4 ms·

Really? Solar gives lots of electricity in the summer. But you have light and warmth then. In the winter when you need the electricity, you get maybe 1/10 of

Really? Solar gives lots of electricity in the summer. But you have light and warmth then. In the winter when you need the electricity, you get maybe 1/10 of whatever the solar array is capable of. Wind is not generally viable, except in very windy locations. Biogas (eg anaerobic digestors) seems much more possible - but even these need warmth to run well - so aren't as good in the winter. And when you think that yes - you can pay several thousands for a battery to store your electricity (for a day or so), but that the battery will only last a few years - how people think the economics make sense is a mystery to me. I'm fast coming to the conclusion that all renewable tech is about allowing the government to have deep control over your energy, and to put you in a situation where you are forced to buy very expensive gear from mega-corps. PS - the battery thing also applies to cars. Old electric cars are basically not worth keeping after 10 years. Who would replace the old battery that costs as much as the car? Esp when the battery slots are incompatible with the latest advances - ie you can't upgrade to a better battery, but only install yesterday's tech.

hutzlibu 4y ago
"But you have light and warmth then. " Yes, but often too much of it, so lots of people use AC, which uses a LOT of power. Electricity is needed all the year. "Wind is not generally viable, except in very windy locations." And there is wind everywhere, but only if you build high enough. So yes, there are places where it makes no sense to build them, but there are a lot more other places, where it does. "I'm fast coming to the conclusion that all renewable tech is about allowing the government to have deep control over your energy" So a solar + battery powered off grid home is deep controlled by the government? May you explain how that works? "And when you think that yes - you can pay several thousands for a battery to store your electricity (for a day or so)," Have you looked up any actual numbers? Maybe do so. Also maybe that part, that tracks how the battery prices are changing. They are constantly getting cheaper. Also maybe you are aware, that the whole industry that was and is fossil based needs to change. Your criticism comes from an angle, that assumes that should be for free? Burning fossil fuels is cheap. But only if you ignore the external costs of climate change and air pollution.
groestl 4y ago
> Solar gives lots of electricity in the summer. But you have light and warmth then. In the winter when you need the electricity, you get maybe 1/10 of whatever the solar array is capable of. The third phase of the energy transition will see massive overcapacity in the summer being turned into chemical energy, to be stored until winter. Hydrogen and synthetic methan will be burned, and the dissipating heat used for district heating. Efficiency is north of 70% for this. I don't see a fundamental problem.
- brutusborn 4y ago
  Do you have a source for north of 70%? I’m not implying it’s incorrect, but I haven’t seen any papers with this level of efficiency for similar proposals.
  - nasmorn 4y ago
    The 70% is not for conversion into electricity but for total useable energy if the waste heat is used in district heating networks. It can reach up to 80% of the primary fuel used. While that seems worse then simply burning it at the end user you have to keep in mind that you also gain electricity which can be used to drive a heat pump. This is by far the best way to burn gas if heat is needed as a result. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cogeneration https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cogeneration
    - groestl 4y ago
      Yepp. The power plant in my area claims 83% efficiency for that pipeline already (natural gas to electricity & heat), using heat coupling (about 50% electricity). And they're working on powering that with hydrogen in the future.
  - groestl 4y ago
    https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0360544218320693?via%3Dihub https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S03605... We're not there yet. Currently, this setup is non-sensical since a lot of other measures should be implemented first, but even currently existing tech is pretty efficient, all things considered. And it only gets better from here.
rapsey 4y ago
Lots of southern places where solar is great all year. For more northern locations, cutting down on coal/gas usage for half the year is much better than nothing.
- efitz 4y ago
  It might be worse. You can’t just dial up and dial down production and processing of fuels. And the regulatory climate is very hostile. So it’s a reasonable business decision to shut down a capital intensive coal mine when demand drops, or to give up on natural gas pipelines (constant hostile regulators, activist lawfare and protests) when demand drops.
martyvis 4y ago
