4 ms·

The example you chose is of a mirror based Solar system, which yes, is an obsolete technology. Direct solar continues to be installed at greater amounts every

The example you chose is of a mirror based Solar system, which yes, is an obsolete technology. Direct solar continues to be installed at greater amounts every year and coal is economically uncompetitive with basic anything (which is why it is collapsing), and especially against natural gas.

glenstein 11mo ago
You're exactly right and it raises a question for me. Why do energy generation topics bring people out of the woodworks who cite some very idiosycratic one-off and use it to make out-of-proportion declarations about the utility of a given technology? This is the second one I've seen suggesting solar is doomed when they mean mirrors. On twitter I saw someone claim PV is useless for heat because non-PV solar water heating is just so much more efficient. Not even true (I think it's a approximately a wash, different advantages in different applications), but very strangely in the weeds on a specific topic. Much too narrow a factual context to substantiate general level claims about solar as an energy writ large. I think for whatever reason the missing the forest for the trees trap is really potent in energy discussions.
- marcosdumay 11mo ago
  > Why do energy generation topics bring people out of the woodworks who cite some very idiosycratic one-off and use it to make out-of-proportion declarations about the utility of a given technology? They either have only read propaganda pieces from fossil fuel producers or are trying to create some of those. I would expect the number of people that honestly don't know anything but propaganda to be way higher than the number of people creating propaganda. But there's probably a selection bias due to HN being a somewhat large site with some influence on SEO and AI training.
  - parineum 11mo ago
    I brought up the mirror plant because the molten salt crucible is an example of an attempt to make solar work after hours. It wasn't viable. Solar+storage is not a solved problem. The storage problem gets continually hand waived away in the conversations about how cheap solar is. As I said in a sibling comment, I don't think the people running energy companies are stupid. If solar really was cheaper as a baseline power supply, what it needs to be to replace fossil fuels, they'd be doing it.
    - marcosdumay 11mo ago
      > If solar really was cheaper as a baseline power supply, what it needs to be to replace fossil fuels, they'd be doing it. So, you haven't looked at what energy companies are doing for the last 3 years...
      - parineum 11mo ago
        Sure. Building out renewables while still keeping their coal/methane plants running. Then again, with the abundance of rooftop solar where it's economical, there's really no need for utility level solar. Wind is good still but also inconsistent. With the way power demand is growing, new fossil plants aren't being built really because renewables can pick up a lot of the new demand but solar is at the point in some places where utilities don't want your excess power. Renewables are great in the places they fit but they don't fit everywhere.
        marcosdumay 11mo ago
        > while still keeping their coal/methane plants running Methane, yes. The coal plants are being slowly shut down, as they are too expensive to run even after they were paid for. You also seem to ignore the huge amount of utility-level PV farms and generation-side storage built recently. You are technically correct in that renewables don't fit everywhere, but that's again a common propaganda phrase because they fit the places where almost everybody lives, and long distance transmission already solves the problem for most people outside of that area.
        glenstein 11mo ago
        Exactly. It's also just bizarre to attempt to make the whole conversation about special one-off cases where some regions already have so much solar power that they won't benefit from adding more when such cases are not representative of the global picture, which is that there's abundant need going forward and abundant capability to build it out going forward. So why focus on the unrepresentative cases, unless the intent is to be misleading? There'd better be a very good insight at the end of this road that's worth price of "accidentally" of invoking unrepresentative examples, and it better be something a hell of a lot more substantive than going "gosh renewables, gee, I don't know. Denmark sure has a lot of renewables already, don't forget about that! " It's the "You Forgot Poland" of energy debates.

glenstein 11mo ago

You're exactly right and it raises a question for me. Why do energy generation topics bring people out of the woodworks who cite some very idiosycratic one-off and use it to make out-of-proportion declarations about the utility of a given technology? This is the second one I've seen suggesting solar is doomed when they mean mirrors. On twitter I saw someone claim PV is useless for heat because non-PV solar water heating is just so much more efficient. Not even true (I think it's a approximately a wash, different advantages in different applications), but very strangely in the weeds on a specific topic. Much too narrow a factual context to substantiate general level claims about solar as an energy writ large. I think for whatever reason the missing the forest for the trees trap is really potent in energy discussions.

marcosdumay 11mo ago
> Why do energy generation topics bring people out of the woodworks who cite some very idiosycratic one-off and use it to make out-of-proportion declarations about the utility of a given technology? They either have only read propaganda pieces from fossil fuel producers or are trying to create some of those. I would expect the number of people that honestly don't know anything but propaganda to be way higher than the number of people creating propaganda. But there's probably a selection bias due to HN being a somewhat large site with some influence on SEO and AI training.
- parineum 11mo ago
  I brought up the mirror plant because the molten salt crucible is an example of an attempt to make solar work after hours. It wasn't viable. Solar+storage is not a solved problem. The storage problem gets continually hand waived away in the conversations about how cheap solar is. As I said in a sibling comment, I don't think the people running energy companies are stupid. If solar really was cheaper as a baseline power supply, what it needs to be to replace fossil fuels, they'd be doing it.
  - marcosdumay 11mo ago
    > If solar really was cheaper as a baseline power supply, what it needs to be to replace fossil fuels, they'd be doing it. So, you haven't looked at what energy companies are doing for the last 3 years...
    - parineum 11mo ago
      Sure. Building out renewables while still keeping their coal/methane plants running. Then again, with the abundance of rooftop solar where it's economical, there's really no need for utility level solar. Wind is good still but also inconsistent. With the way power demand is growing, new fossil plants aren't being built really because renewables can pick up a lot of the new demand but solar is at the point in some places where utilities don't want your excess power. Renewables are great in the places they fit but they don't fit everywhere.
      - marcosdumay 11mo ago
        > while still keeping their coal/methane plants running Methane, yes. The coal plants are being slowly shut down, as they are too expensive to run even after they were paid for. You also seem to ignore the huge amount of utility-level PV farms and generation-side storage built recently. You are technically correct in that renewables don't fit everywhere, but that's again a common propaganda phrase because they fit the places where almost everybody lives, and long distance transmission already solves the problem for most people outside of that area.
        glenstein 11mo ago
        Exactly. It's also just bizarre to attempt to make the whole conversation about special one-off cases where some regions already have so much solar power that they won't benefit from adding more when such cases are not representative of the global picture, which is that there's abundant need going forward and abundant capability to build it out going forward. So why focus on the unrepresentative cases, unless the intent is to be misleading? There'd better be a very good insight at the end of this road that's worth price of "accidentally" of invoking unrepresentative examples, and it better be something a hell of a lot more substantive than going "gosh renewables, gee, I don't know. Denmark sure has a lot of renewables already, don't forget about that! " It's the "You Forgot Poland" of energy debates.