Solar will soon eclipse other forms of energy generation(positive.news)
positive.news
Solar will soon eclipse other forms of energy generation
https://www.positive.news/environment/solar-will-soon-eclipse-all-forms-of-energy/
116 comments
These are nice points, but might not be too convincing for someone who is doubtful about the technology.
Let me introduce the case of my country, Poland:
Bottom line: solar was 5.26% of the electricity mix in 2022 despite not even registering in annual reports as recently as in 2019.
People here generally lean conservative and don't think in terms of carbon footprints and whatnot. The grid is largely coal-based and until recently this was supposed to remain the case until resources run out.
Starting this year there are already hours during which solar supplies more power to the grid than coal, even though just three years earlier(2020) at 1.1% it barely registered in annual energy production reports. It's predicted to be over 7% of the mix this year.
Many different reasons for such an explosion in popularity, but ultimately they boil down to one thing: money talks. It's no secret that Poland is a net energy importer and the solar farms help in relying less on e.g. Germany in this regard and saving money in the process.
It's gaining ground because it's simply cheap and easy to deploy.
Meanwhile the nuclear power plant(s), plans for which started in earnest in 2008, is yet to start construction. Perhaps we'll have one by 2030, but I wouldn't hold my breath.
Let me introduce the case of my country, Poland:
Bottom line: solar was 5.26% of the electricity mix in 2022 despite not even registering in annual reports as recently as in 2019.
People here generally lean conservative and don't think in terms of carbon footprints and whatnot. The grid is largely coal-based and until recently this was supposed to remain the case until resources run out.
Starting this year there are already hours during which solar supplies more power to the grid than coal, even though just three years earlier(2020) at 1.1% it barely registered in annual energy production reports. It's predicted to be over 7% of the mix this year.
Many different reasons for such an explosion in popularity, but ultimately they boil down to one thing: money talks. It's no secret that Poland is a net energy importer and the solar farms help in relying less on e.g. Germany in this regard and saving money in the process.
It's gaining ground because it's simply cheap and easy to deploy.
Meanwhile the nuclear power plant(s), plans for which started in earnest in 2008, is yet to start construction. Perhaps we'll have one by 2030, but I wouldn't hold my breath.
FTA
> 1. Europe to plug into desert sunshine Solar energy harvested in the sunbleached dunes of the Sahara desert is set to power millions of homes in Britain and Europe.
It's not just nice points. It's the entire point of the article.
> 1. Europe to plug into desert sunshine Solar energy harvested in the sunbleached dunes of the Sahara desert is set to power millions of homes in Britain and Europe.
It's not just nice points. It's the entire point of the article.
And that's the reason why this article is geopolitically naïve beyond comprehension. Morocco and Algeria does not like each other and can end up fighting tomorrow. Libya is a hot mess after French and Italians weren't able to hold their impulses and Egypt is under military government.
It's not that implausible and certainly not naive - Morocco & Algeria are already integrated into European energy! Algeria is the largest supplier of gas to Spain, and has been for more than 20 years, largely via pipelines that run straight through Morocco.
It's also been a major supplier to Portugal, though recently overtaken by Nigeria, whose gas also runs through both Algeria & Morocco. See https://www.iea.org/articles/spain-natural-gas-security-poli..., https://www.iea.org/articles/portugal-natural-gas-security-p... for background, and https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Medgaz and https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maghreb%E2%80%93Europe_Gas_Pip... for details of the pipelines.
There's tensions and all sorts of diplomatic complexity and that have come with that, it's certainly not perfect and there's been recent diplomatic challenges specifically, but it's worked well enough to reliably supply gas from Algeria & Nigeria to Europe for decades, and has largely protected Spain & Portugal from the recent Russian gas challenges in Europe (because of this setup, they have an 'Iberian exception' on gas in EU law).
Not to say it won't be challenging, but given the profits involved, it's totally plausible to me that they could build a setup sufficient to deliver solar energy too.
It's also been a major supplier to Portugal, though recently overtaken by Nigeria, whose gas also runs through both Algeria & Morocco. See https://www.iea.org/articles/spain-natural-gas-security-poli..., https://www.iea.org/articles/portugal-natural-gas-security-p... for background, and https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Medgaz and https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maghreb%E2%80%93Europe_Gas_Pip... for details of the pipelines.
There's tensions and all sorts of diplomatic complexity and that have come with that, it's certainly not perfect and there's been recent diplomatic challenges specifically, but it's worked well enough to reliably supply gas from Algeria & Nigeria to Europe for decades, and has largely protected Spain & Portugal from the recent Russian gas challenges in Europe (because of this setup, they have an 'Iberian exception' on gas in EU law).
Not to say it won't be challenging, but given the profits involved, it's totally plausible to me that they could build a setup sufficient to deliver solar energy too.
Supplying gas, which takes weeks or month to be consumed which can be stored and which, ultimately can come from different sources is very different from supplying electricity directly.
If Algeria were to stop providing gas to Europe suddenly, gas could always be sourced from somewhere else. It would clearly be a huge headache but it can be done (cf Russian gas crisis just 6 months ago).
However, If Algeria decide to just stop providing electricity to Europe, what can Europe do?
If you think Europe making themselves dependent on Russian gas was a blunder, making themselves dependent on African electricity is a geopolitical suicide.
If Algeria were to stop providing gas to Europe suddenly, gas could always be sourced from somewhere else. It would clearly be a huge headache but it can be done (cf Russian gas crisis just 6 months ago).
However, If Algeria decide to just stop providing electricity to Europe, what can Europe do?
If you think Europe making themselves dependent on Russian gas was a blunder, making themselves dependent on African electricity is a geopolitical suicide.
If those countries had much oil, we would have made sure those wells were pumping (notice how quick we rebuilt wells in Iraq?).
When solar is the new oil, there might be similar efforts to keep the panels illuminated.
When solar is the new oil, there might be similar efforts to keep the panels illuminated.
So who are we invading? Libya seems to be best bet.
EU doesn't do much invading and USA is too far to install cables. But EU might offer them to join...
Libya to be invited to join the EU?
LOL
LOL
I heard about Xlinks before and I'm cheering for it, but to me a shorter, but more powerful HVDC line to Spain and a plant there would yield better returns, and earlier at that.
Solar is booming there anyway - there's currently 22GW connected to the grid, which is double that of the 2019 figure. A far cry from the days of the infamous sun tax.
The world relies on Morocco for its minerals used in fertilizers so if it were not a safe place to invest, we would have worse problems to deal with, but still, the world record in HVDC line length might be not worth it.
Solar is booming there anyway - there's currently 22GW connected to the grid, which is double that of the 2019 figure. A far cry from the days of the infamous sun tax.
