/sci/ - Science & Math » Thread #12195110

3MiB, 960x540, solar_farm.webm

View Same Google iqdb SauceNAO

Solar Energy

Anonymous Mon 05 Oct 08:01:58 2020 No.12195110 View Reply Original Report

Will solar energy ever be viable instead of being a meme?

>prices stagnating
>efficiency slowing down
>weather dependent
>day/night dependent
>requires replacing often
>no real way to store energy

How much longer do you anticipate it'll take for solar energy to be at the forefront of clean energy, cheap, efficient, and available for all?

Anonymous

Anonymous Mon 05 Oct 2020 09:03:50 No.12195170 Report

Quoted By: >>12195235

>>12195110
When batteries that have at least 10-20 times the specific energy of current batteries are cheap and easy to manufacture

Anonymous

Anonymous Mon 05 Oct 2020 09:20:58 No.12195203 Report

Quoted By: >>12195233 >>12195280 >>12195339 >>12195352 >>12201249 >>12206599 >>12207328 >>12208224

>>12195110
>prices stagnating
per cell, yes
per power unit, no
>efficiency slowing down
20% in 20 years
>weather dependent
every energy source has advantages and disadvantages
>day/night dependent
every energy source has advantages and disadvantages
>requires replacing often
every 20 years and it doesn't stop working, just produces less than 80% of original
>no real way to store energy
so same as with other energy sources

you are a retard who doesn't know what he is talking about
solar energy is not an universal solution, but it is a great addition to other sources and a great tool for specific tasks

Anonymous

Anonymous Mon 05 Oct 2020 09:38:04 No.12195233 Report

Quoted By:

>>12195203
SPBP

Anonymous

Anonymous Mon 05 Oct 2020 09:39:07 No.12195235 Report

Quoted By: >>12197158

>>12195170
>10-20 times the specific energy of current batteries
that's not going to happen
laws of physics don't let you can't store chemical energy much denser than what we currently have

And in grid storage it absolutely doesn't matter if battery weighs 20 or 1 kg when it's sitting in a warehouse somewhere. The house built around the battery pack is the cheapest item of the whole energy storage facility.
Price/longevity is better point to make. Na-ion or NaK is promising as cheaper alternative to Li-ion with only disadvantage being higher weigh. Problem is, nobody is building storage stations (yet), therefore nobody is making these at reasonable scale.

Anonymous

Anonymous Mon 05 Oct 2020 09:58:01 No.12195280 Report

Quoted By: >>12195612

>>12195203
>solar energy is not an universal solution, but it is a great addition to other sources and a great tool for specific tasks
I am not an expert, but I will agree with your opinion.
In addition, solar energy seems to be under-exploited for the moment. So we should push and favor solar energy.

Concerning the storage, I am pretty sure that if it becomes an issue (too much produce at some point, not enough at others), the market will find adequate solution.
For example, you can use dam (pumping water when the energy price is low, releasing water (and current) when the price is high).
We are already doing that in Switzerland... the problem is that the market is such a mess right now, that this strategy is not economically viable now. It might change if we switch from coal/gas to solar.

Anonymous

Anonymous Mon 05 Oct 2020 10:16:50 No.12195331 Report

Quoted By: >>12210447

>>12195110
Life is thriving for 4bn years solely on solar energy.
I don't think viability should be in question on the topic.

Anonymous

Anonymous Mon 05 Oct 2020 10:21:27 No.12195339 Report

Quoted By:

>>12195203
This.

It's too rainy to be effective where I live, but if you live near the equator it can easily be economical and even ideal, especially for personal use.

Anonymous

Anonymous Mon 05 Oct 2020 10:22:06 No.12195342 Report

Quoted By: >>12195370 >>12201809

>>12195110
im just curious if fusion becomes i think wont solar just go the way of the dodo. Why would need solar panels when you can have multiple suns on earth producing near limitless cheap clean energy

Anonymous

Anonymous Mon 05 Oct 2020 10:27:13 No.12195352 Report

Quoted By: >>12198262 >>12199093

>>12195203
fossil fuel is stored energy you fucktard.

Anonymous

Anonymous Mon 05 Oct 2020 10:31:13 No.12195366 Report

Quoted By:

>>12195110
Its a stop gap secondary power supply. A useful supplement for now. However sooner or later it will be dropped as reality bites and people demand cheap clean and reliable energy, which only nuclear can provide at the moment.

Anonymous

Anonymous Mon 05 Oct 2020 10:33:09 No.12195370 Report

Quoted By: >>12201153 >>12201809 >>12208224

>>12195342
>im just curious if fusion becomes i think wont solar just go the way of the dodo
Yes, if we discover a cheaper and abundant source of energy, previous energy sources will become useless.
Also, if we undergo an spiritual awakening and human souls become disconnected from material body, then all energy sources will become useless.

But in both cases, this will not happen in a close future. So we should focus on solar energy.

Anonymous

Anonymous Mon 05 Oct 2020 10:34:56 No.12195374 Report

Quoted By:

>>12195110
Will it make sens to have massive transnational grid?
Producing solar energy for example in Morroc and transporting it to Europe.
Or having the solar production split on different timeline?

Or we will loose too much energy in transport?

Anonymous

Anonymous Mon 05 Oct 2020 10:38:46 No.12195381 Report

Quoted By: >>12195403

>>12195110
>Will solar energy ever be viable instead of being a meme?
Yes, as the technology further develops.
>How much longer do you anticipate it'll take for solar energy to be at the forefront of clean energy, cheap, efficient, and available for all?
It will never and should never become the forefront. It should be used in assistance with other clean energy measures.

In my oppinion, the small, modular, thorium reactor is one of the best candidates for how we draw energy in the future. They can be deployed all over and are magnitudes safer than the (already pretty safe) standard nuclear reactor.

Anonymous

Anonymous Mon 05 Oct 2020 11:07:49 No.12195403 Report

Quoted By: >>12205838 >>12206259

>>12195381

According to Sorensen, during a documentary interview, he states that if the US had not discontinued its research in 1974 it could have "probably achieved energy independence by around 2000."[15]

-https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thorium-based_nuclear_power

Anonymous

Anonymous Mon 05 Oct 2020 12:01:39 No.12195472 Report

Quoted By: >>12196596

>>12195110
It already is.

Anonymous

Anonymous Mon 05 Oct 2020 13:04:54 No.12195612 Report

Quoted By: >>12196578

>>12195280
The market will not just magically solve the storage problem. Pumped hydro cannot store enough energy to solve the problem even in areas where you have the geography to support pumped hydro, which is uncommon in the first place. Go ahead and do the math yourself if you don't believe me. You need to store on the order of a MWh per MW of average solar capacity.
The only actual solution is batteries, and adding battery to solar makes it cost prohibitive by a lot. It makes nuclear look cheap.
Solar can only be used to take a chunk out of the mid-day load, reducing demand from load following gas plants in that time window. This results in a duck curve, which is a huge pain in the ass to manage. It requires you to add more more peaking capacity. If your local grid isn't attached to a very large hydroelectric dam, that means building more inefficient peaking gas plants which can ramp their output up and down almost entirely a couple times a day.
Solar is an enormous pain in the ass. Wind isn't any better unless you build them offshore, and nobody who owns beach property will let you install a farm of any significance in their view.

Anonymous

Anonymous Mon 05 Oct 2020 13:06:20 No.12195615 Report

Quoted By: >>12195680

>>12195110
They should just make hydrogen when there is surplus of electricity.

Anonymous

Anonymous Mon 05 Oct 2020 13:44:05 No.12195680 Report

Quoted By: >>12195777 >>12206843

>>12195615
Hydrogen is a terrible storage medium. It has shit density, shit conversion efficiency, is dangerous and embrittles materials.
What we should be doing is building nuclear plants solely to produce light liquid hydrocarbons. You can use normally wasted heat to help crack CO2 and water to make benzene and ethylene.
A problem of nuclear is that there's lots of waste heat and another is that you can't ramp output up and down quickly to mach grid demand. Both are solved by overbuilding nuclear by a factor of two and using excess thermal and electrical energy in bolted on hydrocarbon synthesis plants. These fuels can then be used in aircraft, which can never use batteries as batteries do not get lighter as you fly like hydrocarbon fuel does. You can also use the hydrocarbons to make plastics and lubricants. This would make a nuclear plant a sort of anti-fossil fuel plant. If CO2 is really a big problem (and it is) then you could easily offset the very low chance of a disaster with the large global environmental benefits of removing CO2 from the air and water. Jet fuel would of course not be sequestered, but plastics are if you bury them, and just eliminating virgin CO2 generation by aircraft is a huge deal.

But nobody likes nuclear, for some reason.

Anonymous

Anonymous Mon 05 Oct 2020 14:33:20 No.12195777 Report

Quoted By: >>12196456 >>12198268

>>12195680
>Hydrogen is a terrible storage medium
It is better than everything else that exists today. Only problem is storing hydrogen, but if us of a even spent 2% of what they spend going to iraq and syria then technology like this and many others would be a reality today.

Anonymous

Anonymous Mon 05 Oct 2020 16:11:35 No.12196070 Report

Quoted By:

>>12195110
People dont know how to think in long terms. All people care about is upfront cost. So if solar is to be widespread, it has to be sold only via small monthly increments. Otherwise, people won't know how to calculate their monthly savings.

Anonymous

Anonymous Mon 05 Oct 2020 16:32:32 No.12196135 Report

Quoted By:

>>12195110
You can build gigantic gyroscopes. Cause why?
Cause its cooler as many tiny ones.
Or you store it like normal humans in gigantic water tanks in the mountains.

Anonymous

Anonymous Mon 05 Oct 2020 18:08:42 No.12196456 Report

Quoted By: >>12196523

>>12195777
It's not. Batteries are more cost effective for vehicles, which is why hydrogen cars are dead. It's also shit for stationary applications, which is why lithium and pumped hydro, molten salt, and literally anything else is used and hydrogen is not. A lot of money got pumped into the hydrogen meme and none of it paid off. It's shit. Get over it.

Anonymous

Anonymous Mon 05 Oct 2020 18:22:07 No.12196523 Report

Quoted By: >>12197496 >>12206849 >>12207114

>>12196456
Batteries require lithium, they are relatively expensive, degrade over time, hard to recycle, pollutes alot due to manufacturing and recycling process and lithium has to be mined/ bought from third world countries. It is terrible.
Geo is better, but it is limited to certain locations and it can be enviromental disaster.
Hydrogen is just gas that can be obtained from water using electricity pretty much anywhere where there is sufficient water, it can be stored long term, it can be transported easily (just like lng), even storage material are advanced enough for it to not be a major problem anymore. It is cleaner than almost every other enery storage solution. The only thing hydrogen lacks is political willpower. Just imagine the outrage of jews and arabs if their services and products were no longer required.

