3 ms·

I'm honestly curious about a thing, that might sound not so in-topic, but that is, actually: HN is supposed to be a technically sound community, however when so

by kkfx 4y ago

I'm honestly curious about a thing, that might sound not so in-topic, but that is, actually: HN is supposed to be a technically sound community, however when someone post about some trendy neoliberals-related topics a certain part of the community instead of remain technical start to be partisan, sometimes at fanatic levels. The in-topic part is for instance about p.v.: if you think a global electricity grid as a solution you dream something that seems to be logic, if you are a manager but is a totally crazy idea because we are not AT ALL a global community. Even if some neoliberals call themselves World Government [1] the reality is that we are various States with different interests and NOTHING at a certain scale can work simply because of that, any other thing aside. Not only: the idea that we have the production capacity, substitution included, to build and run such monster is another dream, with the same realism of those who say "hey, I produce 130% of my consumption from p.v.". It's an old classic of those who "try and fix on the go", who typically create hyper-big disasters and survive thanks to those who do not work as them. If the entire world take this path such a big fail will not be solved by anyone. [1] https://www.worldgovernmentsummit.org/ https://www.worldgovernmentsummit.org/

ben_w 4y ago
This is why, although I prefer a global power grid, I suspect storage is going to be the main solution to energy being wanted in a different time or place than it is generated.
- kkfx 4y ago
  If we can have it of course, it's a godsend. BUT we can't. I have a small lithium storage, I see how fast it get depleted and how quick performance degrade. In 8-9 years I expect it will be just rubbish. If I compute how it's produced, how much energy, pollution, it need to exists brand new in my home, and how so far we can't recycle... We have some effective storage, like pumped hydro, yes, but we have them where we can, we do not build mountains so far, for instance. Compressed air storage prove to be possible at a certain scale, but so far is just a promise with some experiments and honestly I doubt the actual push is ONLY for environmental and economical reasons. I think we start suspecting that oil is at the end, and we have just 2 decades or so remaining so we need to rush finding alternatives...
  - ben_w 4y ago
    > In 8-9 years I expect it will be just rubbish. Sounds about right. > If I compute how it's produced, how much energy, pollution, it need to exists brand new in my home, and how so far we can't recycle... Recycling is possible — even the absolute dumbest way I can imagine, which is grind the battery into dust and put that dust into the process used to separate rocks into their constituent elements, is still better than mining the actual rocks you'd otherwise get them from. Recycling facilities better than that necessarily only scale to whatever battery quantity existed x years ago. But also, the pollution mostly comes from energy, so making the grid greener makes the batteries greener which makes the grid greener etc. However, you're missing one of the cheapest storage systems: hydrogen. The round-trip efficiency isn't great, but given how cheap PV is, this isn't bad enough to be a problem.
    - kkfx 4y ago
      Yes, recycling is possible, but so far it's almost not done because it's still far more expensive than mining... Perhaps a day things will be different, but seen the actual progress I'm not such optimistic... About hydrogen... Well... How much it costs an hydrolysis plant with relevant compression system and storage PLUS the needed fuel-cell to use it once milked? Personally I've already spent for a new house, with relevant not-that-cheap systems, heat-pumps included, who might last 10 years as well (compressor), in the near future an EV who might last 10 years but 5 to 8 seems to be more realistic... Adding the price of a smaller house to add hydrogen start to be REALLY expensive. Long story short: if the Green New Deal demand such big investments I think just 2-3% of the total population in the western countries can afford it, witch does not make anything ecological just for mere scale. If we try bigger scale... So far I see nothing really big (beside old scams). Yes, some p.v. plants pops up continuously but they are small in classic PP scale terms and just grid-connected systems. Only a handful of projects do differently around the world and seems to be in a really early stage of experimentation... I have nothing against pay to be a pre-alpha tester BUT there is a limit for that honestly...
      - ben_w 4y ago
        I'm finding it difficult to parse what you're saying; it feels like you're using speech recognition and not proofreading the output? In particular: > Yes, some p.v. plants pops up continuously but they are small in classic PP scale terms and just grid-connected systems. What's "PP scale"? And are you aware the combined nameplate capacity of all global PV is now close to one terawatt?
adgjlsfhk1 4y ago
you don't need global. just connecting the eu together has significantly strengthened their grid.
- kkfx 4y ago
  EU countries are actually interconnected, but when it's night in Berlin it's also night in Paris, Lisbon, Madrid, Rome, ... so all EU p.v. do not produce, while the whole EU keep consuming. So no, if you want a world that run on p.v. you need a global grid to harvest enough energy AND I doubt even if such monster can be done in a snap and work flawlessly that we can even harvest enough power at ground level. Harvesting from orbit beside the fact it's so far mere theory have various major issues, not just in environmental terms (a catastrophic impact, probably higher than a nuclear war on ground) but in mere technical terms: without the atmospheric shield anything in orbit at a certain scale have a very short life span. Substitute them demand a very big quantity of fossils and an industrial capacity we do not have in the entire world so far. Nuclear fusion on ground is the most promising tech but so far it's far from being ready, seen the actual status PERHAPS we can have it at an initial general availability around 2060-2070. Before we have just fission. Now if we invest in fission witch is far from cheap and simple to build on scale it's a nonsense also investing in p.v. witch is far less expensive but for what? Once a reactor is started you consume uranium anyway, producing energy from steam or not. p.v. might play a role in averaging the load, theoretically, that means "please all loads that can be run just when the Sun shine do run them only with it", but doing so for now is pure theory and at a nationwide grid scale it's already almost impossible. Beside that we have an enormous issue: climate change. Did you know how vulnerable are infra on ground? We try the small reactor path NOT because they are safe (it's the opposite), not because they are cheap (again, it's the opposite), but because they are flexible: instead of depend on LARGE infra we can deploy small one so reducing the impact of any outage. In the nearer future we have the nightmarish problem of replace oil and gas sparing them for the use we do not know how to do without them. In the mid-term future we need resiliency and nuclear fission, another nightmare. In a mid-long term we hope for fusion, but we do not really know and we anyway need to essentially rebuild the changing world coping with sea levels rises, floods, landslides etc that push people in altitude locally and world-scale migration in general. That's the actual sore reality for what we can see directly and read from so many sources with contrasting interest to being able to call them very likely true.

