No Solar Power/Electricity Tonight

[Fort Fun Indiana]

You are right, John Doe next door is not building a nuclear plant. But that is not what you stated to begin this little tit for tat.

But the oiint stands. Nobody wants to build one or live near one, here in the States.

Obama guaranteed 4 loans for 4 reactors, to anyone who wanted to build them.

No takers.

 

[elektra]

Simple. Calculate how much energy the sun imparts on a square meter per second. Compare it to combustion. Durely.ypu don't think you just stumped the worlslds scientists with an exercise that college freshmen do.

By the way, the 4.5 billion year number is irrelevant.

hahahahaha, go spend $50k of your own money on solar, then in 3 months show us you were right.

yes, I will begin my calculation now, in tennessee, oh shit, the sun is already going down, I came up with ZERO

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

hahahahaha, go spend $50k of your own money on solar, then in 3 months show us you were right.

yes, I will begin my calculation now, in tennessee, oh shit, the sun is already going down, I came up with ZERO

Oh, sorry. I didn't think you had to be told we are measuring energy of sunlight.

 

[wihosa]

Fossil Fuels were created over 4.5 billions of years. Now you make the claim that in minutes, a few hours of sunlight, we can replace what took billions of years?

I made no such claim. The fact is fossil fuels are the end result of plants converting sunlight, minerals and water into sugars. These carbon molecules grew into plants which is also the base of the food chain for animals as well. These early life forms died and were covered with sediment during the Carboniferous Period about 300 million years ago and converted into petroleum, methane gas and coal. The energy released by combustion is stored sunlight.

 

[elektra]

I made no such claim.

it looks like I may of gotten my posts, comments crossed, sorry if I did

 

[elektra]

Oh, sorry. I didn't think you had to be told we are measuring energy of sunlight.

yes, measuring sunlight we are, we will now have to wait until tomorrow

if we measure anything else, other than wind, we could do that now

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

yes, measuring sunlight we are, we will now have to wait until tomorrow

if we measure anything else, other than wind, we could do that now

So you are figuring out, slowly but surely, that it is capacitor tech that needs to improve.

And when it does, you can say goodbye to most other energy sources.

 

[elektra]

So you are figuring out, slowly but surely, that it is capacitor tech that needs to improve.

And when it does, you can say goodbye to most other energy sources.

hahahahahhaha

the first solar cell was invented in 1883

you can improve, what you call, "capacitor tech", what ever the fuck that is, all you want, but the sun does not have the energy density to give us the power to run our economy

 

[Mexicano]

Yet, solar cells have a cost that is over 10,000% higher!!!! And no matter how much you spend, they are still weak leaving us without the energy we need.

There are edge cases where solar cells can work. Places near a river with dry weather ( like the Colorado Basin) can use the existing dams as storage. They can also power desalinization plants in places that are often struck by droughts ( California ,Texas) and have a good amount of irradiation.
I don't discard them completely, but I will admit that for the time being, if we want to reduce carbon emissions the only viable way to do it is by using nuclear energy.

 

[Mexicano]

No, the problem is that Solar energy is very weak

You seem to hate solar, I don't hate it , I am just realist: the energy yield of nuclear plants is about 75 to 1 and the yield of solar in best-case scenarios is 8 to 1. They make sense in places where a nuclear plant is overkill: Puerto Rico, the Virgin Islands and Hawaii

 

[toobfreak]

Oh, sorry. I didn't think you had to be told we are measuring energy of sunlight.

Bottom line is that at any given time, about 75% of the world is getting no appreciable usable photovoltaic solar energy from the Sun, which means that solar power is effectively useless as a true power resource without building a ten trillion dollar battery the size of New Mexico connected to a 100 trillion dollar global power grid.

 

[toobfreak]

the energy yield of nuclear plants is about 75 to 1 and the yield of solar in best-case scenarios is 8 to 1.

Actually, studies show that because solar is a temporary power source only really effective on clear days from about 9-10AM in the morning to about 4-6PM in the evening, that solar power is really more like 1:4 or about four times the cost to supply as conventional gas, hydro, coal or nuclear plant options which unlike solar, work around the clock 7 days a week.