Anonymous

Anonymous Mon 05 Oct 2020 18:35:39 No.12196578 Report

Quoted By:

>>12195612
>It makes nuclear look cheap.
Nuclear has a very high investment cost, but the actual operating cost per MWh is low (lower than fossil fuels), and a reactor can work 40 years.

Anonymous

Anonymous Mon 05 Oct 2020 18:38:57 No.12196585 Report

Quoted By: >>12196618

>>12195110
Why is solar so terribly inefficient? Even ICEs have better performance, you know, that tech from 300 years ago??

Anonymous

Anonymous Mon 05 Oct 2020 18:41:41 No.12196596 Report

Quoted By:

>>12195472
Yeah, if you are a millionaire who wants to go off grid and at the same time never get your investment back.

Anonymous

Anonymous Mon 05 Oct 2020 18:49:37 No.12196618 Report

Quoted By: >>12196637

>>12196585
You're comparing two completely different physical processes

Anonymous

Anonymous Mon 05 Oct 2020 18:55:27 No.12196637 Report

Quoted By: >>12196662

>>12196618
That's not an answer.

Anonymous

Anonymous Mon 05 Oct 2020 19:04:03 No.12196662 Report

Quoted By: >>12196703

>>12196637
The answer is because most photons get absorbed and turned into heat without knocking out an electron.
Why? Because light has to penetrate a certain thickness of material before reaching the depletion zone. Naturally some of it gets absorbed along the way.
Can't you make solar panels infinitely thin? No.

Anonymous

Anonymous Mon 05 Oct 2020 19:14:36 No.12196703 Report

Quoted By: >>12196707 >>12197214 >>12197397

>>12196662
>The limit is that the maximum solar conversion efficiency is around 33.7% for a single p-n junction photovoltaic cell, assuming typical sunlight conditions (unconcentrated, AM 1.5 solar spectrum), and subject to other caveats and assumptions discussed below. This maximum occurs at a band gap of 1.34 eV.

>33.7%

Honestly what's the point of solar even

Anonymous

Anonymous Mon 05 Oct 2020 19:15:15 No.12196707 Report

Quoted By: >>12196710

>>12196703
It's free energy

Anonymous

Anonymous Mon 05 Oct 2020 19:16:58 No.12196710 Report

Quoted By: >>12197023

>>12196707
>free energy
>>>/x/

Anonymous

Anonymous Mon 05 Oct 2020 20:32:09 No.12197023 Report

Quoted By: >>12197078

>>12196710
It kinda is though. The Sun is always burning, you just need to pay for the tools to harvest its energy that would more or less wasted otherwise.

Anonymous

Anonymous Mon 05 Oct 2020 20:45:44 No.12197078 Report

Quoted By: >>12199108

>>12197023
>Steam engines and turbines operate on the Rankine cycle which has a maximum >Carnot efficiency of 63% for practical engines, with steam turbine power plants able to achieve efficiency in the mid 40% range. In earliest steam engines the boiler was considered part of the engine.

There isn't a single economic reason to develop such a disgustingly bad system to harness sun energy. A bucket filled with water cycling over and over works more efficiently than this greenpeace scam

Anonymous

Anonymous Mon 05 Oct 2020 21:07:01 No.12197158 Report

Quoted By: >>12197252

>>12195235
>laws of physics don't let you can't store chemical energy much denser than what we currently have
Gasoline is way more energy dense than batteries. Uranium is literally off the chart in comparison to anything else.

Anonymous

Anonymous Mon 05 Oct 2020 21:25:07 No.12197214 Report

Quoted By: >>12197317 >>12197381 >>12200868

>>12196703
The Earth receives more than 8,000 times as much energy as humans use in all forms.

>8,000*0.337=2,696
>1/2696=0.0003709198
>0.03% of the area of the Earth can provide all of the energy humanity needs at the efficiency you've quoted

>8,000*0.18=1440
>1/1440=0.0006944444
>0.06% of the area of the Earth can provide all of the energy humanity needs at the current average efficiency.

Anonymous

View Same Google iqdb SauceNAO 1588976279193.gif, 124KiB, 384x443

Anonymous Mon 05 Oct 2020 21:29:06 No.12197229 Report

Quoted By: >>12197288 >>12198272

what should I study to get into renewable energy?

Anonymous

Anonymous Mon 05 Oct 2020 21:38:22 No.12197252 Report

Quoted By: >>12197352 >>12206788

>>12197158
You have to extract it in combustion and fission reactions respectively in the case of those substances. You can't make an electrochemical battery out of uranium and gasoline.

Anonymous

Anonymous Mon 05 Oct 2020 21:54:10 No.12197288 Report

Quoted By:

>>12197229
Depends on what you mean by that.

Certainly physics, chemistry, materials science and various subsets of engineering would all have pathways towards renewable energy.

Anonymous

Anonymous Mon 05 Oct 2020 22:01:59 No.12197317 Report

Quoted By: >>12197406 >>12197591

>>12197214
Point me to the exact paper where those calculations were made please.

Anonymous

Anonymous Mon 05 Oct 2020 22:18:55 No.12197352 Report

Quoted By:

>>12197252
>You can't make an electrochemical battery out of uranium and gasoline.
yet

Anonymous

Anonymous Mon 05 Oct 2020 22:27:53 No.12197381 Report

Quoted By: >>12197591

>>12197214
Those numbers don't even make sense lmao

Nice try greenpeace

Anonymous

Anonymous Mon 05 Oct 2020 22:35:22 No.12197397 Report

Quoted By: >>12198935

>>12196703
You can crank up the efficiency by, for example, using a multijunction solar cell. This does come with additional restrictions.

However, I don't think efficiency is really the bottleneck for solar. We're already at the point where silicon is cheap enough that most of the cost for a solar cell is from other parts than the bit that absorbs light. A lot of the practical issues come from the fact that sunlight is not constant in time or location.

The efficiency is also not as relevant as the amount of power collected, given that this is energy that you're taking from a source that's there regardless of whether you use it or not, as opposed to a steam turbine where you need to generate the temperature differential somehow (usually burning something). Of course, more efficiency would make solar more lucrative, but it isn't as straightforward as comparing the efficiency of a solar panel to that of a steam turbine (unless you were planning to use solar energy to power a steam turbine, but then you've got a host of other issues).

Solar is currently not poised to produce 100% of the world's power anytime soon, but that's not even really needed for it to be useful.

Anonymous

Anonymous Mon 05 Oct 2020 22:40:22 No.12197406 Report

Quoted By:

>>12197317
Not that guy but here's something similar

https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/pdf/10.1260/095830509788066466

Anonymous

Anonymous Mon 05 Oct 2020 22:41:27 No.12197408 Report

Quoted By: >>12197463

Solar is a meme. It exists in a single niche, if your application's peak draw correlates to peak daylight hours: congratulations! You are the usecase for solar.
Everything else is round hole square peg retarded.

Anonymous

Anonymous Mon 05 Oct 2020 22:56:00 No.12197463 Report

Quoted By: >>12197468

>>12197408
>if your application's peak draw correlates to peak daylight hours
You can maybe see how this "niche" might not be entirely useless.

Anonymous

Anonymous Mon 05 Oct 2020 22:57:33 No.12197468 Report

Quoted By: >>12197482

>>12197463
I never said it was useless. Whatever connotative baggage you're assigning to "niche" is just that.

Anonymous

Anonymous Mon 05 Oct 2020 23:01:57 No.12197482 Report

Quoted By: >>12197503

>>12197468
You said it was a meme due to existing in a niche, which is dismissive. Don't play dumb.

Anonymous

Anonymous Mon 05 Oct 2020 23:05:34 No.12197496 Report

Quoted By:

>>12196523
You're smoking crack. Batteries are plenty recyclable and there are more chemistries than lithium for stationary application. Hydrogen cannot be easily stored long term because it migrates out of everything and embrittles shit. This is not a solved problem. You are better off making methane if you really want to produce something that's a pain in the ass. At least you can effectively pipe it around.

Anonymous

Anonymous Mon 05 Oct 2020 23:07:37 No.12197503 Report

Quoted By: >>12197508

>>12197482
I'm not playing dumb. You're playing specious. In the sciences a niche is not small. It has nothing to do with size and everything to do with role.

Anonymous

Anonymous Mon 05 Oct 2020 23:08:40 No.12197508 Report

Quoted By: >>12197514

>>12197503
Right, so solar is a meme because it occupies a large niche?

Anonymous

Anonymous Mon 05 Oct 2020 23:10:21 No.12197514 Report

Quoted By: >>12197529 >>12197535

>>12197508
No. It's a meme because people keep trying to shove the square peg into the round hole. Solar isn't allowed to just be what it's good at by dumb people and worse yet, dumb policy makers.

Anonymous

Anonymous Mon 05 Oct 2020 23:14:32 No.12197529 Report

Quoted By:

>>12197514
There's some sense in that. It is pretty heavily ideological in some circles.

Anonymous

Anonymous Mon 05 Oct 2020 23:16:43 No.12197535 Report

Quoted By: >>12197542

>>12197514
>dumb people and worse yet, dumb policy makers.
So tell us what is the smart policy, smart boy

Anonymous

Anonymous Mon 05 Oct 2020 23:19:02 No.12197542 Report

Quoted By: >>12199080

>>12197535
Probably things like not trying to bruteforce wind farms in places without strong, sustained winds and solar in places with long, dark winters and lots of clouds.

Anonymous

Anonymous Mon 05 Oct 2020 23:32:54 No.12197591 Report

Quoted By: >>12201627

>>12197317
The estimate of energy received by Earth from the sun is provided by the department of energy and quoted in this article.

https://www.businessinsider.com/this-is-the-potential-of-solar-power-2015-9

In a single hour, the amount of power from the sun that strikes the Earth is more than the entire world consumes in an year. To put that in numbers, from the US Department of Energy: Each hour 430 quintillion Joules of energy from the sun hits the Earth.

>24*365=8760

The rest is simple math.

>>12197381
>(Total energy received/Earth)*(efficiency)=(net energy/Earth)
>The inverse of this figure is the percentage of the Earth required to capture 1 unit of energy, which in this case is the global energy budget.

Anonymous

Anonymous Mon 05 Oct 2020 23:59:31 No.12197672 Report

Quoted By: >>12198247

>>12195110
>clean energy, cheap, efficient, and available for all
that already exists with nuclear. its the safest, zero emission, would be incredibly cheap and can be built almost anywhere. The only thing stopping it is irrational fear.

Anonymous

Anonymous Tue 06 Oct 2020 00:09:24 No.12197710 Report

Quoted By: >>12198203

>>12195110
I think there is legs in the idea of using solar to produce hydrogen.

