7 ms·

I'm all for solar but to be fair the source study for this was looking at the economics of modules not deployments. Solar does have an inverse economies of scal

by abalone 10y ago

I'm all for solar but to be fair the source study for this was looking at the economics of modules not deployments. Solar does have an inverse economies of scale problem where the cheapest, most amenable sites are the first to get solar farms. To scale it to be competitive with coal, nuclear, etc. you're going to run into higher site acquisition costs and suboptimal conditions. Worth the challenge to save our planet, obviously, but let's be honest about it.

ryao 10y ago
While solar is great, I think this discussion is a distraction from the possibility of replacing diesel, gasoline and kerosene with natural gas. Gasoline engines can be converted to run off natural gas and jet engines can be made that run off natural gas. Natural gas is also cheaper, more plentiful and cleaner than gasoline, diesel and kerosene. Plus, switching to it would disentangle global politics from the Middle East because natural gas is produced elsewhere. Those things are on my mind as I contemplate a switch from heating oil to natural gas at my home. It does not seem to make financial sense, but it makes more sense when I consider those things. That said, until technology that allows solar to be economically used for everything is available (e.g. amazingly cheap, high density, long lasting batteries), we are going to need natural gas to replace other fossil fuels in places where solar cannot be used.
- XorNot 10y ago
  Natural gas does nothing for global warming, and the push for gas-generators has been driven by the fact that you can crack petroleum into gas products fairly easily. Scaling in this way doesn't help us at all.
  - enraged_camel 10y ago
    >>Natural gas does nothing for global warming Burning natural gas produces only half as much carbon dioxide as burning coal.
    - kodfodrasz 10y ago
      And produces less fine dust than diesel, which is a big pro for air quality in cities.
      - jacobush 10y ago
        Synthetic diesel also generates very clean exhaust. Can be produced from forestry waste: http://www.biofuelstp.eu/bio-sng.html http://www.biofuelstp.eu/bio-sng.html
        ryao 10y ago
        Natural gas can be produced from forestry waste too: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Renewable_natural_gas https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Renewable_natural_gas
    - ryao 10y ago
      It produces less CO2 than gasoline or diesel too: https://www.eia.gov/tools/faqs/faq.cfm?id=73&t=11 https://www.eia.gov/tools/faqs/faq.cfm?id=73&t=11
    - jartelt 10y ago
      True, but the natural gas infrastructure is pretty leaky and methane is a very potent greenhouse gas. I still believe it's better than coal, but it is not actually 2x as good.
  - ryao 10y ago
    Natural gas from biomass is a renewable resource: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Renewable_natural_gas https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Renewable_natural_gas It would not be wrong to call it solar power. :)
  - pjc50 10y ago
    Sort of. It's better than coal, and it's a by-product of fracking. I'm quite happy for expanded gas use as it reduces the propensity of extraction companies to just flare it. http://www.worldbank.org/en/programs/gasflaringreduction http://www.worldbank.org/en/programs/gasflaringreduction "Billions of cubic meters of natural gas is flared annually at oil production sites around the globe. Flaring gas wastes a valuable energy resource that could be used to support economic growth and progress. It also contributes to climate change by releasing millions of tons of CO2 to the atmosphere."
- knieveltech 10y ago
  Worth keeping in mind that "natural gas" is primarily methane, which is roughly 30 times more potent a greenhouse gas than CO2.
  - conradev 10y ago
    Isn't the idea that you combust the methane into CO2?
    - deleted 10y ago
      [deleted]
    - nickparker 10y ago
      Yes, but the various methane extraction methods are leaky, hydraulic fracking worst of all. So while you do burn some of it to produce less harmful CO2, a lot also escapes into the atmosphere. Another interesting factor to consider is the residency time of the different gases. Methane breaks down fairly quickly, while CO2 needs to be sequestered, which is currently done quite slowly via biological processes. Methane is extremely bad in the short term, but measured over a long period (100 years) does in fact trap less heat. However, we're not on a timeline where we can worry about 100 year effects. Our current warming trajectory will almost entirely destroy coral reefs in about 30 years, and estimates vary on the threshold for runaway effects (Methane