Solar Power Could Be World’s Main Energy Source By 2050

[SmedlyButler]

And on October 29th -- 100 people in northern Denmark froze to death when the wind stopped and technicians had problems restarting the main fossil plant in Copenhagen..

FCT - "And on October 29th -- 100 people in northern Denmark froze to death when the wind stopped and technicians had problems restarting the main fossil plant in Copenhagen..."

Maybe my other reply to this post was too convoluted. I'll make it simpler. How can 100 people freeze to death as a result of a power outage if the temperature doesn't fall below freezing? The following is a daily temperature graph from Aalborg (or Alborg) Northern Denmark (see map). Graph is in Celsius, 0 is freezing point. This argument about renewables depends mostly on statistics, projections from statistics. A lot of data. When we're throwing numbers around shouldn't we try to keep them as accurate as possible? Where would a statistic like "100 people froze to death" come from? As I pointed out in my other post 21 peoples deaths in Hurricane Sandy could be attributed to power outage. The North American Ice Storm of 1998 (also known as Great Ice Storm of 1998) left millions in the dark for periods varying from days to weeks, and in some instances, months. It led to 35 fatalities from all incidents from car accidents to building collapses to weather exposure. Does the opposition to renewables need to fabricate evidence to support their opinions or was this some kind of honest error or are those 100 deaths real but unrecorded among the millions of web resources?


Daily Temperature Graph for Aalborg, Northern Denmark 2013 from weatherspark.com

I might as well throw this in while I'm at it.

You can't fix stupid.. It's easy to assume it's someone's else's problem if it rains or snows --- until YOU or a relative are on the operating table when the sun goes away.

Really? There aren't thousands of power outages in traditional grids around the world every day? This is reminiscent of "death panels". Solar panels=Death panels? Isn't this a tawdry method of argument in a serious discussion?

 

[Billy_Bob]

Consider that PV panels are only viable for about 6 hours a day. Of those 6 hours only 2 are at full output (60% of rated capacity). The other four hours are zero to 60% graduated. A 100 watt panel will create 60 watts for two hours at 12 volts. Roughly 5 amps of current and 2.0 amps for the other four hours on average. This one panel will charge a 100/amp/hour battery which will last about 6-8 hours with one 15 watt bulb.

Not only can the PV array not sustain power 24 hours a day it can not charge a battery bank and provide the amount of power necessary for day to day living. Just sizing these things for a 2.5kw monthly use would require 35 100 watt panels, 25 100 amp/hr batteries and a 5,000 watt inverter. For peak loads to run your AC, electric stove, and dryer a 15kw generator set.

Their math is screwed up in the article as their predictions for performance are about 60% to high..

Good God! Not even going to go all through the simple math that you simply failed on. Are you a pre-adolescent? You write like one, and that is certainly the extent of your knowledge.

Oh look a moron who doesn't know how to determine Amps, watts, and percentages... Show me where I am wrong... Or is your only game name calling..?

 

[Pop23]

As I recall, conservatives always claimed that solar power would never amount to any more than a small fraction of energy usage. Looks like they were wrong about that too.

In fact, this story seems all the more compelling today because last week I was invited to attend a presentation that explained how anyone and everyone can be involved in buying solar energy without the need for solar panels on your home. It was pretty interesting, actually. It's called Sun Share. I'm including a link to it only so people can see how it works.

SunShare Community Solar Gardens - MySunShare.com


Energy agency predicts sun could overtake oil, gas as main source of energy on the planet.


By mid-century, the sun could be the largest source of energy and help reign in global warming by preventing the release of billions of tons of carbon dioxide emissions, according to a new report from the International Energy Agency.

The bullish report is the latest dose of good news for the solar industry that has seen phenomenal growth. Global demand is expected to double every two years through 2022 as prices fall and the technology continues to improve. The United States is one of the markets poised for strong growth.


Solar power could be world s main energy source by 2050 - Fortune

In 35 years we will all have flying cars and robot maids.

 

[Billy_Bob]

For the OLD CROCK...

Using 100 watt panels (60% is the expected out put under full sun) so the total expected wattage out put is 60 watts. Watts / Amps = Volts We know that the panel is rated at 12 V output 60/12= 5 amps.. So during full sun we can expect 5 amps at 12 V.

we need 2.5 KW to operate the system. in order to obtain that wattage we take 2,500/ 60 = 41.666 (OK so we needed 6 more panels than my original post, cry me a river).

