5 ms·

Wild that you're getting downvoted for saying something so obvious. Weird.

izacus 6mo ago
That's the same kind of problem solving that thought making self driving Teslas is the solution for infrastructure problems.
- forgetfreeman 6mo ago
  I'm fairly certain securing one's household's access to energy independent of rate increases triggered by a combination of aging infrastructure and data center power demand doesn't have a lot in common with tech bros attempts at reinventing trains badly from first principles but I'm open to hear the argument. Care to unpack that?
  - username135 6mo ago
    Im eager to hear rhis one... _grabbing popcorn_
  - izacus 6mo ago
    Easily: it's techbros again forgetting that an expensive asset only wealthy can afford isn't a solution to a mass scale infrastructure problem. And again, just like with Tesla bros, nothing about household solar is independent and requires infrastructure to support it - which, just like with trains, isn't going to get required investment because you're dreaming about individual investment. Like you say, I want trains - proper infrastructure supported renewables, not Teslas - home individual infra only affordable by wealthy individuals at the cost of shared infrastructure while lowering resilience because it still uses shared infrastructure.
9wzYQbTYsAIc 6mo ago
Politics of solar, at work
mbgerring 6mo ago
Not weird if you’ve been participating in discussions on clean energy since the beginning of this century. The inevitability of the energy transition has been obvious for so long, and even when it’s done there will be cranks insisting that it’ll never work.
- leonidasrup 6mo ago
  [dead]
- LunaSea 6mo ago
  I like the transition to renewables , but there is nothing inevitable about it. We don't produce solar panels or have the materials to produce them in Europe. So we're just as dependent on imports as before.
  - deleted 6mo ago
    [deleted]
  - fc417fc802 6mo ago
    Those imports have a much longer half life than barrels of oil.
    - LunaSea 6mo ago
      But at the moments they cover only a tiny percentage of our electricity needs, not even talking about storage or the heating needs which usually come from gas.
      - fc417fc802 6mo ago
        You objected that switching to solar would still leave the EU dependent on imports. Even if that is true the dependence isn't remotely equivalent.
  - ericd 6mo ago
    It's aluminum, glass, silicon, and some conductive metal. Surely you all have those materials. And even if you don't make them yourselves, they aren't make and then burn like fossil fuels, they are durable infrastructure, you don't have to replace them often - they have an expected lifespan of >30 years. Buy as many as China will sell you, and once you have more than enough installed, you're good for a long time, regardless of whether they cut you off. I think being reliant on the fossil fuel supply chain for so long, it's a bit tricky to mindset shift that once these things are installed, you're just good. And they're super fungible, you don't need any precision replacement parts, so you can make your own replacement parts if you want.
hn_throwaway_99 6mo ago
I didn't downvote them, and I don't really disagree with them (that much). But I do disagree with the idea that what they're saying is "something so obvious". I think the evidence is overwhelming that renewables plus storage will provide the bulk of our energy needs, or at least electricity needs, in the very near future. But I think the idea that it will be some sort of libertarian/individualistic utopia if we're all generating our own power and living off grid is a fallacy. This sort of widespread "off grid" living (beyond a small number of ideologues/enthusiasts) is what you only see essentially in failed states, where communal services are unreliable and the social contract is so frayed that people need to inefficiently generate their own power. One can argue the US and other Western countries are headed that way, but I don't think that's "obvious" or necessarily a good thing. A much more "obvious" solution IMO is to invest in efficient, grid-scale renewable generation combined with robust storage tiers, as well us long overdue updates to the grid. And to emphasize, because I'm sure it will get lost in translation, I'm in no way saying people shouldn't be self-sufficient or install rooftop solar if they want to. What I am saying is that widespread rooftop solar as the "of course that's the right answer" endgame of renewables deployment is in no way obvious, inevitable or even desirable.
- DavidPiper 6mo ago
  > A much more "obvious" solution IMO is to invest in efficient, grid-scale renewable generation combined with robust storage tiers, as well us long overdue updates to the grid. Individual rooftop solar + home batteries _is_ how we're doing this in Australia. You can connect your home setup directly to the wholesale grid and import/export electricity at appropriate times.

