• Civ7 is already available! Happy playing :).

Is solar power a good alternative?

Why not just use a combination of solar, wind and water power. They are all good.
 
Well, yes...

It's just that we need lots more of everything.

Saying "we need solar everywhere!" doesn't mean we aren't also hurting for some hydro or wanting wind or thirsty for thorium.

:)
 
Does anyone have the cost analysis of solar panels vs. coal, oil, natural gas, and nuclear power? I imagine the only reason we don't have a system in place right now is because it's cost prohibitive.
 
Cost is part of the reason. At current costs, solar is far more practical for mid range and peak load power supply.
Also that solar works best during a sunny day, and so a storage solution for all the power to be used the rest of the day is needed.
 
Anyone know the efficiency of simply using the electricity generated to pump water up a hydroelectric plant as a storage device?
 
Probably would take a ****load of fossil fuel & rare minerals to make all those solar panels.
Well, we're talking solar thermal here, which is cheaper and more low-tech.

We're also necessarily taking that sun away from other life that wants it (of course we're already doing this via roofs so a few solar panels won't hurt things much more).
Incoming solar radiation is a quite plentiful source, in addition the most economically viable places to put them are also the places with the lowest biodiversity (deserts)


Does anyone have the cost analysis of solar panels vs. coal, oil, natural gas, and nuclear power? I imagine the only reason we don't have a system in place right now is because it's cost prohibitive.
Solar panels certainly are (IIRC about 7 times coal), however solar thermal isn't that much more expensive (IIRC, it's about 50% more expensive than coal), however it's unreliable, highly location dependent, and land intensive (it would need to be on practically worthless land).

I'd say it shows considerable promise and is worth developing further

I should mention that photovoltaics are also part of the energy solution, because of their ability to supply portable green energy, they just aren't as current a viable source of grid power.
 
Regarding biodiversity: a mirror-farm would only take up a few square kilometers of desert in one swipe. Their abundant shade in areas that normally don't have shade will allow a local increase in biodiversity. As well, since there is so much desert, we actually don't have to worry about decreasing desert biodiversity by using some of the land for shade.
 
Obviously it would be nice to go without using as much power... but realistically, it just isn't going to happen.
It is already happening. Miles driven has decreased for the first time in history. Realistically, we cannot maintain our current energy consumption.

The world is pretty thirsty for power, and if we can't take it from what the sun is giving us, our grandchildren are probably going to be quite literally in the dark.
If we don't learn how to do more with less & stop <ruining> our nests our grandkids will be lucky to be alive.

Moderator Action: Please do not use foul language in your posts. If you trigger the autocensor, please rephrase.
Please read the forum rules: http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=422889

Nothing wrong with solar but the idea that we can run Times Square & Las Vegas on it is not realistic or even desirable (IMO).

Well, we're getting better at the solar thing; much like anything worthwhile, it's just going to take a lot of work and study before we're awesome at it.
We're getting better, yeah, but I don't think it can be scaled up to our "needs", which is fine, better to scale down our needs.

And putting some panels on every roof of every building isn't stealing that sun... if anything, it's probably better than plain dark roofs that cause cities to be hotter than the surrounding area.
I agree (just playing devil's advocate) but solar panels are alot pricier than roofing singles.

The problem with that is that most increases in efficiency are small things. They add up, but it's slow. If there were something that magically gave us an extra 25% efficiency or something crazy like that, we probably would have at least figured out how to get it if not how to put it into practice.

Instead we're looking at power plant designs that will get us another percent.
We need another 100,000% or so.

No, I'm not kidding. We're horribly inefficient.

We don't make a lot of our electricity from oil. And 50% efficiency would be a dream for a fossil plant. Nuclear plants are even less efficient (but as I said, their operating costs are so much cheaper that we're okay with 35% being really good for the time being).

Sure, oil is versatile... but we're limited in what we can do to get more energy and more power. The laws of thermodynamics and material properties are cruel twin mistresses.
Still more efficienct than solar, I'm too lazy to look it up but I think your average solar panel is .01% efficient or something (in terms of tranlating the sun's energy actually hitting it). Feel free to disprove me, I am curious to know the actual figure.

Not even close.

And that's something I like about solar: the sun shines on everyone for free,
so you don't need to worry so much about the fuel economics.

