The US could Save $5.6B a year if it Switched from Coal to Solar – study

[elektra]

Yes I did claim that.

PV panels on just 22,000 square miles of the nation's total land area – about the size of Lake Michigan – could supply enough electricity to power the entire United States​

The bureaucrat, who has no source for this information, seems to know nothing about solar.

So many holes is such an idiotic statement, nobody ever includes the capacity factor for these systems.

Now we have 220,000 sq mi of solar panels.

 

[elektra]

Like you put yours behind fossil fuels?

all your eggs in one basket, solar and wind can only be manufactured using fossil fuels, an entirely new heavy industry with all it's eggs in the one giant fossil fuel basket

 

[elektra]

Yes I did claim that.

PV panels on just 22,000 square miles of the nation's total land area – about the size of Lake Michigan – could supply enough electricity to power the entire United States .https://www.energy.gov/eere/solar/solar-energy-united-states#:~:text=Solar's abundance and potential throughout,power the entire United States .

Lake Michigan?

Or we could say, abu afk claims says it is okay to destroy an area 22 times larger than the state of rhode island.

Or, we could say, abu afk says it is okay to use as much land as 22 million people would live on

Or, enough farm land must be destroyed that would of been used to feed 2 billion people

 

[elektra]

I think a more appropriate response would have been for you to check the figures yourself. Just calling everything you don't like "a lie" is the absolute height of intellectual laziness. Imitating someone as ignorant as Donald Trump is not going to advance your career in any field

of course, I did check his sources, I read the articles, so let us address your intellectual laziness in responding to a post you did not have any part of.

Is there a study backing up the claim? No. Sure, abu afk linked, and within the link are more links to studies, did abu afk or you check those links no.

So, in ignorance, with intellectual laziness, you accuse me of what you just did. Instead of even engaging with me, you accuse me of doing what you are doing.

And as you know, I have carried my argument with facts and figures in the past, making you look like a brainless fool, posts you ignore by the dozen. I am surprised you even have balls to even attempt to engage with me.

 

[elektra]

I think a more appropriate response would have been for you to check the figures yourself. Just calling everything you don't like "a lie" is the absolute height of intellectual laziness. Imitating someone as ignorant as Donald Trump is not going to advance your career in any field

I did check the figures, they come from nowhere, the studies and references in abu afk's link do not provide the figures in the bureaucrats editorial. You want to jump in, show us exactly where the bureaucrat got the figure.

Imitating Trump? oh, another insult?

Trump is worth $10 billions dollars
Trump is married to one of thee most beautiful woman in the world
Trump was president of the USA

Ignorance, that all belongs to you cricket, a tiny bug, easily smashed

Me, I am not worth much but I have averaged a 140k a year for 7 years in a row. I certainly did advance my non destructive testing career as far as it could go.

Ignorance, you display that very well, cricket

 

[bigrebnc1775]

He probably forgot to mention it would require a battery system and enough panels to run the home during the day and charge the batteries enough to run your home and charge your car at night. Not saying it can't be done but it's more than just solar panels and even then there will be many predictable surprises along the way. Seems like a bad idea to put all of one's eggs in one basket.

Leaving no power for home uses for items such as refrigerators, water heaters, freezers, HVAC units, home entertainment, alarm clocks just to name a few things that are used after the sun goes down.

 

[elektra]

I think a more appropriate response would have been for you to check the figures yourself. Just calling everything you don't like "a lie" is the absolute height of intellectual laziness.

So, I think Abu Afak's numbers are generous. The average of these values gives us 14,400 square miles, or 0.49% of the land area of the continental US. If you think those numbers are wrong, find some you like better and let us know. Just calling it all a lie is pure bullshit on your part.

Intellectual laziness, can I quote your source cricket?
today, give or take, 3,000 acres gives us 60 mwh, yet your intellectual laziness gives us as much a nuclear power plant would produce, more actually.

Solar is now more powerful than nuclear power, according to cricket?

How much land would it take to power the USA with solar energy? About this much. 2.8 acres per 1GWh.