It seems you are basing your thoughts just anecdotally. For instance, I'm sure "winter" in USA doesn't mean 6 months of snow and cloud. I'm sure in some areas winter actually is probably better. And sure wind isn't good energy in all locations - but in areas where it is you can probably harness it at quite high density. I'm in Australia and was just looking at this research here looking at cost effectiveness. It seems to both look at the actual generation capability (that is amount of sun and wind) but also cost of distribution and whether it is going to impact wilderness or other uses. Have a look at the heat maps they have created. I'm sure there are similar studies in the USA. https://re100.eng.anu.edu.au/heatmaps/#map-links https://re100.eng.anu.edu.au/heatmaps/#map-links
- throwaway2037 4y ago
  Ironic about winter, right? In some places in the world, there is more sunshine and less clouds during winter. Nice example: Tokyo (Japan) metropolis. It is typically cloudy and less sunny during summer months and far more sunny during winter months. That said, you will probably needs panels that can adjust tilt by season for maximum energy production.
adrianN 4y ago
"I'm fast coming to the conclusion that all renewable tech is about allowing the government to have deep control over your energy, and to put you in a situation where you are forced to buy very expensive gear from mega-corps." That sounds like unfounded paranoia. It has literally never been easier to be an energy-independent anarchist living in a hut somewhere than today.
- agentgumshoe 4y ago
  It was very easy actually before people decided electricity is nifty. It's quite expensive to do now if you don't want a reasonably large shift in lifestyle in doing so.
  - toss1 4y ago
    Yup. Large shift in lifestyle to become an energy-independent anarchist living off of the grid without electricity. Not much shift if you want off-grid electricity, but expensive. Seems people deciding electricity is nifty are on to something. But with multi-kw solar+battery kits selling everywhere for just a few $k, and 1000-lumen LED lights pulling only single-digit watts, it's getting affordable to have both
    - bee_rider 4y ago
      I guess there is a continuum of “expense” and “lifestyle change,” since you can pick solar installations of various sizes. Choose your own off grid anarchist experience!
  - adrianN 4y ago
    I'd argue that living without a fridge, a washing machine, a heat pump, smoke free light and a car is more difficult than having those things.
fnordpiglet 4y ago
Really? What control does the government have over renewables? Fossil fuels bought the government and nuclear is entirely controlled by the government. Edit: Tesla cars at 200k miles typically retain 80% of their total capacity. The 10 years you quote is the full warranty period. Additionally it costs about $10k to replace the batteries. House hold battery’s last about 20+ years, with 30+ possible without daily draw (quoted based on Tesla power wall specs). I don’t know where you’re getting your battery facts from, but they’re essentially wrong. I suspect it’s not renewables that’s been captured but your biases.
seb1204 4y ago
There is a lot of FUD raised in your high level comment. One technology alone will not get us far, together they can however. https://reneweconomy.com.au/a-near-100-per-cent-renewables-grid-is-well-within-reach-and-with-little-storage/ https://reneweconomy.com.au/a-near-100-per-cent-renewables-g... Sure 100% solar powered homes might be harder to do in the colder hemispheres but in many parts of the world it is already possible. During spring, summer and autumn you can cover most of your electricity with a 3kW solar panel set up. Shift your dishwasher, washing machine and dryer to mid day, charge devices when the sun shines etc. Families in poorer countries are likely on a much smaller carbon footprint and it is therefore easier to replace their energy needs with solar or solar thermal. Small, medium as well as large scale island grids are already possible and in operation. https://reneweconomy.com.au/wa-off-grid-school-runs-100-on-solar-and-battery-72421/ https://reneweconomy.com.au/wa-off-grid-school-runs-100-on-s... For colder climates the solar alone will not cut it, insulated homes, heat pumps and solar can however.
dukeyukey 4y ago
Ironically most renewables are far more distributed and local than something like gas plants. Instead of maintaining continent-spanning supply chains you can just put your panels up and leave them for a decade or two.
yunwal 4y ago
> I'm fast coming to the conclusion that all renewable tech is about allowing the government to have deep control over your energy, and to put you in a situation where you are forced to buy very expensive gear from mega-corps. As opposed to government-sanctioned utility companies and petrol companies? Its pretty easy to make your own solar panel (not an efficient one, but something). It is very capital intensive to mine for natural gas and crude these days. Surely the solar panel + battery offers more independence (as evidenced by the fact that nearly every large RV owner is thinking about getting solar now).