Anonymous

Anonymous Tue 06 Oct 2020 02:51:48 No.12198203 Report

Quoted By:

>>12197710
Has the same problem of using solar out in the desert and using HVDC to bring it somewhere useful. Transmission costs obliterate the practicality of it. Contrary to what you might have been memed into believing, hydrogen doesn't store well and it doesn't pipeline well. It's extremely expensive to move around.

Anonymous

Anonymous Tue 06 Oct 2020 03:07:00 No.12198247 Report

Quoted By: >>12198279 >>12199012

>>12197672
>nuclear
I wonder why they don't build reactor cores DEEP underground. You can pump coolant in and out the same way as usual and on the off chance something bad happens then the world doesn't have another Chernobyl on its hands.

Anonymous

Anonymous Tue 06 Oct 2020 03:08:15 No.12198252 Report

Quoted By: >>12201076

That solar lake in China is toxic. covering it in panels is basically all that it is useful for.

Anonymous

Anonymous Tue 06 Oct 2020 03:12:56 No.12198262 Report

Quoted By:

>>12195352
You can make fossil fuels using solar energy.
I guess they arent technically fossil fuel at that point though, just carbon neutral long chain hydrocarbons aka stored solar energy.

Anonymous

Anonymous Tue 06 Oct 2020 03:15:49 No.12198268 Report

Quoted By:

>>12195777
You don't have store hydrogen if you mix it with CO2 and synthesise it into natural gas.
As a bonus, your solar fuel now slots neatly into existing supply chains, allowing to effortlessly replace existing fossil fuels in all applications.

Anonymous

Anonymous Tue 06 Oct 2020 03:18:14 No.12198272 Report

Quoted By:

>>12197229
Systems engineering, or anything with a focus on sustainability

Anonymous

Anonymous Tue 06 Oct 2020 03:21:15 No.12198279 Report

Quoted By:

>>12198247
That's basically what we do now, modern nuclear plants are constructed above an artificial concrete basin so that if shit goes all the way bad the molten parts of the facility collapse into it and can simply be buried in graphite or whatever

Anonymous

Anonymous Tue 06 Oct 2020 07:22:23 No.12198935 Report

Quoted By: >>12200554 >>12200819

>>12197397
>A lot of the practical issues come from the fact that sunlight is not constant in time or location.
If the production is de-localized over a sufficient large grid (such as over Europe or USA), shouldn't we have on average a more constant solar production?
in such a case, the main limitation will be transportation?

And yes, solar energy need to be coupled to other energy production (hydro, wind, geo, biogas,...).
I have the feeling that, the main problem, is the lack of international coordination. No?

Anonymous

Anonymous Tue 06 Oct 2020 07:45:58 No.12199012 Report

Quoted By:

>>12198247
If you do it with solar, you can produce it on site.

Anonymous

Anonymous Tue 06 Oct 2020 08:09:14 No.12199071 Report

Quoted By:

>>12195110
It is viable though. Just that it's defendant on how you set up your energy structure. Being dependant on only 1 type of energy generation is stupid regardless of what it is.

Anonymous

Anonymous Tue 06 Oct 2020 08:16:15 No.12199080 Report

Quoted By: >>12199119 >>12199356

>>12197542
sunlight does go through clouds pretty well. It's the winters that hurt the most in some place.

Anonymous

Anonymous Tue 06 Oct 2020 08:21:34 No.12199093 Report

Quoted By: >>12202016

>>12195352
well why don't you charge your iphone from a brick of coal you brainlet
i don't even understand why are we even talking about storage - the inverters are capable of downregulating output if production exceeds demand

Anonymous

Anonymous Tue 06 Oct 2020 08:28:00 No.12199108 Report

Quoted By: >>12200873

>>12197078
why do you compare efficiencies though? these are different energy sources you retard
and we don't use efficiencies to heat our homes or make stuff move, we use watts, and you cant get watts from the sun using steam engine

Anonymous

Anonymous Tue 06 Oct 2020 08:33:08 No.12199119 Report

Quoted By:

>>12199080
even this is not that straightforward
the efficiency of panels depend on temperature, so the average annual output of a solar park in northern baltics is the same as the one in germany, because the cold and sunny periods of spring and autumn compensate for low production during winter times

Anonymous

Anonymous Tue 06 Oct 2020 11:00:42 No.12199356 Report

Quoted By:

>>12199080
There's a bit more to that, since diffuse sunlight (such as you get from behind a cloud cover) can't be concentrated and is less directed.

Anonymous

Anonymous Tue 06 Oct 2020 17:30:42 No.12200554 Report

Quoted By: >>12200819

>>12198935
>If the production is de-localized over a sufficient large grid (such as over Europe or USA), shouldn't we have on average a more constant solar production?
Yep, that's the idea with HVDC "supergrids". You generate significantly more power than you need locally and sell the majority of it to other countries or states, then buy back the energy you need when the light moves. Transmission losses are really low and you effectively extend the solar day by the number of hours between noon in the time zones on either end of your grid.

Anonymous

Anonymous Tue 06 Oct 2020 18:23:04 No.12200773 Report

Quoted By: >>12200819

When it gets under $1 per watt for system install.

Then lets say if you own a home for 10 years with 10 kw solar system $10K, that's 10000/10 years/12 months = $83 monthly rate. Thats pretty cheap.

Anonymous

Anonymous Tue 06 Oct 2020 18:32:52 No.12200819 Report

Quoted By: >>12200834 >>12200905

>>12198935
>>12200554
All these "solutions" require building so much shit that the cost becomes ridiculous. HVDC is not cheap, and you want to build it with multiple GW level capacity extending over entire continents. That would make highways look cheap. Literally just using battery is less expensive, and that's already too expensive to make solar competitive with anything else.

>>12200773
Ubiquitous rooftop solar leads to a duck curve load on the generation and distribution infrastructure, which necessitates the use of dirty ass peaking power plants twice a day.

Anonymous

Anonymous Tue 06 Oct 2020 18:36:30 No.12200834 Report

Quoted By: >>12200879

>>12200819
Add in battery packs to each home solar install.

Anonymous

Anonymous Tue 06 Oct 2020 18:37:06 No.12200838 Report

Quoted By:

>>12195110
No. They cost too much, break too quickly, and are just overall shit. Their main advantage is that they are light and small, so they can be easily used on vehicles and in space.

Anonymous

View Same Google iqdb SauceNAO Maine electricity.png, 19KiB, 220x230

Anonymous Tue 06 Oct 2020 18:38:41 No.12200845 Report

Quoted By: >>12201621

>>12195110
Solar is gay because it doesn't work at night and we have no way of effectively storing massive amounts of electricity for long periods.

Anonymous

Anonymous Tue 06 Oct 2020 18:41:22 No.12200868 Report

Quoted By: >>12201552

>>12197214
How much is that in sq metters and explain how are you supposed to maintain this extremely huge electrical system without breaking the bank? You think this is some sort of set it and forget it kind of operation? lmao

Anonymous

Anonymous Tue 06 Oct 2020 18:42:28 No.12200873 Report

Quoted By: >>12203374

>>12199108
You clearly don't even understand what a watt is brainlet

Anonymous

Anonymous Tue 06 Oct 2020 18:43:23 No.12200879 Report

Quoted By: >>12200930 >>12201123

>>12200834
More expensive than doing it at an industrial scale solar farm, and doing it at scale is not cost effective. Yet you want homeowners to buy $10k of battery they don't actually need themselves? Nobody will do that. The best anyone can come up with is to, when electric cars are everywhere, have some capacity reserved for grid shit. Yet that only works when the car is plugged in, and who the fuck wants to sacrifice the already anemic range of their car battery just to sacrifice some of its cycle lifetime to solve a grid problem they don't care about?
Nobody.

Anonymous

Anonymous Tue 06 Oct 2020 18:48:50 No.12200905 Report

Quoted By: >>12201123

>>12200819
Either way it would still be cheaper than the cost to fix the damage from continuing to burn fossil fuels.

If you don't like that HVDC or battery walls, then how about electric vehicles as energy storage? You plug in your car and set it to charge when electricity is cheap and to sell it back when electricity is expensive. As a bonus, electric vehicles are more energy efficient than ICE.

Anonymous

Anonymous Tue 06 Oct 2020 18:55:08 No.12200930 Report

Quoted By: >>12201123

>>12200879
Municiples wont switch to battery pack due to shortsightedness. Its up to homeowners to become independent if they want to control their own energy.

Anonymous

Anonymous Tue 06 Oct 2020 19:06:37 No.12200987 Report

Quoted By:

>>12195110
If you put it into orbit, then yes. 143,000 terrawatts are possible

Anonymous

Anonymous Tue 06 Oct 2020 19:25:51 No.12201076 Report

Quoted By:

>>12198252
Source?

Anonymous

Anonymous Tue 06 Oct 2020 19:35:55 No.12201123 Report

Quoted By: >>12201129

>>12200905
Electricity usage is only 1/3rd the fossil fuel burn. You can't fix shit without being able to synthesize hydrocarbons. Do you have any idea how energy intense that is?
Comically, I addressed your ridiculous EV suggestion in >>12200879 already. Anyone who thinks they're doing anything good by using valuable battery cycles up on grid storage is deluding themselves. And you're trying to use one unreliable thing (enough people plugging their cars in and agreeing to maybe discharge them instead of charge them) to balance another (unpredictable generation). What a pipedream.

>>12200930
If you think putting normalfags in charge of their own future is a good idea then you're dumb as fuck. They're even more myopic than municipalities. As fucking always, it's up to scientists and engineers to provide a magic solution which just works and changes as little as possible. We've run aground on this one though, since there's just no way to do it. The realistic solution (spamming nuke plants) is politically untouchable and the solution regular assholes believe in (renewable) is no better than virtue signalling with how effective it is. We're so fucking fucked.

Anonymous

Anonymous Tue 06 Oct 2020 19:38:19 No.12201129 Report

Quoted By: >>12201241

>>12201123
>Electricity usage is only 1/3rd the fossil fuel burn
Not with widespread EV adoption.

>synthesize hydrocarbons
Did you even read the post?

Anonymous

Anonymous Tue 06 Oct 2020 19:44:43 No.12201153 Report

Quoted By:

>>12195370
Lol brace yourself

Anonymous

Anonymous Tue 06 Oct 2020 20:01:13 No.12201227 Report

Quoted By: >>12201287

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grid_parity

The fact of the matter is, if they’re even somewhat more effective than fossil fuels, the savings are immeasurable because not only do you save money on electricity, you’re saving the environment.

