2014 was hotter than 1998. 2015 data in yet?

You're right. I should be talking about a world with so little energy it's practically non-existent.

You're just trollingHere as in your other thread.Making claim after claim and running onto the next point when challenged for evidence.You're as bad as GIA.

But that's a lie, RAZD. Just another slick selling gimmick.Kenya has more solar systems per capita than anywhere else.And look at them: they're Kenya.And as for India, they get over half their electricity from coal - U.S. is at about 40%. It's not sunshine lifting India from poverty, it is, as it has been with every country that's developed its economy, the always-on, cheap, reliable, and scalable energy of fossil fuels.If renewable energy can be relied upon to fuel economic growth, the Indians certainly haven't found a way to do it. Well, if we're talking about Africa that's not saying much. The continent is so poor that you can improve living standards there just by giving people a cow.Looking at countries like Kenya and contrasting them with countries like China the reality is so obvious you have to be willfully blind to miss it: Renewable energy is not the miracle cure for third-world poverty it is continually advertised to be; societies are rising out of poverty on the smoke and ash of their fossil-fueled fires, not on the hot-air of renewable energy. The nice thing is that there are no corporations here. We can have an open discussion about renewable energy; you can set down some data on how various places might be able to meet their energy needs with just renewables and we can critique the numbers.No censorship. This is your opportunity to prove your case. What might that program look like and how would it meet the energy needs of 21st century humanity?Again, now's your chance to show us the numbers. Higher efficiency does not reduce demand. In fact, just the opposite: Jevon's Paradox.

That's a good question.But since nobody here is going to actually do it, at the very least we could try talking about it.And that involves you bringing it some evidence on how this wind-solar miracle of yours would work. It isn't?Are you sure? Have you run the numbers? Done the math?If you haven't, how can you be so certain of the feasibility?And if you have run the numbers, why the hell won't you just present them here?

Since I'm feeling more and more like I won't be able to rely on LNA to ever return to his claim that it "would only take a few square miles of solar panels (on top of roofs) to fuel the energy needs of the en[i]tre state [of Maryland]" and present some evidence for it, I figured I'd bring a little in to the mix to help add some reality to the brain-fuck fantasy he's been trying to sell us...First, I'm going to restrict my focus to electricity, since dealing with all the energy used by the state of Maryland would be a difficult thing to do, since it isn't all easily or agreeably converted to electricity measurement units. Also, in every place where I fudge the numbers to save time and make things easier, I fudge them in LNA's favor.Now let's begin. California's 550 MW Topaz Solar Farm was said able to generate 1,100,000 Mwh of electricity per year. (I can't find any recent numbers on what it's actually generating, so we're just going to go ahead and believe the hype and assume it's lived up to expectations.)It covers an area of 9.5 sq miles. (This is all available on Wikipedia: Topaz Solar Farm)Maryland's electricity consumption was 61,000,000 Mwh in 2013 (Electricity Consumption by State, 2013 (pdf) - I don't know where these numbers come from, but it was difficult finding consumption numbers as opposed to generation numbers so I went with what I could find and rounded down 'cause I'm a nice guy)Finally, based on this map the sun power in Maryland is about 75% what it is where the Topaz farm sits.So there's the numbers, now for the math:First, we will figure out how much Topaz could generate per year in Maryland by multiplying its annual Mwh output by 0.75: 1,100,000 x 0.75 = 825,000 MwhSecond, we see how many Topaz's it will take to generate the electricity needs of Maryland:61,000,000 / 825,000 = 73Finally, how much space that will require:9.5 x 73 = 693.5 sq milesSo that's how much space Maryland would have to cover in solar panels alone to generate all its energy from solar. Yes, Maryland has about 9,500 sq miles of land, but it's also only 250 miles at its longest. Also, real space requirements would increase due to need for energy storage systems and updated distribution. In any event, there is just no way to see this as 'a few square miles'.But since I don't stop once I get going, let me just quote ol' Ron and say: But wait, there's more!The Topaz system utilizes thin CdTe PV panels. Tellurium is rare on Earth. Ninety-three (93) metric tons of tellurium produces one 'gigawatt worth' of solar panel - that's the smoothest I could word that (Wikipedia again: Cadmium Telluride Photovoltaics).The Topaz system can provide only 1/73 Maryland's power, so once we figure out how much tellurium is sitting in Topaz, we can just multiply it by 73 to get what we would need for a comparable Maryland system.As a 550 MW (.55 GW) system, Topaz contains about 51 metric tons of tellurium. If we multiply that number by 73, we see that building a Topaz system capable of powering Maryland would require 3700 metric tons of tellurium. Now I want to quote the Wikipedia article about CdTe panels directly here, because the effect of seeing the numbers together is quite something:

quote:

