[HN Gopher] Wind and Solar Will Be 25% of Total U.S. Generating ... ___________________________________________________________________ Wind and Solar Will Be 25% of Total U.S. Generating Capacity Within Three Years Author : geox Score : 136 points Date : 2023-07-24 20:11 UTC (2 hours ago) (HTM) web link (electricenergyonline.com) (TXT) w3m dump (electricenergyonline.com) | FredPret wrote: | It's truly exciting that we're electrifying cars and solarizing | electricity. We'll all be driving around on sunbeams soon. | | Now we need to swap out the baseload from oil and coal to | nuclear, and drastically increase our overall capacity so we can | run as much of everything on electric. | | We'll probably use dead dino's for decades to come though, | especially natural gas. | JumpCrisscross wrote: | > _Now we need to swap out the baseload from oil and coal to | nuclear_ | | Not now. SMRs seem to be making real headway. No need to | Deutschland ourselves by prematurely optimizing for a legacy | design. | nimbius wrote: | regionally speaking, and state-to-state, the numbers are also | pretty shocking | | https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_U.S._states_by_electri... | | California and North Carolina both generate nearly 50% of their | energy from renewables for example. | connicpu wrote: | As another example, in April this year, Washington generated | 73% of its electricity from non-carbon sources (Hydro, Other | Renewables, and Nuclear). This number varies throughout the | year of course. Some months have Hydroelectric production alone | as high as 80% of the state's total generation. | | https://www.eia.gov/state/?sid=WA#tabs-4 | nonethewiser wrote: | That sounds good but I cant help but be skeptical about that | stat. It seems like consumption is the bottom line and I | assume theyd highlight consumption of it was more favorable. | What percentage of consumption is from renewables? | philipkglass wrote: | That state profile page doesn't highlight consumption | statistics because that's not part of the standard short- | form description produced by the Energy Information | Administration. You have to visit other EIA pages to find | out about a state's import-export electricity balance, like | this one: | | https://www.eia.gov/state/analysis.php?sid=WA | | _Overall, Washington 's electricity net generation exceeds | electricity demand in the state, and the excess power | generated is sent to the Western Interconnection, a | regional grid that stretches from British Columbia and | Alberta in Canada, to the northern part of Baja California, | Mexico, and across all or parts of 14 western states._ | | Washington is a net exporter of electricity. It produces | more electricity than it consumes. | djha-skin wrote: | Yeah, but that's because they have all those rivers and Hydro | dams. Not something replicable across most of the US. | bigyikes wrote: | Also interesting to see that Texas accounts for nearly 10% of | the country's renewable output, with Illinois at 7% and | California at 6%. | | Texas has a lot of oil fields _and_ windmills. | hadlock wrote: | Texas has very roughly as much coast line as florida. Daily | heating cycle of the land creates a pretty good heat pump to | blow wind onshore in the afternoon . In Corpus Christi and | Galveston they call it the 1:30 at 1:30pm which indicates the | wind direction clocking that way in the early afternoon. | Couple that with very low land value best served by feeding | cows on it, makes Texas a great wind producer, and higher | than average sunny days makes solar very easy. | PaulDavisThe1st wrote: | > Texas has very roughly as much coast line as florida. | | Sorry, but no. | | Florida (Method 1) 1,350 mi (Method 2) 8,436 mi | | Texas (Method 1) 367 mi (Method 2) 3,359 mi | | From https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_U.S._states_and_ | territ... | jgwil2 wrote: | And at the same time the Texas state government is actively | trying to sabotage the industry: | https://www.texasmonthly.com/news-politics/texas- | republican-... | robertlagrant wrote: | Coming from the UK, where also media is of course always | going to be biased, I have to say honestly, I read that, | and one of its linked articles, and its phrasing seems _so_ | biased that I don 't feel like I'm getting a neutral (or at | least balanced) take. How can one hope to just understand | the facts of a situation when even senior politicians such | as governers are just making such pot-shotty comments? It | appears to be written to leave an emotional impression, | rather than information, in the reader's mind. | noobface wrote: | Politics in the US long ago transitioned away from | reasoned arguments backed with data. The polarization of | parties has created a gulf too wide to scaffold an | argument across. The emotional impression is the point, | but it's not for you. It's for the people who already | prescribe to this dogma. Reading that gets them excited | and engaged. Ready to go vote for their "tell it like it | is" political party. | peyton wrote: | Yeah it's tradition for Texas state legislators to drop | by and dump a bunch of crazy shit. I'm seeing 12,000 | bills filed this past regular session. The next session | is in 2025. | nonethewiser wrote: | Yeah its very slanted. Texas Monthly is nothing close to | balanced. Its from Austin Texas. | wintogreen74 wrote: | and sun, and it's BIG | MattGaiser wrote: | Surprised Hawaii is so low. Would have thought costs would have | pushed them higher than that. | wonderwonder wrote: | What's the plan with all of this capacity? Assuming we dont have | anywhere close to the battery capacity to use this effectively at | night and on non windy days. Are we looking at a future where we | run on wind and solar in the day and fossil fuels at night and | high capacity days? | ianburrell wrote: | Wind and solar are complementary, solar during the day and wind | at night. | | In the short term, wind and solar provide power when they can | and make up the difference with natural gas. That is much | better than the current system of coal and natural gas. This | extends to wind and solar providing all of the normal power. | Then can have storage to cover the daily needs. There is no | problem turning off wind and solar when not needed, but we will | find ways to use the free power. | | In the long term, we can have so much wind and solar capacity, | I have seen 3 times load, to cover nearly all the time. The | excess power will be needed for carbon capture and fuel | production. For the rare times when renewables aren't enough, | can use hydrogen or other generated fuels as backup. | dynamorando wrote: | You seem to have some knowledge in this area. I'm curious | your thoughts on Enhanced Geothermal? | | https://www.cnbc.com/2023/07/18/fervo-energy-hits- | milestone-... | Synaesthesia wrote: | Geothermal is great, where it's available. According to the | article you linked it's still quite expensive, but coming | down in price rapidly. | mbgerring wrote: | That's a bad assumption, battery technology and deployment are | both ramping up and battery capacity will likely massively | increase in the coming years. | bit_logic wrote: | We need to stop thinking carbon chemical fuels are the problem. | FOSSIL fuels are the problem, not carbon fuels itself. | | We should be blanketing every inch of desert with solar. And pair | it to use excess energy for carbon fuels synthesis. Reuse all the | existing natural gas power plants to run on synthetic carbon | fuel. Batteries are not the solution for this. It only fixes the | day/night imbalance, but not the seasonal summer/winter imbalance | for solar production. | | But most importantly, we don't have time. We don't have time to | wait for the beautiful, elegant solution of all cars EV, all | power storage in batteries, all planes flying on electricity. | Perfect is the enemy of good. Look at the arctic and ocean temps, | we do not have time. The developing countries will not wait for | the perfect nice solar and battery solution. We need to reuse as | much of what we have now in a way that will make a difference for | carbon output. Again, we do don't have time for the most | efficient solution. | | What is industry good at? Mass producing a lot of stuff. We can | do that now with solar. Stop worrying about matching it to daily | power usage. Just pump out those panels and get it installed | everywhere. Get the excess into synthetic carbon fuel and we can | quickly make a difference in carbon output. | oatmeal1 wrote: | Even if we went 100% renewable today we would still be | consuming vastly more resources than the earth can handle. The | priority should be reducing needless and wasteful consumption. | That means getting people out of cars and onto bikes or public | transit. That means eliminating land use regulations that | create inefficient sprawl. | | Of course that won't be the priority for the government though, | because there aren't any special interests that can benefit | from that. Politicians don't really care about the environment. | Don't trust them to spend money fixing the environment. | [deleted] | JumpCrisscross wrote: | > _That means getting people out of cars and onto bikes or | public transit. That means eliminating land use regulations | that create inefficient sprawl_ | | This is a generational project. We don't have time for it. | That doesn't mean we can't do both. But we can't only make | the long-term massive-upheaval play. While suggested with | good intentions, it's the sort of thing a fossil-fuel | lobbyist will latch onto as a stalling tactic. | nonethewiser wrote: | All sorts of special interests could benefit from that. | manzanarama wrote: | What resoruces are you talking about? Seems like everything | can be solved with enough energy and the earth can surely | produce enough energy through nuclear. | numbers_guy wrote: | > The priority should be reducing needless and wasteful | consumption. | | In an utopian world I would agree with you. I find | consumerism ugly as well. However, without consumerism there | is no economic growth. Without growth no capitalism. Without | capitalism no democracy and peace. It would completely upend | our civilization. | | I mean consider how crazy everything goes when we have a | small dip in economic markets. | pkulak wrote: | > use excess energy for carbon fuels synthesis | | Is that a thing? I know you can turn water and electricity into | hydrogen, but that's not a carbon fuel. | Armisael16 wrote: | https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solar_fuel | [deleted] | tonymet wrote: | what about natural habitats ? how are we going to maintain them | Manuel_D wrote: | What about them? | | Climate change prevention should distance itself from the | environmental movement in my opinion. Make it clear that | we're focused on stopping global warming for the benefit of | humanity. Yes, blanketing deserts in solar panels will | destroy habitats. Yes, mining lithium is ecologically | destructive. And we should cut environmental regulation for | both, because the survival of humanity is more important than | desert tortises. | pornel wrote: | I presume that in the desert environments cool shade is a | positive thing. Panels will cover only a small fraction of | the land anyway. | | Even if it's not ideal, we have urgent big problems to solve, | and comfort of lizards and thumbleweed is low on the list. | tonymet wrote: | maybe another biology class? every thing everywhere gets | its energy from the sun. | melling wrote: | "But most importantly, we don't have time" | | "Look at the arctic and ocean temps, we do not have time." | | "Again, we do don't have time for the most efficient solution." | | Yes, we squandered 45 years not doing obvious things and | waiting for the batteries to improve, etc. | | However, I sort of take issue with the "it's too late to do | things the right way" | | We can stop burning coal. We are all time highs globally. | | https://amp.cnn.com/cnn/2022/12/16/world/coal-use-record-hig... | titzer wrote: | I agree with most of your comment, but this: | | > We should be blanketing every inch of desert with solar. | | Please god, no. Solar is so much more useful close to where | it's consumed, like rooftops and parking lots. Utility-scale | solar power projects like this are just more corporate welfare | boondoggles. | | And I happen to think that maybe humanity should learn how to | leave some things alone. Deserts have fragile, intricate | ecosystems. This fucks them up. We need to learn to stop | fucking things up to gobble up more energy. | KennyBlanken wrote: | Utility/grid scale solar isn't just corporate welfare, it's | old thinking regarding centralized production. | | The electrical industry fears becoming a mere 'backup' or | network instead of generation and supply. Or people | disconnecting from the grid entirely, destroying economic | viability of the infrastructure. They're pushing laws in | various states that make a structure uninhabitable if it | doesn't have a grid connection. | | The only reason most people need to still be connected to the | grid are low solar days and peak usage that the panels alone | can't supply. | | In 10 years you'll probably be able to have an iron flow | battery in your basement or backyard that is completely | harmless and can meet peak needs, like running an induction | stove or a heat pump. | | At that point, why do you need a grid connection? You don't. | PaulDavisThe1st wrote: | > At that point, why do you need a grid connection? You | don't. | | I have a 6.7kW ground mount array. It generates 3x our | needs in summer, 0.33 of our winter needs (we heat with | air-source heat pumps). We'd need a battery as big as our | house to deal with that. | [deleted] | sanderjd wrote: | > At that point, why do you need a grid connection? | | Because winter happens? | idiotsecant wrote: | I am an electrical engineer that designs control systems for | renewable power production for a living. | | Curious what makes you think that the overhead and | inefficiencies inherent to a million small solar installs is | somehow better than a single managed facility benefiting from | economy of scale both for maintenance and design. | | Additionally, curious how you plan to address the problem of | adding additional generation to existing way overloaded | distribution systems to accomplish this. If this massive | hypothetical solar install is all non-grid tied then fine, I | guess, but you're losing a substantial amount of the power | that's made that way. | | Distribution systems don't come for free and have many of the | same problems as 'last mile' internet. Not terribly complex | but expensive en masse, particularly in areas that are not | densely populated (which is a lot of the US). | | There is a reason we spend a lot of money on transmission. | Spending a lot of money on