tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6427940.post3277881071196905246..comments2023-12-05T07:50:19.855-05:00Comments on No Oil for Pacifists: Solar Power: Flat-Out Wrong For All Time@nooil4pacifistshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/16688417615117569825noreply@blogger.comBlogger18125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6427940.post-1676916300018985592011-10-22T16:08:23.511-04:002011-10-22T16:08:23.511-04:00>> I will bet you that the PotUS elected in ...>> <i>I will bet you that the PotUS elected in 2016 -- and most likely the one elected in 2012 -- will be adequately pro-nuke.</i><br /><br />Also -- this was, of course, written before Fukishima...<br /><br />While Fukishima says exactly the same amount against nuclear power that TMI did -- that is, <i>nothing</i>, really -- it has, of course, and particularly thanks to the media -- tainted public opinion once more against it for the time being. Less so, because people are smart enough to realize unconsciously that a tsunami isn't the same as a non-caused eph-up, but it's going to give lots of anti-nuke noise value for another decade or more.<br /><br />Fukishima says nothing <i>against</i> nuclear power development whatsoever:<br />a) The design of Fukishima was a TMI-retrofitted pre-TMI design. It did not have current "designed-in" safety features.<br />b) Fukishima was struck by one of those "once in a century" disasters, then another disaster, and things STILL would have been fine if there had not been one single significant flaw in the fact that the backup generator system did not use a uniform connector design. You can pretty much bet that if it's not completed already, at every existing nuke plant in a developed nation, there is a project underway to set such connectors to an industry-agreed universal and international standard.<br />c) Chernobyl showed that the dangers of radiation release are VASTLY overstated. There are still people living in areas evacuated due to Chernobyl. What studies of these people have found is a higher incidence of STRESS-CAUSED cancers than of any other form of cancer. That stress is generally attributed to the fear of living in that area. That's right -- the <i>FEAR</i> of living near Chernobyl is more dangerous than <i>actually</i> LIVING there. I will lay odds that followups to Fukishima will find the same thing... and the media, of course, won't say a THING about that, somehow, finding more newsworthy interest in a story about the First Lady's trip with the PM of Uzbekibekibekistan's wife to the Washington DC Floral Gardens.OBloodyHellhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09992539380115488567noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6427940.post-4567504046031461032011-10-22T15:53:35.860-04:002011-10-22T15:53:35.860-04:00P.P.S, and another final element, if you're go...P.P.S, and another final element, if you're going to try and do some actual, more accurate calculations, don't forget that you need to track with seasonal variance in power usage for different areas, or at least base your calcs (actually more realistic) on the maximum usage vs the minimum insolation, or more accurate still, some hairy calculation that compares the difference between the two sets of numbers at each location of interest to achieve a minimax calculation of what your worst case insolation would be vs. the associated seasonal variant usage. Because that WILL define what your actual areal coverage needs to be.<br /><br />You're welcome to do this -- I'm willing to bet that, if you do it honestly and accurately, it's going to be MORE coverage than I've indicated, probably by far.OBloodyHellhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09992539380115488567noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6427940.post-35658898062626022122011-10-21T09:59:53.390-04:002011-10-21T09:59:53.390-04:00P.S., if you examine the solar insolation numbers,...P.S., if you examine the solar insolation numbers, 6kWh/m^2/day is ABOVE that for anywhere in the USA.OBloodyHellhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09992539380115488567noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6427940.post-85481011867305700242011-10-21T09:55:04.809-04:002011-10-21T09:55:04.809-04:00If you want to take the time to actually calculate...If you want to take the time to actually calculate REAL numbers, here:<br /><br /><a href="http://www.solarpanelsplus.com/solar-insolation-levels/" rel="nofollow">Solar Insolation</a><br /><br />Go ahead, spread your areas over a "representative sample" of the USA, then calculate real numbers even given my 50% figure for conversion. Don't forget to allow for night-time needs and storage losses for same. You can arguably neglect transmission losses.<br /><br />Example: Pittsburgh: 3.53 kWh/m^2/DAY on AVERAGE for the year... That's 100% power, so multiply areal needs accordingly. I'm sure you can get a figure for the usage of the average household and so forth. <br /><br />That compares to the number I was using for the which was about 6kWh/day to get the 5gsm figure.<br /><br />For me, a single person, I used up 645kWh over 33 days during a temperate month (Sept), or about 19.5 kWh/day. Double that (50% conversion) then divide by 3.53, so I'd need not LESS than 11 m^2 of panel <b>just for a lame, low-usage month</b> (and I'm not figuring storage losses for night-time needs, there). <br /><br />I don't even want to THINK about how bad it would get in mid-winter or the height of summer.<br /><br />Then realize that, if they aren't kept clean, it means that power output will go down substantially. I've seen estimates that power output goes down by as much as 50% if they are only 10% dirty.<br /><br />...Are YOU going up on the icy roof an hour into the frigid morning to clear the snow off the panels from the night before so they'll be kicking out energy all day for you to use or store? No? <br /><br /><b>I didn't think so.</b><br /><br />That's one of the chief reasons solar farms are suggested, and generally located in the southwestern deserts.<br /><br />Finally, your assumption of square footprint per house is defective, because in order to get a significant fraction of power output, it has to be AIMED at the sun (another factor I did NOT include which lessens output) within a fairly low number of degrees. And if you stagger them, don't forget they need to be set in such a way that at no time does the shadow of one fall on another. Etc., etc., etc.,<br /><br />Your "solution" creates more problems than it solves, since each and every installation (70 MILLION of them!) becomes a <b>unique problem to solve</b> -- how to lay out the grid, what angle to place them for maximum energy, and are you going to install tracking motors to point them at the sun or are you going to just say "eph it" and go for a fixed-position panel?<br /><br />Any rational person can see that's not something to be covered in a quick, back of the envelope calculation. I've been quite generous to get the numbers given. Real numbers are going to inevitably be worse.<br /><br />I said nothing about the degradation of panel output over time, for example, which currently is as much as 50% after 10 years down to 100% (i.e., zero output) in 20-30 (and which might arguably be an arena where tech improvements COULD make an impact... so I figured, "let's ignore that for this simple calc").OBloodyHellhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09992539380115488567noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6427940.post-90808849750455877932011-10-21T09:54:37.128-04:002011-10-21T09:54:37.128-04:00>> "in the right context"