calthrates, reduced primary production due to ocean acidification, etc) but the large majority of them are well below the 100 year threshold. Tl;DR: Natural gas might cause less warming over a long period, but it causes more in the near term, and we're screwed if we don't fix things in the near term. I bring up hydraulic fracking because it's the primary driver behind the renewed push for natural gas. The United States has suddenly become one of the most competitive producers of natural gas, so strong domestic forces are now lobbying for it. The one application where natural gas does have a decent advantage is base-load grid energy generation. Renewables like wind and solar are variable, and we need controlled inputs with rapid responses to help integrate them into the grid. Gas turbines are the most responsive fossil fuel systems by a wide margin, so they serve a decent purpose there. This should only be viewed as a stop-gap until we develop grid-scale storage through EV networks and such though.
- abalone 10y ago
  This is like hijacking a Tesla thread to say it's distracting us from talking about "clean diesel" gas cars. Natural gas is not a sustainable energy source. Fracking, which is what makes it cheaper, has tons of environmental problems. Sure, it's better than worse fuels, so go ahead and upgrade. But please don't hijack threads about a sustainable planet.
  - ryao 10y ago
    Natural gas is considered sustainable in Europe: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Renewable_natural_gas https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Renewable_natural_gas Aviation, shipping and even low end automobiles will need it.
    - abalone 10y ago
      > Natural gas is considered sustainable in Europe That is a misleading mischaracterization. The article refers exclusively to biogas, not fracked natural gas which is the basis of your claim of "cheaper, more plentiful and cleaner than gasoline". And it's not even sustainable if we were to purposefully scale its production (it still emits CO2), which is why the article prefers the lesser term "renewable".
philipkglass 10y ago
In some countries there's a high enough population density and/or little enough sunlight that land availability could prevent 100% solar electricity even if storage were magically solved; Germany, the UK, Belgium, the Netherlands, and Taiwan come to mind. Land isn't going to be a constraint in most countries. Solar resources, while distributed unevenly, are significantly more evenly distributed than fossil or nuclear fuels, or even wind resources. See for example this map of insolation in the US: http://www.nrel.gov/gis/images/solar/national_photovoltaic_2009-01.jpg http://www.nrel.gov/gis/images/solar/national_photovoltaic_2... In the continental US the very best solar resources are maybe ~7 kWh/m^2/day and there's hardly anything below 3.5. Or to put it in terms of cities, Seattle gets 58% as much annual insolation as sun-drenched Phoenix: http://www.i4at.org/lib2/solarrad.htm http://www.i4at.org/lib2/solarrad.htm So it took many historical performance:price doublings before unsubsidized solar electricity got within shouting distance of fossil electricity in even the sunniest places in the US, and then just one more to reach that threshold across most of the country. The technical and economic performance of wind/PV has already improved enough, and has enough assured near-future improvements already in the pipeline, that I'd say it would be destined to "eat the world" for electricity if storage were a solved problem. But storage isn't a solved problem. Most discoveries that get hyped as "battery breakthrough" by university press offices aren't really breakthroughs, but there's so much research that there's an abundance of riches even after you throw away the ~95% that looks bad on slightly closer examination. Common problems with battery "breakthroughs" that justify quick rejection: dependence on rare elements (lithium is reasonably abundant; I mean things like tellurium, germanium, rhenium...), low cycle life, effects demonstrated only at interfaces or in nanostructures without any obvious path to bulk scaling. Among the remaining ~5% that looks interesting, assuming the publications aren't fraudulent, I have little idea which ones will end up industrially significant. Chemistry is a lot easier to model than market success. There are also partial substitutions for electricity storage that could displace and/or complement it: supergrids, demand response, thermal buffering...
- jacobush 10y ago
  A weird thing is that northern countries such as Sweden, at or near the polar circle, are often considered dark and unsuitable for solar. But the thing is, during summer the sun shines 24/7 ... so there would be a lot of power during mid summer and no (solar) power during mid winter.

