Who hates greens? (2 Viewers)

[Trefoil]

Average solar flux on the ground is about 700 W/m². Average solar panel efficiency is about 20%. Average coal plant puts out, say, 5 billion kW-hr/year.

You can do the maths.

Oh yeah, viable energy storage for solar (such as batteries) don't exist and probably won't exist unless better batteries are discovered.

You seem to not understand the fundamental purpose behind using solar: it's sustainable, clean and has no moving parts.

Also, your maths is wrong, and you base your efficiencies and premises on current technology even though we have significantly better prototypes and research models (see the fields of intelligent polymers, carbon nanotubes, hydrogen storage, and general materials science). Further, you seem confused into thinking solar power is designed to replace all other energy sources for some reason.

Let's see:

- The 89 petawatts of sunlight reaching the earth's surface is plentiful - almost 6,000 times more than the 15 terawatts of average power consumed by humans. Additionally, solar electric generation has the highest power density (global mean of 170 W/m²) among renewable energies.

- Solar power is pollution free during use. Production end wastes and emissions are manageable using existing pollution controls. End-of-use recycling technologies are under development.

- Facilities can operate with little maintenance or intervention after initial setup.

- Solar electric generation is economically superior where grid connection or fuel transport is difficult, costly or impossible. Examples include satellites, island communities, remote locations and ocean vessels.

- When grid-connected, solar electric generation can displace the highest cost electricity during times of peak demand (in most climatic regions), can reduce grid loading, and can eliminate the need for local battery power for use in times of darkness and high local demand; such application is encouraged by net metering. Time-of-use net metering can be highly favorable to small photovoltaic systems.

- Grid-connected solar electricity can be used locally thus reducing transmission/distribution losses (transmission losses were approximately 7.2% in 1995).

- Once the initial capital cost of building a solar power plant has been spent, operating costs are extremely low compared to existing power technologies.

- Compared to fossil and nuclear energy sources, very little research-money has been invested in the development of solar cells, so there is much room for improvement. Nevertheless, experimental high efficiency solar cells already have efficiencies of over 40% and efficiencies are rapidly rising while mass production costs are rapidly falling.

You can read the rest on wikipedia, I'm sure.

Basically, you've not given any reason against researching and using solar energy.

 

[Trefoil]

They were trying some epic water storage system in SA but I don't know how it's panned out.

I don't think electrochemical storage will hold up for such a vast amount of electricity.

OMG I KNO LETS GET SUM HUEG CAPACITORZ N STOR POWR DERE RITE?

Electricity storage is not a problem unique to solar power. It exists in general. We use hydrocarbons currently because they are stored solar energy. One thing places like Iceland do is convert geothermal into hydrogen through electrolysis. It has great potential. Another form of storage is to do work that is otherwise cost prohibitive with fossil fuels: e.g. aluminium smelting.

More here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electricity_storage#Storage_methods

 

[Captain Hero]

No reason not to research solar energy, great reasons not to directly start implementing it as it's less efficient to, say, overnight, do a full implementation of it.

The best future proofing method is Geothermal. Solar's a red herring on the way.

 

[poWerdrY]

well i guess its settled that wind will never work.

 

[Trefoil]

Geothermal won't get you anywhere if you plan to use it alone

And why is geothermal so good? Unless there's been recent developments (past 3 years), I'm unaware of any significant capacity on its part.

I mean it's good stuff, don't get me wrong... but it's no more a solution than any other as far as we know.

 

[Captain Hero]

Geothermal won't get you anywhere if you plan to use it alone

And why is geothermal so good? Unless there's been recent developments (past 3 years), I'm unaware of any significant capacity on its part.

I mean it's good stuff, don't get me wrong... but it's no more a solution than any other as far as we know.

http://web.mit.edu/newsoffice/2007/geothermal.html

Zetta Joules dude.

Zetta Joules.

 

[Trefoil]

What recent technological developments have been made, though? Last I heard it didn't even account for 1% of the world's energy needs. If it has so much potential but they're not adopting it yet, surely there's a reason?

For solar power, the efficiencies and costs were too prohibitive in the past, and have only just reached acceptable levels. Is cost the barrier for geothermal, too?

 

[Captain Hero]

What recent technological developments have been made, though? Last I heard it didn't even account for 1% of the world's energy needs. If it has so much potential but they're not adopting it yet, surely there's a reason?