2) And ...>> <i>"in the right context"</i><br /><br />2) And yet that's NOT how the power is being generated at this time, all systems generally assume a centralized system. A "Solar farm" of some sort.<br /><br />So the numbers I suggest are woefully LOW if you distribute them all across the USA as you suggest, due to weather differences and seasonal variance, and you don't get any benefits of scale in terms of cost of installation or maintenance.<br /><br />Moreover, maintenance becomes a consumer issue, which is less likely to happen, and that means either FAR more accidental deaths due to falls (already THE leading cause of non-vehicular accidental death in the USA), or (more likely) substantially lowered power output due to failure to keep them clean.<br /><br />These numbers are particularly generous in EVERY way. I'm giving them 50% power conversion (well beyond current capabilities) and assuming an average of 12 hrs a day for energy production, which isn't going to be the case at all if you're outside the southwest deserts, and probably not even that as the early morning and evenings will be poorer generators, that is, the real day is probably not more than 8-9 hrs even in the desert.<br /><br /><br />I'm trying to keep it very, very simple to make it clear enough for the average person to grasp that solar is not some magical "Free energy" thing that all we have to do is make a magic panel to catch all the sun's energy. Even IF we had that, it still wouldn't be enough without covering a ridiculously huge area.<br /><br /><i>...(continued)...</i>OBloodyHellhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09992539380115488567noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6427940.post-79701653904855186162011-10-21T09:53:04.898-04:002011-10-21T09:53:04.898-04:001) It's converted from power, which is identif...1) It's converted from power, which is identified by the base area to energy over time. I didn't compare apples to oranges, here, I used the base *power* currently on-line in the USA, not the energy, and gave unlikely wonderful numbers as to access to solar input->output. <br /><br />In reality, there is cloud cover a large percentage of the time unless you centralize it all out the desert (which you just said not to do). There's also much less "sunfall" in the winter, when there is a lot of demand... unless you're out in the desert.... which you said not to do.OBloodyHellhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09992539380115488567noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6427940.post-37362181676419500862011-10-20T20:55:54.681-04:002011-10-20T20:55:54.681-04:00You're calculating the wrong thing. Your calcu...You're calculating the wrong thing. Your calculations are in terms of power; they should be in terms of energy. <br /><br />In addition, the area you give, which is too high due to the math error, doesn't seem so unreasonable in the right context. Consider that there are something like 70 million single family homes in the country. If we assume a nice, round, and not unreasonable estimate of a 500square foot footprint per house, we estimate that single family homes in this country cover 3.25Gsqm.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6427940.post-36604762566818913462011-06-26T06:32:36.987-04:002011-06-26T06:32:36.987-04:00Actually, I was assuming that the panels would be ...Actually, I was assuming that the panels would be tilted as required. That would affect the flat horizontal area somewhat, but the real panel area itself is the scary figure once you realize how that's potentially a large-scale filthy process of fabricating doped sheets of silicon, or at the least a massive area of mirrors you'd have to keep constantly clean.OBloodyHellhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09992539380115488567noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6427940.post-43944185599844435772010-03-10T11:41:14.393-05:002010-03-10T11:41:14.393-05:00you missed the cosine loss (the sun is never overh...you missed the cosine loss (the sun is never overhead) which increases your area required from 15.5% at latitude 30 to 30.5% at latitude 40.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6427940.post-78415548759958234652009-10-06T22:02:56.926-04:002009-10-06T22:02:56.926-04:00> to pave with solar collecting material than r...> to pave with solar collecting material than rock, concrete and asphalt. <br /><br />Um, long after the fact, but... I'm assuming that the form would be something akin to modern cells in panels, but then that needs an underlying support structure/framework. The energy required to create <i>that</i> is also trivial...<br /><br />Also, for efficiency, the cells ought to track with the sun, at least a little.<br /><br />The basic point is that the idea as a whole is preposterous and stupidly ignorant of even the most basic physics applying to the situation --- even if you go with the proposed 20% of existing use, you're still talking about covering ONE FIFTH of Delaware with little blue cells. Oh, boy, give me some of that!OBloodyHellhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09992539380115488567noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6427940.post-17216800393556352772009-04-27T17:47:00.000-04:002009-04-27T17:47:00.000-04:00We don't have much experience paving a whole state...We don't have much experience paving a whole state.<br /><br />We might draw useful project duration estimates from considering the cost and time required to lay down the interstate highway web. Say about 40 to 50 thousand miles (about 80,000 km) of road, four lanes, with shoulders, taking up just over 12 meters wide, 8 x 12.5 is about 1 billion square meters.<br /><br />(Yes, Heinlein fans, I know.) <br /><br />So, if it takes four or five times as long to pave Delaware or recreate the Eisenhower Defense Highway net we're looking at replacing today's electrical capacity with solar sometime in the next 120 to 200 years, provide we start right now, and provided it's no more difficult to pave with solar collecting material than rock, concrete and asphalt. <br /><br />Uhm. Great?J Melcherhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14349242761775214765noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6427940.post-21030558974954709202009-04-25T11:53:00.000-04:002009-04-25T11:53:00.000-04:00> But BHO has ruled that out.
