4 ms·

Solar is not really a long term solution for two reasons: control (storage) density Unless we can solve these it is going to be hard to run energy systems wi

Solar is not really a long term solution for two reasons: control (storage) density Unless we can solve these it is going to be hard to run energy systems without significant amount of base power plants (likely nuclear)

samcheng 6y ago
Turns out we're also mobilizing massively with electricity storage technology, in the form of electric vehicles, so that baseload power requirement should be less of an issue in the future. Density doesn't make sense to me as a long-term objection, either. Unlike other power generation technologies, solar installation cost scales relatively linearly with power generation. Nobody runs backyard coal plants, but rooftop solar is viable. There is plenty of room for solar panels!
- StreamBright 6y ago
  >> so that baseload power requirement should be less of an issue in the future. An average energy load graph begs to differ. Solar is great for peak demand. Unless you can make cars to be able to charge at once at peak it is not going to work. >> Density doesn't make sense to me So how much % of land would you sacrifice for solar? And how often do you think we have to redo the work? https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-021-82042-5 https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-021-82042-5 https://greencoast.org/solar-panel-lifespan/ https://greencoast.org/solar-panel-lifespan/
quesera 6y ago
This is the copy/paste response whenever solar gets mentioned on HN. It is non-responsive to the thread, or the story. Why bother? We all know where solar is imperfect. We all know where nuclear is imperfect. Coal, NatGas, hydro, stored mass, geothermal, wave action, donkey trains. We get it. And clearly, if solar would not fit the application, another choice will be made. But also clearly, solar fits a lot of applications.
- StreamBright 6y ago
  >> Why bother? We all know where solar is imperfect. I do not think that we know it. The current political climate if heavily favouring "renewables" while ditching nuclear entirely. This is happening partially because of misinformation and fear mongering. I think it would be great if people could understand at the very least the basics of energy systems. I was able to convince several people to get out of the 100% solar / wind is the future mindset. It is not and it is very dangerous to gamble with these things. Once we reach a 30-40% "renewables" (the name should be uncontrollable / unreliable really) the grid either needs a serious amount of buffer (battery or gas turbines) or it becomes unstable and blackouts are going to be the norm. Once you are in that situation it takes decades the build reliable energy sources. Since politics is a 4-5 years game with zero accountability it does not matter who will decide to commit to renewables 100%. The impact is going to stay with us for a long time. It would be great if we could avoid it. >> But also clearly, solar fits a lot of applications. Yes. As a home user solution with a batter pack in your basement it is kind of neat. Taking it more seriously than this is problematic.
  - quesera 6y ago
    I think that's a weak objection. Public confusion about energy is normal and irrelevant. If public funds are spent via tax abatements etc to encourage solar builds, this is fine. No serious energy producer is going to be confused about where any given technology excels. But that's not at all what this discussion is about. Apple cannot build nuclear or hydro. Apple can build solar, which >> coal/petro. I get the sense that you're rooting for the nuclear team. OK, but that's not an option here. If Apple doesn't build solar, then Apple is waiting for market forces to deliver unto it a better option, which is clearly not happening. So what would you have Apple do? > As a home user solution with a batter pack in your basement it is kind of neat. And this is dismissive. Apple has built over a GW of generation capacity, plus fuel cell storage. 100% of their global operations are powered renewably. That's a lot of houses. It is not the least-expensive solution today, but building at scale is an appropriate way to push the technology forward. I don't see this as something a reasonable person would criticize.

samcheng 6y ago

Turns out we're also mobilizing massively with electricity storage technology, in the form of electric vehicles, so that baseload power requirement should be less of an issue in the future. Density doesn't make sense to me as a long-term objection, either. Unlike other power generation technologies, solar installation cost scales relatively linearly with power generation. Nobody runs backyard coal plants, but rooftop solar is viable. There is plenty of room for solar panels!

StreamBright 6y ago
>> so that baseload power requirement should be less of an issue in the future. An average energy load graph begs to differ. Solar is great for peak demand. Unless you can make cars to be able to charge at once at peak it is not going to work. >> Density doesn't make sense to me So how much % of land would you sacrifice for solar? And how often do you think we have to redo the work? https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-021-82042-5 https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-021-82042-5 https://greencoast.org/solar-panel-lifespan/ https://greencoast.org/solar-panel-lifespan/

quesera 6y ago

This is the copy/paste response whenever solar gets mentioned on HN. It is non-responsive to the thread, or the story. Why bother? We all know where solar is imperfect. We all know where nuclear is imperfect. Coal, NatGas, hydro, stored mass, geothermal, wave action, donkey trains. We get it. And clearly, if solar would not fit the application, another choice will be made. But also clearly, solar fits a lot of applications.

StreamBright 6y ago
>> Why bother? We all know where solar is imperfect. I do not think that we know it. The current political climate if heavily favouring "renewables" while ditching nuclear entirely. This is happening partially because of misinformation and fear mongering. I think it would be great if people could understand at the very least the basics of energy systems. I was able to convince several people to get out of the 100% solar / wind is the future mindset. It is not and it is very dangerous to gamble with these things. Once we reach a 30-40% "renewables" (the name should be uncontrollable / unreliable really) the grid either needs a serious amount of buffer (battery or gas turbines) or it becomes unstable and blackouts are going to be the norm. Once you are in that situation it takes decades the build reliable energy sources. Since politics is a 4-5 years game with zero accountability it does not matter who will decide to commit to renewables 100%. The impact is going to stay with us for a long time. It would be great if we could avoid it. >> But also clearly, solar fits a lot of applications. Yes. As a home user solution with a batter pack in your basement it is kind of neat. Taking it more seriously than this is problematic.
- quesera 6y ago
  I think that's a weak objection. Public confusion about energy is normal and irrelevant. If public funds are spent via tax abatements etc to encourage solar builds, this is fine. No serious energy producer is going to be confused about where any given technology excels. But that's not at all what this discussion is about. Apple cannot build nuclear or hydro. Apple can build solar, which >> coal/petro. I get the sense that you're rooting for the nuclear team. OK, but that's not an option here. If Apple doesn't build solar, then Apple is waiting for market forces to deliver unto it a better option, which is clearly not happening. So what would you have Apple do? > As a home user solution with a batter pack in your basement it is kind of neat. And this is dismissive. Apple has built over a GW of generation capacity, plus fuel cell storage. 100% of their global operations are powered renewably. That's a lot of houses. It is not the least-expensive solution today, but building at scale is an appropriate way to push the technology forward. I don't see this as something a reasonable person would criticize.