distribution helps a very small | part of your network. Spending a lot of money on transmission | helps a huge part of your network. | walrus01 wrote: | In my opinion the greatest benefits for large numbers of | discrete small PV installs (with battery) is in places | where it's uneconomical to extend the grid. | | I'll use some hard to reach parts of WA and BC and OR and | ID for example. You might be able to build a nice | house/cabin on a piece of rural land and find that setting | the poles and running lines to bring basic 100A or 200A | service to that house will cost $40,000. | | For 40k you can build quite a large off grid PV system that | will have a reasonable ROI on it to serve the same loads, | vs. spending 40k one time on construction costs for grid | and then $50 to $200 monthly electric bills recurring for a | long time after that. | | As far as grid tied decentralized power systems do I agree | with you 100%. It is VERY COSTLY in labor and complications | to do something like cover the roof of a Home Depot or | similar warehouse-sized structure in grid feeding PV, as | compared to doing medium-sized to massive scale ground | mount PV on empty land somewhere. | PaulDavisThe1st wrote: | > For 40k you can build quite a large off grid PV system | that will have a reasonable ROI on it to serve the same | loads, vs. spending 40k one time on construction costs | for grid and then $50 to $200 monthly electric bills | recurring for a long time after that. | | Why would such an off-grid system have any monthly | electric bills? Are you just pre-amortizing the cost of | replacement batteries? | | EDIT: I'm an idiot. The bills are for the grid-tied | option. | bombcar wrote: | They're saying that it's 40k once for PV or 40k once for | a grid connection, but then you need to pay the grid | operators monthly. | PaulDavisThe1st wrote: | Ah, thanks. I didn't read carefully enough. | debo_ wrote: | You are not (necessarily) an idiot. Misreading something | doesn't make you stupid! | nonethewiser wrote: | > Curious what makes you think that the overhead and | inefficiencies inherent to a million small solar installs | is somehow better than a single managed facility benefiting | from economy of scale both for maintenance and design. | | Location. Deserts are far from people. 80% of people in the | US live on the east half of the country (and most of these | on the eastern half of that). But even the midpoint is too | far from deserts to use energy from it. | caeril wrote: | Transmission losses are a concern, but this is fairly | irrelevant to the OP's original idea: that of producing | carbon fuels in the desert and then transporting them. | Most populated places in the US are pretty far from | Erath, Louisiana or Cushing, Oklahoma, and we get by just | fine under this arrangement. | unusualmonkey wrote: | > Deserts are far from people | | So... you've not heard of LA or Arizona or Nevada etc? | maxerickson wrote: | My town built a solar install on undeveloped land | adjacent to the airport. That's lower impact than desert | and cheaper than smaller installs would have been. I'm | sure there's lots of situations like that, even in areas | denser than the rural Midwest. | s1artibartfast wrote: | Transmission losses are tiny. Think single digit percent. | | Meanwhile urbal solar is many times more expensive, and | vastly less efficient per panel. | quags wrote: | Not OP but I suspect some comes from what I would view as | the ability to first add solar to where there is existing | infrastructure like parking lots, roofs, telephone poles | etc. These areas are already built out and adding solar on | top of it doesn't take over an untouched eco system. | Deserts are not voids of nothing ness and there is already | a vast impact on the environment already. | chiefalchemist wrote: | > Distribution systems don't come for free and have many of | the same problems as 'last mile' internet. | | Nor does centralized. The grid needs to be upgraded to | handle the significant increase in demand. But more | importantly, over-centralization will mean we're putting | all our energy production in fewer baskets (than we have | now). Decentralized is a form of a redundancy, a form of | backup. It's also a form of independence. | | There's no single silver bullet. We'd be wise to blend, and | blend wisely. And yes, they might have some added financial | costs, but not doing it will surely come at other costs | (e.g., blackouts). | noiceyeha wrote: | Engineering mitigate signal attentuation and paying all the | middle men from Desert->a home thousands of miles away | ain't cheap | imperfect_light wrote: | The problem is that it's become so difficult to tie into the | grid that projects are being cancelled. | | There was a NY Times article on this (http://web.archive.org/ | web/20230226032242/https://www.nytime...) that mentioned that | the PJM Interconnection, the biggest US grid, is not even | accepting new applications for large projects until 2026. | bsder wrote: | > Solar is so much more useful close to where it's consumed, | like rooftops and parking lots. | | Yes and no. | | Yes. In places like Southern California, rooftops and parking | lot solar would do a _great_ job of providing power for mid- | day consumption. | | No. This is far less effective in, say, Seattle or | Pittsburgh. | | However, HVDC links are _really good_ at moving power over | long distances. The US has _lots_ of places that are | effectively completely uninhabited and would make really good | spots for solar farms if they had an HVDC link. | thinkcontext wrote: | > Utility-scale solar power projects like this are just more | corporate welfare boondoggles. | | Rooftop residential is 2x+ times as expensive as utility | scale. Lazard's well regarded annual Levelized Cost of Energy | survey puts the range for utility scale at $24 - $96 MWH vs | $117 - $282 for residential rooftop. | | https://www.lazard.com/research-insights/2023-levelized- | cost... | onlyrealcuzzo wrote: | IIUC, levelized cost of energy DOES NOT include | transmission costs: https://www.re-explorer.org/re-data- | explorer/cost-of-energy/... | | Adding in transmission costs would make non-rooftop solar | 2x+ more expensive... | adventured wrote: | And we should actually be doing both. | | For exactly the same reason we should subsidize the cost of | nuclear energy to ensure a sustained ~25-40% nuclear base, | we should subsidize solar locally (rooftop et al.) and | utility scale. | | The answer isn't either or, it's all of the above. | peter422 wrote: | Also I'd assume the people who physically install rooftop | solar are different than the people doing utility scale | projects. | | We should be doing both! | titzer wrote: | > Rooftop residential is 2x+ times as expensive as utility | scale. | | This may be true, but a residential install does eventually | pay for itself in 5-10 years, and after that, effectively | free power. So it's cheaper and better for consumers. | | How does that work? Oh yeah, it's because they don't have | to pay for the maintenance of the _entire distribution | network_ plus the profits of utility companies. | PaulDavisThe1st wrote: | > it's because they don't have to pay for the maintenance | of the entire distribution network | | How is that going to be paid for? | olyjohn wrote: | Right you just have to pay for maintenance of all of your | own equipment. | pfdietz wrote: | If a residential install pays for itself, it's