6 ms·

> Infinite power from the sky that’s cheaper than fossil fuels but it isnt though, if it was, it would be happening all over, without massive subsidies and str

> Infinite power from the sky that’s cheaper than fossil fuels but it isnt though, if it was, it would be happening all over, without massive subsidies and strongarming from government.

ag315 4y ago
Correct--while the sun sends an enormous amount of free energy our way, it's maddeningly diffuse and requires enormous investments of energy and materials to capture it in a usable and reliable form. The Wynn in Vegas has a 160 acre solar farm in some of the sunniest land in the country and it provides...almost enough energy to power a single large hotel. None of this is to say that solar power is bad, just that we should have measured expectations.
- causi 4y ago
  1,370 watts per square meter isn't what I'd call diffuse. We're just not good at harvesting it.
  - deleted 4y ago
    [deleted]
  - ArnoVW 4y ago
    A typical nuclear station genrates 1 Gw. You'd need 1000000 square meters (=1000 sq km) to generate the same thing. Oh and we can only capture 20-30 % of the energy of the total light. We're going to need solar power, and fossile fuel is madness. But to deny that solar power is not 'dense' seems irrational.
    - fhars 4y ago
      1000000 square meters are one square kilometer. Which is probably only about ten times the area required to build a nuclear power plant.
    - epistasis 4y ago
      Dense is a subjective term, and solar is without a doubt a dense enough energy source. Compare the amount of land needed to power the US with solar to the amount we use to brew a small amount of ethanol as a minor energy sourced. We can completely power the US with a fraction of the land that we currently use as a subsidy for corn farmers, who grow more corn than we can eat.
      - ag315 4y ago
        While I'm less optimistic than you on solar power, you're absolutely right about ethanol, which is easily one of the worst and most inefficient power sources we could have possibly chosen to invest in. It's a significant indictment of the US political system that so much money was shoveled into it.
        epistasis 4y ago
        I'm not sure why you are subjectively calling my number-based argument "optimistic." What do you mean by that?
        ag315 4y ago
        Happy to discuss the numbers of your numbers-based argument, but you didn't cite your sources.
    - causi 4y ago
      1000000 square meters is one square kilometer, not one thousand. It's also less than half the acreage used by my local nuclear power plant.
    - Schroedingersat 4y ago
      Now include the largest uranium mines like inkai in your area calculation. Or alternatively any recently opened coal mines. Then include that any solar panels feeding variable load can go wherever (like roofs and parking lots) and take no land but instead enhance the other use. Then include tilting agrivoltaics (which increases yield for heat sensitive crops and makes animals healthier). Dedicated utility PV in a good area has a higher area energy density than any scalable power source except gas. Include dual use and it has the lowest land impact worldwide. Specific power is pretty damn good too, about 20W/kg (or 5-8W/kg net, so slightly better than nuclear).
      - ag315 4y ago
        Strategic installation of solar panels certainly helps maximize efficiency, and is in general a great idea, especially in some areas. But to your point about the space taken up by uranium and coal mines, that's only a fair comparison if you also calculate the mines needed for things like lithium, copper, etc. that would all go into a solar-oriented power grid.
        Schroedingersat 4y ago
        It's not because they're no longer needed once the panel is produced. That would be analogous to the sand and copper and steel and indium and cadmium and gadolinium and chromium and zirconium and nickel and silver in the nuclear plant (and fuel cycle). All of which except silver outmass minerals of similar rarity and mining impact in the solar panel (and that is quickly changing). Even then it's questionable because most of the nuclear reactor cannot be recycled, but the solar panel legally must have recycling prepaid in many jurisdictions. You're welcome to include mining for the entire supply chain of solar and exclude the supply chain of the generator for thermal though, it doesn't change how one sided the land use is in solar's favour.
        ag315 4y ago
        "No longer needed once the panel is produced" The land used for the mining isn't land that we're just getting back--given the costs of making it useful again for anything else, space used for a lithium mine is in almost all cases essentially going to be gone for good. This is of course true for other mines as well, but your notion that lithium is an exception is a curious one. "All of which except silver outmass minerals of similar rarity and mining impact in the solar panel (and that is quickly changing)" Nuclear reactors require relatively small inputs of these metals compared to the metals used in solar panels, and the huge capital invested in making solar panels less resource-intensive could also be applied to nuclear, if we wanted to do so. "Even then it's questionable because most of the nuclear reactor cannot be recycled, but the solar panel legally must have recycling prepaid in many jurisdictions." But again, reactors are small compared to the millions of panels that are necessary to be the equivalent of one plant, and furthermore plenty of those materials can be and are recycled, especially in France (the entire history of the American nuclear energy program have created less waste than solar panels have in just a couple decades). And, again, innovations that make solar panels more recyclable (which we absolutely need because right now they mostly just produce massive amounts of toxic waste) could also be invested in nuclear recycling. I did get a good chuckle out of your vague "many jurisdictions" though.