hutzlibu 4y ago

"But you have light and warmth then. " Yes, but often too much of it, so lots of people use AC, which uses a LOT of power. Electricity is needed all the year. "Wind is not generally viable, except in very windy locations." And there is wind everywhere, but only if you build high enough. So yes, there are places where it makes no sense to build them, but there are a lot more other places, where it does. "I'm fast coming to the conclusion that all renewable tech is about allowing the government to have deep control over your energy" So a solar + battery powered off grid home is deep controlled by the government? May you explain how that works? "And when you think that yes - you can pay several thousands for a battery to store your electricity (for a day or so)," Have you looked up any actual numbers? Maybe do so. Also maybe that part, that tracks how the battery prices are changing. They are constantly getting cheaper. Also maybe you are aware, that the whole industry that was and is fossil based needs to change. Your criticism comes from an angle, that assumes that should be for free? Burning fossil fuels is cheap. But only if you ignore the external costs of climate change and air pollution.

groestl 4y ago

> Solar gives lots of electricity in the summer. But you have light and warmth then. In the winter when you need the electricity, you get maybe 1/10 of whatever the solar array is capable of. The third phase of the energy transition will see massive overcapacity in the summer being turned into chemical energy, to be stored until winter. Hydrogen and synthetic methan will be burned, and the dissipating heat used for district heating. Efficiency is north of 70% for this. I don't see a fundamental problem.

brutusborn 4y ago
Do you have a source for north of 70%? I’m not implying it’s incorrect, but I haven’t seen any papers with this level of efficiency for similar proposals.
- nasmorn 4y ago
  The 70% is not for conversion into electricity but for total useable energy if the waste heat is used in district heating networks. It can reach up to 80% of the primary fuel used. While that seems worse then simply burning it at the end user you have to keep in mind that you also gain electricity which can be used to drive a heat pump. This is by far the best way to burn gas if heat is needed as a result. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cogeneration https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cogeneration
  - groestl 4y ago
    Yepp. The power plant in my area claims 83% efficiency for that pipeline already (natural gas to electricity & heat), using heat coupling (about 50% electricity). And they're working on powering that with hydrogen in the future.
- groestl 4y ago
  https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0360544218320693?via%3Dihub https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S03605... We're not there yet. Currently, this setup is non-sensical since a lot of other measures should be implemented first, but even currently existing tech is pretty efficient, all things considered. And it only gets better from here.

rapsey 4y ago

Lots of southern places where solar is great all year. For more northern locations, cutting down on coal/gas usage for half the year is much better than nothing.

efitz 4y ago
It might be worse. You can’t just dial up and dial down production and processing of fuels. And the regulatory climate is very hostile. So it’s a reasonable business decision to shut down a capital intensive coal mine when demand drops, or to give up on natural gas pipelines (constant hostile regulators, activist lawfare and protests) when demand drops.

martyvis 4y ago

It seems you are basing your thoughts just anecdotally. For instance, I'm sure "winter" in USA doesn't mean 6 months of snow and cloud. I'm sure in some areas winter actually is probably better. And sure wind isn't good energy in all locations - but in areas where it is you can probably harness it at quite high density. I'm in Australia and was just looking at this research here looking at cost effectiveness. It seems to both look at the actual generation capability (that is amount of sun and wind) but also cost of distribution and whether it is going to impact wilderness or other uses. Have a look at the heat maps they have created. I'm sure there are similar studies in the USA. https://re100.eng.anu.edu.au/heatmaps/#map-links https://re100.eng.anu.edu.au/heatmaps/#map-links

throwaway2037 4y ago
Ironic about winter, right? In some places in the world, there is more sunshine and less clouds during winter. Nice example: Tokyo (Japan) metropolis. It is typically cloudy and less sunny during summer months and far more sunny during winter months. That said, you will probably needs panels that can adjust tilt by season for maximum energy production.

