|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: 2014 was hotter than 1998. 2015 data in yet? | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ringo Member (Idle past 439 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined: |
Genomicus writes:
But the steamship was much cheaper - and still is. Nor are circumnavigation and orbiting "the same task". Your example is actually "doing something completely different with way more resources". We can now circle the planet in an hour in small rockets made of advanced materials. In the 1800s, it took a much larger steel steamship two weeks to circumnavigate the planet. "Doing more with less" is, in fact, nonsense. It's political mumbo-jumbo, nothing more.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ringo Member (Idle past 439 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined: |
Genomicus writes:
That's exactly what "more with less" means. The fact that a steamship is physically bigger than a spacecraft is irrelevant.
If you're talking about cheaper in a monetary sense, that's not exactly relevant to the "more with less" thesis. Genomicus writes:
It isn't the destination that counts; it's the reason for the trip. Circumnavigation by ship allows you to make multiple stops for multiple reasons along the way. it could be said that circumnavigation by steamship is doing more than mere orbiting - and with less.
It's the task of getting a member of our species to begin at one point of the earth, circle around it, and arrive back at that approximate point. Genomicus writes:
That might be better but a steamship is still more flexible - i.e. it can do more.
But, if this example doesn't do it for you, then the "more with less" narrative can be extended to aircraft instead of rockets. Genomicus writes:
Of course not. Nobody in their right mind would measure resources by mass.
With way more resources as measured by mass?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ringo Member (Idle past 439 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined: |
LamarkNewAge writes:
How would solar work in Manhattan?
Actually, for new generating capacity, it is a cost-competitive option in about a third of places people live in the USA.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ringo Member (Idle past 439 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined:
|
xongsmith writes:
Solar windows are nice. I googled "solar power windows".... But for a century or so, New York City has had laws about how wide a tall building can be - because buildings tend to blot out the sun for buildings behind them. I'd be more impressed by the scalability of solar power if somebody actually did the math and showed how much solar power NYC could actually generate. Can solar windows, etc. provide enough power for the building plus the buildings in its shadow?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ringo Member (Idle past 439 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined: |
RAZD writes:
My issue is with people who just say, "It's scalable," without demonstrating that it is. I accept that solar could be a significant contributor to NYC's energy needs/usage but I can't help but think it's being oversold.
One thing that I see going on is that these alternative energy sources are transforming the way we think about energy distribution, looking for aesthetic solutions not just a bunch of towers and electrical lines.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ringo Member (Idle past 439 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined: |
xongsmith writes:
Which is why I asked about Manhattan. How do you scale up from six panels on one hippy-dippy house to x panels in a city of ten million?
I guess I must be ignorant. What the hell is "scalable"?The quick hipshot answer is easy: Just make more panels. xongsmith writes:
And how big would the battery be to prepare for a rainy day?
Maybe the problematic word should be "storage"???
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ringo Member (Idle past 439 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined: |
RAZD writes:
They had time. They could afford to go down a few blind alleys. When people started playing with electricity with kites and leyden jars, did they question if it could be scalable? We're being sold solar energy by companies that stand to make a lot of money whether it's a blind alley or not. They are certainly not motivated to tell the truth about scalability.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ringo Member (Idle past 439 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined: |
LamarkNewAge writes:
So answer the question: Can solar and wind power new York City?
Anybody who thinks that solar and wind can't be 100% is delusional.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ringo Member (Idle past 439 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined:
|
xongsmith writes:
The problem is: How many square miles of panels is that?
15 million panels... ??? What is the problem? xongsmith writes:
Again... that's why I used Manhattan as an example. I have my doubts that the Empire State Building can produce all of its own power.
The buildings need only do themselves, not other buildings.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ringo Member (Idle past 439 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined:
|
RAZD writes:
The problem of scaling solar power is similar to the problem of scaling Godzilla. The power output increases by area whereas the density of power usage increases by volume.
What is scalability other than just increasing the size amount of array of solar panels. RAZD writes:
That's exactly my point. What works in low-density suburbia will not necessarily work in high-density urbia.
It becomes a matter of real estate occupied....
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ringo Member (Idle past 439 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined: |
NoNukes writes:
The square-cube law applies in general to scaling. A building twice the length, width and height of a house will accommodate (approximately) eight times as many people as a house and will require (approximately) eight times as much energy while having only four times the area for solar collectors.
Volume of what, ringo? What parameter raised to the third power correlates to the observed/expected/predicted increase in energy usage?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ringo Member (Idle past 439 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined: |
NoNukes writes:
We're not talking about handling growth. We're talking about converting from one energy source to another.
A closer model is a combination of either doubling the number of buildings or increasing the height of buildings as the population grows. NoNukes writes:
What I'm saying is that (self-contained) solar energy doesn't seem to scale well to large buildings.
If area is a limited resource, what is gained by doubling the length and width of any given building? NoNukes writes:
I'm only talking about the "some places" where the model does apply (which includes a large proportion of the earth's population). I'm asking if solar is a practical solution in those places. The answer seems to be "no".
Finally, some places, like say Manhattan are places where we might model pop density as you suggest, but that model does not match other places.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ringo Member (Idle past 439 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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ringo Member (Idle past 439 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?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ringo Member (Idle past 439 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.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024