Pity
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 crisis with some smooth brained class warfare.
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 crisis with some smooth brained class warfare.
> 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.
The difference being that most of that money ended up in rich people’s pockets, and are now causing a global economic crisis.
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 magic isn't real.
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.
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.
Rich people don't keep their money under the mattress. It's invested in assets that make it available to the economy.
If you used the money to build renewable infrastructure, most of the money would still end up in rich people's pockets, because typically it's rich people who own the means of producing infrastructure.
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.
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.
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.
What a one sided take - there's no reason that both can't be real problems.
People that charge class warfare just don't want anything to change. Wealth accumulated by the rich mostly by burning dinosaurs is just as fictitious as any QE from the Fed.
It's only fictitious if Jeff Bezos is comparing his wealth to your wealth.
Try to tax it away and use it for something that would benefit everyone and suddenly it becomes a lot less abstract to him.
Try to tax it away and use it for something that would benefit everyone and suddenly it becomes a lot less abstract to him.
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.
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.
So you think that Microsoft stock price wouldn't go down significantly if Bill Gates put 45% of the company up for sale?
IIRC put 44% of the company up for sale over a period of many years and the price of microsoft stock did indeed go up during that time.
So yes, I think what would happen is what did happen.
So yes, I think what would happen is what did happen.
The hypothetical was about selling them all at once, or a very short period of time.
A) The OP did not mention this.
B) even if he did it would be kind of like saying that your 500k house isnt really worth 500k because if you walked out on to the street and and asked passers by for offers for a maximum of one hour you would almost certainly not get 500k.
B) even if he did it would be kind of like saying that your 500k house isnt really worth 500k because if you walked out on to the street and and asked passers by for offers for a maximum of one hour you would almost certainly not get 500k.
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.
In 2020, as I understand it, Bill gates sold less than 1% of MSFT on the open market there: his holding went from a bit over 2% to a bit over 1%. He had been steadily selling over the last two decades.
Contrast that with Jeff Bezos, who owns 10% of Amazon, or Elon Musk who owns over 20% of Tesla. Half of Gates's holding is nothing in comparison to half of Bezos's.
When you sell large share blocks like Gates did, you do it very slowly to avoid market impact. Elon Musk couldn't sell slowly enough to avoid an impact when he sold shares to buy Twitter.
Contrast that with Jeff Bezos, who owns 10% of Amazon, or Elon Musk who owns over 20% of Tesla. Half of Gates's holding is nothing in comparison to half of Bezos's.
When you sell large share blocks like Gates did, you do it very slowly to avoid market impact. Elon Musk couldn't sell slowly enough to avoid an impact when he sold shares to buy Twitter.
Overall he sold about 44% of the company. He had about 45%.
The guy above was telling me this would drive the price down. You know what actually happened though. The share price went up.
The "billionaire shares are imaginary meme" is just a rhetorical trick designed to confuse the economically illiterate.
The only interesting thing about this meme is figuring out where it came from and how it was so efficiently pumped into the public consciousness.
The guy above was telling me this would drive the price down. You know what actually happened though. The share price went up.
The "billionaire shares are imaginary meme" is just a rhetorical trick designed to confuse the economically illiterate.
The only interesting thing about this meme is figuring out where it came from and how it was so efficiently pumped into the public consciousness.
Oh yeah, he sold it very, very slowly, over 20 years. The hypothetical I was responding to is suggesting that these billionaires' fortunes be liquidated within a year.
Even so, you don't know how much higher the price of MSFT would be if not for Gates's selling. Other factors just drove the price up faster than he drove it down.
Even so, you don't know how much higher the price of MSFT would be if not for Gates's selling. Other factors just drove the price up faster than he drove it down.
Yeah, fair point.
Either way the meme of bezos's wealth being a fiction is comprehensively disproved.
Either way the meme of bezos's wealth being a fiction is comprehensively disproved.
the problem is the allocation of the resources in the real economy. the copper production goes somewhere currently. if half of that suddenly would go to making these super long distance cables that would cause brutal inflation for a lot of things that depend on copper. (sure, eventually it would increase supply too.)
A lot of copper goes to nonelectrical uses that could probably go away.
Whenever I see something mechanical made of bronze or something it always looks like a real waste. New finishes and coatings look pretty good and composites are strong and corrosion resistant, and steel is cheaper.
Not everything can be replaced but some can.
Whenever I see something mechanical made of bronze or something it always looks like a real waste. New finishes and coatings look pretty good and composites are strong and corrosion resistant, and steel is cheaper.
Not everything can be replaced but some can.
You should try a copper pan. They are great! Copper is also a very effective conductor of heat.
High taxes always drive capital away into unproductive tax havens.
Reagan's achievement was to eliminate tax shelters in exchange for lower tax rates. This pulled the investment out of those unproductive shelters into productive activities, leading to the prosperity of the 80s.
Reagan's achievement was to eliminate tax shelters in exchange for lower tax rates. This pulled the investment out of those unproductive shelters into productive activities, leading to the prosperity of the 80s.
Reagan created and governed on unprecedented peacetime deficits caused by his military spending and tax changes. If his policy had any meaningful influence over the economy of the 80s it's likely the massive deficit spending.
That said, the link between presidential policy & short term economic changes is universally overstated. The government can cut down basic research funding and the effects won't be felt for a half century.
That said, the link between presidential policy & short term economic changes is universally overstated. The government can cut down basic research funding and the effects won't be felt for a half century.
My point was his policies caused a shift in investment capital away from unproductive tax shelters and into productive investments. Eliminating the tax shelters was part of the deal he made with Democrats to get the budget passed.
That can't help but produce positive economic changes.
That can't help but produce positive economic changes.
The investment shift being into military contracting though?
Prosperity of the 80s? You mean the era that signalled the end of the post-war golden age of capitalism and brought about hyper-financialisation (which led us to the 2008 catastrophe from which we still haven't recovered) and the decline of tax progressiveness and public services (which supercharged wealth inequality back to gilded age levels)?
Many of our current problems can be traced back to changes which occurred in the 70s and 80s.
Yes, prosperity on GDP numbers, blessed be Its name. Unfortunately not everything is reduced to making line go up.
Many of our current problems can be traced back to changes which occurred in the 70s and 80s.
Yes, prosperity on GDP numbers, blessed be Its name. Unfortunately not everything is reduced to making line go up.
Decline of public services? Government social spending has increased enormously since the 80s.
I'm amused you're blaming 2008 on Reagan.
I'm amused you're blaming 2008 on Reagan.
When you deregulate stuff, the catastrophic results usually don't come immediately. If they were to come immediately, it would be blatantly obvious to everyone that it's a bad idea, and hence deregulation wouldn't happen. So, in practice, most of deregulation happens in areas where it's good for short-term and bad/catastrophic for long-term.
> High taxes always drive capital away into unproductive tax havens.
Citation needed. Show me data that demonstrates that use of tax havens is correlated to tax rates. The data over the last 30-40 years at least at first glance seems to disagree. Tax rates (in particular top income bracket, capital gains and corporate taxes) have continously reduced, while the amount of money in tax havens has increased.
Citation needed. Show me data that demonstrates that use of tax havens is correlated to tax rates. The data over the last 30-40 years at least at first glance seems to disagree. Tax rates (in particular top income bracket, capital gains and corporate taxes) have continously reduced, while the amount of money in tax havens has increased.
The revenue corollary of PAYGO.
I support tax cuts being tightly coupled with much reduced tax avoidance. Retroactively.
I support tax cuts being tightly coupled with much reduced tax avoidance. Retroactively.
Money is a river, not a lake.
Just to add to this conversation a bit, did you know Singapore is running power wires to gather solar from Australia?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Australia-Asia_Power_Link
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Australia-Asia_Power_Link
Remarkably, this was being planned even while Australia had an anti renewable energy government, which was more interested in promoting the coal industry. Yet as the maps make clear, Australia with its climate, location, and low population density, is potentially a solar energy superpower.
Australia and its policy on coal mines and such seems like a bizarre version of USA Republicans. It's like English-colonialism Texas.
Yes, although with our recent election result, it looks like the tide may finally have turned. The pro coal government really sucked. They went from "we support renewables in theory but the economic case isn't there" to "we will do anything possible to continue to burn coal, including buying uneconomic coal power stations whose owners don't want to run them anymore'.
I never understood the laziness of the coal lobby, why would they not want to own the next new energy source en mass. They could have blanketed the hunter and all of FNQLD with arrays and just printed money.
Such a classic stuffy old white man style way of trying to bend the world to their way of thinking. Though it did work for a while, I must admit.
You should visit, it's weirdly close to that, with pretty brutal anti-drug laws and horrible Internet to boot... but super high minimum wages? Not to mention how they treated their people native to the land... somehow rivals what the English/Americans did to the Native Americans, if you can believe it.
It's bizarro land. It's pleasant enough, but it's not hard to see how Americans and Australians are related.
It's bizarro land. It's pleasant enough, but it's not hard to see how Americans and Australians are related.
"""
The AAPowerLink is being developed by the Singaporean firm Sun Cable and is projected to begin construction in mid-2023
"""
Being developed
The AAPowerLink is being developed by the Singaporean firm Sun Cable and is projected to begin construction in mid-2023
"""
Being developed
I think it has a good chance of happening with Mike-cannon Brookes and Andrew Forrest pushing it along. I hope it's better protected than the internet subsea cables, those things get cut about once per year.
Cut internet cables is just a matter of statistics, there are simply a lot of these cables so a even individually rare events happen relatively often. Submarine fibre cables already carry significant electrical power for the amplifiers and are well armored, I doubt that elictricity cables would be much better. The issue is typically ships ignoring no-anchor areas, that's also why most of these cuts happen in more unregulated regions.
Not really. The author proposes that hydrocarbons are in fact a reasonable transport / storage mechanism. That's the bulk of the meat here.
> "Terraform Industries’ synthetic natural gas process is not particularly complicated or difficult to achieve. We intended to make it easy to scale and deploy. If Europe had enough solar power deployed, even at current European solar prices, we could synthesize desperately needed natural gas at lower cost than transoceanic liquefied natural gas (LNG) importation, which is the next best option."
Also, low solar costs are in fact a reason to just build out where demand is, rather than do a lot of transporting. Actually, that's covered in the article. In the first few paragraphs.
> "On the chart above, the US south west receives around 5.2 kWh/kWp, while notoriously dreary England receives only 3.2 kWh/kWp. Does this mean that Britain should import solar power from north Africa? Not quite.
> "At 30% cost reduction and three years per doubling of production rate, Britain’s cost will match Los Angeles’ in less than six years. There are a few parts of the world, particularly at extreme northern latitudes, where solar power is truly painful, but they are few and their population is low, compared to the billions who live in generally sunny-enough locations. When their local cost of solar falls to the point where synthetic atmospheric CO2-derived hydrocarbons are cheaper than importing it from (probably) the Middle East, demand will increase substantially. "
> "Terraform Industries’ synthetic natural gas process is not particularly complicated or difficult to achieve. We intended to make it easy to scale and deploy. If Europe had enough solar power deployed, even at current European solar prices, we could synthesize desperately needed natural gas at lower cost than transoceanic liquefied natural gas (LNG) importation, which is the next best option."
Also, low solar costs are in fact a reason to just build out where demand is, rather than do a lot of transporting. Actually, that's covered in the article. In the first few paragraphs.
> "On the chart above, the US south west receives around 5.2 kWh/kWp, while notoriously dreary England receives only 3.2 kWh/kWp. Does this mean that Britain should import solar power from north Africa? Not quite.
> "At 30% cost reduction and three years per doubling of production rate, Britain’s cost will match Los Angeles’ in less than six years. There are a few parts of the world, particularly at extreme northern latitudes, where solar power is truly painful, but they are few and their population is low, compared to the billions who live in generally sunny-enough locations. When their local cost of solar falls to the point where synthetic atmospheric CO2-derived hydrocarbons are cheaper than importing it from (probably) the Middle East, demand will increase substantially. "
I've seen people saying "Alaska shows that nuclear is needed, as wind/solar don't work well there." They don't mention that the average power level on the largest grid in Alaska is just 600 MW. And Alaska is densely populated compared to, say, the northern half of Canada.
The article we're commenting on is about a moderately efficient way to transport power from a very sunny place to another location where the loads are: you manufacture methane in the sunny place and then ship it to where the load is, either through a pipeline, through a liquefaction terminal, or after an additional process step such as hydroxylating it into methanol.
This also provides long-term grid-scale energy storage.
In a lot of cases, though, it might be cheaper just to build ten times as much solar panel capacity in the not-very-sunny place where the loads are as to build HVDC transmission lines or gas pipelines.
This also provides long-term grid-scale energy storage.
In a lot of cases, though, it might be cheaper just to build ten times as much solar panel capacity in the not-very-sunny place where the loads are as to build HVDC transmission lines or gas pipelines.
> In a lot of cases, though, it might be cheaper just to build ten times as much solar panel capacity
All these ideas about plastering the world with millions of tons of solar panels makes me worry about what happens in say 50 years from now. Recycling all of that stuff may prove to be pointless from economic perspective and we may end up with millions of tons of dead pannels in a small-country-sized landfill.
All these ideas about plastering the world with millions of tons of solar panels makes me worry about what happens in say 50 years from now. Recycling all of that stuff may prove to be pointless from economic perspective and we may end up with millions of tons of dead pannels in a small-country-sized landfill.
If you do the math, you'll see that your worries are misplaced. Because you already would have done it if you knew how, I've done it for you below.
I do think that plastering the world with solar panels would be a real problem, and the logic of living systems suggests that it's a problem we'll have to contend with at some point. There's nothing that inherently limits human energy usage to anything like current human energy usage, so if solar panels are cheap, eventually someone will want to cover the oceans and forests with them.
— ⁂ —
However, that will probably not become a problem for more than 50 years. Right now we're only talking about replacing current human energy usage, which is only about 18 terawatts, last I checked, including non-electrical energy. (See, e.g., https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_energy_supply_and_consum...: 162494 terawatt hours in 02017 = 18.537 TW.) With cheap 16%-efficient solar panels and a nominal solar constant of 1000 W/m², that would nominally be about 120 000 km² of solar panels, half the size of Idaho.
But we have to take into account capacity factors, which range from 10% in extremely polar countries like Germany and the Netherlands, through 29% in California, to even higher in deserts. (I'd be very pleased to have some concrete, trustworthy figures on the capacity factors of real utility-scale PV plants in places like Abu Dhabi or Chile.) So we're talking about 400 000 to 1.2 million km², almost half the size of Kazakhstan. Once you set the panels apart so you can angle them toward the equator without them shadowing each other, we're talking about roughly the entire size of Kazakhstan. But presumably Kazakhstan itself is sunnier than that, so a better intuition pump would be the northernmost 20% of Siberia, the part where the permafrost is melting due to climate change, or all of Alaska. (Siberia is 13.1 million km².)
But I proposed building ten times as much solar panel capacity in cloudy places, not three times as much. And that's because, although the capacity of utility-scale PV farms in places like the Netherlands averages 10% year-round, it's only about 2% in the winter, because it gets cloudy. So, if we were talking about a worst case conservative limit in which the whole world is as bad for PV as the Netherlands, and also failed to store a summer harvest of tasty methane to burn in the winter, we need 6 million km² of solar panels, probably spread over 12 million km², the size of all of Siberia.
If 1 m² of solar panel modules weighs 40 kg (I'm too lazy to look this up right now but it's the right order of magnitude due to the glass and aluminum, even though the actual silicon cells are under 300 grams) we're talking about 240 billion tonnes of solar panels, not just a measly few million.
— ⁂ —
So, wait, isn't that a huge problem? Doesn't that end up with a country-sized landfill and plastering the world? At 2.4 g/cc and a typical 10 m landfill depth we're talking about 10000 km², which would be, yes, the size of a small country; Monaco is 2.02 km², Cyprus is 10452 km², and Kuwait is 17818 km².
But probably you'd dig the landfill deeper if you were building such a big one. Or pile it higher and just build an earth berm around it instead of digging. At 164 m deep it would be 606 km², the area of Chicago. Technically Chicago is still the size of a small country because there are about 15 countries smaller than Chicago but I think "small-country-sized" is a misleading description of Chicago. I think "less than half the size of Anson County, Georgia, population 22055" is a more illuminating description of 600 km² than "small-country-sized" or even "Chicago-sized". I hope this doesn't offend the inhabitants of the proud sovereign nation of Palau (land area 459 km²).
But this calculation is under the ridiculously pessimistic assumption that we have foolishly located all of the world's solar panels in places like Siberia, Patagonia, or Sweden, because everybody has moved there, and also that they aren't storing up summer methane for the winter. If we assume more optimistically that the solar panels are located, on average, somewhere like California (29% year-round average capacity factor!) and that the people are smart enough to store up methane for the winter, instead of 1.2 million km², it's 400,000 km². So at 200 m deep, 40 kg/m², and 2.4 g/cc, we're talking about 33 km² to bury the planet's 16 billion tonnes of solar panels (6.7 km³).
There are, technically, countries smaller than that: Tuvalu, Nauru, Monaco, and the Holy See. But there's also a pond larger than that in Kennebec County, Maine, called Great Pond.
Great Pond isn't deep enough for all the solar panels, though, because it isn't 200 meters deep. However, the reservoir of Nagarjuna Sagar Dam in Andhra Pradesh holds 8.8 km³ of water (312 TMC or thousand million cubic feet), one of many reservoirs and lakes around the world that are each individually large enough to dump this quantity of solar panels into.
Most of those 40 kg, however, consists of glass and aluminum, the most thoroughly recycled materials in the world, so I wouldn't worry about the landfill. Also, there are some 50-year-old solar panels already, and they mostly still work, just at reduced power output.
— ⁂ —
But what about "plastering the world"? Doesn't a million km² of solar panels amount to "plastering the world"? No, the world is 510 million km², so we're talking about plastering 0.2% or 0.1% of the world.
But cheap solar panels mean cheap energy, which means human energy consumption can expand dramatically. Historical societies that had high human development, like Classical Greece and Rome, only had it for a small upper class whose wealth was underpinned by the forced labor of slaves. Right now we use 2300 watts per person (18 TW ÷ 7.7 billion people) which is equivalent to about 23 "energy slaves" per person. The solar resource is 127500 terawatts, large enough that by plastering the world with solar panels we could have 1000 times that, with the equivalent labor of 23000 slaves at the disposal of each person. The temptation to do this, despite the attendant destruction of the biosphere and the alternative of space-based solar power, will be strong. But that's more than 50 years in the future.
— ⁂ —
Let's consider, as an example, just the Netherlands, and disregard the wind energy they've been famous for exploiting for centuries.
The Netherlands uses about 100 GW (900 TWh/year), of which about 120 TWh/year is electrical (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Energy_in_the_Netherlands). It's 41865 km² with a 10% countrywide capacity factor for utility-scale solar, dipping to about 2% during the winter months; presumably this would get worse if you started having to build your solar farms in random places instead of the sunniest places in the country. Let's say, pessimistically, 6% and 1.5%. 41865 km² at the solar constant of 1000W/m² is 41.9 TW, about twice world marketed energy consumption. At this pessimistic 6% capacity factor 41865 km² of mainstream 21% efficient panels would produce 530 GW, 5 times the country's current energy consumption.
This means that by covering 20% of the country in solar panels you can supply its whole energy usage with 6%-capacity-factor 21%-efficient solar farms. At today's high €0.33/Wp prices the required 1700 GWp of solar panels would cost €570 billion, 28 weeks of the Netherlands' GDP of US$1055 trillion/year. Installation and balance of plant (inverters, etc.) would cost (guesing) another €700 billion. And then you need storage, which is another significant but smaller cost. These costs will almost certainly go down in coming years.
You'd have to store methane for the winter, though. Or use wind.
This 1700 GWp is 8100 km² and at 40 kg/m² would be 320 million tonnes of panels. At 2.4 g/cc this is 0.13 km³ or 1.3 km² of 100-meter-deep landfill. Hopefully you can imagine that 1.3 km² of landfill would not be a major catastrophe for the Netherlands.
— ⁂ —
Basically your concern is like a kid worrying that if his parents buy him a lollipop they won't be able to afford this month's rent. It's not completely disconnected from reality but it's way out of proportion.
I do think that plastering the world with solar panels would be a real problem, and the logic of living systems suggests that it's a problem we'll have to contend with at some point. There's nothing that inherently limits human energy usage to anything like current human energy usage, so if solar panels are cheap, eventually someone will want to cover the oceans and forests with them.
— ⁂ —
However, that will probably not become a problem for more than 50 years. Right now we're only talking about replacing current human energy usage, which is only about 18 terawatts, last I checked, including non-electrical energy. (See, e.g., https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_energy_supply_and_consum...: 162494 terawatt hours in 02017 = 18.537 TW.) With cheap 16%-efficient solar panels and a nominal solar constant of 1000 W/m², that would nominally be about 120 000 km² of solar panels, half the size of Idaho.
But we have to take into account capacity factors, which range from 10% in extremely polar countries like Germany and the Netherlands, through 29% in California, to even higher in deserts. (I'd be very pleased to have some concrete, trustworthy figures on the capacity factors of real utility-scale PV plants in places like Abu Dhabi or Chile.) So we're talking about 400 000 to 1.2 million km², almost half the size of Kazakhstan. Once you set the panels apart so you can angle them toward the equator without them shadowing each other, we're talking about roughly the entire size of Kazakhstan. But presumably Kazakhstan itself is sunnier than that, so a better intuition pump would be the northernmost 20% of Siberia, the part where the permafrost is melting due to climate change, or all of Alaska. (Siberia is 13.1 million km².)
But I proposed building ten times as much solar panel capacity in cloudy places, not three times as much. And that's because, although the capacity of utility-scale PV farms in places like the Netherlands averages 10% year-round, it's only about 2% in the winter, because it gets cloudy. So, if we were talking about a worst case conservative limit in which the whole world is as bad for PV as the Netherlands, and also failed to store a summer harvest of tasty methane to burn in the winter, we need 6 million km² of solar panels, probably spread over 12 million km², the size of all of Siberia.
If 1 m² of solar panel modules weighs 40 kg (I'm too lazy to look this up right now but it's the right order of magnitude due to the glass and aluminum, even though the actual silicon cells are under 300 grams) we're talking about 240 billion tonnes of solar panels, not just a measly few million.
— ⁂ —
So, wait, isn't that a huge problem? Doesn't that end up with a country-sized landfill and plastering the world? At 2.4 g/cc and a typical 10 m landfill depth we're talking about 10000 km², which would be, yes, the size of a small country; Monaco is 2.02 km², Cyprus is 10452 km², and Kuwait is 17818 km².
But probably you'd dig the landfill deeper if you were building such a big one. Or pile it higher and just build an earth berm around it instead of digging. At 164 m deep it would be 606 km², the area of Chicago. Technically Chicago is still the size of a small country because there are about 15 countries smaller than Chicago but I think "small-country-sized" is a misleading description of Chicago. I think "less than half the size of Anson County, Georgia, population 22055" is a more illuminating description of 600 km² than "small-country-sized" or even "Chicago-sized". I hope this doesn't offend the inhabitants of the proud sovereign nation of Palau (land area 459 km²).
But this calculation is under the ridiculously pessimistic assumption that we have foolishly located all of the world's solar panels in places like Siberia, Patagonia, or Sweden, because everybody has moved there, and also that they aren't storing up summer methane for the winter. If we assume more optimistically that the solar panels are located, on average, somewhere like California (29% year-round average capacity factor!) and that the people are smart enough to store up methane for the winter, instead of 1.2 million km², it's 400,000 km². So at 200 m deep, 40 kg/m², and 2.4 g/cc, we're talking about 33 km² to bury the planet's 16 billion tonnes of solar panels (6.7 km³).
There are, technically, countries smaller than that: Tuvalu, Nauru, Monaco, and the Holy See. But there's also a pond larger than that in Kennebec County, Maine, called Great Pond.
Great Pond isn't deep enough for all the solar panels, though, because it isn't 200 meters deep. However, the reservoir of Nagarjuna Sagar Dam in Andhra Pradesh holds 8.8 km³ of water (312 TMC or thousand million cubic feet), one of many reservoirs and lakes around the world that are each individually large enough to dump this quantity of solar panels into.
Most of those 40 kg, however, consists of glass and aluminum, the most thoroughly recycled materials in the world, so I wouldn't worry about the landfill. Also, there are some 50-year-old solar panels already, and they mostly still work, just at reduced power output.
— ⁂ —
But what about "plastering the world"? Doesn't a million km² of solar panels amount to "plastering the world"? No, the world is 510 million km², so we're talking about plastering 0.2% or 0.1% of the world.
But cheap solar panels mean cheap energy, which means human energy consumption can expand dramatically. Historical societies that had high human development, like Classical Greece and Rome, only had it for a small upper class whose wealth was underpinned by the forced labor of slaves. Right now we use 2300 watts per person (18 TW ÷ 7.7 billion people) which is equivalent to about 23 "energy slaves" per person. The solar resource is 127500 terawatts, large enough that by plastering the world with solar panels we could have 1000 times that, with the equivalent labor of 23000 slaves at the disposal of each person. The temptation to do this, despite the attendant destruction of the biosphere and the alternative of space-based solar power, will be strong. But that's more than 50 years in the future.
— ⁂ —
Let's consider, as an example, just the Netherlands, and disregard the wind energy they've been famous for exploiting for centuries.