The battery storage has to last 18 hours at no input, 4 hours at some input and 2 hours at full input while providing the needs of the inverter to power the home. The home draws 1000 watts continuously and the batteries require 1345 watts to charge them in the time allotted. That leaves about 250 watts play room.

This process is complex and if you miss a point you go without power. My hybrid system uses two 1,500 watt wind turbines and 12 300 watt GE panels. I can live totally off grid for months at a time. My wind turbines are best in winter and my solar panels are best in summer.

I did this because my power grid is unreliable not due to CAGW... I also have a 15kw standby gen set that has both NG and a gasoline tank. We have electric stove and Dryer.. Our winter heat is NG.

 

[Kosh]

Seems the enviro-Nazi's are against solar..

Environmentalists oppose Obama plan to develop solar energy

 

[skookerasbil]

C'mon......solar is a joke. Supplies 0.2% of our energy needs. By 2050, with wind, still wont make up 10%....all the projections point to those #'s except for the green-energy nutter sources, including the Obama Administration EIA.

Do I really need to post up the EIA graph again to make the eco-k00ks look like dicks yet again??

 

[elektra]

I nominate this thread for the "Stoopid Thread of the Year" award in the ENVIRONMENT forum. And in here.....that's saying something!!!!



Any reputable source says solar/wind will still be a fringe energy market after 2040, including the Obama EIA so at this moment I'm laughing my balls off. Here's the EIA projection graph >>>

The OP is known to be a bubble dwelling Disney guy in other forums........posts almost invariably displaying a vivid imagination = he's a fucking k00k. Wanders into the ENVIRONMENT forum once or twice a year after being publically humiliated in the POLITICS forum.

First of all, the prediction of what will be a reality 36 years from now is not mine.

However, let's take a look at recent history. The first men landed on the moon in 1969. 36 years before that event, it was 1933. In June of that year, a research group at RCA headed by Vladimir K. Zworykin publicly launched the 'iconoscope' which ws the first practical cathode ray tube television camera. From that humble beginning, look how many homes across the US and Europe had TVs by 1969, which, by they way, they used to watch Neil Armstrong's historic walk on the moon.

Yep, in 1969 we landed on the moon, 45 years ago, can we do that now? Nope, we do not have a shuttle or a rocket, all that is now done for us by the Russians and the Chinese.

Now you want green energy and you use our lack of leadership in space as an example.

Irony

 

[skookerasbil]

I nominate this thread for the "Stoopid Thread of the Year" award in the ENVIRONMENT forum. And in here.....that's saying something!!!!



Any reputable source says solar/wind will still be a fringe energy market after 2040, including the Obama EIA so at this moment I'm laughing my balls off. Here's the EIA projection graph >>>

The OP is known to be a bubble dwelling Disney guy in other forums........posts almost invariably displaying a vivid imagination = he's a fucking k00k. Wanders into the ENVIRONMENT forum once or twice a year after being publically humiliated in the POLITICS forum.

First of all, the prediction of what will be a reality 36 years from now is not mine.

However, let's take a look at recent history. The first men landed on the moon in 1969. 36 years before that event, it was 1933. In June of that year, a research group at RCA headed by Vladimir K. Zworykin publicly launched the 'iconoscope' which ws the first practical cathode ray tube television camera. From that humble beginning, look how many homes across the US and Europe had TVs by 1969, which, by they way, they used to watch Neil Armstrong's historic walk on the moon.

Yep, in 1969 we landed on the moon, 45 years ago, can we do that now? Nope, we do not have a shuttle or a rocket, all that is now done for us by the Russians and the Chinese.

Now you want green energy and you use our lack of leadership in space as an example.

Irony

LOL.....and NASAA via the GAO recently said that the reason we cant go to the moon anymore is......ready for this.......we don't have the material developed to protect the re=entry vehicle from being burned up to shit!!!!!!!!!!!