The world relies on Morocco for its minerals used in fertilizers so if it were not a safe place to invest, we would have worse problems to deal with, but still, the world record in HVDC line length might be not worth it.
Poland is also an EU country and lots of subsidies come round to complying with them, and reaching Solar goals is part of them. Even when the government doesn’t cooperates, they still accept all the money/work they can get.
Not only that, but also lots of other infrastructure.
Not only that, but also lots of other infrastructure.
Well it's good, and very happy, but seriously, what is going to power Northern Europe in winter? Burning gas which is somehow seen as green? Ginormous batteries storing summer energy through until April, which people inexplicably assume will become viable by extrapolating exponential growth? Or good old coal as a "temporary measure"?
IMO renewables as a backbone for energy generation in a random locale, over nuclear, are misguided. I fear they will replace maybe 60-70% of fossil, if that, then will hit a wall and we will keep on burning stuff to patch the holes, or will build nukes anyway for this purpose, at which point the renewables will have been a waste of money and time. Or maybe we will just all burn to a crisp before any of this matters.
I hope I'm wrong, because sure enough no one making energy investments seems to agree with me.
IMO renewables as a backbone for energy generation in a random locale, over nuclear, are misguided. I fear they will replace maybe 60-70% of fossil, if that, then will hit a wall and we will keep on burning stuff to patch the holes, or will build nukes anyway for this purpose, at which point the renewables will have been a waste of money and time. Or maybe we will just all burn to a crisp before any of this matters.
I hope I'm wrong, because sure enough no one making energy investments seems to agree with me.
I believe big cables will the the future... +-3 million volts and 30,000 amps DC makes a pair of cables each 2 feet thick which can deliver enough power for the whole of the UK, and then take that power from the equator to the north pole while losing only 5%.
The cable itself is expensive to make and hard to install, but I believe we will put cablemaking equipment onto a ship, and sail it at 1mph all the way from the equator to northern europe, with other ships bringing shipments of copper, steel, and polymers to keep it going.
The cable will be fed by lower voltage feeders, and voltage conversion done by stacked MOSFETS (600V MOSFETS, 5000 of them stacked, and all encased in polymer - at these voltages, air isn't a good enough insulator unless you have absolutely huge buildings.) Each stack can add or remove 300 megawatts of power from the cable - so you need a couple per powerstation or city
The cable itself is expensive to make and hard to install, but I believe we will put cablemaking equipment onto a ship, and sail it at 1mph all the way from the equator to northern europe, with other ships bringing shipments of copper, steel, and polymers to keep it going.
The cable will be fed by lower voltage feeders, and voltage conversion done by stacked MOSFETS (600V MOSFETS, 5000 of them stacked, and all encased in polymer - at these voltages, air isn't a good enough insulator unless you have absolutely huge buildings.) Each stack can add or remove 300 megawatts of power from the cable - so you need a couple per powerstation or city
This sounds like an in pipe(/cable) dream... First, you need that pair of cables for the UK (assuming your math and physics work out). Then you need at least 10 times that for the rest of Europe. Then we have all those cables in the water, in different places at the coasts of sea bound countries. We need to then split all of it up and transport it inland into all those countries.
Even if the first part is even feasible, that second part is another world of hurt. Oh, and the part before the first part, where we fill Africa with solar to provide the world with electricity for 12-ish hours a day. The geopolitics of this all are going to be pretty much impossible to figure out and that's before any actual engineering can even begin to be done.
Even if the first part is even feasible, that second part is another world of hurt. Oh, and the part before the first part, where we fill Africa with solar to provide the world with electricity for 12-ish hours a day. The geopolitics of this all are going to be pretty much impossible to figure out and that's before any actual engineering can even begin to be done.
Undersea power cables are already very much a thing, and energy transport across the grid is also very much a thing; Europe already has it (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Synchronous_grid_of_Continenta...). You're describing normal, already implemented stuff with a sense of incredulity I'm not sure I understand.
At completely different scales than providing an entire country's energy needs through two cables. The UK currently has more than 2000 power stations providing balanced electricity throughout the country. The international transport is also for balancing, not for providing an entire country's energy needs from another country.
You can't just connect 20 cable's from Africa to the European grid and expect it to work, that's not how the grid works. And I'm truly surprised that many people on HN seem to think it would.
Source: I work in utilities and one of my current focus area's is creating software to help expand the net to cope with the addition of new renewable sources and EV charging stations. And even that is posing a massive challenge on a relatively small and local scale. I couldn't imagine the impact of this fantasy of just plugging in some cables from Africa somewhere.
Edit: This incident is an example of how sensitive all this stuff is:
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2021-01-27/green-shi...
You can't just connect 20 cable's from Africa to the European grid and expect it to work, that's not how the grid works. And I'm truly surprised that many people on HN seem to think it would.
Source: I work in utilities and one of my current focus area's is creating software to help expand the net to cope with the addition of new renewable sources and EV charging stations. And even that is posing a massive challenge on a relatively small and local scale. I couldn't imagine the impact of this fantasy of just plugging in some cables from Africa somewhere.
Edit: This incident is an example of how sensitive all this stuff is:
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2021-01-27/green-shi...
Distributed power generation made sense when everyone used coal power plants - it was cheaper to ship trains full of coal than the power.
But if you want a carbon-free grid, then you can't ship the light or the wind. You either massively overbuild generation and throw most of the power away, build huge amounts of very expensive storage, or you ship the power.
Currently the world is headed towards overbuilding, but thats only because typically private companies build power generation, whereas power transport is mostly in the realm of governments, and governments are slower to act on market forces (and often aren't great at capital efficiency).
The end result will clearly be a mixture of all 3, but we're going to see a lot more power movement in the next 50 years than we saw in the last 50 years.
But if you want a carbon-free grid, then you can't ship the light or the wind. You either massively overbuild generation and throw most of the power away, build huge amounts of very expensive storage, or you ship the power.
Currently the world is headed towards overbuilding, but thats only because typically private companies build power generation, whereas power transport is mostly in the realm of governments, and governments are slower to act on market forces (and often aren't great at capital efficiency).
The end result will clearly be a mixture of all 3, but we're going to see a lot more power movement in the next 50 years than we saw in the last 50 years.
All of that is correct, but I don't see how it's relevant to my argument that plugging a couple of cables into Europe is not a feasible solution and would take massive amounts of work in geopolitics, let alone the engineering to adapt the grid to make it possible.
And would be a heck of a terrorist target anywhere along its length.
Good point, an important part of the resilience of the grid is the fact that there are hardly any significant points of failure.
[deleted]
That's interesting. Not knowing much about electricity read somewhere that it goes ~500km max and was wondering how are they going to get it from Africa to Europe.
It ran into financial troubles, but https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Australia-Asia_Power_Link was to be 2,800 miles long.
