Power the WORLD with solar panels.

[elektra]

Nobody who works for the solar industry could be as stupid on the matter as you are.

I accept your challenge, I go first.

Describe how a solar panel is made without using google.

 

[Crick]

Yep, giving away where I work. One could say I am a scientist. But I am much to humble to suggest that I am a scientist.

So, you're not a scientist.

I work for the Wind Turbine industry at multiple phases of the manufacturing and construction process.

But the facility in the photograph - where you said you worked - has nothing to do with wind turbines.

 

[goodluck]

It's here........

https://www.usmessageboard.com/threads/the-current-mass-extinction-event.1104314/

Also, why not spend trillions. Our economic system is unsustainable anyway.

If you want to spend trillions on energy that doesn't release CO2,
let's spend trillions on nuclear. It works much better than wind and solar.

We could build enough to power all the stupid electric cars you'd like.

Also, I've never heard of a solar panel that didn't work. So to call it unreliable is stupid.

I've never heard of a solar panel that produces power at midnight, so how is that reliable power?

Wherever my thread was sent, I can't see it. Your link won't show it to me. Next, nuclear power is far too dangerous. The waste can remain dangerous for up to a million years. Also, nuclear accidents are rare. But when they happen, WOW! There isn't enough money in the world to clean it up. Solar power is safe and clean. Next, why is it that you people keep asking the same stupid question. Of course solar panels don't work at night. However many you need to power things during the day, you just double that. Then half the power you store for night time use. You saw that picture I showed of the area of solar panels compared to the U.S. it would take to power the world. Well that is taking nighttime into consideration. Half of that area would power the world during the day, the other half would be stored for nighttime use.

 

[goodluck]

Citation? ... I have Architurectal Digest to back up my claim of 200 W/m^2 ... where are you getting 600 W/m^2, or did you just measure one direction and forget to include the 3 meters the other direction? ...

You think Planck's Radiation Law has nothing to do with radiation? ... I'd like to see the cartoon you learned this from ... "too hot to walk on" ... boy, that's a sciency statement if I've ever heard one ... would that wilt your delicate curls? ...

Have you included manual labor? ... the solar energy stored in human foods? ... I guess not, eh ...

I don't have a link for you. I use Brave browser. In it I typed the question, "How large would a solar panel have to be to heat a hot plate." The first thing shown isn't a website. It is an AI generated answer. There are varying factors involved. But this is exactly what part of the response says. "Conclusion: To heat a hot plate with a power consumption of 1000 watts, a solar panel with an area of approximately 1 square meter (10.76 square feet) would be required, assuming an efficiency of 15% and a peak sun hour of 5 hours."

If you don't believe it, download Brave browser for yourself. Through it, type in the same question I asked. You will see the same AI generated response as I do. Though I did of course look at some other websites on the matter. I found one that came up with the same answer as you stated. That it would take 12 square meters of solar panel to heat a hot plate. Those two answers are wildly disproportionate. I wonder which is right. Or could it actually be somewhere in the middle. Who knows.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Wherever my thread was sent, I can't see it. Your link won't show it to me. Next, nuclear power is far too dangerous. The waste can remain dangerous for up to a million years. Also, nuclear accidents are rare. But when they happen, WOW! There isn't enough money in the world to clean it up. Solar power is safe and clean. Next, why is it that you people keep asking the same stupid question. Of course solar panels don't work at night. However many you need to power things during the day, you just double that. Then half the power you store for night time use. You saw that picture I showed of the area of solar panels compared to the U.S. it would take to power the world. Well that is taking nighttime into consideration. Half of that area would power the world during the day, the other half would be stored for nighttime use.

Next, nuclear power is far too dangerous. The waste can remain dangerous for up to a million years.

Isn't CO2 going to kill us in a few years?
And just how dangerous is nuclear waste after a million years? Link?

Also, nuclear accidents are rare. But when they happen, WOW!

How many have been killed by US civilian nuclear energy?
How many in the rest of the world?

Solar power is safe and clean.

And useless, if you need 24/7 power.

However many you need to power things during the day, you just double that. Then half the power you store for night time use.

What if it's rainy and cloudy for 2 days?
In Chicago, in winter, there are many days with less than 10 hours of sunlight.
At a worse angle. With snow and clouds. Is double the panels still enough?