“…The importance of a totally reliable and effective heat shield cannot be overstated. The availability of a proper heat shield was absolutely critical for the safe return of all the Apollo crews. NASA’s admission that the agency cannot now recreate the thermal shield of a return module is absolutely astounding. Such an admission could only be compared to an inconceivable statement that, for example, American military officials admit that after using armoured steel in their tanks during WWII, some 40 years later they don’t have the technology at hand to develop armoured steel, and have great difficulty in reproducing such steel despite the previous experience during the war. The GAO report concludes: 'With respect to Orion's thermal protection system, facilities available from the Apollo era for testing large-scale heat shields no longer exist.' (GAO, 2008 p.14)…”


AULIS Online ndash Different Thinking



yuk......yuk..........



[URL='http://s42.photobucket.com/user/baldaltima/media/760px-Earth_over_Apollo_11_Lunar_Module-1.jpg.html'][/URL]

 

[flacaltenn]

And on October 29th -- 100 people in northern Denmark froze to death when the wind stopped and technicians had problems restarting the main fossil plant in Copenhagen..

FCT - "And on October 29th -- 100 people in northern Denmark froze to death when the wind stopped and technicians had problems restarting the main fossil plant in Copenhagen..."

Maybe my other reply to this post was too convoluted. I'll make it simpler. How can 100 people freeze to death as a result of a power outage if the temperature doesn't fall below freezing? The following is a daily temperature graph from Aalborg (or Alborg) Northern Denmark (see map). Graph is in Celsius, 0 is freezing point. This argument about renewables depends mostly on statistics, projections from statistics. A lot of data. When we're throwing numbers around shouldn't we try to keep them as accurate as possible? Where would a statistic like "100 people froze to death" come from? As I pointed out in my other post 21 peoples deaths in Hurricane Sandy could be attributed to power outage. The North American Ice Storm of 1998 (also known as Great Ice Storm of 1998) left millions in the dark for periods varying from days to weeks, and in some instances, months. It led to 35 fatalities from all incidents from car accidents to building collapses to weather exposure. Does the opposition to renewables need to fabricate evidence to support their opinions or was this some kind of honest error or are those 100 deaths real but unrecorded among the millions of web resources?


Daily Temperature Graph for Aalborg, Northern Denmark 2013 from weatherspark.com

I might as well throw this in while I'm at it.

You can't fix stupid.. It's easy to assume it's someone's else's problem if it rains or snows --- until YOU or a relative are on the operating table when the sun goes away.

Really? There aren't thousands of power outages in traditional grids around the world every day? This is reminiscent of "death panels". Solar panels=Death panels? Isn't this a tawdry method of argument in a serious discussion?

You are working WAAAY too hard here Smedly.. It's admirable, but not neccessary.. My reaction was sarcasm to a MADE UP useless factoid about wind power that was PURE propaganda. Not even documented well and certainly designed to misinform..

Better way for an honest discussion here is to ask you if you've EVER SEEN a daily production chart for a Danish wind farm? Are you aware that spikes like that are RARE and typically restricted to a matter of minutes or a couple hours at most?

I will gladly show you the production chart from a well-sited off shore Danish wind plant if you haven't.. It is an ENTIRELY UNRELIABLE source of grid power and definitely has the CAPACITY to KILL large numbers of people if grossly misapplied as "an alternative".. It is NOT an alternative energy source for generation of electricity -- PERIOD...

 

[flacaltenn]

Smedley: This chart is for Middelgrunden in Denmark.. Just 10 days of performance.. The 400,000 mark is RATED output of this field.

What you get --- is the mess of random performance in that graph. That news blurb was ABSURD propaganda. And if you were to rely on it as "an alternative" -- people WOULD die.. It is a novelty item that can be TOLERATED on the grid in small quantities. And in order to Shut UP the babies who BELIEVE that crap engineering like this is an alternative to anything..

 

[Mustang]

I nominate this thread for the "Stoopid Thread of the Year" award in the ENVIRONMENT forum. And in here.....that's saying something!!!!



Any reputable source says solar/wind will still be a fringe energy market after 2040, including the Obama EIA so at this moment I'm laughing my balls off. Here's the EIA projection graph >>>

The OP is known to be a bubble dwelling Disney guy in other forums........posts almost invariably displaying a vivid imagination = he's a fucking k00k. Wanders into the ENVIRONMENT forum once or twice a year after being publically humiliated in the POLITICS forum.

First of all, the prediction of what will be a reality 36 years from now is not mine.

