In reply to Knurled. :
Yeah I did a little on-ramp race against the Tesla SUV up to 70mph in my c5z06. I didn’t gain an inch. Really made me realize their potential.
In reply to Knurled. :
Yeah I did a little on-ramp race against the Tesla SUV up to 70mph in my c5z06. I didn’t gain an inch. Really made me realize their potential.
Peak oil. When was the last time you heard those two words? It’s what I think about every time somebody comes along and tries to tell me what the world will be like in 10 years. Remember, all the experts agreed that oil would be at least $300 by now.
It’s really hard to predict the future but when someone tries to tell you how it will be, you can just about take it to the bank that it won’t be that way.
GIRTHQUAKE said:AnthonyGS said:We already have a ton of underutilized electric trains. If people really cared about the environment they'd use them. It's all about freedom and being able to go where you want when you want. This might be an area where electric vehicles shine, but in the meantime we are still burning a whole lot of coal to charge electric vehicles.
Actually, we have shut down more coal plants in the last 2 years than in the previous 10. Even more telling, business insider reports that "The cost of producing solar power is rapidly declining: It now costs $50 to produce one megawatt-hour of solar power, according to a new analysis" versus coal, which is " $102 per megawatt-hour to produce."
To be honest, I genuinely see the future being that we all have our own solar cell system with battery backup- not because of regulations or environmental issues, but simply because it makes economic sense and protects you from future issues out of your control.
Micro grids are quite interesting. To see the future we may need to just look and see what they’re doing / going to do in Africa and places where they want power but no infrastructure currently exists. It’s counterintuitive. 20 years ago if you wanted to see the future of telecommunications you should have looked in Nigeria. They had a lot better cell network then than most of the USA. Reason? They never had the underlying infrastructure to fall back on. We still relied on good ole Ma Bell.
GIRTHQUAKE said:AnthonyGS said:We already have a ton of underutilized electric trains. If people really cared about the environment they'd use them. It's all about freedom and being able to go where you want when you want. This might be an area where electric vehicles shine, but in the meantime we are still burning a whole lot of coal to charge electric vehicles.
Actually, we have shut down more coal plants in the last 2 years than in the previous 10. Even more telling, business insider reports that "The cost of producing solar power is rapidly declining: It now costs $50 to produce one megawatt-hour of solar power, according to a new analysis" versus coal, which is " $102 per megawatt-hour to produce."
To be honest, I genuinely see the future being that we all have our own solar cell system with battery backup- not because of regulations or environmental issues, but simply because it makes economic sense and protects you from future issues out of your control.
If memory serves me correctly, most of Iceland relies on micro-grids. Obviously they rely on thermal and not solar, but it's an interesting idea that I would love the US to start following. There's clean energy in solar (probably easiest), wind (probably second?), water, and thermal. All of these can be utilized across the US (also the world obviously), and micro grids would help relieve many problems like infrastructure repairs, driveline losses (give me a break I don't know the term lol, but it takes energy to move energy), and there's also the safety concern.
One of the biggest things that I would be excited for, is the economic and political pressures it would help relieve. Enron type price spikes, international political tensions (wars for fuel), and things of that nature would ostensibly be calmed down. But like anything, diversity is the key. Using all the forms of renewable energy will be what is needed.
A 401 CJ said:Peak oil. When was the last time you heard those two words? It’s what I think about every time somebody comes along and tries to tell me what the world will be like in 10 years. Remember, all the experts agreed that oil would be at least $300 by now.
It’s really hard to predict the future but when someone tries to tell you how it will be, you can just about take it to the bank that it won’t be that way.
All lot of experts also said we would be out of oil and the internal combustion engine would be dead by now. Lots still keep saying it’s dead but then just keeps getting improved or reinvented.
In reply to AnthonyGS :
Uh... I'm going to inject some facts into the discussion. The total transmission lower loss in the US today is something like 8%. So it's far from "most of the power," as you stated.
However, you're right that more power would be lost vs. today (since transmission would travel greater distances) if all the PV is located in Nevada or Arizona, but to suggest that 49 states would be without power is a grossly false overstatement.
Lastly, as others have addressed, the points above was not to suggest that all PV be located in a central location, but merely to illustrate the small footprint needed to generate the needed electricity for our needs today.
Edit: Actually it's 5%. https://www.eia.gov/tools/faqs/faq.php?id=105&t=3
Wife and I have been waiting almost 13 years for wind and solar to get cheap enough we can use it. Those of you that have been to my place, I can utilize wind more than solar but having both would cover the gaps. Unfortunately, I'm still looking at ~$70k out of pocket to install a system to cover our electrical needs currently. Granted, that is down from the $90 it was 2 years ago, and that was down from the $100k 10 years ago. Still waaaaaaayyyyyyy too much to see any real ROI in my lifetime.