The Netherlands uses about 100 GW (900 TWh/year), of which about 120 TWh/year is electrical (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Energy_in_the_Netherlands). It's 41865 km² with a 10% countrywide capacity factor for utility-scale solar, dipping to about 2% during the winter months; presumably this would get worse if you started having to build your solar farms in random places instead of the sunniest places in the country. Let's say, pessimistically, 6% and 1.5%. 41865 km² at the solar constant of 1000W/m² is 41.9 TW, about twice world marketed energy consumption. At this pessimistic 6% capacity factor 41865 km² of mainstream 21% efficient panels would produce 530 GW, 5 times the country's current energy consumption.
This means that by covering 20% of the country in solar panels you can supply its whole energy usage with 6%-capacity-factor 21%-efficient solar farms. At today's high €0.33/Wp prices the required 1700 GWp of solar panels would cost €570 billion, 28 weeks of the Netherlands' GDP of US$1055 trillion/year. Installation and balance of plant (inverters, etc.) would cost (guesing) another €700 billion. And then you need storage, which is another significant but smaller cost. These costs will almost certainly go down in coming years.
You'd have to store methane for the winter, though. Or use wind.
This 1700 GWp is 8100 km² and at 40 kg/m² would be 320 million tonnes of panels. At 2.4 g/cc this is 0.13 km³ or 1.3 km² of 100-meter-deep landfill. Hopefully you can imagine that 1.3 km² of landfill would not be a major catastrophe for the Netherlands.
— ⁂ —
Basically your concern is like a kid worrying that if his parents buy him a lollipop they won't be able to afford this month's rent. It's not completely disconnected from reality but it's way out of proportion.
Thank you, this is a fantastic write up.
One more question, if you don't mind - how many toxic materials do these panels contain? From what I've read, a typical landfill is designed to be leaktight for a couple centuries at most. After that, whatever heavy metals and other toxins were in the panels can start leaking into the ground and groundwater. It would suck to leave a bunch of poison drips for the future generations.
One more question, if you don't mind - how many toxic materials do these panels contain? From what I've read, a typical landfill is designed to be leaktight for a couple centuries at most. After that, whatever heavy metals and other toxins were in the panels can start leaking into the ground and groundwater. It would suck to leave a bunch of poison drips for the future generations.
I'm glad you enjoyed it!
Basically silicon PV panels (the kind universally used now) are significantly less toxic than table salt and basically nearly else in your house.
The PV cells themselves contain silicon, aluminum, silver, and trace amounts of phosphorus and boron, and now sometimes gallium. Upon exposure to air or water the silicon surface passivates by forming a layer of amorphous silicon dioxide, which protects the silicon from further corrosion even in strong acids and room-temperature strong bases. Amorphous silicon dioxide is also used as an inert filler in pills, an abrasive in toothpaste, and one of the two main ingredients in simethicone, a treatment for gas pains. If you ground up the PV cells finely enough you could add them to your food with no ill effects.
Most of the mass of the panel is glass, which is also mostly amorphous silicon dioxide with small amounts of calcium and sodium oxides. This you could also add to your food in powder form with no ill effects, contrary to urban legends about ground-glass poisoning.
Gluing the PV cells to the glass is normally EVA, poly(ethylene-vinyl acetate). This is the material crafting hot-glue sticks is made from, as well as flip-flops, mouthguards, yoga mats, and those soft foam toys for kids. Less well known is that it's used as an extended-release drug delivery vehicle in implants: the drug slowly leaches out of the plastic inside your body, while the plastic remains unchanged. It has no known adverse effect on human health.
Sealing the back of the modules is a thin layer of, typically, polyvinyl fluoride (tedlar), which is also relatively biologically inert, but not to the same extreme as the rest of the materials. It's commonly used for raincoats and whiteboards. Hydrofluorocarbons tend to be of relatively low toxicity, but it's not thoroughly biocompatible in the same way as its cousin PVDF, or as EVA and silicon. Some panels are instead made with polypropylene or polyethylene terephthalate, which are as extremely nontoxic as the other materials.
The cells' electrical connections are soldered together with solder. Traditionally this was lead and tin, which does leach lead, though very slowly. Nowadays lead-free solder is used, typically consisting of tin and silver. This is another thing you can eat freely, although there might be traces of flux left from soldering.
The frames are normally made of aluminum, which is extremely nontoxic.
So, no heavy metals except tin and silver, which are nontoxic. Except that silver is toxic to bacteria.
There have been some experiments with nickel/copper plating to reduce the amount of (costly) silver used; I'm not sure if these are in production. Although nickel and copper are pretty safe, they're not nearly as astoundingly nontoxic as the other materials listed above. If you eat chunks of copper you will get sick.
Some thin-film panels have been made with more toxic materials like cadmium, selenium, copper, and tellurium, but they have mostly been driven out of the market by silicon PV cells. The total amount of these materials was small, but it's been found that they could leach out in an acid landfill. But they're not present in silicon cells.
So basically everything you have in your house is way more toxic than solar panels. Latex paint? Toxic polymers. Steel knife? Potential for iron poisoning. Concrete? There's substantial trace levels of many heavy metals in the cement, and it's basic enough to burn your skin, plus there are probably superplasticizer additives that are more toxic than anything listed above. Books? Likely still have trace levels of dioxin from bleaching the paper, plus most of the color inks are more toxic than anything in a solar panel. Polyurethane dishwashing sponge? Polyurethane is definitely not a thing you should eat. Foam cushions in furniture? In addition to polyurethane those contain halogenated fire retardants that are suspected of causing mass endocrine disruption. Wood cutting board? Most woods contain natural biocides to keep from rotting. Coca-Cola? Not only is the fatal dose of phosphoric acid relatively small, and it's keeping you from absorbing calcium, but also lots of the flavoring compounds are enormously more toxic than silicon and glass. Sand? That's crystalline silica, which causes silicosis and lung cancer if inhaled, unlike the amorphous silica we're talking about above. Stainless steel? Nickel can sensitize you over time and cause serious inflammation.
The only things I can think of in a regular person's house that are probably less toxic than solar panels are air, water, plaster, clay, glass, and aluminum cans.
Basically silicon PV panels (the kind universally used now) are significantly less toxic than table salt and basically nearly else in your house.
The PV cells themselves contain silicon, aluminum, silver, and trace amounts of phosphorus and boron, and now sometimes gallium. Upon exposure to air or water the silicon surface passivates by forming a layer of amorphous silicon dioxide, which protects the silicon from further corrosion even in strong acids and room-temperature strong bases. Amorphous silicon dioxide is also used as an inert filler in pills, an abrasive in toothpaste, and one of the two main ingredients in simethicone, a treatment for gas pains. If you ground up the PV cells finely enough you could add them to your food with no ill effects.
Most of the mass of the panel is glass, which is also mostly amorphous silicon dioxide with small amounts of calcium and sodium oxides. This you could also add to your food in powder form with no ill effects, contrary to urban legends about ground-glass poisoning.
Gluing the PV cells to the glass is normally EVA, poly(ethylene-vinyl acetate). This is the material crafting hot-glue sticks is made from, as well as flip-flops, mouthguards, yoga mats, and those soft foam toys for kids. Less well known is that it's used as an extended-release drug delivery vehicle in implants: the drug slowly leaches out of the plastic inside your body, while the plastic remains unchanged. It has no known adverse effect on human health.
Sealing the back of the modules is a thin layer of, typically, polyvinyl fluoride (tedlar), which is also relatively biologically inert, but not to the same extreme as the rest of the materials. It's commonly used for raincoats and whiteboards. Hydrofluorocarbons tend to be of relatively low toxicity, but it's not thoroughly biocompatible in the same way as its cousin PVDF, or as EVA and silicon. Some panels are instead made with polypropylene or polyethylene terephthalate, which are as extremely nontoxic as the other materials.
The cells' electrical connections are soldered together with solder. Traditionally this was lead and tin, which does leach lead, though very slowly. Nowadays lead-free solder is used, typically consisting of tin and silver. This is another thing you can eat freely, although there might be traces of flux left from soldering.
The frames are normally made of aluminum, which is extremely nontoxic.
So, no heavy metals except tin and silver, which are nontoxic. Except that silver is toxic to bacteria.
There have been some experiments with nickel/copper plating to reduce the amount of (costly) silver used; I'm not sure if these are in production. Although nickel and copper are pretty safe, they're not nearly as astoundingly nontoxic as the other materials listed above. If you eat chunks of copper you will get sick.
Some thin-film panels have been made with more toxic materials like cadmium, selenium, copper, and tellurium, but they have mostly been driven out of the market by silicon PV cells. The total amount of these materials was small, but it's been found that they could leach out in an acid landfill. But they're not present in silicon cells.
So basically everything you have in your house is way more toxic than solar panels. Latex paint? Toxic polymers. Steel knife? Potential for iron poisoning. Concrete? There's substantial trace levels of many heavy metals in the cement, and it's basic enough to burn your skin, plus there are probably superplasticizer additives that are more toxic than anything listed above. Books? Likely still have trace levels of dioxin from bleaching the paper, plus most of the color inks are more toxic than anything in a solar panel. Polyurethane dishwashing sponge? Polyurethane is definitely not a thing you should eat. Foam cushions in furniture? In addition to polyurethane those contain halogenated fire retardants that are suspected of causing mass endocrine disruption. Wood cutting board? Most woods contain natural biocides to keep from rotting. Coca-Cola? Not only is the fatal dose of phosphoric acid relatively small, and it's keeping you from absorbing calcium, but also lots of the flavoring compounds are enormously more toxic than silicon and glass. Sand? That's crystalline silica, which causes silicosis and lung cancer if inhaled, unlike the amorphous silica we're talking about above. Stainless steel? Nickel can sensitize you over time and cause serious inflammation.
The only things I can think of in a regular person's house that are probably less toxic than solar panels are air, water, plaster, clay, glass, and aluminum cans.
Piping ch4 would lead to release from all the inevitable pipe line leaks and limit the reduction in carbon emission.
I think it would reduce the reduction in carbon emission by some percentage, but since we're talking about direct air capture rather than point-source capture, it wouldn't limit the reduction in carbon emission.
Methane’s much higher global warming potential (versus carbon dioxide), implies that there’s a threshold of methane leaks above which the warming would be worse than if you did nothing at all.
Doing the math, methane is around 30x worse than CO2.
So say you pulled down 30 units of CO2 and 1 unit of Methane leaked (3%), you’re back to square one. Not to mention the Methane will be burned into CO2 again so this closed cycle isn’t so closed.
This study suggests up to 9% is leaked currently:
https://news.stanford.edu/2022/03/24/methane-leaks-much-wors...
So say you pulled down 30 units of CO2 and 1 unit of Methane leaked (3%), you’re back to square one. Not to mention the Methane will be burned into CO2 again so this closed cycle isn’t so closed.
This study suggests up to 9% is leaked currently:
https://news.stanford.edu/2022/03/24/methane-leaks-much-wors...
This is a good point: you need to get your methane leakage rate below 3% in order for synthetic methane to improve the climate-change situation rather than making it worse. Probably the easiest way to do that is to convert it into a liquid fuel, like methanol as I suggested upthread, kerosene as I suggested in a different comment, or ethanol.
At the point where you are doing enough direct air capture of CO₂ to supply a substantial fraction of the world fuel demand, you're also doing enough direct air capture to capture a substantial fraction of world CO₂ emissions. At that point you can just pump some of it into natural gas fields instead of converting it to CH₄.
At the point where you are doing enough direct air capture of CO₂ to supply a substantial fraction of the world fuel demand, you're also doing enough direct air capture to capture a substantial fraction of world CO₂ emissions. At that point you can just pump some of it into natural gas fields instead of converting it to CH₄.
Or storage. Like this article is essentially about replacing fossil fuels with synthetic fuel. There are many alternatives to that of course. But the mind boggling economics of synthetic fuels becoming cheaper than fossil fuels at some point are what is interesting here.
I listened to a podcast a while ago with a person involved with a company that is going to be importing 8GW of power to the UK from Morocco with high voltage dc cables. One of the interesting challenges is that the cable factories he needs to produce the cables currently only output around 1500 miles of cable per year. The distance he needs to cover is closer to 3000 miles. And the current plan calls for at least four such cables, so 12000 miles. More factories are needed. Those cables impact the cost proposition of course. Producing and laying cables is a capital intensive business. It's still worth doing but local production is just a lot cheaper. The actual plan is for this stuff to compete with nuclear power. Moroccan solar power is so reliable that it does not really drop much in the winter. And it's about half the price of nuclear. Local solar generation is a lot cheaper than that of course but in the UK that needs to be supplemented with other energy at least part of the year.
Casablanca is actually at the same latitude as San Francisco. Most of the US is further south than places like the UK, Germany, etc. where solar power is pretty effective despite being so far north. That means the US has longer winter days and less severe seasonal drops in solar generation. In short, people are overly pessimistic about solar in the US. Most of it is pretty well situated for decent solar generation around the year. It's just going to require a lot of solar panels to compensate for seasonal drops. Unthinkable if you think in terms of current prices and shortages. But the nature of exponential growth is that that is not going to stay that way for very long.
I listened to a podcast a while ago with a person involved with a company that is going to be importing 8GW of power to the UK from Morocco with high voltage dc cables. One of the interesting challenges is that the cable factories he needs to produce the cables currently only output around 1500 miles of cable per year. The distance he needs to cover is closer to 3000 miles. And the current plan calls for at least four such cables, so 12000 miles. More factories are needed. Those cables impact the cost proposition of course. Producing and laying cables is a capital intensive business. It's still worth doing but local production is just a lot cheaper. The actual plan is for this stuff to compete with nuclear power. Moroccan solar power is so reliable that it does not really drop much in the winter. And it's about half the price of nuclear. Local solar generation is a lot cheaper than that of course but in the UK that needs to be supplemented with other energy at least part of the year.
Casablanca is actually at the same latitude as San Francisco. Most of the US is further south than places like the UK, Germany, etc. where solar power is pretty effective despite being so far north. That means the US has longer winter days and less severe seasonal drops in solar generation. In short, people are overly pessimistic about solar in the US. Most of it is pretty well situated for decent solar generation around the year. It's just going to require a lot of solar panels to compensate for seasonal drops. Unthinkable if you think in terms of current prices and shortages. But the nature of exponential growth is that that is not going to stay that way for very long.
Germany cancelled projects in Africa with HVDC cables up-continent when solar panel cost dropped to the point that they can just buy enough local panels to meet power needs.
Siting panels in the desert is kind of stupid. The high temperatures make them less efficient, and degrade quicker. They would better be floated on reservoirs, constructed for the occasion if necessary. Nobody doesn't like more reservoirs, or shade for the reservoirs they have. The reservoirs could be kept full by desalinating water when power demand is lower.
Siting panels in the desert is kind of stupid. The high temperatures make them less efficient, and degrade quicker. They would better be floated on reservoirs, constructed for the occasion if necessary. Nobody doesn't like more reservoirs, or shade for the reservoirs they have. The reservoirs could be kept full by desalinating water when power demand is lower.
>a company that is going to be importing 8GW of power to the UK from Morocco with high voltage dc cables
I found a press release - the company is "Xlinks". The project doesn't pass the sniff test - they casually mention a 20GWh battery as part of the plan, which would be 10x bigger than the world's current biggest battery storage (2000MWh, at Moss Landing, California. Ironically it's only just come back online after a several month outage due to another fire)
I found a press release - the company is "Xlinks". The project doesn't pass the sniff test - they casually mention a 20GWh battery as part of the plan, which would be 10x bigger than the world's current biggest battery storage (2000MWh, at Moss Landing, California. Ironically it's only just come back online after a several month outage due to another fire)
20gwh is a nice start of course but like the solar growth is impressive, battery production capacity growth is also impressive. And of course there are many other forms of storage. I'm bringing this up because people seem to worry about intermittency of solar and wind without realizing just how much battery capacity there actually will be in a few years.
I think we can safely expect some records to be broken on the battery storage front in the next few years. Think orders of magnitude here. About three or so in terms of storage capacity. A a couple of thousand x what we have today.
Basically, the likes of Tesla and other manufacturers are really ramping up battery production in the next few years. If you assume EVs have 50kwh batteries (nice number to work with), 2 million cars would have 100,000,000 kwh of battery. Or 100 gwh, or 0.1 twh. That's what they are shooting for end of this year as a production volume. Tesla is aiming for 10-20 million cars per year longer term and the total market is something like 100m vehicles, give or take. 20 million cars is 1 twh. So, we'll be churning out ~5 twh of battery per year; just for cars. Eventually there will be hundreds of millions of EVs on the road. That's an enormous amount of batteries. And of course there will be other vehicles, dedicated grid storage solutions, etc.
Total installed battery capacity world wide will soon hit tens of twh. To give you an idea of just how much that is, annual energy production globally is in the order of 25 peta watt hours (25000 twh). Or about 70twh per day.
The volume of EVs on the road in a few decades will have enough battery capacity to provide that for several days. And of course a lot of car batteries get a second life in the form of grid storage before they eventually get recycled. Car batteries are good for a few thousand cycles. So, for people worrying about durability, once we have tens of twh of batteries, they might be used for decades to power the world before they need replacing. And we'll use solar and other cheap energy sources to keep them topped up.
I think we can safely expect some records to be broken on the battery storage front in the next few years. Think orders of magnitude here. About three or so in terms of storage capacity. A a couple of thousand x what we have today.
Basically, the likes of Tesla and other manufacturers are really ramping up battery production in the next few years. If you assume EVs have 50kwh batteries (nice number to work with), 2 million cars would have 100,000,000 kwh of battery. Or 100 gwh, or 0.1 twh. That's what they are shooting for end of this year as a production volume. Tesla is aiming for 10-20 million cars per year longer term and the total market is something like 100m vehicles, give or take. 20 million cars is 1 twh. So, we'll be churning out ~5 twh of battery per year; just for cars. Eventually there will be hundreds of millions of EVs on the road. That's an enormous amount of batteries. And of course there will be other vehicles, dedicated grid storage solutions, etc.
Total installed battery capacity world wide will soon hit tens of twh. To give you an idea of just how much that is, annual energy production globally is in the order of 25 peta watt hours (25000 twh). Or about 70twh per day.
The volume of EVs on the road in a few decades will have enough battery capacity to provide that for several days. And of course a lot of car batteries get a second life in the form of grid storage before they eventually get recycled. Car batteries are good for a few thousand cycles. So, for people worrying about durability, once we have tens of twh of batteries, they might be used for decades to power the world before they need replacing. And we'll use solar and other cheap energy sources to keep them topped up.
That's all wonderful. It's going to be fun watching how the economics of raw material mining vs battery recycling works out.
Just more engineering challenges. It's going to be fine.
At current prices, it's already worth fully solar individually... just expensive up front. Batteries and transmission are so expensive it's worth just installing MOAR solar. Connecting to the grid would be $1k/year so (depending on rate of return) it takes ~20years to pay off, which is right around the warrantee period.
Where I am there are ~5 peak solar equivalent hours in mid summer and ~0.5 hour on a rainy winter day. If I need 10kWh/day, then I need to install ~20kW at $500/kW, with 30kWh of battery for <$5k, and <$3k for dual 6.5kW inverters for 240V at 50A service. During the summer I charge my neighbors electric cars, but it's not worth paying the connection fee to hook up.
I think the grid tie solar fees are so high because the power companies would rather be getting the money for installing solar and batteries.
Where I am there are ~5 peak solar equivalent hours in mid summer and ~0.5 hour on a rainy winter day. If I need 10kWh/day, then I need to install ~20kW at $500/kW, with 30kWh of battery for <$5k, and <$3k for dual 6.5kW inverters for 240V at 50A service. During the summer I charge my neighbors electric cars, but it's not worth paying the connection fee to hook up.
I think the grid tie solar fees are so high because the power companies would rather be getting the money for installing solar and batteries.
>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 around 100GW. Assuming a capacity factor of 5 (which is probably far too low), the power transmission system needs to handle at least 500GW. The current (and somewhat unproven) state of the art in power transmission operates at 1000kv, and can carry 5GW per pylon system. We would need 100 of those operating in parallel. As each of those has a minimum separation corridor of 100 meters, we would need to persuade all of the countries along the route to give us a 4000km x 10km strip of land, as well as the approx. 150sq km of land needed for the panels themselves.
This leads to another fun question - if you want to install 150sq. km of solar panels in the desert and still have enough useful life left in the panels when you're done, how wide does the road need to be to carry all of those, and how many trucks will you need working that several thousand km route?
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 around 100GW. Assuming a capacity factor of 5 (which is probably far too low), the power transmission system needs to handle at least 500GW. The current (and somewhat unproven) state of the art in power transmission operates at 1000kv, and can carry 5GW per pylon system. We would need 100 of those operating in parallel. As each of those has a minimum separation corridor of 100 meters, we would need to persuade all of the countries along the route to give us a 4000km x 10km strip of land, as well as the approx. 150sq km of land needed for the panels themselves.
This leads to another fun question - if you want to install 150sq. km of solar panels in the desert and still have enough useful life left in the panels when you're done, how wide does the road need to be to carry all of those, and how many trucks will you need working that several thousand km route?
We wouldn't want to import all our electricity from one country anyway, even if that country wasn't quite as unstable as Libya.
A more realistic option for the UK might be a submarine HVDC link to Morocco, sort of a bigger version of Viking Link project, which connects the UK to Denmark. I'd like to know if the technology exists to imort, say, 5% of our electricity via that route.
A more realistic option for the UK might be a submarine HVDC link to Morocco, sort of a bigger version of Viking Link project, which connects the UK to Denmark. I'd like to know if the technology exists to imort, say, 5% of our electricity via that route.
What would be the point? Even getting 5% of our power from desert solar would be astronomically expensive, and a logistical and political problem of historic proportions. All for a tiny fraction of our power usage. Just build nuclear!
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.
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.
> How big would the power line be
The linked blog post explains that it doesn't have to be a power line. You could synthesize LNG and ferry that elsewhere (that is, assuming the techniques described do indeed scale, and you don't have salty water trouble, etc. etc. etc)
The linked blog post explains that it doesn't have to be a power line. You could synthesize LNG and ferry that elsewhere (that is, assuming the techniques described do indeed scale, and you don't have salty water trouble, etc. etc. etc)
Any such system would probably use DC, which would be much more compact than what you describe.
Find me a comparable DC link (5GW * 100, 3000k+ miles). To overcome I^2 losses, a DC system would need an even higher voltage, and we're already talking about a 1000kv AC system.
I'm out by two orders of magnitude on the amount of desert solar needed to power the UK. It's more like 13000 sq km, comprising approx. 7e9 solar panels. If they weigh 30kg each, and two-trailer road trains are used to transport them, that's 2e5 truck loads.
The sheer scale of this logistical problem dwarfs any other feat attempted.
The sheer scale of this logistical problem dwarfs any other feat attempted.
OK, but that's just an organisation problem. The technology exists.
If it's not economically or practically feasible, then no, the technology doesn't exist.
> The technology now exists to theoretically cover many hundreds of square km of Libya in photovoltaics and take the electricty to Europe through a sub-sea cable
Climate benefits aside, how in the heck is this an improvement over the current situation?
Long-term I really don't think it is prudent for Europe to rely on potentially unfriendly nations to provide them with energy.
Climate benefits aside, how in the heck is this an improvement over the current situation?
Long-term I really don't think it is prudent for Europe to rely on potentially unfriendly nations to provide them with energy.
realpolitik would tell me that a scenario where europe was highly dependent on libya (or morocco, or other north african countries) for electricity would be vastly preferable to a scenario being dependent upon russia for gas pipeline supplies.
if sufficiently threatened europe could summon enough political will to require libya to do its bidding through threat of sanctions and adverse action against it, worst case, military force to set up a cooperative libyan puppet regime. the balance of the size of the economies and population of western europe as a whole vs libya is very different than western europe vs russia.
not exactly something that can be done with a nuclear armed state the size of russia.
if sufficiently threatened europe could summon enough political will to require libya to do its bidding through threat of sanctions and adverse action against it, worst case, military force to set up a cooperative libyan puppet regime. the balance of the size of the economies and population of western europe as a whole vs libya is very different than western europe vs russia.
not exactly something that can be done with a nuclear armed state the size of russia.
There is sun enough in Spain and Italy (and even France and south Germany) that we don't need Morocco/Libya.
Also: heat and dusty environments are really bad for efficiency. Better with a place where it rains once in a while.
Today at 13:00 more than 38% of electricy in Germany was produced by solar panels! https://app.electricitymaps.com/zone/DE
Also: heat and dusty environments are really bad for efficiency. Better with a place where it rains once in a while.
Today at 13:00 more than 38% of electricy in Germany was produced by solar panels! https://app.electricitymaps.com/zone/DE
that is a very good point and of course as much as possible should be generated domestically first.
If you open a high res aerial view of any random french or german city right now and look at the roofs of how many warehouses and huge structures are presently covered in PV, versus how many could be covered in PV if we really wanted to, for instance.
If you open a high res aerial view of any random french or german city right now and look at the roofs of how many warehouses and huge structures are presently covered in PV, versus how many could be covered in PV if we really wanted to, for instance.
We could also cover all the roads with PV, invest highly in saltwater batteries, the global grid , small, modular nuclear reactors, solar desalination, developement help for poor countries by building up a local solar industry etc. etc.