because | it's gaming the details of the rate structure. That is, | it lets the consumer avoid paying for electricity at the | full retail cost, while still deriving benefit from the | distribution infrastructure those retail costs are | supposed to pay for. This is neither honest nor | sustainable. | thinkcontext wrote: | > This may be true | | So you are admitting its not a corporate boondoggle? | | > but a residential install does eventually pay for | itself in 5-10 years, and after that, effectively free | power. | | LCOE amortizes over the life of the system so that its an | apples to apples comparison. | | > So it's cheaper and better for consumers. | | Its cheaper for the homeowner. Its likely more expensive | for the other ratepayers, especially if there is net | metering or RPS. They have to spend more on storage or | flexible generation to combat the duck curve and have to | make up for the fixed costs that net metering is not | covering plus buy solar generation at the retail rate | instead of wholesale. And its not a good deal for the | taxpayer who is paying for a third of the system price | since they are getting less carbon reduction per dollar | than they would with utility scale. | | That last one combined with RPS has really gotten on my | nerves lately. My city I've seen several panel | installations done on the north side of a gabled roof. | That's such a horrible deal for tax payers. | m463 wrote: | s/desert/unused land/ | | That said, 100 sq miles of desert is 10 miles by 10 miles. | | also, distribution systems are pretty efficient, and power | can be sent from sunny areas to areas with dimmer sun or | clouds. | specialist wrote: | Surely u/bit_logic's enthusiastic phrasing was aspirational | vs literal. | | That said, the bottle neck is now expanding and upgrading the | grid. u/bit_logic is advocating we continue to build new | generators, do not wait for the grid, and use that excess | capacity to create green hydrogen. ASAP. | | aka known as The Correct Answer(tm). | | Here's an interview with Andrew Wang of ETFuels, who is | executing this strategy, with paying customers, today. | | "Making shipping fuel with off-grid renewables" [2023/06/28] | | https://www.volts.wtf/p/making-shipping-fuel-with-off-grid | | https://overcast.fm/+oT_lO0G8Y | kelnos wrote: | * * * | colordrops wrote: | My understanding is that you only need to cover a small | percentage of available desert to cover all needs. | anonuser123456 wrote: | >Solar is so much more useful close to where it's consumed, | like rooftops and parking lots. Utility-scale solar power | projects like this are just more corporate welfare | boondoggles. | | What is more efficient, a utility with dedicated engineers | and technicians who spend their days managing an install or | clueless homeowners who can't even be bothered to clear the | leaves off their panels? | | Installation and management for large scale commercial | companies is _much_ cheaper. Bespoke rooftop installs require | way more permit, engineer, contractor overhead. Oh year and | don't forget to upgrade your roof framing and hope your | installer doesn't ruin your waterproof membrane of your roof. | Have a clay tile roof? There's another 5k in broken roof | tiles. | | Transmission losses are in the noise by comparison. | | And when your components go out... a small potato install can | basically go pound sand. A friend of mine has been out 18 | months b/c LG Chem recalled his battery and hasn't replaced | it! They remotely disabled it, so it can't be used. | | Contrast that with a utility. LG chem would probably have a | dedicated field agent to manage bad batteries for a utility | scale buyer. | | >Deserts have fragile, intricate ecosystems. This fucks them | up. We need to learn to stop fucking things up to gobble up | more energy. | | You know what's worse for desert eco systems than solar | installs? Climate change. Gobbling up 25% of the deserts to | prevent the other 75% from becoming totally uninhabitable | sounds like a bargain to me. | | We need more solar as soon as possible. Messing up the desert | to save the artic and permafrost is a winning bet every time. | nonethewiser wrote: | > Installation and management for large scale commercial | companies is _much_ cheaper. | | Even when you need to transport it thousands of miles? | Thats where most people are in relation to the deserts in | the US. | PaulDavisThe1st wrote: | The tradeoffs: | | 1. we already have a grid | | 2. the US southwest is where the sun is. insolation per | unit of area is crazy high compared to elsewhere, meaning | you need less panels per unit of generating capacity. | anonuser123456 wrote: | 2.5% loss per 1000km. | | 1.45$/w for commercial install | | 2.95$/w for residential install. | | That doesn't include management economies of scale. | | Big chunks of the US can't do solar in the winter, so you | need long range transmission anyway. | walrus01 wrote: | Long distance transmission of massive amounts of electricity | is a solved problem, it just requires funding and political | will to do it. Look at the Pacific DC intertie which takes | power from the massive hydroelectric dams associated with the | Columbia River down to California. | | There is no serious reason why solar power plants in the UT, | CA, NV, NM and AZ deserts can't transmit power 1000 to 1500 | km to far-away loads. | PaulDavisThe1st wrote: | 1500km from those deserts doesn't even begin to reach most | major population centers. It needs to get much further than | that to be impactful on the bulk of the population. | Animats wrote: | This is what modern long distance transmission looks | like.[1] This is a 12 gigawatt line running at 1.2 million | volts. | | China does a lot of this, because the good power sources | are in northwest China, and the big loads are in the | Southeast. | | [1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VZ2KfrP_R3s | ericpauley wrote: | Got numbers to back that up? Intuitively, it is far cheaper | to put solar panels on the ground than bespoke micro-installs | on every roof. | WaxProlix wrote: | > Utility-scale solar power projects like this are just more | corporate welfare boondoggles | | Citation strongly needed. Especially in a context where | turning sun power into carbon-based fuel wouldn't want to be | in a parking lot, but could be near or even colocated with a | large solar installation. | titzer wrote: | Ivanpah (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ivanpah_Solar_Power_ | Facility): $2.2 billion for 392 megawatts, including a $1.6 | billion federal loan guarantee. It'll be profitable (yay!) | | ..but that'd pay for 100,000 - 200,000 residential solar | panel installs that would primarily benefit...residential | homeowners. That'd be a ton of jobs, too. And there'd be no | power-company profits. | | We could crunch numbers on how much more efficient a | utility-scale plant is, but look at the reality of who ends | up with the money and the profits and who has to keep | paying the same damn power bills. | PaulDavisThe1st wrote: | > but that'd pay for 100,000 - 200,000 residential solar | panel installs that would primarily benefit...residential | homeowners. That'd be a ton of jobs, too. And there'd be | no power-company profits. | | If those homes are not grid-tied, good luck with | electrically-powered heat pumps as a winter heat source | during the winter anywhere that has a winter. Not | everyone has (and