  - ag315 4y ago
    1370/sq km is at the atmospheric level. The amount that actually reaches the surface is significantly less.
    - causi 4y ago
      Significantly less, but not debilitatingly less. For a panel in direct sunlight and adjusted to point directly at the sun, the ground value is 1,050 watts per square meter.
- myshpa 4y ago
  Just 254x254 km of solar panels should be enough for the whole world. https://www.dlr.de/tt/Portaldata/41/Resources/dokumente/institut/system/projects/Ecobalance_of_a_Solar_Electricity_Transmission.pdf https://www.dlr.de/tt/Portaldata/41/Resources/dokumente/inst... - page 25
  - bitxbitxbitcoin 4y ago
    Especially if it were close enough to the sun to start making a cube!
- geysersam 4y ago
  That must be a seriously energy hungry hotel! 160 acres are 1x1.6 kilometers. That should give about 150 MW during the day. (Same as power consumption of 50 000 aircons.)
j_maffe 4y ago
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fossil_fuel_subsidies https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fossil_fuel_subsidies
- HPsquared 4y ago
  There is some highly suspect ontology here. These are mostly generic tax reductions for energy, and would apply equally to solar or any other energy source. For example in the UK, "fuel and power for domestic use" is subject to the reduced VAT rate of 5%, instead of the standard rate of 20% charged for most items. This is the kind of thing that gets labelled a "fossil fuel subsidy".
  - redeeman 4y ago
    it is a special(well I wish) kind of thinking where EVERYTHING belongs to the government, so the notion that someone gets to keep more of their own produce can only mean subsidy. It is really quite sick when one thinks about it
epistasis 4y ago
This is a lot like saying, in 1995, that if the internet was going to be a useful thing to society, then everybody would already be using it. Utilities are slow. And not so bright. They are using old technology that hasn't changed for decades, has reached its peak, and doesn't advance. Utilities are conservative. If something new comes out and is better, it's going to take them a decade to even realize what's happening. Then it's going to take decades for the old multi-decade existing equipment to age out. And if the technology is cheaper, there's a very good chance that utilities will heavily resist providing cheaper electricity because in many markets they are regulated monopolies, with a fixed rate of profit. Cheaper energy prices mean less profit. In reality, solar is cheaper energy today. Providing 99% of our energy by solar, wind, geothermal, and storage is cheaper than our current energy mix in California: https://energycentral.com/c/cp/our-path-247-renewable-energy-2025 https://energycentral.com/c/cp/our-path-247-renewable-energy... And nationwide in the US, it's cheaper to shut down a paid-for coal plant and replace it with solar than to continue buying fuel: https://insideclimatenews.org/news/30012023/wind-solar-coal-power-plant-costs/ https://insideclimatenews.org/news/30012023/wind-solar-coal-... And year after year, solar, wind, and storage get cheaper, and we have not yet reached the inflection point of the logistic curve yet. The genera form of Moore's law is Wright's law, and it applies to renewable energies, and is no longer in effect for fossil fuel tech.
- rr888 4y ago
  Utilities are huge financial organzations that have to provide secure generation and transportation over decades. Just because solar is cheaper now doesn't mean you can replace everything in just a few years. Also Solar might work great in California but Nebraska not so much.
  - epistasis 4y ago
    > Also Solar might work great in California but Nebraska not so much If you think that solar doesn't work fantastically in Nebraska, then I think you need to reevaluate the data, and start holding your utility to account. Solar works great in Minnesota, with lower solar resources than Nebraska. The key difference is whether the utility will allow a financially beneficial decision to made, not the fundamental economics of the technology. Contrast the planned 2023 solar additions in yellow dots on this map: https://www.eia.gov/todayinenergy/detail.php?id=50818 https://www.eia.gov/todayinenergy/detail.php?id=50818 With the amount of solar insolation (note that the color gradient only spans a ~30-40% overall difference, too): https://www.nrel.gov/gis/assets/images/solar-annual-ghi-2018-usa-scale-01.jpg https://www.nrel.gov/gis/assets/images/solar-annual-ghi-2018... So while you are right that utilities are slow, which was the main thrust of my original comment, we must also acknowledge the financial incentives of utilities to distort a setup that can not even result be called a market. Electricity decisions are made based on what the utility perceives will give it the greatest profit, with all their biases, and without regard to what will deliver the best overall cost-optimal solution for reliable power.

