this post was submitted on 17 Sep 2025
258 points (98.5% liked)

Technology

75258 readers
3558 users here now

This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.


Our Rules


  1. Follow the lemmy.world rules.
  2. Only tech related news or articles.
  3. Be excellent to each other!
  4. Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
  5. Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
  6. Politics threads may be removed.
  7. No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
  8. Only approved bots from the list below, this includes using AI responses and summaries. To ask if your bot can be added please contact a mod.
  9. Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed
  10. Accounts 7 days and younger will have their posts automatically removed.

Approved Bots


founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
 

Neat breakdown with data + some code.

(page 2) 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] acchariya@lemmy.world 6 points 12 hours ago (15 children)

It's practical for someone with limited space for panels on a small room, but I ran these calculations by moving almost all loads to daytime, sizing the panel array to the (minimum daily usage + efficiency losses) * buffer factor for days long storms or equipment failure.

Start with the comparitively cheap panels if you have the space, move electrical loads to the daytime and design the house for thermal momentum, and size storage to the minimum inclusive efficiency losses times buffer. If you have the roof space the panels are the cheapest part and you should usually way, way over panel.

The most important thing is having thermal mass enough or living in a climate that allows your home to not need thermal input or extraction at night. Heat is expensive and exponentially moreso if you need to produce it from conventional storage.

load more comments (15 replies)
[–] humanspiral@lemmy.ca 2 points 12 hours ago (3 children)
  1. Is HVAC excluded?
  2. Do you have an EV?

With an EV you can have 80%-90% of days covered, and top up with EV. You also get to dump daily surpluses into EV, and you can think of covering winter heating with solar and a heat pump. Easier if you have a fireplace for extreme cold possibility.

Storing heat with fall surpluses is path to get winter heating covered. Heat pump can make hot water very efficiently, and resistance heating can make a pile of dirt 300+C. Radiant floor heating is most efficient because water is distributed around 30C. This means your 90C water volume is 60C effective heat storage that is generated at 600% efficiency in fall, and 300% efficiency in typical UK winter, and your dirt heat storage can be 5x more dense.

A 2nd EV even if not frequently used during the day can be an attractive option, especially if used, and tax credits will go away soon, or have gone away (makes used prices lower) can be much easier than home batteries, and much cheaper if it remains uninsured/unused, and resale value doesn't go down much because of few miles driven. Where utility service includes a high fixed monthly charge, ($50/month in Toronto), $12000 over 20 years savings creates high incentive to remove electric utility. Gas utility has similar fixed vs variable equation, but for Toronto, heat is somewhat reasonable from high supply on our continent.

load more comments (3 replies)
[–] kalkulat@lemmy.world 8 points 17 hours ago (1 children)

Author's diagram is about summer. Fall, winter, spring is about heating-degree days. If you're heating your home with electricity, you'll not get there with batteries.

So, working towards a solution, there are other ways to store excess energy than in batteries. One example is sand, which can be heated to very high temperatures. Insulate a sand container well and its storage can do a lot of home-heating.

Example: https://www.livescience.com/technology/engineering/a-scalding-hot-sand-battery-is-now-heating-a-small-finnish-town

We'll need to put a lot of different methods into use. There are many practical ideas out there, and they'll need to be tried.

[–] bstix@feddit.dk 5 points 14 hours ago* (last edited 14 hours ago) (5 children)

The sand storage is used for district heating. It's not much of a substitute for single homes that have electrical heating or are off-grid.

It's a great way to balance both the electrical and the heating grids so that more electricity from renewables can be used to offset other means of heat production, but it needs to be done by the district heating supplier. I doubt it makes sense for individual houses.

[–] AA5B@lemmy.world 1 points 8 hours ago* (last edited 8 hours ago) (2 children)

When I was a kid my parents had electric resistance heat with some very effective thermal storage.

Each room had a unit about the size of a typical radiator. The unit was basically an insulated box with a small circulation fan. I’m not sure what was inside but always assumed some form of brick - they weren’t expensive so it couldn’t be anything exotic. At night when electric rates were low, whatever was inside the units was heated up. During the day, the only power usage was a small circulation fan controlled by the thermostat.

I just got a heat pump installed and thought thermal storage would be worth considering since I was also looking into solar, but contractors acted like they never heard of it, and there really didn’t seem to be any consumer units available.

The solar panels are another story. I don’t see how such a scammy (in the us) industry even exists. They make it really hard to give them my money

[–] bstix@feddit.dk 1 points 8 hours ago (1 children)

Very old heaters used to contain lots of asbestos. It might have worked well.

load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments (4 replies)
[–] PowerCrazy@lemmy.ml 15 points 20 hours ago* (last edited 20 hours ago) (39 children)

Something very important that anti-nuclear but otherwise environmental minded people should realize is this sentence: " There's no practical way to build domestic batteries with this capacity using the technology of 2025."
Also applies to grid storage. There does not exist a chemical energy storage solution that can substitute for "baseload" power. It's purely theoretical much like fusion power. Sure maybe in 50 years, but right now IT DOESN'T EXIST. Economically, practically, or even theoretically.

Why do I bring this up? Because I've seen too many people think that solar and wind can replace all traditional power plants. But if you are anti-nuclear, you are just advocating for more fossil fuels. Every megawatt of wind or solar, has a megawatt of coal or gas behind it and thus we are increasing our greenhouse gas emission everytime we build "green" generation unless we also build Nuclear power plants. /soapbox

[–] echodot@feddit.uk 12 points 19 hours ago (4 children)

It's very infuriating talking to people about this because they never really accept that nuclear power is necessary. They spend all their time complaining about how it's dangerous (it isn't) and how it's very expensive, and how you don't have a lot of control over its output capacity. And yeah, all of those are true, but so what, the only other option is to burn some dead trees which obviously we don't want to do.

Just because nuclear has downsides doesn't mean you can ignore it, unless of course you want to invent fusion just to spite me, in which case I'll be fine with that.

[–] frezik@lemmy.blahaj.zone 2 points 13 hours ago (2 children)

This has been studied, and we don't need nuclear. All the solutions are sitting right there.

https://www.amazon.com/No-Miracles-Needed-Technology-Climate/dp/1009249541

[–] echodot@feddit.uk 4 points 12 hours ago (1 children)

Well I'm not going to buy the book to find out what they are so all I'm going to go ahead and say is this. Yes there are solutions such as battery storage (although they do tend to be extremely explodey) and using the power to pump water around, or using mirrors to heat up salt in insulated containers, but they are all very specific solutions that will only work in very particular situations, which we don't always have.

load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments (1 replies)
[–] PowerCrazy@lemmy.ml 8 points 18 hours ago (9 children)

The new tack is to conflate nuclear energy with fossil fuels. As in assuming that nuclear energy is "legacy" power generation, and that obviously we need to use modern gernation like solar and wind, and magical grid-level storage technologies that don't exist. Also ignore that baseload power is still required, and is currently fulfilled with Natural Gas and Coal.

load more comments (9 replies)
load more comments (2 replies)
load more comments (38 replies)
load more comments
view more: ‹ prev next ›