But the world is rather focused on war. Now in the ukraine, but taiwan is building up. I mean, a nuclear holocaust would also reduce CO2 emissions, but seriously, it is so frustrating that there are technological solutions to real problems, but they are just not seriously implemented. We could, but we don't. At least not on a global scale.
But the world is rather focused on war. Now in the ukraine, but taiwan is building up. I mean, a nuclear holocaust would also reduce CO2 emissions, but seriously, it is so frustrating that there are technological solutions to real problems, but they are just not seriously implemented. We could, but we don't. At least not on a global scale.
> if sufficiently threatened europe could summon enough political will to require libya to do its bidding through threat of sanctions and adverse action against it, worst case, military force to set up a cooperative libyan puppet regime.
This sounds like ⓐ a plausible reason for the Libyan government to refuse any such project; ⓑ a good reason for the Spanish and French to ally with the Libyan government (puppet or otherwise) against the Germans and Italians, or the Germans and Spanish to ally with them against the Italians and French, or whatever; ⓒ unstable after a few decades, when Europe's own military forces are no longer overwhelmingly larger than Libya's.
(Don't think ⓒ can happen in Libya? The Eight-Nation Alliance didn't think it could happen in China either.)
This sounds like ⓐ a plausible reason for the Libyan government to refuse any such project; ⓑ a good reason for the Spanish and French to ally with the Libyan government (puppet or otherwise) against the Germans and Italians, or the Germans and Spanish to ally with them against the Italians and French, or whatever; ⓒ unstable after a few decades, when Europe's own military forces are no longer overwhelmingly larger than Libya's.
(Don't think ⓒ can happen in Libya? The Eight-Nation Alliance didn't think it could happen in China either.)
> if there was enough willpower and budget to cover, for instance, a huge chunk of the desert near Edwards AFB in CA with hundreds of megawatts of photovoltaics.
One such project being built currently: https://www.mortenson.com/projects/edwards-sanborn-solar-plu...
More notable than the 950MW generation is the 2400MWh of batteries
One such project being built currently: https://www.mortenson.com/projects/edwards-sanborn-solar-plu...
More notable than the 950MW generation is the 2400MWh of batteries
Europe would then become the vassal of whoever is running Libya with their hand on the circuit breaker.
No worries - There will be another NATO "freedom/democracy" mission as soon as that occurs.
> 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.
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.
The article also pointed out that even with future cost reduction from scale etc, some things just don't work well running off electricity, the energy density of hydrocarbons is very hard to beat unless you go nuclear... and for things like planes, baring any massive technological breakthroughs, it's probably gona have to be hydrocarbons for the foreseeable future... so synthesising those fuels by short circuiting the carbon cycle in a post "dig unreplenishable shit up from the ground" era, is pretty attractive.
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"
“I had a preconceived notion about the article, control-f searched for it, didn’t find it, so I wrote a comment”
Even places that are not very sunny get a preposterous amount of sun energy per square meter and solar is in any case to be synergistically combined with wind energy. This is a total non-concern, nobody needs to start building in Libya of all places.
There is another such project going on now, to connect Australian solar farms to Singapore via a deep sea connector. Of course Singapore would have a hard time placing enough solar to power their city, Australia on the contrary has vast swaths of land it can't and doesn't need to populate or farm (at this stage).
https://www.abc.net.au/news/2020-07-30/nt-sun-cables-austral...
https://www.abc.net.au/news/2020-07-30/nt-sun-cables-austral...
One of the points of the article is the exact opposite. Some places get less sun, but overall the disparity between the haves and havenots is a lot less than for fossil fuels. That it's decentralized is one of the strengths of renewable energy. Amory Lovins referred to this as "no instrument plays all the time, but the orchestra creates beautiful music". Not to mention that countries want to be energy independent, which would be another improvement to the situation we are currently in.
I wonder if depance between countries helps avoid wars. It certainly raises the costs, which prevents war being profitable.
See the German 'Ostpolitik', currently crashing down in flames, why that might not work out that well.
Making wars unprofitable doesn't prevent all wars. That approach is stupid.
However, making war less costly (for the victor) could well cause more wars. I believe that before WW I many a war of conquest was initiated by states hoping to profit. WW I was thought by many states as another great chance to profit, but it turned out that mechanization of logistics, and artillery, meant the toll of war was much lower.
Besides, the 'ospolitik' was more about building relationships and mutual respect than an attempt to affect the cost-revenue analysis of war.
However, making war less costly (for the victor) could well cause more wars. I believe that before WW I many a war of conquest was initiated by states hoping to profit. WW I was thought by many states as another great chance to profit, but it turned out that mechanization of logistics, and artillery, meant the toll of war was much lower.
Besides, the 'ospolitik' was more about building relationships and mutual respect than an attempt to affect the cost-revenue analysis of war.
For places and times without sun there are other solutions such as natural gas. We are not trying to entirely eliminate all uses of fossil fuels for energy; just reduce them drastically where practical. There is also nuclear (longer time scale), hydro, wind, batteries, and transmission lines, among others.
You can cherry pick any one of these alternatives to criticize. Of course every solution has its issues. But they can each be used as needed to suit the situation.
You can cherry pick any one of these alternatives to criticize. Of course every solution has its issues. But they can each be used as needed to suit the situation.
>> 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 eventually goes all electric.
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 eventually goes all electric.
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.
Existing medium sizee drinking water desalination plants already create a huge amount of brine.
Why would you store it, instead of mixing it back in the sea?
I guess you would need some pipes and pumps to move it away from your inlets, but that seems comparatively cheap.
I guess you would need some pipes and pumps to move it away from your inlets, but that seems comparatively cheap.
because shoving all that brine back into the sea in the general area of the desalination plant causes a localized ecological disaster and dead zone of marine life
As said, use some pipes and pumps to move it away. Don't forget to dilute (again, use pipes and pumps or whatever you prefer).
On one hand it’s an interesting engineering challenge, but I am always perplexed how covering hundreds of square km of an ecosystem with glass is “good for the environment”. It sounds like something future generations will shake their heads at while trying to dispose of all the toxic waste.
Hundreds of square km is not a lot, and the ecosystems where these systems would be installed are typically not rich havens of life. The US's power consumption would require about 6000-9000 sq km of solar panels (assuming ~15% efficiency) For comparison in the US there are about 13000-33000 sq km of parking lots, 93000 sq km of alfalfa cultivation, 69000 sq km of fallow agricultural land, and the mojave desert is about 124000 sq km. Yeah with gross mismanagement you might jeopardize the survival of some rare lizard or something, but it's a very far cry from a silicon wasteland.
> parking lots
This is how much of downtown Tulsa, OK is covered in parking lots:
https://i.redd.it/ukzcn1xx6cc91.jpg
There is no technological problem to covering a parking lot in PV, it's a question of the political will and money to do it.
This is how much of downtown Tulsa, OK is covered in parking lots:
https://i.redd.it/ukzcn1xx6cc91.jpg
There is no technological problem to covering a parking lot in PV, it's a question of the political will and money to do it.
That one image very powerfully captures the total and utter idiocy of car-centric development. Imagine if that thin sprinkling of actual buildings were reconfigured into one dense, car-free urban core…
That isn't car centric development, that is urban development in a city that fell into hard times. The whole area in the picture is about one square mile (i.e. it was the dense core of the city), and during boom times it was full of buildings. Many of the buildings were torn down when their owners could no longer afford to maintain them and they were replaced with parking lots because they look a lot better than overgrown fields. As the city revitalizes, the parking lots will be built over and turned back into buildings.
I suppose we have different standards for what constitutes car-centric development. Even if all those parking lots were built up, I see a whole lot of pavement and not a lot of pedestrian / cycling infrastructure nor greenery (I looked on street view). I mean, there are 18-wheeler semis on those streets!
Add to that urban freeways with enormous junctions ringing this supposedly dense core, cutting off surrounding areas from car-free access.
Yes, the city center has some tall buildings. The car is still dominant on its streets though.
Add to that urban freeways with enormous junctions ringing this supposedly dense core, cutting off surrounding areas from car-free access.
Yes, the city center has some tall buildings. The car is still dominant on its streets though.
The problem with covering a parking lot with solar panels is that it's usually a lot more expensive than covering rural land with solar panels. The panels have to be mounted higher off the ground so vehicles can get beneath them, they're usually expected to have a reasonably visually-appealing design, and all the wiring has to be kept safely out of the way and inaccessible to pedestrians. This drives up costs.
If land was truly scarce, parking lot solar would be a good option but I expect most installations will use the cheaper option of just building solar farms a long ways away from people.
Solar parking lots also might make sense in situations where all the power is being used on-site, and it's cheaper in the long run than buying power from the local utility.
If land was truly scarce, parking lot solar would be a good option but I expect most installations will use the cheaper option of just building solar farms a long ways away from people.
Solar parking lots also might make sense in situations where all the power is being used on-site, and it's cheaper in the long run than buying power from the local utility.
There's no scale shown on that photo. What is the total area?
I've never actually been to that city but that's a mid sized sports stadium you see to the left side. Tulsa I think is an extreme example, if you look at an aerial photo of Seattle from the 1970s there were a ton of "downtown" surface lots too, but now the land is way too valuable to use for that.
You can also see what looks like a regulation size baseball diamond to the top right side.
You can also see what looks like a regulation size baseball diamond to the top right side.
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 slabs of polysilicon, with perhaps some glass & metal casing, plus some bus-bars. Strip & toss into a chewer.
Also, solar panels dont seem that difficult to recycle. There's already a decent & growing reclaimation market. Giant slabs of polysilicon, with perhaps some glass & metal casing, plus some bus-bars. Strip & toss into a chewer.
Solar panels up high can coexist with livestock and feed grass quite well it seems:
> ABC (Australia) RURAL [π]
> Solar farm trial shows improved fleece on merino sheep grazed under panels
> Sheep grazing under solar panels at farms in NSW's Central West have produced better wool and more of it in the four years since the projects began, according to growers.
> Local graziers have labelled the set-up a "complete win-win", with the sheep helping to keep grass and weeds down so as not to obscure the panels.
> In turn, the panels provided shade for the sheep and grass, and helped prevent the soil from drying out.
[π] https://www.abc.net.au/news/rural/2022-05-30/solar-farm-graz...
> ABC (Australia) RURAL [π]
> Solar farm trial shows improved fleece on merino sheep grazed under panels
> Sheep grazing under solar panels at farms in NSW's Central West have produced better wool and more of it in the four years since the projects began, according to growers.
> Local graziers have labelled the set-up a "complete win-win", with the sheep helping to keep grass and weeds down so as not to obscure the panels.
> In turn, the panels provided shade for the sheep and grass, and helped prevent the soil from drying out.
[π] https://www.abc.net.au/news/rural/2022-05-30/solar-farm-graz...
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 loss, lessening the need for irrigation, and the crop has a local cooling effect for the PV panels, which improves their efficiency.
According to an extended report from the Fraunhofer Institute [2], the main challenges are regulatory – at least in Germany, but I imagine similar hurdles in the rest of the EU. Essentially, difficulties obtaining building permits; negation of farming subsidies from enclosure of land; and obstacles to connecting to the grid and receiving feed-in tariffs.
Those challenges all seem surmountable, and there’s surely huge promise in the vast amount of land that would be unlocked for energy generation, never mind the synergies favorable for horticulture in particular.
[1]: https://www.ise.fraunhofer.de/en/key-topics/integrated-photo...
[2]: https://www.ise.fraunhofer.de/content/dam/ise/en/documents/p...
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 loss, lessening the need for irrigation, and the crop has a local cooling effect for the PV panels, which improves their efficiency.
According to an extended report from the Fraunhofer Institute [2], the main challenges are regulatory – at least in Germany, but I imagine similar hurdles in the rest of the EU. Essentially, difficulties obtaining building permits; negation of farming subsidies from enclosure of land; and obstacles to connecting to the grid and receiving feed-in tariffs.
Those challenges all seem surmountable, and there’s surely huge promise in the vast amount of land that would be unlocked for energy generation, never mind the synergies favorable for horticulture in particular.
[1]: https://www.ise.fraunhofer.de/en/key-topics/integrated-photo...
[2]: https://www.ise.fraunhofer.de/content/dam/ise/en/documents/p...
Very interesting.
I do wonder how robust these would be to wind storms/tornadoes/hurricanes (like we tend to get in the US).
I do wonder how robust these would be to wind storms/tornadoes/hurricanes (like we tend to get in the US).
Good question. A brief search suggests hail is the greatest common hazard to the panels. I guess they’re going to act like a sail in a hurricane or tornado.
> Also, solar panels dont seem that difficult to recycle. There's already a decent & growing reclaimation market.
Curious if you're basing this on firsthand knowledge? I know nothing about solar panels but I've read some stories[0][1] lately about difficulties recycling them, particularly older ones that were deployed 10-20 years ago and are now reaching EOL.
[0] https://www.discovermagazine.com/environment/solar-panel-was... [1] https://www.abc.net.au/news/rural/2022-01-17/are-some-solar-...
Curious if you're basing this on firsthand knowledge? I know nothing about solar panels but I've read some stories[0][1] lately about difficulties recycling them, particularly older ones that were deployed 10-20 years ago and are now reaching EOL.
[0] https://www.discovermagazine.com/environment/solar-panel-was... [1] https://www.abc.net.au/news/rural/2022-01-17/are-some-solar-...
First Solar (the largest American solar manufacturer) has provided recycling for the panels they make since 2005:
https://www.firstsolar.com/modules/recycling
https://www.bnl.gov/pv/files/prs_agenda/2_krueger_ieee-prese...
https://www.firstsolar.com/-/media/First-Solar/Sustainabilit...
German company Flaxres recently completed a pilot scale trial for recycling silicon photovoltaic modules from any manufacturer:
https://www.pv-magazine.com/2022/07/22/industrial-process-fo...
https://www.firstsolar.com/modules/recycling
https://www.bnl.gov/pv/files/prs_agenda/2_krueger_ieee-prese...
https://www.firstsolar.com/-/media/First-Solar/Sustainabilit...
German company Flaxres recently completed a pilot scale trial for recycling silicon photovoltaic modules from any manufacturer:
https://www.pv-magazine.com/2022/07/22/industrial-process-fo...
Since the vast majority of PV modules that have ever been installed are still working there isn't much recycling yet. Most of the mass of a PV panel is mundane things like glass and aluminum (and perhaps steel for ground mountings) that are either eminently recyclable or easily disposable in mass.
Ultra-pure silicon is intrinsically valuable. Anyone dumping used-up panels is an idiot.
Matter of interpretation. Is humanity at all good for the environment? Some would say no. Solar is clean and deserts are mostly, well, deserts. And climate change seems much worse than having a tiny bit of our deserts being used for PV farms.
Pointless to discuss. Deserts are a really dumb place for solar farms.
Solar will coexist with agricultural land and existing reservoirs, and benefit both.
Solar will coexist with agricultural land and existing reservoirs, and benefit both.
I'm not saying pave over the mojave desert with PV, exactly, rather that a dry salt pan or ecosystem that has an absolute minimum of flora and fauna would be preferable.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Endorheic_basin
creating massive hydroelectric dam reservoirs also has ecological costs
in terms of toxic waste it would surely be preferable to the percentage of electricity right now that is generated using gas, heavy fuel oil and coal.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Endorheic_basin
creating massive hydroelectric dam reservoirs also has ecological costs
in terms of toxic waste it would surely be preferable to the percentage of electricity right now that is generated using gas, heavy fuel oil and coal.
Unfortunately the inhabitants of the Mojave turned down a major solar power project last year because of ecological disruption", aka "this wouldn't be pretty on our nature hikes."
Perhaps we can use the Salton Sea? It is at least acknowledged as a truly destroyed ecosystem.
Perhaps we can use the Salton Sea? It is at least acknowledged as a truly destroyed ecosystem.
[deleted]
I am sort of a nimby, but there's nowhere wild to protect anymore. Thanks Starlink!
I am less and less sympathetic to groups standing in the way of clean energy production because of any aesthetics issue.
However, I don't live there so I won't judge, though a wind farm got knocked back near where I live because it'd look like a windfarm and it was the greenies who knocked it back.
I am less and less sympathetic to groups standing in the way of clean energy production because of any aesthetics issue.
However, I don't live there so I won't judge, though a wind farm got knocked back near where I live because it'd look like a windfarm and it was the greenies who knocked it back.
> It sounds like something future generations will shake their heads at while trying to dispose of all the toxic waste.
No, it doesn't. They will be far too busy handling coal ash dumps from coal-fired power stations, and remediating landscapes laid waste by mountain-top removal coal mining.
This will be orders of magnitude smaller as a problem. They will be grateful we finally stopped using coal.
No, it doesn't. They will be far too busy handling coal ash dumps from coal-fired power stations, and remediating landscapes laid waste by mountain-top removal coal mining.
This will be orders of magnitude smaller as a problem. They will be grateful we finally stopped using coal.
You just space them out a bit and life will thrive all around them. A lot of species will appreciate the shade.
34,000 square kilometers [1] have already been disturbed for surface coal mining.
Two points about that:
- existing energy sources already do a huge amount of damage to land (and in places like West Virginia, particularly environmentally sensitive land)
- that's land that can already be converted to solar without significant harm being done (the harm has already been done)
[1]: https://www.gem.wiki/The_footprint_of_coal
Two points about that:
- existing energy sources already do a huge amount of damage to land (and in places like West Virginia, particularly environmentally sensitive land)
- that's land that can already be converted to solar without significant harm being done (the harm has already been done)
[1]: https://www.gem.wiki/The_footprint_of_coal
Wait until you hear about how we invented synthetic fertilizer and added 5 billion humans in as many as 100 years. Won't somebody think of the ecosystem!
We’ve already desertified tens of thousands of square km of land into parking lots / heat sinks. We could start by shading those abominations with solar panels.
Wait until you hear about roads.
Look at how well Europe's dependence on Russian gas is going.
Yep & check out: https://xlinks.co/morocco-uk-power-project/
https://xlinks.co/morocco-uk-power-project/ not Libya, but Morocco.
Because their value prop is to generate synthetic fuel instead.
You need synthetic fuel anyway to act as energy storage/buffer.
This kind of energy infrastructure is only build in China at the moment. High voltage DC, solar& battery manufacturing, solar installation, new nuclear plants
> The technology now exists to theoretically cover many hundreds of square km of Libya in photovoltaics and take the electricty to Europe through a sub-sea cable
I thought we were trying to move away from being dependent on other countries for energy
I thought we were trying to move away from being dependent on other countries for energy
"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 everything that produces and consumes power. The interfaces should be standardized. The internals can be proprietary.
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 everything that produces and consumes power. The interfaces should be standardized. The internals can be proprietary.
I don't know if I quite understand this idea, but why road and not rail, or something more purpose built? High production locales and high demand ones are most likely to be spread across long distances
Rail is indeed appropriate too. In fact better and we should have more of it. But I say no to "special purpose" and thus to transmission lines too. They are ugly and inefficient and we'd need to invest trillions, as these analysts are saying. Just makes no sense when we can instead use rail and road. Invest those trillions in better rail and road. And people in those "high production locales" I'm sure would rather have rail and road than transmission lines.
Am I missing something? It seems so obvious to me.
Am I missing something? It seems so obvious to me.
I'd MUCH rather have transmission lines behind my window than a busy rail or road, generating noise, pollution, congestion and danger.
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.
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?
States will be trading fresh water for clean energy
Are you saying that CA isn't very sunny?
Solar fans really want to cover entire countries in panels, instead of just building nuclear power
"We just need the political will to destroy another nation" is what you just said. Look carefully.
We can't reliably move power on America' three grids, but you want the world wired up
Peaks aren't local. If Germany is peaking, so is all of Europe. There isn't a bunch of other stuff to draw from.
People start by assuming that the rest of the world can cope, but that is not how Europe works today. Look into why Germany keeps having to sell power for negative prices.
It's like believing that in a heavy rain storm, you can just give your excess water to your neighbors. But you can't: they have excess water too. During a drought, they have nothing to share.
"We just need the political will to destroy another nation" is what you just said. Look carefully.
We can't reliably move power on America' three grids, but you want the world wired up
Peaks aren't local. If Germany is peaking, so is all of Europe. There isn't a bunch of other stuff to draw from.
People start by assuming that the rest of the world can cope, but that is not how Europe works today. Look into why Germany keeps having to sell power for negative prices.
It's like believing that in a heavy rain storm, you can just give your excess water to your neighbors. But you can't: they have excess water too. During a drought, they have nothing to share.
Wow, this is the most hopeful thing I've read about renewable energy in ... years, maybe ever?
Even ignoring whether the fuel-from-air thing will pan out, the idea posed here that solar will get so cheap that excess energy can be used for stuff like this is insane.
Not only did they explain the implications, but the author does a decent job at showing the math behind all of the insanely optimistic graphs. Thank you for sharing this OP! This is why I come to HN
Even ignoring whether the fuel-from-air thing will pan out, the idea posed here that solar will get so cheap that excess energy can be used for stuff like this is insane.
Not only did they explain the implications, but the author does a decent job at showing the math behind all of the insanely optimistic graphs. Thank you for sharing this OP! This is why I come to HN
I agree it's hopeful. Creating more renewable energy is part of the path forward. But this doesn't solve all of our problems. We still have many other resource and pollution problems that this doesn't solve. Our houses, cars and planes and all the infrastructure supporting these things require materials which are damaging our climate from their extraction and production. This won't go away even if energy was limitless.
Sounds grim, but I think we can still be optimistic because we have a solution that addresses pretty much all of that: cut back excessive consumption. I'm optimistic that we have so much more than we need that we could cut back to sustainable levels and still live really good lives compared to what humans have lived for most of history.
Sounds grim, but I think we can still be optimistic because we have a solution that addresses pretty much all of that: cut back excessive consumption. I'm optimistic that we have so much more than we need that we could cut back to sustainable levels and still live really good lives compared to what humans have lived for most of history.
The trouble with our current system is that the answer to environmental catastrophe is to make more stuff. And the entities that make the stuff have an incentive to pursue models that see them continue to make that stuff and sell it.
Creating a solar panel that never needs to be replaced is a business failure. Selling the same number of electric cars next year, instead of more, is a business failure. Not consuming more next year is an economic failure.
We are locked into a forever growth runaway train and our solution to the earth dying is to make more, buy more and then buy even more of the same thing next year.
Human population is predicted to decline in many parts of the world and this is seen as a massive economic risk, not a boon for the planet. It’s a risk because we’ve all gotten comfy with the guarantee that property we buy will always become worth more over time. Less humans to buy stuff? Unthinkable.
Our very existence is the problem, and our insatiable appetites for reproducing and consuming. The sooner we show some humility and realize that we’re the problem, and our system of forever growth is guaranteed to destroy the planet, the better.
Creating a solar panel that never needs to be replaced is a business failure. Selling the same number of electric cars next year, instead of more, is a business failure. Not consuming more next year is an economic failure.
We are locked into a forever growth runaway train and our solution to the earth dying is to make more, buy more and then buy even more of the same thing next year.
Human population is predicted to decline in many parts of the world and this is seen as a massive economic risk, not a boon for the planet. It’s a risk because we’ve all gotten comfy with the guarantee that property we buy will always become worth more over time. Less humans to buy stuff? Unthinkable.
Our very existence is the problem, and our insatiable appetites for reproducing and consuming. The sooner we show some humility and realize that we’re the problem, and our system of forever growth is guaranteed to destroy the planet, the better.
> Creating a solar panel that never needs to be replaced is a business failure.
Creating a solar panel that never needed to be replaced and could be manufactured at the same price as less-durable alternatives would make you very rich. Why would anyone buy from your competitors when they can get a more durable panel for the same cost from you?
> Human population is predicted to decline in many parts of the world and this is seen as a massive economic risk, not a boon for the planet. It’s a risk because we’ve all gotten comfy with the guarantee that property we buy will always become worth more over time. Less humans to buy stuff? Unthinkable.
It’s much less sinister than that. Many modern societies are structured under the assumption that there’s many more young people than old people, so the young people can share the load of caring for the elderly who are no longer able to work. When you have a sudden in fertility rates, the ratio of young:old goes down, and each young person has to contribute a larger percentage of their effort into caring for the elderly. That’s not necessarily a pleasant responsibility to put on young people, or a position I’d want to be put in as an older person
Creating a solar panel that never needed to be replaced and could be manufactured at the same price as less-durable alternatives would make you very rich. Why would anyone buy from your competitors when they can get a more durable panel for the same cost from you?
> Human population is predicted to decline in many parts of the world and this is seen as a massive economic risk, not a boon for the planet. It’s a risk because we’ve all gotten comfy with the guarantee that property we buy will always become worth more over time. Less humans to buy stuff? Unthinkable.
It’s much less sinister than that. Many modern societies are structured under the assumption that there’s many more young people than old people, so the young people can share the load of caring for the elderly who are no longer able to work. When you have a sudden in fertility rates, the ratio of young:old goes down, and each young person has to contribute a larger percentage of their effort into caring for the elderly. That’s not necessarily a pleasant responsibility to put on young people, or a position I’d want to be put in as an older person
> Why would anyone buy from your competitors when they can get a more durable panel for the same cost from you?
Uhh, there are plenty of examples of this not happening already. Monopolies and oligopolies prevent this type of competition. Consumers don't always prefer quality and sustainability because we have holes in our system which prevent the true cost of things from being born by the consumer.
