|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: 2014 was hotter than 1998. 2015 data in yet? | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
NoNukes Inactive Member |
We're not talking about handling growth. We're talking about converting from one energy source to another. If you are talking about scaling and the cube vs square law, then you are talking about growth. You were attempting to model how increasing population density affects the possibility of employing solar collection solutions.
I'm only talking about the "some places" where the model does apply (which includes a large proportion of the earth's population). Your model still contains bad assumptions. Energy need not be generated locally even in Manhattan or Tokyo. And population growth in cities includes the sprawl out away from centers which employs more land more buildings etc and not just making taller buildings. There is no place on earth where we accommodate population growth strictly by increasing the height of buildings and thus no place where the square/cube law models scaling of solar power. Fortunately the real outlook is far better than your prediction would lead us to believe. Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given. Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given. Under a government which imprisons any unjustly, the true place for a just man is also in prison. Thoreau: Civil Disobedience (1846) History will have to record that the greatest tragedy of this period of social transition was not the strident clamor of the bad people, but the appalling silence of the good people. Martin Luther King If there are no stupid questions, then what kind of questions do stupid people ask? Do they get smart just in time to ask questions? Scott Adams
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ringo Member (Idle past 441 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined: |
NoNukes writes:
Then why not just answer the question: HOW would solar energy work in Manhattan? How many square miles of collectors would be needed? Where would they go? How would the power be transmitted? Where would the power be accumulated for a rainy day?
Energy need not be generated locally even in Manhattan or Tokyo. NoNukes writes:
I haven't proposed any model. I'm asking how the miracle of solar energy is supposed to work.
Your model still contains bad assumptions. NoNukes writes:
I haven't predicted anything.
Fortunately the real outlook is far better than your prediction would lead us to believe.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dogmafood Member (Idle past 377 days) Posts: 1815 From: Ontario Canada Joined:
|
Where would they go? How would the power be transmitted? Where would the power be accumulated for a rainy day? You should get out of the library more often. Have you ever seen Saskatchewan? We could put every bodies solar panels there. As far as I can tell, you need about 4m2/person of solar panels. For greater New York city with 25 million people that is about 100 km2. Not really all that big. The equivalent of 10 land fills the size of the one they have on Staten Island. But we should be collecting our solar power up in space where the sun is always shining and beam it down with lasers or microwaves.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ringo Member (Idle past 441 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined: |
ProtoTypical writes:
I'm looking at it right now.
Have you ever seen Saskatchewan? ProtoTypical writes:
You'd have to compete with the farmers for the sunlight:
We could put every bodies solar panels there.quote: How many quarter sections (160 acres) in 100Km2? And you didn't answer the other two questions that you quoted: How would the power be transmitted? Where would the power be accumulated for a rainy day? It's 1600 miles from Regina to NYC as the crow flies - and those crows would be crossing four of the Great Lakes, so the transmission lines would be even longer. And I presume you want us to keep the batteries on our end?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dogmafood Member (Idle past 377 days) Posts: 1815 From: Ontario Canada Joined: |
I'm looking at it right now. Yeah it was a joke. I didn't really think that we should collect sunshine in Sask to use in NYC.
And you didn't answer the other two questions that you quoted: How would the power be transmitted? Where would the power be accumulated for a rainy day? Both questions are answered by the radical suggestion of collecting solar power where the sun is always shining and beaming it down to a land or sea based thermal generator that is located close to the end user. Sounds kind of wild but would it be any more difficult than building a nuclear reactor? I think that others have said it but the important question is 'what is the cost of not doing it?'. What will it cost to protect Manhattan from 3m of sea rise?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ringo Member (Idle past 441 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined: |
ProtoTypical writes:
Then where should we collect it? How much will it cost? I didn't really think that we should collect sunshine in Sask to use in NYC. Forget about pie (or solar panels) in the sky. Think existing technology.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dogmafood Member (Idle past 377 days) Posts: 1815 From: Ontario Canada Joined: |
100 km2 is about 3% of NYC's area and it will cost less than not doing it.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Jon Inactive Member |
100 km2 is about 3% of NYC's area and it will cost less than not doing it. What is 100 sq km supposed to represent?Love your enemies!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dogmafood Member (Idle past 377 days) Posts: 1815 From: Ontario Canada Joined: |
The area required to supply solar power to 25 million residents. Maybe double it to account for industry.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
LamarkNewAge Member Posts: 2424 Joined: Member Rating: 1.2 |