It suns very unequally though (:lol: suns very unequally, I'll just leave that there), some places might get barely any sun for months (granted you get some juice on cloudy days but much less). Also, if you're not a landowner & don't own a roof to suck sun off of you're still SOOL. Nitpicking I know but there's always gonna be social issues.

Well, we're talking solar thermal here, which is cheaper and more low-tech.
Tell me more about it. (could use wiki but you're smarter than wiki, right? sum it up for me)

Incoming solar radiation is a quite plentiful source, in addition the most economically viable places to put them are also the places with the lowest biodiversity (deserts)
Actually San Diego county (desert) has more biodiversity than any other county in North America.

Solar panels certainly are (IIRC about 7 times coal), however solar thermal isn't that much more expensive (IIRC, it's about 50% more expensive than coal), however it's unreliable, highly location dependent, and land intensive (it would need to be on practically worthless land).

I'd say it shows considerable promise and is worth developing further

I should mention that photovoltaics are also part of the energy solution, because of their ability to supply portable green energy, they just aren't as current a viable source of grid power.
Well I agree the less dependent one is on the grid the better. I think solar panels are a good personal solution/backup just not realistic for "saving society". Don't know much about solar thermal though.
 
I'm a conservationist. But I'm also going to be realistic about this: nothing we say or do is going to stop the other six and a half billion people on this planet from wanting everything the grid can provide. We can individually reduce our consumption, sure... but the rest of the world just flat isn't going to.

It is already happening. Miles driven has decreased for the first time in history. Realistically, we cannot maintain our current energy consumption.

Miles driven, sure... but you're talking about burning oil in people's engines. I'm looking at a much, much bigger picture. Worldwide, consumption is going to skyrocket. There's nothing we can do about that except hope that it's going to be fueled cleanly. Realistically, it's just going to happen, and I'd prefer it not to be all coal and gas.

If we don't learn how to do more with less & stop <ruining> our nests our grandkids will be lucky to be alive.

Moderator Action: Please do not quote inappropriate content

Although I agree with the sentiment, I think the choice of words is a little over the top. First you say we're starting to clean up our act, and now you say we're poisoning it faster than imaginable? I don't choose to believe we're in an apocalyptic struggle crisis armageddon situation, I choose to believe we've got choices to make and a lot of people are making the right ones right now.

Nothing wrong with solar but the idea that we can run Times Square & Las Vegas on it is not realistic or even desirable (IMO).

Times Square is easily one of the ugliest places on the planet. You won't find me arguing that we need to be as flashy as we always have.

We're getting better, yeah, but I don't think it can be scaled up to our "needs", which is fine, better to scale down our needs.

You and I can say that pretty comfortably as we type away on our super-cool coal-burning internet machines (or maybe you've got yours powered by something better, in which case :hatsoff:), but let's face it: the rest of the world wants power. North America and Europe would be in pretty good shape relatively if there were no growth in consumption in the future but we're less than 20% of the world's population, and I can only assume that percentage will decline fairly rapidly.

We've got to use the sun, because Asia is going to use lots and lots and lots of coal, and the sooner we make the clean stuff cheap and practical, the sooner the whole world can start using it and cleaning up its act.

We need another 100,000% or so.

Can't happen, though.

Still more efficienct than solar, I'm too lazy to look it up but I think your average solar panel is .01% efficient or something (in terms of tranlating the sun's energy actually hitting it). Feel free to disprove me, I am curious to know the actual figure.

I'd be curious as well, solar isn't my field, it's more of a curiosity.

:)

It suns very unequally though (:lol: suns very unequally, I'll just leave that there), some places might get barely any sun for months (granted you get some juice on cloudy days but much less). Also, if you're not a landowner & don't own a roof to suck sun off of you're still SOOL. Nitpicking I know but there's always gonna be social issues.

Of course there will be social issues. But we're running out of options very quickly. And I'm fairly sure that most people aren't content with blackouts becoming the option of choice.

Well I agree the less dependent one is on the grid the better. I think solar panels are a good personal solution/backup just not realistic for "saving society". Don't know much about solar thermal though.

They need to be realistic for saving society.

In any case, can I safely assume you'd prefer solar to thorium? It's the only other fuel we'll have left in a hundred years...
 
YES. In suitable situations.


Cover the Sahara, save the world!
 
I'm a conservationist. But I'm also going to be realistic about this: nothing we say or do is going to stop the other six and a half billion people on this planet from wanting everything the grid can provide.
People like to want what they can't have.