It's incredibly common.
Uhh, there are plenty of examples of this not happening already. Monopolies and oligopolies prevent this type of competition. Consumers don't always prefer quality and sustainability because we have holes in our system which prevent the true cost of things from being born by the consumer.
It's incredibly common.
> The sooner we show some humility and realize that we’re the problem
Why do people just love to hate on their own existence? How many extinction events have there been that just wiped out the vast majority of species far before humans even existed?
If earth is to flourish, grow and continue it's trend of supporting ever more complex forms of life - it will be humans that can make that happen. In the absence of humans, earth is just awaiting another mass extinction event (maybe even _with_ humans, but certainly no other species on earth has had the capacity to maybe stop one of these events from happening)
Humans are freaking incredible, miracles that boggles the mind to consider how we even exist. I'm not sure why we pretend otherwise.
Why do people just love to hate on their own existence? How many extinction events have there been that just wiped out the vast majority of species far before humans even existed?
If earth is to flourish, grow and continue it's trend of supporting ever more complex forms of life - it will be humans that can make that happen. In the absence of humans, earth is just awaiting another mass extinction event (maybe even _with_ humans, but certainly no other species on earth has had the capacity to maybe stop one of these events from happening)
Humans are freaking incredible, miracles that boggles the mind to consider how we even exist. I'm not sure why we pretend otherwise.
> In the absence of humans, earth is just awaiting another mass extinction event
Spoiler: the next mass extinction event is already happening, and it's caused by humans: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holocene_extinction
Spoiler: the next mass extinction event is already happening, and it's caused by humans: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holocene_extinction
If we were already in a mass extinction event then we should stop all forms of conservation biology and redirect that energy towards entertainment.
A mass extinction event isn't a line of dominos toppling over, but can be stopped. A mass extinction event is something that has started that can't be stopped.
Luckily, the conservation studies continue, because they understand we haven't entered into an actual mass extinction event. We've simply used it as a tool to drum up necessary attention and funding for preservation before we actually find ourselves in one.
A mass extinction event isn't a line of dominos toppling over, but can be stopped. A mass extinction event is something that has started that can't be stopped.
Luckily, the conservation studies continue, because they understand we haven't entered into an actual mass extinction event. We've simply used it as a tool to drum up necessary attention and funding for preservation before we actually find ourselves in one.
> Humans are freaking incredible, miracles that boggles the mind to consider how we even exist. I'm not sure why we pretend otherwise.
This cuts both ways. We're super special at both creating and destroying. I don't see OP as hating on humans in general. They are concerned that we are using our super amazing talents the wrong way and want us to be even better.
This cuts both ways. We're super special at both creating and destroying. I don't see OP as hating on humans in general. They are concerned that we are using our super amazing talents the wrong way and want us to be even better.
I appreciate this all-too-rare take. It concerns me that it's so popular to be negative. I believe a lot more good can come about with a positive attitude -- honest and critical at times, yes, but at some point you just gotta put your boots on and get to work.
> How many extinction events have there been that just wiped out the vast majority of species far before humans even existed?
Those weren’t caused by the species themselves though
Those weren’t caused by the species themselves though
You have it backwards. Solar panels are a fungible commodity good with no differentiation besides quality and cost. The financial incentive points strongly in the direction of longevity.
So, the good news is that we can generate all the power we will ever need from the sun using cheap solar panels that will last a very long time.
You are mixing up a few trends here. The world population is expected to peak at around 10 billion people end of this century. Some places will indeed have shrinking populations but that isn't true everywhere. Aside from genocide at a really monstrous scale, the reality of a population that big is that it will consume resources and energy whether we like it or not.
Given that, solar power is a cheap and clean solution that with price and production growth trends suggested in the article might be more than enough much sooner than some people seem to think. Exponentials are funny like that.
Energy generation is a dirty business today. This seems like it is the whole premise for your negativity. Here is a fix that seems on track to challenge that whole notion. The beauty with things like this is that they have a certain inevitability about them. Population growth creates the demand for energy. Meeting that demand improves the economics. And at some point the problem melts away. The wheels for that have been in motion for a while now. And all the article suggests is that we are going to be fine a bit sooner than some people thought. Extrapolate current trends and it adds up to synthetic fuel being cheaper than fossil fuel.
You are mixing up a few trends here. The world population is expected to peak at around 10 billion people end of this century. Some places will indeed have shrinking populations but that isn't true everywhere. Aside from genocide at a really monstrous scale, the reality of a population that big is that it will consume resources and energy whether we like it or not.
Given that, solar power is a cheap and clean solution that with price and production growth trends suggested in the article might be more than enough much sooner than some people seem to think. Exponentials are funny like that.
Energy generation is a dirty business today. This seems like it is the whole premise for your negativity. Here is a fix that seems on track to challenge that whole notion. The beauty with things like this is that they have a certain inevitability about them. Population growth creates the demand for energy. Meeting that demand improves the economics. And at some point the problem melts away. The wheels for that have been in motion for a while now. And all the article suggests is that we are going to be fine a bit sooner than some people thought. Extrapolate current trends and it adds up to synthetic fuel being cheaper than fossil fuel.
[deleted]
Ban advertising, and let the world go back to yellow pages.
A good first step towards solving the overconsumption problem.
A good first step towards solving the overconsumption problem.
Not sure why this is downvoted.
Either advertising is effective to some degree, in which case banning it would necessarily help curtail consumption.
Or it's ineffective, in which case it would necessarily save a ton of wasted resources and man hours.
I would happily defend the position that advertising does more harm to society than good, if anyone is willing to reply in good faith instead of just cowardly downvoting me into oblivion.
Just look at the cosmetics industry, the fashion industry, and the modelling industry. Industries that arguably provide next to no tangible worth to society, are run by sketchy people and wreak havok on the mental health of young people, girls especially. They're terrible for the climate, you got companies like HM using child labour, and generally inhumane working conditions, to create low quality clothes that break quickly, so they can sell even more. These industries are pretty much completely dependent on advertisement, and devoid of moral and ethical fibre.
Then look at IKEA, running ads bragging about their refurbished furniture, while their business model still relies on cheap, illegally sourced wood from the Balkans and planned obsolescence. Why are they allowed to so falsely represent themselves as "sustainable"?
Then you have the whole surveillance capitalist industrial complex of Facebook, Google, etc. Heavily ad based business models.
The ad industry is clearly out of control. It's a tumour on our society.
I probably wouldn't go as far an outright ban myself, but I would definitely welcome far, far more savage regulation of it.
Either advertising is effective to some degree, in which case banning it would necessarily help curtail consumption.
Or it's ineffective, in which case it would necessarily save a ton of wasted resources and man hours.
I would happily defend the position that advertising does more harm to society than good, if anyone is willing to reply in good faith instead of just cowardly downvoting me into oblivion.
Just look at the cosmetics industry, the fashion industry, and the modelling industry. Industries that arguably provide next to no tangible worth to society, are run by sketchy people and wreak havok on the mental health of young people, girls especially. They're terrible for the climate, you got companies like HM using child labour, and generally inhumane working conditions, to create low quality clothes that break quickly, so they can sell even more. These industries are pretty much completely dependent on advertisement, and devoid of moral and ethical fibre.
Then look at IKEA, running ads bragging about their refurbished furniture, while their business model still relies on cheap, illegally sourced wood from the Balkans and planned obsolescence. Why are they allowed to so falsely represent themselves as "sustainable"?
Then you have the whole surveillance capitalist industrial complex of Facebook, Google, etc. Heavily ad based business models.
The ad industry is clearly out of control. It's a tumour on our society.
I probably wouldn't go as far an outright ban myself, but I would definitely welcome far, far more savage regulation of it.
It's downvoted because its a broad populist statement that isn't actionable in that form and doesn't provide any value to the discussion. In contrast your take is a lot more nuanced and something that actually can serve as a basis for fruitful discussion.
Banning advertisment outright is about as realistic as banning humans from communicating.
Banning advertisment outright is about as realistic as banning humans from communicating.
That's fine, but pointing that out, like you did now and providing a cogent reply like I tried to almost always leads to interesting discussions, I've found. The trolls run away at the first sight of real discussion anyway, most of the time.
> Our very existence is the problem, and our insatiable appetites for reproducing and consuming.
Would you tell an animal that? What about bacteria?
I think the optimistic view is fashion is cyclical and the contrary will become fashionable again.
Would you tell an animal that? What about bacteria?
I think the optimistic view is fashion is cyclical and the contrary will become fashionable again.
> Creating a solar panel that never needs to be replaced is a business failure. Selling the same number of electric cars next year, instead of more, is a business failure. Not consuming more next year is an economic failure
It looks like the solution they have come up with for this is subscriptions - you never buy your car or your solar panel, you just subscribe to them.
It looks like the solution they have come up with for this is subscriptions - you never buy your car or your solar panel, you just subscribe to them.
> Our very existence is the problem, and our insatiable appetites for reproducing and consuming. The sooner we show some humility and realize that we’re the problem, and our system of forever growth is guaranteed to destroy the planet, the better.
Until we find evidence otherwise we are literally the only valuable thing in existence. So yes hyper-growth is the path forward. If it ruins the planet we'll fix it later or come up with enough of a stopgap to get us to the next milestone.
Until we find evidence otherwise we are literally the only valuable thing in existence. So yes hyper-growth is the path forward. If it ruins the planet we'll fix it later or come up with enough of a stopgap to get us to the next milestone.
It’s been a while since I’ve read something that made me feel as excited and optimistic. I hope it pans out.
It feels like early Intel days, seeing what costs would be if sales were orders of magnitude more than what they are and start selling at those prices now. A self-fulfilling prophecy of supply and demand.
It feels like early Intel days, seeing what costs would be if sales were orders of magnitude more than what they are and start selling at those prices now. A self-fulfilling prophecy of supply and demand.
The technology and economics are there for renewables. The big barrier is political.
There is deeply entrenched ideological opposition to renewable energy at some (but not all) utilities, all the way to the leadership.
And just because an energy source is the cheapest, doesn't mean that it will be the one chosen by the entrenched monopolies that are our utilities. There are lots of bad incentives out there.
There is deeply entrenched ideological opposition to renewable energy at some (but not all) utilities, all the way to the leadership.
And just because an energy source is the cheapest, doesn't mean that it will be the one chosen by the entrenched monopolies that are our utilities. There are lots of bad incentives out there.
I don't buy the political argument. If it made financial sense you could just build it and take all your profits to lobby the politicians but obviously the economics are not very profitable yet.
Edit: How did Tesla succeed is GM and the oil companies were supposedly going to use politics to keep the electric car from succeeding?
Edit: How did Tesla succeed is GM and the oil companies were supposedly going to use politics to keep the electric car from succeeding?
Make financial sense to whom? If solar is cheaper than natural gas, how does a utility profit from charging less? They are highly regulated, and are usually allowed to take a percentage as profit. So it's in their interest to take the more expensive option, depending on regulations
Saying that solar isn't cheap is just ignoring the past five years of cost data.
Saying that solar isn't cheap is just ignoring the past five years of cost data.
Natural gas runs on cloudy days and at night.
Taking a bus is cheaper than flying, but if you want to get somewhere fast you need to fly. Price is just one metric.
Taking a bus is cheaper than flying, but if you want to get somewhere fast you need to fly. Price is just one metric.
In the US, the rare instances of more open markets for electricity generation markets, like ERCOT, and seeing wind/solar/storage dominate over natural gas in new deployments.
This wouldn't happen unless they actually were cheaper.
However, regulated monopolies in other parts of the country have no incentive to innovate or use newer technology. Thus they make their five year plans (usually called IRPs) with opaque financial models with out-of-date costs, leading to bad decision making.
This wouldn't happen unless they actually were cheaper.
However, regulated monopolies in other parts of the country have no incentive to innovate or use newer technology. Thus they make their five year plans (usually called IRPs) with opaque financial models with out-of-date costs, leading to bad decision making.
>How did Tesla succeed is GM and the oil companies were supposedly going to use politics to keep the electric car from succeeding?
Maybe a different way to ask the same sort of question is: What would the auto industry look like now if the political climate had been more favorable towards electric vehicles?
Maybe a different way to ask the same sort of question is: What would the auto industry look like now if the political climate had been more favorable towards electric vehicles?
And for that matter, Tesla cars are not renewable electricity.
I'm taking about specific market forces in the electricity market in the US, not the car market.
I'm taking about specific market forces in the electricity market in the US, not the car market.
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 come together and how much inefficiency is there in the wires or pipes? Presumably some of this water is likely to be sea water.
Presumably the sea water that would be needed to feed the hydrocarbon production along with the sea water from desalination (also discussed later) will have their own problems. "desalination toxic brine" has 177,000 hits on google.
> 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 come together and how much inefficiency is there in the wires or pipes? Presumably some of this water is likely to be sea water.
Presumably the sea water that would be needed to feed the hydrocarbon production along with the sea water from desalination (also discussed later) will have their own problems. "desalination toxic brine" has 177,000 hits on google.
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.
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.
But this way is carbon neutral. Every CO2 molecule you pump out, started out as a CO2 molecule you took from the air. There is no reason to dislike fossil fuels, if they no longer come from fossils. It's the releasing of carbon from millions of years ago that's creating the excess.
But Neutral < Negative.
Capturing CO2 is not ‘energy cheap’ and therefore it is best when and where possible much of what we start capturing to rid it from the carbon cycle rather than re-introduce it.
Capturing CO2 is not ‘energy cheap’ and therefore it is best when and where possible much of what we start capturing to rid it from the carbon cycle rather than re-introduce it.
Solar is already extremely cheap, when costed out over it's minimal lifetime. At grid scale, it has dipped down to crazy levels.
As you said, this trend will keep on going.
As you said, this trend will keep on going.
According to a couple of studies discussed in [1], solar is cheap, but storage is still expensive.
1: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cost_of_electricity_by_source#...
1: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cost_of_electricity_by_source#...
For grid scale, batteries add a lot of value. They can pay for themselves rather quickly since they react far quicker than spinning up FF peakers.
Real world example, one of the biggest batteries in the world likely will be paid off in 2-3 years: https://electrek.co/2018/09/24/tesla-powerpack-battery-austr...
Real world example, one of the biggest batteries in the world likely will be paid off in 2-3 years: https://electrek.co/2018/09/24/tesla-powerpack-battery-austr...
I suspect those weren't included in the studies because they aren't grid scale yet.
Consider that "one of the biggest batteries in the world" stores 129 MWh, enough to sustain the US grid for one second.[1] (Of course, it can't discharge that quickly, so we really need four thousand of them to sustain the grid for one hour).
For comparison, the current capacity of pumped-storage hydroelectricity in the US is about 550GWh[2], the equivalent of about four thousand of those facilities. And we still don't have enough storage to replace nonrenewables with solar.
Batteries like that one won't reduce the actual price of energy storage here until Tesla builds thousands of installations in the US alone. And it would take hundreds of thousands worldwide (along with solar generation) to replace nonrenewable generation.
But it is a promising technology. If many are built quickly, and the reported financials prove accurate and scalable, we might have cheap grid-scale storage in ten or twenty years.
1: According to the US Energy Information administration, the US grid generates about 4 billion MWh per year.
https://www.eia.gov/energyexplained/electricity/electricity-...
That's about 127 MWh per second.
2: "[In the United States] forty-three PSH plants with a total power capacity of 21.9 GW and estimated energy storage capacity of 553 GWh accounted for 93% of utility-scale storage power capacity (GW) and more than 99% of electrical energy storage (GWh) in 2019."
https://www.energy.gov/sites/prod/files/2021/01/f82/us-hydro...
Consider that "one of the biggest batteries in the world" stores 129 MWh, enough to sustain the US grid for one second.[1] (Of course, it can't discharge that quickly, so we really need four thousand of them to sustain the grid for one hour).
For comparison, the current capacity of pumped-storage hydroelectricity in the US is about 550GWh[2], the equivalent of about four thousand of those facilities. And we still don't have enough storage to replace nonrenewables with solar.
Batteries like that one won't reduce the actual price of energy storage here until Tesla builds thousands of installations in the US alone. And it would take hundreds of thousands worldwide (along with solar generation) to replace nonrenewable generation.
But it is a promising technology. If many are built quickly, and the reported financials prove accurate and scalable, we might have cheap grid-scale storage in ten or twenty years.
1: According to the US Energy Information administration, the US grid generates about 4 billion MWh per year.
https://www.eia.gov/energyexplained/electricity/electricity-...
That's about 127 MWh per second.
2: "[In the United States] forty-three PSH plants with a total power capacity of 21.9 GW and estimated energy storage capacity of 553 GWh accounted for 93% of utility-scale storage power capacity (GW) and more than 99% of electrical energy storage (GWh) in 2019."
https://www.energy.gov/sites/prod/files/2021/01/f82/us-hydro...
You can easily run a grid on 60% renewables with essentially no storage at all. We have a long way to go before 60% of the world's primary power consumption is switched to renewables.
But if you drive most non-renewables out of business in the process, you'll have a lot of outages at night.
Germany runs on about 50% renewable electricity and doesn't have outages at night.
I see we're not discussing the same thing. I was talking about the cost of solar and storage, Germany uses more wind and a lot of biomass and hydro.
But I'm happy to discuss this too. That 50% figure is a peak (achieved when conditions were favorable) and ignores imported electricity.
According to [1], renewables accounted for 41% of power production in Germany in 2021, but only 16.1% of primary energy consumption.
AIUI, that difference comes from (a) imports and (b) the fact that primary energy consumption also includes heating and transport, two sectors that often aren't directly powered by electricity yet, but which must be before an economy can stop consuming non-renewable energy.
1: https://www.cleanenergywire.org/factsheets/germanys-energy-c...
But I'm happy to discuss this too. That 50% figure is a peak (achieved when conditions were favorable) and ignores imported electricity.
According to [1], renewables accounted for 41% of power production in Germany in 2021, but only 16.1% of primary energy consumption.
AIUI, that difference comes from (a) imports and (b) the fact that primary energy consumption also includes heating and transport, two sectors that often aren't directly powered by electricity yet, but which must be before an economy can stop consuming non-renewable energy.
1: https://www.cleanenergywire.org/factsheets/germanys-energy-c...
Making hydrocarbons for airplanes and maybe for cargo ships makes sense unless the power density of batteries increases dramatically. Creating hydrocarbons to put into commuter cars and trucks that traverse developed regions sounds like a bad idea.
I am sort of in a middle ground on this. Hydrocarbons are near magic in terms of their physical properties and electric, as it stands currently, have major problems replacing them in some situations (aviation/shipping).
I don't think we will entirely replace them, not unless there is some big innovation. Which could happen. I think it is going to be a combination of, mass uptake in renewables that come to about 1/2 or 1/4th of the total energy we use today, gains in efficiency from using electric rather than combustible heat engines, hydrocarbons in those few places it still makes sense - and most importantly - rational use of energy! Planned public transport instead of private vehicles for instance. Some stuff more in line with the sustainability and permaculture stuff that was being developed in the 1970's.
I don't think we will entirely replace them, not unless there is some big innovation. Which could happen. I think it is going to be a combination of, mass uptake in renewables that come to about 1/2 or 1/4th of the total energy we use today, gains in efficiency from using electric rather than combustible heat engines, hydrocarbons in those few places it still makes sense - and most importantly - rational use of energy! Planned public transport instead of private vehicles for instance. Some stuff more in line with the sustainability and permaculture stuff that was being developed in the 1970's.
Why do you not believe in synthetic hydrocarbons? What else do you believe is a better alternative then?
Your questions are loaded. You're doing the religious person thing of "Well you don't believe in Jesus, so what do you believe in?" Just because I don't believe synthetic hydrocarbons are a good idea doesn't mean I have to have a replacement.
Synthetic hydrocarbons may be the stepping stone civilisation needs, until a better way of storing renewable energy at grid scale is invented. If you don't like them for unspecified reasons, and don't propose a viable alternative, you're not contributing to the debate.
The point is “if there is nothing better or less bad, then we have to go for it”. Shouldn’t stop us from looking for something better though.
> It makes a lot more sense to transport the energy to the water than vice versa.
That’s my gut feeling as well. Perhaps the location of the consumer of the hydrocarbons would change that in some cases.
That’s my gut feeling as well. Perhaps the location of the consumer of the hydrocarbons would change that in some cases.
While desalination requires disposing of all the waterborne particulate, the water can sometimes be precious enough that we bear it. I heard a radio report yesterday [0] about how investing in desalination helped mitigate USA CA Catalina Island's direly depleted resivoir. That's not to say that brine treatment or disposal isn't costly, more that - so long as people are committed to living in dry areas and can afford to, they will pressure their local governments to keep the area habitable.
[0] https://www.marketplace.org/2022/07/18/drought-technology-po...
[0] https://www.marketplace.org/2022/07/18/drought-technology-po...
This comes up a lot when desalination is mentioned. Think of the pacific as a bucket of water. And desalinating all the water we ever need adds up to tiny fraction of a drop of water in comparison. Now the brine is an even tinier fraction of that drop that goes back in the bucket. What does it do to ppm counts of things like salt? Absolutely nothing whatsoever.
Yes, dumping concentrated brine in shallow waters causes issues for the local wild life. Simple solution: don't dump it there. For example, if you pump it out to deeper waters, you are not going to affect ppm counts of salt and other minerals in any meaningful or even measurable way. You couldn't even if you wanted to. It's just way too much water.
There's a reason why surfers in LA wear wet suits: the water there is cold because it has no chance to heat up by much. That's because the coast there isn't very shallow. About 1-2 miles from the coast, the bottom already drops to hundreds of feet. And there are some powerful currents that constantly mix things up. Ideal place to get rid of a relatively tiny amount of brine.
Brine disposal is a simple engineering problem. Probably you and I could come up with a dozen different ways to do it that would be perfectly acceptable. Of course there's a cost attached to those things. That's actually the main challenge. Pipes and pumps cost money.
Yes, dumping concentrated brine in shallow waters causes issues for the local wild life. Simple solution: don't dump it there. For example, if you pump it out to deeper waters, you are not going to affect ppm counts of salt and other minerals in any meaningful or even measurable way. You couldn't even if you wanted to. It's just way too much water.
There's a reason why surfers in LA wear wet suits: the water there is cold because it has no chance to heat up by much. That's because the coast there isn't very shallow. About 1-2 miles from the coast, the bottom already drops to hundreds of feet. And there are some powerful currents that constantly mix things up. Ideal place to get rid of a relatively tiny amount of brine.
Brine disposal is a simple engineering problem. Probably you and I could come up with a dozen different ways to do it that would be perfectly acceptable. Of course there's a cost attached to those things. That's actually the main challenge. Pipes and pumps cost money.
Not a full answer to this issue yet there’s a lot of work being done in getting solids (either to landfill or to use for something) from desal brine.
In every game of Factorio I've played I didn't realize just how many solar panels I'd needed until I was hitting my power limits and in desperate need of more. The problem being that manufacturing these takes... power.
Yes but... In Factorio, the only cost is the original manufacturing costs. The same goes for storage. Once manufactured and placed, they will produce power forever as long as it is daylight. The capacitors will also last forever. There are no weather patterns to mess up production.
In other words, once you make one, you have a permanent power increase. Your power can grow exponentially if you just focus on building and placing panels. That makes them the absolute best power source in the game. Not the most compact, though. But that doesn't matter since the map is infinite and there are no transmission losses.
Reality is not as forgiving. We'll need more panels. Way more :) Even more if we start doing things like fuel synthesis. But we should.
I has always bugged me that we use dirty power during summer to... power ACs! We have all this extra energy literally falling from the sky. Which is the whole reason why we want to get rid of it. Air conditioning doesn't actually require that much power to run with proper insulation. People have been able to power large RV air conditioning with solar alone.
In other words, once you make one, you have a permanent power increase. Your power can grow exponentially if you just focus on building and placing panels. That makes them the absolute best power source in the game. Not the most compact, though. But that doesn't matter since the map is infinite and there are no transmission losses.
Reality is not as forgiving. We'll need more panels. Way more :) Even more if we start doing things like fuel synthesis. But we should.
I has always bugged me that we use dirty power during summer to... power ACs! We have all this extra energy literally falling from the sky. Which is the whole reason why we want to get rid of it. Air conditioning doesn't actually require that much power to run with proper insulation. People have been able to power large RV air conditioning with solar alone.
> We have all this extra energy literally falling from the sky.
Yeah, Jerry Pournelle used to say on this topic, "it's raining soup, and we're too stupid to hold out a bowl."
Well, now we're at least holding out a few soup spoons, and making some more every year.
Yeah, Jerry Pournelle used to say on this topic, "it's raining soup, and we're too stupid to hold out a bowl."
Well, now we're at least holding out a few soup spoons, and making some more every year.
I'm currently keeping half of a quite large (and horribly leaky) house perfectly pleasant with a midsized solar array, a portable air conditioner, and a fan. Zero grid draw.
We have the power already! In California we currently enjoy the phenomenon of “curtailment” where we can’t use solar power when and where it is produced, so we just disconnect solar panels from the grid. This usually happens in the spring when sun is plentiful and demand is low. If crystalline PV production was collocated with seasonally-curtailed solar power plants, you have a runaway virtuous cycle of zero-carbon energy production.
Of course, you’d have to subsidize it because basic economics won’t make it work.