for the foreseeable, can have) a | Passivhaus. | | So that means the local grid has to be able to accept the | overflow in summer and deliver in winter, which means ... | power-company _involvement_ and likely profits. | atourgates wrote: | My biggest case against utiliy-scale solar is that it | (can) displace important natural ecosystems. Whereas home | or commercial solar nearly always is just displacing | rooftops, or parking lot covers. | Analemma_ wrote: | Ivanpah is a CSP plant; that technology is a dead end and | its cost numbers have nothing to do with PV plants, which | are the only kind which get built now. | | With the benefit of hindsight, Ivanpah should never have | been built, but at the time both CSP and PV looked | competitive, and so it made sense to invest in both. Now | it does not. | Veserv wrote: | That is a solar thermal system not a photovoltaic system. | You are comparing different technologys. | | Last I checked, solar thermal is not a price competitive | utility scale generation technology; photovoltaic is. | That facility was probably funded as a large scale | experiment to investigate the viability of solar thermal | at increasing scales (or corruption). | | The gigawatts of new utility scale PV being brought up | every year are largely privately funded and cheaper than | existing generation sources (in the current context). | hinkley wrote: | I'm sure somewhere along the way someone called the idea of | centralizing power distribution in the first place a | corporate welfare boondoggle. | | After all, why can't these industries generate their own | power, like in the good ole days? | tspike wrote: | This quote from Wendell Berry often occurs to me in these | contexts: | | "One possibility is just to tag along with the fantasists in | government and industry who would have us believe that we can | pursue our ideals of affluence, comfort, mobility, and | leisure indefinitely. | | This curious faith is predicated on the notion that we will | soon develop unlimited new sources of energy: domestic oil | fields, shale oil, gasified coal, nuclear power, solar | energy, and so on. | | This is fantastical because the basic cause of the energy | crisis is not scarcity: it is moral ignorance and weakness of | character. | | We don't know how to use energy or what to use it for. | | And we cannot restrain ourselves. | | Our time is characterized as much by the abuse and waste of | human energy as it is by the abuse and waste of fossil fuel | energy." | anonuser123456 wrote: | Someday, when the last red dwarfs are burning out and all | the black holes have evaporated, the Malthusians will get | their "see we told you so" moment. Thankfully that day | isn't today. | tspike wrote: | > when the last red dwarfs are burning out and all the | black holes have evaporated | | An odd timeline to consider, given the speed with which | this chapter in existence seems to be unfolding. | baron816 wrote: | There are better alternatives than rooftops. Covering canals | and reservoirs works well because it also prevents | evaporation. Farms and grazing land can also be covered with | solar since a lot of plants and animals prefer not to be | under direct sunlight all day. | billythemaniam wrote: | Imagine if every big box store parking lot was covered with | a solar panel roof? Customers walk to the store in shade | and out of rain, cars aren't extremely hot in summer when | customer returns, electricity for EVs right there, excess | can go to grid or batteries, not disruptive to anyone or | ecosystem, large sizes. Obviously someone has to pay for it | which is always the tricky bit. | PaulDavisThe1st wrote: | Here in Santa Fe (and urbanized NM in general), you're | seeing this not in big box parking lots (yet), but in | public building parking lots (including schools). | | It is freakin' awesome. I imagine the 2nd graders at | school around here, growing up with the idea that you can | make electricity from sunlight just as second nature to | them as the internet is to all of us freaks here on HN. | billythemaniam wrote: | Awesome! | jrockway wrote: | > Solar is so much more useful close to where it's consumed | | I'm not really worried about this. Humanity has already | invented the greatest utility-scale battery. Pump water | uphill when it's sunny. Let it flow back down, through a | turbine, when it's dark out. No lithium needed! | | People often talk about the space required for pumped hydro, | but it's probably a lot less than all the shopping mall | parking lots in America. | ebiester wrote: | On the coasts, I think that's viable. | | It's not viable where water is a valuable resource. | dumpsterdiver wrote: | I wonder how efficiently a similar solar powered lift | system would work for a "dirt battery"? | | The *dirt battery I have in mind would be a vertical | pulley system with small dirt scoops spaced at regular | intervals. The scoops would pull dirt from the bottom of | the pulley system and bring the material to the top were | it is dumped into a mechanically locked, very large | container. Over time the container would fill up, and | when that stored energy is needed the container could be | unlocked, at which point it would power a clockwork of | turbines on its way down. | | Thoughts, critiques? | Armisael16 wrote: | It's less efficient than normal electric batteries and | will take up far more space. | | Gravitational storage only works in the very particular | case of water, where moving it is downhill nearly | perfectly efficient and free, and where you can also get | free energy from things like rivers feeding in. | sanderjd wrote: | I'm slightly confused by this so I think I might just be | missing a critical piece of the puzzle: Wouldn't natural gas | plants burning synthetic carbon fuels still emit some portion | of that carbon into the atmosphere? | numbers_guy wrote: | In theory the carbon would be sequestrated from the | atmosphere. In practice that is very energy intensive. | Manuel_D wrote: | Yes, but it'd be net-zero based on the carbon used to produce | the fuel. In theory at least, in practice most synthetic | methane has only been produced by scavenging CO2 byproducts | from the chemical industry. It's not truly net-zero rather | it's releasing CO2 that would have been emitted anyway. CO2 | is in too small concentrations in the atmosphere to | effectively capture. | sanderjd wrote: | What I was missing was that the assumption here is that the | input carbon is being sucked out of the air. As you point | out, that isn't the only way to get it... | bobthepanda wrote: | Synthesis of carbon fuels from what's already in the air is | theoretically net-neutral if you use clean energy to do it; | you're just taking what's there, and putting back what you | took. | | The main issue with fossil fuel is that we are burning | embodied carbon from millions of years ago, throwing the | present system out of whack. | sanderjd wrote: | Ah! I see, you mean carbon capture and utilization as | synthetic fuel. Yeah I think that's a good idea to pursue, | though I have a lot of skepticism that it will be able to | scale faster than other stuff that's going on (like battery | storage and enhanced geothermal). | bobthepanda wrote: | We do have applications where batteries don't seem like | they can solve fundamental physics issues. | | Batteries are too heavy for cargo ships to float, and too | heavy for planes to fly. The only other real credible | alternative is hydrogen, which has been trying to get off | the ground for about three decades now. And of course we | have all the extant hydrocarbon infrastructure that would | need to be duplicated. | sanderjd wrote: | You'll note that I didn't say we should use batteries for | everything :) I think synthetic fuels are a great idea | and I look forward to watching how the whole competitive | landscape plays out between those and hydrogen-based | solutions and (maybe??) really small nuclear. | anon84873628 wrote: | Not to mention all the combustion engines that already | exist around the world. Just look at the prevalence of | motor bikes in India and Southeast Asia. Can we really | replace all of them with electric tech? Synthetic fuels | or ethanol are a drop in replacement. | JumpCrisscross wrote: | > _pair it to use excess energy for carbon fuels synthesis_ | | Is _de novo_ gasoline or diesel synthesis profitable at | proximate prices? | _hypx wrote: | It depends on whether direct air capture of CO2 can be cost | effective. If so, then it can happen. E-fuels will just be | renewable energy plus water and air. That is likely to be | pretty cheap. If DAC isn't doable, then it probably can't be | profitable. | ant6n wrote: | No. And its a huge waste of energy. E-fuels are more likely a | fairy tale you tell people so they won't buy electric cars. | | Where I live, the fossil gas industry has been running ads | promoting green hydrogen, and of course fossil gas as a clean | "bridge technology" to H2. So just keep running that gas | heating system, cuz it'll switchover to H2, for sure, at some | decade in the future. | codingdave wrote: | We also need to stop asking if it is profitable to save | humanity. | xyzzyz wrote: | No, this is very wrong. You always need to be asking this, | because you want to be using the most effective approach | towards your goals, and price signals are irreplaceable | tool to determine the effectiveness. | JumpCrisscross wrote: | > _We also need to stop asking if it is profitable to save | humanity_ | | Profitability approximates economic sustainability. | | If this fuel costs $100/gallon, it's cheaper and thus more | sustainable to aggressively subsidize EVs before | synthesising fuel. If, on the other hand, it costs | $6/gallon, funding its production with a tax on fossil | fuels makes sense. | | Rejecting reality "to save humanity" is a false economy. | HDThoreaun wrote: | Absolutely wrong. If it isn't profitable it won't happen, | society will just choose to kill itself. We need to make it | profitable. | phkahler wrote: | >> We should be blanketing every inch of desert with solar. | | Has anyone solved the water problem? You know, cleaning all | those dusty panels. | ke88y wrote: | https://news.mit.edu/2022/solar-panels-dust-magnets-0311 | FollowingTheDao wrote: | > What is industry good at? Mass producing a lot of stuff. We | can do that now with solar. | | No, we can't. Because the U.S gets the majority of its goods | from China [1]. So we have to get China to install all those | panels. | | [1] https://ustr.gov/countries-regions | | We need to consume less. Please start consuming less, ok? | FollowingTheDao wrote: | :_^( | xyzzyz wrote: | > We should be blanketing every inch of desert with solar. And | pair it to use excess energy for carbon fuels synthesis. | | Is there any EROEI analysis for this approach? Direct air | capture of carbon is rather energy intensive, because CO2 | concentration in the air is really rather low, whereas making | solar panel is very energy expensive. If we can't get enough | _useful_ energy from the panels during their expected lifetime, | we shouldn't be blanketing deserts with those. | | Also, blanketing the deserts with panels is difficult due to | environmental regulations, read eg. about desert tortoises at | Ivanpah, and the cost of their relocation. If we want to use | deserts to generate energy, first we need to solve the problem | of environmental regulations blocking it. | numbsafari wrote: | > solve the problem of environmental regulations blocking it | | Or, like, come up with solutions to the environmental | externalities posed by blanketing anything with solar panels. | xyzzyz wrote: | There is no guarantee that this is possible. | | For example, if farming didn't already exist, it would | probably be illegal to start it, because of how turning big | patches of earth into monoculture completely destroys | preexisting ecosystems. There is no known effective way to | mitigate this damage, efficient farming at scale requires | this, and inefficient methods will require more land and | likely cause more damage. | | Similarly, blanketing deserts with solar panels will very | much significantly damage existing fragile desert | ecosystems. You can maybe avoid some of the negative | aspects by carefully chosen procedures, but in general, | there is no way around it. | | The question is whether the specter of environmental | destruction will hold us hostage, and allow other, | grandfathered environmental destruction to proceed. | anon84873628 wrote: | Permaculture people would probably argue about the higher | productivity of permaculture systems (which theoretically | have a better shot at maintaining/mimicking natural | ecosystems) versus standard monoculture farming. The | problem is that permaculture outputs don't fit neatly | into the existing industrialized food supply chain. | | In theory we could produce more food and fuel while | preserving diverse ecosystems, but it would require | refactoring our entire conception of what we eat, how it | is produced & preserved, distributed, etc... | xyzzyz wrote: | "Permaculture" is just a meme among hobby farmers with an | environmental knack, it's simply not possible to feed the | people this way (whatever permaculture actually is in | practice, as it seems to mean something different every | time I hear about it), and even then it still destroys | the preexisting ecosystems. | | > The problem is that permaculture outputs don't fit | neatly into the existing industrialized food supply | chain. | | No, that's not a problem, "food supply chain" will buy | produce from you with not a lot of concern of how you | have grown it, as long as it meats the specs. The problem | with "permaculture" kind of stuff is that it simply | doesn't produce adequate amounts of food, relative to | required investment of labor. That's the problem with it, | not "industrial supply chain". | | > In theory we could produce more food and fuel while | preserving diverse ecosystems, but it would require | refactoring our entire conception of what we eat, how it | is produced & preserved, distributed, etc... | | I hear this kind of vague stuff often, but rarely any | concrete proposals. Whenever I do, these almost always | involve reducing the human population to a fraction of | existing population, and have the remaining ones consume | only a fraction of what people consume today, with higher | labor investment required from each. This is, obviously, | a non-starter, which is why actual, concrete proposals | are not forthcoming. | Plasmoid wrote: | Quick napkin math. | | Direct air capture is about $300-$600/ton of CO2. The numbers | for this are terrible as everyone is posting estimates of | what it'll cost by 2030. So let's pick $300/ton of CO2. | | If we could convert captured CO2 directly into gasoline, it | would have a market price of $170. This is already pretty | problematic because I'm ignoring the cost of getting the | hydrogen for gasoline, or the fast that 75% of CO2 is useless | oxygen. | | More realistically, there is $60 worth of gasoline in that | ton of CO2. And you still need to pay to get those hydrogen | molecules. | JumpCrisscross wrote: | > _Direct air capture of carbon is rather energy intensive_ | | How does it compare to letting plants do the capture? | anonuser123456 wrote: | So like... grow switch grass, harvest it and burn it to | harvest the flu gas co2? | JumpCrisscross wrote: | > _grow switch grass, harvest it and burn it to harvest | the flu gas co2_ | | Idk if you burn it. Digest it, maybe, into a fuel or | whatnot. My point is biomass is a more-familiar | industrial input than whatever comes out of direct-air | capture . | anonuser123456 wrote: | co2 is pretty valuable as feedstock. If you burn it , you | can recover the potassium and phosphorus to reseed the | next batch. | anon84873628 wrote: | Well once you have the grass you could just ferment it | into ethanol... An option that has been available to us | this entire time... | ebiester wrote: | That works for things like E85, but does not for airplane | fuel or diesel or natural gas or... | | The density of ethanol is the issue, no? | Veserv wrote: | The price of a good is almost always higher than the price of | the energy invested (usually significantly). Solar panels are | used for generating energy. Therefore, if a solar panel is | profitable to buy and operate, then it almost certainly | generates more energy than it cost to produce. | | Solar panels are profitable and are one of the cheapest | marginal sources of power in many places. Therefore, solar | panels are almost certainly net positive. | | Synthetic fuel generation is probably not in the current | environment. Storage is not a major problem yet at the | current power generation mix. It may become competitive if | storage becomes a problem, or if solar drops in price by 66% | or more. | JumpCrisscross wrote: | "Factoring in FERC's forecasts for hydropower, geothermal, and | biomass, renewable energy sources would expand from today's | 28.01% of installed generating capacity to 33.85% - i.e., over a | third - by May 2026." | asdefghyk wrote: | This is good. A BIG problem, with renewable energy is storing | large amounts of it until it is wanted to be used, when sun not | shining and or wind not blowing. Batteries are expensive, ( have | limited capacity compared to the total supply needed) and need to | be regularly replaced. The need for upgraded/ new transmission | lines and network infrastructure is another large cost. | tamaharbor wrote: | And adding zero base load capacity to the grid. | dpierce9 wrote: | The growth rate of this installed capacity is just astounding. | Lots to say about timing, land use, tax incentives, stranded | costs, etc but it is truly remarkable just how much steel/silicon | has been put in the ground over the last decade. | dynamorando wrote: | I realize that this article is about Wind + Solar, but given this | breakthrough, can anyone who is an authority on the subject | explain if EGS is also set to take off? | | https://www.cnbc.com/2023/07/18/fervo-energy-hits-milestone-... | bryanlarsen wrote: | Note that this is the raw number, it doesn't account for the low | capacity factor of wind and solar. In other word it doesn't | account for the fact that solar doesn't produce power at night, | etc. So it might not be 25% of the energy produced. Although | it'll probably get close -- the capacity factor of other sources | is well below 100% and dropping quickly because of competition | from cheaper sources like wind & solar. For example, the capacity | factor of coal plants in the US is only 60%, not much better than | wind's. | hanniabu wrote: | > solar doesn't produce power at night | | I've always wondered, if we had a huge solar farm in a nevada | or arizona desert, could we have a satellite with a mirror lens | to redirect sun from above the horizon down to the panels so | they can generate power throughout the night as well? | nonethewiser wrote: | That's a very interesting concept. Even completely putting | solar aside. Im just imagining a cluster of satellites | redirecting light at will to make it daytime whenever we | want. | mbgerring wrote: | Why do people keep writing comments like this as if utility | scale batteries don't exist? | mschaef wrote: | Because they don't at close to the necessary scale. This site | shows a projected July load profile for ERCOT (Texas) in | 2035: | | https://www.spglobal.com/marketintelligence/en/news- | insights... | | Note that Storage contributes for about four hours and at its | peak comprises less than 7% of the total load serving | capacity in the state. | | I'm not saying batteries don't exist and aren't useful, but | the scale is very small at the moment. Too small to be a | comprehensive way to balance out the low load factors of Wind | and solar. (Which are also a useful but incomplete component | of the overall electrical portfolio.) | ZeroGravitas wrote: | Going by that projection, they should build a lot more | solar and wind rather than worry about batteries. | Aperocky wrote: | They exist and are finite in cycles. | aaronax wrote: | It costs somewhere around $300/kwh to build utility-scale | storage. Say they can cycle 3000 times. We find that just the | storage costs $0.10/kwh, which is in the range of generation | costs themselves (probably double wholesale generation | costs). So one cannot assume to be able to cheaply store | power in utility-scale batteries. | bryanlarsen wrote: | That 3000 number is 0 - 100 - 0 cycles. You can get almost | an order of magnitude more by using the sweet spot of the | battery: 20 - 80 - 20 for standard nickel Li-ion batteries, | and 30-100-30 for LiFePO4 batteries. | biomcgary wrote: | Is that an order of magnitude of cycles or energy | throughput? | bryanlarsen wrote: | Cycles. Li-ion goes from ~600 -> ~3000, LiFePO4 from | ~2000 -> ~9000. So "order of magnitude" is a bit of an | exaggeration, and the 5x reduces to 3x when you use | energy instead of cycles. But 3x is still pretty | significant... | Pxtl wrote: | The day/night performance of Solar is pretty interesting in the | South, where solar's cycle nicely correlates with air- | conditioning. | bryanlarsen wrote: | In Texas they're currently seeing some solar plants producing | above nameplate capacity exactly at the time when air | conditioning demand is at record levels. | jillesvangurp wrote: | There's a simple technology called a battery that is being | produced at twh scale per year now that addresses this. On | sunny days, charge the batteries from sunrise until sunset. | And then people can cook, run the AC, etc. Fairly easy | problem to solve. Charge during the day, cool at night. | Battery prices keep on getting more and more attractive. | | Solar in the US is easy. Most of the US is south of most of | Europe. If people in Germany at 52.5 (Berlin) degrees | latitude can economically use solar, it should be no issue | whatsoever for people at 40.7 degrees latitude (New York). | Not to mention those lucky people blessed with long, warm | sunny winter days at 25 degrees latitude (Miami), 29.7 | (Houston) or 37 degrees latitude (San Francisco). Plenty of | light there all year round. Most of the US actually matches | Northern Africa in terms of latitude. Marakesh for example | would be at 31 