Anonymous

Anonymous Tue 06 Oct 2020 20:06:39 No.12201241 Report

Quoted By: >>12201340

>>12201129
All transportation is a quarter of our energy usage. That includes aircraft. And where does the EV electricity come from? This is brand new load. When do you get to charge your battery? At night when solar output is zero? Am I supposed to charge only during the day when electricity is cheap and use my car battery to sustain myself at night when electricity costs $3/kWh? How about the people who actually use their car? Charge at work during the day, drive an hour home through the snow while keeping the heat at just enough to not suffer hypothermia, then plug your car in to run your home heat pump at night when the temps are the coldest, then wake up to an icy home and a battery at 15% since it started charging at 7am when the rate dropped, so you can barely make it to a supercharger and get your battery high enough to make the commute, just to have to replace your battery in three years after doing over a thousand full charge cycles?
I do not want to live in this future.
>Did you even read the post?
Aircraft will always need hydrocarbon fuel or something better, which batteries are not. Industrial usage of fossil fuels for their molecular properties is a full third of our usage. You can't replace that with electricity directly. You need to crack H2O + CO2 to make C2H6 and such. This is an enormous amount of brand new load. Much of it is thermal load to drive the endothermic reactions.

Anonymous

Anonymous Tue 06 Oct 2020 20:09:02 No.12201249 Report

Quoted By:

>>12195203
Based. Solar energy should be used in addition with other electricity sources.

Anonymous

Anonymous Tue 06 Oct 2020 20:21:15 No.12201287 Report

Quoted By:

>>12201227
Grid parity avalanche is a myth. Low capacity factor energy sources have a hidden cost which is not apparent when dividing the TCO cost over the average output. That cost is in managing a schizophrenic energy grid, which is done by peaking coal and natural gas, or pumped hydro if you're very lucky. There is a negative feedback loop which prevents the addition of more solar/wind which starts at a few % of generation. The relationship is nonlinear, so when you hit ~20% in a closed system it becomes impossible to add more without dealing with the low CF directly.
This is really why despite technically reaching "grid parity" years ago, solar and wind are still expanding only slowly. They're just biting up the low hanging fruit in areas where you can burden the infrastructure a bit without too much fuss. Go to any grid operator which already has 10-20% solar in their generation portfolio and tell them you want to convert another 20%. They'll tell you to fuck off if you can offer the same rate as the other solar they have. If you offer lower, they'll tell you to come back when their existing contract is up with the other solar farm.

Anonymous

Anonymous Tue 06 Oct 2020 20:39:02 No.12201340 Report

Quoted By: >>12201547

>>12201241
>All transportation is a quarter of our energy usage. That includes aircraft.
Great! 25% less fossil fuel emissions

>And where does the EV electricity come from? This is brand new load.
Oh, gee I dunno, how about solar

>When do you get to charge your battery?
When the energy is cheap, moron. Typically that corresponds to the middle of the day when solar is at its peak. See your energy provider for details.

>At night when solar output is zero?
From the cars, moron. You take all that energy you bought during the day and sell it for a profit when the energy is expensive. Just plug it in when you aren't driving it and let a computer program handle it.

>electricity costs $3/kWh?
This figure comes from your ass

>How about the people who actually use their car?
Nobody uses their car 24/7, and anyone who fails to take advantage of their vehicle in this way still saves money on every mile because electricity is cheaper than gas.

>Charge at work during the day... Inane rambling... Blah blah blah...
That sure sounds like a personal problem. Try tweaking your charge settings and just in general getting your shit together.

>I do not want to live in this future.
I don't want to live in this present.

>Aircraft will always need hydrocarbon fuel or something better, which batteries are not.
There are already electric aircraft, and if you really need your hydrocarbon fix then fuels can be (and are) generated using renewable energy.

>Industrial usage of fossil fuels for their molecular properties is a full third of our usage.
Oh, gee whiz. Whatever can we do about plastics and fertilizer? Addressing landfills as an issue can provide enough compost to replace fossil fertilizers and plastics can be (and are) synthesized from plants, such as PLA from starch.

>This is an enormous amount of brand new load.
It's really not. We do it that way now because it's cheaper to alter petroleum waste products.

Feel free to whine some more about it though.

Anonymous

Anonymous Tue 06 Oct 2020 21:33:09 No.12201547 Report

Quoted By: >>12201627 >>12201676

>>12201340
>25% less fossil fuel emissions
Proof of this working at scale?
>how about solar
Proof it scales?
>See your energy provider for details.
I work for my energy provider. Both time of use and controlled load demand response is a disaster. We ended up just buying a fuckoff big battery to balance our huge solar array "experiment". The entire system operates at a decent loss. The whole experience was a sobering smack in the face by reality.
>You take all that energy you bought during the day and sell it for a profit
This doesn't actually work in reality at grid scale and it sure as fuck doesn't work at individual scale. Besides, you actually NEED that energy at night. You can't sell what you're using to run your home in the evening to do whatever, or overnight to run your HVAC. You also can't sell what you need for the next day to get wherever you need to go.
>This figure comes from your ass
It's actually low if we're talking the worst days of the year. Guess how much a kWh cost during California's last rolling blackouts? It was $0.80/kWh raw on the spot market, and California is still only 14% solar.
>anyone who fails to take advantage of their vehicle in this way still saves money
You lose money. Battery cycles are not free. After distribution costs and your capital cost, you're not pulling in anything trying to do electricity arbitrage with a car battery.
>That sure sounds like a personal problem.
That is a problem for people right now who already have range difficulty in cold weather. If your solution conveniently leaves out anyone who doesn't live in a climate which isn't perfect, then it's not a scalable solution.
>I don't want to live in this present.
Then back a real solution.
>There are already electric aircraft
They are bullshit memetech for anything which needs real range with a real load I'm also an aviation enthusiast, and lithium electric planes are just total horseshit and always will be.
>landfills, compost, starch
What the fuck are you on

Anonymous

Anonymous Tue 06 Oct 2020 21:34:19 No.12201552 Report

Quoted By: >>12201571 >>12201676

>>12200868
About a third of a trillion square meters or 350,000 square kilometers which is roughly 1/25 of the United States.

>explain how are you supposed to maintain this extremely huge electrical system without breaking the bank?
Solar is cheaper than coal and natural gas and the panels themselves have about a 20 year lifespan. Just replace 1/20th of the system each year so there's consistently work for the workers and enjoy the extra savings. Energy storage is the only real issue, but grid-scale storage technology gets cheaper every year.

Anonymous

Anonymous Tue 06 Oct 2020 21:40:23 No.12201571 Report

Quoted By: >>12201681

>>12201552
>roughly 1/25 of the United States.
You have no idea of the scale of such a megaproject. Nothing humanity has ever done gets even close to comparing. You basically need self replicating factories and robots on the advancement level of "practically magic" to even think about such a thing. That or a billion slaves.
And yet it doesn't even address the storage part, which you put in a footnote like it's no big deal. Storage is harder than the panels themselves. You are living in fantasyland.

Anonymous

Anonymous Tue 06 Oct 2020 21:50:37 No.12201616 Report

Quoted By:

>>12195110
>Green is bad
>Orange is good
/pol/ is so predictable. They have 3-4 trigger points that they keep regurgitating

Anonymous

Anonymous Tue 06 Oct 2020 21:53:32 No.12201621 Report

Quoted By:

>>12200845
we have supercapacitors. they will probable get better and bigger. 10^6 farads 10k volts should be plenty.

Anonymous

Anonymous Tue 06 Oct 2020 21:56:15 No.12201627 Report

Quoted By: >>12201650

>>12201547
>Proof of this working at scale?
Electric vehicles exist for every class of vehicle and are more efficient than their ICE counterparts. The only iffy EV right now are planes.

>Proof it scales?
We get thousands of times as much energy as we need from the sun. That fact was posted earlier in the thread (>>12197591)

>I work for my energy provider.
Oh so you know all about the time based energy pricing offered by every energy provider.

>Both time of use and controlled load demand response is a disaster.
That's because it produces a specific amount of power at a specific time. You have to store the excess or transfer it.

>We ended up just buying a fuckoff big battery to balance our huge solar array "experiment". The entire system operates at a decent loss.
Sounds like someone is shit at their job. If you can't figure out economic energy storage then you shouldn't have oversized your array.

>The whole experience was a sobering smack in the face by reality.
The results of poor planning tend to be.

>This doesn't actually work in reality at grid scale and it sure as fuck doesn't work at individual scale.
It helps to alleviate storage demands at grid scale, and it sure as fuck would work for me. Maybe you use too much electricity.

>Besides, you actually NEED that energy at night.
Night is typically when the least amount of energy is used. It's definitely when energy is the cheapest.

>You also can't sell what you need for the next day to get wherever you need to go
Obviously, so don't. Buy it from the grid when it's cheapest and set your charge controller to ensure the battery is fully charged by a specific time.

>It's actually low if we're talking the worst days of the year
Sure, kid. Given how low the average cost is that would either mean that solar's best days produce electricity for less than a penny per kWh, or those days are so few and far between that they're irrelevant.

Anonymous

Anonymous Tue 06 Oct 2020 22:02:58 No.12201650 Report

Quoted By: >>12201689

>>12201627
Oh okay, so you don't have any solutions to the discovered engineering problems, just some useless talking. You might do good in marketing or politics.

Anonymous

Anonymous Tue 06 Oct 2020 22:08:58 No.12201676 Report

Quoted By: >>12201779

>>12201547
>>12201552
>After distribution costs and your capital cost, you're not pulling in anything trying to do electricity arbitrage with a car battery.
Oh, so the problem is the power company? The capital cost was for a car, so unless you meant the cost of replacing your battery a little earlier it's not really applicable.

>That is a problem for people right now who already have range difficulty in cold weather.
Then they should probably wait for batteries to improve before buying. Did you think there was some magical button that would make all of this happen overnight?

>If your solution conveniently leaves out anyone who doesn't live in a climate which isn't perfect, then it's not a scalable solution.
I don't think you understand what "scalable" means. I believe the word you're looking for is "comprehensive".

>Then back a real solution.
That wouldn't affect the present, now would it?

>They are bullshit memetech for anything which needs real range with a real load
So freight trucks, planes, and maybe boats. Everything else from trucks to tractors is outclassed by EVs.

>I'm also an aviation enthusiast, and lithium electric planes are just total horseshit and always will be.
Cool opinion, bro

>What the fuck are you on
Do you not know about the arable land shortage, or are you confused by plastics from renewable sources?

Anonymous

Anonymous Tue 06 Oct 2020 22:10:16 No.12201681 Report

Quoted By:

>>12201571
>Spews a bunch of unsupported nonsense
>"You are living in fantasyland."
Irony

Anonymous

Anonymous Tue 06 Oct 2020 22:12:11 No.12201689 Report

Quoted By:

>>12201650
Hey man, I wasn't the one bragging about how bad their company was at exploiting one of the cheapest energy sources on Earth. You might do better anywhere else.

