• Welcome to the new Internet Infidels Discussion Board, formerly Talk Freethought.

The Remarkable Progress of Renewable Energy

Though I concede that that's unlikely, because deserts are too large and widely-distributed.
wikipedia.png
List of deserts by area - the most usable ones are subtropical ones like the Sahara, Arabian, and Australian Deserts. I estimate that a typical solar panel can produce about 40 watts per square meter of electricity when averaged over a day. That's 40 megawatts per square kilometer or 40 terawatts per million square kilometers. The Sahara Desert has an area of 9.2 * 10^6 km^2, Australia has 2.7, Arabia 2.33, ...
The environmental damage, both from the manufacturing of such vast acreages of panels, and from their deployment (deserts are fragile ecosystems, not empty land awaiting our finding a use for them) would be VASTLY greater than simply generating the same amount of electricity from nuclear fission. It also be far more expensive, both to build and to maintain, and far less reliable.

It would be less good than nuclear power on pretty much every metric you could use to compare the two technologies. Environmental impact, complexity, distribution of energy produced, cost, reliability, safety, waste disposal, decommissioning...
 
Though I concede that that's unlikely, because deserts are too large and widely-distributed.  List of deserts by area - the most usable ones are subtropical ones like the Sahara, Arabian, and Australian Deserts. I estimate that a typical solar panel can produce about 40 watts per square meter of electricity when averaged over a day. That's 40 megawatts per square kilometer or 40 terawatts per million square kilometers. The Sahara Desert has an area of 9.2 * 10^6 km^2, Australia has 2.7, Arabia 2.33, ...
Great during the day. Not so much at night.
I don't just mean daytime. I mean a complete-daytime-nighttime cycle.
No matter how you phrase it, or parse it, the output of a solar cell in the dark = 0 watts.
 
Though I concede that that's unlikely, because deserts are too large and widely-distributed.  List of deserts by area - the most usable ones are subtropical ones like the Sahara, Arabian, and Australian Deserts. I estimate that a typical solar panel can produce about 40 watts per square meter of electricity when averaged over a day. That's 40 megawatts per square kilometer or 40 terawatts per million square kilometers. The Sahara Desert has an area of 9.2 * 10^6 km^2, Australia has 2.7, Arabia 2.33, ...
Great during the day. Not so much at night.
I don't just mean daytime. I mean a complete-daytime-nighttime cycle.
But we need a percentage of that 40 TW of power at night too... and we can't store it without more gimmicks. Forget about the issue of transmission!

We need energy sources that don't produce carbon and are readily available on demand. That means hydro (in some places now days), geothermal, and nuclear. Niagara is always flowing, Costa Rica always has water running, the Earth is pretty hot below the surface, and nuclear runs all day. THESE are the options. 24/7. Wind and solar are limited by a glass ceiling called intermittency, that isn't nitpicking, its the nature of the source. Germany bet the house on solar and lost. Islands like PEI can't generate enough wind to power itself... and if PEI can't do it (a small, lightly populated province/park surrounded by water)... no one can.

We need to get our heads out of the clouds and start figuring out how we can generate enough nuclear energy in our country (and China / India) in order to stop the warming before it runs away from us and living on Earth becomes less pleasant.
 
Though I concede that that's unlikely, because deserts are too large and widely-distributed.  List of deserts by area - the most usable ones are subtropical ones like the Sahara, Arabian, and Australian Deserts. I estimate that a typical solar panel can produce about 40 watts per square meter of electricity when averaged over a day. That's 40 megawatts per square kilometer or 40 terawatts per million square kilometers. The Sahara Desert has an area of 9.2 * 10^6 km^2, Australia has 2.7, Arabia 2.33, ...
Great during the day. Not so much at night.
I don't just mean daytime. I mean a complete-daytime-nighttime cycle.
No matter how you phrase it, or parse it, the output of a solar cell in the dark = 0 watts.
Actually, they've developed something for night time generation... but the wattage is tiny, about 10^-5 smaller.
 

Paris will eventually see 600 fuel cell taxis. The long-running project HysetCo just acquired the cab operator Slota and plans to replace its 600-vehicle diesel fleet with the Toyota Mirai gradually. They also want to install two new hydrogen filling stations this year.


At the EU level, the proposed regulation on the deployment of alternative fuel infrastructure includes the creation of hydrogen filling stations every 150 kilometres by 2025 on major roads.