You should keep your insults to yourself cricket, I certainly did not call you names or insult you. What makes this nice is how stupid you had thus proved yourself, to state someone is intellectually lazy, and then provide fairy tale figures found with your first google search, showing that CRICK is the one who is intellectually lazy as well as not having any sort of education which would of shown the figures quoted were very much, WRONG.

 

[Grumblenuts]

The bureaucrat, who has no source for this information, seems to know nothing about solar.

Baloney.

So many holes is such an idiotic statement, nobody ever includes the capacity factor for these systems.

Now we have 220,000 sq mi of solar panels.

Show your source or at least an attempt at the math or something you insufferable bore.
Btw, capacity factor is a phony metric created simply to make nuke shit smell like roses. Nonetheless, the govt. reports it, just as they do all the information you can actually rely upon.

 

[elektra]

Baloney.

Show your source or at least an attempt at the math or something you insufferable bore.
Btw, capacity factor is a phony metric created simply to make nuke shit smell like roses.

I read the sources provided by abu afk, and followed the links in the links.
I do not need a source when using the sources provided.

Capacity factor is phony? We must use nameplate capacity? What a solar panel produces as designed, not as installed and working?

Night time does not matter? When calculating output? Real output, what actually does get sold to a consumer is not what matters?

Hell, even the loss of electricity in transportation is not included in the capacity factor, yet line loss will be at least 50%

My source? Even if I know these things because of my experience, I have to have a link? Source or link, google is the arbitrator of all things truth? If you can not link to it, it is not true?

Solar is going to save us $5 billion a year, if first we invest $ 3.7 trillion (or $37 trillion if you account for how shitty these things perform once installed).

Sources, AOC, the green new deal, Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez states the cost is at least $100 trillion and if we spend that much, we save $5 billion?

Going green will save us, .005% of what will have to spend, $100 trillion

 

[abu afak]

back off with that common sense

FIVE 'Responses' to one short to-medium size post!
(631, 633, 634, 641, 643)
None of them addressing or Refuting (with a number) your own Ignorance re the space Solar plants would take up. (As Grumblenuts pointed out to him, also Unanswered)
I used energy.gov which was unanswered/untouched.
Obviously and again you are EMBARRASSED at you own Ignorance.

I see this often from my opponents. I call it "baying at the moon."
Realizing their own Inadequacy, and in anger/embarrassment, and IN LIEU of a single factual post, they can't stop/get over the LOSS and just keep Venting, oft in attempt to Bully/Bury instead of debate.

Elektra does this 'Inadequacy Multi-posting'/pile-on a lot. Check

`

 

[elektra]

FIVE 'Responses' to one short to-medium size post!
(631, 633, 634, 641, 643)
None of them addressing or Refuting (with a number) your own Ignorance re the space Solar plants would take up. (As Grumblenuts pointed out to him, also Unanswered)
I used energy.gov which was unanswered/untouched.
Obviously and again you are EMBARRASSED at you own Ignorance.

I see this often from my opponents. I call it "baying at the moon."
Realizing their own Inadequacy, and in anger/embarrassment, and IN LIEU of a single factual post, they can't stop/get over the LOSS and just keep Venting, oft in attempt to Bully/Bury instead of debate.

Elektra does this 'Inadequacy Multi-posting'/pile-on a lot. Check

`

Yes, replying five times, so that you could point out exactly, how you could possibly be right, and in your usual fashion, instead of debating your posts, you simply dictate that you are right.

You have proved you do not know basic math, posting incorrect percentages was not a simple typo.

You have proved that you will take any post on the internet, calling it fact, when there is no sources or facts supporting any claim in the link.

What you have copied and linked from others, is not proof, or fact.

hell, the premise of this thread is a lie, $5.6 billion is saved switching to solar from coal? If only we spend how much? $100 trillion? $10 trllion?

Any way stated, abu afk, $5 billion in savings is less than 1%, of the cost. Nothing compared to the cost.