degrees latitude. That means a relatively | stable and longish amount of time between sunrise and sun | set. About 9 hours of daylight in New York around | Christmas. More for anything south of there. Texas should | be more than fine. There's a reason temperatures are so | toasty there in the summer. It's at the same latitude as | the Sahara desert. Plenty of light in other words. | | For most of the US, solar should be usable throughout the | year. It being cold doesn't mean it's dark. Also, solar | panels actually work better when they are cool. So cold | temperatures and sunny days are a good combination. Clouds | are more of an issue, of course. But they are more of a | local thing and they you don't have those every day. And | even they let through some light. If you have to wear sun | glasses to protect your eyes when you go skiing, it's an | excellent day to be generating solar power as well. | smileysteve wrote: | We also have new battery technologies (suitable for grid | style storage). | | Such as Vanadium Redox flow batteries; | | There was a big push for local salt reactors for cities | or neighborhoods, but Vanadium Redox flow batteries could | be a local solution to level demand from Solar/Wind -- or | more simply, to balance load during the day; ie run ACs | off of liquid batteries that charged last night. | nonethewiser wrote: | Winter is not only worse for solar because the sun is | less intense, but also because its cloudier. | colechristensen wrote: | At 45 degrees north solar also nicely correlates with air | conditioning needs. | abfan1127 wrote: | it does not cycle well with heat in the North though. | baridbelmedar wrote: | It will also be interesting to follow how the development | of solar and wind power will affect the stability of the | electricity grid and the ability to prevent large | fluctuations in frequency. | est31 wrote: | Even outside of air conditioning, generally the demand is | higher during the day than during the night. It's often off | by one hour or so though as there is often a peak in the | evening. | FollowingTheDao wrote: | That is a huge guestamate by the "SUN DAY" campaign which is | funded by who...? | | Also, "on track to provide a quarter of the nation's installed | electrical generating capacity within three years." is a way to | make something sound much bigger than it is. | | If you look at this chart you get a better idea of the real | picture: https://www.eia.gov/todayinenergy/detail.php?id=56980 | harryvederci wrote: | Meanwhile in Scotland: | | https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-56530424 | hazelnut wrote: | to save you a click: "Renewables met 97% of Scotland's | electricity demand in 2020" | | great job, Scotland! | onpointed wrote: | Capacity is not measured output, right? | mywittyname wrote: | No. Capacity is reported in Watts, but usage is reported in | Watt-hours. | | While coal has considerably less capacity (~60%) than | renewables, but coal generates nearly as many kilowatt hours as | renewables do. | | https://www.eia.gov/energyexplained/electricity/electricity-... | | Annoyingly the charts are misleading as generating capacity | separates hydro from other renewables, yet actual generation | figures combine the two. | SoftTalker wrote: | Is this servicing new demand or is it replacing fossil-fuel | generation? | dymk wrote: | Both | bryanlarsen wrote: | There's a third answer -- it could be increasing the resiliency | of the grid. In other words, it could be increasing the gap | between supply and demand so the grid can better handle times | of exceptional demand and/or supply outages. | | And the answer is all three, but mainly the third. Some coal | plants are getting shut down, but many coal plants are still | online but are being idled more often. | legitster wrote: | The US is actually very well situated for green power. | | As comparison, Germany installed one of the largest solar and | wind systems in the world - however being not particularly sunny | nor windy, it's only generating about 54% of its rated capacity: | https://spectrum.ieee.org/germanys-energiewende-20-years-lat... | | Germany, one of the largest national investors in green power in | the world, is only _keeping up_ with the US on decarbonization. | WheatMillington wrote: | America also has a lot more headroom to decarbonise, as per | capita emissions are almost twice that of Germany. So not quite | time to pat oneself on the back. | throwbadubadu wrote: | If Germany doing it moved the rest it was still well invested | even if not intentional... and 50% is not bad, just need twice | as much. | mywittyname wrote: | > FERC foresees a net decline of 1,564-MW in natural gas | generating capacity over the next three years in addition to a | drop of 19,966-MW in coal capacity. | | EIA.gov reports coal capacity is 198 million kilowatts, so, | unless my math is wrong, that's ~10.0% of total coal capacity. | (19,966 MW = 2.00e7 kilowatts vs 1.98e8) | | I do wonder if recent political trends were considered. Lots of | "coal country" states are doing everything they can to curb | adoption of renewables and I believe WV is looking to subsidize | coal. | | Edit: corrected billion to million - OG calcs were off by a | factor of 3. | philipkglass wrote: | _EIA.gov reports coal capacity is 198 billion kilowatts_ | | Are you perhaps misremembering units? A billion kilowatts is a | terawatt. 198 terawatts is more electrical generating capacity | than exists in the whole world. As of November 2022 the EIA | says the US had 200,568 megawatts of coal capacity: | | https://www.eia.gov/todayinenergy/detail.php?id=54559 | | That would mean that about 10 percent of US coal capacity is | going to retire over the next 3 years. | mywittyname wrote: | I plucked the data from here [0], so no misremembering on my | part. US Capacity Generation by Major Source: 2022 Coal | 198.00 billion kilowatts. | | However, I don't guarantee that I didn't misplace a decimal | point. Honestly, the point of my comment was to get someone | to double-check my work because it didn't feel right. | | https://www.eia.gov/energyexplained/electricity/electricity-. | .. | | Edit: doh - I used billion when it said million. | two_handfuls wrote: | Honestly I was hoping for more. | FredPret wrote: | Life can always be more wonderful. Doesn't mean it's not pretty | great already | Synaesthesia wrote: | There's no reason why China should be leading the U.S. in | transitioning to green, it just shows that it can be done. | Lots of European countries did it too. | [deleted] | adam_arthur wrote: | Economics are what will drive renewables adoption. | | People can try to convince others of the importance all they | want, but once renewables are cost competitive with fossil fuels, | the majority will switch of their own volition... no convincing | needed. EVs are already on the cusp of this | | Of course everything is a bit reflexive... less dependency on Oil | will drive lower oil prices and vice versa. | Synaesthesia wrote: | Maybe the government should stop subsidising fossil fuels, just | a thought. | PaulDavisThe1st wrote: | You need the technology in place to deal with the fact that | solar and wind are not demand-based systems (so, basically, | storage). That goes beyond the generation cost, and prevents | switching even if generation cost is far lower. ___________________________________________________________________ (page generated 2023-07-24 23:01 UTC)