Of course, you’d have to subsidize it because basic economics won’t make it work.
tbh i just skip solar panels. it's such a grind. by the time i can make them at scale, i need so many of them, and i hate placing them. even with pretty OP construction bots it's not worth the effort IMO.
this might be mitigated if you tile something that can self expand, but even then you'll have to AFK or just have this going on for hours while you don't have access to the power you're trying to generated.
i end up scaling coal as far as i can and then rushing nuclear. nuclear is also a grind but at least you have to place them less frequently.
this might be mitigated if you tile something that can self expand, but even then you'll have to AFK or just have this going on for hours while you don't have access to the power you're trying to generated.
i end up scaling coal as far as i can and then rushing nuclear. nuclear is also a grind but at least you have to place them less frequently.
Solar power in Factorio pairs really well with spidertron. You can give it a bunch of bots, and an automated production line and it just builds itself. The only hard part is to make sure to always keep power growing rather than only expanding when you need more power.
Real life will probably move on from panels, too. PV will be made on big rolls of plastic film (like mylar or kapton), laid out on the ground. Think 3 meters wide by a kilometre long.
The amount of solar panes we need was first impressed upon my by David Mackay's "Without Hot Air"[1]. I personally think solar is a useful tool for certain applications, but powering all of humanity with it feels like a step backwards paradigmatically.
Really roughly speak we can think of solar as a step forward in human compatible photosynthesis.
Humanity went to another tier of energy when we started to harness fire with steam and later internal combustion engines.
Electrical transmission is definitely more convenient than moving bags of rice (stored photosynthesis), pipelines of oil and gas (also stored photosynthesis). This electrical grid can also store its energy through various "batteries"(used loosely) with various entropy.
But nuclear power really seems to be the paradigm shift. Instead of being many steps down the chain from solar nuclear to capturing a minuscule portion, we can capture far far more (the majority?) of it for our uses. I feel like we're just so new at it, we're like early mankind using fire burning ourselves, choking on smoke, and generally unsophisticated comparatively to the incredible control and harness of the power one sees in, say, a racing motorcycle -- firing 14k times per second with perfectly controlled, atomized gasoline and air mixture, compressed to exact ratios...
Such a good article, as someone else mentioned it really is an inspiring subject.
[1]: Chapter on solar: https://www.withouthotair.com/c6/page_38.shtml
Really roughly speak we can think of solar as a step forward in human compatible photosynthesis.
Humanity went to another tier of energy when we started to harness fire with steam and later internal combustion engines.
Electrical transmission is definitely more convenient than moving bags of rice (stored photosynthesis), pipelines of oil and gas (also stored photosynthesis). This electrical grid can also store its energy through various "batteries"(used loosely) with various entropy.
But nuclear power really seems to be the paradigm shift. Instead of being many steps down the chain from solar nuclear to capturing a minuscule portion, we can capture far far more (the majority?) of it for our uses. I feel like we're just so new at it, we're like early mankind using fire burning ourselves, choking on smoke, and generally unsophisticated comparatively to the incredible control and harness of the power one sees in, say, a racing motorcycle -- firing 14k times per second with perfectly controlled, atomized gasoline and air mixture, compressed to exact ratios...
Such a good article, as someone else mentioned it really is an inspiring subject.
[1]: Chapter on solar: https://www.withouthotair.com/c6/page_38.shtml
Without Hot Air and this blog are polar opposites. Without Hot Air uses costs from 2008 and assumes that they won't improve.
The costs of solar have reduced by 90% since 2008 so McKay's conclusions are horribly wrong.
OTOH Casey Handler is betting his company that the costs will improve from current values.
The costs of solar have reduced by 90% since 2008 so McKay's conclusions are horribly wrong.
OTOH Casey Handler is betting his company that the costs will improve from current values.
While the cost of the hardware has, many factors still apply such as efficiency and thusly the total area of solar required.
You're right though that the book is not up to date, and getting long in the tooth in some aspects.
You're right though that the book is not up to date, and getting long in the tooth in some aspects.
Efficiency has almost doubled since 2008 but more importantly efficiency at non optimal angles has improved even more. Put together he's off by about an order of magnitude in the amount of land required.
The other factor that is missed is that solar panels are proving to be surprisingly non exclusive in their land usage.
The other factor that is missed is that solar panels are proving to be surprisingly non exclusive in their land usage.
People doubting there is enough land to be used for solar panels should check how much land is used for parking lots.
Efficiency may have doubled, but the book used a very optimistic 30% efficiency, which afaik is still quite a bit higher than even current rates.
The book used a very pessimistic 10% efficiency for panels installed in large scale solar farms:
https://www.withouthotair.com/c6/page_41.shtml
If a breakthrough of solar technology occurs and the cost of photovoltaics came down enough that we could deploy panels all over the countryside, what is the maximum conceivable production? Well, if we covered 5% of the UK with 10%-efficient panels, we’d have
10% × 100 W/m2 × 200 m2 per person ≈ 50 kWh/day/person.
I assumed only 10%-efficient panels, by the way, because I imagine that solar panels would be mass-produced on such a scale only if they were very cheap, and it’s the lower-efficiency panels that will get cheap first.
Utility scale panels today are commonly a bit over 20%.
https://www.withouthotair.com/c6/page_41.shtml
If a breakthrough of solar technology occurs and the cost of photovoltaics came down enough that we could deploy panels all over the countryside, what is the maximum conceivable production? Well, if we covered 5% of the UK with 10%-efficient panels, we’d have
10% × 100 W/m2 × 200 m2 per person ≈ 50 kWh/day/person.
I assumed only 10%-efficient panels, by the way, because I imagine that solar panels would be mass-produced on such a scale only if they were very cheap, and it’s the lower-efficiency panels that will get cheap first.
Utility scale panels today are commonly a bit over 20%.
What trend makes you think nuclear is going to make a paradigm shift?
I keep reading the same "nuclear is the future", but not only it is not improving its costs, it's getting worse. EDF is just broke, and the french citizens are going to pay for it.
I keep reading the same "nuclear is the future", but not only it is not improving its costs, it's getting worse. EDF is just broke, and the french citizens are going to pay for it.
What would interest me: Can I do this locally, at the site of the consumer? Take the unused PV output of my house in summer to fill my house’s tank with natural gas for use in winter? Is that something that would be technically feasible today?
Why convert to gas for heating later when you can just store heat itself?*
There was an article/discussion here recently about heat batteries using sand to store heat for months, to use for heating in winter. This tech seems fairly simple to implement at scale.
https://www.abc.net.au/news/science/2022-07-19/sand-battery-...
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=32006791
*This is a rhetorical question, I'm sure everyone can easily think of many benefits. But there is elegance in simplicity.
There was an article/discussion here recently about heat batteries using sand to store heat for months, to use for heating in winter. This tech seems fairly simple to implement at scale.
https://www.abc.net.au/news/science/2022-07-19/sand-battery-...
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=32006791
*This is a rhetorical question, I'm sure everyone can easily think of many benefits. But there is elegance in simplicity.
Storing heat for months requires really, really good insulation, and insulating many small stores is far more expensive than insulating one big store (essentially a square-cube thing).
So this kind of thing may only be viable for industrial processes.
So this kind of thing may only be viable for industrial processes.
In the residential context, the magic word here is "ground source heat pump". A really big coolant loop that stores heat underground. Depending on the jurisdiction and loop size, figure it will cost $15,000+
Sounds great!
I wonder: Why is sand better than the dirt that’s already on site? Dirt, after all, contains water, which I believe should have an even higher thermal capacity, or not?
Also: How about combining this approach with a heat pump instead of resistive heating?
I wonder: Why is sand better than the dirt that’s already on site? Dirt, after all, contains water, which I believe should have an even higher thermal capacity, or not?
Also: How about combining this approach with a heat pump instead of resistive heating?
Hydrogen. This is my neighbor: https://hoermannsolar.de/wohnen-im-wasserstoffhaus/
I keep reading that H2 storage is difficult, lossy, and dangerous. H2 gas stations have blown up every now and then. Has that changed?
Hydrogen can be stored underground (and is), just like natural gas. This is much cheaper per unit energy storage capacity than storing energy in batteries.
AFAIK H2 is way more difficult to contain than natural gas, as the molecules are so tiny. Very hard to build a container that doesn't continuously leak the gas.
Hydrogen has been stored underground in multiple places. This is not some speculative technology, it actually exists. The problem you describe is not a blocker. Granted, underground storage is at a larger scale than for an individual. Storing hydrogen in your home is probably not a good idea. Storing thermal energy underground, on the other hand, could make sense for seasonal storage. Ground source heat pumps essentially do that.
there is a short term battery based storage but the long term storage for the winter months is the h2 storage. I think the system is very expensive but a cool prove of concept and for sure a step in the right direction.
Do you have an idea of how much that system costs? I mean if you could pay 100k once and be free of all energy bills for the lifetime of the house/the system it could be quite a value proposition. May Putin, OPEC and the government do what they want - you just do your own power and heat, with no more middlemen.
no.
In general, increasing the concentration of any product in a closed system requires net energy input across the system boundary. Larger increases in concentration need more energy input than smaller increases of concentration.
Concentrating atmospheric CO2 involves increasing the concentration from approx. 400 ppm, to a higher target concentration. That's 0.04%. There is no way around the energy input requirement within the basic, universally applicable and virtually undisputed laws of thermodynamics. You can make your process as efficient as possible, but there is a minimum energy requirement (theoretical limit) that you can calculate on a per unit basis for atmospheric CO2 capture that is very, very, very high.
For that reason, industry captures CO2 at point source (you start from a higher concentration). Unless you have zero access to point sources, point source capture will always be more "Environmentally Friendly" than atmospheric carbon capture.
Concentrating atmospheric CO2 involves increasing the concentration from approx. 400 ppm, to a higher target concentration. That's 0.04%. There is no way around the energy input requirement within the basic, universally applicable and virtually undisputed laws of thermodynamics. You can make your process as efficient as possible, but there is a minimum energy requirement (theoretical limit) that you can calculate on a per unit basis for atmospheric CO2 capture that is very, very, very high.
For that reason, industry captures CO2 at point source (you start from a higher concentration). Unless you have zero access to point sources, point source capture will always be more "Environmentally Friendly" than atmospheric carbon capture.
It's curious that you didn't actually include the calculation of what the minimum energy requirement; instead, you just assert without evidence that it is "very, very, very high".
In fact this theoretical minimum is not very high; as https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Direct_air_capture#Environment... explains, it is only 250 kWh/tonne CO₂, or 900 kJ/kg in SI units. To remove the ≈60 Gt/year of anthropogenic CO₂ currently being emitted and get us to carbon-neutral with direct air capture would consequently require a theoretical minimum of 1.7 terawatts, which is only about 10% of current world marketed energy consumption, and presumably about 5% of world marketed energy consumption 10 years from now. Kicking climate change into reverse would require a bit more than that, maybe double. Depending on the sorbent system, this energy can be solar thermal; it does not have to be electrical.
Existing direct air capture systems like Climeworks's do not closely approach the theoretical minimum. Do you know how much energy they require?
Point source capture is of course much cheaper but it cannot get us to net negative CO₂ emissions.
In fact this theoretical minimum is not very high; as https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Direct_air_capture#Environment... explains, it is only 250 kWh/tonne CO₂, or 900 kJ/kg in SI units. To remove the ≈60 Gt/year of anthropogenic CO₂ currently being emitted and get us to carbon-neutral with direct air capture would consequently require a theoretical minimum of 1.7 terawatts, which is only about 10% of current world marketed energy consumption, and presumably about 5% of world marketed energy consumption 10 years from now. Kicking climate change into reverse would require a bit more than that, maybe double. Depending on the sorbent system, this energy can be solar thermal; it does not have to be electrical.
Existing direct air capture systems like Climeworks's do not closely approach the theoretical minimum. Do you know how much energy they require?
Point source capture is of course much cheaper but it cannot get us to net negative CO₂ emissions.
> Point source capture is of course much cheaper but it cannot get us to net negative CO₂ emissions.
But it certainly can: by capturing on a point source that burns biological fuel. Without the burning, all the CO2 emitted (or captured) would have cycled back to the air a short time later anyways. And if you mainly do it to have a cheap carbon source to make some intermittent energy source you already have storable/transportable (e.g. creating aircraft fuel), just about any low grade biomass will do. Grass. Leaves. Dried algae. Paper too dirty for recycling (or rather: any paper - does paper recycling even make any sense in an economy that also burns wood for energy?). When you start looking at incineration not as disposal and/or energy source, but as a source of concentrated CO2, almost anything turns into a useful resource. All that stuff contains carbon, and it's all going back into the atmosphere one way or another.
But it certainly can: by capturing on a point source that burns biological fuel. Without the burning, all the CO2 emitted (or captured) would have cycled back to the air a short time later anyways. And if you mainly do it to have a cheap carbon source to make some intermittent energy source you already have storable/transportable (e.g. creating aircraft fuel), just about any low grade biomass will do. Grass. Leaves. Dried algae. Paper too dirty for recycling (or rather: any paper - does paper recycling even make any sense in an economy that also burns wood for energy?). When you start looking at incineration not as disposal and/or energy source, but as a source of concentrated CO2, almost anything turns into a useful resource. All that stuff contains carbon, and it's all going back into the atmosphere one way or another.
Oh, I guess you're right.
>Unless you have zero access to point sources, point source capture will always be more "Environmentally Friendly" than atmospheric carbon capture.
Ideally we'll get to a point where every CO2 point source either stops being a point source, already has a mechanism for capturing the emissions, or can't economically accommodate carbon capture for some other reason (airplanes, probably).
At that point we might still have too much CO2 in the atmosphere. We'd have to figure out some way to get it out, whether that's by manufacturing hydrocarbons, planting trees, something else, or all of the above.
Ideally we'll get to a point where every CO2 point source either stops being a point source, already has a mechanism for capturing the emissions, or can't economically accommodate carbon capture for some other reason (airplanes, probably).
At that point we might still have too much CO2 in the atmosphere. We'd have to figure out some way to get it out, whether that's by manufacturing hydrocarbons, planting trees, something else, or all of the above.
Electro-swing absorption works efficiently at ambient levels:
https://verdox.com/technology
https://verdox.com/technology
Point source capture is pointless: We need the capacity to reduce the atmospheric CO2 concentration. Capturing every molecule of CO2 emitted at its source wouldn’t solve global warming.
I get sabatier and electrolysis but what is a CO2 concentrator? Or rather how does it work? I thought that was the expensive and relatively unknown part of the process.
Aside: Sweet company website https://terraformindustries.com/
Aside: Sweet company website https://terraformindustries.com/
Their white paper covers it, linked from their site.
> CO2 concentration is performed using a closed lime/calcite calcination cycle, operating at ambient temperature and pressure.
https://caseyhandmer.wordpress.com/2022/02/03/terraform-indu...
> CO2 concentration is performed using a closed lime/calcite calcination cycle, operating at ambient temperature and pressure.
https://caseyhandmer.wordpress.com/2022/02/03/terraform-indu...
Can I borrow one for my Sodastream? :)
You may not like the 850°C operational temperature at home.
But the cold part of the cycle, that actually concentrates the CO2 is fun to do at lab-scale, you just have to buy the CaO (and prepare for it becoming very hot).
But the cold part of the cycle, that actually concentrates the CO2 is fun to do at lab-scale, you just have to buy the CaO (and prepare for it becoming very hot).
Website seems like the opposite of one of their competitors, https://www.prometheusfuels.com/
in WW2, we moved to war economy to build multiple
planes per hour, multiple landing ships per day etc, all while rubber, steel, oil, where in short supply.
we should do this again with solar panels.
a vast overproduction of solar energy would even allow for less distribution need, doing away with wasting time&energy on hydrogen and batteries.
we should do this again with solar panels.
a vast overproduction of solar energy would even allow for less distribution need, doing away with wasting time&energy on hydrogen and batteries.
Current consumer friendly rack battery LFP prices are at around 400 EUR/kWh for 6000 cycles at 80% degrations, that's 0.074 EUR per kWh out the the battery.
5 kW inverter price are about 700 EUR, if you assume you have to change them every 7 years and you're getting 6 MWh/year out of the inverter that's 0.017 EUR/kWh.
PV prices are around 0.5 EUR/Watt peak and where I live in France you get about 1000 hours of equivalent peak production per year so that's 0.02 EUR / kWh produced by the panels assuming 25 year life.
All in all you're at about 0.11-0.12 EUR/kWh if you manage to consume all produced/stored kWh, which is easy if you have one or two electric vehicule charging at home.
As mentionned here the hard part are 3-4 winter month where solar production is way lower than the rest of the year.
An additional data point for gaz form of energy storage: a standard "35kg" propane bottle has about 450 kWh of energy in it, if you need 1.4 MWh of heat in the winter to complete solar + heat pump output that's just three bottles. To my knowledge no way to produce/fill it from gaz produced from summer electricity with home sized equipment (yet).
5 kW inverter price are about 700 EUR, if you assume you have to change them every 7 years and you're getting 6 MWh/year out of the inverter that's 0.017 EUR/kWh.
PV prices are around 0.5 EUR/Watt peak and where I live in France you get about 1000 hours of equivalent peak production per year so that's 0.02 EUR / kWh produced by the panels assuming 25 year life.
All in all you're at about 0.11-0.12 EUR/kWh if you manage to consume all produced/stored kWh, which is easy if you have one or two electric vehicule charging at home.
As mentionned here the hard part are 3-4 winter month where solar production is way lower than the rest of the year.
An additional data point for gaz form of energy storage: a standard "35kg" propane bottle has about 450 kWh of energy in it, if you need 1.4 MWh of heat in the winter to complete solar + heat pump output that's just three bottles. To my knowledge no way to produce/fill it from gaz produced from summer electricity with home sized equipment (yet).
As I pointed out to Casey on Twitter as well, this strategy works really well with Nuclear as well. Largely because the production of fuel rather than electricity means you can transport it over great distances without the losses generated by heat or radiation.
My suggestion was setting up a 3GW nuclear plant in the middle of the Nevada Test site (an area that would not suffer in the extremely unlikely event there was any leakage of radioactive material in the even more rare event of an accident) And have that plant produce methane 24/7. It can ship the methane by pipeline to anywhere and provide heating or electricity using existing gas infrastructure.
If you made it a more complex breeder reactor (or had a breeder reactor on site and a fuel reclamation facility) it could do that essentially forever. (caveat lifetime of materials and maintenance etc).
Solar works for this too, but you have to build a lot of panels (this is the article lede of course).
This is also how fusion would change everything as well, with excess power you could spend it on making carbon neutral burnable fuels and desalinating water for mitigating droughts.
My suggestion was setting up a 3GW nuclear plant in the middle of the Nevada Test site (an area that would not suffer in the extremely unlikely event there was any leakage of radioactive material in the even more rare event of an accident) And have that plant produce methane 24/7. It can ship the methane by pipeline to anywhere and provide heating or electricity using existing gas infrastructure.
If you made it a more complex breeder reactor (or had a breeder reactor on site and a fuel reclamation facility) it could do that essentially forever. (caveat lifetime of materials and maintenance etc).
Solar works for this too, but you have to build a lot of panels (this is the article lede of course).
This is also how fusion would change everything as well, with excess power you could spend it on making carbon neutral burnable fuels and desalinating water for mitigating droughts.
> Largely because the production of fuel rather than electricity means you can transport it over great distances without the losses generated by heat or radiation.
I very much doubt you can get higher efficiency by going
In particular big turbines are about 60% efficient, ICEs are about 30% efficient and electricity -> fuel conversion is even worse.
I very much doubt you can get higher efficiency by going
electricity -> fuel -> pipeline -> generator
electricity -> wires ->
In particular big turbines are about 60% efficient, ICEs are about 30% efficient and electricity -> fuel conversion is even worse.
Back when I had a class in power engineering as part of my EE program there was about a week discussing transmission line loss. The example we worked on was Hoover Dam which sends its electricity 266 miles over transmission lines to LA where the University was. It was remarkable how much energy was lost both in what are called "i2r" (I squared R) losses (that is just the transmission wires losing energy as heat) and radiation losses where the power lines are essentially very long antennas. There are lots of strategies that are employed to mitigate both kinds of losses, those strategies have their own limits as well. It is all rather more complex than just hooking a wire from point A to point B, as such things are.
The other advantage that Casey's scheme has is power generated during the day doesn't need to be consumed right away if it is stored in Methane. This is true of Nuclear power as well.
The efficiency argument weakened still further if you compare the full cost of drilling, extracting, transporting, and then burning existing "fossil fuel" sources of methane because that not only damages the environment with the contaminated ground water from fracking or other extraction methods, but adds to greenhouse gasses in the the air.
The efficiency here is that your take zero (or nearly so) carbon foot print energy generation to create fuel that has net 0 impact on warming gases in the atmosphere (it takes the CO2 out of the air which is then re-released back into the air when it is burned). For things that can't be electrified, or are better served by heat combustion. Those things are, jet fuel, heating homes, baking, etc.
The other advantage is it re-uses existing infrastructure. So on a dollars per ton reduction of CO2 it is much more efficient than existing solutions, whether you use solar or nuclear.
Like most things, efficiency is a measure of some metric with respect to two choices to achieve the same result.
The choice presented by Casey is "How do you get methane for things that use it?"
If your metric is greenhouse gas emissions you get more gas with has a much lower greenhouse gas impact. On that basis it is much more efficient whether you use Nuclear or Solar as your energy input.
The other advantage that Casey's scheme has is power generated during the day doesn't need to be consumed right away if it is stored in Methane. This is true of Nuclear power as well.
The efficiency argument weakened still further if you compare the full cost of drilling, extracting, transporting, and then burning existing "fossil fuel" sources of methane because that not only damages the environment with the contaminated ground water from fracking or other extraction methods, but adds to greenhouse gasses in the the air.
The efficiency here is that your take zero (or nearly so) carbon foot print energy generation to create fuel that has net 0 impact on warming gases in the atmosphere (it takes the CO2 out of the air which is then re-released back into the air when it is burned). For things that can't be electrified, or are better served by heat combustion. Those things are, jet fuel, heating homes, baking, etc.
The other advantage is it re-uses existing infrastructure. So on a dollars per ton reduction of CO2 it is much more efficient than existing solutions, whether you use solar or nuclear.
Like most things, efficiency is a measure of some metric with respect to two choices to achieve the same result.
The choice presented by Casey is "How do you get methane for things that use it?"
If your metric is greenhouse gas emissions you get more gas with has a much lower greenhouse gas impact. On that basis it is much more efficient whether you use Nuclear or Solar as your energy input.
> The U.S. grid loses about 5 percent of all the electricity generated through transmission and distribution [1]
Compared to losing over 70% of energy by converting it to methane (optimistic bound, I vaguely remember seeing 14% efficiency somewhere but can't find it quickly so I doubled it and ignored other loses which are probably also over 50% combined). I think it's pretty clear it makes no sense to do this for predictable baseload powerplants like nuclear. The main advantage is storage for unpredictable, time-dependent solar energy.
[1] https://www.nrdc.org/experts/jennifer-chen/lost-transmission...
Compared to losing over 70% of energy by converting it to methane (optimistic bound, I vaguely remember seeing 14% efficiency somewhere but can't find it quickly so I doubled it and ignored other loses which are probably also over 50% combined). I think it's pretty clear it makes no sense to do this for predictable baseload powerplants like nuclear. The main advantage is storage for unpredictable, time-dependent solar energy.
[1] https://www.nrdc.org/experts/jennifer-chen/lost-transmission...
I suspect the voters of Nevada would say, "Nimby". Maybe the DoE should make a reactor like this and put it in DC, where the voters are not allowed to say "Nimby". Anti-democracry to save the day.
As a former Nevada resident, and someone who has worked at the Test Site, I can assure you that it would be unusual if the folks living in Nevada objected. :-)
If we forget about where the power is coming from for the moment, wasn't the US Navy experimenting with fuel synthesis? Did that go anywhere?
A nuclear powered carrier has no use for fuel itself, it only stores fuel for aircraft operations. Having the ability to make fuel on site with all the excess cheap electricity seems to be a game changer.
Wondering what happened to it. That is the latest I can find: https://www.autoevolution.com/news/us-navy-aircraft-carriers...
300k grant? That's peanuts for something that has incredible potential.
Obviously, I'm looking at future civilian applications for the tech.
A nuclear powered carrier has no use for fuel itself, it only stores fuel for aircraft operations. Having the ability to make fuel on site with all the excess cheap electricity seems to be a game changer.
Wondering what happened to it. That is the latest I can find: https://www.autoevolution.com/news/us-navy-aircraft-carriers...
300k grant? That's peanuts for something that has incredible potential.
Obviously, I'm looking at future civilian applications for the tech.
Porsche are on to it. https://newsroom.porsche.com/en_AU/2022/sustainability/porsc...
A project related to the Navy project was "Project Foghorn" at GoogleX: https://x.company/projects/foghorn/
A better technology is currently being scaled up at Prometheus Fuels: https://www.science.org/content/article/former-playwright-ai...
A better technology is currently being scaled up at Prometheus Fuels: https://www.science.org/content/article/former-playwright-ai...
You should check out Prometheus Fuels: https://prometheusfuels.com/
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.)
In the US at least I think it would be better to describe the rate at which we add solar to the grid as limited by regulatory and grid management issues. The backlog of projects waiting to be approved, in terms of capacity, is about as large as the currently installed solar capacity. One problem here is figuring out the transmission issues related to adding new capacity, so it's not just a purely regulatory issue, but the way in which grid capacity is added assumed new plants would look more like coal plants so there are regulatory aspects to it.
