Hacker News Reader

Comment by sremani | Hacker News Reader

OK, I will do what is right even if that means downvoting to oblivion, so be it.

No, putting Solar Panels in Oregon and Washington state is contrary to belief, bad for the environment. Just like Capital and Resources you can mis-allocate Solar Panels. Put them at wrong place and the economic and environmental returns will be negative.

In the following map, the areas that are deep-red and red is where Solar is both economical and environmental positive. Orange, may be environmental positive area. The rest of it is, mis-allocation. Simply putting Solar Panels on top of Walmart in St.Louis or Chicago or Seattle does not cut. But if the Walmart is in Bakerfield, Scottsdale and Santa Fe - it will be the right thing.

https://globalsolaratlas.info/map

View on HN

Your map only appears to show the expected output of panels in those locations, with dark red and red obviously showing higher output. It does not support the claim that putting panels in the "wrong place" will produce negative economic and environmental returns. Maybe that's an argument that can be made, but you haven't really made it yet.

I have not made the argument because I could not handily find the source. But for the curious that set of knowledge comes from @peterzeihan tweet thread from few years ago. I am not going to debate this further as people here really want to believe in Solar and Wind being panacea, and I sympathize with them. Heck, I have put a 10kw solar plant on my roof 9 years ago.

It takes a single Google search to find what you are referencing. If you make big claims at least have some sources ready.

https://twitter.com/peterzeihan/status/989868124525809664?la...

Also, Zeihan does not substantiate the claim either. He like, "here's a map, trust me bro".

If you haven't made an argument or come to discuss it doesn't seem like the statements are adding value. Nobody you are responding to claimed solar or wind are panacea. You have claimed there are wrong places for them without evidence in support, besides a wild goose hunt for a Twitter thread? We should put solar and wind wherever we get the chance. In areas with not a lot of wind and not a lot of sun we can use fission, invest in fusion, or drill down and leverage geothermal to offset on-demand generation requirements. Germany is one of the third worst countries for renewables given the small land mass, high population, and snowy winters. They're still a leader in renewables. In 2015 no solar panel installations were economically viable. In the past 3 years 60% were. [0] At the end of the decade solar anywhere on the planet is going to be more economic than digging up and burning oil. And in developing countries the potential of solar far outstrips current or projected energy usage. We should be sharing this IP so as to avoid countries like India from building fossil fuel plants to industrialize.

EDIT: Forgot my source: [0] https://www.newyorker.com/news/annals-of-a-warming-planet/re...

Germany is burning lignite coal mined by destroying black forest, you want to give me a better example of energy policy. Germany is cautionary tale of what not to do. They became hostage to Russian ONG precisely for the wasteful investments they have made in the name of Renewable.

The energy price per kwh is high about $30 cents? in Germany. Germany is on pace to get its version of Rust belt soon.

Contrary to belief, Washington and Oregon aren't just cloudy skies. The eastern half of both states is a rain shadow with a desert climate and plenty of sunshine.

Even Western Washington has sunny skies for much of the year. Do solar panels really require full sun to work? I see a lot of solar panels on homes in Seattle.

As with anything, it depends on the tech available and cost. What may have been a net loss before may be a net win today.

That's generous. Seattle has 71 days a year with <30% cloudy, and they're basically all in July and August. More than half the days are >70% cloudy. You lose like 50-80% generating capacity when it's cloudy.

It's not economical to have solar without extensive subsidies. And since our state tax structure is highly regressive, those solar panels you see are basically installed on the backs of the poor.

https://www.currentresults.com/Weather/Washington/annual-day...

>Seattle has 71 days a year with <30% cloudy

Woof. Remind me to never to take a Seattle job.

of course winter and summer weather is much milder than areas like Chicago

I have not assumed the high desert of Oregon is cloudy, but have you checked the sun rise and sun set times in WA and OR in winters. It is brutal!

We do need the power more in late summer though, as the mountains are running low of water from ice melt.

> Washington and Oregon aren't just cloudy skies. The eastern half of both states is a rain shadow with a desert climate and plenty of sunshine.

That's not the only reason solar panels aren't a good investment. Higher latitudes also have peak electrical demands at night, in winter, when solar is not producing anything. It's a much better fit as you approach the equator, where peak electrical demands are from air conditioning, during the afternoon, in the longest, brightest days.

Peak demand for electrify is still during the day in Washington and Oregon, even in the winters (which aren’t that cold even east of the cascades). Solar isn’t popular in those states because hydro and wind are much more appealing.

I suppose for personal homes, solar might make some sense, but electricity is already pretty cheap in the PNW (due to cheap hydro and wind), so it would take longer for that investment to pay off. Also, in the main population areas, overcast skies would dissuade a lot of personal solar investments (even given our sunny summers).

https://www.researchgate.net/figure/Wind-and-solar-productio...

Solar complements wind, though.

> the areas that are deep-red and red is where Solar is both economical and environmental positive. Orange, may be environmental positive area. The rest of it is, mis-allocation.

That's greatly oversimplified. One of the best places for solar panels is remote areas of Alaska. Being off the national grid, electricity is terribly expensive, and even the low output available at high latitudes is a big positive and worth the up-front costs.

Whether solar panels makes sense is a highly variable issue. Rising electric prices while solar panel costs fall makes the area where they are economical expand every year. That said, with the Pacific Northwest having so much hydro power and relatively low population/demand, it might be a while before it's a good investment up there.

Interesting that you redefine their legend to mean what you want it to mean. Solar is economical and effective in most of Europe, which does not have the same solar potential as the US, because the US is generally further south.

It's neither of those things in most of Europe. The price of electricity is outrageous in Germany, in part due to these subsidies. Me owning a Maybach would be economical if you all paid me $10/gal of gas used.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com