 

[Mexicano]

Actually, studies show that because solar is a temporary power source only really effective on clear days from about 9-10AM in the morning to about 4-6PM in the evening, that solar power is really more like 1:4 or about four times the cost to supply as conventional gas, hydro, coal or nuclear plant options which unlike solar, work around the clock 7 days a week.

In the Colorado basin, you can get 8 to 1 and make use of the existing dams and use them as batteries to cope with the solar "peak" that occurs between 12-2 pm. They are good enough for those cases with almost 365 days of sunlight and existing hydro storage. I think they can also work on small islands (storage will be a challenge there, but it is probably more cost-effective tha a full-fledged nuclear plant slightly better than shale oil and gas, but still worse than regular oil and gas).

 

[toobfreak]

In the Colorado basin

Good for the Colorado basin. At best, solar is only good for small scale needs and general augmentation. Meanwhile, the constant mining of the Earth's surface and manufacturing offset any allusions of "saving the environment."

 

[Mexicano]

Good for the Colorado basin. At best, solar is only good for small scale needs and general augmentation. Meanwhile, the constant mining of the Earth's surface and manufacturing offset any allusions of "saving the environment."

Agreed, there is some place for solar, but right now it can't be the backbone of energy generation, the same goes for fracking, it's at best a short-term solution.

 

[ding]

it is capacitor tech that needs to improve.

No such thing as a free lunch. But please do share any links you think support your belief that capacitors can store hours of energy use for later discharge.

 

[ding]

But the oiint stands. Nobody wants to build one or live near one, here in the States.

Obama guaranteed 4 loans for 4 reactors, to anyone who wanted to build them.

No takers.

More than likely due to the cost imposed by regulations making them economically challenged. But if you believe there is another reason there were no takers please due share your opinion.

 

[elektra]

There are edge cases where solar cells can work. Places near a river with dry weather ( like the Colorado Basin) can use the existing dams as storage. They can also power desalinization plants in places that are often struck by droughts ( California ,Texas) and have a good amount of irradiation.
I don't discard them completely, but I will admit that for the time being, if we want to reduce carbon emissions the only viable way to do it is by using nuclear energy.

bullshit
You have zero idea what you are talking about.

First and foremost, it is CO2 emissions, not CARBON emissions. You do not even no the proper terms to use!!!

Further, CO2 is at a historic low in the atmosphere, 400ppm. Green Houses increase CO2 to 1200ppm. Close to 200ppm and we will not be able to grow food, plant life begins to die.

So to begin, how low do you think CO2 should be.

 

[elektra]

In the Colorado basin, you can get 8 to 1 and make use of the existing dams and use them as batteries to cope with the solar "peak" that occurs between 12-2 pm. They are good enough for those cases with almost 365 days of sunlight and existing hydro storage. I think they can also work on small islands (storage will be a challenge there, but it is probably more cost-effective tha a full-fledged nuclear plant slightly better than shale oil and gas, but still worse than regular oil and gas).

bullshit!!!!!

You are making this up based on something you heard.

Pumped storage becomes thee most expensive form of electricity that exists. Further, do you have any idea how many 100's, if not 1000's of square miles of Solar Panels will be needed?

How many years will this take to build?

In Australia, the current cost of an unfinished pumped storage project, without the solar panels and wind turbines, is $12.5 billion dollars!!!!

More than the cost of Nuclear Power, (that is minus the democrat government ruling regulating lawsuits).

California can not use solar and wind to pump the water they use.

Solar and wind do not pump water to houses homes or businesses

Pumping water will become the number one user of electricity. Pumping water uses 80% of the electricity california uses.

 

[elektra]

You seem to hate solar, I don't hate it , I am just realist: the energy yield of nuclear plants is about 75 to 1 and the yield of solar in best-case scenarios is 8 to 1. They make sense in places where a nuclear plant is overkill: Puerto Rico, the Virgin Islands and Hawaii

are you mental

anybody should hate something that costs $150 trillion dollars and has already proven itself to fail as an industrial source of electricity

Yield of 8-1, what exactly does that mean? Let us see if you can explain that to begin