These legislative incentives encourage hydrogen taxi fleet projects, which are spreading across Europe. The Clean Hydrogen Partnership, which gathers the European Commission, the fuel cell and hydrogen industries and a community of researchers, for example, has launched several initiatives like Zefer – a project to deploy 180 fuel cell electric vehicles in Paris, London and Copenhagen.

“Hydrogen is the ideal fuel for taxis because of the long-range, intensive use and short recharging time,” Clean Hydrogen Partnership CEO Bart Biebuyck has said.

Other hydrogen taxi fleets have launched across Europe.
 

We need energy sources that don't produce carbon and are readily available on demand. That means hydro (in some places now days), geothermal, and nuclear. Niagara is always flowing, Costa Rica always has water running, the Earth is pretty hot below the surface, and nuclear runs all day. THESE are the options. 24/7. Wind and solar are limited by a glass ceiling called intermittency, that isn't nitpicking, its the nature of the source. Germany bet the house on solar and lost. Islands like PEI can't generate enough wind to power itself... and if PEI can't do it (a small, lightly populated province/park surrounded by water)... no one can.
PEI = Prince Edward Island?
 
Though I concede that that's unlikely, because deserts are too large and widely-distributed.  List of deserts by area - the most usable ones are subtropical ones like the Sahara, Arabian, and Australian Deserts. I estimate that a typical solar panel can produce about 40 watts per square meter of electricity when averaged over a day. That's 40 megawatts per square kilometer or 40 terawatts per million square kilometers. The Sahara Desert has an area of 9.2 * 10^6 km^2, Australia has 2.7, Arabia 2.33, ...
Great during the day. Not so much at night.
I don't just mean daytime. I mean a complete-daytime-nighttime cycle.
No matter how you phrase it, or parse it, the output of a solar cell in the dark = 0 watts.
Actually, they've developed something for night time generation... but the wattage is tiny, about 10^-5 smaller.
40W/(1 X10^5) = 4 X 10^-4W.
Great! What can I power with that I wonder?
 
There are online tools that give average radiance given latitude and longitude.

Look up efficiency for commercial solar panels. watts in/watts out.

Assume a conservative 50% power supply conversion efficiey.

watts/m^2 useful electrical power out = watts/m^2 sunlight * panel efficiency * power conversion efficiency
 
Though I concede that that's unlikely, because deserts are too large and widely-distributed.
wikipedia.png
List of deserts by area - the most usable ones are subtropical ones like the Sahara, Arabian, and Australian Deserts. I estimate that a typical solar panel can produce about 40 watts per square meter of electricity when averaged over a day. That's 40 megawatts per square kilometer or 40 terawatts per million square kilometers. The Sahara Desert has an area of 9.2 * 10^6 km^2, Australia has 2.7, Arabia 2.33, ...
The environmental damage, both from the manufacturing of such vast acreages of panels,
Like...
and from their deployment
Like...
(deserts are fragile ecosystems, not empty land awaiting our finding a use for them) would be VASTLY greater than simply generating the same amount of electricity from nuclear fission. It also be far more expensive, both to build
News to me.
and to maintain,
Photovoltaic cells are almost absurdly easy to maintain.
and far less reliable.
That is almost too silly to respond to.
It would be less good than nuclear power on pretty much every metric you could use to compare the two technologies. Environmental impact, complexity, distribution of energy produced, cost, reliability, safety, waste disposal, decommissioning...
Waste disposal??? bilby, are you serious?
 
Panels are easy to 'hot swap'. Same with electronics.

The voltage across an entire array can be several hundred volts for mains power generation. Locally between points in the array the voltage is low. Easy to work on.

A demonstarion was built inthe southwest by a utility. It used all off the shelf equipment. DC panel to mains voltage was accomplished by paralleling a number oflow power commercial off te shelf inverters. If one fails easy to isolate and replace without shutting down
 
Panels are easy to 'hot swap'. Same with electronics.

The voltage across an entire array can be several hundred volts for mains power generation. Locally between points in the array the voltage is low. Easy to work on.

A demonstarion was built inthe southwest by a utility. It used all off the shelf equipment. DC panel to mains voltage was accomplished by paralleling a number oflow power commercial off te shelf inverters. If one fails easy to isolate and replace without shutting down
This. It's not hard to build circuits to permit hot-swap of just about every active component in them.