The Morocco-UK cable mentioned in the article would be 2,400; "transmission losses for such a long cable will be relatively high at 13%". https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Xlinks_Morocco-UK_Power_Projec...
The Morocco-UK cable mentioned in the article would be 2,400; "transmission losses for such a long cable will be relatively high at 13%". https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Xlinks_Morocco-UK_Power_Projec...
Hmm- finacial in the sense that at least one large investor went "Nope".
The underlying actual issue was the cable path .. not so much the length but the trip across a lively and still active earthquake | volcano | fault ridden region ( that spawned the Krakatoa eruption and others ).
The engineering, repeater stations, need for a "backup" cable (that was just as likely to break) etc just didn't add up.
The Singapore | Australia cable project may rise again - but for now exporting Australian sunlight is going forward via ammonia shipments.
The underlying actual issue was the cable path .. not so much the length but the trip across a lively and still active earthquake | volcano | fault ridden region ( that spawned the Krakatoa eruption and others ).
The engineering, repeater stations, need for a "backup" cable (that was just as likely to break) etc just didn't add up.
The Singapore | Australia cable project may rise again - but for now exporting Australian sunlight is going forward via ammonia shipments.
Yes; the point is that mere cable length doesn't seem to be an inherently unsolvable physics problem.
The 500km max number was before people considered using voltages over ~400kV. Those higher voltages are now more feasible due to solid state power conversion and better insulators.
Also, 500km was a good economic number, because typically if you need to move power more than 500km, then it is better to build generation at the other end and ship the coal/oil there.
Also, 500km was a good economic number, because typically if you need to move power more than 500km, then it is better to build generation at the other end and ship the coal/oil there.
For my own situation in the Netherlands only december and januari are really low. In december 37kwH with solar, used 235. In januari about the same. In februari it goes up quick, generated about 100 kwh, used 200. From march on i'm in the + with generating solar.
So only the 4 winter months here should be abridged or have excess solar power (4 times as much) as normal. This is with a insulated house etc.
So only the 4 winter months here should be abridged or have excess solar power (4 times as much) as normal. This is with a insulated house etc.
In Western Massachusetts I have an all electric building heated with air sourced heat pumps.
December through March is when I buy electricity. I now have documented how KWhs or BTUs I need to eliminate the massive heating load. Last August the Governor made a new deal for better pricing of the electricity I deliver to the grid. This year I will see a much higher income for my excess summer production. I will re-invest this into more production.
The real problem with solar is only a few months of the year. Isolating the problem of energy production and storage to only those months demonstrates how close we are to a new energy future. My next step will be solar thermal install. I want a more passive method for heating as a backup.
My location 42.73226° N, 73.19623° W. I can provide five years of production data if people are curious.
December through March is when I buy electricity. I now have documented how KWhs or BTUs I need to eliminate the massive heating load. Last August the Governor made a new deal for better pricing of the electricity I deliver to the grid. This year I will see a much higher income for my excess summer production. I will re-invest this into more production.
The real problem with solar is only a few months of the year. Isolating the problem of energy production and storage to only those months demonstrates how close we are to a new energy future. My next step will be solar thermal install. I want a more passive method for heating as a backup.
My location 42.73226° N, 73.19623° W. I can provide five years of production data if people are curious.
The thing is, many houses (like my own) aren't insulated very well still. Also, you can't look at production and use over a month. We often have multiple cloudy days in a row where we produce next to nothing in comparison to what is used. So you need something to bridge those days. We do have wind and off-shore wind is relatively reliable, so that's good.
Solar is just awful for our climate, since we produce most when we use the least, which you can see in the quite extreme negative prices for electricity we've already seen this year... And it's not even summer yet.
Solar is just awful for our climate, since we produce most when we use the least, which you can see in the quite extreme negative prices for electricity we've already seen this year... And it's not even summer yet.
Definitely insulation is key. The grid is key I think to smooth out the irregularly generation and the various power sources but over building solar and good planning for shedding snow is key.
In 2021 the array delivered KWh in roughly these groups 8 days over 300 KWh. 96 day over 200 KWh. 84 days over 100 KWh. 110 days over 30 KWh. 20 days over 10 kWh. 15 days at 0 and the rest between 1 an 9 KWh.
If I had the install to do over I would have prioritized a steep incline. The location I choose was easy to install but the panels angle is less the 15 degrees which collects snow.
In 2021 the array delivered KWh in roughly these groups 8 days over 300 KWh. 96 day over 200 KWh. 84 days over 100 KWh. 110 days over 30 KWh. 20 days over 10 kWh. 15 days at 0 and the rest between 1 an 9 KWh.
If I had the install to do over I would have prioritized a steep incline. The location I choose was easy to install but the panels angle is less the 15 degrees which collects snow.
You literally didn't read the first paragraph of the linked article, did you?
So, what, we'll draw most of the winter power from Morocco?
Aside from engineering feasibility, this is literally what bit Europe (Northern Europe in particular - go figure) in the backside: having a single energy supplier. Projects like this sound like nice marginal improvements, but you wouldn't want to bet your whole economy on good relations with Morocco.
It is on fact worse since oil and gas can be transported with some difficulty, Germany muddled through in the end. But you won't be able to magic out new cables at this scale. And anyway where would they lead?
I think the bulk of energy must at least be produced in the EU, with all the limitations it entails. Or else be fungible with many third parties.
Aside from engineering feasibility, this is literally what bit Europe (Northern Europe in particular - go figure) in the backside: having a single energy supplier. Projects like this sound like nice marginal improvements, but you wouldn't want to bet your whole economy on good relations with Morocco.
It is on fact worse since oil and gas can be transported with some difficulty, Germany muddled through in the end. But you won't be able to magic out new cables at this scale. And anyway where would they lead?
I think the bulk of energy must at least be produced in the EU, with all the limitations it entails. Or else be fungible with many third parties.
The article:
> Power delivered by the ‘GREGY Interconnection’ cable will serve grids in Greece, Italy and Bulgaria.
The comment:
> what is going to power Northern Europe in winter?
You literally didn't read the first sentence of the comment, did you?
> Power delivered by the ‘GREGY Interconnection’ cable will serve grids in Greece, Italy and Bulgaria.
The comment:
> what is going to power Northern Europe in winter?
You literally didn't read the first sentence of the comment, did you?
The article discusses lengthy power cables going from Morocco to Britain.
Extending those to Northern Europe doesn't take that much imagination.
Extending those to Northern Europe doesn't take that much imagination.
The question is still relevant.
You cannot lay a 2000 mile subsea cable from Greece to the Nordics.
The Nordic grid is separate from the Central European grid and interconnection capacity is limited.
Time to let your imagination fly. What’s your solution?
You cannot lay a 2000 mile subsea cable from Greece to the Nordics.