Anonymous

Anonymous Tue 06 Oct 2020 22:40:23 No.12201779 Report

Quoted By: >>12201826 >>12202264

>>12201676
Batteries are depreciating assets and cycling them costs money. Losing 30% of your range can easily take your car from enough to not enough range unless you're wealthy enough to hugely overbuy battery. I don't care what the top 10% can buy for themselves though.
Lithium batteries will not substantially improve from here. Certainly there are no sudden doublings of C/M or havings of $/C. A new technology may come around, but you should not stake your future on "maybe someone will figure it out".
Scalability is important for solar. I know BEV will work for most people if we keep using natural gas and coal. That's just moving the problem around.
>Cool opinion, bro
Planes get their range and efficiency from being able to land with minimal fuel. They get a lot lighter over their flight, which increases efficiency by a lot. They can land with a lot less weight than they took off with, which means you can build the frame and landing gear much lighter since the peak landing load is lower.
Batteries are heavy, and they're heavy the whole time.
>Do you not know about the arable land shortage, or are you confused by plastics from renewable sources?
You're not going to turn landfill into fertilizer, because contamination. Plant plastic is not going to replace industrial demand, lol. Hundreds of millions of tons of ethylene is used every year as industrial feedstock. Plants are very inefficient producers of hydrocarbons.

Anonymous

Anonymous Tue 06 Oct 2020 22:50:51 No.12201809 Report

Quoted By:

>>12195342
Fusion and solar energy go hand in hand especially if we develop room temperatur superconductors. Fusion is great for having a stable and powerful energy source, solar power would be used for less developed regions or power local needs and superconductor batteries could store all that energy.
>>12195370
The first electric motors were built in 1740s but only became practical for work in 1832.
The first photovoltaics were developed back in 1839, but only thanks to space money in the 60s they became viable technology to get energy.
The idea of Fusion Reactors was developped in 1946, in the 90s we made the first viable fusion reactions. We are expecting net-gain fusion reactions by the 30s, the timescale is nothing to sneer at. We have ITER, Wendelstein and other grand projects. Clean and sustainable energ sources should not compete with each another.

Anonymous

Anonymous Tue 06 Oct 2020 22:55:35 No.12201826 Report

Quoted By: >>12201864

>>12201779
>Batteries are depreciating assets
Drop production costs low enough and nobody will care how fast they wear out.

Anonymous

Anonymous Tue 06 Oct 2020 23:06:14 No.12201864 Report

Quoted By:

>>12201826
>Just make it cheap bro, that solves everything
Politician detected

Anonymous

Anonymous Tue 06 Oct 2020 23:36:35 No.12201947 Report

Quoted By:

>>12195110
>photovoltaic
I don't get it. You can literally use mirrors to make solar powered steam plants that are far less toxic and far more reliable, plus don't need cooling. What's the aim here? is the push in solar cells needed to do some proper solar exploration or something?

Anonymous

View Same Google iqdb SauceNAO 800.jpg, 125KiB, 800x546

Anonymous Tue 06 Oct 2020 23:40:01 No.12201952 Report

Quoted By: >>12201960

>1989
>didn't want to invest in doing the right thing
>"I want to wait until it becomes affordable"
>spends 30 years pumping pollutoin into the atmosphere, mocking those who didn't

https://science.sciencemag.org/content/365/6449/108.summary

Now's your chance faggot, thanks for nothing

Anonymous

Anonymous Tue 06 Oct 2020 23:43:31 No.12201960 Report

Quoted By: >>12202587 >>12206292

>>12201952
>solar and wind too expensive
>gets a bunch of government cheese
>becomes affordable

>nuclear too expensive
>??
>???

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 07 Oct 2020 00:00:39 No.12202016 Report

Quoted By: >>12203380

>>12199093
i do charge my phone using coal though?

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 07 Oct 2020 01:21:12 No.12202264 Report

Quoted By: >>12203906

>>12201779
>Batteries are depreciating assets and cycling them costs money.
The cost of an entire cycle is 1/3000th to 1/500th the total cost of the battery. A simple equation will allow you to determine if it's worthwhile to buy energy to sell: 0 < ( [$/kWh@sell] - ( [$/kWh@buy] + [replacement cost] / ( [capacity] * [cycles]) ) ). Plug in the price tables and your charge requirements and a little calculus can optimize when to buy and sell without affecting your use of the car.

>Losing 30% of your range can easily take your car from enough to not enough range unless you're wealthy enough to hugely overbuy battery.
It's a non-issue unless you're talking about loss of capacity over time, in which case it's time to service your vehicle.

>A new technology may come around, but you should not stake your future on "maybe someone will figure it out".
People are already figuring it out. Most of the focus for lithium batteries is on increasing lifespan and making them safer in general, but other areas of energy storage are developing fast. Supercapacitors for example

>That's just moving the problem around.
Except that EVs are more efficient and power plants can have their emissions cleaned of noxious substances cheaper and more completely.

>Planes get their range and efficiency from being able to land with minimal fuel.
That's definitely an advantage that chemical fuel has over electricity storage, but demonstration models of electric planes are already being built and flown. I will give you that none of them are very impressive in their current iterations.

>You're not going to turn landfill into fertilizer, because contamination.
There are many ways to deal with contamination, the simplest being to prevent it by separating waste streams and the cheapest being myco- or phytoremediation.

>Plants are very inefficient producers of hydrocarbons
Humans are even less efficient. Catalysts have a long way to come before hydrocarbon synthesis is cheaper than extraction.

Anonymous

View Same Google iqdb SauceNAO 26h56fsdgf7u.png, 154KiB, 554x492

Anonymous Wed 07 Oct 2020 02:53:57 No.12202587 Report

Quoted By:

>>12201960
>nuclear too expensive
It was cheaper per MW to build out natural gas for decades.

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 07 Oct 2020 08:30:35 No.12203374 Report

Quoted By:

>>12200873
watt is a unit of power
if i have a 1 kw water heater at home, i need 1 kw and if solar gives me 1 kw, do i give a shit if there are 999999 kw of power reflected back?

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 07 Oct 2020 08:37:03 No.12203380 Report

Quoted By:

>>12202016
no, you are charging your phone with electricity that was produced by burning coal
once the coal is burned, you can't "charge" it back or make new coal with electricity
technically, you are correct since everything is energy for us if we can convert it, but this kind of talk belongs on /his/, we are talking about practical things and coal is not energy storage

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 07 Oct 2020 13:50:50 No.12203906 Report

Quoted By: >>12204088

>>12202264
You are the definition of a midwit. You're so dunning kreugered it's impossible to talk to you. I'm literally an electrical engineer who works for a large utility which has dumped millions into this shit. You think a simple equation can model things. In reality this plays out with some complex game theory nobody understands completely. Your presentation of supercapacitors is particularly retarded. It shows me you actually have no knowledge of energy storage technologies. And "just service your vehicle bro". Yeah, by replacing the battery, which is the heaviest part of an EV, because you nuked 30% of it's capacity by arbitrating electrons for a couple years. That's the lithium aging mode. They just lose capacity. I bet you think that suddenly a 60kWh battery will cost $500 just because you want it to happen so replacements will be like changing tires. Not going to happen.
Power plants scrubbers do not remove CO2, which is the real problem. They actually remove very little. Lots of lobbying by the coal and gas industry to make people think scrubbers make them clean has actually fooled you.
Do remember the topic is actually solar though, not BEVs. The BEVs just make things a lot harder even though you think they'll magically solve the storage problem just because you hope they will. In reality people want to charge their cars overnight and a free market will cover the massive new load with gas and coal plants.
Model electric planes and marketing material are not 737s and commercial aviation. The wall here is physical limitations, not engineering. Battery electric planes are just fundamentally worse because they do not get lighter through the flight and they are ridiculously heavier, reducing cargo capacity and range directly.
Your many ways to deal with contamination of soil are further pipedreams, which seems to be all you're made of. People don't separate their waste streams and remediation is theoretical shit. You're full of vaporware solutions.

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 07 Oct 2020 14:00:36 No.12203921 Report

Quoted By:

>>12195110
>How much longer do you anticipate it'll take for solar energy to be at the forefront of clean energy, cheap, efficient, and available for all?

When we have orbital forges and power beaming.

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 07 Oct 2020 15:24:04 No.12204088 Report

Quoted By: >>12204245

>>12203906
>You think a simple equation can model things. In reality this plays out with some complex game theory nobody understands completely.
Imagine being so retarded you couldn't optimize a well defined cost function.

I hope you're the worst engineer your employer employs or else he's in for some hard times.

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 07 Oct 2020 16:15:27 No.12204245 Report

Quoted By: >>12204812

>>12204088
>well defined cost function.
Okay retard. Enjoy thinking all cows are spherical.

Anonymous

View Same Google iqdb SauceNAO 2qxgN_b0DiuNVMHNk2iUrOCRXCzsbNos (...).jpg, 71KiB, 520x403

Anonymous Wed 07 Oct 2020 19:13:02 No.12204812 Report

Quoted By: >>12205720

>>12204245
Cows are a good bit more aerodynamic than a sphere from the right angles. This data is easily available, just like the specifications for batteries and the details of energy plans from providers. Maybe all that's just a little too complicated for an engineer, though.

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 07 Oct 2020 19:22:38 No.12204848 Report

Quoted By:

>>12195110
It's fucking viable now, you weirdo. Stop being poor.

Anonymous

Anonymous Thu 08 Oct 2020 00:03:47 No.12205720 Report

Quoted By: >>12206093

>>12204812
>2020
>Still no solar revolution avalanche
>Still a niche source
lmao enjoy your cope universe

Anonymous

Anonymous Thu 08 Oct 2020 00:12:34 No.12205753 Report

Quoted By: >>12206086

I’ve been running a solar setup for a while now and I genuinely don’t find it feasible.

Anonymous

Anonymous Thu 08 Oct 2020 00:21:19 No.12205777 Report

Quoted By:

not enough silver

Anonymous

Anonymous Thu 08 Oct 2020 00:49:16 No.12205838 Report

Quoted By:

>>12195403
That's pretty fucking depressing.

Anonymous

Anonymous Thu 08 Oct 2020 02:26:15 No.12206086 Report

Quoted By: >>12206384

>>12205753
What, to go off grid or to turn a profit? Small scale profits can still be made if you min max really hard, but yeah going off grid is completely cost ineffective. The extra capacity and battery fucks you with a 100 year payback.
When lots of people start to do solar then making a profit on a home system will become impossible. Utilities are already setting limits on how much solar you can attach to the grid due to load instability and infrastructure overloading problems. Eventually they're just going to say fuck off, we don't want your unreliable mid-day kWh.