quote: I will start with the least important issue: the space required. First, solar uses 10 times the space as a coal plant, but coal takes more net space when mining is factored in. Your Maryland numbers indicate that 26x26 miles will be needed. Maryland is one of the most densely populated states, but has an average population of about 6 million people. 100x100 miles in the state of Nevada would cover the energy needs of the entire nation. (also you keep saying that I said "on top of roofs". Go back and check my initial post. It isn't there. I was talking about utility plants and it was a rough estimate. Montana, North Dakota, South Dakota, Alaska, Vermont, Delaware, Wyoming have about 1/6 -1/7 the population of MD and would require much less energy. Perhaps Delaware would only need about 11x11 miles of panels?) Now, the more important issue. Topaz cost $2.5 billion for its 9 million panels and land (plus other costs). Using your numbers (73 times the costs to have enough energy for Maryland), then only $182 billion in new expenditures would cover all the energy needs of Maryland IF WE RELIED ENTIRELY ON THE NEWLY BUILT PLANTS FOR ENERGY. Wow! That means that about $9.1 trillion worth of panels, at todays prices, could fuel the entire nation (what all panels and utility plants produce today). Or a $6 trillion upfront cost to replace just the coal, natural gas, and petroleum plants. (they are about 66% of energy from our power plants and grid sources) A $6 trillion initial investment for "free energy" after is lower than I thought.(I'm not suggesting the cost should be "free" because that would encourage people to waste energy like crazy - windows would be left open during winter with the thermostat turned up to 85 degrees, and we would see blackouts and/or the need to build many times more plants just to keep up with the waste) With no more natural gas needed for power plants, we could devote our scarce (IMO) natural gas fields towards "filling stations" for newer natural gas (engine) based cars. (oil based car)Gas was around $3.80 per gallon for the past decade, now it is around $1.80. That a $250 billion per year savings for consumers. With solar freeing up natural gas (if only!), we might be able to lock in prices around $2.50 per gallon if we build lots of natural gas based cars and the filling stations to go along with them. It would save consumers trillions of $$$ over 20 years. Then Jon had a "But wait, there's more!" part. It was so selective (not to mention misleading, ignorant, etc.) in its data that Jon's analysis was essentially worthless. I'll skip that part. I'll have my own "But wait, there's more" moment though. Wind is a more economical investment than solar in many areas. I'm sure that we can get the bill for a complete (renewable-based)grid overhaul (of gas, coal, oil, etc.) to be less than $5 trillion (one-time cost) for an up-front investment that pays economic dividends for decades to come. The problem with wind is that it produces energy mostly at night, unlike solar, which produces energy when it is most needed.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
LamarkNewAge Member Posts: 2424 Joined: Member Rating: 1.2 |
I don't think natural gas will be able to be only $2.50 per gallon for long. The more it is used, the more the demand, which means we will need to drill for more expensive natural gas fields. And the higher prices to go along with it all.
Solar based energy will be a cost saving gold mine for drivers once engines become all electric. The potential for batteries to fall in price (not to mention charge faster and hold a higher capacity) is dramatic. Solar is the future, but there is some logic in one (and ONLY ONE short-term) generation of cars using natural gas engines IF (and only if) we devote all natural gas resources to the purpose. Once can argue that the building of natural gas filling stations will be a colossal waste of money, and I half agree. But they might be economical if ALL NATURAL GAS is devoted to car engines and we replace the natural-gas-fired power plants with (soon to be) cheaper solar. An idea. But solar is the future, as Jon (by mistake) showed us.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dogmafood Member (Idle past 377 days) Posts: 1815 From: Ontario Canada Joined:
|
But solar is the future, It seems to me that solar is all that there ever was. It is only a question of where we tap in to the cycle. One alternative that has been sadly neglected is the thorium liquid fuel reactor. A technology that was suppressed due to a need for nuclear bombs. Apparently I could hold all the fuel that I would ever need in the palm of my hand...safely.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Jon Inactive Member
|
The area required to supply solar power to 25 million residents. Maybe double it to account for industry. How do you reach this figure and why does 'residents' even matter as a measure? Since we are talking about electricity, why not talk about units of measure that relate to electricity? People use different amounts of electricity depending on their lifestyles and, especially, where they live - New Yorker City dwellers use much less energy per capita than other Americans.Love your enemies!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Jon Inactive Member |
I will start with the least important issue How about you start by conceding your earlier points before Gish galloping on to something else?
First, solar uses 10 times the space as a coal plant, but coal takes more net space when mining is factored in. Are you also factoring the mine into your solar measurements?
Your Maryland numbers indicate that 26x26 miles will be needed. You can at least do simple division. This is good news.
(also you keep saying that I said "on top of roofs". Go back and check my initial post. It isn't there.
quote: You wrote that. Do you remember now?
Montana, North Dakota, South Dakota, Alaska, Vermont, Delaware, Wyoming have about 1/6 -1/7 the population of MD and would require much less energy. What do you mean 'would'? We can just go look at the numbers and find out. Why don't you do that?
Perhaps Delaware would only need about 11x11 miles of panels? Same as above. Why 'perhaps'? Just look at the numbers and do the math. Stop being lazy and put some work into your posts.
Then Jon had a "But wait, there's more!" part. It was so selective (not to mention misleading, ignorant, etc.) in its data that Jon's analysis was essentially worthless. I'll skip that part. You mean you are just going to ignore the fact that there aren't even enough resources on the whole planet to build enough Topaz plants just to meet U.S. electricity demand? Your dishonesty is truly astounding.
Wind is a more economical investment than solar in many areas. Good grief. Wind requires even more space and rare ass elements than solar. Do you do any research before posting? I suppose not. Seeing as you couldn't even go back and read your own post it is no surprise you fail to look externally for evidence either.
The problem with wind is that it produces energy mostly at night, unlike solar, ... The problem with both is that they produce energy whenever the hell they want regardless of demand; and we currently don't have the storage technology to economically hold surplus production for later use.
... which produces energy when it is most needed. Where is your evidence showing peak energy demands?Love your enemies!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Jon Inactive Member
|
It seems to me that solar is all that there ever was. It is only a question of where we tap in to the cycle. Bingo. Understanding this puts everything into perspective. Solar and wind and coal and gas are all 'solar' power. They differ in their reliability (always on or intermittent) and their power density (how much energy you can suck out per unit).Love your enemies!
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024