The Nordic grid is separate from the Central European grid and interconnection capacity is limited.
Time to let your imagination fly. What’s your solution?
> You cannot lay a 2000 mile subsea cable from Greece to the Nordics.
Sure, that makes it easier, not harder. Interconnection capacity can be expanded. The Nordic grid is already connected (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Synchronous_grid_of_Northern_E... ; 11 interconnections are listed), just not synchronized; they can and do exchange power just fine.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/European_super_grid details all sorts of proposals in this regard, some of them currently being implemented. Like I said, not much imagination necessary; others have already gotten it well past that point.
Sure, that makes it easier, not harder. Interconnection capacity can be expanded. The Nordic grid is already connected (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Synchronous_grid_of_Northern_E... ; 11 interconnections are listed), just not synchronized; they can and do exchange power just fine.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/European_super_grid details all sorts of proposals in this regard, some of them currently being implemented. Like I said, not much imagination necessary; others have already gotten it well past that point.
> Sure, that makes it easier, not harder.
> some of them currently being implemented.
Tell that to the folks actually building these transmission networks.
Sure. Finland is adding an additional 1000 MW of capacity to Estonia. It's expected to be ready for service in 2035.
In case you didn't notice, that's less than a nuclear power plants worth of interconnection capacity in a decade.
That page is little much than fancy hand waving. What's more amusing is that you can also find the summary of a study from Finnish engineering firm Pöyry on the very same page that concludes the following:
> some of them currently being implemented.
Which ones? Specifically which ones will add the required tens of GWs of interconnection capacity?
That's putting it charitably. You need a rather large leap of faith from those hallucinations to a real solution.> Tell that to the folks actually building these transmission networks.
I suspect they'll agree that overland transmission lines are far easier to build than undersea lines. (As long as you're not trying to do it in, say, Afghanistan.)
> While it found that spreading renewables across Europe produced a smoothing effect, large scale weather patterns would impact many European countries at similar times.
Yes, that's why building and interconnecting with solar farms in Northern Africa is being discussed.
> In case you didn't notice, that's less than a nuclear power plants worth of interconnection capacity in a decade.
One would presume they build according to actual need. It's pretty clear future capacity expansion of proven technology will be needed as use of renewables expands.
I suspect they'll agree that overland transmission lines are far easier to build than undersea lines. (As long as you're not trying to do it in, say, Afghanistan.)
> While it found that spreading renewables across Europe produced a smoothing effect, large scale weather patterns would impact many European countries at similar times.
Yes, that's why building and interconnecting with solar farms in Northern Africa is being discussed.
> In case you didn't notice, that's less than a nuclear power plants worth of interconnection capacity in a decade.
One would presume they build according to actual need. It's pretty clear future capacity expansion of proven technology will be needed as use of renewables expands.
Isn’t it truly tiresome to see obvious questions voted to the top with answers right in the article or easily searchable. Why do HN commenters assume that they are the only person to think about these questions? It’s probably the most discussed and analysed topic of our time with an incredible wealth of professionals writing about it every day.
The downside of a tendency to apply first principle thinking to everything. My best guess so far.
> Well it's good, and very happy, but seriously, what is going to power Northern Europe in winter?
Wind, onshore and offshore. The North Sea is currently filled up with offshore wind parks. North Sea countries
Hydropower is popular in the Nordics, I believe. With pumped storage that could flatten the seasonal variation.
Overproduction of both wind and solar is also feasible. Winter production of solar is not nothing, it's just less. Scaling up the number of collectors will still get you more production.
Seasonal price fluctuations. Having summer electricity be nearly free can create business opportunities, whereas high winter prices will reduce demand from industrial consumers.
Wind, onshore and offshore. The North Sea is currently filled up with offshore wind parks. North Sea countries
Hydropower is popular in the Nordics, I believe. With pumped storage that could flatten the seasonal variation.
Overproduction of both wind and solar is also feasible. Winter production of solar is not nothing, it's just less. Scaling up the number of collectors will still get you more production.
Seasonal price fluctuations. Having summer electricity be nearly free can create business opportunities, whereas high winter prices will reduce demand from industrial consumers.
> Wind, onshore and offshore.
How about when the sun don't shine and the wind don't blow?
> Hydropower is popular in the Nordics, I believe.
Popular, but insufficient. Only Norway could ostensibly be run on hydro.
> Overproduction of both wind and solar is also feasible.
But is it economically viable?
> Winter production of solar is not nothing
Yeah, it pretty much is in the Nordics.
> Scaling up the number of collectors will still get you more production.
Nope. Zero times a large number is still zero.
> Having summer electricity be nearly free can create business opportunities, whereas high winter prices will reduce demand from industrial consumers.
Sure, business opportunities for end users. But is it sustainable?
With too much supply renewables make no money and other producers have to make all their money in the winter months.
How about when the sun don't shine and the wind don't blow?
> Hydropower is popular in the Nordics, I believe.
Popular, but insufficient. Only Norway could ostensibly be run on hydro.
> Overproduction of both wind and solar is also feasible.
But is it economically viable?
> Winter production of solar is not nothing
Yeah, it pretty much is in the Nordics.
> Scaling up the number of collectors will still get you more production.
Nope. Zero times a large number is still zero.
> Having summer electricity be nearly free can create business opportunities, whereas high winter prices will reduce demand from industrial consumers.
Sure, business opportunities for end users. But is it sustainable?
With too much supply renewables make no money and other producers have to make all their money in the winter months.
> How about when the sun don't shine and the wind don't blow?
A rarity. Happens for a few hours a year, which can easily be passed with short-term storage.
> With too much supply renewables make no money and other producers have to make all their money in the winter months.
Renewables will have to recoup their investments in the winter, yes. Since it's predictable, it's not a big deal to have seasonality. Make a lot of money in winter to tide you over for the summer. Many industries work like that.
A rarity. Happens for a few hours a year, which can easily be passed with short-term storage.
> With too much supply renewables make no money and other producers have to make all their money in the winter months.
Renewables will have to recoup their investments in the winter, yes. Since it's predictable, it's not a big deal to have seasonality. Make a lot of money in winter to tide you over for the summer. Many industries work like that.
> A rarity. Happens for a few hours a year, which can easily be passed with short-term storage.
It's rather more than a rarity and for periods much longer than a few hours.
Case in point:
"European Wind Turbines at a Standstill Amid an Ongoing “Wind Drought” ... But as of recently, barely even a breeze has made its way through the through the winter air. ... "Britain is in the middle of a wind drought — and the timing couldn't have been worse. For several days now, the U.K. and western Europe have been calm, with barely a breeze," Thomas Moore writes for Sky News. ... Wind speeds in the U.K. have been rather slow recently, and this is impacting the country's ability to utilize wind energy.