Anonymous

Anonymous Thu 08 Oct 2020 02:30:08 No.12206093 Report

Quoted By: >>12206104

>>12205720
Enjoy your struggle with basic calculus

Anonymous

View Same Google iqdb SauceNAO 1588844027362.jpg, 66KiB, 751x1024

Anonymous Thu 08 Oct 2020 02:35:49 No.12206104 Report

Quoted By: >>12206163 >>12207262

>>12206093
>Still no solar revolution after decades despite reaching """grid parity""" several years ago

Anonymous

Anonymous Thu 08 Oct 2020 02:53:16 No.12206163 Report

Quoted By: >>12206322

>>12206104
>Still no understanding of calculus after "earning" a supposedly math-heavy degree
Did you tell the dean you needed toilet paper?

Anonymous

Anonymous Thu 08 Oct 2020 03:32:24 No.12206259 Report

Quoted By:

>>12195403
Seriously doubt that. Maybe with research on making better more efficient standard nuclear power plants that can last longer but Thorium is such a gamble.

Anonymous

View Same Google iqdb SauceNAO 1598489551067.jpg, 139KiB, 768x1024

Anonymous Thu 08 Oct 2020 03:42:35 No.12206292 Report

Quoted By: >>12206326 >>12206349

>>12201960
Because Nuclear is extreme dependent on state assitance and funding to work. As private investor/company it's really hard to invest, and build a Nuclear plant because random shit can really fuck up the time it takes to finish the infrastructure. I'm not talking red tape but the geology of the area, construction delays (that Finnish plant), expertise and economy of scale,pricing shifts etc. If a government favors nuclear because they lack other energy sources (Japan/Korea), have much radioactive minerals to work with internally (Russia and a little bit France with it's African uranium although France uses Kazakh Uranium overall more so I've heard) or sheer economy of scale and population (China) then it's sexy

Solar and Wind needed subsidies to get started but they managed to wean themselves off that overtime. Nuclear is something you have to plan for a long time and hope you have secure energy sources to make it work which based on then nation is easy (France) or hard.

Anonymous

View Same Google iqdb SauceNAO legolaugh.jpg, 16KiB, 365x346

Anonymous Thu 08 Oct 2020 03:51:17 No.12206322 Report

Quoted By: >>12207515

>>12206163
>Coping this hard after billions have been spent on pushing the needle a fraction of a percent even though supposedly the market should be eating it up by your full retard calculations

Anonymous

View Same Google iqdb SauceNAO 1595649444783.png, 213KiB, 500x378

Anonymous Thu 08 Oct 2020 03:51:48 No.12206326 Report

Quoted By: >>12209883

>>12206292
Russia has lot of land to build plants and history. China has lot of non centralized energy management that makes the energy policy of every area VERY independent which is how you have green as fuck Solar and win alongside hydro and Nuclear in one area and then Coal in another. France it's nuclear industry is very tight knit with the state in various ways historically and presently.

Let compare that to say Ontario where getting any government to upgrade it's hydro or nuclear plants is like pulling teeth because of the whole "if you do that other people will use that as proof you are wasting money", developing states which don't have the state funding and population expertise base to build plants due to the lack of professionals in running and constructing the plant or those that just have cheaper/easier sources.

Anonymous

Anonymous Thu 08 Oct 2020 03:59:37 No.12206349 Report

Quoted By: >>12206582

>>12206292
The only problem with nuclear is that plants are all built as one-offs, but nuclear really needs a holistic design and implementation plan on a national level which is signed off on and agreed to without any chance of an asshole stopping up the works with inane rambling about radiation. That's why French nuclear works and US nuclear is floundering. Uranium availability is an issue if nobody will sell to your country, but for the first world the cost of fuel is downright miniscule compared to construction and operation costs. Nuclear fuel is dirt cheap.

Anonymous

Anonymous Thu 08 Oct 2020 04:12:49 No.12206384 Report

Quoted By: >>12206651 >>12208009

>>12206086
It was for off the grid, yes. Obviously I have no other alternative so I have to make it work but I’ve really been experiencing several stretches of crappy yields which is really just a bummer. 50% efficiency is a good day and that’s usually only for a couple of hours. The lithium batteries are expensive as shit and I have a bunch of meme problems like having more panels to compensate for the lower efficiency but then maxing out my charge rate for my batteries on a freak day where I’m having 100% efficiency. Honestly I hate solar. It’s good for powering 12v gadgets and good for 110v a few days a week until your shit is drained but fuck I don’t ever see this being practical as a stand-alone means for power

Anonymous

Anonymous Thu 08 Oct 2020 05:25:14 No.12206582 Report

Quoted By: >>12206591

>>12206349
>US nuclear is floundering
It's floundering because the US has a fuckton of other energy sources compared to France lol

Anonymous

Anonymous Thu 08 Oct 2020 05:28:50 No.12206591 Report

Quoted By:

>>12206582
and as I said before France Nuclear industry and the state are pretty much one in the same. Nuclear fuel is cheap for now but prices fluctuate based upon demand and if a bunch more nations pick up Nuclear is say SMR's became more common then price can causes issues down the line or if Uranium producing nations grow more balls since most Uranium producing nations outside of Niger aren't exactly easy to control..

Anonymous

Anonymous Thu 08 Oct 2020 05:32:13 No.12206599 Report

Quoted By:

>>12195203
based
Also solar is at an advantage over other sources of power like nuclear because you can't build a nuclear power plant for cheap in china and ship it to the US. But it still comes up behind.

Anonymous

Anonymous Thu 08 Oct 2020 06:09:09 No.12206651 Report

Quoted By: >>12206816

>>12206384
When people talk solar for true "off grid" they're whackos who live 50 miles from any city and only need to run their lights and fridge and maybe a TV.
Trying to run a normal house on only solar, you need 8Kw of generator for the low yield times of year and an oversupply of battery storage even for the high yield.

The most important thing to remember about these discussions are the people who are "omg solar everything you're wrong, solar everything!" are dense idiots who think it's as easy as covering the entire sky with panels and the entire ground with battery.
They've never educated themselves on yield curve, average output in a 12 hour cycle, or the electrical needs of a regular house.

And god forbid all the retards who think we can all EV our vehicles.
Peak times are already bad enough in places where air conditioning is common.
Imagine how it would be when 80 million people come home across a 3 hour period and need to plug in 80 million devices that demand 30 amps at 240v

These people are stupid.
80% of this thread is stupid people.

Anonymous

Anonymous Thu 08 Oct 2020 07:20:45 No.12206788 Report

Quoted By:

>>12197252
not with that attitude

Anonymous

Anonymous Thu 08 Oct 2020 07:47:16 No.12206816 Report

Quoted By: >>12207354

>>12206651
stupid people assume that everyone here is talking about "only solar", while it has been stated multiple times that it is great for supplementation and decentralization

Anonymous

Anonymous Thu 08 Oct 2020 07:49:33 No.12206823 Report

Quoted By: >>12207162

I live in Phoenix, and am actually interested in the feasibility of a completely solar energy grid.

Fuck you oil cucks.

Anonymous

Anonymous Thu 08 Oct 2020 07:59:11 No.12206843 Report

Quoted By: >>12207354

>>12195680
>someone unironically wrote this.
Know how I know that you havent left your backwater town ?

Anonymous

Anonymous Thu 08 Oct 2020 08:02:59 No.12206849 Report

Quoted By:

>>12196523
this guy is literally correct

Anonymous

Anonymous Thu 08 Oct 2020 11:00:34 No.12207114 Report

Quoted By:

>>12196523
>Batteries require lithium
I'll stop you right there
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sodium-ion_battery

Anonymous

Anonymous Thu 08 Oct 2020 11:37:36 No.12207162 Report

Quoted By: >>12207214

>>12206823
>in the feasibility of a completely solar energy grid.

A sudden cloud on a really hot day knocks your grid offline. Total grid collapse.

You don't have any spinning reserves so you cannot resynchronize and reboot the grid.

Anyone without their own solar or batteries get cooked because AC is offline for coming 72 hours.

Sounds like fun? Yes, for everyone outside of Phoenix who can laugh at you

Anonymous

Anonymous Thu 08 Oct 2020 12:15:45 No.12207214 Report

Quoted By: >>12207260

>>12207162
>Oh no I'll be kinda uncomfortable for 3 days if I open windows for too long
Is this really your worst case scenario?

Anonymous

Anonymous Thu 08 Oct 2020 12:55:58 No.12207260 Report

Quoted By: >>12207294

>>12207214
>Grid collapse is nothing at all. No electricity isn't that bad a result from going all solar grid. It's acceptable.

Are you really this stupid?

Anonymous

Anonymous Thu 08 Oct 2020 12:56:19 No.12207262 Report

Quoted By: >>12207282 >>12207354

>>12206104
Solar power is being installed in exponentially rising degree, going from nearly 0 in 2000 to 40 in 2010 to 500GW today. The last few years especially represent a significant fraction of all new installations.
You can seethe all you want, it doesn't stop people from building more solar.

Anonymous

Anonymous Thu 08 Oct 2020 13:07:11 No.12207282 Report

Quoted By:

>>12207262
>As of the end of 2019, the United States had over 71.3 gigawatts (GW) of installed photovoltaic capacity. In 2018, utility scale solar power generated 66.6 terawatt-hours (TWh)

>1.66% of total U.S. electricity.

Wow it's an absolutely staggering amount of nothing.

Anonymous

Anonymous Thu 08 Oct 2020 13:08:19 No.12207285 Report

Quoted By: >>12207296

>>12195110
You could use solar heat to power a Hydrothermal Liquifaction plant to recycle waste biomass and plastic into hydrocarbons since most of the energy required is thermal. Produce biocrude, biogas and fertilizer from waste materials
But the plant needs to be in an area where there is consistent heat from the sun to make a CSP powered biomass plant

Anonymous

Anonymous Thu 08 Oct 2020 13:10:57 No.12207294 Report

Quoted By: >>12207302

>>12207260
No, I'm saying grid blackout is not just "no AC for a week"
it means
>no water
>no cooking
>no services
>no work
>no entertainment
literally everything stops working

Anonymous

Anonymous Thu 08 Oct 2020 13:11:24 No.12207296 Report

Quoted By:

>>12207285
>the plant needs to be in an area where there is consistent heat from the sun
So, in orbit?

Anonymous

Anonymous Thu 08 Oct 2020 13:13:56 No.12207302 Report

Quoted By: >>12207310

>>12207294
Yes, I just didn't bother to write an essay.

>no cooking
Some people use gas. But without refrigeration stuff to cook starts to spoil

Anonymous

Anonymous Thu 08 Oct 2020 13:15:24 No.12207309 Report

Quoted By:

>>12195110
You forgot about how it can't clear most faults so adding solar to a grid decreases the grid's reliability

Anonymous

Anonymous Thu 08 Oct 2020 13:16:50 No.12207310 Report

Quoted By:

>>12207302
gas infrastructure still uses electricity - pumps, controls, valves etc.