 

[goodluck]

I accept your challenge, I go first.

Describe how a solar panel is made without using google.

Nice dodge to the point. This thread is about powering the world with solar panels. How solar panels are made doesn't matter. A better question is what it takes to collect coal to be burned. Here in the U.S. in many places they dispensed with hiring miners and decided to just plow off the tops of mountains. Creating massive pollution. Or what effort goes into drilling for oil. Or what we pay for it. Or what it takes to turn it into gasoline. Not to mention all the unfortunate by-products. Also, as one example. look at the Deepwater Horizon oil spill. There is also the misfortune that comes with fracking. Another example of misfortune is what Canada does to recover oil from the oil sands. With all those things, consider all of the pollution. Which is destroying our planet. And you want to bring up how solar panels are made? You need to pull your head out of something. You can guess what.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Nice dodge to the point. This thread is about powering the world with solar panels. How solar panels are made doesn't matter. A better question is what it takes to collect coal to be burned. Here in the U.S. in many places they dispensed with hiring miners and decided to just plow off the tops of mountains. Creating massive pollution. Or what effort goes into drilling for oil. Or what we pay for it. Or what it takes to turn it into gasoline. Not to mention all the unfortunate by-products. Also, as one example. look at the Deepwater Horizon oil spill. There is also the misfortune that comes with fracking. Another example of misfortune is what Canada does to recover oil from the oil sands. With all those things, consider all of the pollution. Which is destroying our planet. And you want to bring up how solar panels are made? You need to pull your head out of something. You can guess what.

A better question is what it takes to collect coal to be burned. Here in the U.S. in many places they dispensed with hiring miners and decided to just plow off the tops of mountains. Creating massive pollution. Or what effort goes into drilling for oil. Or what we pay for it. Or what it takes to turn it into gasoline.

It takes work to provide cheap, reliable fossil fuels.

With all those things, consider all of the pollution. Which is destroying our planet.

Reliable nuclear is much less polluting, right?

 

[goodluck]

Next, nuclear power is far too dangerous. The waste can remain dangerous for up to a million years.

Isn't CO2 going to kill us in a few years?
And just how dangerous is nuclear waste after a million years? Link?

Also, nuclear accidents are rare. But when they happen, WOW!

How many have been killed by US civilian nuclear energy?
How many in the rest of the world?

Solar power is safe and clean.

And useless, if you need 24/7 power.

However many you need to power things during the day, you just double that. Then half the power you store for night time use.

What if it's rainy and cloudy for 2 days?
In Chicago, in winter, there are many days with less than 10 hours of sunlight.
At a worse angle. With snow and clouds. Is double the panels still enough?

1. Look it up for yourself. I spent about an hour trying to find out how long the "elephants foot" at Chernobyl is expected to remain dangerous. I never did find a good answer. I found estimates that ranged from 20,000 years to 100,000 years. Though along the way I found out that some nuclear waste can remain dangerous for a million years. I would think that the elephants foot at Chernobyl would have to be at least just as dangerous.

2. Who knows. There is a lot of radioactive waste dumped each year. Who knows how many people that has killed. There is a documentary out there that you would benefit from finding and watching. It's called, "Waste: A Nuclear Nightmare." Also, ever see the movie based on a true story called "Silkwood?"

Another point is that just from nuclear tests done here in the U.S., this website may be of some interest to you.



Government Executive
govexec.com › technology › 2017 › 12 › us-nuclear-test-killed-far-more-civilians-then-we-knew › 144762

U.S. Nuclear Test Killed Far More Civilians Than We Knew - Government Executive


3. You sound like a skipping record. You keep asking the same stupid questions that I already gave answers to. You store energy during the day to use at night. And you would still need power transmission lines to transmit power from place where the sun is shining to places where it isn't. Also, during cloudy days, you will still get some energy from solar panels. And the technology is improving all the time. I hear they figured out how to get then to utilize infrared radiation.

 

[Admiral Rockwell Tory]

Seeing how this thread is about powering the world with solar panels, I will assume you are speaking of that. If you want to know how much power the world needs per day, look it up. The amount of solar panels compared to the U.S. in the picture I posted shows what it would take to produce it. And as I told Mikeo, if we covered the Sahara Desert in solar panels, we would produce enough energy to power over 20 Earths.