According to Yale Environment 360, the phrase "wind drought" is exactly what it sounds like — it refers to an extended period of time that an area lacks wind, or experiences slower-than-usual wind speeds. In 2021, wind speeds were 15 percent slower than in previous years, making for one of the least windy periods in the U.K. in nearly 60 years."
https://www.greenmatters.com/news/wind-drought
> Renewables will have to recoup their investments in the winter
How is solar going to recoup its investment when it produces no power during the winter months?
It's rather more than a rarity and for periods much longer than a few hours.
Case in point:
"European Wind Turbines at a Standstill Amid an Ongoing “Wind Drought” ... But as of recently, barely even a breeze has made its way through the through the winter air. ... "Britain is in the middle of a wind drought — and the timing couldn't have been worse. For several days now, the U.K. and western Europe have been calm, with barely a breeze," Thomas Moore writes for Sky News. ... Wind speeds in the U.K. have been rather slow recently, and this is impacting the country's ability to utilize wind energy.
According to Yale Environment 360, the phrase "wind drought" is exactly what it sounds like — it refers to an extended period of time that an area lacks wind, or experiences slower-than-usual wind speeds. In 2021, wind speeds were 15 percent slower than in previous years, making for one of the least windy periods in the U.K. in nearly 60 years."
https://www.greenmatters.com/news/wind-drought
> Renewables will have to recoup their investments in the winter
How is solar going to recoup its investment when it produces no power during the winter months?
A 15% reduction in wind isn't the same as "wind don't blow"; it's "we'll need to build out some extra capacity as a buffer".
> How is solar going to recoup its investment when it produces no power during the winter months?
No one's building solar farms above the Arctic Circle.
> How is solar going to recoup its investment when it produces no power during the winter months?
No one's building solar farms above the Arctic Circle.
It’s definitely a problem. However reducing annual global fossil fuel usage by 70% is still huge and worth doing today.
In terms of the Northern Europe winter, wind, offshore wind, and solar from Africa will hopefully make up a lot of the shortfall.
In terms of the Northern Europe winter, wind, offshore wind, and solar from Africa will hopefully make up a lot of the shortfall.
Solar from Africa. So tying ourselves to very unstable region which is also in same pattern of production during day...
I think they may have used Africa as an example not as the only place.
Solar can be exported, for example, as pure hydrogen or potentially as hydrogen in ammonia, or possibly other easier to transport material (I'm not a chemist).
Places that receive high amounts of sunlight like Australia would also work for this.
As opposed to already tying energy needs to contested regions.
Solar can be exported, for example, as pure hydrogen or potentially as hydrogen in ammonia, or possibly other easier to transport material (I'm not a chemist).
Places that receive high amounts of sunlight like Australia would also work for this.
As opposed to already tying energy needs to contested regions.
Interesting idea. I went and got chatGPT4 to help me do some back of napkin math and it looks like hydrogen won't be able to compete with coal which is probably between $50-$100 per MWh for Poland. Even assuming the electricity (the biggest cost factor in electrolysis) is free through some carbon credit initiative, the cost of producing 1 MWh of fuel cells is still over $100 and the cost of converting that back to electricity is $17. The cost of shipping is hard to estimate but could potentially be quite small - $1 per MWh.
Now if we could somehow raise the price of coal to account for its externalities.. by stipulating minimum taxes on coal and imposing tariffs on any countries that don't implement those... then we might have a chance.
But I think wind energy (producing or importing) is probably Poland's best bet for getting off of coal.
Now if we could somehow raise the price of coal to account for its externalities.. by stipulating minimum taxes on coal and imposing tariffs on any countries that don't implement those... then we might have a chance.
But I think wind energy (producing or importing) is probably Poland's best bet for getting off of coal.
Hmm.. 1MWh of H2 is about 30kg, https://www.hydrogen.energy.gov/pdfs/20004-cost-electrolytic... claims $5/kg, which puts it at about $150. Seems reasonable.
I suspect doing it through economics alone isn't going to happen, instead some version of the Large Combustion Plant Directive will simply ban coal generation in Poland.
I suspect doing it through economics alone isn't going to happen, instead some version of the Large Combustion Plant Directive will simply ban coal generation in Poland.
As with most markets, it will be a mix for the foreseeable future. There will be dominant players and minor ones, holes filled by suboptimal forms, etc. Even if nuclear energy were the dominant source, we would still be burning some fossil fuels. Optimization should be the goal rather than perfection.
What's interesting to me is that hydroelectric power generation pretty much dominates when it comes to over output per plant.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_largest_power_stations...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hydroelectricity
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_largest_power_stations...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hydroelectricity
Yes, hydro's great. The problem is scaling; "that plant is super helpful, let's build ten more nearby" isn't possible like it is with other forms of power generation.
> or will build nukes anyway for this purpose, at which point the renewables will have been a waste of money and time.
If you decide to build a nuclear plant today, it might be finished by the time renewables deployed today have reached the end of their design lives.
(People will no doubt answer that it can be done quickly, and I urge those people to get on down to Hinkley Point C with a shovel to help them finish the thing)
If you decide to build a nuclear plant today, it might be finished by the time renewables deployed today have reached the end of their design lives.
(People will no doubt answer that it can be done quickly, and I urge those people to get on down to Hinkley Point C with a shovel to help them finish the thing)
I've been hearing this for decades.
Had we built nukes 20 years ago, the problem wouldn't be here today.
It's not a great argument.
Had we built nukes 20 years ago, the problem wouldn't be here today.
It's not a great argument.
A lot of it will come from hydro used as a battery. The power cables across the North Sea will send power north in the summer and south in the winter. That power will be used to either pump water uphill, or just to replace the hydro power currently being used in the summer.
The problem is that there isn't enough hydro. Only Norway has enough hydro to run the country.
Norway currently gets 90% of its power from hydro. If they didn't use hydro while the sun was shining and/or the North Sea wind was blowing, the combination would serve > 5X as many people. And if some of that solar and wind was used to pump water uphill, the number would get even igger.
Norway doesn't have enough interconnection capacity to do that.
And even if it did, the real issue is how to supply power when the sun don't shine and the wind don't blow, i.e. windstill winter days.
During such periods Norway does not have sufficient excess in hydro power generation to satisfy neighboring countries needs.
And even if it did, the real issue is how to supply power when the sun don't shine and the wind don't blow, i.e. windstill winter days.
During such periods Norway does not have sufficient excess in hydro power generation to satisfy neighboring countries needs.
This is exactly the purpose of the North Sea Link and they are talking about building more.
Isn't there plenty of wind in the winter?
Not sure about the term but I would have assumed northern Europe is Scandinavian countries and they have ground heat, water and nuclear.
France already has plans for more nuclear.
We Germans might have issues but let's see what this really means in the next 20 years.