However, let's take a look at recent history. The first men landed on the moon in 1969. 36 years before that event, it was 1933. In June of that year, a research group at RCA headed by Vladimir K. Zworykin publicly launched the 'iconoscope' which ws the first practical cathode ray tube television camera. From that humble beginning, look how many homes across the US and Europe had TVs by 1969, which, by they way, they used to watch Neil Armstrong's historic walk on the moon.

Yep, in 1969 we landed on the moon, 45 years ago, can we do that now? Nope, we do not have a shuttle or a rocket, all that is now done for us by the Russians and the Chinese.

Now you want green energy and you use our lack of leadership in space as an example.

Irony

Why should people want to spend resources to land on the moon again?

 

[flacaltenn]

Landing on the moon the first time DID accelerate science and engineering for quite awhile. Building windmills and solar powered gadgets is about 400 yr old technology. Who the hell do you think MAKES this stuff now? It's LOW tech manufacturing and advances in PV solar are not likely to ever make it to the commercial market because of cost. Ironically,, MOST of the NEW PV solar tech being developed could only be funded for SPACE applications. Like those feisty Mars Rovers..

 

[elektra]

I nominate this thread for the "Stoopid Thread of the Year" award in the ENVIRONMENT forum. And in here.....that's saying something!!!!



Any reputable source says solar/wind will still be a fringe energy market after 2040, including the Obama EIA so at this moment I'm laughing my balls off. Here's the EIA projection graph >>>

The OP is known to be a bubble dwelling Disney guy in other forums........posts almost invariably displaying a vivid imagination = he's a fucking k00k. Wanders into the ENVIRONMENT forum once or twice a year after being publically humiliated in the POLITICS forum.

First of all, the prediction of what will be a reality 36 years from now is not mine.

However, let's take a look at recent history. The first men landed on the moon in 1969. 36 years before that event, it was 1933. In June of that year, a research group at RCA headed by Vladimir K. Zworykin publicly launched the 'iconoscope' which ws the first practical cathode ray tube television camera. From that humble beginning, look how many homes across the US and Europe had TVs by 1969, which, by they way, they used to watch Neil Armstrong's historic walk on the moon.

Yep, in 1969 we landed on the moon, 45 years ago, can we do that now? Nope, we do not have a shuttle or a rocket, all that is now done for us by the Russians and the Chinese.

Now you want green energy and you use our lack of leadership in space as an example.

Irony

Why should people want to spend resources to land on the moon again?

You made the assertion that landing on the moon is relevant to this thread, now you act like you do not know what you have quoted.

So, your original point you now admit was ridiculous?

 

[flacaltenn]

Just a test here. Since the thread is all over the place already..
I need some of the "Alternatives" people to tell me exactly how you use
a power source like this in LARGE quantity without endangering lives or compromising the safety of our electrical grid..

Seriously... ANYONE tell me how much of THIS we actually need??

 

[skookerasbil]

I nominate this thread for the "Stoopid Thread of the Year" award in the ENVIRONMENT forum. And in here.....that's saying something!!!!



Any reputable source says solar/wind will still be a fringe energy market after 2040, including the Obama EIA so at this moment I'm laughing my balls off. Here's the EIA projection graph >>>

The OP is known to be a bubble dwelling Disney guy in other forums........posts almost invariably displaying a vivid imagination = he's a fucking k00k. Wanders into the ENVIRONMENT forum once or twice a year after being publically humiliated in the POLITICS forum.

First of all, the prediction of what will be a reality 36 years from now is not mine.

However, let's take a look at recent history. The first men landed on the moon in 1969. 36 years before that event, it was 1933. In June of that year, a research group at RCA headed by Vladimir K. Zworykin publicly launched the 'iconoscope' which ws the first practical cathode ray tube television camera. From that humble beginning, look how many homes across the US and Europe had TVs by 1969, which, by they way, they used to watch Neil Armstrong's historic walk on the moon.

Yep, in 1969 we landed on the moon, 45 years ago, can we do that now? Nope, we do not have a shuttle or a rocket, all that is now done for us by the Russians and the Chinese.

Now you want green energy and you use our lack of leadership in space as an example.

Irony

Why should people want to spend resources to land on the moon again?

Again?!!!!!

