←back to thread

353 points dmazin | 8 comments | | HN request time: 0s | source | bottom
Show context
jillesvangurp ◴[] No.44518778[source]
The article doesn't mention a technology that deserves some attention because it counters the biggest and most obvious deficiency in solar: the sun doesn't always shine.

That technology is cables. Cables allow us to move energy over long distances. And with HVCD cables that can mean across continents, oceans, time zones, and climate regions. The nice things about cables is that they are currently being underutilized. They are designed to have enough capacity so that the grid continues to function at peak demand. Off peak, there is a lot of under utilized cable capacity. An obvious use for that would be transporting power to wherever batteries need to be re-charged from wherever there is excess solar/wind power. And cables can work both ways. So import when there's a shortage, export when there's a surplus.

And that includes the rapidly growing stock of batteries that are just sitting there with an average charge state close to more or less fully charged most of the time. We're talking terawatt hours of power. All you need to get at that is cables.

Long distance cables will start moving non trivial amounts of renewable power around as we start executing on plans to e.g. connect Moroccan solar with the UK, Australian solar with Singapore, east coast US to Europe, etc. There are lots of cable projects stuck in planning pipelines around the world. Cables can compensate for some of the localized variations in energy productions caused by seasonal effects, weather, or day/night cycles.

For the rest, we have nuclear, geothermal, hydro, and a rapidly growing stock of obsolete gas plants that we might still turn on on a rainy day. I think anyone still investing in gas plants will need a reality check: mothballed gas plant aren't going to be very profitable. But we'll keep some around for decades to come anyway.

replies(16): >>44518828 #>>44518835 #>>44518839 #>>44519259 #>>44519263 #>>44519351 #>>44519551 #>>44519755 #>>44519815 #>>44519979 #>>44522132 #>>44523131 #>>44523534 #>>44523901 #>>44528148 #>>44545508 #
Mengkudulangsat ◴[] No.44519351[source]
I do not feel as optimistic about any uptick in cables as I do about solar and wind. Solar and wind can grow through a multitude of small, plug-and-play projects. Cable projects like HDVC are still giant, long-term punts.
replies(2): >>44519440 #>>44520648 #
idiotsecant ◴[] No.44520648[source]
This is literally the problem. Transmission is desperately needed, much more than generation right now. The issue is that it's hard to explain to people why this is, and even when they understand they react like you do.

RENEWABLES NEED TRANSMISSION!!! We need to be building unprecedented Manhattan project levels of transmission, yesterday! But instead we will put some solar panels on a car park and feel like we did our part. Solar is the easy part. Storage and/or transmission is the hard part.

replies(3): >>44520927 #>>44523405 #>>44523819 #
gosub100 ◴[] No.44520927[source]
Is this whole "new set of cables" factored into the CO2 emissions equation? We're undoubtedly going to use massive amounts of energy to mine the metal, melt it into wire, transport it to the site, build the towers, etc. Is that energy "green" ?
replies(1): >>44521098 #
1. pjc50 ◴[] No.44521098[source]
> Is that energy "green" ?

Not very, but neither is continuing to use fossil fuels on a huge scale.

replies(1): >>44525749 #
2. gosub100 ◴[] No.44525749[source]
So why do it at all if there is no accounting to prove it's green? It's almost as if this movement is a scam. No CO2 equivalent publications on solar, or on recycling. It's just "do what we say or the climate will die". I reject that imperative.
replies(2): >>44526122 #>>44527576 #
3. ben_w ◴[] No.44526122[source]
Before you've built any green power plants, none of the energy you use to build green power plants can itself be green.

When all the power plants are green, all of the energy you use to build green power plants is necessarily green.

How green a new power plant is, during the process of construction, is a statement of how much progress you've already made before this step, not how much you make in the act of making this step.

replies(2): >>44526150 #>>44549027 #
4. gosub100 ◴[] No.44526150{3}[source]
its not a green plant if they conveniently escape all accounting. its a scam.
replies(1): >>44526243 #
5. ben_w ◴[] No.44526243{4}[source]
They're also not escaping any such accounting, but that wasn't my point.

PV pays its own energy cost in a few months these days. But even then, the very first PV had to be made with mostly fossil fuels and some hydroelectric, now the new ones in China are made with 35% renewables.

Grids have the same question: how green it is to modify today is the current status of the power supply (etc.), not the status it will be when it's been modified.

replies(1): >>44528492 #
6. Chilko ◴[] No.44527576[source]
> if there is no accounting to prove it's green? It's almost as if this movement is a scam. No CO2 equivalent publications on solar, or on recycling

You state this as if that's a fact - just because you haven't looked for them doesn't mean they don't exist. Here's two examples showing that wind [1] and solar [2] have good environmental payback times in my home country due to avoided emissions, a country which already has an ~80% renewable grid. Additionally, [3] is a good resource that puts the potential waste from solar farms into context with other sources (such as coal ash) and shows this is an unfounded fear. Do some research and challenge your biases before you spread misinformation.

[1] https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/03036758.2024.2...

[2] https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0038092X2...

[3] https://doi.org/10.1038/s41567-023-02230-0

[3 - sharing link] https://www.nature.com/articles/s41567-023-02230-0.epdf?shar...

7. ViewTrick1002 ◴[] No.44528492{5}[source]
I remember seeing such a paper linked by a nuclear bro.

Going on and on about how important the LCA was and how nuclear should be the choice.

After pages and pages of ”sciency” equations it ends with the Chinese average grid mix in terms of gCO2/kWh.

8. throwaway5081 ◴[] No.44549027{3}[source]
> Before you've built any green power plants, none of the energy you use to build green power plants can itself be green.

Another dimension is time. They can be considered "green" once they have produced more energy than was used for construction from non-green sources.