We have a huge gas network and every sun hour will keep those storage tanks full for longer and it should be predictable enough to get good prices
France already has plans for more nuclear.
We Germans might have issues but let's see what this really means in the next 20 years.
We have a huge gas network and every sun hour will keep those storage tanks full for longer and it should be predictable enough to get good prices
>> because sure enough no one making energy investments seems to agree with me.
Let's assume not every investment decision is following SoftBanks approach.
Let's assume not every investment decision is following SoftBanks approach.
It'll likely be mostly be wind, hydro and nuclear. In that order. Not sure how this relates to the topic here though.
> will build nukes anyway for this purpose, at which point the renewables will have been a waste of money and time
Solar, wind, hydro, fission and fusion are all different, with different strengths and weaknesses. Building capacity for one source (making it cheaper in the process!) does not go to waste. Power plants will continue to operate continuously to recoup their capital cost.
A renewable-only grid is generally not the consensus view, just something Greenpeace pushes
Solar, wind, hydro, fission and fusion are all different, with different strengths and weaknesses. Building capacity for one source (making it cheaper in the process!) does not go to waste. Power plants will continue to operate continuously to recoup their capital cost.
A renewable-only grid is generally not the consensus view, just something Greenpeace pushes
With the $120 - 200/MWh nuclear costs, which is the averege price they require all year around, you can do many completely insane things from an energy efficiency perspective and still come out ahead.
https://www.lazard.com/research-insights/levelized-cost-of-e...
https://www.lazard.com/research-insights/levelized-cost-of-e...
Lazard's MWh costs are incorrect for nuclear.
Olkiluoto 3, Finlands newest nuclear reactor sells electricity for 40€/MWh. Even if you double that, to account for the French subsidy, you only end up at $86/MWh after currency conversion.
The same Lazard research report also states that: "Combustion turbines for 100% hydrogen are not commercially available today".
Given that you have to produce something other than hydrogen to produce clean energy this drives down efficiency further.
So, what are these completely insane things that you can do with renewable energy sources and still come out ahead?
Olkiluoto 3, Finlands newest nuclear reactor sells electricity for 40€/MWh. Even if you double that, to account for the French subsidy, you only end up at $86/MWh after currency conversion.
The same Lazard research report also states that: "Combustion turbines for 100% hydrogen are not commercially available today".
Given that you have to produce something other than hydrogen to produce clean energy this drives down efficiency further.
So, what are these completely insane things that you can do with renewable energy sources and still come out ahead?
I can confidently tell you that OL3 does not cost €40/MWh. The marginal cost for paid off nuclear plants are €25-40/MWh. The €13B construction cost ends up being more than €86/MWh, unless you decide to amortize it over 80 years or something insane.
> The same Lazard research report also states that: "Combustion turbines for 100% hydrogen are not commercially available today".
50% hydrogen already in use:
https://hydrogen-central.com/ge-new-gas-turbine-help-smooth-...
A DOE grant to get to 100% hydrogen:
https://www.ge.com/news/press-releases/ge-doe-accelerating-t...
No need to let perfect be the enemy of good. Make synthetic methane to get the hydrogen blend needed.
> The same Lazard research report also states that: "Combustion turbines for 100% hydrogen are not commercially available today".
50% hydrogen already in use:
https://hydrogen-central.com/ge-new-gas-turbine-help-smooth-...
A DOE grant to get to 100% hydrogen:
https://www.ge.com/news/press-releases/ge-doe-accelerating-t...
No need to let perfect be the enemy of good. Make synthetic methane to get the hydrogen blend needed.
I see the same problems. I don't understand why we're still subsidizing solar. I hope we can harness tidal movements in some way, seems like the most consistent thing we're not really using yet. I have no idea whether that's even feasible though.
Most new solar is unsubsidized.
In my country there's still a 0% tax (which can be seen as a subsidy) and there's still what we call the 'salderingsregeling'. That last thing allows people to deduct the KWH they produce in summer from what they use in winter. This can also be considered a subsidy, even though it's not paid by government. Both promote buying solar. The last part looks like we'll finally start to get rid of from 2025.
The 0% VAT is just a way to get rid of some administrative overhead. Repeatedly selling something (like electricity) makes you a VAT-liable entity. You must charge VAT on what you sell, but you can deduct the VAT others charge you. That can go into the negative, giving you a tax refund. This is how VAT always works.
Then there are rules regarding smaller entrepreneurs. Those changed a bit in the past few years, but both before and after the changes there were rules making it so you don't have to pay VAT if you stay below a certain amount of revenue. Those amounts have always been well above what a typical residential solar installation earns.
So what happened was, some tax-smart type deducted the panels in their first year, and was planning to not pay VAT in later years. The tax service didn't agree with the whole "I'm an entrepreneur now" thing, and a court case was fought. The court agreed with the entrepreneur, so for years people could get their solar panels essentially VAT-free.
But it's pretty complex for ordinary people to do this. There were some specialized companies that could help with it, and installers would offer those services as part of their package. It was a mess, and they finally just said: let's just stop this "vestzak-broekzak" nonsense and set VAT to 0%.
So it's not a subsidy, it's a streamlining of an existing tax reality.
Then there are rules regarding smaller entrepreneurs. Those changed a bit in the past few years, but both before and after the changes there were rules making it so you don't have to pay VAT if you stay below a certain amount of revenue. Those amounts have always been well above what a typical residential solar installation earns.
So what happened was, some tax-smart type deducted the panels in their first year, and was planning to not pay VAT in later years. The tax service didn't agree with the whole "I'm an entrepreneur now" thing, and a court case was fought. The court agreed with the entrepreneur, so for years people could get their solar panels essentially VAT-free.
But it's pretty complex for ordinary people to do this. There were some specialized companies that could help with it, and installers would offer those services as part of their package. It was a mess, and they finally just said: let's just stop this "vestzak-broekzak" nonsense and set VAT to 0%.
So it's not a subsidy, it's a streamlining of an existing tax reality.
The trend lines for this have been obvious for a decade or more for anyone who has paid even cursory attention to the energy industry. The comment section under this post will be full of the same skepticism that always accompanies these announcements, and solar will keep chugging along regardless.
Every roof in a city, All bus shelters, car parks with shade roofs.
Ive often wondered why there's not solar snaking down the highways. There's so much unused land between roads just waiting for panels.
Re: snaking down the highways—I'm not an electrician, but my understanding is that transporting electricity over distance is costly. First, because you have to run and long-term maintain additional wire, which isn't free, but second because of something called "transmission and distribution losses"—essentially, some fraction of the power you generated gets lost whenever you send it along a wire. That's why the existing grid uses high voltage for transport and transformers to step it back down where it's going to be used.