by kkfx 4y ago

ben_w 4y ago

This is why, although I prefer a global power grid, I suspect storage is going to be the main solution to energy being wanted in a different time or place than it is generated.

kkfx 4y ago
If we can have it of course, it's a godsend. BUT we can't. I have a small lithium storage, I see how fast it get depleted and how quick performance degrade. In 8-9 years I expect it will be just rubbish. If I compute how it's produced, how much energy, pollution, it need to exists brand new in my home, and how so far we can't recycle... We have some effective storage, like pumped hydro, yes, but we have them where we can, we do not build mountains so far, for instance. Compressed air storage prove to be possible at a certain scale, but so far is just a promise with some experiments and honestly I doubt the actual push is ONLY for environmental and economical reasons. I think we start suspecting that oil is at the end, and we have just 2 decades or so remaining so we need to rush finding alternatives...
- ben_w 4y ago
  > In 8-9 years I expect it will be just rubbish. Sounds about right. > If I compute how it's produced, how much energy, pollution, it need to exists brand new in my home, and how so far we can't recycle... Recycling is possible — even the absolute dumbest way I can imagine, which is grind the battery into dust and put that dust into the process used to separate rocks into their constituent elements, is still better than mining the actual rocks you'd otherwise get them from. Recycling facilities better than that necessarily only scale to whatever battery quantity existed x years ago. But also, the pollution mostly comes from energy, so making the grid greener makes the batteries greener which makes the grid greener etc. However, you're missing one of the cheapest storage systems: hydrogen. The round-trip efficiency isn't great, but given how cheap PV is, this isn't bad enough to be a problem.
  - kkfx 4y ago
    Yes, recycling is possible, but so far it's almost not done because it's still far more expensive than mining... Perhaps a day things will be different, but seen the actual progress I'm not such optimistic... About hydrogen... Well... How much it costs an hydrolysis plant with relevant compression system and storage PLUS the needed fuel-cell to use it once milked? Personally I've already spent for a new house, with relevant not-that-cheap systems, heat-pumps included, who might last 10 years as well (compressor), in the near future an EV who might last 10 years but 5 to 8 seems to be more realistic... Adding the price of a smaller house to add hydrogen start to be REALLY expensive. Long story short: if the Green New Deal demand such big investments I think just 2-3% of the total population in the western countries can afford it, witch does not make anything ecological just for mere scale. If we try bigger scale... So far I see nothing really big (beside old scams). Yes, some p.v. plants pops up continuously but they are small in classic PP scale terms and just grid-connected systems. Only a handful of projects do differently around the world and seems to be in a really early stage of experimentation... I have nothing against pay to be a pre-alpha tester BUT there is a limit for that honestly...
    - ben_w 4y ago
      I'm finding it difficult to parse what you're saying; it feels like you're using speech recognition and not proofreading the output? In particular: > Yes, some p.v. plants pops up continuously but they are small in classic PP scale terms and just grid-connected systems. What's "PP scale"? And are you aware the combined nameplate capacity of all global PV is now close to one terawatt?

adgjlsfhk1 4y ago

you don't need global. just connecting the eu together has significantly strengthened their grid.

kkfx 4y ago
EU countries are actually interconnected, but when it's night in Berlin it's also night in Paris, Lisbon, Madrid, Rome, ... so all EU p.v. do not produce, while the whole EU keep consuming. So no, if you want a world that run on p.v. you need a global grid to harvest enough energy AND I doubt even if such monster can be done in a snap and work flawlessly that we can even harvest enough power at ground level. Harvesting from orbit beside the fact it's so far mere theory have various major issues, not just in environmental terms (a catastrophic impact, probably higher than a nuclear war on ground) but in mere technical terms: without the atmospheric shield anything in orbit at a certain scale have a very short life span. Substitute them demand a very big quantity of fossils and an industrial capacity we do not have in the entire world so far. Nuclear fusion on ground is the most promising tech but so far it's far from being ready, seen the actual status PERHAPS we can have it at an initial general availability around 2060-2070. Before we have just fission. Now if we invest in fission witch is far from cheap and simple to build on scale it's a nonsense also investing in p.v. witch is far less expensive but for what? Once a reactor is started you consume uranium anyway, producing energy from steam or not. p.v. might play a role in averaging the load, theoretically, that means "please all loads that can be run just when the Sun shine do run them only with it", but doing so for now is pure theory and at a nationwide grid scale it's already almost impossible. Beside that we have an enormous issue: climate change. Did you know how vulnerable are infra on ground? We try the small reactor path NOT because they are safe (it's the opposite), not because they are cheap (again, it's the opposite), but because they are flexible: instead of depend on LARGE infra we can deploy small one so reducing the impact of any outage. In the nearer future we have the nightmarish problem of replace oil and gas sparing them for the use we do not know how to do without them. In the mid-term future we need resiliency and nuclear fission, another nightmare. In a mid-long term we hope for fusion, but we do not really know and we anyway need to essentially rebuild the changing world coping with sea levels rises, floods, landslides etc that push people in altitude locally and world-scale migration in general. That's the actual sore reality for what we can see directly and read from so many sources with contrasting interest to being able to call them very likely true.