And if the voltage isn't too high it's not that hard to simply protect yourself while working with hot wires. You have to keep your mind on doing it safe but it's usually not that hard other than getting used to it. Yes, that black wire is hot. It's the only exposed wire, my gloves will keep the voltage off me, my shoes will keep any charge away from my ladder and my ladder is sitting on an insulator besides. Being able to reason that it was safe didn't make it easy.
 
Though I concede that that's unlikely, because deserts are too large and widely-distributed.
wikipedia.png
List of deserts by area - the most usable ones are subtropical ones like the Sahara, Arabian, and Australian Deserts. I estimate that a typical solar panel can produce about 40 watts per square meter of electricity when averaged over a day. That's 40 megawatts per square kilometer or 40 terawatts per million square kilometers. The Sahara Desert has an area of 9.2 * 10^6 km^2, Australia has 2.7, Arabia 2.33, ...
The environmental damage, both from the manufacturing of such vast acreages of panels,
Like...
and from their deployment
Like...
(deserts are fragile ecosystems, not empty land awaiting our finding a use for them) would be VASTLY greater than simply generating the same amount of electricity from nuclear fission. It also be far more expensive, both to build
News to me.
and to maintain,
Photovoltaic cells are almost absurdly easy to maintain.
and far less reliable.
That is almost too silly to respond to.
It would be less good than nuclear power on pretty much every metric you could use to compare the two technologies. Environmental impact, complexity, distribution of energy produced, cost, reliability, safety, waste disposal, decommissioning...
Waste disposal??? bilby, are you serious?
I am absolutely serious.

Only one electricity generation technology in history has managed its entire waste stream such that it has caused zero deaths, zero injuries, and zero environmental damage.

The nuclear power industry has been quietly doing this thing their opponents shriek is impossible for seventy years, and can continue to do it indefinitely - and unlike the waste materials from other industries, their unique waste is, uniquely, self eliminating.

Opponents of nuclear power like to tell us that the waste remains hazardous for thousands of years; They don't like to mention that the waste from their 'alternatives' remains hazardous forever.

Even a very large number is dramatically lower than infinity.
 



Daily Insolation Parameters

Latitude: 40.780 Longitude: -73.970



Insolation at Specified Location

This web page produces a numerical table of sunrise, sunset, daily insolation at top of atmosphere, and sunlight-weighted cosine of the zenith angle at a single specified location. The produced table contains data for a single month, or if a month is not provided, data for a single calendar year. Latitude and longitude must be given in degrees and hundredths of degrees, not degrees and minutes. Default location is the Central Park weather station, New York City.

"Insolation" means sunlight received from the Sun at top-of-atmosphere. On a global annual basis, about 57% of insolation is incident on the Earth's surface. Clouds are the main cause of this decrease, but even clear sky will have some reduction. To determine incident sunlight at the surface, click to the "LINE PLOTS" web page, but there data is limited to monthly values on the Model's 4×3 degree resolution grid.


BYC January

Time Zone: Eastern Standard Time
(Longitudes -82.5 to -67.5) Sunlight
Weighted
Daily Cosine
Average of
Sunlight Zenith
Date Sunrise Sunset (W/m²) Angle
---- ------- ------ ------ -----
2012/01/01 7:20 16:39 154.47 0.350
02 7:20 16:39 155.14 0.351
03 7:20 16:40 155.87 0.352
04 7:20 16:41 156.65 0.353
05 7:20 16:42 157.50 0.354
06 7:20 16:43 158.40 0.356
07 7:20 16:44 159.36 0.357
08 7:20 16:45 160.38 0.359
09 7:2
Death Valley August

2012/08/01 4:54 18:53 452.99 0.739
02 4:55 18:52 451.61 0.738
03 4:56 18:51 450.19 0.737
04 4:57 18:50 448.75 0.736
05 4:58 18:49 447.27 0.735
06 4:58 18:48 445.77 0.734
07 4:59 18:47 444.24 0.732
08 5:00 18:46 442.68 0.731
09 5:01 18:45 441.09 0.730
10 5:02 18:44 439.48 0.728
11 5:03 18:43 437.83 0.727
12 5:03 18:41 436.16 0.726
13 5:04 18:40 434.46 0.724
14 5:05 18:39 432.73 0.723
15 5:06 18:38 430.98 0.721
16 5:07 18:37 429.20 0.719
17 5:07 18:35 427.39 0.718
18 5:08 18:34 425.55 0.716
19 5:09 18:33 423.69 0.714
20 5:10 18:32 421.80 0.713
21 5:11 18:30 419.89 0.711
22 5:11 18:29 417.95 0.709
23 5:12 18:28 415.98 0.707
24 5:13 18:26 413.99 0.705
25 5:14 18:25 411.97 0.703
26 5:15 18:24 409.93 0.701
27 5:15 18:22 407.87 0.699
28 5:16 18:21 405.78 0.697
29 5:17 18:19 403.67 0.695
30 5:18 18:18 401.53 0.693
31 5:19 18:17 399.37 0.690