Solar panels are getting better and better all the time, but for a long time the marginal benefits of running them have been slim (once you offset the power generation by the cost to manufacture, install, and maintain them). And their output is notoriously unpredictable because it's dependent on weather. So, T&D losses alone are enough of a factor to make certain kinds of solar deployment unfeasible. Then consider how much easier maintenance would be if your panels are arranged in a conventional solar farm rather than running for miles down a highway. So, rather than snaking along highways, it's probably better to cluster all the panels close together just outside (or, as you also suggest, integrated into) a major population center.
Solar panels are getting better and better all the time, but for a long time the marginal benefits of running them have been slim (once you offset the power generation by the cost to manufacture, install, and maintain them). And their output is notoriously unpredictable because it's dependent on weather. So, T&D losses alone are enough of a factor to make certain kinds of solar deployment unfeasible. Then consider how much easier maintenance would be if your panels are arranged in a conventional solar farm rather than running for miles down a highway. So, rather than snaking along highways, it's probably better to cluster all the panels close together just outside (or, as you also suggest, integrated into) a major population center.
I don't see the engineering challenges of power distribution for "solar along highways" as any more insurmountable than "wind farms spanning hundreds of square miles," which are already a thing a across much of the Midwest.
It's not an "engineering challenge" in the big sense, it's more a series of small engineering annoyances that make it a bit more expensive and therefore uneconomic. A thin, sloping jobsite where you have to park on the highway to access it is much less convenient than a big flat one.
As grids reach higher and higher % of renewables you need more and more storage or more and more peaking plants. You could very easily just crank out solar panels but building the storage gets to be apollo program scale projects as % solar gets very high. Just a few tesla mega packs isn't enough if you are over 50%. You need entire lakes. And we should be doing those programs!
Sure, but the interim solution of "just deploy more panels and turn down/off the existing fossil fuel plants during the day" is working pretty well. I suppose once we start seeing significant periods of negative or zero pricing the storage will start happening.
As noted, that only works in the short term.
Once base load and/or peaker plants become unprofitable, you either lose those or end up paying for them to idle.
Neither outcome is very desirable.
Energy storage is unlikely to come to the rescue in time.
Once base load and/or peaker plants become unprofitable, you either lose those or end up paying for them to idle.
Neither outcome is very desirable.
Energy storage is unlikely to come to the rescue in time.
As new safer battery tech like sodium ion gets cheaper. I think we are looking at all homes having batteries that can store and run 24-36 hours rather than large scale batteries. As batteries get cheaper and more solar is added power companies are likely to start offering people better rates for electricity if they are willing to install a grid controlled battery in their garage as the power companies can use the cheaper solar electricity for arbitrage instead of running peaker plants.
Somehow having to thousands or millions of small batteries doesn’t sound like a better idea than having a few large ones.
I am interested to learn more about the subject, even in more technical details. Do you have any source suggestions ?
Read any book by Vaclav Smil if you want to understand the space of energy and not live in fantasy land.
There is no way solar is going to overtake everything by 2027.
I wish that was the case, it would be awesome but that is just not going to happen.
This fantasy land stuff is so counterproductive because when it doesn't happen it causes people to question the entire idea.
How the World Really Works is Smil's book to counter fantasy land stuff like this article but the problem is there is a true believer contingent that that is just not interested in the real world.
Anyone who thinks otherwise is simply uneducated, ignorant or a true believer themselves.
The fundamental problem is reflected in Smil's writing. The space of energy is incredibly complex and an incredibly dry read. It couldn't lend itself less to news articles and social media posts. So we end up with this ridiculous two sided argument between climate change denial morons and climate fanatics who think solar is going to overtake everything by 2027 and to think otherwise is to be one of the climate change denial morons.
It is fucking pathetic.
There is no way solar is going to overtake everything by 2027.
I wish that was the case, it would be awesome but that is just not going to happen.
This fantasy land stuff is so counterproductive because when it doesn't happen it causes people to question the entire idea.
How the World Really Works is Smil's book to counter fantasy land stuff like this article but the problem is there is a true believer contingent that that is just not interested in the real world.
Anyone who thinks otherwise is simply uneducated, ignorant or a true believer themselves.
The fundamental problem is reflected in Smil's writing. The space of energy is incredibly complex and an incredibly dry read. It couldn't lend itself less to news articles and social media posts. So we end up with this ridiculous two sided argument between climate change denial morons and climate fanatics who think solar is going to overtake everything by 2027 and to think otherwise is to be one of the climate change denial morons.
It is fucking pathetic.
First time I’ve heard the 2027 number. Given current fossil reserves 2127 would probably be early enough for civilization to pull through.
Considering the overall tone of your comment 2027 comes across like a favourite straw man.
Considering the overall tone of your comment 2027 comes across like a favourite straw man.
Do you have any source suggestions that come without a side order of insults?
It's amazing watching the live dashboard for Australia's energy grid:
https://opennem.org.au/energy/nem/?range=1d&interval=30m
Looking at the annual data is amazing too: https://opennem.org.au/energy/nem/?range=all&interval=1y
In 2022 our electricity grid was 34.9% renewables already, with wind and solar pretty close in proportion.
Looking at the annual data is amazing too: https://opennem.org.au/energy/nem/?range=all&interval=1y
In 2022 our electricity grid was 34.9% renewables already, with wind and solar pretty close in proportion.
Apart from solar being cheaper people don't consider the fact that electricity itself will also keep getting cheaper as price for solar keeps falling. It is going to change the world dramatically as the world electrifies because of it. As cost of production as well as the running cost for a lot of stuff will start dropping yearly. We are still few years from that point though as worlds yearly electricity usage growth has yet to be eclipsed by solar and wind annual capacity installations.
Electricity has got more expensive lately: https://www.statista.com/statistics/1267500/eu-monthly-whole...
People underestimate how cheap natural gas used to be; as a byproduct of oil drilling it can be nearly free, and in some place is just flared because it was too cheap to bother capturing. That all changed when the Russians attacked.
People underestimate how cheap natural gas used to be; as a byproduct of oil drilling it can be nearly free, and in some place is just flared because it was too cheap to bother capturing. That all changed when the Russians attacked.
Solar panels will get cheaper to buy due to the scale benefits of mass manufacturing, but that's about it. That only translates to cheaper electricity for those of us who can DIY their own solar setup. A standalone installation (not tied to the grid) is less flexible has a huge advantage in simplicity and is far cheaper.
Otherwise, the cost of the panels is not the biggest cost in most solar installations. Anyone investing in solar has to pay for permits, workers, electricians, inspections, mounting and distribution equipment, etc, and these costs are relatively static, roughly tracking inflation. The payback on any decent-sized solar installation is still years or decades down the road, even if the panels themselves were given away for free.