Anonymous

Anonymous Thu 08 Oct 2020 13:33:44 No.12207328 Report

Quoted By: >>12207435 >>12210966 >>12210975 >>12210983

>>12195203

>per cell, yes per power unit, no
Artificially by government finance
>20% in 20 years
Efficientcy has gone up (now aproximately stated as 44%). The one thing that will not change is the radiation on the earth surface which is 1000W/m2
>every energy source has advantages and disadvantages
Yeah but in this case the disadvantages clearly surpass the advantages
>every 20 years and it doesn't stop working, just produces less than 80% of original
about 1% per year without taking into account climate erosion in certain places
>so same as with other energy sources
Fuel (fossil or nuclear) and water dams are basically stores energy
>you are a retard who doesn't know what he is talking about
Learn from engineers who work in this business, not from the media anon
>solar energy is not an universal solution, but it is a great addition to other sources and a great tool for specific tasks
Correct statement. Solar should be considered for rural off-the-grid or residential grid-tie installations. Anything bigger it becomes a waste of resources.

Anonymous

Anonymous Thu 08 Oct 2020 13:50:32 No.12207354 Report

Quoted By:

>>12206816
Solar is good as long as you can always cover your array outputs dropping to zero at practically any time for any amount of time. If you deal with it as the very unreliable source it is, you can use it to reduce demand on hydro and gas when it's there.
It's very difficult to scale this beyond ~10% in most places. If you have enough hydro to cover yourself for most of the year, then you could add 40% (maybe more) solar no problem and just use it to keep water in the reservoir for bad days. Almost nowhere has that kind of hydro capacity, so you're left with using shitty peaking fossil fuel plants to balance the solar. This is in practice how solar is being added. It may result in practically no carbon benefit as peaking plants are fundamentally inefficient. And by that I mean dirty as all fuck. They cannot be made more efficient as the inefficiency comes from having the ability to swing output around very quickly. The oil and gas industry loves peakers because they can charge more for their output and they can burn more fuel.

>>12206843
Damn that personal attack really destroyed my argument.

>>12207262
>Nameplate equals capacity right?
lmao. That "500GW" is actually GWp, or the sum of the DC nameplate capacity of each cell. In reality these cells almost never make that, and they make nothing for half the day. The actual generation is the nameplate times the capacity factor, which globally is 11% and in the US (due to large deployments in Texas, Nevada and California) is 21%.
The actual global capacity is 55GW. That's what you could pull continuously if every panel was hooked to a large amount of battery to smooth output. Of course we don't have that because it would cost twice as much as the panels themselves.
For reference, 55GW is as much as 15 nuclear power stations, which do not need battery because their capacity factor is 90% or better.

Anonymous

Anonymous Thu 08 Oct 2020 14:07:27 No.12207381 Report

Quoted By:

>>12195110
SPARC will become viable before solar goes mainstream.

Anonymous

Anonymous Thu 08 Oct 2020 14:34:16 No.12207435 Report

Quoted By: >>12211267

>>12207328
>Efficientcy has gone up (now aproximately stated as 44%).
Nah. It's still around low 20s.

>The most efficient solar panels available today are approximately 23%
https://news.energysage.com/what-are-the-most-efficient-solar-panels-on-the-market/

Anonymous

Anonymous Thu 08 Oct 2020 15:04:10 No.12207515 Report

Quoted By: >>12207636

>>12206322
>Coping this hard after spending hundreds of thousands on getting a degree for subjects you still don't understand even though supposedly your degree covers the subjects in depth

Anonymous

View Same Google iqdb SauceNAO 1563420555380.jpg, 181KiB, 1599x999

Anonymous Thu 08 Oct 2020 15:35:27 No.12207636 Report

Quoted By: >>12207825

>>12207515
You're fucking killing me, man.

Anonymous

Anonymous Thu 08 Oct 2020 16:17:25 No.12207825 Report

Quoted By: >>12207837

>>12207636
Hey man, I'm not the one that said it was impossible to do simple math

Anonymous

View Same Google iqdb SauceNAO Cylindrical.png, 266KiB, 309x309

Anonymous Thu 08 Oct 2020 16:21:00 No.12207837 Report

Quoted By: >>12207846

>>12207825
>Unsolved problems in renewable energy distribution is simple math!
>Look at this proof, [some shit made up on the spot]
STILL NO SOLAR REVOLUTION LFMAO

Anonymous

Anonymous Thu 08 Oct 2020 16:23:28 No.12207846 Report

Quoted By: >>12207883

>>12207837
>Cost comparison is an unsolved problem
Literally covered in every algebra and discrete math class. You should be pretty embarrassed that it stumped you.

Anonymous

Anonymous Thu 08 Oct 2020 16:38:11 No.12207883 Report

Quoted By: >>12207978

>>12207846
Okay, okay. I think It's probably wrong to laugh so hard at an actual retard so I'll stop making fun of you.

Anonymous

Anonymous Thu 08 Oct 2020 17:06:46 No.12207978 Report

Quoted By:

>>12207883
You haven't been making fun of me, moron. All you've done is prove your degree is a waste of paper and sperg out over solar power.

Anonymous

Anonymous Thu 08 Oct 2020 17:14:26 No.12208009 Report

Quoted By: >>12208073

>>12206384
You keep using the word "efficiency", but it doesn't mean what you think it means.
The word you're looking for is "power".

Anonymous

Anonymous Thu 08 Oct 2020 17:23:07 No.12208039 Report

Quoted By:

Stop shitposting
Stop responding to shitposting

Anonymous

Anonymous Thu 08 Oct 2020 17:32:04 No.12208073 Report

Quoted By:

>>12208009
The word is actually efficacy, but calling that out is a little pedantic.
Efficiency is: output / input
>100Wh of solar energy hit my panel and I got 23Wh out. My panel is 23% efficient.
Efficacy is: what is done / what is possible
>My panel is rated for 100W but because it was cloudy I only produced an average of 5W. My panel's efficacy was 5% today.
In power generation we call the special case of production / nameplate the "capacity factor". This is just power production efficacy with an industry standard name. Laymen might call it efficiency, and I won't jump on them for it.

Anonymous

Anonymous Thu 08 Oct 2020 17:48:51 No.12208154 Report

Quoted By: >>12208252

>>12195110
>Will solar energy ever be viable instead of being a meme?
it's pretty damn good already, but you listed the main drawbacks. Pretty sure every single one is solved though by placing panels in space and beaming energy back down to earth

>prices stagnating
doesn't really matter?
>efficiency slowing down
efficiency up when nothign to obstruct light from reaching panels / new panel designs
>weather dependent
no weather in space
>day/night dependent
constant sunlight in space
>requires replacing often
less weird and tear in space (or maybe radiation really hurts, idk lol)
>no real way to store energy
no need to store energy if you have a constant uninterruptible power supply that you can scale up and down as needed (just beam the energy into space if you have too much)

Anonymous

Anonymous Thu 08 Oct 2020 18:03:42 No.12208224 Report

Quoted By:

>>12195110
See >>12195203
The real hidden danger of solar is figuring out how to recycle the old cells and battery-based storage.
We aren't getting away from fossil-fuels with just solar and wind, but solar and wind can offset a meaningful chunk of fossil-fuel based energy production. Everyone who isn't stupid understands that nuclear is the only way we're ever getting off fossil fuels, and guess where the money isn't going and which energy source scares the public the most?

>>12195370
>So we should focus on solar energy.
This is an incredibly stupid comment. "We should focus on this thing that is not and cannot be a full-scale, permanent solution, instead of the thing that is the only actual solution to our energy needs."
There's nothing wrong with developing solar as a middle-step. To suggest that solar is the solution is demonstrative of, at best, ignorance of the entire subject of energy needs.

Anonymous

Anonymous Thu 08 Oct 2020 18:08:21 No.12208252 Report

Quoted By: >>12208285

>>12208154
How much propellant does it take to get a panel into space and how will you make that propellant?
What is the efficiency of lasering energy through atmosphere and converting it back to electricity on the ground? This matters because you need to break even on the energy required to put the panel in space to begin with.
Efficiency drops due to age regardless of environment. It happens because the photons slowly blast the panel apart. Putting them in space with even more ionizing radiation makes it worse. Space panels lose output at a rate of a few percent per year.

Anonymous

Anonymous Thu 08 Oct 2020 18:13:53 No.12208285 Report

Quoted By: >>12208345

>>12208252
not sure yet, really can't calculate the cost right now though because we are at the beginning the new space boom with large rockets that have cheap lifting costs coming into existence. Also the beaming technology is pretty poor at the moment so it will take a while before we can consider it an option and by then, who knows, maybe manufacturing the panels not on earth could also reduce total raw to in orbit costs. Then there is the fact that you could build the panel to capture more than just the light that reaches earth, why not capture all that radiation too and use it? Pretty sure "solar" has a future for large volume low density energy, but it's not going to look like modern solar and it's a ways off.

Anonymous

Anonymous Thu 08 Oct 2020 18:24:49 No.12208345 Report

Quoted By: >>12208403

>>12208285
We have a limited time and energy budget to pursue solutions with. I'd rather see a trillion dollars pumped into fusion meme than space panel meme. I'd rather see 100 billion pumped into modular fission first, as that's a straight up engineering and legislative problem, not something which is betting on running into technologic leaps.

Anonymous

Anonymous Thu 08 Oct 2020 18:35:40 No.12208403 Report

Quoted By: >>12209336

>>12208345
I do too, but in terms of scale, I think solar is the future. fusion will probably be able to get way more dense but I can't imagine building a fusion reactor is the right choice if you've got infinite space and that big old natural fusion generator to work with instead

Anonymous

Anonymous Thu 08 Oct 2020 22:02:35 No.12209303 Report

Quoted By: >>12209308

What if in home/building construction we made it so that there is solar in the consideration from the very beginning, making it more elegant, modular, and serviceable. Just a thought. You could lower installation and maintenance costs over time.

Anonymous

Anonymous Thu 08 Oct 2020 22:03:48 No.12209308 Report

Quoted By: >>12209339

>>12209303
Not to mention, buildings have a large energy demand I understand that. But by using energy efficient appliances/lights/etc we can maybe lower the burden. There’s the materials science involved in insulation as well.

Anonymous

Anonymous Thu 08 Oct 2020 22:09:20 No.12209336 Report

Quoted By: >>12209363

>>12208403
Solar is the future for fuckoff big space stations and legendary scale engineering projects like turning Mercury into a billion probes and sending them off at a significantly fraction of c in every direction.

Anonymous

Anonymous Thu 08 Oct 2020 22:10:04 No.12209339 Report

Quoted By:

>>12209308
I would add, with proper regulation on hvac and such, what the fuck ever, we could make it so that we would save ourselves the destruction of the environment involved with traditional grids and nuclear energy. At least in select areas. So a small investment would go a long way in terms of outlook of the next 100 years of life on earth.