as a rough estimate

Using 50w/m^2 at the surface, solar cell conversion deficiency = .2, and power conversion efficiency .5.

watts/m^ power genrated = 50w/m^2 * .2 * .5 = 5w/m^2 NYC



Solar-cell efficiency refers to the portion of energy in the form of sunlight that can be converted via photovoltaics into electricity by the solar cell.

The efficiency of the solar cells used in a photovoltaic system, in combination with latitude and climate, determines the annual energy output of the system. For example, a solar panel with 20% efficiency and an area of 1 m2 will produce 200 kWh/yr at Standard Test Conditions if exposed to the Standard Test Condition solar irradiance value of 1000 W/m2 for 2.74 hours a day. Usually solar panels are exposed to sunlight for longer than this in a given day, but the solar irradiance is less than 1000 W/m2 for most of the day. A solar panel can produce more when the sun is high in the sky and will produce less in cloudy conditions or when the sun is low in the sky, usually the sun is lower in the sky in the winter.

When it comes to regions, two important aspects that affect the solar PV industry's efficiency are the dispersion and intensity of solar radiation. These two variables vary greatly between each country.[1] The main global regions that get subjected to high radiations throughout the year are regions in Asia like the middle east, Northern Chile, Australia, China, and Southwestern USA.[1][2] In a high-yield solar area like central Colorado, which receives annual insolation of 2000 kWh/m2/year,[3] such a panel can be expected to produce 400 kWh of energy per year. However, in Michigan, which receives only 1400 kWh/m2/year,[3] annual energy yield will drop to 280 kWh for the same panel. At more northerly European latitudes, yields are significantly lower: 175 kWh annual energy yield in southern England under the same conditions.[4]
Schematic of charge collection by solar cells. Light transmits through transparent conducting electrode creating electron hole pairs, which are collected by both the electrodes. The absorption and collection efficiencies of a solar cell depend on the design of transparent conductors and active layer thickness.[5]

Several factors affect a cell's conversion efficiency value, including its reflectance, thermodynamic efficiency, charge carrier separation efficiency, charge carrier collection efficiency and conduction efficiency values.[6][5] Because these parameters can be difficult to measure directly, other parameters are measured instead, including quantum efficiency, open-circuit voltage (VOC) ratio, and § Fill factor. Reflectance losses are accounted for by the quantum efficiency value, as they affect "external quantum efficiency". Recombination losses are accounted for by the quantum efficiency, VOC ratio, and fill factor values. Resistive losses are predominantly accounted for by the fill factor value, but also contribute to the quantum efficiency and VOC ratio values. In 2019, the world record for solar cell efficiency at 47.1% was achieved by using multi-junction concentrator solar cells, developed at National Renewable Energy Laboratory, Golden, Colorado, USA.[7]


Solar panels are usually able to process 15% to 22% of solar energy into usable energy, depending on factors like placement, orientation, weather conditions, and similar. The amount of sunlight that solar panel systems are able to convert into actual electricity is called performance, and the outcome determines the solar panel efficiency.

Solar electric systems have no moving parts, no high pressure steam, and no high temperatures. Turbines and high pressure steam systems require periodic maintenance and system shutdown. High pressure steam is dangerous.
 
bilby will be enthusiastic for this.
article said:
After two days of bidding, five companies on Wednesday won leases to develop offshore wind energy farms in the Pacific Ocean off California’s coast.

The companies bid a total of $757.1 million for the 373,268 acres of ocean spaces where floating wind turbines can be erected to generate up to 4.5 gigawatts of electricity. The auction was conducted by the U.S. Bureau of Ocean Energy Management (BOEM), which is an arm of the U.S. Department of the Interior.
In their defense, floating nuclear power plants, for large scale power generation (to beat wise ass cracks about nuclear subs or aircraft carriers), aren't common. The 4.5 GW high be able to power one third of a sparsely populated county.
 