Where power companies successfully deploy solar to lower overall production costs (like mind does), I can promise you they are not at all incentivized to pass those savings back to the end users. Those profits go to shareholders, unless the regulators step in and demand otherwise.
Otherwise, the cost of the panels is not the biggest cost in most solar installations. Anyone investing in solar has to pay for permits, workers, electricians, inspections, mounting and distribution equipment, etc, and these costs are relatively static, roughly tracking inflation. The payback on any decent-sized solar installation is still years or decades down the road, even if the panels themselves were given away for free.
Where power companies successfully deploy solar to lower overall production costs (like mind does), I can promise you they are not at all incentivized to pass those savings back to the end users. Those profits go to shareholders, unless the regulators step in and demand otherwise.
Did estimates for my roof months ago, 30k euro for a 10kW array with no storage, "pay-back" time 15 years. Why make a hundred holes in my roof if investing same amount in stock market will 4x in the same time period? Add leak and lightning risks, repairs and maintenance. I would do it for 10k but not for 30k. And of course you're not allowed to DIY it.
Different scene in the USA he government incentives in USA and Massachusetts made it a great investment.
I have the same size array and I think it was $48K USD 8 years ago before tax credits. I have now sold more SRECs than the initial cost of the array. I also rarely receive an electric bill. Finally it was installed on a standing seam roof so no roof penatrations.
I haven't noticed any decrease in production and will expect that most of the cost of the original install to be on physical installation and when it comes to replace the equipment I can tell it will be cheaper and more performant then my existing system.
Planetary concerns exist but I feel that we are world full of manufacturing crimes and there is no reason to hold solar to higher standard. I also think that the decentralization that solar provide an efficiency that isn't obvious on it's face.
I have the same size array and I think it was $48K USD 8 years ago before tax credits. I have now sold more SRECs than the initial cost of the array. I also rarely receive an electric bill. Finally it was installed on a standing seam roof so no roof penatrations.
I haven't noticed any decrease in production and will expect that most of the cost of the original install to be on physical installation and when it comes to replace the equipment I can tell it will be cheaper and more performant then my existing system.
Planetary concerns exist but I feel that we are world full of manufacturing crimes and there is no reason to hold solar to higher standard. I also think that the decentralization that solar provide an efficiency that isn't obvious on it's face.
Odd. I paid £5.5k for a 4kW array several years ago, I'd have assumed it was cheaper now. Possibly you hit a "breakpoint" where the non-unit cost got a lot bigger. Maybe permitting? I chose 4kW because that was the largest size that didn't require extra paperwork.
I have just done a 10kW array for £9k. And I'm estimating payback in < 3 years. It has got cheaper :)
"With no cloud cover and access to the sun’s rays 24/7, Space Based Solar Power (SBSP) could be harnessed around the clock and transmitted back to Earth as microwaves, before being converted back into electricity."
I had not heard of this - it's very interesting!
I had not heard of this - it's very interesting!
Never played SimCity 2000? https://simcity.fandom.com/wiki/Microwave_Power_Plant
This seems to paint a picture of a bright future in which humanity will enjoy the benefits of cheap energy. If solar energy can replace oil, will the pattern of the world change as a result? If the world changes as a result, what impact will this change have?
I don't think it's a positive news.
Instead of eliminating deserts let's make them even more terrible so there will be no hope in future to make them green
Energy != Electricity... What does energy generation even mean?
Solar is just nuclear with extra steps.
Extra steps? Not sure about that.
Solar farms are definitely much, much simpler .. thousands or even millions of perfectly uniform panels manufactured in a factory, some wiring and power electronics and some electrical infrastructure to connect to the grid. Projects are delivered in months, and almost all within 1% of project budget.
Nuclear power plants consist of probably tens of thousands of different components: a reactor (containing a reactor core, fuel rods, control rods, moderator, and coolant), a turbine, a generator, a containment building, a cooling system, pumps, valves, and piping, a control system, a safety system, and a waste disposal system, along with all the same electrical infrastructure to connect to the grid. Projects take years to decades and invariably delivered multiples over budget.
Solar farms are definitely much, much simpler .. thousands or even millions of perfectly uniform panels manufactured in a factory, some wiring and power electronics and some electrical infrastructure to connect to the grid. Projects are delivered in months, and almost all within 1% of project budget.
Nuclear power plants consist of probably tens of thousands of different components: a reactor (containing a reactor core, fuel rods, control rods, moderator, and coolant), a turbine, a generator, a containment building, a cooling system, pumps, valves, and piping, a control system, a safety system, and a waste disposal system, along with all the same electrical infrastructure to connect to the grid. Projects take years to decades and invariably delivered multiples over budget.
The parent might have meant that nuclear processes in the sun generate the light that we catch here and turn into electricity.
The downside of nuclear is that more could go wrong when building, while deploying solar panels doesn't have any risks and the permission (if any) is easy to get.
The downside of nuclear is that more could go wrong when building, while deploying solar panels doesn't have any risks and the permission (if any) is easy to get.
> deploying solar panels doesn't have any risks
Fabbing hundreds of thousands of hectares of semiconductor is going to be far from risk-free or environmentally benign.
Also, residential solar installations have killed and injured many more people than nuclear power plants ever have. It turns out that climbing on roofs is dangerous.
Fabbing hundreds of thousands of hectares of semiconductor is going to be far from risk-free or environmentally benign.
Also, residential solar installations have killed and injured many more people than nuclear power plants ever have. It turns out that climbing on roofs is dangerous.
I like to run client code in a VM and my nuclear reactions several light minutes away. It's just basic hygiene...
Well, you both twisted my brain and made me laugh with this one. Thank you, good sir.
Fossil fuels are just Solar with extra steps.
Or: fusion reactors are just solar power with extra steps
Doesn't both nuclear (fission) and fusion mainly generate heat that is used to make steam to spin a turbine? I'd say solar skips a few steps rather than adding extras
Indeed
Nuclear fusion with extra steps.
Not at all the same nuclear.
Not at all the same nuclear.
[deleted]
Humanity will soon declive despite any ecofriendly form of energy generation
Then Germany created tax incentives for producers to scale-up production.
Then China started investing in production capacity, to the extent that now in 2024 the forecast is that more solar panel GW capacity will be produced than has been installed until now worldwide.
Sources:
* A Dutch podcast on this subject: https://podcasts.apple.com/nl/podcast/goed-nieuws-schone-ene...
* How Solar Energy Became Cheap (2019), Gregory Nemet: https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/pdf/10.1111/ecaf.12365
* Empirically grounded technology forecasts and the energy transition (2022), Rupert Way et al. https://www.inet.ox.ac.uk/publications/no-2021-01-empiricall...
* Bloomberg: The Supply Chain to Beat Climate Change Is Already Being Built. https://www.bloomberg.com/opinion/articles/2022-09-06/solar-...