Anonymous

Anonymous Thu 08 Oct 2020 22:17:08 No.12209363 Report

Quoted By: >>12209383

>>12209336
Honestly it’s the future for anyone who can see it. Solar panels are only about 25% efficient at the best, and they’re only in 25% of homes at the best, so there’s a lot of room for growth if managed well.

Anonymous

Anonymous Thu 08 Oct 2020 22:22:05 No.12209383 Report

Quoted By: >>12209725

>>12209363
Growth doesn't matter. The low capacity factor prevents scaling without battery, and adding battery makes it too expensive. Solving the battery cost issue is very far from trivial. Dumping your hope in solar is a good way to ensure oil and gas supremacy, which is why oil and gas companies lobby for solar. It makes them look good and doesn't actually fuck up their bottom line.

Anonymous

Anonymous Fri 09 Oct 2020 00:15:23 No.12209725 Report

Quoted By: >>12210312 >>12210997

>>12209383
I don't understand this issue about batteries. if solar panels have 100% uptime, and you have enough for peak grid load, why do you need batteries?

Anonymous

Anonymous Fri 09 Oct 2020 00:57:15 No.12209883 Report

Quoted By:

>>12206326
Ontario runs the largest active nuclear PP in the world (Bruce Power) . Its a point of pride for us here. The only one people cringe at is Darlington

Anonymous

View Same Google iqdb SauceNAO caiso-duck-curve-1024x716.jpg, 99KiB, 1024x716

Anonymous Fri 09 Oct 2020 03:07:19 No.12210312 Report

Quoted By:

>>12209725
Because of pic related. You need to be able to temporally shift energy because the solar output doesn't align with the usage curve. This causes enormous stress on a grid in the early evening. California's solution to this problem seems to be "ignore it, continue to shut down baseload sources" which has lead to blackouts. This is a daily problem. You also need to be able to cover night time, another daily problem. Finally, you need to be able to cover times of inclement weather, an intermittent problem. Solar has a capacity factor of 11% globally. That means when you install a 100W solar panel sometimes you get 100W and sometimes you get 0W, but if you take the average then you'll have gotten 11W. If you needed to power a 100W load continuously then you really need close to 1kW of solar panels plus around 1.5kWh of battery. You might still have a few days a year where output drops below 100W because you got unlucky with weather, but this setup will be fairly reliable. The math is easier in places with a ton of solar insolation and rare cloud cover, like deserts. It's harder everywhere else.
As a grid operator you can use sources like hydro to make up some of the storage, but not much. Most of the ballast currently comes from something called a peaker plant, which is a coal or gas plant designed to ramp output up and down very quickly, like 10s of % per hour quickly. They run very inefficiently for a lot of reasons, and frequently end up in "spinning reserve" mode where they're burning fuel just to stay hot and ready even when there is no demand, because demand is expected soon. That means on a day when you MIGHT need a peaking plant, the plant runs on idle all day long without actually making a single useful kWh. And the plant operators get paid to do this, because operational costs aren't zero just because their output wasn't used.
Solar either needs a shitload of battery, at an unfathomable engineering scale, or it needs an army of dirty as fuck peakers.

Anonymous

Anonymous Fri 09 Oct 2020 03:24:47 No.12210336 Report

Quoted By:

>>12195110
I don't see how it will ever be viable unless they create a design that doesn't use precious materials. Just because china is selling rare earths for cheap it doesn't mean we have an unlimited stock of the stuff.

Anonymous

Anonymous Fri 09 Oct 2020 04:23:27 No.12210447 Report

Quoted By: >>12210871

>>12195331
basedboy opinion, we talking about producing electricity to power the world not make chlorophyl

Anonymous

Anonymous Fri 09 Oct 2020 08:17:05 No.12210871 Report

Quoted By:

>>12210447
Technically all the energy we use has come from the sun, except nuclear power, which came from the exploding of other stars.
The stored hydrocarbons from a billion years of plants and algae settling into the ground has been an excellent "battery" for the last couple hundred years.

Anonymous

Anonymous Fri 09 Oct 2020 08:26:52 No.12210884 Report

Quoted By:

Make something similar to this solar thermoacoustic device. It could split water into hydrogen at the same time to store energy
https://youtu.be/fMoRkEffFOQ

Anonymous

Anonymous Fri 09 Oct 2020 09:03:20 No.12210966 Report

Quoted By: >>12211319

>>12207328

-Artificially by government finance
it influences roi for the end customer, not the manufacturers price directly
yes, you can say that it stimulates consumption and increases the mass production effect making shit cheaper, but this is accelerating a natural process that we can see with every popular technology

-Efficientcy has gone up (now aproximately stated as 44%). The one thing that will not change is the radiation on the earth surface which is 1000W/m2
i don't understand your argument
i wrote that most manufacturers guarantee not higher deprecation than 20% in 20 years, how is your response disproving that?

-Yeah but in this case the disadvantages clearly surpass the advantages
this sentence doesn't mean anything
what are the units for "advantages" and "disadvantages"? what are conditions of the comparison? i am talking about solar supplementing the power grid and used as a short term backup, which i clearly stated previously

-about 1% per year without taking into account climate erosion in certain places
ok, so?

Anonymous

Anonymous Fri 09 Oct 2020 09:06:46 No.12210975 Report

Quoted By: >>12211319

>>12207328

-Fuel (fossil or nuclear) and water dams are basically stores energy - ok please store some energy that i generated from a solar panel in your "fuel"
there is a reason why storage is called storage and fuel is called fuel. we get more degree of control with conventional fuel, sure, so what?

Anonymous

Anonymous Fri 09 Oct 2020 09:09:40 No.12210983 Report

Quoted By: >>12211319 >>12211607

>>12207328

-Anything bigger it becomes a waste of resources.
bigger than what? there are enormous parks that successfully form a PART of national grids

Sorry for retarded formatting and multiple posts, retarded antispam thingy wouldn't let the post through for some reason.

Anonymous

Anonymous Fri 09 Oct 2020 09:14:25 No.12210997 Report

Quoted By: >>12211625

>>12209725
because these retards think only in terms of their imaginary scenarios
in reality solar works together with the grid and at peak loads the grid covers the demand and at peak solar production if demand is too low the inverters just downregulate the power

Anonymous

View Same Google iqdb SauceNAO abb.png, 770KiB, 1202x736

Anonymous Fri 09 Oct 2020 12:00:46 No.12211267 Report

Quoted By: >>12211279

>>12207435
>Nah. It's still around low 20s.
For single-cell which is around a 33% theoretical maximum. Multi-cell is more expensive but has achieved better scores.

Anonymous

Anonymous Fri 09 Oct 2020 12:09:29 No.12211279 Report

Quoted By:

>>12211267
>Multi-cell is more expensive but has achieved better scores.
Do any commercial actor actually use those? And what is the cost difference?
>in b4 it's 200 times expensive for 2x higher efficiency.

Anonymous

Anonymous Fri 09 Oct 2020 12:20:37 No.12211306 Report

Quoted By: >>12211307

Whats the down side of hydrogen fuel cell technology? My friend keeps ranting about it.

Anonymous

Anonymous Fri 09 Oct 2020 12:23:09 No.12211307 Report

Quoted By:

>>12211306
>Whats the down side of hydrogen fuel cell technology?

Producing, distributing and storing hydrogen.
You would have to design and build a global infrastructure for it.

Anonymous

Anonymous Fri 09 Oct 2020 12:31:30 No.12211319 Report

Quoted By:

>>12210966
>yes, you can say that it stimulates consumption and increases the mass production effect making shit cheaper, but this is accelerating a natural process that we can see with every popular technology
Yes but the unintended consequence is the building of solar farms beyond what is optimal. I'm all for rooftop and backup solar.
>i wrote that most manufacturers guarantee not higher deprecation than 20% in 20 years, how is your response disproving that?
Just stating that though the efficiency has gone up, there's a limit to how much you can take from a unit of surface. Different from other sources.
>what are the units for "advantages" and "disadvantages"? what are conditions of the comparison? i am talking about solar supplementing the power grid and used as a short term backup, which i clearly stated previously
My mistake then
>ok, so?
They are fragile and the characteristic you mention doesn't mean anything if they can be broken by rocks, debris or hail.
>>12210975
>ok please store some energy that i generated from a solar panel in your "fuel"
>there is a reason why storage is called storage and fuel is called fuel. we get more degree of control with conventional fuel, sure, so what?
You mentioned that other techonologies don't have a means to store or pack energy, they do. You can have an oil tank, a coal reservoir and dams are a way to store masses of water that when used pushes turbines.
>>12210983
>bigger than what? there are enormous parks that successfully form a PART of national grids
The fact that they exist doesn't mean they are cost effective, good for the grids and good for the environment. Some companies have gone bankrupt because the revenew of solar was exceeded by the cost. Some places like California or Australia have seen their grid get more problems as they transition to renewables.

Anonymous

Anonymous Fri 09 Oct 2020 14:43:17 No.12211607 Report

Quoted By:

>>12210983
Could you fucking stop using dashes as quote marks? We have > for a reason.

Anonymous

Anonymous Fri 09 Oct 2020 14:54:14 No.12211625 Report

Quoted By: >>12211961

>>12210997
In reality the grid collapses because the output swings of solar farms are difficult to track. This has actually happened in practice and the solution to the problem is to keep even more spinning gas reserve or continue to run baseload plants like normal while dumping output while the schizo solar farms are actually making energy. Both of these things make solar not green, as they are relying on coal and gas to be functional.

Anonymous

Anonymous Fri 09 Oct 2020 16:56:38 No.12211961 Report

Quoted By: >>12212072

>>12211625
The solution is to aggressively increase solar and wind in californa.

Then shut down and rapidly dismantle their spinning reserves in a period of the year when renewables are favorable so that by the time the grid collapses they cannot reverse the decision.

Then we finally get rid of all the green retards in california that shitpost on the internet about muh renewables because their devices have no power to post from.

Anonymous

Anonymous Fri 09 Oct 2020 17:33:23 No.12212072 Report

Quoted By:

>>12211961
Very based strategy. They seem to be doing it on their own though, keke.

Anonymous

Anonymous Fri 09 Oct 2020 17:34:45 No.12212079 Report

Quoted By:

>>12195110
maybe near equator

Capcode	All Only User Posts Only Moderator Posts Only Admin Posts Only Developer Posts
Show Posts	All Only With Images Only Without Images
Deleted Posts	All Only Deleted Posts Only Non-Deleted Posts
Ghost Posts	All Only Ghost Posts Only Non-Ghost Posts
Post Type	All Only Sticky Threads Only Opening Posts Only Reply Posts
Results	All Grouped By Threads
Order	Latest Posts First Oldest Posts First

Your latest searches