We can individually reduce our consumption, sure... but the rest of the world just flat isn't going to.
They're flat gonna have to.

Miles driven, sure... but you're talking about burning oil in people's engines. I'm looking at a much, much bigger picture. Worldwide, consumption is going to skyrocket.
Right now it's dropping pretty dramaticly.

There's nothing we can do about that except hope that it's going to be fueled cleanly. Realistically, it's just going to happen, and I'd prefer it not to be all coal and gas.[/quote]
I still don't see why you think it's going to happen.

Although I agree with the sentiment, I think the choice of words is a little over the top. First you say we're starting to clean up our act, and now you say we're poisoning it faster than imaginable?
We're doing both. Just we're doing the latter half-ass.

I don't choose to believe we're in an apocalyptic struggle crisis armageddon situation, I choose to believe we've got choices to make and a lot of people are making the right ones right now.
There's always choices to make. But for many people unfortunately their choices don't matter much.

Times Square is easily one of the ugliest places on the planet. You won't find me arguing that we need to be as flashy as we always have.
Was less morally reprehensible when it was full of whores.

You and I can say that pretty comfortably as we type away on our super-cool coal-burning internet machines (or maybe you've got yours powered by something better, in which case :hatsoff:), but let's face it: the rest of the world wants power. North America and Europe would be in pretty good shape relatively if there were no growth in consumption in the future but we're less than 20% of the world's population, and I can only assume that percentage will decline fairly rapidly.
It's nice to think the world will get more fair & the poorer nations will reach the gluttonous heights Americans now enjoy but I see no reason to believe it's going to happen on a planet with dwindling fossil fuel energy (and alternatives as primitive as they are now).

We've got to use the sun, because Asia is going to use lots and lots and lots of coal, and the sooner we make the clean stuff cheap and practical, the sooner the whole world can start using it and cleaning up its act.
Yeah, for every hippie in North America who thinks he's saving the world by recycling China opens a new coal plant. Thank God for their one child policy. Imagine if there were 300 million Chinese consuming! :eek:

Can't happen, though.
I thought you're saying it can & will.

I'd be curious as well, solar isn't my field, it's more of a curiosity.

:)
Too bad Americans are too lazy, hopefully a Euro or two will take pity on us. :D

Of course there will be social issues. But we're running out of options very quickly. And I'm fairly sure that most people aren't content with blackouts becoming the option of choice.
I think we're in agreement that research should be done & solar should be pursuing wholeheartedly, I just don't think humanity's success is inevitably.

They need to be realistic for saving society.

In any case, can I safely assume you'd prefer solar to thorium? It's the only other fuel we'll have left in a hundred years...
Like I said, I like solar, it heats my hot water (and passive solar heats my apartment all day) I just don't think it will be possible to keep up society's standard of living (much less improve it) or that solar energy (besides the kind we use everyday to keep warm & feed ourselves) will make much difference for the majority of humanity.
 
I figure it's similar to pumping water for municipal water towers, so apparently it's near 80%.

That's pretty good, I gather the 80% is for the pump only though. As a storage device you obviously also have to consider the hydroelectric powerplant. I just googled that, and apparantly they can run at 90% which would result in a combined efficiency of around 70%.
 
Tell me more about it. (could use wiki but you're smarter than wiki, right? sum it up for me)
Well, the sun makes stuff hot, and hot stuff drives turbines.

Actually San Diego county (desert) has more biodiversity than any other county in North America.
Doesn't San Diego county span desert, and coast and offshore islands? Pretty sure it's not all desert.

In any case, deserts aren't generally where one finds high biodiversity.

Well I agree the less dependent one is on the grid the better. I think solar panels are a good personal solution/backup just not realistic for "saving society". Don't know much about solar thermal though.
Actually, grid dependence can be a very good thing, because we can produce green energy from large installations more efficiently and transfer power farther distances. When I say, off-grid, I don't mean taking one off the grid, but as a power source in locations without grids. A good example of this was a project I did a little bit of work on back in college, where Kerosene lamps were being replaced with photovoltaic cell driven LEDs with internal Li-Ion batteries.
 
Well, the sun makes stuff hot, and hot stuff drives turbines.
Oh ok, thx, I can picture it now, we have a fan with a little turbine like that on the large wood fired stove here that starts running & circulates the hot air on fire power alone.

