|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
EvC Forum active members: 59 (9164 total) |
| |
ChatGPT | |
Total: 916,927 Year: 4,184/9,624 Month: 1,055/974 Week: 14/368 Day: 14/11 Hour: 2/1 |
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: 2014 was hotter than 1998. 2015 data in yet? | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Adequate Member (Idle past 315 days) Posts: 16113 Joined:
|
It's not just about finding instances where it's cheaper. It's about showinging that it's scalable. That's what my inquiries into your claims about Maryland meeting all its energy needs with just a few square miles of solar panels have been getting at. To go for a moment back to the example of steam technology, Newcomen's invention was perhaps more efficient (and effective) than alternatives, but its outrageous use of coal made it impracticable as a power source pretty much anywhere other than at a coal mine. Its benefits at the coal mine disappeared once away from the mine. It was limited in where and how it could be used and was thus not scalable. I think there are similar obstacles facing solar. Because unless someone can figure out some way of transporting electricity, solar power will only ever be economical for people living near sun mines. It's not like photons magically fall out of the sky or something.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Jon Inactive Member |
I'm not sure what's with the wise-ass routine.
It really isn't possible to transport electricity very long distances. It really is the case that sunlight is unreliable and many places get very little. The kind of solar power that works in the Nevada desert doesn't work in the woods of northern Minnesota.Love your enemies!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Jon Inactive Member |
Yes.
That's what I said.Love your enemies!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
LamarkNewAge Member Posts: 2424 Joined: Member Rating: 1.3 |
Go.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Adequate Member (Idle past 315 days) Posts: 16113 Joined:
|
Yeah. As Fox News famously explained to us, solar power only really works in sun-drenched countries such as Germany. As for transporting electricity, I guess that will always remain an impossible dream.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Jon Inactive Member |
So you have no interest in actually backing up the propaganda you've been spraying about?
Figures...Love your enemies!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Jon Inactive Member |
quote: The world's top installer still gets less than a tenth of its power from solar cells - and that's just averaged out over given periods of time; just like Columbia, Maryland, Germany sells off its power on the European grid when it's making a lot and does what everyone else who needs reliable power does when the cells aren't producing: burns fossil fuels.
quote: Germany's solar capacity couldn't even make up half of what goes up into the air as transmission loss in the U.S. So yeah, we should do what Germany does and send some solar-generated electricity into the air... Now please... no more. My sides are starting to hurt. Edited by Jon, : No reason given.Love your enemies!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Pressie Member Posts: 2103 From: Pretoria, SA Joined: |
Jon writes: Actually, they are a net exporter of energy. However, they export power when times are good in summer when the demand for electricity drops; but in the middle of winter they import a lot of power from France. Nuclear. In the midst of their winter they also import a lot of power from Poland. Fossil Fuels. Coal. The world's top installer still gets less than a tenth of its power from solar cells - and that's just averaged out over given periods of time; just like Columbia, Maryland, Germany sells off its power on the European grid when it's making a lot and does what everyone else who needs reliable power does when the cells aren't producing: burns fossil fuels. So, it seems that on peak demand, they also fall back on fossil fuels.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
LamarkNewAge Member Posts: 2424 Joined: Member Rating: 1.3 |
Germany made a ton of purchases when the price for solar was super-duper expensive. I'll post an example of just how much cheaper solar has gotten. So people can see how much more solar one can get for the same amount of money Germany has spent.
And Germany gets literally 500% more solar power on a clear day (though they are rare)than the average day. When looking at the United States, compared to what Germany has gotten, the average dollar spent in 2016 on solar will easily get 10 times the amount of electricity on average.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
LamarkNewAge Member Posts: 2424 Joined: Member Rating: 1.3 |
quote: 19 cents per kilowatt hour LESS THAN FOUR YEARS AGO. 7 cents per kilowatt hour in 2015. Cheaper than coal and gas today, over twice as expensive back in early 2012. Texas is 9% of the U.S. population, Florida is about 7%. That's at least 1 in 6 people who live in states where coal and gas seem to be the same utility-scale price as solar. (and it understates the long-term value, decades later, as solar will be producing energy past the time measures/financing contracts used for calculating the initial utility-rate prices)
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1436 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined:
|
You're missing my point. And you're missing mine.