For solar power, the efficiencies and costs were too prohibitive in the past, and have only just reached acceptable levels. Is cost the barrier for geothermal, too?

No cost isn't at all, Geothermal is cheap, man. In Australia the main barrier would be transmission losses, which are being dealt with as our materials science gets better and better. Dude, Geothermal could provide more power per year, 5x more power, than we have used in ALL OF HUMAN HISTORY. Mindblowing.

 

[Trefoil]

well i guess its settled that wind will never work.

Wind works fine. It's used a fair bit. Wind produces more energy than solar and geothermal combined, currently.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Renewable_energy#Wind_power_market_increase

 

[Captain Hero]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hot_dry_rock_geothermal_energy

Whoa my numbers are hell of underaccurate:

1) Resource Size: The MIT report calculated the United States total EGS resources from 3-10 km to be over 13,000 zettajoules, of which over 200 ZJ would be extractable, with the potential to increase this to over 2,000 ZJ with technology improvements - sufficient to provide all the world's current energy needs for several millennia[2]. The report found that total geothermal resources, including hydrothermal and geo-pressured resources, to equal 14,000 ZJ - or roughly 140,000 times total U.S. annual primary energy use.

2) Development Potential: With a modest R&D investment of $1 billion over 15 years (or the cost of one coal power plant), the report estimated that 100 GWe (gigawatts of electricity) or more could be installed by 2050 in the United States. The report further found that the "recoverable" resource (that accessible with today's technology) to be between 1.2-12.2 million MW for the conservative and moderate recovery scenarios respectively.

3) Cost: The report found EGS could be capable of producing electricity for as low as 3.9 cents/kWh. EGS costs were found to be sensitive to four main factors: 1) Temperature of the resource 2) Fluid flow through the system measured in liters/second 3) Drilling Costs 4) Power conversion efficiency

 

[Iron]

I just hate the principle that an iddy bitty Green vote can use evil wizardry to turn masses of Labor votes and masses of Liberal votes into a Green senate seat.
It would be different if they were uniquely qualified with aristocratic governmental skills, but they're only fringe shit-kickers

 

[jb_nc]

You seem to not understand the fundamental purpose behind using solar: it's sustainable, clean and has no moving parts.

From the latest issue of The Chemical Engineer (807, September 2008, pg 31):

CO[sub]2[/sub] output from electricity generation

Fuel Source: CO[sub]2[/sub] emitted (g/kW-hr)
Conventional coal: 1000 g/kW-hr
Combined cycle gas turbine: 500 g/kW-hr
Photovoltaic: 58 g/kW-hr
[b]Nuclear (complete life cycle): [u]5 g/kW-hr[/u][/b]
Wind: 5 g/kW-hr
Hydro (run of river): <5 g/kW-hr

Yes, 'much' cleaner than other technologies that exist right now.

Also, your maths is wrong

No it isn't. Because I didn't do any mathematics.

Apparently my value for solar flux was wrong, though.

and you base your efficiencies and premises on current technology even though we have significantly better prototypes and research models (see the fields of intelligent polymers, carbon nanotubes, hydrogen storage, and general materials science).

Ah, yes, the magical technology that hasn't manifested itself now to make solar technology economical reasonable but will IN THE FUTURE.

20% is reasonably high for solar efficiency at the moment but let's deal instead with a hypothetical, future time, where the efficiency of a solar cell reaches 40, 50 or 60 per cent instead.

Further, you seem confused into thinking solar power is designed to replace all other energy sources for some reason.

Do I? Please directly quote the text where I said this.

Let's see:

- The 89 petawatts of sunlight reaching the earth's surface is plentiful - almost 6,000 times more than the 15 terawatts of average power consumed by humans. Additionally, solar electric generation has the highest power density (global mean of 170 W/m²) among renewable energies.

- Solar power is pollution free during use. Production end wastes and emissions are manageable using existing pollution controls. End-of-use recycling technologies are under development.

- Facilities can operate with little maintenance or intervention after initial setup.

- Solar electric generation is economically superior where grid connection or fuel transport is difficult, costly or impossible. Examples include satellites, island communities, remote locations and ocean vessels.

- When grid-connected, solar electric generation can displace the highest cost electricity during times of peak demand (in most climatic regions), can reduce grid loading, and can eliminate the need for local battery power for use in times of darkness and high local demand; such application is encouraged by net metering. Time-of-use net metering can be highly favorable to small photovoltaic systems.