by abalone 10y ago

ryao 10y ago

While solar is great, I think this discussion is a distraction from the possibility of replacing diesel, gasoline and kerosene with natural gas. Gasoline engines can be converted to run off natural gas and jet engines can be made that run off natural gas. Natural gas is also cheaper, more plentiful and cleaner than gasoline, diesel and kerosene. Plus, switching to it would disentangle global politics from the Middle East because natural gas is produced elsewhere. Those things are on my mind as I contemplate a switch from heating oil to natural gas at my home. It does not seem to make financial sense, but it makes more sense when I consider those things. That said, until technology that allows solar to be economically used for everything is available (e.g. amazingly cheap, high density, long lasting batteries), we are going to need natural gas to replace other fossil fuels in places where solar cannot be used.

XorNot 10y ago
Natural gas does nothing for global warming, and the push for gas-generators has been driven by the fact that you can crack petroleum into gas products fairly easily. Scaling in this way doesn't help us at all.
- enraged_camel 10y ago
  >>Natural gas does nothing for global warming Burning natural gas produces only half as much carbon dioxide as burning coal.
  - kodfodrasz 10y ago
    And produces less fine dust than diesel, which is a big pro for air quality in cities.
    - jacobush 10y ago
      Synthetic diesel also generates very clean exhaust. Can be produced from forestry waste: http://www.biofuelstp.eu/bio-sng.html http://www.biofuelstp.eu/bio-sng.html
      - ryao 10y ago
        Natural gas can be produced from forestry waste too: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Renewable_natural_gas https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Renewable_natural_gas
  - ryao 10y ago
    It produces less CO2 than gasoline or diesel too: https://www.eia.gov/tools/faqs/faq.cfm?id=73&t=11 https://www.eia.gov/tools/faqs/faq.cfm?id=73&t=11
  - jartelt 10y ago
    True, but the natural gas infrastructure is pretty leaky and methane is a very potent greenhouse gas. I still believe it's better than coal, but it is not actually 2x as good.
- ryao 10y ago
  Natural gas from biomass is a renewable resource: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Renewable_natural_gas https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Renewable_natural_gas It would not be wrong to call it solar power. :)
- pjc50 10y ago
  Sort of. It's better than coal, and it's a by-product of fracking. I'm quite happy for expanded gas use as it reduces the propensity of extraction companies to just flare it. http://www.worldbank.org/en/programs/gasflaringreduction http://www.worldbank.org/en/programs/gasflaringreduction "Billions of cubic meters of natural gas is flared annually at oil production sites around the globe. Flaring gas wastes a valuable energy resource that could be used to support economic growth and progress. It also contributes to climate change by releasing millions of tons of CO2 to the atmosphere."
knieveltech 10y ago
Worth keeping in mind that "natural gas" is primarily methane, which is roughly 30 times more potent a greenhouse gas than CO2.
- conradev 10y ago
  Isn't the idea that you combust the methane into CO2?
  - deleted 10y ago
    [deleted]
  - nickparker 10y ago
    Yes, but the various methane extraction methods are leaky, hydraulic fracking worst of all. So while you do burn some of it to produce less harmful CO2, a lot also escapes into the atmosphere. Another interesting factor to consider is the residency time of the different gases. Methane breaks down fairly quickly, while CO2 needs to be sequestered, which is currently done quite slowly via biological processes. Methane is extremely bad in the short term, but measured over a long period (100 years) does in fact trap less heat. However, we're not on a timeline where we can worry about 100 year effects. Our current warming trajectory will almost entirely destroy coral reefs in about 30 years, and estimates vary on the threshold for runaway effects (Methane calthrates, reduced primary production due to ocean acidification, etc) but the large majority of them are well below the 100 year threshold. Tl;DR: Natural gas might cause less warming over a long period, but it causes more in the near term, and we're screwed if we don't fix things in the near term. I bring up hydraulic fracking because it's the primary driver behind the renewed push for natural gas. The United States has suddenly become one of the most competitive producers of natural gas, so strong domestic forces are now lobbying for it. The one application where natural gas does have a decent advantage is base-load grid energy generation. Renewables like wind and solar are variable, and we need controlled inputs with rapid responses to help integrate them into the grid. Gas turbines are the most responsive fossil fuel systems by a wide margin, so they serve a decent purpose there. This should only be viewed as a stop-gap until we develop grid-scale storage through EV networks and such though.
abalone 10y ago
This is like hijacking a Tesla thread to say it's distracting us from talking about "clean diesel" gas cars. Natural gas is not a sustainable energy source. Fracking, which is what makes it cheaper, has tons of environmental problems. Sure, it's better than worse fuels, so go ahead and upgrade. But please don't hijack threads about a sustainable planet.
- ryao 10y ago
  Natural gas is considered sustainable in Europe: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Renewable_natural_gas https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Renewable_natural_gas Aviation, shipping and even low end automobiles will need it.
  - abalone 10y ago
    > Natural gas is considered sustainable in Europe That is a misleading mischaracterization. The article refers exclusively to biogas, not fracked natural gas which is the basis of your claim of "cheaper, more plentiful and cleaner than gasoline". And it's not even sustainable if we were to purposefully scale its production (it still emits CO2), which is why the article prefers the lesser term "renewable".