adrianN 4y ago

"I'm fast coming to the conclusion that all renewable tech is about allowing the government to have deep control over your energy, and to put you in a situation where you are forced to buy very expensive gear from mega-corps." That sounds like unfounded paranoia. It has literally never been easier to be an energy-independent anarchist living in a hut somewhere than today.

agentgumshoe 4y ago
It was very easy actually before people decided electricity is nifty. It's quite expensive to do now if you don't want a reasonably large shift in lifestyle in doing so.
- toss1 4y ago
  Yup. Large shift in lifestyle to become an energy-independent anarchist living off of the grid without electricity. Not much shift if you want off-grid electricity, but expensive. Seems people deciding electricity is nifty are on to something. But with multi-kw solar+battery kits selling everywhere for just a few $k, and 1000-lumen LED lights pulling only single-digit watts, it's getting affordable to have both
  - bee_rider 4y ago
    I guess there is a continuum of “expense” and “lifestyle change,” since you can pick solar installations of various sizes. Choose your own off grid anarchist experience!
- adrianN 4y ago
  I'd argue that living without a fridge, a washing machine, a heat pump, smoke free light and a car is more difficult than having those things.

fnordpiglet 4y ago

Really? What control does the government have over renewables? Fossil fuels bought the government and nuclear is entirely controlled by the government. Edit: Tesla cars at 200k miles typically retain 80% of their total capacity. The 10 years you quote is the full warranty period. Additionally it costs about $10k to replace the batteries. House hold battery’s last about 20+ years, with 30+ possible without daily draw (quoted based on Tesla power wall specs). I don’t know where you’re getting your battery facts from, but they’re essentially wrong. I suspect it’s not renewables that’s been captured but your biases.

seb1204 4y ago

There is a lot of FUD raised in your high level comment. One technology alone will not get us far, together they can however. https://reneweconomy.com.au/a-near-100-per-cent-renewables-grid-is-well-within-reach-and-with-little-storage/ https://reneweconomy.com.au/a-near-100-per-cent-renewables-g... Sure 100% solar powered homes might be harder to do in the colder hemispheres but in many parts of the world it is already possible. During spring, summer and autumn you can cover most of your electricity with a 3kW solar panel set up. Shift your dishwasher, washing machine and dryer to mid day, charge devices when the sun shines etc. Families in poorer countries are likely on a much smaller carbon footprint and it is therefore easier to replace their energy needs with solar or solar thermal. Small, medium as well as large scale island grids are already possible and in operation. https://reneweconomy.com.au/wa-off-grid-school-runs-100-on-solar-and-battery-72421/ https://reneweconomy.com.au/wa-off-grid-school-runs-100-on-s... For colder climates the solar alone will not cut it, insulated homes, heat pumps and solar can however.

dukeyukey 4y ago

Ironically most renewables are far more distributed and local than something like gas plants. Instead of maintaining continent-spanning supply chains you can just put your panels up and leave them for a decade or two.

yunwal 4y ago

> I'm fast coming to the conclusion that all renewable tech is about allowing the government to have deep control over your energy, and to put you in a situation where you are forced to buy very expensive gear from mega-corps. As opposed to government-sanctioned utility companies and petrol companies? Its pretty easy to make your own solar panel (not an efficient one, but something). It is very capital intensive to mine for natural gas and crude these days. Surely the solar panel + battery offers more independence (as evidenced by the fact that nearly every large RV owner is thinking about getting solar now).