How would weather patterns be affected as the sun light would either not reach the ground or heat the earth? Didn't think about that, did you?

 

[Admiral Rockwell Tory]

Wherever my thread was sent, I can't see it. Your link won't show it to me. Next, nuclear power is far too dangerous. The waste can remain dangerous for up to a million years. Also, nuclear accidents are rare. But when they happen, WOW! There isn't enough money in the world to clean it up. Solar power is safe and clean. Next, why is it that you people keep asking the same stupid question. Of course solar panels don't work at night. However many you need to power things during the day, you just double that. Then half the power you store for night time use. You saw that picture I showed of the area of solar panels compared to the U.S. it would take to power the world. Well that is taking nighttime into consideration. Half of that area would power the world during the day, the other half would be stored for nighttime use.

You do realize that there are new reactors than can run on recycled fuel rods, right?

 

[Dadoalex]

How much energy is produced at night? Or in two weeks of rain during Monsoon season? After 10 years and the degradations of the panels, does it only produce enough for 1/2 the world, or 1/4?

We've got this great new invention.
We call it "T H E G R I D"
The grid.
Where we connect power sources in Florida to Texas, to Colorado to California to Alaska, to Russia all the way round the world and back to Florida.

With The Grid we can generate and distribute power globally 24x7.
Ain't new technology wonderful?

 

[Dadoalex]

You do realize that there are new reactors than can run on recycled fuel rods, right?

Some still think The China Syndrome was a documentary.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

1. Look it up for yourself. I spent about an hour trying to find out how long the "elephants foot" at Chernobyl is expected to remain dangerous. I never did find a good answer. I found estimates that ranged from 20,000 years to 100,000 years. Though along the way I found out that some nuclear waste can remain dangerous for a million years. I would think that the elephants foot at Chernobyl would have to be at least just as dangerous.

2. Who knows. There is a lot of radioactive waste dumped each year. Who knows how many people that has killed. There is a documentary out there that you would benefit from finding and watching. It's called, "Waste: A Nuclear Nightmare." Also, ever see the movie based on a true story called "Silkwood?"

Another point is that just from nuclear tests done here in the U.S., this website may be of some interest to you.


Government Executive
govexec.com › technology › 2017 › 12 › us-nuclear-test-killed-far-more-civilians-then-we-knew › 144762
U.S. Nuclear Test Killed Far More Civilians Than We Knew - Government Executive


3. You sound like a skipping record. You keep asking the same stupid questions that I already gave answers to. You store energy during the day to use at night. And you would still need power transmission lines to transmit power from place where the sun is shining to places where it isn't. Also, during cloudy days, you will still get some energy from solar panels. And the technology is improving all the time. I hear they figured out how to get then to utilize infrared radiation.

Look it up for yourself.

Did you make another silly claim with no actual evidence? I'm shocked!!

I found estimates that ranged from 20,000 years to 100,000 years.

You were off by a factor of 10-50? Shocking!

Though along the way I found out that some nuclear waste can remain dangerous for a million years.

Which nuclear waste?

Who knows.

Not you, you don't know anything.

There is a lot of radioactive waste dumped each year. Who knows how many people that has killed.

Where is US nuclear waste "dumped"?

Also, ever see the movie based on a true story called "Silkwood?"

How many people died because of US nuclear waste in "Silkwood"?

Another point is that just from nuclear tests done here in the U.S.

I'm not calling for more nuclear tests to generate electricity. Focus!

You sound like a skipping record.

Only to highlight your repeated idiocy.

You store energy during the day to use at night.

Right. Build twice the panels you need. Except in winter or cloudy weather.
Then you build 3 times, maybe 4 times? Plus $100K worth of batteries. More?

And you would still need power transmission lines to transmit power from place where the sun is shining to places where it isn't.

Right. Where does Chicago get some sweet solar at midnight? China?

I hear they figured out how to get then to utilize infrared radiation.

I'm sure that extra 1% is gonna make a huge difference. At double the cost? More?