philipkglass 10y ago

In some countries there's a high enough population density and/or little enough sunlight that land availability could prevent 100% solar electricity even if storage were magically solved; Germany, the UK, Belgium, the Netherlands, and Taiwan come to mind. Land isn't going to be a constraint in most countries. Solar resources, while distributed unevenly, are significantly more evenly distributed than fossil or nuclear fuels, or even wind resources. See for example this map of insolation in the US: http://www.nrel.gov/gis/images/solar/national_photovoltaic_2009-01.jpg http://www.nrel.gov/gis/images/solar/national_photovoltaic_2... In the continental US the very best solar resources are maybe ~7 kWh/m^2/day and there's hardly anything below 3.5. Or to put it in terms of cities, Seattle gets 58% as much annual insolation as sun-drenched Phoenix: http://www.i4at.org/lib2/solarrad.htm http://www.i4at.org/lib2/solarrad.htm So it took many historical performance:price doublings before unsubsidized solar electricity got within shouting distance of fossil electricity in even the sunniest places in the US, and then just one more to reach that threshold across most of the country. The technical and economic performance of wind/PV has already improved enough, and has enough assured near-future improvements already in the pipeline, that I'd say it would be destined to "eat the world" for electricity if storage were a solved problem. But storage isn't a solved problem. Most discoveries that get hyped as "battery breakthrough" by university press offices aren't really breakthroughs, but there's so much research that there's an abundance of riches even after you throw away the ~95% that looks bad on slightly closer examination. Common problems with battery "breakthroughs" that justify quick rejection: dependence on rare elements (lithium is reasonably abundant; I mean things like tellurium, germanium, rhenium...), low cycle life, effects demonstrated only at interfaces or in nanostructures without any obvious path to bulk scaling. Among the remaining ~5% that looks interesting, assuming the publications aren't fraudulent, I have little idea which ones will end up industrially significant. Chemistry is a lot easier to model than market success. There are also partial substitutions for electricity storage that could displace and/or complement it: supergrids, demand response, thermal buffering...

jacobush 10y ago
A weird thing is that northern countries such as Sweden, at or near the polar circle, are often considered dark and unsuitable for solar. But the thing is, during summer the sun shines 24/7 ... so there would be a lot of power during mid summer and no (solar) power during mid winter.