But of course, if you're going to just use your solar field to make hydrocarbon when the sun shines you don't have to care about any of that.
But of course, if you're going to just use your solar field to make hydrocarbon when the sun shines you don't have to care about any of that.
I once estimated that it need the surface area of spain to power all of the world. Asuming all energy is electricity at that point. And I only took bad numbers like 100w sqm for 2-3 h a day.
So very local photovoltaic and storage is more or less the solution in my opinion.
So very local photovoltaic and storage is more or less the solution in my opinion.
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 to encourage a huge investment in solar power, which would be good for the planet and people in general (and unstated, also Terraform's bottom line).
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 to encourage a huge investment in solar power, which would be good for the planet and people in general (and unstated, also Terraform's bottom line).
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.
If you're a central planning committee trying to solve for the best outcome under physical constraints, nothing beats nuclear power and railroads.
If you're living in an economic system where investment is primarily determined by rate of profit, then you need to identify a solution where everyone involved is making more money than they would be without you. So it's very important they're competing with oil on economic terms while increasing demand for solar.
If you're living in an economic system where investment is primarily determined by rate of profit, then you need to identify a solution where everyone involved is making more money than they would be without you. So it's very important they're competing with oil on economic terms while increasing demand for solar.
Maybe if natural gas was in short supply I could understand their angle. But it isn't, so I don't. Seems like a solution in search of a problem. Meanwhile, global warming, the paramount problem, needs fast solutions, not elaborate stopgap workarounds.
You're missing the part where this would displace fossil fuels with "electrofuels", meaning for every ton of this stuff made, that's more fossil fuels left in the ground. Replacing a fossil fuel with a carbon neutral fuel means a reduction in net carbon emissions.
The other part you're missing is that this decouples fuel production from locations with large fossil fuel sources (often run by governments with authoritarian rulers who use their exports as leverage). This means that you can spread production to anywhere the sun shines which means highly decentralized, local production of electrofuels.
The third part you're missing is how this increases demand for solar panels and carbon sequestration technology which has an amazing feedback loop that makes these cheaper and more efficient over the decades, meaning that as hydrocarbon demand declines over time as other technologies take over (e.g., electric cars reducing demand from the transportation sector), this built up intellectual capital and infrastructure can be used to just sequester carbon for long-term storage, which would be net negative instead of just carbon neutral.
There's probably more you're missing but I'd just recommend reading more of the blog where he explains everything.
The other part you're missing is that this decouples fuel production from locations with large fossil fuel sources (often run by governments with authoritarian rulers who use their exports as leverage). This means that you can spread production to anywhere the sun shines which means highly decentralized, local production of electrofuels.
The third part you're missing is how this increases demand for solar panels and carbon sequestration technology which has an amazing feedback loop that makes these cheaper and more efficient over the decades, meaning that as hydrocarbon demand declines over time as other technologies take over (e.g., electric cars reducing demand from the transportation sector), this built up intellectual capital and infrastructure can be used to just sequester carbon for long-term storage, which would be net negative instead of just carbon neutral.
There's probably more you're missing but I'd just recommend reading more of the blog where he explains everything.
> if natural gas was in short supply
You are aware of the situation in western Europe, yes?
You are aware of the situation in western Europe, yes?
Remind me, western europe, that is the place where offshore wind is way cheaper than natural gas and other alternatives but where the political and economic system seems to be completely unable to connect investments with rational policy goals (survival, independence) and needs of the population (maintaining core temperature within non-lethal ranges, etc.)? :)
So I mean, I assume the original point is about supply/demand, but supply of gas is already short, prices are already high, alternatives are already cheaper, and yet our system is still failing to take any action that might lead to a survivable outcome. So the supply/demand thing seems like a completely meaningless tangent at this point??
So I mean, I assume the original point is about supply/demand, but supply of gas is already short, prices are already high, alternatives are already cheaper, and yet our system is still failing to take any action that might lead to a survivable outcome. So the supply/demand thing seems like a completely meaningless tangent at this point??
It's not natural gas if you're synthesizing it!
Methane has some significant advantages over electricity: it's storable over time and can be used to fuel vehicles. About a third of the vehicles in this country are methane-fueled, in fact. A CNG tank is a hell of a lot cheaper than a car-sized lithium battery. If you go further and make the methane into kerosene you can fly airplanes with it. Airplanes can't fly while they're plugged into the grid.
Methane has some significant advantages over electricity: it's storable over time and can be used to fuel vehicles. About a third of the vehicles in this country are methane-fueled, in fact. A CNG tank is a hell of a lot cheaper than a car-sized lithium battery. If you go further and make the methane into kerosene you can fly airplanes with it. Airplanes can't fly while they're plugged into the grid.
In the long term, complete displacement of hydrocarbons from the economy is probably the end goal. However, we are nowhere near being able to do that right now. Obviously for the billions of vehicles on the road and the current grid power generation we need not just solar/wind generation, but also massive amounts of grid storage (or massive increases in nuclear) and vehicle batteries. But in industry there are tons of chemical processes that also require hydrocarbons that we haven’t found suitable replacements for yet.
Because it’s not clear how fast we can get absolutely massive amounts of grid storage or nuclear deployed, finding ways to make effectively carbon-neutral natural gas/petroleum is a good step in the right direction, where we can continue to use some hydrocarbons without a net increase in greenhouse gasses in the atmosphere and oceans.
It’s also not clear if we will be able to replace all of our current petroleum reliant industrial processes with non-carbonized alternatives, and in those cases, this will be the absolute best case for us.
Because it’s not clear how fast we can get absolutely massive amounts of grid storage or nuclear deployed, finding ways to make effectively carbon-neutral natural gas/petroleum is a good step in the right direction, where we can continue to use some hydrocarbons without a net increase in greenhouse gasses in the atmosphere and oceans.
It’s also not clear if we will be able to replace all of our current petroleum reliant industrial processes with non-carbonized alternatives, and in those cases, this will be the absolute best case for us.
No, I think we are quite near to being able to achieve that.
There may be billions of vehicles on the road, but as soon as the system fails to be able to upkeep all the deployed capital required to maintain them in operating condition (road resurfacing, parts manufacture, refinement and transportation of fuel, maintaining the value of currency in order to motivate the workers to participate in all of the necessary steps, security from hostilities, roads not being flooded/melted, and so on). In such eventualities sizeable portions of the fleet may be rendered inoperable quite quickly and cars will be displaced, out of necessity, by walking.
What you're making is a different point, it's not that we can't displace hydrocarbons, it's that we can't displace them with something equivalent-or-better. We can probably displace cars with walking, concrete structures with ad-hoc shelters, and hospitals with prayer. That is all not just very achievable, but has actually been increasing in inevitability during our prior decades of "inaction" (obviously you can't really call it inaction when we're taking positives steps to hasten these outcomes)
There may be billions of vehicles on the road, but as soon as the system fails to be able to upkeep all the deployed capital required to maintain them in operating condition (road resurfacing, parts manufacture, refinement and transportation of fuel, maintaining the value of currency in order to motivate the workers to participate in all of the necessary steps, security from hostilities, roads not being flooded/melted, and so on). In such eventualities sizeable portions of the fleet may be rendered inoperable quite quickly and cars will be displaced, out of necessity, by walking.
What you're making is a different point, it's not that we can't displace hydrocarbons, it's that we can't displace them with something equivalent-or-better. We can probably displace cars with walking, concrete structures with ad-hoc shelters, and hospitals with prayer. That is all not just very achievable, but has actually been increasing in inevitability during our prior decades of "inaction" (obviously you can't really call it inaction when we're taking positives steps to hasten these outcomes)
Looks like hopium peddling around their new invention which will solve climate change (spoiler alert: it absolutely won't) and generate limitless energy at the same time (spoiler alert: we have effectively limitless energy in the form of fossil fuels, and even if you ignore climate change, we have already used it to basically destroy our own future by treating the earth as a garbage dump / shithole to be asset stripped of everything of worth to convert it into worthless landfill while basic human needs are still unmet).
Let me know if you're interested and PM be because, gosh, do I have the investment opportunity of a lifetime for you. /s :)
Let me know if you're interested and PM be because, gosh, do I have the investment opportunity of a lifetime for you. /s :)
A monoculture of generation and distribution technologies is not a desirable outcome from an engineering perspective. Your goal shouldn't be to put PV everywhere and then just "solve the distribution problem." You're almost certainly going to make things worse that way.
Also.. if you have excess residential electrical supplies, I'd think a good goal would be to get electricity to the people that don't have it first, rather than imagining new industrial processes that rely on continued excesses to function.
It all smacks of thinking that the Earth is a giant inconvenient ledger that just needs to be balanced, at any cost, apparently.
Also.. if you have excess residential electrical supplies, I'd think a good goal would be to get electricity to the people that don't have it first, rather than imagining new industrial processes that rely on continued excesses to function.
It all smacks of thinking that the Earth is a giant inconvenient ledger that just needs to be balanced, at any cost, apparently.
It sounds like you didn't read the article. They aren't talking about putting solar panels everywhere, they're talking about using massive amounts of solar panel in a specific location and use the energy to convert the CO2 in the air into methane.
That and nobody has ever suggested that we rely solely on solar for energy needs. Wind, for example, is cheaper than solar (though solar is catching up.)
Wind and solar both need to be combined with something else because it’s not always sunny and windy.
Energy storage
Could you be more specific? Because battery energy storage barely works for houses and you can't build pump storage everywhere. Then there are few prototypes like Power-To-Gas which has promising prospect and rest is in level of sci-fi
These are old talking points. Solar plants with gigawatts of storage are being built right now, today. Costs for such large scale storage are dropping quickly and are estimated to cost half of what they do today in 2030. Nuclear proponents need to update their material with the times. They keep insisting that nuclear is "The Only Way" meanwhile, in reality, we're building renewables backed by storage at higher rates than ever before. Solar plus storage is cheaper and faster to build TODAY than nuclear has ever been.
https://electrek.co/2022/03/07/solar-and-battery-storage-mak...
https://electrek.co/2022/03/07/solar-and-battery-storage-mak...
Power to gas, as you mention, would be sufficient. There are also some interesting battery chemistries in the pipeline, like iron-air batteries. How about we keep building renewables at a rapid pace until we actually have enough to need storage? Until then we have time to improve storage technology and build some electrolyzers (we'll need lots of Hydrogen anyway for industrial purposes).
We need storage now as we are burning coal and gas as replacement for energy storage.
We need to do the cheapest thing that reduces CO2 emissions. Currently I believe that's building more renewables and electrifying more sectors.
We also need to avoid a monoculture of energy source. Having all our eggs in one or two baskets is very risky.
This is such an odd way to address an argument. From the article:
"Substituting solar power into our electrical grid and atmospheric CO2-derived hydrocarbons into our fuel supply chain is just the beginning. We want to support a future of abundance and wealth, while avoiding starvation even as legacy climate damage shifts rainfall patterns and causes extreme weather."
Seems pretty one-track to me.
Also, there are no manufacturing processes with infinite scalability. And the article fails to make clear their large scale intentions. They go back and forth between some Sarahan style plant, and the total amount of PV available and the current planned excess power due to this and never offer a solid plan as far as I can tell.
Aside from that.. it's a back of the envelope analysis that just projects trend lines on charts and makes no thoughts for emergent phenomenon due to the massive market swings it projects.
"Substituting solar power into our electrical grid and atmospheric CO2-derived hydrocarbons into our fuel supply chain is just the beginning. We want to support a future of abundance and wealth, while avoiding starvation even as legacy climate damage shifts rainfall patterns and causes extreme weather."
Seems pretty one-track to me.
Also, there are no manufacturing processes with infinite scalability. And the article fails to make clear their large scale intentions. They go back and forth between some Sarahan style plant, and the total amount of PV available and the current planned excess power due to this and never offer a solid plan as far as I can tell.
Aside from that.. it's a back of the envelope analysis that just projects trend lines on charts and makes no thoughts for emergent phenomenon due to the massive market swings it projects.
> it's a back of the envelope analysis that just projects trend lines on charts and makes no thoughts for emergent phenomenon due to the massive market swings it projects.
seems like there's a lot of this going around recently
seems like there's a lot of this going around recently
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.
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.
Not to mention that we've already made great headway into transforming plants and trees into a variety of stable fuel sources that can be used to heat and power our lives during the time periods where solar panels don't generate enough electricity.
Our time would be better spent investing in making these conversion processes more reliable and efficient. Alcohol from fermentation of sugars, methane from anaerobic digestion, syngas/biogas/woodgas from gasification of woody biomass, and charcoal from the remaining carbon. All of these are fuel sources available from plants that pull in CO2 naturally from the environment, completing a cycle of energy production that doesn't alter our current CO2 levels upwards. They can be done on waste biomass left over from current agricultural processes or plants used for landscaping needs (hedges, shade trees, etc.). In fact, if you store away the carbon left over after gasification as biochar you can lower CO2 levels over time.
Our time would be better spent investing in making these conversion processes more reliable and efficient. Alcohol from fermentation of sugars, methane from anaerobic digestion, syngas/biogas/woodgas from gasification of woody biomass, and charcoal from the remaining carbon. All of these are fuel sources available from plants that pull in CO2 naturally from the environment, completing a cycle of energy production that doesn't alter our current CO2 levels upwards. They can be done on waste biomass left over from current agricultural processes or plants used for landscaping needs (hedges, shade trees, etc.). In fact, if you store away the carbon left over after gasification as biochar you can lower CO2 levels over time.
He addresses this in the whitepaper.
https://caseyhandmer.wordpress.com/2022/02/03/terraform-indu...
Ctrl-f "Tree" to find the FAQ.
https://caseyhandmer.wordpress.com/2022/02/03/terraform-indu...
Ctrl-f "Tree" to find the FAQ.
Trees don’t like it when you try to use up their stored energy and go and die on you.
You could satisfy the world current demand for energy by covering 0.08% of the Sahara Desert with nuclear power plants.
Nuclear power plants cannot operate in the Sahara Desert; they need access to cooling water.
They'd have to use dry cooling in that environment. A bit more cost but fully doable. You can reject 375 degreeC core heat even in the Sahara
True! And you might not even have to redesign most of the power plant, just the final stages of cooling. You could even avoid suffering lower Carnot efficiency during the day by using a daily thermal store.
Other problem, even without redesigning significant parts of atomic power plants, they're economically uncompetitive with PV.
Other problem, even without redesigning significant parts of atomic power plants, they're economically uncompetitive with PV.
The worst builds ever are worse than PV (this is how lazard computes it) but Hualong 1 and APR1400 designs are cheaper when you consider full systems costs. We'll build those.
But how do you consider "full system costs" for something that needs people to manage the waste for 1000+ years even after you have closed the plant?
We can evidently not even predict inflation correctly from one month to the next so it seems unlikely that we can know what a nuclear plant actually costs.
France has certainly not known, they're currently over 40 billion dollars in debt for their plants (to be paid by taxpayers when they nationalize the operator), and they have over a million cubic meters of waste that needs manpower to manage for longer than France has existed as a nation.
Instead of nuclear plants in 0.1% of the Sahara, I propose solar panels on 10% of existing parking lots. Much easier, much faster, much cheaper, and coming generations will thank us instead of curse us. :)
//crashoverrideCIA ;)
We can evidently not even predict inflation correctly from one month to the next so it seems unlikely that we can know what a nuclear plant actually costs.
France has certainly not known, they're currently over 40 billion dollars in debt for their plants (to be paid by taxpayers when they nationalize the operator), and they have over a million cubic meters of waste that needs manpower to manage for longer than France has existed as a nation.
Instead of nuclear plants in 0.1% of the Sahara, I propose solar panels on 10% of existing parking lots. Much easier, much faster, much cheaper, and coming generations will thank us instead of curse us. :)
//crashoverrideCIA ;)
It's debatable, but at least everyone† agrees that solar panels don't impose major additional costs after initial construction. So I think we can come to less debatable conclusions by noting that the fairly knowable initial construction cost of nuclear power plants is higher than that of utility-scale solar plants, per watt, in most of the world. That way we don't need to argue about how long we have to hire guards for the million cubic meters of slightly contaminated gloves and concrete—even if that cost is zero, nuclear still loses, except in places like Norway.
By the way, France has existed as a nation for about 1700–1800 years. Maybe you mean "longer than France has existed as a state."
______
† There are a few coal-industry shills raising alarms about cadmium, but of course the currently popular kinds of solar panel contain no cadmium, and even the ones that did contain cadmium didn't pose a real problem because of the minuscule quantities and their resistance to corrosion.
By the way, France has existed as a nation for about 1700–1800 years. Maybe you mean "longer than France has existed as a state."
______
† There are a few coal-industry shills raising alarms about cadmium, but of course the currently popular kinds of solar panel contain no cadmium, and even the ones that did contain cadmium didn't pose a real problem because of the minuscule quantities and their resistance to corrosion.
Maybe, we'll see. The Chinese Communist Party doesn't seem to agree with you, even though the capacity factor of PV in the PRC is absolutely abysmal.
The figures I've seen suggest that the capex cost of a coal power plant — which is basically a nuclear power plant without the nuclear reactor — is high enough to be uncompetitive with PV in most of the world now, even if the coal were free. So I'm skeptical that GE or CGN has found a way to make their nuclear power plants as cheap as PV, except in, like, Manchuria or Svalbard or something.
The figures I've seen suggest that the capex cost of a coal power plant — which is basically a nuclear power plant without the nuclear reactor — is high enough to be uncompetitive with PV in most of the world now, even if the coal were free. So I'm skeptical that GE or CGN has found a way to make their nuclear power plants as cheap as PV, except in, like, Manchuria or Svalbard or something.
That's not what I heard at all.
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/features/2021-11-02/china-cli...
Are you thinking of lcoe instead of total system cost by chance?
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/features/2021-11-02/china-cli...
Are you thinking of lcoe instead of total system cost by chance?
Thank you for linking this article! It answers a lot of questions I'd had after reading some poorer coverage of this initiative last year.
I'm definitely not talking about LCOE; I'm just talking about up-front capex. Conceivably nuclear plants could be cheaper to build than PV farms, but still have a worse LCOE, but I don't think they're even cheaper to build. Even for China, which is the best in the world at building things.
This article says the PRC plans to build another 147 GW for a total of 200 GW by 02035, over 14 years, averaging 10 GW per year. Total PRC marketed energy consumption is on the order of 6 TW (6000 GW), though I'm extrapolating that from a figure of 28 PWh/year in 02010 and an increase in energy consumption of 90% since then, and I'd be delighted to have more reliable data.
So the plan is to add an additional 2% to their energy supply (assuming capacity factor 90%) in the form of nuclear — over the course of 14 years, during which time their total energy consumption will presumably roughly double.
In that context this doesn't seem like a huge bet on nuclear to me.
The article says, "China keeps the exact costs a state secret, but analysts including BloombergNEF and the World Nuclear Association estimate China can build plants for about $2,500 to $3,000 per kilowatt." That's roughly six times the cost of PV plants—barely competitive with PV in polar and cloudy regions where PV capacity factors are 10-15%, completely unviable in sunny regions where PV capacity factors approach 30%.
I don't have figures yet for 02021 (do you?) but in 02020, looking only at electric power generation, they installed 48.2 GW(p) of new solar, 71.7 GW(p) of new wind, and 38.4 GW(e) of new coal. If the capacity factors are average for the energy source, that would be 6.3 GW(mean) of new solar, 16 GW(mean) of new wind, and 19.2 GW(mean) of new coal, and yes, PRC's average coal capacity factor really is reported to be just 50%. Solar and wind have been rising much faster.
So that's the context in which I'm saying the CPC doesn't seem to think nuclear power is economically competitive with renewables. It's already installing more renewables than nuclear, even after derating for the different capacity factors and including these future nuclear plans, which may fail to materialize, and it has been for years.
What's your interpretation?
https://www.reuters.com/article/us-china-energy-climatechang... https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=26227823 https://www.reuters.com/article/us-china-coal-idUSKBN2A308U https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Renewable_energy_in_China https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Energy_in_Germany https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Energy_policy_of_China https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electricity_sector_in_China https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:PV_cume_semi_log_cha... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Growth_of_photovoltaics#Countr...
I'm definitely not talking about LCOE; I'm just talking about up-front capex. Conceivably nuclear plants could be cheaper to build than PV farms, but still have a worse LCOE, but I don't think they're even cheaper to build. Even for China, which is the best in the world at building things.
This article says the PRC plans to build another 147 GW for a total of 200 GW by 02035, over 14 years, averaging 10 GW per year. Total PRC marketed energy consumption is on the order of 6 TW (6000 GW), though I'm extrapolating that from a figure of 28 PWh/year in 02010 and an increase in energy consumption of 90% since then, and I'd be delighted to have more reliable data.
So the plan is to add an additional 2% to their energy supply (assuming capacity factor 90%) in the form of nuclear — over the course of 14 years, during which time their total energy consumption will presumably roughly double.
In that context this doesn't seem like a huge bet on nuclear to me.
The article says, "China keeps the exact costs a state secret, but analysts including BloombergNEF and the World Nuclear Association estimate China can build plants for about $2,500 to $3,000 per kilowatt." That's roughly six times the cost of PV plants—barely competitive with PV in polar and cloudy regions where PV capacity factors are 10-15%, completely unviable in sunny regions where PV capacity factors approach 30%.
I don't have figures yet for 02021 (do you?) but in 02020, looking only at electric power generation, they installed 48.2 GW(p) of new solar, 71.7 GW(p) of new wind, and 38.4 GW(e) of new coal. If the capacity factors are average for the energy source, that would be 6.3 GW(mean) of new solar, 16 GW(mean) of new wind, and 19.2 GW(mean) of new coal, and yes, PRC's average coal capacity factor really is reported to be just 50%. Solar and wind have been rising much faster.
So that's the context in which I'm saying the CPC doesn't seem to think nuclear power is economically competitive with renewables. It's already installing more renewables than nuclear, even after derating for the different capacity factors and including these future nuclear plans, which may fail to materialize, and it has been for years.
What's your interpretation?
https://www.reuters.com/article/us-china-energy-climatechang... https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=26227823 https://www.reuters.com/article/us-china-coal-idUSKBN2A308U https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Renewable_energy_in_China https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Energy_in_Germany https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Energy_policy_of_China https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electricity_sector_in_China https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:PV_cume_semi_log_cha... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Growth_of_photovoltaics#Countr...
And my 11 year old daughter says that Jeff Bezos could solve world hunger if he just gave away part of his fortune. Unfortunately the world doesn’t work that way.
He did give away part of his fortune. Twice. As you implied, hunger remains unsolved.
* https://www.cnn.com/2021/07/20/media/van-jones-bezos-100-mil...
* https://www.feedingamerica.org/about-us/press-room/jeff-bezo...
I'm working on a sci-fi book wherein a young girl solves world hunger; alpha readers wanted (see profile).
* https://www.cnn.com/2021/07/20/media/van-jones-bezos-100-mil...
* https://www.feedingamerica.org/about-us/press-room/jeff-bezo...
I'm working on a sci-fi book wherein a young girl solves world hunger; alpha readers wanted (see profile).
The question here is how to distribute it around the world?
3 important take
1. Is Solar economic viable?
Not sure “ Crude oil prices are between $60 and $100/barrel, indicating cost parity at between $10 and $17/MWh. There are already solar farms installed in some places that sell power at these prices, and between now and 2030 solar costs should come down at least another 60%.”. But $60 is high. Obviously not now but just months ago we talked about selling oil for loss.
Freaking is $40 somewhat I remember
2. The artificial Russian invasion of Ukraine
The tyranny of Russia need 10 years to resolve. And solar might work in this decade abd hope his learning curve continue.
3. Local game to play like river
The play like conversion of solar back to ch4 (methane) or sea to river etc only make sense in a few place. It is local.
In fact one wonder why Australia and Sahara desert is not more solar.
4. Transportation might be hard
1/3 lost to cable. Still as a guy demo you need a hugh solar plant farm to do one house. Still need solar farm and storage via many means.
1. Is Solar economic viable?
Not sure “ Crude oil prices are between $60 and $100/barrel, indicating cost parity at between $10 and $17/MWh. There are already solar farms installed in some places that sell power at these prices, and between now and 2030 solar costs should come down at least another 60%.”. But $60 is high. Obviously not now but just months ago we talked about selling oil for loss.
Freaking is $40 somewhat I remember
2. The artificial Russian invasion of Ukraine
The tyranny of Russia need 10 years to resolve. And solar might work in this decade abd hope his learning curve continue.
3. Local game to play like river
The play like conversion of solar back to ch4 (methane) or sea to river etc only make sense in a few place. It is local.
In fact one wonder why Australia and Sahara desert is not more solar.
4. Transportation might be hard
1/3 lost to cable. Still as a guy demo you need a hugh solar plant farm to do one house. Still need solar farm and storage via many means.
BTW the author is the founder of a company called Terraform Industries. (Their for a commercial business strangely looking homepage: https://terraformindustries.com/.) This is funny because there is also a company called Terraform Power in the renewable business. The names of these two companies seem surprisingly close to me. Are these two somehow connected? Is this just ignorance on part of the author?
On their Twitter profile they talk about "Gigascale atmospheric hydrocarbon synthesis". Which is an interesting wording for a company that doesn't even have a proper homepage.