Solar panels are usually able to process 15% to 22% of solar energy into usable energy, depending on factors like placement, orientation, weather conditions, and similar. The amount of sunlight that solar panel systems are able to convert into actual electricity is called performance, and the outcome determines the solar panel efficiency.

Solar electric systems have no moving parts, no high pressure steam, and no high temperatures. Turbines and high pressure steam systems require periodic maintenance and system shutdown. High pressure steam is dangerous.
They also provide little power too. 15 to 22% of sun's energy into electricity energy? I'm surprised Elon Musk isn't promising 150% efficient solar panels.
 
How is that much worse than most other ways of generating electricity? Let's look for some numbers.

IHydroelectric Power | Bureau of Reclamation - "Hydroelectric powerplants are the most efficient means of producing electric energy. The efficiency of today's hydroelectric plant is about 90 percent."

Renewable Energy Fact Sheet: Wind Turbines - wind_turbines_fact_sheet_p100il8k.pdf - 20% to 40%

 Engine efficiency
  • Car gasoline engines: 20% to 35%
  • Truck and bus diesel engines: max 45%
  • Ship diesel engines: max 54%
  • Combustion turbine (like a jet engine): max 46%
  • Combined cycle (combustion turbine + steam turbine): max 61%
  • Steam turbine: 40% to 45%

photosynthesis - Energy efficiency of photosynthesis | Britannica - "An agricultural crop in which the biomass (total dry weight) stores as much as 1 percent of total solar energy received on an annual areawide basis is exceptional, although a few cases of higher yields (perhaps as much as 3.5 percent in sugarcane) have been reported."

So biofuels are grossly inefficient.
 
I recently had a visit from a solar installation company. Despite that my house has no south-facing roof, my roof mainly has east and west sides, I was told that solor could on average provide all of my electrical needs. Basically make more than I need on sunny days and sell the excess to the grid, and buy it back at night with pretty much a net zero cost. I was unaware that solar had become so efficient.
 
Gasoline has a high energy density con bind with potability that is hard to beat, anb take away raxes is cheap.

In the past in Hawaii a utility had a problem incentivize soaAr with a buy back program. It was too successful and upset the rate structures.

Distributed solara nd wind with nuclear base load is the way to go.

Decentralizing energy with hone solar disenfranchises the centralized node penergy structure.

Solar is also terrorist resistant when distributed instead of centralized.

The problem which is not being proactively adresses is supply energy for the rapid switch to EVs.
 
I recently had a visit from a solar installation company. Despite that my house has no south-facing roof, my roof mainly has east and west sides, I was told that solor could on average provide all of my electrical needs. Basically make more than I need on sunny days and sell the excess to the grid, and buy it back at night with pretty much a net zero cost. I was unaware that solar had become so efficient.
They use some rather optimistic numbers in making those projections.

And the fundamental flaw with such systems is the concept that you can buy it back as needed. The cost of providing grid electricity is a combination of the infrastructure costs and the fuel costs--they have been lumped as a single bill item but in reality solar has minimal effect on their infrastructure costs. Note that the majority of your electric bill actually represents infrastructure--and those costs won't go away as solar becomes more prevalent. Eventually we will have to stop forcing the utilities to eat these costs and solar suddenly becomes considerably more expensive than other sources of power.
 
Gasoline has a high energy density con bind with potability that is hard to beat, anb take away raxes is cheap.

In the past in Hawaii a utility had a problem incentivize soaAr with a buy back program. It was too successful and upset the rate structures.

Distributed solara nd wind with nuclear base load is the way to go.

Decentralizing energy with hone solar disenfranchises the centralized node penergy structure.

Solar is also terrorist resistant when distributed instead of centralized.

The problem which is not being proactively adresses is supply energy for the rapid switch to EVs.
There's basically no point to solar and wind if your base load is nuclear. Nuclear plants can't throttle up and down quickly (and can get themselves in trouble from trying to do so--part of the trigger sequence for Chernobyl was playing with the throttle. They got the reactor into a bad case of Xenon poisoning and had to pull the rods very far out to get it to go at all. As the Xenon burned off the reactor moved to a more normal response to the rod setting and the idiot in charge refused to hit the brakes until the last possible second--and the design of the rods meant that for a moment they turned the reactor up as they were inserted.)
 
Back
Top Bottom