- Grid-connected solar electricity can be used locally thus reducing transmission/distribution losses (transmission losses were approximately 7.2% in 1995).

- Once the initial capital cost of building a solar power plant has been spent, operating costs are extremely low compared to existing power technologies.

- Compared to fossil and nuclear energy sources, very little research-money has been invested in the development of solar cells, so there is much room for improvement. Nevertheless, experimental high efficiency solar cells already have efficiencies of over 40% and efficiencies are rapidly rising while mass production costs are rapidly falling.

You can read the rest on wikipedia, I'm sure.

Cool, copy and paste there.

Don't even bother citing your sources though. I'm sure you typed that all out yourself.

Basically, you've not given any reason against researching and using solar energy.

Err, was I trying to give reasons against researching? I gave reasons for not using at the present time. Cool reading technique there.

Anyway, I don't have to; the market gives us reasons for not using and researching solar power.

 

[poWerdrY]

*sees a greeny*

stab stab stabbity stab

 

[jb_nc]

Hay guys remember "carbon capture and storage".

FUTURE RESEARCH IS ON THE WAY SO JUST KEEP USING IT!!!!!! WOOOOOOO!!!

 

[Trefoil]

I cited my source. I said read wikipedia for the rest. I trust you're not braindead, so that shouldn't be difficult, no?

Anyway, if you agree that we should be investing in solar power then what's your problem? I've already said I support nuclear, so it's not as though I'm saying "solar > nuclear".

Surely you see the benefit in dispersing our energy usage across various energy source, yes?

You're right: 20% is very high for solar efficiency. But it's not hard to get to 30% and 40%. Efficiency is a silly argument to use though, because it's not something that's comparable across energy sources. I mean, what's the effiency of petrol? 10%, 20%? But it suits our needs fine, so it's a moot point. Well, it should be improved now that we've hit peak oil, but it used to be a moot point.

 

[Trefoil]

Anyway, I don't have to; the market gives us reasons for not using and researching solar power.

Ah yes, how could I forget about the invisible hand of the free market.

 

[Trefoil]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hot_dry_rock_geothermal_energy

Whoa my numbers are hell of underaccurate:

1) Resource Size: The MIT report calculated the United States total EGS resources from 3-10 km to be over 13,000 zettajoules, of which over 200 ZJ would be extractable, with the potential to increase this to over 2,000 ZJ with technology improvements - sufficient to provide all the world's current energy needs for several millennia[2]. The report found that total geothermal resources, including hydrothermal and geo-pressured resources, to equal 14,000 ZJ - or roughly 140,000 times total U.S. annual primary energy use.

2) Development Potential: With a modest R&D investment of $1 billion over 15 years (or the cost of one coal power plant), the report estimated that 100 GWe (gigawatts of electricity) or more could be installed by 2050 in the United States. The report further found that the "recoverable" resource (that accessible with today's technology) to be between 1.2-12.2 million MW for the conservative and moderate recovery scenarios respectively.

3) Cost: The report found EGS could be capable of producing electricity for as low as 3.9 cents/kWh. EGS costs were found to be sensitive to four main factors: 1) Temperature of the resource 2) Fluid flow through the system measured in liters/second 3) Drilling Costs 4) Power conversion efficiency

Yeah, seems pretty sweet. Know any countries exploiting it significantly? Not NZ or Iceland which have geothermal vents.

 

[Captain Hero]

You're right: 20% is very high for solar efficiency. But it's not hard to get to 30% and 40%.

Thanks man I didn't realise you were a renewable engineer.

 

[jb_nc]

I cited my source. I said read wikipedia for the rest. I trust you're not braindead, so that shouldn't be difficult, no?

I briefly googled some points and it appears you found some PV/solar propaganda websites who don't cite their sources either.

Surely you see the benefit in dispersing our energy usage across various energy source, yes?

I did not argue this.

You're right: 20% is very high for solar efficiency. But it's not hard to get to 30% and 40%. Efficiency is a silly argument to use though, because it's not something that's comparable across energy sources. I mean, what's the effiency of petrol? 10%, 20%? But it suits our needs fine, so it's a moot point. Well, it should be improved now that we've hit peak oil, but it used to be a moot point.

Efficiency of the Otto and Diesel Cycles are around 50-60% each as in, what you get divided by what you pay for.

Yes, it is MUCH harder to get to 40%. Like, lol. If it wasn't hard, it would have been done by now.

 

[Olympus15]

I hate greens cause i hate poofters

lol...