 

[Billy_Bob]

Just a test here. Since the thread is all over the place already..
I need some of the "Alternatives" people to tell me exactly how you use
a power source like this in LARGE quantity without endangering lives or compromising the safety of our electrical grid..

Seriously... ANYONE tell me how much of THIS we actually need??

Without some way to store the high peaks its worthless... Worse still is the fact that vibration damage usually ends the life of one of the big 50kw ones in about 5 years.. And it takes about 6 years for one to pay for itself.. Those high costs were offset by government hand outs but as those dwindle and are taken away the monsters are left to die. Germany has about 9 wind farms now rusting and that is in ONE YEAR..

My smaller systems use permanent magnet alternators. No loss in start up or wind direction change but the bearings on those last about 3-5 years with proper maintenance. While blades choose odd times for their disintegration.. I keep one full unit in standby at all times. You just have too,.especially in winter.

 

[Billy_Bob]

Smedley: This chart is for Middelgrunden in Denmark.. Just 10 days of performance.. The 400,000 mark is RATED output of this field.

What you get --- is the mess of random performance in that graph. That news blurb was ABSURD propaganda. And if you were to rely on it as "an alternative" -- people WOULD die.. It is a novelty item that can be TOLERATED on the grid in small quantities. And in order to Shut UP the babies who BELIEVE that crap engineering like this is an alternative to anything..

60,000 watts is just 21-23% of the 400,000 they are talking up... And then to offset that we have to burn coal, NG, or Nuclear just to have demand backup.. Wind is garbage on a large scale.. Even Pacific Corp wont publicly plot their farms here in WY..

 

[elektra]

Just a test here. Since the thread is all over the place already..
I need some of the "Alternatives" people to tell me exactly how you use
a power source like this in LARGE quantity without endangering lives or compromising the safety of our electrical grid..

Seriously... ANYONE tell me how much of THIS we actually need??

you build a new grid from scratch so the big corporations that supply raw materials can profit and use more oil in doing so

 

[flacaltenn]

Smedley: This chart is for Middelgrunden in Denmark.. Just 10 days of performance.. The 400,000 mark is RATED output of this field.

What you get --- is the mess of random performance in that graph. That news blurb was ABSURD propaganda. And if you were to rely on it as "an alternative" -- people WOULD die.. It is a novelty item that can be TOLERATED on the grid in small quantities. And in order to Shut UP the babies who BELIEVE that crap engineering like this is an alternative to anything..

60,000 watts is just 21-23% of the 400,000 they are talking up... And then to offset that we have to burn coal, NG, or Nuclear just to have demand backup.. Wind is garbage on a large scale.. Even Pacific Corp wont publicly plot their farms here in WY..

That offshore group is 10 of 2MW turbines. So the RATED is actually 480MWhr/day. I said 400,000 KWatthrs on the graph, but it's closer to the 500,000 line..

Funny deal --- you'll appreciate this.. I've stashed dozens of daily production charts from all around the world over the years. USED to be bragged on and published in REAL TIME performance data (as Middelgrunden still does kinda). THEY ARE ALL GONE.. BEEN PURGED.. Nobody is proud of that of crap once it's explained to the public.. You can still see daily charts from Middelgrunden, but you have to access thru a 10 yr old Internet Explorer version browser.

So when I see a phony record for wind get posted, I kind of get upset at the stupidity and the dishonesty involved....

 

[flacaltenn]

Smedley: This chart is for Middelgrunden in Denmark.. Just 10 days of performance.. The 400,000 mark is RATED output of this field.

What you get --- is the mess of random performance in that graph. That news blurb was ABSURD propaganda. And if you were to rely on it as "an alternative" -- people WOULD die.. It is a novelty item that can be TOLERATED on the grid in small quantities. And in order to Shut UP the babies who BELIEVE that crap engineering like this is an alternative to anything..

60,000 watts is just 21-23% of the 400,000 they are talking up... And then to offset that we have to burn coal, NG, or Nuclear just to have demand backup.. Wind is garbage on a large scale.. Even Pacific Corp wont publicly plot their farms here in WY..

Couldn't even be made into a market under true free enterprise. You can't schedule it or contract for it or write a performance liability into a delivery contract. The only way it survives is to be MANDATED and REQUIRED and highly SUBSIDIZED. That's why leftist's love it...