News for hackers. Stuff that matters.
Re:Activists who embrace nuclear power by throwaway894345 on Sunday February 21, 2021 @11:38AM (#26214815)
Do solar and wind cost estimates account for the sheer volume of land? How much land would be required to convert us fully to green energy (where “fully” means not only replacing existing electrical applications but also transforming other fossil-fuel operations such as transport and various heavy industry applications and residential/commercial heating and etc)? Also, don’t we need more storage than 4 hours? What about those times when weather patterns mean little sun or wind for days or weeks on the scale of the whole country? I’m not trying to be a wind/solar pessimist; these seem like important questions and I don’t hear them discussed often.
Re:Activists who embrace nuclear power by maxerickson on Sunday February 21, 2021 @11:55AM (#26214981)
Winter is hard to store for, but in general there aren't times where both sun and wind are low production across wide areas.

Of course solar isn't operating at night, but wind keeps blowing.

One way to check this would be to find a wind farm that publishes their output over time. Looks like NREL has some good resources: https://www.nrel.gov/grid/wind-toolkit.html

Re:Activists who embrace nuclear power by throwaway894345 on Sunday February 21, 2021 @05:29PM (#26217942)
> in general there aren't times where both sun and wind are low production across wide areas.

I'm sure those times aren't common, but we need to have some answer for when they do inevitably occur. The recent Texas freeze was a once-in-a-century event and I don't think many consider that acceptable (and I would think that the no-sun / no-wind scenarios are more frequent than once-in-a-century). I'm sure someone has researched the amount of storage necessary, but the numbers I've heard from articles and podcasts tend to be in the days-weeks range--much longer than 4 hours.

Re:Activists who embrace nuclear power by pfdietz on Sunday February 21, 2021 @01:33PM (#26215828)
Yes, they include the value of land. In Texas, for example, land cost for PV might be a couple percent of the cost of a PV field.
Re:Activists who embrace nuclear power by throwaway894345 on Sunday February 21, 2021 @05:25PM (#26217905)
Does that assume current land values? Presumably land values go up as the demand for PV-suitable land increases?
Re:Activists who embrace nuclear power by pfdietz on Sunday February 21, 2021 @05:33PM (#26218001)
Why should land values go up? The fraction of land needed for PV vs. the available land is very small.
Re:Activists who embrace nuclear power by throwaway894345 on Sunday February 21, 2021 @06:29PM (#26218435)
According to https://www.eia.gov/energyexplained/us-energy-facts/, the US consumes 100 quadrillion BTU or 30 million GWH each year, and according to https://www.seia.org/initiatives/siting-permitting-land-use-..., 1GW requires 5000-10000 acres. If I'm mathing properly, that's about 25M acres or the state of Tennessee. Of course, we already have something like 11% of our energy supply met by renewables, so maybe we would only need something like 23M additional acres. That doesn't seem like a "very small" amount of land, certainly not when you consider that not all land is amenable to solar? But admittedly I don't know enough about economics to say whether this would manifest in a big difference in the land price or not.
Re:Activists who embrace nuclear power by pfdietz on Sunday February 21, 2021 @07:35PM (#26218978)
That is primary energy use. PV produces electrical energy, not primary thermal energy. Each joule of electrical energy may displace several joules of thermal energy.
Re:Activists who embrace nuclear power by throwaway894345 on Monday February 22, 2021 @12:10PM (#26227005)
I don't think it matters (or perhaps I'm not following)? We need to decarbonize the entire energy sector, not only the electrified segment. That presumably means electrifying all of it and powering it with clean energy. Since we're talking about 100% solar in this thread, we'd need a lot of land to do the job.
Re:Activists who embrace nuclear power by pfdietz on Tuesday February 23, 2021 @08:24AM (#26236942)
It matters because it leads you to overestimate the energy needed. It does not take 1 J of renewable energh to replace 1 J of coal.

And it's not just the electricity sector where this matters. A battery vehicle uses much less energy that a gasoline vehicle, because the latter has maybe 25% average thermal efficiency (that varies with details, of course). It applies to any industrial process using anything below arc furnace level heat: heat can be generated by heat pumps (compress argon to the desired temperature, extract the heat, then expand the cooled argon maintaining its temperature with low grade waste heat to recover some of the work.)

About the only place it doesn't apply is if the electricity is used to make synfuels (aviation fuel, for example) or in chemical processes where the fossil fuels were used directly (hydrogen for ammonia synthesis).