On their Twitter profile they talk about "Gigascale atmospheric hydrocarbon synthesis". Which is an interesting wording for a company that doesn't even have a proper homepage.
I really want carbon capture to work, but arguing from first principles, I think the approach in the paper will be a niche product, and is probably a decade too early. (I honestly do wish them well.)
Feel free to poke holes in my math:
From the article, the proposed technology is about 30% energy efficient. Let's round that up to 33.3%, so I can multiply by three below.
They propose using this for natural gas production for home heating. They're competing with hybrid heat pump water heaters and air-to-air heat pumps that work throughout Europe. Those have coefficients of power above four, in practice.
So, it will take 12x more electricity to heat homes with legacy boilers and synthetic LNG than with heat pumps, assuming no transmission loss. PG&E in California is notoriously inefficient; they somehow triple the cost of electricity when they deliver it. Assuming that is pessimal, and that natural gas distribution is free, it will cost more than 4x as much. At current energy prices, that means the heat pumps pay for themselves quickly.
With the Ukraine crisis, leaders should find N houses on electric heat, and roughly 3N on natural gas. Upgrade them all to heat pumps. This would have zero net effect on the energy grid, but remove three houses worth of natural gas heating demand! Manufacturing and installation for this already ramped, so it could start happening tomorrow. (Well, Monday, since it is the weekend.)
On to replacing LNG at all costs, because we have to, and replacing infrastructure won't work for some applications:
There are carbon capture technologies that use less energy than burning the equivalent fossil fuel created. Say one is "just" break even. For the same solar panel consumption as the technology in the article, you could extract and burn 1 carbon unit of fossil fuel, and capture three units of carbon! That's much better than net zero.
As I said, I wish them well, but I hope a more efficient approach wins. As the article says, they will need 10 extra years of solar panel ramp up for their math to work. By then, we'd better have already ramped carbon capture!
Feel free to poke holes in my math:
From the article, the proposed technology is about 30% energy efficient. Let's round that up to 33.3%, so I can multiply by three below.
They propose using this for natural gas production for home heating. They're competing with hybrid heat pump water heaters and air-to-air heat pumps that work throughout Europe. Those have coefficients of power above four, in practice.
So, it will take 12x more electricity to heat homes with legacy boilers and synthetic LNG than with heat pumps, assuming no transmission loss. PG&E in California is notoriously inefficient; they somehow triple the cost of electricity when they deliver it. Assuming that is pessimal, and that natural gas distribution is free, it will cost more than 4x as much. At current energy prices, that means the heat pumps pay for themselves quickly.
With the Ukraine crisis, leaders should find N houses on electric heat, and roughly 3N on natural gas. Upgrade them all to heat pumps. This would have zero net effect on the energy grid, but remove three houses worth of natural gas heating demand! Manufacturing and installation for this already ramped, so it could start happening tomorrow. (Well, Monday, since it is the weekend.)
On to replacing LNG at all costs, because we have to, and replacing infrastructure won't work for some applications:
There are carbon capture technologies that use less energy than burning the equivalent fossil fuel created. Say one is "just" break even. For the same solar panel consumption as the technology in the article, you could extract and burn 1 carbon unit of fossil fuel, and capture three units of carbon! That's much better than net zero.
As I said, I wish them well, but I hope a more efficient approach wins. As the article says, they will need 10 extra years of solar panel ramp up for their math to work. By then, we'd better have already ramped carbon capture!
Nice article, but one sentence annoyed me:
> At current rates of production growth, the supply/demand mismatch will see a 10 year backlog between the time when local solar powered synthetic fuel production reaches cost parity with fossil sources, and when solar supply will be available to meet that demand.
I hate this use of "at current rates", it's basically a lie if you don't follow up with some kind of lower bound to go with that upper bound and people believing this is not possible, or too costly, or too late is one of the main problems.
He called out the hairy back prediction graph further up and then did basically the same thing with words.
But overall a good summary.
> At current rates of production growth, the supply/demand mismatch will see a 10 year backlog between the time when local solar powered synthetic fuel production reaches cost parity with fossil sources, and when solar supply will be available to meet that demand.
I hate this use of "at current rates", it's basically a lie if you don't follow up with some kind of lower bound to go with that upper bound and people believing this is not possible, or too costly, or too late is one of the main problems.
He called out the hairy back prediction graph further up and then did basically the same thing with words.
But overall a good summary.
> "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."
That's a pretty artificial form of natural gas.
That's a pretty artificial form of natural gas.
To get a sense of how many solar panels and batteries we'll need, drive around Houston, Texas some time. You'll see mile after mile of chemical refineries. Granted, some of these are for plastics and not energy production. But a lot ARE for energy production -- and it's crazy to imagine how many square miles of solar and battery factories we'll need to provide an equivalent amount of energy production.
“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”
Tell me if this sounds familiar. How about we store that natural gas underground in the same areas we’ve been taking it out? Sounds kinda like a natural for energy storage and a little carbon sequestration.
(Can’t be sure with myself whether I’m serious or sarcastic in this one. But I definitely want carbon out of the air…)
Tell me if this sounds familiar. How about we store that natural gas underground in the same areas we’ve been taking it out? Sounds kinda like a natural for energy storage and a little carbon sequestration.
(Can’t be sure with myself whether I’m serious or sarcastic in this one. But I definitely want carbon out of the air…)
If you're doing carbon sequestration you skip the part where you convert it to methane and just sequester the captured CO2.
Given the scale of the problem, something like that will (should?) be done. If we take it seriously and figure out a political solution, eventually every current natural gas well will be converted to CCS and run in "reverse", as it were.
However, the energetics are such that most carbon capture, barring nanotech magic, will be done via enhanced weathering or tree burial.
Given the scale of the problem, something like that will (should?) be done. If we take it seriously and figure out a political solution, eventually every current natural gas well will be converted to CCS and run in "reverse", as it were.
However, the energetics are such that most carbon capture, barring nanotech magic, will be done via enhanced weathering or tree burial.
If they make it profitable to get carbon out of the air which this suggests it will get a lot of private investments. This will also make carbon worth something so instead of letting it out in the atmosphere there will be effort to capture and sell it to the solar methane generators.
GP asked about sequestration. Most of the productive economic uses for CH4 require burning it. Liquid synfuels are great and wonderful but they are carbon neutral!
You can use atmospheric CO2 as feedstock for plastic production, but world plastic production is only 380 million tonnes a year, while there's more than 1 trillion tonnes of excess CO2 in the atmosphere. It would take two and a half millennia to convert that to plastic.
You can use atmospheric CO2 as feedstock for plastic production, but world plastic production is only 380 million tonnes a year, while there's more than 1 trillion tonnes of excess CO2 in the atmosphere. It would take two and a half millennia to convert that to plastic.
My dad just installed 200kW on the roof of his factory. The biggest issue is getting the blip* contract with the grid so you could sell the electricity back, and I mean that at any rate. This is by far the biggest hurdle so having an alternative to store energy that makes economic sense will be the biggest wind in the back for a lot of people wanting to do the same.
It seems to me we need a lot of nuclear power. In the US, we need to close the fuel cycle, reprocessing all the existing spent fuel, and building a new class of reactors that can handle the resulting fuel mix.
With this base energy supply in hand, our options are far more flexible for extracting carbon from the air, and either making fuels, or petrochemical feed stock from it.
With this base energy supply in hand, our options are far more flexible for extracting carbon from the air, and either making fuels, or petrochemical feed stock from it.
I think new nuclear is a distraction from the best solution. Closing the fuel cycle is a good idea of course but we don't know how to do that yet. Current reprocessing doesn't remove the waste it just reduces it.
Reprocessing that can entirely get rid of the waste needs a scientific breakthrough that certainly might happen, but trying to make it happen will require research centers with highly qualified staff, very expensive machinery and will take a long time to set up.
Meanwhile just about anyone can put solar panels on their roof making it possible for the state to save fuels in central power plants for use during the night. This benefit is immediate, and because anyone can do it it's currently being deployed faster than even non-reprocessing nuclear power plants can be built.
So instead of aiming for new classes of reactors I think we should build already known classes of solar panel factories and hydrogen electrolysers. Hydrogen electrolysers are insanely simple, you can build one using stuff you are likely to have in your home already.
The main argument against it at grid-scale is the efficiency, but with enough solar panels efficiency becomes basically meaningless. When you are filling your "water bottle" from the Niagara you can spill a lot and it won't matter.
Reprocessing that can entirely get rid of the waste needs a scientific breakthrough that certainly might happen, but trying to make it happen will require research centers with highly qualified staff, very expensive machinery and will take a long time to set up.
Meanwhile just about anyone can put solar panels on their roof making it possible for the state to save fuels in central power plants for use during the night. This benefit is immediate, and because anyone can do it it's currently being deployed faster than even non-reprocessing nuclear power plants can be built.
So instead of aiming for new classes of reactors I think we should build already known classes of solar panel factories and hydrogen electrolysers. Hydrogen electrolysers are insanely simple, you can build one using stuff you are likely to have in your home already.
The main argument against it at grid-scale is the efficiency, but with enough solar panels efficiency becomes basically meaningless. When you are filling your "water bottle" from the Niagara you can spill a lot and it won't matter.
Many of the issues you site about nuclear power have been solved. Here's a quote from an answer by acidburnNSA [1] who works in the industry, to a different story here on HN.
"Anyway let's just do fission you guys. It's way easier. It has been working fine since the 1950s. It's zero carbon. Waste problem is solved (see Onkalo, and reprocessing). It net saves millions of lives by displacing air pollution. It runs 24/7 on a tiny land and material footprint. We have enough uranium and thorium to run the whole world for 4 billion (with a b) years using breeder reactors (demonstrated in 1952 in Idaho). Get the Koreans over here to build some ARP1400s or the Chinese to build some Hualong Ones until we figure out how to project manage again and then call it good."
"Anyway let's just do fission you guys. It's way easier. It has been working fine since the 1950s. It's zero carbon. Waste problem is solved (see Onkalo, and reprocessing). It net saves millions of lives by displacing air pollution. It runs 24/7 on a tiny land and material footprint. We have enough uranium and thorium to run the whole world for 4 billion (with a b) years using breeder reactors (demonstrated in 1952 in Idaho). Get the Koreans over here to build some ARP1400s or the Chinese to build some Hualong Ones until we figure out how to project manage again and then call it good."
[1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=32208505My Casio watch is solar powered and the "panel" can't be seen becaue it's too small and incorporated in the design (btw. best watch ever, <$100, solar, radio, Gshock). We will film print "panels" everywhere, all office buildings, all cars.
If you're thinking in "panels" you don't envision the future.
If you're thinking in "panels" you don't envision the future.
This article seems rather hand-wavy. I would have liked to seen more about what the physical and economic limits might be. In particular, how the cost of the solar panels themselves compare with all the other costs needed to get a working plant.
Is industry going to learn to make cheaper land? How much can labor realistically be reduced?
Is industry going to learn to make cheaper land? How much can labor realistically be reduced?
See section 5.2 of this report:
"U.S. Solar Photovoltaic System and Energy Storage Cost Benchmark: Q1 2020"
https://www.nrel.gov/docs/fy21osti/77324.pdf
For a 100 megawatt utility-scale solar farm with one-axis sun tracking hardware built in the US, total costs come to $1.01 per watt-peak of direct current generating capacity. Solar modules account for $0.41 of that. Other hardware (inverters, electrical balance of system, and structural balance of system) accounts for $0.24. Installation labor and equipment is $0.11. The cost of land is tiny, too small to actually see in the stacked bar chart, but below $0.02.
Solar module costs can fall by another 70% before labor costs start to become an equally relevant cost element. There are already companies working on automating additional elements of solar farm construction. You can see a brief video of AES's Atlas robot for solar farm module installation here:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HRFDhHa3eKY
AES claims that with this robot, a crew of only 3 people can install a megawatt of panels in a week:
https://www.aes.com/reimagining-solar
You could install all the panels for a 100 megawatt solar farm like that analyzed above with 6 months and 12 people.
"U.S. Solar Photovoltaic System and Energy Storage Cost Benchmark: Q1 2020"
https://www.nrel.gov/docs/fy21osti/77324.pdf
For a 100 megawatt utility-scale solar farm with one-axis sun tracking hardware built in the US, total costs come to $1.01 per watt-peak of direct current generating capacity. Solar modules account for $0.41 of that. Other hardware (inverters, electrical balance of system, and structural balance of system) accounts for $0.24. Installation labor and equipment is $0.11. The cost of land is tiny, too small to actually see in the stacked bar chart, but below $0.02.
Solar module costs can fall by another 70% before labor costs start to become an equally relevant cost element. There are already companies working on automating additional elements of solar farm construction. You can see a brief video of AES's Atlas robot for solar farm module installation here:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HRFDhHa3eKY
AES claims that with this robot, a crew of only 3 people can install a megawatt of panels in a week:
https://www.aes.com/reimagining-solar
You could install all the panels for a 100 megawatt solar farm like that analyzed above with 6 months and 12 people.
I mean if we suck it out of the air and put it back in cars, then we close the loop, right? No more externalities?
Is this better or worse than the one where they are cooking corn husks to make oil to squirt into the ground?
This is better. Terraform believes they can make methane from the air for cheaper than it can be extracted from the ground, leading to a preference for "carbon neutral" fuels. Part of their thesis though is the requirement for solar to keep getting cheaper and cheaper (as it has).
Excess manufactured methane could also be injected underground, presumably.
Excess manufactured methane could also be injected underground, presumably.
What's a more efficient way to split water into hydrogen and oxygen: using electricity from a solar panel or using photosynthesis in a plant?
Electrolysis is orders of magnitude more efficient, but your equipment isn't self replicating.
That is a good question.
Do you have any uses for the plant, or does it create interesting byproducts for you? Photosynthesis is not very efficient, but it is great at making complex organic molecules like sugar or cellulose.
But a plant needs more than power. It needs nutrients, usually in the form of fertilizer.
They also don't generally make hydrogen, not directly at least.
Do you have any uses for the plant, or does it create interesting byproducts for you? Photosynthesis is not very efficient, but it is great at making complex organic molecules like sugar or cellulose.
But a plant needs more than power. It needs nutrients, usually in the form of fertilizer.
They also don't generally make hydrogen, not directly at least.
These are orthogonal concepts this is an attempt to create a carbon neutral hydrocarbon for energy use, the other is an attempt at carbon negative sequestration.
I was confused about something in this article. After the natural gas is synthesized, it’s pumped into the existing NG infrastructure for heating and electricity generation? Doesn’t that emit CO2 into the atmosphere once again? Or is it such that CO2 removed >> CO2 added?
Indeed that NG that is burned adds to CO2, but its considered neutral since it was derived from atmospheric CO2. We still need sinks for CO2 that will be removed to atmosphere. But at least we can do it cost efficiently.
This is fascinating technology for turning CO2 into C
https://www.upstreamonline.com/energy-transition/is-liquid-m...
https://www.upstreamonline.com/energy-transition/is-liquid-m...
As others have pointed going carbon neutral is a good step, but should we should keep in mind the CO2 ppm that will be reached at the neutrality point. Is this something that we can live with?
Can someone point me to a “loss of performance” type formula for solar panels as their angle to the sun deviates from 90° and “sunshine strength” as the sun rises and dips in the sky?
Is there enough silver to make 300 TW capacity of solar panels?
Silver is not absolutely needed. Copper can be used for front contacts, but it has to be separated from the silicon by a thin layer of nickel or molybdenum to prevent reaction of the copper with the silicon.
Why don’t we build a few nuclear power plants at least to buy time for the energy densities of batteries to get to the point that we can store enough energy for everyone
Because they are too expensive and take too long to build. One gets much more CO2 reduction per $, and much more quickly, from spending on renewables.
Regulated one to be too expensive, subsidized the other to be cheap.
The arguments against nuclear are always a direct result of the previous set of arguments rooted mostly in panic, lack of education, and three small scope issues that range from unlikely to impossible now. But yea. You are right, we made nuclear too expensive to be viable.
The arguments against nuclear are always a direct result of the previous set of arguments rooted mostly in panic, lack of education, and three small scope issues that range from unlikely to impossible now. But yea. You are right, we made nuclear too expensive to be viable.
The arguments against nuclear are based on long history of economic failure. The same tired excuses are always trotted out. It's all someone else's fault.
Money talks, shit walks. The captains of industry and finance are treating nuclear like the failure it is. No money for this money pit.
Money talks, shit walks. The captains of industry and finance are treating nuclear like the failure it is. No money for this money pit.
I think electrolysing water into hydrogen using excess solar in the winter, then using that directly for heating in the winter would make a lot of sense.
Hydrogen is quite difficult to store, so one would have to factor those costs in the before deciding.
And not having to store it locally but pumping it in form of methane into the existing net could further reduce costs.
As in many times more solar panels than can be constructed with all of the resources that can possibly ever be extracted from the earth? I suppose that is true, and an be verified with some pretty simple back of the envelope calculations.
I must admit, I only skimmed through the apparently meaningless technobabble, but if someone could let me know succinctly, we still don't have anything more effective at carbon sequestration that trees, right? And how well are trees doing?
I must admit, I only skimmed through the apparently meaningless technobabble, but if someone could let me know succinctly, we still don't have anything more effective at carbon sequestration that trees, right? And how well are trees doing?
Capturing a gallon of gasoline CO2 emissions from the atmosphere would cost about a dollar at scale. (1 gallon -> 20lbs CO2. Technologies advertising $100/ton of CO2 are somewhat common these days. A ton is 2000lbs, so $100 / ton CO2 implies $1 per gallon of gasoline). There are many technologies that could achieve this, but I don’t think this article is describing one of them.
They want to convert CO2 and water to natural gas and have roughly 30% energy efficiency. A gallon of gas contains 33kWh, so (handwave gasoline == natural gas), it costs 100kWh per gallon equivalent. A kilowatt hour is at least $0.10, so > $10 per gallon-captured-ish.
If the carbon intensity of natural gas is similar to gasoline, so the computation is close enough and the technology in the article is about 10x off state of the art.
On the bright side, the article’s technology would “only” require 5% of the earth’s surface be covered in solar panels, so state of the art would need 0.5%, which is feasible, in terms of land use, at least.
Carbon intensity table: https://www.forestresearch.gov.uk/tools-and-resources/fthr/b...
They want to convert CO2 and water to natural gas and have roughly 30% energy efficiency. A gallon of gas contains 33kWh, so (handwave gasoline == natural gas), it costs 100kWh per gallon equivalent. A kilowatt hour is at least $0.10, so > $10 per gallon-captured-ish.
If the carbon intensity of natural gas is similar to gasoline, so the computation is close enough and the technology in the article is about 10x off state of the art.
On the bright side, the article’s technology would “only” require 5% of the earth’s surface be covered in solar panels, so state of the art would need 0.5%, which is feasible, in terms of land use, at least.
Carbon intensity table: https://www.forestresearch.gov.uk/tools-and-resources/fthr/b...
Abiotic genesis of petroleum
https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1029/200...
Observed abiotic hydrocarbons on Titan
https://saturn.jpl.nasa.gov/system/downloadable_items/402_20...
https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1029/200...
Observed abiotic hydrocarbons on Titan
https://saturn.jpl.nasa.gov/system/downloadable_items/402_20...
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.
I know I'm missing the point of the article so looking for helpful guidance.
Do you want to burn new carbon that’s in the ground, or recycle what’s already in the air?
We have tremendous infrastructure already dedicated to using natural gas (cooking, heating, transport, industrial equipment) and it won’t be electrified overnight.
First get to carbon neutral, then worry about carbon negative.
We have tremendous infrastructure already dedicated to using natural gas (cooking, heating, transport, industrial equipment) and it won’t be electrified overnight.
First get to carbon neutral, then worry about carbon negative.
Thanks for making it crisp. This argument was in the article, but somehow it wasn't popping at me.
What about the toxic waste from expended panels? Since you’re going to be using “a lot of” them.
Are synthetic hydrocarbons more efficient energy storage than li batteries? Seems unlikely.
Efficiency isn't the goal here. Energy density & re-using existing infrastructure are the points.
Given all of the factors involved to manufacture the capacity the author is talking about (we'll ignore labor & land costs to install), wouldn't it be better to put that into cheaper/safer/smaller nuclear power? It already runs 24/7 with no CO2.
Run the numbers, I don't think there's any chance of nuclear providing any sort of economic competition. Even at hopelessly optimistic prices like $7k/kW overnight cost, nuclear is at a huge disadvantage to current solar pricing. Much less the pricing for solar at halfway through the nuclear reactor's life, 20-30 years from now.
Additionally, we have little hope of scaling nuclear construction capacity to meet the necessary demand. Whereas solar/wind/storage is way ahead and scaling at ridiculously high rates.
Spend 5 years building a reactor, and you get a some number of GW. Spend that same construction capacity building mines and factories, and you get some GW/year additional production capacity.
Construction capacity is fixed, really bad, and productivity has not increased in years. Applying that construction capacity to nuclear is a linear attack to energy production. Applying that construction capacity to solar/wind/storage is an exponential attack on energy production.
Additionally, we have little hope of scaling nuclear construction capacity to meet the necessary demand. Whereas solar/wind/storage is way ahead and scaling at ridiculously high rates.
Spend 5 years building a reactor, and you get a some number of GW. Spend that same construction capacity building mines and factories, and you get some GW/year additional production capacity.
Construction capacity is fixed, really bad, and productivity has not increased in years. Applying that construction capacity to nuclear is a linear attack to energy production. Applying that construction capacity to solar/wind/storage is an exponential attack on energy production.
>> but the energy demands are astronomical
Maybe not the best idea then.
Maybe not the best idea then.
If energy production is increasing exponentially, an astronomical demand very quickly becomes manageable and then trivial
The computation demands for a computer to beat humans at chess were astronomical, and then suddenly they were manageable (and it happened, quite publicly), and now Deep Blue loses to a Raspberry Pi
The computation demands for a computer to beat humans at chess were astronomical, and then suddenly they were manageable (and it happened, quite publicly), and now Deep Blue loses to a Raspberry Pi
[deleted]
Or just a few nuclear power plants…
Article has very good wording!
Here is a similar project that generates kerosene and diesel from water and carbon dioxide by using a ceria-based redox reaction to convert them into hydrogen and carbon monoxide (syngas):
https://newatlas.com/energy/solar-jet-fuel-tower/
The plant created 5191 liters (1371 gallons) of syngas in 9 days, whereas a Boeing 787 Dreamliner carries 126,372 liters (36,384 gallons). The conversions are not linear, but that is something like a refueled plane every 219 days, give or take an order of magnitude. Looks like the conversion efficiency is 4% but 20% is expected after recycling heat and catalyst improvements.
I find stuff like this simultaneously inspiring and devastating. The technology has arrived to easily create our own electricity and fuel without having to deal with supply chain issues around centralized photovoltaic manufacturers, yet the size of the challenge is insurmountable. There is simply no way to scale this big enough to save the natural world before global warming destroys it at the end of the century.
So, that leaves us with nuclear power (fission). I appreciate that a lot of people have worked very hard on it and have humanity's best interests at heart. But they don't understand human psychology. We all know that we've been lied to about the safety of nuclear power, but they pretend that it can be made safe. While simultaneously avoiding discussion about the externalities like nuclear waste storage, nuclear proliferation, even the inherent security issues around large centralized power generation or what will happen after wars or other emergencies force workers to abandon nuclear facilities. So I don't trust them, and that's why I don't consider nuclear to be a viable alternative, and I have an unlimited list of evidence against it so I don't bother debating it anymore.
Which leaves us with what I feel is the actual solution. Yet again, as in most things, we have to pull ourselves up by our bootstraps. I think that we'll solve it through cultural evolution. Each of us has to get to sustainability on an individual level, then lift at least one other person (preferably someone we don't know) out of dependence. Which is still a big problem, but it's smaller than paying off a mortgage.
So everyone's gotta wake up, forget they got hoodwinked, stop listening to the wealthy and powerful people talking us out of this, and just start doing it. Be a real conservative, lead by example. Be a real liberal, pay it forward. Mourn the breakdown of our institutions that set this back 40 years. Then do something about it by evangelizing sustainability and stop voting for people who pass the buck. Help people who don't get it find their way out of cognitive dissonance.
Solarpunk is a great place to start.
https://newatlas.com/energy/solar-jet-fuel-tower/
The plant created 5191 liters (1371 gallons) of syngas in 9 days, whereas a Boeing 787 Dreamliner carries 126,372 liters (36,384 gallons). The conversions are not linear, but that is something like a refueled plane every 219 days, give or take an order of magnitude. Looks like the conversion efficiency is 4% but 20% is expected after recycling heat and catalyst improvements.
I find stuff like this simultaneously inspiring and devastating. The technology has arrived to easily create our own electricity and fuel without having to deal with supply chain issues around centralized photovoltaic manufacturers, yet the size of the challenge is insurmountable. There is simply no way to scale this big enough to save the natural world before global warming destroys it at the end of the century.
So, that leaves us with nuclear power (fission). I appreciate that a lot of people have worked very hard on it and have humanity's best interests at heart. But they don't understand human psychology. We all know that we've been lied to about the safety of nuclear power, but they pretend that it can be made safe. While simultaneously avoiding discussion about the externalities like nuclear waste storage, nuclear proliferation, even the inherent security issues around large centralized power generation or what will happen after wars or other emergencies force workers to abandon nuclear facilities. So I don't trust them, and that's why I don't consider nuclear to be a viable alternative, and I have an unlimited list of evidence against it so I don't bother debating it anymore.
