Yoda Power
✫✫✫✫✫✫✫
- Joined
- Sep 24, 2002
- Messages
- 13,870
Why not just use a combination of solar, wind and water power. They are all good.
Anyone know the efficiency of simply using the electricity generated to pump water up a hydroelectric plant as a storage device?
Well, we're talking solar thermal here, which is cheaper and more low-tech.Probably would take a ****load of fossil fuel & rare minerals to make all those solar panels.
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)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).
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).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.
It is already happening. Miles driven has decreased for the first time in history. Realistically, we cannot maintain our current energy consumption.Obviously it would be nice to go without using as much power... but realistically, it just isn't going to happen.
If we don't learn how to do more with less & stop <ruining> our nests our grandkids will be lucky to be alive.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.
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.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.
I agree (just playing devil's advocate) but solar panels are alot pricier than roofing singles.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.
We need another 100,000% or so.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.
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.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.
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.
Tell me more about it. (could use wiki but you're smarter than wiki, right? sum it up for me)Well, we're talking solar thermal here, which is cheaper and more low-tech.
Actually San Diego county (desert) has more biodiversity than any other county in North America.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)
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.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.
It is already happening. Miles driven has decreased for the first time in history. Realistically, we cannot maintain our current energy consumption.
If we don't learn how to do more with less & stop <ruining> our nests our grandkids will be lucky to be alive.
Nothing wrong with solar but the idea that we can run Times Square & Las Vegas on it is not realistic or even desirable (IMO).
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.
We need another 100,000% or so.
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.
It suns very unequally thoughlol: 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 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.
People like to want what they can't have.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.
They're flat gonna have to.We can individually reduce our consumption, sure... but the rest of the world just flat isn't going to.
Right now it's dropping pretty dramaticly.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.
We're doing both. Just we're doing the latter half-ass.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?
There's always choices to make. But for many people unfortunately their choices don't matter much.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.
Was less morally reprehensible when it was full of whores.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.
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).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), 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.
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!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.
I thought you're saying it can & will.Can't happen, though.
Too bad Americans are too lazy, hopefully a Euro or two will take pity on us.I'd be curious as well, solar isn't my field, it's more of a curiosity.
![]()
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.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.
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.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...
I figure it's similar to pumping water for municipal water towers, so apparently it's near 80%.
Well, the sun makes stuff hot, and hot stuff drives turbines.Tell me more about it. (could use wiki but you're smarter than wiki, right? sum it up for me)
Doesn't San Diego county span desert, and coast and offshore islands? Pretty sure it's not all desert.Actually San Diego county (desert) has more biodiversity than any other county in North America.
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 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.
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.Well, the sun makes stuff hot, and hot stuff drives turbines.
Yeah, probably, but the islands are deserty too.Doesn't San Diego county span desert, and coast and offshore islands? Pretty sure it's not all desert.
Yeah, I know, also Nevada is significantly different from San Diego.In any case, deserts aren't generally where one finds high biodiversity.
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.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.
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%.
Thanks.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).
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.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.
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!![]()
I thought you're saying it can & will.
Too bad Americans are too lazy, hopefully a Euro or two will take pity on us.![]()
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.