Doesn't San Diego county span desert, and coast and offshore islands? Pretty sure it's not all desert.
Yeah, probably, but the islands are deserty too.

In any case, deserts aren't generally where one finds high biodiversity.
Yeah, I know, also Nevada is significantly different from San Diego.

Actually, grid dependence can be a very good thing, because we can produce green energy from large installations more efficiently and transfer power farther distances. When I say, off-grid, I don't mean taking one off the grid, but as a power source in locations without grids. A good example of this was a project I did a little bit of work on back in college, where Kerosene lamps were being replaced with photovoltaic cell driven LEDs with internal Li-Ion batteries.
I can see the advantages of on-grid power in a nation with a stable power system (as the US has had for many years). It still depends though, if you can get solar panels so efficient that one 8x10 panel (or whatever the standard size is) can power a whole house it doesn't seem to make sense to depend on the grid except as a backup (for me anyway, others might prefer to depend on the grid). It seems to be a "mixed system" (grid providing for some, others providing for themselves) would be ideal.
 
That's pretty good, I gather the 80% is for the pump only though. As a storage device you obviously also have to consider the hydroelectric powerplant. I just googled that, and apparantly they can run at 90% which would result in a combined efficiency of around 70%.

Yes, the efficiency would be pretty good. The problem is that you would need to store a lot of water, and there are not many places where much water can be stored in an elevated position. The day/night cycle would be very difficult, the summer/winter cycle is hopeless.
 
Solar panels certainly are (IIRC about 7 times coal), however solar thermal isn't that much more expensive (IIRC, it's about 50% more expensive than coal), however it's unreliable, highly location dependent, and land intensive (it would need to be on practically worthless land).
Thanks. :goodjob:
 
I can see the advantages of on-grid power in a nation with a stable power system (as the US has had for many years). It still depends though, if you can get solar panels so efficient that one 8x10 panel (or whatever the standard size is) can power a whole house it doesn't seem to make sense to depend on the grid except as a backup (for me anyway, others might prefer to depend on the grid). It seems to be a "mixed system" (grid providing for some, others providing for themselves) would be ideal.
In general, the ideal of homegrown energy isn't that viable. Even those with solar panels need electricity at night (I know of homeowners who buy electricity at night, and sell it during the day and who end up with a net profit doing it). Getting an energy self-sufficient home is a highly expensive process (most of those who put cells on their home for economic reasons are benefiting from subsidies). I mean sure if there was something simple and cheap as a solution I'd be all over it, however at this point and quite awhile into the future home generation will only be in addition to, not as a replacement for grid power.
 
Yeah, it's not ideal for most people, I like it for me though. But I'm a different bird than most (and also I have low energy needs). If those super-thin "panels" because economically viable I can the home solar really taking off, otherwise probably not.
 
Yeah, for every hippie in North America who thinks he's saving the world by recycling China opens a new coal plant. Thank God for their one child policy. Imagine if there were 300 million Chinese consuming! :eek:

This is the point I'm making. The "developing" world is doing just that, and you and I can't stop it from happening.

If someone wants clean water, lights, a factory, or really anything... someone enterprising will sell them power. That's happening on a huge scale oceans away from us. If we can get cleaner energy cheaper, they'll build cleaner plants. Right now coal is cheap, so that's what they're going to build.

I thought you're saying it can & will.

Nope. Laws of thermodynamics and stuff.

To be more efficient in a conventional power plant, we need a heat making machine that heats only the fluid in it, the fluid has to get super wicked crazy hot, and it has to dump all its energy into the turbines. There are, of course, limits to heats and pressures and such that we can operate at. Plenty of new plant designs address as many of those issues as possible to squeeze more efficiency, more safety, more power from the designs, but 50% is a dream.

Too bad Americans are too lazy, hopefully a Euro or two will take pity on us. :D

Can't do too many things at once, and fission is more my style.

Like I said, I like solar, it heats my hot water (and passive solar heats my apartment all day) I just don't think it will be possible to keep up society's standard of living (much less improve it) or that solar energy (besides the kind we use everyday to keep warm & feed ourselves) will make much difference for the majority of humanity.

Perhaps not.

But I'd prefer to set ourselves up for success.

Just think of solar as a cute girl on your bus...

;)
 
Top Bottom