 

[abu afak]

I keep reading that "subsidies" are the reason we are seeing Solar and Wind/Renewables.
this is False and has been for several YEARS.
and why it was 2/3 of spending in 2016 and up to 85% in 2021.
The Right Wingers (and even some Green supporters) are living in 2010.

FORBES - the Conservative Business Magazine. 2019

Renewable Energy Is Now The Cheapest Option - Even Without Subsidies​

James Ellsmoor
Jun 15, 2019

Renewable Energy Is Now The Cheapest Option - Even Without Subsidies

Over recent years the march towards an energy industry ruled by renewables has been on the agenda of many countries and international bodies. Aside from their non-depleting and replenishing nature, renewable energy is poised to lessen the world's carbon footprint and reduce greenhouse gas emissions.

www.forbes.com

`

 

[elektra]

I keep reading that "subsidies" are the reason we are seeing Solar and Wind/Renewables.
this is False and has been for several YEARS.
and why it was 2/3 of spending in 2016 and up to 85% in 2021.
The Right Wingers (and even some Green supporters) are living in 2010.

FORBES - the Conservative Business Magazine. 2019

Renewable Energy Is Now The Cheapest Option - Even Without Subsidies​

James Ellsmoor
Jun 15, 2019

Renewable Energy Is Now The Cheapest Option - Even Without Subsidies

Over recent years the march towards an energy industry ruled by renewables has been on the agenda of many countries and international bodies. Aside from their non-depleting and replenishing nature, renewable energy is poised to lessen the world's carbon footprint and reduce greenhouse gas emissions.

www.forbes.com

`

If solar is so cheap, why did california decide to reopen Diablo Canyon Nuclear Power plant instead of closing it? The simple answer is, Nuclear is in fact more economical than Solar.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

I keep reading that "subsidies" are the reason we are seeing Solar and Wind/Renewables.

Subsidies and mandates.

 

[abu afak]

If solar is so cheap, why did california decide to reopen Diablo Canyon Nuclear Power plant instead of closing it? The simple answer is, Nuclear is in fact more economical than Solar.

Because it's already Built you LOW IQ Clown. (note the word "reopen")
and they are in a desperate situation.
And no mention of Fossil Fuels means you are conceding the Big issue.


EDIT: Also note the Troll ToadStoolParrot's Empty Counterclaim/denial above.
`

 

[ReinyDays]

Because it's already Built you LOW IQ Clown. (note the word "reopen")
and they are in a desperate situation.
And no mention of Fossil Fuels means you are conceding the Big issue.
`
`

Diablo Canyon has reached it's designed lifespan ... it's just now coming due for either razing and rebuilding or a major retrofit ...

However, the plant has been well taken care of and it's as safe as it ever has been ... so it's been decided to keep it on line is all ... like taking care of your ride, you won't need to junk it after 100,000 miles ...

San Clemente had some technical problems, and the fix didn't work ... it wouldn't run even if we wanted it to ...

Sodium cooled breeder reactors ... or use less energy ... lazy shits ...

 

[jc456]

My claim has never changed. Solar panels induce a cooling effect because photons which would have otherwise struck the surface of the planet were converted into electricity. That's my claim. You are the one who went down the rabbit hole of waste heat because you couldn't argue cooler temperatures weren't measured above six solar farms because they were.

doesn't the heat from the cables radiate? The Batteries?

 

[jc456]

Again... that would depend upon how much solar radiation gets converted into electricity.

where are the batteries located?

 

[ding]

doesn't the heat from the cables radiate? The Batteries?

Nothing is 100% efficient (SLoT). So, yes, that would be considered waste heat. But I'm not sure what you are getting at.

 

[jc456]

Incorrect.

Again... incrementally there is no change in waste heat from replacing fossil fuels with solar. Electricity usage and what waste heat there is stays the same regardless of the generating source. But solar radiation absorbed by the surface of the planet is different depending upon the generating source.

The decreased albedo led to photons being converted into electricity not more heat being radiated by PV cells.

where are the cables that carry this new collected electricity? You think they don't heat up? How much power are they carrying? My vacuum cleaner makes its cord hot. Wouldn't the cables from the batteries and panels be hot once they are on line?