1) I think just...> But BHO has ruled that out.<br /><br />1) I think just a simple "BO" carries the correct weight: "BO has ruled that out." Sorta goes "KA-Ching!" all by itself, don't it?<br /><br />2) Yeah, well BO can rule it out all he wants. There's enough noise being made around the world about how effective "Alternative Energy" is that the media can't keep it down forever. The UK is a lot further along on this arc than we are and they're starting to Get A Clue, and the rumbling is coming over there. It will follow over here.<br /><br />I will bet you that the PotUS elected in 2016 -- and most likely the one elected in 2012 -- will be adequately pro-nuke.OBloodyHellhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09992539380115488567noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6427940.post-24471931090087598452009-04-23T22:30:00.000-04:002009-04-23T22:30:00.000-04:00No, I got the point. However, Biden is from Delaw...No, I got the point. However, Biden is from Delaware - that may be all the reason we need.<br /><br />BTW, very good post. I think that peak oil is a very real possibility, and I personally don't see how we preserve anything like our current standard of living - with little luxuries like reliable electricity and running water and working hospitals - without going nuclear in a big way. But BHO has ruled that out. We are so screwed. Even the French are smarter than liberals on that one.bobnhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07715238134585125684noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6427940.post-47500115184395793042009-04-22T01:55:00.000-04:002009-04-22T01:55:00.000-04:00> Nobody will miss Delaware.....except a bunch ...> Nobody will miss Delaware.....except a bunch of corporations who favor its laws...<br /><br />Delaware was chosen for this example because if its proximate size being reasonably close to that of 5 billion square meters. I could've used Rhode Island, too. <br /><br />We could cover Rhode Island over, then cover up only a quarter of Delaware... would that be preferable?<br /><br />:oP<br /><br />I think, if anyone here doesn't get the idea of how absurd it is to cover an entire state -- <I>even a very small one</I> -- with concrete and "little blue cells", then you need a reality check. I'm assuming no one here needs that, but in case there was any question...OBloodyHellhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09992539380115488567noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6427940.post-88527113544897654762009-04-22T00:05:00.000-04:002009-04-22T00:05:00.000-04:00I like Delaware. Couldn't we cover, say Louisiana...I like Delaware. Couldn't we cover, say Louisiana in concrete instead? There's more sun in Louisiana and everything. And seriously, would anyone notice if we did?Bob Cosmoshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13420771432114368417noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6427940.post-55251657634703194952009-04-21T22:20:00.000-04:002009-04-21T22:20:00.000-04:00bobn:
Corporations "favor" Delaware, in part, bec...bobn:<br /><br />Corporations "favor" Delaware, in part, because their courts are more expert on corporate law than those of other states. So we all would lose were Delaware to turn up missing.@nooil4pacifistshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16688417615117569825noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6427940.post-72944415464834413662009-04-21T21:39:00.000-04:002009-04-21T21:39:00.000-04:00Nobody will miss Delaware.....except a bunch of co...Nobody will miss Delaware.....except a bunch of corporations who favor its laws...bobnhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07715238134585125684noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6427940.post-55232489356266418772009-04-21T15:35:00.000-04:002009-04-21T15:35:00.000-04:00P.S.:
I like SPS, because it gets us into space ...P.S.: <br /><br />I like SPS, because it gets us into space industry. And I think that's important in and of itself, much like Lewis and Clark's exploration of the West. <br /><br />I do not advocate it at this time as a serious power source expectation. It, too, is a bit pie-in-the-sky. A lot less so than these magical solar cells I've created from whole meme just to get even the numbers I've shown here... but SPS is not something to hook your 30-year power generation plans on, either -- any more than magical, mystical Obama®-brand solar cells.OBloodyHellhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09992539380115488567noreply@blogger.com