I've also been saying for way too long that shutting down the US rail system was idiotic, electric only cars are NOT the only solution for the world/country and why do we keep thinking there is one magic bullet to fix everything? Even nature knows that E36 M3 ain't true.
In reply to bcp2011 :
" merely to illustrate the small footprint needed to generate the needed electricity for our needs today. " That's great. Except for Seattle that doesn't see enough direct sunlight a year to generate the power. All of these solar outputs are predicting higher than average sunlight and yield. What happens in northern states when daylight is down to 7 to 8 hours a day in winter, and 5 out of 7 days a week are snowing/raining/cloudy?
We need to stop looking for the "one". Neo was great but he ain't going to fix everyone. We need to use all our resources available. Nuke for cold climates that don't see sunlight. Solar for souther areas taht see lots and lots of sunlight. Wind for the plains. Hydro-electric on the coasts/mountains. This country is too diverse, too different for one solution of ANYTHING to work for everywhere. That is where our gov't usually fails.
bobzilla said:In reply to bcp2011 :
" merely to illustrate the small footprint needed to generate the needed electricity for our needs today. " That's great. Except for Seattle that doesn't see enough direct sunlight a year to generate the power. All of these solar outputs are predicting higher than average sunlight and yield. What happens in northern states when daylight is down to 7 to 8 hours a day in winter, and 5 out of 7 days a week are snowing/raining/cloudy?
We need to stop looking for the "one". Neo was great but he ain't going to fix everyone. We need to use all our resources available. Nuke for cold climates that don't see sunlight. Solar for souther areas taht see lots and lots of sunlight. Wind for the plains. Hydro-electric on the coasts/mountains. This country is too diverse, too different for one solution of ANYTHING to work for everywhere. That is where our gov't usually fails.
And if we focus on that, a HUGE chunk of the CO2 emissions will be reduced. Just because it's would be super hard to transmit sun power from Arizona to Seattle does not mean what so ever that Arizona should not change. It's a whole lot better than doing nothing and just arguing about it.
For me, I see Puerto Rico (and most of the Caribbean) as being able to 1) go mostly solar, 2) make it a microgrid system with storage. That solves multiple problems all at once- including power robustness to natural disasters. Mount the panels on the aero hidden and structurally sound rooftops, and that will avoid the loss of the panels in open fields that got destroyed.
In reply to bobzilla :
It appears you have not read the discussion so let me pull the relevant parts from it:
bcp2011 said:In reply to T.J. :
On the point of stable grid - agreed on the baseload issue. I wonder how much of baseload can be provided between wind, solar, and concentrated solar at scale and % of times when gas or battery would be needed.
bcp2011 said:
In reply to ztnedman1 :
You're right in that every source of energy will have its drawbacks... The simple logic is that with traditional energy generation, every bit of electricity generated requires a new cost (whether coal, gas, nuclear, etc.). With solar and wind and water, that cost basically goes to zero (barring maintenance, etc.). As a bean counter that makes me excited...
bcp2011 said:
In reply to ztnedman1 :
Agree that PV will not, and cannot, be the only source of electricity for the reasons you cited. That was not my claim - I merely suggested that the space needed is not significant as you had initially claimed.
As for other source, wind still blows at night, and CSP has hours beyond just the sun hours, and of course battery technology will need to improve such that the redundancy is on the batteries. Even in that scenario, which would take a long time to get to, there will still be natural gas plants that could provide quick power when needed (BTW I believe natural gas is generally used more as "peakers" rather than baseload).
GIRTHQUAKE said:To be honest, I genuinely see the future being that we all have our own solar cell system with battery backup- not because of regulations or environmental issues, but simply because it makes economic sense and protects you from future issues out of your control.
I agree on a lot of levels. Small solar or wind plants and battery backup is very efficient and liberating. I own several acres of land, and will be going offgrid myself. I once lived offgrid on a submarine. We made all our own power. It's not that hard.
I just don't see the large population centers which are growing at a ridiculous pace going green or off the grid anytime soon. People have never been as addicted to the juice as they are today.
MotorsportsGordon said:All lot of experts also said we would be out of oil and the internal combustion engine would be dead by now. Lots still keep saying it’s dead but then just keeps getting improved or reinvented.
All those peak oil experts didn't take innovation and scientific advancement into account or other technological improvements. Working in the energy business myself I can tell you that we will never run out. It's just a function of how much one is willing to pay.
bcp2011 said:In reply to AnthonyGS :
Uh... I'm going to inject some facts into the discussion. The total transmission lower loss in the US today is something like 8%. So it's far from "most of the power," as you stated.