> Infinite power from the sky that’s cheaper than fossil fuels but it isnt though, if it was, it would be happening all over, without massive subsidies and strongarming from government.

ag315 4y ago

Correct--while the sun sends an enormous amount of free energy our way, it's maddeningly diffuse and requires enormous investments of energy and materials to capture it in a usable and reliable form. The Wynn in Vegas has a 160 acre solar farm in some of the sunniest land in the country and it provides...almost enough energy to power a single large hotel. None of this is to say that solar power is bad, just that we should have measured expectations.

causi 4y ago
1,370 watts per square meter isn't what I'd call diffuse. We're just not good at harvesting it.
- deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]
- ArnoVW 4y ago
  A typical nuclear station genrates 1 Gw. You'd need 1000000 square meters (=1000 sq km) to generate the same thing. Oh and we can only capture 20-30 % of the energy of the total light. We're going to need solar power, and fossile fuel is madness. But to deny that solar power is not 'dense' seems irrational.
  - fhars 4y ago
    1000000 square meters are one square kilometer. Which is probably only about ten times the area required to build a nuclear power plant.
  - epistasis 4y ago
    Dense is a subjective term, and solar is without a doubt a dense enough energy source. Compare the amount of land needed to power the US with solar to the amount we use to brew a small amount of ethanol as a minor energy sourced. We can completely power the US with a fraction of the land that we currently use as a subsidy for corn farmers, who grow more corn than we can eat.
    - ag315 4y ago
      While I'm less optimistic than you on solar power, you're absolutely right about ethanol, which is easily one of the worst and most inefficient power sources we could have possibly chosen to invest in. It's a significant indictment of the US political system that so much money was shoveled into it.
      - epistasis 4y ago
        I'm not sure why you are subjectively calling my number-based argument "optimistic." What do you mean by that?
        ag315 4y ago
        Happy to discuss the numbers of your numbers-based argument, but you didn't cite your sources.
  - causi 4y ago
    1000000 square meters is one square kilometer, not one thousand. It's also less than half the acreage used by my local nuclear power plant.
  - Schroedingersat 4y ago
    Now include the largest uranium mines like inkai in your area calculation. Or alternatively any recently opened coal mines. Then include that any solar panels feeding variable load can go wherever (like roofs and parking lots) and take no land but instead enhance the other use. Then include tilting agrivoltaics (which increases yield for heat sensitive crops and makes animals healthier). Dedicated utility PV in a good area has a higher area energy density than any scalable power source except gas. Include dual use and it has the lowest land impact worldwide. Specific power is pretty damn good too, about 20W/kg (or 5-8W/kg net, so slightly better than nuclear).
    - ag315 4y ago
      Strategic installation of solar panels certainly helps maximize efficiency, and is in general a great idea, especially in some areas. But to your point about the space taken up by uranium and coal mines, that's only a fair comparison if you also calculate the mines needed for things like lithium, copper, etc. that would all go into a solar-oriented power grid.
      - Schroedingersat 4y ago
        It's not because they're no longer needed once the panel is produced. That would be analogous to the sand and copper and steel and indium and cadmium and gadolinium and chromium and zirconium and nickel and silver in the nuclear plant (and fuel cycle). All of which except silver outmass minerals of similar rarity and mining impact in the solar panel (and that is quickly changing). Even then it's questionable because most of the nuclear reactor cannot be recycled, but the solar panel legally must have recycling prepaid in many jurisdictions. You're welcome to include mining for the entire supply chain of solar and exclude the supply chain of the generator for thermal though, it doesn't change how one sided the land use is in solar's favour.
        ag315 4y ago
        "No longer needed once the panel is produced" The land used for the mining isn't land that we're just getting back--given the costs of making it useful again for anything else, space used for a lithium mine is in almost all cases essentially going to be gone for good. This is of course true for other mines as well, but your notion that lithium is an exception is a curious one. "All of which except silver outmass minerals of similar rarity and mining impact in the solar panel (and that is quickly changing)" Nuclear reactors require relatively small inputs of these metals compared to the metals used in solar panels, and the huge capital invested in making solar panels less resource-intensive could also be applied to nuclear, if we wanted to do so. "Even then it's questionable because most of the nuclear reactor cannot be recycled, but the solar panel legally must have recycling prepaid in many jurisdictions." But again, reactors are small compared to the millions of panels that are necessary to be the equivalent of one plant, and furthermore plenty of those materials can be and are recycled, especially in France (the entire history of the American nuclear energy program have created less waste than solar panels have in just a couple decades). And, again, innovations that make solar panels more recyclable (which we absolutely need because right now they mostly just produce massive amounts of toxic waste) could also be invested in nuclear recycling. I did get a good chuckle out of your vague "many jurisdictions" though.
- ag315 4y ago
  1370/sq km is at the atmospheric level. The amount that actually reaches the surface is significantly less.
  - causi 4y ago
    Significantly less, but not debilitatingly less. For a panel in direct sunlight and adjusted to point directly at the sun, the ground value is 1,050 watts per square meter.
myshpa 4y ago
Just 254x254 km of solar panels should be enough for the whole world. https://www.dlr.de/tt/Portaldata/41/Resources/dokumente/institut/system/projects/Ecobalance_of_a_Solar_Electricity_Transmission.pdf https://www.dlr.de/tt/Portaldata/41/Resources/dokumente/inst... - page 25
- bitxbitxbitcoin 4y ago
  Especially if it were close enough to the sun to start making a cube!
geysersam 4y ago
That must be a seriously energy hungry hotel! 160 acres are 1x1.6 kilometers. That should give about 150 MW during the day. (Same as power consumption of 50 000 aircons.)