That's the same kind of problem solving that thought making self driving Teslas is the solution for infrastructure problems.

forgetfreeman 6mo ago
I'm fairly certain securing one's household's access to energy independent of rate increases triggered by a combination of aging infrastructure and data center power demand doesn't have a lot in common with tech bros attempts at reinventing trains badly from first principles but I'm open to hear the argument. Care to unpack that?
- username135 6mo ago
  Im eager to hear rhis one... _grabbing popcorn_
- izacus 6mo ago
  Easily: it's techbros again forgetting that an expensive asset only wealthy can afford isn't a solution to a mass scale infrastructure problem. And again, just like with Tesla bros, nothing about household solar is independent and requires infrastructure to support it - which, just like with trains, isn't going to get required investment because you're dreaming about individual investment. Like you say, I want trains - proper infrastructure supported renewables, not Teslas - home individual infra only affordable by wealthy individuals at the cost of shared infrastructure while lowering resilience because it still uses shared infrastructure.

9wzYQbTYsAIc 6mo ago

Politics of solar, at work

mbgerring 6mo ago

Not weird if you’ve been participating in discussions on clean energy since the beginning of this century. The inevitability of the energy transition has been obvious for so long, and even when it’s done there will be cranks insisting that it’ll never work.

leonidasrup 6mo ago
[dead]
LunaSea 6mo ago
I like the transition to renewables , but there is nothing inevitable about it. We don't produce solar panels or have the materials to produce them in Europe. So we're just as dependent on imports as before.
- deleted 6mo ago
  [deleted]
- fc417fc802 6mo ago
  Those imports have a much longer half life than barrels of oil.
  - LunaSea 6mo ago
    But at the moments they cover only a tiny percentage of our electricity needs, not even talking about storage or the heating needs which usually come from gas.
    - fc417fc802 6mo ago
      You objected that switching to solar would still leave the EU dependent on imports. Even if that is true the dependence isn't remotely equivalent.
- ericd 6mo ago
  It's aluminum, glass, silicon, and some conductive metal. Surely you all have those materials. And even if you don't make them yourselves, they aren't make and then burn like fossil fuels, they are durable infrastructure, you don't have to replace them often - they have an expected lifespan of >30 years. Buy as many as China will sell you, and once you have more than enough installed, you're good for a long time, regardless of whether they cut you off. I think being reliant on the fossil fuel supply chain for so long, it's a bit tricky to mindset shift that once these things are installed, you're just good. And they're super fungible, you don't need any precision replacement parts, so you can make your own replacement parts if you want.

hn_throwaway_99 6mo ago

I didn't downvote them, and I don't really disagree with them (that much). But I do disagree with the idea that what they're saying is "something so obvious". I think the evidence is overwhelming that renewables plus storage will provide the bulk of our energy needs, or at least electricity needs, in the very near future. But I think the idea that it will be some sort of libertarian/individualistic utopia if we're all generating our own power and living off grid is a fallacy. This sort of widespread "off grid" living (beyond a small number of ideologues/enthusiasts) is what you only see essentially in failed states, where communal services are unreliable and the social contract is so frayed that people need to inefficiently generate their own power. One can argue the US and other Western countries are headed that way, but I don't think that's "obvious" or necessarily a good thing. A much more "obvious" solution IMO is to invest in efficient, grid-scale renewable generation combined with robust storage tiers, as well us long overdue updates to the grid. And to emphasize, because I'm sure it will get lost in translation, I'm in no way saying people shouldn't be self-sufficient or install rooftop solar if they want to. What I am saying is that widespread rooftop solar as the "of course that's the right answer" endgame of renewables deployment is in no way obvious, inevitable or even desirable.

DavidPiper 6mo ago
> A much more "obvious" solution IMO is to invest in efficient, grid-scale renewable generation combined with robust storage tiers, as well us long overdue updates to the grid. Individual rooftop solar + home batteries _is_ how we're doing this in Australia. You can connect your home setup directly to the wholesale grid and import/export electricity at appropriate times.