---

Wikipedia on Cadmium Telluride Photovoltaics:

​

Only a small amount [of tellurium], estimated to be about 800 metric tons per year, is available.

---

So not only is it impossible to solar power Maryland with a few square miles of panels; even if we wanted to cover 693 sq miles of the state in panels, it would take over four times the entire world's yearly supply of tellurium to do it - ignoring the fact that we don't actually produce anywhere near that amount of tellurium (which would bring the number close to 25 times as much). But wait, there's more!As a percentage of actual reserves, that usage represents 15% of total proven reserves (Tellurium (pdf)). And that will power just 2% of the U.S. population. Scaling this up for the country would require not only over 7 times the amount of tellurium known to exist on the entire planet, but also covering 34,000 sq miles in solar panels made from non-existent materials. That's nearly the size of Indiana.I think at this point it's safe to say that in terms of solar's power to fuel the world: Ain't. Happenin'.Edited by Jon, : No reason given.Edited by Jon, : No reason given.Edited by Jon, : No reason given.

I chose the Topaz plant because it is supposedly the largest in the world, thus minimizing any errors introduced in scaling it up - which are probably still many.But if you have an alternative proposal, feel free to lay it out on the table so we can examine and critique it.I'd be delighted to see this work out in "a few square miles".

What is 100 sq km supposed to represent?

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.

How about you start by conceding your earlier points before Gish galloping on to something else? Are you also factoring the mine into your solar measurements? You can at least do simple division. This is good news.

quote:

---

LamarkNewAge in Message 32:

​

It would only take a few square miles of solar panels (on top of roofs) to fuel the energy needs of the entre state.

---

You wrote that. Do you remember now? What do you mean 'would'? We can just go look at the numbers and find out. Why don't you do that? Same as above. Why 'perhaps'? Just look at the numbers and do the math.Stop being lazy and put some work into your posts. 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. 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 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. Where is your evidence showing peak energy demands?

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).

I think we all know how: on power lines.The real problem with transmitting electricity long distances is transmission loss. How much power do you have to generate in North Africa in order to still have what you need for the consumers by the time it reaches South Africa?Anyone know the math used to calculate these losses?Edited by Jon, : No reason given.

I initially thought the land requirement estimates were somewhat in the ballpark. Then I noticed this:If we need to basically turn everything electrical and then power it with solar panels, it will take way more solar panels than they have estimated.But jumping from nothing to the world is kind of putting the cart before the horse. We would be better to start with a discussion of something on a smaller scale, such as New York City.How much electricity does NYC use?

I haven't bothered looking up numbers for the city itself, but as a state, New York gets a large share of its electricity from hydro dams and nuclear plants. Strange. But important.If folks don't understand how we get electricity the short distance from Queens to NYC, is it even worth trying to ask them how they plan to get it from the deserts of California to Juneau?

All irrelevant: the power generated isn't enough to lift them from poverty. What paradigm is that? The paradigm by which every advanced country on earth has grown rich and powerful burning shit loads of dead plants? So? Who wants that economy if it means being like Kenya? Enough about India, really. It's already been pointed out to you that India gets a larger share of its power from coal than even the U.S. Using India as an example of the 'wonders of solar power' is plain dishonest. That is not only a horrible economic model (it's never worked in the millions of years humans have been on this planet), but an environmentally devastating one as well.Your ideas of what would make good economic and environmental policy/practice are only based on wishy-washy, hippy-dippy, touchy-feely nonsense, not on any actual facts or evidence.Edited by Jon, : No reason given.Edited by Jon, : No reason given.Edited by Jon, : No reason given.