3 ms·

So you are comparing the global use of energy for a year against the nighttime load for a single day (ie when the sun is on the pacific )? It’s a cool idea, an

So you are comparing the global use of energy for a year against the nighttime load for a single day (ie when the sun is on the pacific )? It’s a cool idea, and I’m pretty certain something like it is going to happen over time. Given we are seeing 10-100x (in gwh) of renewables be provisioned compared to any other type. So I guess welcome to science fiction!

littlestymaar 3y ago
> So you are comparing the global use of energy for a year against the nighttime load for a single day (ie when the sun is on the pacific )? Well, this comments explains a lot. Why are you even having this discussion if your engineering literacy is at this level? > It’s a cool idea, and I’m pretty certain something like it is going to happen over time. As unlikely as space colonization, but who know what can happen in the next centuries. > Given we are seeing 10-100x (in gwh) of renewables be provisioned compared to any other type. So I guess welcome to science fiction! Fortunately nobody is actually interested in trying to make your whole-earth storage-free solar electric grid. So actual engineers may actually get something done ;)
- onethought 3y ago
  > Well, this comments explains a lot. Why are you even having this discussion if your engineering literacy is at this level? No it doesn't. I think you're missing what I mean. You need enough panels to generate ~82TWh/day. That roughly equates to 45 million panels of around 2m^2 so you'd roughly need around 136km^2. So they'd fit on Hawaii. That's for the worlds entire consumption though, so even though you could fit the 45 million panels in one spot, in the middle of the pacific (so your previous point is moot) - you'd spread them around the world. So despite no one apparently being interested in this crazy "whole-earth storage-free solar" We've already installed 1.75 billion panels globally to date. So the numbers are not a crazy engineering challenge. It's actually just a distribution problem. But sure, stick to attacking me rather than prosecuting the idea. I'm sure that's how all innovation happens right?
  - littlestymaar 3y ago
    > No it doesn't. I think you're missing what I mean. You need enough panels to generate ~82TWh/day. That roughly equates to 45 million panels of around 2m^2 so you'd roughly need around 136km^2. So they'd fit on Hawaii. Thanks for confirming my previous point about engineering literacy, now at least I'm sure I haven't misjudged you before… > So despite no one apparently being interested in this crazy "whole-earth storage-free solar" We've already installed 1.75 billion panels globally to date. So the numbers are not a crazy engineering challenge. It's actually just a distribution problem. Well, glad you've abdicated your initial idea[1] altogether. And since that was the idea that I've been criticizing in the whole thread, maybe this wasn't too much of a waste of time on my side then. Yes we're installing solar panels, but yes we're investing in storage as well and no we don't plan on having a world-wide grid to leverage the spinning property of earth to compensate for their intermittent nature. [1]: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=37719370 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=37719370
    - onethought 3y ago
      https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Australia-Asia_Power_Link https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Australia-Asia_Power_Link This project look like they are installing a 4000km cable between Australia and Singapore. With storage as well. But I thought you said long distance cables don’t work? That’s what you said. Maybe you should let them know about the cloudy days? You said solar doesn’t work. They mine uranium in that same part of Australia… why didn’t they choose nuclear? You said nuclear was better choice… because of weight! Not leveraging spinning, we are installing solar globally because the sun shines everywhere. Can you point to country not installing solar? You didn’t refute my math on panels, is it wrong? I’m happy to learn. Or you just trolling? (Your error earlier was thinking you needed to produce the whole years worth of electricity every second or hour? Hard to tell, but it’s off by multiple magnitudes… you don’t need to do that, you have a whole year to produce it)
      - littlestymaar 3y ago
        From your Wikipedia link: > by a 4,500 km (2,800 mi) 3 GW HVDC transmission line. 3 GW Also it's still a project, a very ambitious one that is, which is projected for shipping in ten years, and whose budget has already doubled compared to what's initially projected and has already bankrupted once before getting saved, so it's a bit early to use that as a example of how straightforward such thing is… At this point, it is as “real” as fast neutron reactors… > Maybe you should let them know about the cloudy days? You said solar doesn’t work. Who said that? Not me. You know discussing energy technology isn't like supporting a sport team… If anything, I'd argue that the environmental impact of solar makes it the worst of the non-fossil energy source. But it works, it just doesn't work the way you think it works, you are off by orders of magnitude at every levels, that's the problem and that's why you end up with science-fiction “ideas” to save the world. > Not leveraging spinning, we are installing solar globally because the sun shines everywhere. Then you've abandoned your idiotic idea you started with and we're good, there's no much need to continue this discussion since you retracted the take I've been criticizing from the beginning. > You didn’t refute my math on panels, is it wrong? I’m happy to learn. Or you just trolling? (Your error earlier was thinking you needed to produce the whole years worth of electricity every second… but you don’t need to do that, you have a whole year to produce it) The fact that you think that I “needed to produce the whole years worth of electricity every second…” in my previous calculation is an example where your math is wrong. There's also the fact you don't realize that your “136km²” is off by multiples orders of magnitude (Hawaii is 16 THOUSAND of square kilometers, and even your project in Australia is going to be 150km² wide[1]), or that you don't even realize that your calculation ended up with “45 million panels” and one sentence after that you say with a straight face that “We've already installed 1.75 billion panels globally”, without realizing that somehow it would mean that we'd have 30 times too many solar panels already… In addition to the math, there's also a lack of basic practical sense, like you can't multiply the size of the panel by their number to get the surface of a solar farm, and you cannot fit a solar farm on a mountainous island of the same surface unless you also plan to level the mountain altogether, and so on and so on. [1]: https://www.scmp.com/economy/china-economy/article/3091182/why-has-china-australia-relationship-deteriorated-what-some?campaign=3091182&module=perpetual_scroll_1_RM&pgtype=article https://www.scmp.com/economy/china-economy/article/3091182/w...