 

[ReinyDays]

I don't have a link for you. I use Brave browser. In it I typed the question, "How large would a solar panel have to be to heat a hot plate." The first thing shown isn't a website. It is an AI generated answer. There are varying factors involved. But this is exactly what part of the response says. "Conclusion: To heat a hot plate with a power consumption of 1000 watts, a solar panel with an area of approximately 1 square meter (10.76 square feet) would be required, assuming an efficiency of 15% and a peak sun hour of 5 hours."

If you don't believe it, download Brave browser for yourself. Through it, type in the same question I asked. You will see the same AI generated response as I do. Though I did of course look at some other websites on the matter. I found one that came up with the same answer as you stated. That it would take 12 square meters of solar panel to heat a hot plate. Those two answers are wildly disproportionate. I wonder which is right. Or could it actually be somewhere in the middle. Who knows.

No link means it didn't happen ... YOU are not intelligent enough ... YOU have ask a computer ... why are you bothering? ...

AI is programmed to lie ... this "Brave" browser is selling your personal information to the CCP ... lucky you ... it's telling you exactly what you want to hear ... [giggle] ...

"Let's end the suspense with some basic cost estimates. Most electric ovens draw between 2,000 and 5,000 watts, with the average electric stove wattage using between 1,000 and 3,000 watts. So how much energy does an electric stove use per hour? Assuming you’re priced at an electricity rate of 12¢ per kilowatt-hour (kWh), a 3000-watt oven will cost you about 36¢ per hour at high heat. As for the burners on the electric stove top, bigger burners draw more electricity. Many cooktops range from about 1,200 watts for the smallest burners to 3,000 watts for the largest, costing you roughly 14¢ and 36¢ per hour, respectively."

At a dollar a watt for solar panels ... it's $3,000 to run just one burner ...

Go back to Brave and tell her all about yourself ... I dare you ... get your cogging shoes on:

 

[ReinyDays]

You do realize that there are new reactors than can run on recycled fuel rods, right?

Actually, that's old technology ... breeder reactors are more expensive than light water reactors, and indeed breeder waste can be processed into new fuel rods and kept "burning" ... more energy ... far far less pollution ... just more expensive is all ...

We have enough fossil fuels left to build these new generation nuclear reactors SAFELY ... until then, some of us can use economical alternatives ... solar in the desert Southwest, wind in West Texas ... hydro where it rains every day all day long ...

Unless you're made of money, go ahead and conserve ... it doesn't hurt one bit ...

 

[elektra]

Nice dodge to the point. This thread is about powering the world with solar panels. How solar panels are made doesn't matter. A better question is what it takes to collect coal to be burned.

Dodge? Is that what you are doing when you ask about how coal is collected? Right after you make it clear this thread is about solar?
Coal is mined, not collected. I guess you call it, "Coal Collecting." Calling mining collecting, is simply, dumb.

 

[elektra]

Nice dodge to the point. This thread is about powering the world with solar panels. ....Or what effort goes into drilling for oil. Or what we pay for it. Or what it takes to turn it into gasoline. Not to mention all the unfortunate by-products.

I thought the thread is about solar? Nice dodge. Not sure what you mean, "nice dodge to the point."

And here we have goodluck, the troll, accusing others of dodging the topic, when that is all goodluck is doing.

 

[elektra]

So, you're not a scientist.

But the facility in the photograph - where you said you worked - has nothing to do with wind turbines.

hahahahahahaha, The facility I showed has everything to do with Wind Turbines and Solar Panels, as well as the shampoo people use daily.

And yes, I am a scientist. I use a scientific method to attain scientific data that I scientifically analyze, the results of which I use in my reports that I give to the customer.

 

[Crick]

hahahahahahaha, The facility I showed has everything to do with Wind Turbines and Solar Panels, as well as the shampoo people use daily.

What compound does that facility produce that is used in wind turbines?

And yes, I am a scientist.

Do you have a PhD?

I use a scientific method to attain scientific data that I scientifically analyze, the results of which I use in my reports that I give to the customer.

The same can be said for a kid in 8th grade physical science class. You're not doing original research. You're not qualified to do any such thing. You're monitoring industrial processes. At best you're a chemical engineer.

 

[elektra]

What compound does that facility produce that is used in wind turbines?

amorphous silicon dioxide powder