However, you're right that more power would be lost vs. today (since transmission would travel greater distances) if all the PV is located in Nevada or Arizona, but to suggest that 49 states would be without power is a grossly false overstatement.
Lastly, as others have addressed, the points above was not to suggest that all PV be located in a central location, but merely to illustrate the small footprint needed to generate the needed electricity for our needs today.
Edit: Actually it's 5%. https://www.eia.gov/tools/faqs/faq.php?id=105&t=3
It's actually varies by state due to size and distance of transmission. It's better on the east coast and worse out west. Some say it's more on the order of 8-15%. The thermodynamic efficiency of power generation is super low; significantly less than 50% in most cases. Most power generation still goes into heat transfer.
It's funny how no one talks about solar panels being destroyed by acts of nature too when they consider and estimate their costs to convert the world to solar power. You can find lots of new articles on hail causing significant damage in many solar farms.
ztnedman1 said:In reply to bcp2011 :
Extraction and refining is still needed for materials in solar panels. Also you need ALOT of square footage to put them in any capacity to replace powerplants. Doubly so for windmills. We can't even get people to agree to new cell towers... Where are you planning to put all these solar/windfarms? Water has tremendous(immediate) impacts to the environment, so much so that new ones were all but abandoned years ago in this country. Nuclear was seen as a silver bullet 60years ago...now not so much.
The beauty of solar and wind, besides the obvious, is that you do not need a monolithic powerplant. I see wind turbines all up and down urban Cleveland. Small solar farms dotting the side of the road near Toledo.
There is a LOT of unused real estate for solar if you are willing to look for it. One of our local dealerships has a huge indoor showroom, and the facility is self-sufficient or close to it thanks to the solar panels lining the roof.
Rooftops are not arable land, nor are they wildlife habitat or nature preserves. Heck, they may actually cut energy requirements for the building by reducing roof heating during the day.
AnthonyGS said:It's actually varies by state due to size and distance of transmission. It's better on the east coast and worse out west. Some say it's more on the order of 8-15%. The thermodynamic efficiency of power generation is super low; significantly less than 50% in most cases. Most power generation still goes into heat transfer.
It's funny how no one talks about solar panels being destroyed by acts of nature too when they consider and estimate their costs to convert the world to solar power. You can find lots of new articles on hail causing significant damage in many solar farms.
1) Yes, it varies based on distance, but unless you can cite another legit source beyond "some say" that states the transmission power loss is 3x what the official govt stat is, I'm going to believe that number.
2) You mentioned transmission power loss being the issue. Not the efficiency of power *generation.* My response was to your statement on transmission loss, not on power generation efficiency.
AnthonyGS said:
The other problem not addressed by the solar energy math is power transmission losses. Most of the power in this country is used to heat wires just like most of the fuel burned in an ICE heats water or oil. You generate all the power needed in Arizona, and you’ll have blackouts in the other 49 states. Imagine all the green power people when they can’t complain on social media.
3) Power generation efficiency is irrelevant in the context of solar, and a reason why burning fuel is inefficient, so thanks for reinforcing the point.
4) Again, solar is not a perfect solution, nor the only solution. But hail damage sounds pretty good compared to radiation from a nuclear reactor or pollution from coal.
And lastly, I'm going to respond to the bolded portion above - Imagine all the luddites when they can't impede the progress of science and can only complain about the good ole days on social media.
/rant
Knurled. said:ztnedman1 said:In reply to bcp2011 :
Extraction and refining is still needed for materials in solar panels. Also you need ALOT of square footage to put them in any capacity to replace powerplants. Doubly so for windmills. We can't even get people to agree to new cell towers... Where are you planning to put all these solar/windfarms? Water has tremendous(immediate) impacts to the environment, so much so that new ones were all but abandoned years ago in this country. Nuclear was seen as a silver bullet 60years ago...now not so much.
The beauty of solar and wind, besides the obvious, is that you do not need a monolithic powerplant. I see wind turbines all up and down urban Cleveland. Small solar farms dotting the side of the road near Toledo.
There is a LOT of unused real estate for solar if you are willing to look for it. One of our local dealerships has a huge indoor showroom, and the facility is self-sufficient or close to it thanks to the solar panels lining the roof.
Rooftops are not arable land, nor are they wildlife habitat or nature preserves. Heck, they may actually cut energy requirements for the building by reducing roof heating during the day.
they also make solar glass for high rises. Cuts down on the sunlight entering the building and generates power
You'll need to log in to post.