There will always be droughts, man made or otherwise. ... The point is that the changes in climate result in more extremes: bigger storms and bigger droughts. The one in Syria was the worst on record, and the aquifer was pumped dry.
... Cheap, reliable, and plentiful energy has been the best way to mitigate their effects - not stopping our civilizations dead in their tracks. You can't magically create water to 'alleviate a drought'. What you can do is use cheap, reliable, and plentiful energy to grow food elsewhere, and use that same cheap, reliable, and plentiful energy to transport that food where the drought is so it doesn't turn into a famine - as droughts always have before humans started using fossil fuels to provide themselves with cheap, reliable, and plentiful energy. And that didn't help Syria, where their civilization collapsed when the farms collapsed from the drought. The only way plentiful energy has mitigated the effects are (1) the military conflicts throwing megatons of plentiful energy at each other, fighting over dry land, and (2) the refugee crisis in Europe, moving millions of refugees thousands of miles to try living in another country.
And so far, only fossil fuels have been shown capable of providing this cheap, reliable, and plentiful energy. I've opened numerous doors for you and others to walk through and show your evidence that renewables could instead provide this cheap, reliable, and plentiful energy. Yet not once has any effort been made to demonstrate this. The evidence is there. I think LamarkNewAge has done a good job presenting it. When you have utilities installing solar power rather than new gas or coal fired plants, that is because the return on investment is better, and this is happening across the planet, even in Arabian countries. The tar sands are closing because they are more expensive. Coal is shutting down because it is more expensive.
I WANT CLEAN, LOW-COST, LESS-RISKY ENERGY! But I also want energy that is affordable, reliable, and in good supply because that is what makes my life so damn good and will continue to make all of our lives so damn good. Until then I'm going to stick my money where the energy is. Then get a solar array and invest in the future of energy. Panels today are more efficient and cheaper than they were last year, and this trend will continue. I expect my panels to be obsolete in 5 to 10 years as progress continues to improve. But you don't have to take my word for it: get a quote. Enjoyby our ability to understand Rebel☮American☆Zen☯Deist ... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ... to share. Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click)
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1436 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined:
|
It's not just about finding instances where it's cheaper. It's about showinging that it's scalable. That's what my inquiries into your claims about Maryland meeting all its energy needs with just a few square miles of solar panels have been getting at. Now you are moving the goalposts. You asked for evidence that it is cheaper, and it appears that you accept the information you have been given, so now you want to know how to make it work on a larger scale. The easy way to scale it is to create large areas dedicated to solar (or wind, etc), but is that really what is the best way -- to just replace coal and gas plants with solar plants? Or is the best way to put solar panels near where the energy is consumed and cut down on the cost of transmission while also making the grid a web that balances supply and demand locally? For instance I have not had an electric bill since August because energy is flowing to and from my place depending on usage, when before it all came over the grid. My town has a lot of buildings that could also have solar panels installed and have the same net zero production of electricity, and the electrical use by the town is almost entirely during the peak daytime usage, when solar is producing its peak output. A new production company in town is putting panels on their roof for the same reasons. Look at the rooftop wastelands of malls, and the parking areas that could have solar panel covered parking. What you want to do for most efficient distribution of energy is have the energy produced near where it is used, and that means integrating it into the urban landscape and NOT in large distant installations. Solar allows this in a way that fossil fuels can never compete with. But that takes a political effort, and one we are seeing with grass roots usage of solar. Enjoyby our ability to understand Rebel☮American☆Zen☯Deist ... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ... to share. Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click)
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
xongsmith Member Posts: 2587 From: massachusetts US Joined: Member Rating: 7.0 |
RAZD writes:
What you want to do for most efficient distribution of energy is have the energy produced near where it is used, and that means integrating it into the urban landscape and NOT in large distant installations. Solar allows this in a way that fossil fuels can never compete with. Not mention a side effect of removing terrorist targets.... color emphasis mine...- xongsmith, 5.7d
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Jon Inactive Member |
All you have is anecdote. The actual evidence - Columbia, Maryland, Germany, etc. - shows that solar is shit when it comes to providing the kind of energy required by advanced first-world societies.
And coal isn't losing to solar; it's losing to natural gas - a fossil fuel, in case there was any doubt. Love your enemies!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Jon Inactive Member |
You asked for evidence that it is cheaper, ... I did? Where?Love your enemies!
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024