littlestymaar 3y ago

> So you are comparing the global use of energy for a year against the nighttime load for a single day (ie when the sun is on the pacific )? Well, this comments explains a lot. Why are you even having this discussion if your engineering literacy is at this level? > It’s a cool idea, and I’m pretty certain something like it is going to happen over time. As unlikely as space colonization, but who know what can happen in the next centuries. > Given we are seeing 10-100x (in gwh) of renewables be provisioned compared to any other type. So I guess welcome to science fiction! Fortunately nobody is actually interested in trying to make your whole-earth storage-free solar electric grid. So actual engineers may actually get something done ;)

onethought 3y ago
> Well, this comments explains a lot. Why are you even having this discussion if your engineering literacy is at this level? No it doesn't. I think you're missing what I mean. You need enough panels to generate ~82TWh/day. That roughly equates to 45 million panels of around 2m^2 so you'd roughly need around 136km^2. So they'd fit on Hawaii. That's for the worlds entire consumption though, so even though you could fit the 45 million panels in one spot, in the middle of the pacific (so your previous point is moot) - you'd spread them around the world. So despite no one apparently being interested in this crazy "whole-earth storage-free solar" We've already installed 1.75 billion panels globally to date. So the numbers are not a crazy engineering challenge. It's actually just a distribution problem. But sure, stick to attacking me rather than prosecuting the idea. I'm sure that's how all innovation happens right?
- littlestymaar 3y ago
  > No it doesn't. I think you're missing what I mean. You need enough panels to generate ~82TWh/day. That roughly equates to 45 million panels of around 2m^2 so you'd roughly need around 136km^2. So they'd fit on Hawaii. Thanks for confirming my previous point about engineering literacy, now at least I'm sure I haven't misjudged you before… > So despite no one apparently being interested in this crazy "whole-earth storage-free solar" We've already installed 1.75 billion panels globally to date. So the numbers are not a crazy engineering challenge. It's actually just a distribution problem. Well, glad you've abdicated your initial idea[1] altogether. And since that was the idea that I've been criticizing in the whole thread, maybe this wasn't too much of a waste of time on my side then. Yes we're installing solar panels, but yes we're investing in storage as well and no we don't plan on having a world-wide grid to leverage the spinning property of earth to compensate for their intermittent nature. [1]: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=37719370 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=37719370
  - onethought 3y ago
    https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Australia-Asia_Power_Link https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Australia-Asia_Power_Link This project look like they are installing a 4000km cable between Australia and Singapore. With storage as well. But I thought you said long distance cables don’t work? That’s what you said. Maybe you should let them know about the cloudy days? You said solar doesn’t work. They mine uranium in that same part of Australia… why didn’t they choose nuclear? You said nuclear was better choice… because of weight! Not leveraging spinning, we are installing solar globally because the sun shines everywhere. Can you point to country not installing solar? You didn’t refute my math on panels, is it wrong? I’m happy to learn. Or you just trolling? (Your error earlier was thinking you needed to produce the whole years worth of electricity every second or hour? Hard to tell, but it’s off by multiple magnitudes… you don’t need to do that, you have a whole year to produce it)
    - littlestymaar 3y ago
      From your Wikipedia link: > by a 4,500 km (2,800 mi) 3 GW HVDC transmission line. 3 GW Also it's still a project, a very ambitious one that is, which is projected for shipping in ten years, and whose budget has already doubled compared to what's initially projected and has already bankrupted once before getting saved, so it's a bit early to use that as a example of how straightforward such thing is… At this point, it is as “real” as fast neutron reactors… > Maybe you should let them know about the cloudy days? You said solar doesn’t work. Who said that? Not me. You know discussing energy technology isn't like supporting a sport team… If anything, I'd argue that the environmental impact of solar makes it the worst of the non-fossil energy source. But it works, it just doesn't work the way you think it works, you are off by orders of magnitude at every levels, that's the problem and that's why you end up with science-fiction “ideas” to save the world. > Not leveraging spinning, we are installing solar globally because the sun shines everywhere. Then you've abandoned your idiotic idea you started with and we're good, there's no much need to continue this discussion since you retracted the take I've been criticizing from the beginning. > You didn’t refute my math on panels, is it wrong? I’m happy to learn. Or you just trolling? (Your error earlier was thinking you needed to produce the whole years worth of electricity every second… but you don’t need to do that, you have a whole year to produce it) The fact that you think that I “needed to produce the whole years worth of electricity every second…” in my previous calculation is an example where your math is wrong. There's also the fact you don't realize that your “136km²” is off by multiples orders of magnitude (Hawaii is 16 THOUSAND of square kilometers, and even your project in Australia is going to be 150km² wide[1]), or that you don't even realize that your calculation ended up with “45 million panels” and one sentence after that you say with a straight face that “We've already installed 1.75 billion panels globally”, without realizing that somehow it would mean that we'd have 30 times too many solar panels already… In addition to the math, there's also a lack of basic practical sense, like you can't multiply the size of the panel by their number to get the surface of a solar farm, and you cannot fit a solar farm on a mountainous island of the same surface unless you also plan to level the mountain altogether, and so on and so on. [1]: https://www.scmp.com/economy/china-economy/article/3091182/why-has-china-australia-relationship-deteriorated-what-some?campaign=3091182&module=perpetual_scroll_1_RM&pgtype=article https://www.scmp.com/economy/china-economy/article/3091182/w...