←back to thread

Understanding Solar Energy

(www.construction-physics.com)
261 points chmaynard | 3 comments | | HN request time: 0.001s | source
Show context
Veedrac ◴[] No.43430833[source]
The author misses a perhaps unintuitive point: the cost of storage depends also on the cost of energy. By the time you've overbuilt 2x, a full extra 100% of your demand is sitting around literally free at odd hours.

Traditionally, moving energy around means batteries, and yes maybe your battery costs more than just generating new electricity from a less efficient new solar panel at odd hours. But batteries are optimized for energy being expensive, where losses are wasteful.

Consider this really simple, dirt cheap alternative: plug your free energy into a pool of water and collect the hydrogen from it. Burn the hydrogen later, and point the light at your idle solar panels. It's hellishly inefficient, but I repeat: the energy is free. You are only minimizing capital costs, at least until other people catch up and start shifting load some other way.

The sane point on this curve probably looks something along the lines of a mix of batteries and synthetic fuels powering existing fossil fuel plants. The nice thing about going all the way to synthetic fuels and not hydrogen is that long term storage becomes trivially cheap, so it starts offsetting your winter load as well.

replies(3): >>43432515 #>>43433329 #>>43441426 #
pyrale ◴[] No.43433329[source]
> It's hellishly inefficient, but I repeat: the energy is free.

Can you give pointers about who gives away hydrogen generation systems for free?

Because the cost of energy usually factors in the cost of amortizing equipment required to produce and distribute it.

> The nice thing about going all the way to synthetic fuels and not hydrogen is that long term storage becomes trivially cheap

Once you've financed all of the horribly expensive capital expenditure, and provided you disregard that operating costs actually require paying people to monitor, repair and operate that infrastructure, the rest is basically free.

replies(2): >>43433404 #>>43451373 #
ben_w ◴[] No.43433404[source]
> Can you give pointers about who gives away hydrogen generation systems for free?

If you don't care about efficiency (because the electricity is free), a 9 year old can make hydrogen generators out of old pencils and jam jars.

Citation: me, I did that.

replies(1): >>43433608 #
pyrale ◴[] No.43433608[source]
I can also make some methane depending on what's on the lunch menu, but that doesn't mean cheap renewable natural gas is a solved problem.
replies(1): >>43433693 #
ben_w ◴[] No.43433693[source]
Do you really not understand the point I'm making here?

The technical skills needed to make a device that turns water and electricity into hydrogen are so minimal that they can be performed by someone too young for you to be allowed to employ them.

When you don't care about efficiency, hydrogen is trivial.

The limiting factor is how much electricity you can shove through the water, not human effort.

replies(2): >>43435005 #>>43456143 #
hnaccount_rng ◴[] No.43435005{3}[source]
To be fair the problem with hydrogen isn't the production (that is ~free, once you have free energy at least some amount of time) but it's storage and then usage. Storage is a fundamental physics problem. Usage is something where low efficiency may or may not be a problem, depending on the over provisioning that we applied at the generation and storage stages.
replies(2): >>43435853 #>>43451400 #
Matumio ◴[] No.43435853{4}[source]
Production is trivial, but storage and transport really isn't: https://climate.mit.edu/ask-mit/can-we-use-pipelines-and-pow...
replies(1): >>43442054 #
Calwestjobs ◴[] No.43442054[source]
first of all, youre spreading misinformation.

storage is CHEAP AF. BUT not kind every misinfo guru from youtube tells you about.

this is cheaper - https://ethz.ch/en/news-and-events/eth-news/news/2024/08/iro...

also https://www.rotterdaminnovationcity.com/co2-neutral-living-i...

AND most importantly, WHY do you need to transport hydrogen ? You do not need. think about it. you get electricity to your plant, make hydrogen on site, store hydrogen on site for almost nothing. why do you need to transport anything ? you do not.

replies(3): >>43444222 #>>43453500 #>>43456130 #
dang ◴[] No.43456130{6}[source]
> youre spreading misinformation

> every misinfo guru from youtube tells you

Please don't cross into personal attack in HN comments and please edit out swipes and name-calling. Your post would be fine without those bits.

If you'd please review https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html and stick to the rules when posting here, we'd appreciate it.

replies(1): >>43457164 #
1. Calwestjobs ◴[] No.43457164{7}[source]
youtuber - it is not personal attack it is commentary on state of world, im saying to him that he should recalculate, review information he gets from youtubers.

every youtuber who says hydrogen storage, transport is not cheap is spreading misinformation. or if youre angry because you know youtubers are saying it because it as a desinformation, then feel free to chime in about it. or report those youtubers directly inside of a youtube platform.

not personal attack, i am not cute, i am not smart. they are saying nonsense. i provided links showing price for transport, storage is orders of magnitude lower than what any of top 50 science youtubers are saying it is.

you can correct previous statement by providing link for any video of any top 50 science youtuber providing correct numbers.

replies(2): >>43457964 #>>43457999 #
2. dang ◴[] No.43457964[source]
I meant "misinfo guru" in that case, especially because you directed that at the other person ("tells you").

You don't need to say things like "they are saying nonsense" - it's enough to provide correct information that addresses incorrect information.

3. Calwestjobs ◴[] No.43457999[source]
but he will just go back to youtube. that is why i need to say youtube guru is wrong to make clear what exactly is harmful.