j_maffe 4y ago

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fossil_fuel_subsidies https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fossil_fuel_subsidies

HPsquared 4y ago
There is some highly suspect ontology here. These are mostly generic tax reductions for energy, and would apply equally to solar or any other energy source. For example in the UK, "fuel and power for domestic use" is subject to the reduced VAT rate of 5%, instead of the standard rate of 20% charged for most items. This is the kind of thing that gets labelled a "fossil fuel subsidy".
- redeeman 4y ago
  it is a special(well I wish) kind of thinking where EVERYTHING belongs to the government, so the notion that someone gets to keep more of their own produce can only mean subsidy. It is really quite sick when one thinks about it

epistasis 4y ago

This is a lot like saying, in 1995, that if the internet was going to be a useful thing to society, then everybody would already be using it. Utilities are slow. And not so bright. They are using old technology that hasn't changed for decades, has reached its peak, and doesn't advance. Utilities are conservative. If something new comes out and is better, it's going to take them a decade to even realize what's happening. Then it's going to take decades for the old multi-decade existing equipment to age out. And if the technology is cheaper, there's a very good chance that utilities will heavily resist providing cheaper electricity because in many markets they are regulated monopolies, with a fixed rate of profit. Cheaper energy prices mean less profit. In reality, solar is cheaper energy today. Providing 99% of our energy by solar, wind, geothermal, and storage is cheaper than our current energy mix in California: https://energycentral.com/c/cp/our-path-247-renewable-energy-2025 https://energycentral.com/c/cp/our-path-247-renewable-energy... And nationwide in the US, it's cheaper to shut down a paid-for coal plant and replace it with solar than to continue buying fuel: https://insideclimatenews.org/news/30012023/wind-solar-coal-power-plant-costs/ https://insideclimatenews.org/news/30012023/wind-solar-coal-... And year after year, solar, wind, and storage get cheaper, and we have not yet reached the inflection point of the logistic curve yet. The genera form of Moore's law is Wright's law, and it applies to renewable energies, and is no longer in effect for fossil fuel tech.

rr888 4y ago
Utilities are huge financial organzations that have to provide secure generation and transportation over decades. Just because solar is cheaper now doesn't mean you can replace everything in just a few years. Also Solar might work great in California but Nebraska not so much.
- epistasis 4y ago
  > Also Solar might work great in California but Nebraska not so much If you think that solar doesn't work fantastically in Nebraska, then I think you need to reevaluate the data, and start holding your utility to account. Solar works great in Minnesota, with lower solar resources than Nebraska. The key difference is whether the utility will allow a financially beneficial decision to made, not the fundamental economics of the technology. Contrast the planned 2023 solar additions in yellow dots on this map: https://www.eia.gov/todayinenergy/detail.php?id=50818 https://www.eia.gov/todayinenergy/detail.php?id=50818 With the amount of solar insolation (note that the color gradient only spans a ~30-40% overall difference, too): https://www.nrel.gov/gis/assets/images/solar-annual-ghi-2018-usa-scale-01.jpg https://www.nrel.gov/gis/assets/images/solar-annual-ghi-2018... So while you are right that utilities are slow, which was the main thrust of my original comment, we must also acknowledge the financial incentives of utilities to distort a setup that can not even result be called a market. Electricity decisions are made based on what the utility perceives will give it the greatest profit, with all their biases, and without regard to what will deliver the best overall cost-optimal solution for reliable power.