4 ms·

> it doesn't fundamentally solve the problem that [...] Is that the "fundamental" problem being solved, though? Or is it just an externality that needs to be

by ajross 4y ago

> it doesn't fundamentally solve the problem that [...] Is that the "fundamental" problem being solved, though? Or is it just an externality that needs to be addressed? It seems like the "fundamental" problem here is trying to maximize deployment of renewable generation, and that construction like this is a great step in that direction. (Not the least of which because it pushes the investment required onto consumers willing to bear the costs, and "generates jobs" in the process. Siting a new wind farm is a ton more complicated, and let's not even talk about the difficulty of installing a scratch-built reactor.) I mean, it's true, that at the end of the day home energy generation is just PV solar, and PV solar doesn't behave like gas plants and that needs to be addressed at the grid level. But that's not an argument against PV solar, it's just an engineering problem.

Syonyk 4y ago
> But that's not an argument against PV solar... It can certainly be an argument against residential rooftop solar. In general, "industrial solar" (ground mount, high voltage strings, single axis trackers) is sub-$1/W installed. Residential rooftop solar is still $2.50-$4/W depending on where you are, because it has quite a few additional requirements (per-panel rapid shutdown in NEC 2017, various other requirements on the panel and interconnects that add cost), and, often, poor siting from partial shading reasons (chimneys, vent stacks, trees, other bits of roof, etc). I don't mind making homes more suited to solar (oversize the main busbar with a "solar ready" panel, route conduit up to the roof, require all vent stacks be on the north side of the roof), but it's a rather uncontrolled solution that's of limited "actually solving the problem" use. Low levels of penetration are easy to deal with, higher levels start to get really hard, when you've got whole subdivisions shifting from "lots of production" to "lots of consumption" as clouds go over. Or, we get used to less reliable, more intermittent energy again, and a lot of the problems go away. Just, that generates other problems. The power grid is a lot more fragile than most people assume.
- ajross 4y ago
  > Low levels of penetration are easy to deal with, higher levels start to get really hard Well, yeah. So pick the low hanging fruit and sell it to the FAANG hippies. I still fail to see the problem here. No one is promoting rooftop solar as a one-stop-shop trip to renewable utopia, just as a effective and immediately deployable generation mechanism in a regulatory environment not well-suited to agile and rapid solutions of any kind. If we get to the point where the hippies are buying up all the panels and the grid solutions can't get them cheap enough, that's the time to start complaining. Not now.
- coffeebeqn 4y ago
  That’s solvable by batteries. Of course there are tradeoffs like extra cost
makomk 4y ago
It's the fundamental problem that needs solving in order to achieve what this announcement claims is the ultimate end goal of all this - a "net-zero carbon economy" for the country as a whole - and it has been the fundamental obstacle to achieving this for decades now. So long as this problem remains unsolved, no amount of supposedly zero energy homes will ever get the country as a whole to that goal because they're still reliant on selling excess energy to the remaining "non zero energy" parts of the country in the summer and buying energy back from fossil fuel plants in the winter.
- ajross 4y ago
  So.. you're saying this specific technology can only get us 60-70%[1] of the way to the "ultimate end goal". Ergo... it shouldn't be deployed and we should whine about it on HN? No, that's silly. Build the panels. Build the solar. Fix the externalities, but absolutely pick the low hanging fruit. Every panel on a hippie's home means less total joules needed elsewhere. To be blunt: the kind of argumentation you engage in is absolutely toxic, and HN is awash in it. Engineers love to scream about perfect solutions, but real engineering is about tradeoffs. And folks here are absolutely terrible, just really, genuinely shit-tier, at discussing them rationally. [1] Depending on locale, obviously. In e.g. Arizona it's probably much closer to 80-90%

by ajross 4y ago

Syonyk 4y ago

> But that's not an argument against PV solar... It can certainly be an argument against residential rooftop solar. In general, "industrial solar" (ground mount, high voltage strings, single axis trackers) is sub-$1/W installed. Residential rooftop solar is still $2.50-$4/W depending on where you are, because it has quite a few additional requirements (per-panel rapid shutdown in NEC 2017, various other requirements on the panel and interconnects that add cost), and, often, poor siting from partial shading reasons (chimneys, vent stacks, trees, other bits of roof, etc). I don't mind making homes more suited to solar (oversize the main busbar with a "solar ready" panel, route conduit up to the roof, require all vent stacks be on the north side of the roof), but it's a rather uncontrolled solution that's of limited "actually solving the problem" use. Low levels of penetration are easy to deal with, higher levels start to get really hard, when you've got whole subdivisions shifting from "lots of production" to "lots of consumption" as clouds go over. Or, we get used to less reliable, more intermittent energy again, and a lot of the problems go away. Just, that generates other problems. The power grid is a lot more fragile than most people assume.

ajross 4y ago
> Low levels of penetration are easy to deal with, higher levels start to get really hard Well, yeah. So pick the low hanging fruit and sell it to the FAANG hippies. I still fail to see the problem here. No one is promoting rooftop solar as a one-stop-shop trip to renewable utopia, just as a effective and immediately deployable generation mechanism in a regulatory environment not well-suited to agile and rapid solutions of any kind. If we get to the point where the hippies are buying up all the panels and the grid solutions can't get them cheap enough, that's the time to start complaining. Not now.
coffeebeqn 4y ago
That’s solvable by batteries. Of course there are tradeoffs like extra cost

makomk 4y ago

It's the fundamental problem that needs solving in order to achieve what this announcement claims is the ultimate end goal of all this - a "net-zero carbon economy" for the country as a whole - and it has been the fundamental obstacle to achieving this for decades now. So long as this problem remains unsolved, no amount of supposedly zero energy homes will ever get the country as a whole to that goal because they're still reliant on selling excess energy to the remaining "non zero energy" parts of the country in the summer and buying energy back from fossil fuel plants in the winter.

ajross 4y ago
So.. you're saying this specific technology can only get us 60-70%[1] of the way to the "ultimate end goal". Ergo... it shouldn't be deployed and we should whine about it on HN? No, that's silly. Build the panels. Build the solar. Fix the externalities, but absolutely pick the low hanging fruit. Every panel on a hippie's home means less total joules needed elsewhere. To be blunt: the kind of argumentation you engage in is absolutely toxic, and HN is awash in it. Engineers love to scream about perfect solutions, but real engineering is about tradeoffs. And folks here are absolutely terrible, just really, genuinely shit-tier, at discussing them rationally. [1] Depending on locale, obviously. In e.g. Arizona it's probably much closer to 80-90%