Which leaves us with what I feel is the actual solution. Yet again, as in most things, we have to pull ourselves up by our bootstraps. I think that we'll solve it through cultural evolution. Each of us has to get to sustainability on an individual level, then lift at least one other person (preferably someone we don't know) out of dependence. Which is still a big problem, but it's smaller than paying off a mortgage.
So everyone's gotta wake up, forget they got hoodwinked, stop listening to the wealthy and powerful people talking us out of this, and just start doing it. Be a real conservative, lead by example. Be a real liberal, pay it forward. Mourn the breakdown of our institutions that set this back 40 years. Then do something about it by evangelizing sustainability and stop voting for people who pass the buck. Help people who don't get it find their way out of cognitive dissonance.
Solarpunk is a great place to start.
China dominates industry.
Just use nuclear power.
And a lot of so far non existent recycling technologies and resources...
90% of a solar panel is recyclable. However, it's only necessary to do so once the panel is no longer economically viable, and panels are generally warrantied to produce 80%+ of their nameplate capacity after 20+ years.
In the EU and elsewhere there's a healthy market in used panels; when a large scale installation upgrades to newer/better panels, the used panels go on the market and end up in places where people don't care about the efficiency per area.
In the EU and elsewhere there's a healthy market in used panels; when a large scale installation upgrades to newer/better panels, the used panels go on the market and end up in places where people don't care about the efficiency per area.
This is an important point. There was a recent article inquiring the issues in recycling solar panels installed 20-25 years ago: https://www.latimes.com/business/story/2022-07-14/california... .
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.
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.
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...
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.
The more important point is that panels that contain cadmium and selenium are primarily not used at all. The PVXchange pricing page stopped quoting prices for thin-film panels years ago because silicon panels are now totally dominant in the market.
Solar is a meme, nuclear is the only way we get the grid off carbon.
<whisper>we're gonna need nuclear no matter what the "green" power people say</whisper>
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 need a lot of space to be efficient. And you can't just place those anywhere, either. Wind turbines need strong wind to work.
Hydro power plants need water flow to generate energy. So you can't have those anywhere, of course.
The only reliable and eco-firendly way to generate power are nuclear power plants. You can build them anywhere, they produce small waste per output and they require about the same space as any coal-based plant.
Sadly, you need good experts and no bad luck to operate them safely. Otherwise, we saw what happens.
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 need a lot of space to be efficient. And you can't just place those anywhere, either. Wind turbines need strong wind to work.
Hydro power plants need water flow to generate energy. So you can't have those anywhere, of course.
The only reliable and eco-firendly way to generate power are nuclear power plants. You can build them anywhere, they produce small waste per output and they require about the same space as any coal-based plant.
Sadly, you need good experts and no bad luck to operate them safely. Otherwise, we saw what happens.
Crops under solar panels: https://duckduckgo.com/?t=ffsb&q=planting+under+solar+panel&...
"researchers are showing how panels can increase yields and reduce water use on a warming planet."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Offshore_wind_power
"As of 2020, the total worldwide offshore wind power nameplate capacity was 35.3 gigawatt"
Many areas need large amounts of cheap clean electric, but don't need them 24/7. If your CO2 sequestran or hydrogen generator or desalination only runs during the day, or when the wind is blowing, meh.
"researchers are showing how panels can increase yields and reduce water use on a warming planet."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Offshore_wind_power
"As of 2020, the total worldwide offshore wind power nameplate capacity was 35.3 gigawatt"
Many areas need large amounts of cheap clean electric, but don't need them 24/7. If your CO2 sequestran or hydrogen generator or desalination only runs during the day, or when the wind is blowing, meh.
>What people don't realize is that solar power is not enough to support industrial production. Neither is hydro and wind power.
You need energy storage as well, people have realized this and it's being built in most countries. Hydro however is enough on it's own, and is in fact also one of the best forms of energy storage. If you have enough hydro to cover half your needs, adding "half your needs" from wind and solar lets you save hydro for the other half (This is a huge simplification but essentially true)
>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.
I don't see where the problem is. You seem to postulate that a solar power plant needs to be built like a nuclear power plant and take up a huge area of new land. It doesn't. You can put solar where you are already doing other things.
In fact, we could just build solar roofs on existing parking lots! Shade is very nice for parked cars and the area currently used by parking lots is enough in most countries.
Also, parking lots are not used for agriculture.
I think the real thing people don't realize is just how great a solution solar power really is, because it's new and has enormous implications. So far most of the development has been done on a basically amateur level.
Distributed energy generation and decimated price of electricity will disrupt a lot of powerful incumbents, so there's bound to be some propaganda against it from many sources.
If the claims in the story are true, anyone using IEA as a source would be lead to believe that solar has no future, for example. But the actual solar developments have surpassed IEAs 20-year estimates within 1 year, 13 years in a row.
You need energy storage as well, people have realized this and it's being built in most countries. Hydro however is enough on it's own, and is in fact also one of the best forms of energy storage. If you have enough hydro to cover half your needs, adding "half your needs" from wind and solar lets you save hydro for the other half (This is a huge simplification but essentially true)
>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.
I don't see where the problem is. You seem to postulate that a solar power plant needs to be built like a nuclear power plant and take up a huge area of new land. It doesn't. You can put solar where you are already doing other things.
In fact, we could just build solar roofs on existing parking lots! Shade is very nice for parked cars and the area currently used by parking lots is enough in most countries.
Also, parking lots are not used for agriculture.
I think the real thing people don't realize is just how great a solution solar power really is, because it's new and has enormous implications. So far most of the development has been done on a basically amateur level.
Distributed energy generation and decimated price of electricity will disrupt a lot of powerful incumbents, so there's bound to be some propaganda against it from many sources.
If the claims in the story are true, anyone using IEA as a source would be lead to believe that solar has no future, for example. But the actual solar developments have surpassed IEAs 20-year estimates within 1 year, 13 years in a row.
Agrivoltaics [1] has enormous potential.
[1]: https://www.ise.fraunhofer.de/content/dam/ise/en/documents/p...
[1]: https://www.ise.fraunhofer.de/content/dam/ise/en/documents/p...
> What people don't realize is that solar power is not enough to support industrial production. Neither is hydro and wind power.
We don't realize it because it's not true.
We don't realize it because it's not true.
You should probably read the article, before writing a highly-downvoted comment answering a completely different article.
All that gas and oil was once a massive biological solar panel, covering much of the ocean, absorbing sunlight, storing it, reproducing, growing only to get subducted and stored for us, like a battery. For a billion years.
When I hear people talk about building solar panels to convert water and CO2 into methane gas for its explosive energy potential to meet our needs, mining pits in the ground all over the world, razing landscapes to steal their sunlight, as if they're going to ever come close to the methane that's already there, and that without doing more environmental damage than our current state of affairs comes close to, I wonder how delusional or dishonest you have to be to pitch an investor. And I'm fearful of the mentality and the utter destruction of the environment this absurdity will lead us to. They would have us pave the earth to save it.
If you're worried about climate change, the only way stop it is to reduce the amount of energy consumed, the amount of plastic produced, the amount of ammonia made through the Haber Bosch process. This necessarily means killing, at a minimum, three quarters of the world's human population, along with the livestock that are alive currently that will feed them. And then you've got to get past the unbelievably massive spike in carbon dioxide as all these carcasses decay, carbon dioxide that was once locked up in oil as well, since all these living organisms are made possible only by way of the fertilizer they were fed that was made from oil.
It's not pretty, but that's the only way to do it. Do you think we should do it?
When I hear people talk about building solar panels to convert water and CO2 into methane gas for its explosive energy potential to meet our needs, mining pits in the ground all over the world, razing landscapes to steal their sunlight, as if they're going to ever come close to the methane that's already there, and that without doing more environmental damage than our current state of affairs comes close to, I wonder how delusional or dishonest you have to be to pitch an investor. And I'm fearful of the mentality and the utter destruction of the environment this absurdity will lead us to. They would have us pave the earth to save it.
If you're worried about climate change, the only way stop it is to reduce the amount of energy consumed, the amount of plastic produced, the amount of ammonia made through the Haber Bosch process. This necessarily means killing, at a minimum, three quarters of the world's human population, along with the livestock that are alive currently that will feed them. And then you've got to get past the unbelievably massive spike in carbon dioxide as all these carcasses decay, carbon dioxide that was once locked up in oil as well, since all these living organisms are made possible only by way of the fertilizer they were fed that was made from oil.
It's not pretty, but that's the only way to do it. Do you think we should do it?
The problem is more nuanced than that and just throwing out "Population control." is completely meaningless.
You could cull three billion people of the lowest emitters and it would have as much of an effect as halving the CO2 emissions of the top 1% of emitters.[1] And considering that to avoid the worst of the climate crisis we need action immediately or as close to it as possible, waiting for people to die away will not help us. If the entire planet stopped having babies today we would wait 65 years to get to half the current population, and half the emissions.
At best, and I would argue even that is a stretch, population control is one small part of a long term strategy. But it is by no means a solution, so throwing it out there every time people talk about sustainability does nothing but derail the conversation.
What we really need is to to make consumption as sustainable as possible and reduce it where possible, especially for the top consumers. That is not only more feasible in the short term, it is probably more ethical as well.
(Pasted this comment from [2])
[1] https://www.oxfam.org/en/press-releases/carbon-emissions-ric...
[2] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=29545504
You could cull three billion people of the lowest emitters and it would have as much of an effect as halving the CO2 emissions of the top 1% of emitters.[1] And considering that to avoid the worst of the climate crisis we need action immediately or as close to it as possible, waiting for people to die away will not help us. If the entire planet stopped having babies today we would wait 65 years to get to half the current population, and half the emissions.
At best, and I would argue even that is a stretch, population control is one small part of a long term strategy. But it is by no means a solution, so throwing it out there every time people talk about sustainability does nothing but derail the conversation.
What we really need is to to make consumption as sustainable as possible and reduce it where possible, especially for the top consumers. That is not only more feasible in the short term, it is probably more ethical as well.
(Pasted this comment from [2])
[1] https://www.oxfam.org/en/press-releases/carbon-emissions-ric...
[2] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=29545504
It's not feasible, because our population is only currently possible due to the availability of energy. We can't have global supply chains, food and medicine moving across the world, much less being produced, without oil and gas. You simply don't reduce energy consumption beyond making TV illegal without starving more than half of the people alive today.
It is by no means a solution, that's kind of my point. There is no solution. We are made of the stuff that is causing this. Something like 68% of the bioavailable nitrogen in your body was produced via the Haber Bosch process. Most of the carbon in your body was produced as a result of fossil fuel extraction.
I didn't use the phrase "population control" because it's disingenuous. What I'm talking about is culling. No matter how you dice it, reducing energy availability, paving vast parts of the world to make up for what little energy we truly need, you're talking about killing billions of people and destroying a significant portion of the living surface of the earth. These are not options. And even if they were, the environmental destruction would be worse, it wouldn't even solve anything.
It doesn't derail the conversation, it is the conversation. I'm not arguing for population control, I think the idea is disgusting. I'm pointing out simply that all these pretty ideas people keep talking about, when you look at the magnitude of the problem, they're not viable solutions. If they're not viable then a conversation talking about them should be derailed because it isn't the conversation we should be having.
It is by no means a solution, that's kind of my point. There is no solution. We are made of the stuff that is causing this. Something like 68% of the bioavailable nitrogen in your body was produced via the Haber Bosch process. Most of the carbon in your body was produced as a result of fossil fuel extraction.
I didn't use the phrase "population control" because it's disingenuous. What I'm talking about is culling. No matter how you dice it, reducing energy availability, paving vast parts of the world to make up for what little energy we truly need, you're talking about killing billions of people and destroying a significant portion of the living surface of the earth. These are not options. And even if they were, the environmental destruction would be worse, it wouldn't even solve anything.
It doesn't derail the conversation, it is the conversation. I'm not arguing for population control, I think the idea is disgusting. I'm pointing out simply that all these pretty ideas people keep talking about, when you look at the magnitude of the problem, they're not viable solutions. If they're not viable then a conversation talking about them should be derailed because it isn't the conversation we should be having.
Ecofascism is a pretty unimaginative, lazy and downright illogical solution to the complicated problem of climate change. It's also morally and scientifically wrong.
I wholeheartedly agree. What's your point?
I think solar panels are a bit more efficient at converting sunlight > electricity than the chemical process of sunlight > photosynthesis > decomposition > burning fossil fuel. Take the ICE that only coverts something like 20% of fuel into motion, the rest is lost to heat. The electric motor is far more efficient.
You'd need to update your reasoning to take into account all the efficiencies lost in the fossil fuel creation and consumption in order to generate electricity.
You'd need to update your reasoning to take into account all the efficiencies lost in the fossil fuel creation and consumption in order to generate electricity.
No I don't, and I'll tell you why.
The amount of energy hitting the surface of the earth is constant, assuming that the luminosity of the sun is constant. Photosynthesis as cyanobacteria/chloroplasts/chlorella perform it might be less efficient than a modern solar panel at converting the entirety of the spectrum to energy, but they did it and produced this fuel for hundreds of millions of years. Even if you get 10 times the efficiency gains on them, you reduce the amount of time it takes to produce the same energy to what, tens of thousands of years, at the same surface area as that of the oceans?
Now let's say the electricity generated is used in a way that is an order of magnitude more efficient than using fossil fuels. That takes us down to 1000-9000 years, let's say best case scenario 1000, a surface area the size of the ocean paved, to achieve the energy we have used in 100 years, and that doesn't account for the fact that we need the energy output we have now, not the output we had in 1920 which was orders of magnitude less. Constant output at current levels I would expect we would've used all that oil in under 50 years, but let's ignore that too.
Now, let's assume that that oil were to last us another hundred years at projected energy consumption rates, peak oil and all that. You'd need to pave an area of the earth, in my very rough sketch, the size of all the oceans, and process the entire earths crust for minerals for it, and keep it like this for 1000 years, to get enough energy to last humans 200 years.
I'm probably wrong about a lot of these numbers. Let's say I'm off (in your favor) by a whopping order of magnitude. You'd still have to pave an area the size of half the earths oceans to get 200 years worth of energy in 200 years. Exactly how much environmental damage do you think such a project would cause? Would you say that such a project would be more or less destructive than current climate change projections?
It's really pretty obvious, there are only 2 paths forward: get humans into space, where we can build solar panels to catch some of the unbelievably vast majority of solar energy that is not required by life on earth, out of material not currently underneath the ground life lives on, and use the lucky accident of these fuels to do it now before they run out, or take humanity down a few notches, kill three quarters of our population, somehow prevent the CO2 from our decomposition from entering the atmosphere, and start cooking with wood and cowdung again.
Or we can keep pretending that these pitches about carbon sequestration using solar and wind are actually viable and keep being frustrated that nothing is being done to stop it.
The amount of energy hitting the surface of the earth is constant, assuming that the luminosity of the sun is constant. Photosynthesis as cyanobacteria/chloroplasts/chlorella perform it might be less efficient than a modern solar panel at converting the entirety of the spectrum to energy, but they did it and produced this fuel for hundreds of millions of years. Even if you get 10 times the efficiency gains on them, you reduce the amount of time it takes to produce the same energy to what, tens of thousands of years, at the same surface area as that of the oceans?
Now let's say the electricity generated is used in a way that is an order of magnitude more efficient than using fossil fuels. That takes us down to 1000-9000 years, let's say best case scenario 1000, a surface area the size of the ocean paved, to achieve the energy we have used in 100 years, and that doesn't account for the fact that we need the energy output we have now, not the output we had in 1920 which was orders of magnitude less. Constant output at current levels I would expect we would've used all that oil in under 50 years, but let's ignore that too.
Now, let's assume that that oil were to last us another hundred years at projected energy consumption rates, peak oil and all that. You'd need to pave an area of the earth, in my very rough sketch, the size of all the oceans, and process the entire earths crust for minerals for it, and keep it like this for 1000 years, to get enough energy to last humans 200 years.
I'm probably wrong about a lot of these numbers. Let's say I'm off (in your favor) by a whopping order of magnitude. You'd still have to pave an area the size of half the earths oceans to get 200 years worth of energy in 200 years. Exactly how much environmental damage do you think such a project would cause? Would you say that such a project would be more or less destructive than current climate change projections?
It's really pretty obvious, there are only 2 paths forward: get humans into space, where we can build solar panels to catch some of the unbelievably vast majority of solar energy that is not required by life on earth, out of material not currently underneath the ground life lives on, and use the lucky accident of these fuels to do it now before they run out, or take humanity down a few notches, kill three quarters of our population, somehow prevent the CO2 from our decomposition from entering the atmosphere, and start cooking with wood and cowdung again.
Or we can keep pretending that these pitches about carbon sequestration using solar and wind are actually viable and keep being frustrated that nothing is being done to stop it.
I follow your logic but the sun is going to be hitting you for 70+ years. Your body surface area is probably equivalent to my 400W solar panel. That's a few KWh per day for 70+ years. How much oil will your decomposing body produce? How much energy will the vegetation in the Sahara desert produce?
You misunderstand, my decomposing body will produce carbon dioxide.
The Sahara desert is a great idea, probably our best bet. And if we can source all the material needed to pave it with panels right from underneath it, all the better. But that's unlikely, and still, that's 2% of the earths surface. Not enough surface area to cover our energy needs, despite what anyone says. If we really have reached peak oil, that is, used half or more of the oil available to us, in 100 years, that took 75% of the earths surface a billion years to produce, paving the Sahara desert won't make a dent. Even using energy from the sun 100 times more efficiently, that's still 50 times less energy than we need, 2% of what's needed, and that doesn't take into account increasing energy needs worldwide.
The Sahara desert is a great idea, probably our best bet. And if we can source all the material needed to pave it with panels right from underneath it, all the better. But that's unlikely, and still, that's 2% of the earths surface. Not enough surface area to cover our energy needs, despite what anyone says. If we really have reached peak oil, that is, used half or more of the oil available to us, in 100 years, that took 75% of the earths surface a billion years to produce, paving the Sahara desert won't make a dent. Even using energy from the sun 100 times more efficiently, that's still 50 times less energy than we need, 2% of what's needed, and that doesn't take into account increasing energy needs worldwide.
>Let's say I'm off (in your favor) by a whopping order of magnitude.
No, let's say that you are off by three or four orders of magnitude. Because your first estimate really is that bad, and without it, your entire "argument" falls apart.
No, let's say that you are off by three or four orders of magnitude. Because your first estimate really is that bad, and without it, your entire "argument" falls apart.
So draw me a picture then. Let's say I'm off by 3 or 4 orders of magnitude, photosynthesis is .001% efficient or whatever. Show me how you create enough energy, the equivalent of a billion years worth of solar energy shining down on three quarters of the surface of the earth, every 200 years. 2000 years. 200,000 years. Without unfathomable environmental destruction. Or how you reduce the energy consumption of 8 billion people to a point where it is manageable without killing most of them. Give me more than one sentence.
It's not photosynthesis that's .00001% efficient or whatever, it's the whole process, because it's also fuelling the entire lifetime of those organisms before they become fuel in the ground, and all those organisms that don't have just the right conditions for becoming fuel in the ground, and all the fuel in the ground that didn't stay there over those millions of years because it didn't have the right conditions.
And in any case, the problem we need to solve is not at all replicating the amount of energy stored by fuel in the ground. The problem we need to solve is generating the amount of energy we're actually using. And that has the advantage that we know that number quite precisely, instead of having to derive it based on ridiculously imprecise guesses.
And TFA makes a projection for required area using exactly this, and arrives at
> 300 TW of solar generation capacity, occupying about 5% of Earth’s land surface area, and split between roof top installations in cities and dedicated plants on nearby less developed land. For comparison, agriculture uses 18% of Earth’s land surface area, and largely uninhabited deserts are 33%.
And that completely ignores the additional power generation capacity of wind power.
And in any case, the problem we need to solve is not at all replicating the amount of energy stored by fuel in the ground. The problem we need to solve is generating the amount of energy we're actually using. And that has the advantage that we know that number quite precisely, instead of having to derive it based on ridiculously imprecise guesses.
And TFA makes a projection for required area using exactly this, and arrives at
> 300 TW of solar generation capacity, occupying about 5% of Earth’s land surface area, and split between roof top installations in cities and dedicated plants on nearby less developed land. For comparison, agriculture uses 18% of Earth’s land surface area, and largely uninhabited deserts are 33%.
And that completely ignores the additional power generation capacity of wind power.
Alright, so I'm off by how many orders of magnitude then? 4? Or 20? If I'm off by 3 or 4, whatever the reason, my previous comment applies, and the amount of energy you need is still off by orders of magnitude! So how many am I wrong by?
wind power takes up surface area too. In fact, wind is just solar energy. The amount of energy you can get on earth from any source besides nuclear, fossil fuels and geothermal is hard capped by the surface area of the earths apparent disk and the inverse square law and necessarily requires environmental destruction.
wind power takes up surface area too. In fact, wind is just solar energy. The amount of energy you can get on earth from any source besides nuclear, fossil fuels and geothermal is hard capped by the surface area of the earths apparent disk and the inverse square law and necessarily requires environmental destruction.
> So how many am I wrong by?
Doesn't matter at all because, as I pointed out, the whole approach is ridiculously wrong-headed. We know how much energy we actually need, and it has nothing to do with how much is in the ground and how it got there.
> wind power takes up surface area too.
However, that can even be the same surface area you've already put solar panels on.
> The amount of energy you can get on earth from any source besides nuclear, fossil fuels and geothermal is hard capped by the surface area of the earths apparent disk and the inverse square law
This is correct. But the cap is at about 26000 TW (see https://medium.com/earth-47/how-much-energy-does-the-earth-r...) and the amount we need is about 300 TW, so if we manage to capture only about 0.12% of the available energy, all our needs are already met.
> and necessarily requires environmental destruction.
Sure. But not even remotely close to the degree you're claiming.
Doesn't matter at all because, as I pointed out, the whole approach is ridiculously wrong-headed. We know how much energy we actually need, and it has nothing to do with how much is in the ground and how it got there.
> wind power takes up surface area too.
However, that can even be the same surface area you've already put solar panels on.
> The amount of energy you can get on earth from any source besides nuclear, fossil fuels and geothermal is hard capped by the surface area of the earths apparent disk and the inverse square law
This is correct. But the cap is at about 26000 TW (see https://medium.com/earth-47/how-much-energy-does-the-earth-r...) and the amount we need is about 300 TW, so if we manage to capture only about 0.12% of the available energy, all our needs are already met.
> and necessarily requires environmental destruction.
Sure. But not even remotely close to the degree you're claiming.
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, 26000 TW per year, and the photosynthesis on the surface of the ocean only saved what, projected oil reserves another 100 years, 60k TW at best? That puts photosyntheses of the ocean surface chloroplasts converted into oil at 0.0000001% efficiency. Either that or there's triple digits orders of magnitude more oil under the surface we don't know about. You believe that?
And suppose that is true. That would mean the amount of carbon coming from it is absolutely miniscule. Think of the number of tons of carbon dioxide that could've been in the atmosphere when the photosynthesis started, subtract out what would've been locked up to store this miniscule amount of energy, that's what you get, hardly anything. We know that's not true, so we can safely guess that the energy from photosynthesis that was stored was significantly more efficient than 0.0000001%, if it weren't you wouldn't have a climate crisis, which means humans use much more than 300TW. And that's just currently.
Wherever you're getting these consumption numbers from, they're just simply not possible. The carbon that has been produced in the last 100 years outweighs the amount that would be released from oil during that time if it were constant 300TW yearly, let alone with the comparatively small amount 100 years ago.
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, 26000 TW per year, and the photosynthesis on the surface of the ocean only saved what, projected oil reserves another 100 years, 60k TW at best? That puts photosyntheses of the ocean surface chloroplasts converted into oil at 0.0000001% efficiency. Either that or there's triple digits orders of magnitude more oil under the surface we don't know about. You believe that?
And suppose that is true. That would mean the amount of carbon coming from it is absolutely miniscule. Think of the number of tons of carbon dioxide that could've been in the atmosphere when the photosynthesis started, subtract out what would've been locked up to store this miniscule amount of energy, that's what you get, hardly anything. We know that's not true, so we can safely guess that the energy from photosynthesis that was stored was significantly more efficient than 0.0000001%, if it weren't you wouldn't have a climate crisis, which means humans use much more than 300TW. And that's just currently.
Wherever you're getting these consumption numbers from, they're just simply not possible. The carbon that has been produced in the last 100 years outweighs the amount that would be released from oil during that time if it were constant 300TW yearly, let alone with the comparatively small amount 100 years ago.
brazzy(1)
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).
Now I imagine all the people that buy tiny 5 kWp plants. The only way this would work is collaborative, with buffers at the medium-voltage level.
So the biggest problem is really energy transfer or relocation, between different time's and regions´ needs (winter, summer; night, day; or from different regions worldwide).
.. btw. here's a graphic for the calculation [1]. Blue is an imaginary heating pump electricity consumption over the year, red is the predicted pv production for a 60 kWp plant, where 30 kWp are at 60° angle - calculated with Europe's pvgis tool [2].
[1]: https://ibb.co/WKsHPKX
[2]: https://re.jrc.ec.europa.eu/pvg_tools/en/