/sci/ - Science & Math

Biogas is a thing, but I doubt it would be adopted large scale

>>10119427
you would need many smaller plants, but it could be a mayor source of energy, maybe even replace natural gas

>>10119426
have you ever been near a wind turbine?
those shits are fucking noisy
retards always think that green energy can do no wrong

>>10119426
Nope, this is:
http://www.solarfoods.fi/
No wheat, no cows, just solar panels and a vat of bacteria. Solar panels are more efficient at solar conversion than photosynthesis.

>>10119426

>>10121814
not true, road traffic makes more noise, you have obviously never been near a wind turbine
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zKgN2G9d0dc

>>10121814
Solar panels also require large amounts of heavy metals that there are a total of two local efforts in all of the US to dispose of safely. Usually broken ones are just carelessly tossed into landfills where they poison the soil.

>>10122211
Which heavy metals? How much is large?
>>poison the soil
citation needed

>>10122211
>>10123701
Almost all solar cells are made of silicon. This is not dangerous at all. Manufacturing in China could be problematic for environment because they don't care about this over there.
He might think of Gallium arsenide but this is rarely used because it's more expensive.
There are also Cadmium telluride cells, these got a market share of 5% and used in some large projects in the US. By themselves, cadmium and tellurium are toxic and carcinogenic, but CdTe forms a crystalline lattice that is highly stable, and is several orders of magnitude less toxic than cadmium. The glass plates surrounding CdTe material sandwiched between them (as in all commercial modules) seal during a fire and do not allow any cadmium release. So even this could just be "tossed in a ladfill" with no risk for environment.

>>10119426
Either the solar panel is getting sun, or the grass is. It's less complicated to just completely split up the land and do it separately. By all means put them on the farm sheds, but the fields? That's just retarded. I hope nobody here had to be told this.

>>10124301
Only came here to say this.

/thread

>>10124301
grass does not need 100% direct sunlight, some shading is actually better for growth

this looks comfy

>>10126161
it's an eyesore

>>10124874
Any papers?

>>10121808
Cool, when did DayZ get windmills?

solar + aquaponics = future

>>10126172
awww, the faggot's artsy-fartsy feelings are hurt

>>10124301
Solar panels are more efficient at solar conversion than grass, so you could put LEDs that emit at wavelengths the grass uses and still have some power to spare. Or better yet, use the solar power to produce hydrogen which can be used to feed bacteria to directly produce protein.

I would just cover every parking lot with solar. It offers protection for cars, you can directly power electric cars. You can build it easily because you can drive everything there. What do you think?

>>10122211
>murritards are too fucking stupid to grasp the concept of recycling, therefore photovoltaic panels are bad

Why not just use nuclear? Doesn't require sunlight or wind, twice as efficient as coal, clean burning, relatively safe now that we have thorium reactors. The only downside is all the safety guidelines jack up the price of building them

>>10126879
To be fair recycling of solar cells is difficult.
>>10127469
>>twice as efficient as coal
you pulled that number out of your ass. Thermal conversion efficiencies are comparable to fossil fuel power plants
>>clean burning
Technically they don't burn anything, which is a plus
>>relatively safe now that we have thorium reactors
We don't have thorium reactors and development is slow. Safety has not actually been demonstrated. Licensing takes a long time.

>>10127469
Fags.
Literally the only reason why highly advanced next-gen fission reactors aren't being rev'd up. As long as the masses are making policy, there will always be fags that stop this kind of research and development.
>tfw it's 2018 and still no advanced nuclear monarchy

>>10126161
Looks inefficient as hell.

>>10127526
>thermal conversion
Considering that they're essentially steam engines, yeah, no shit. Howabout conmparing them down to fuel and not stopping at the engines?

>>10126847
it kinda works for governments or large companies with excess cash flow and large facilities. otherwise, very hard to justify the investment since the money could go to 1001 other things and won't pay for itself very quickly.

>>10121980
very cool, thanks for sharing. Do you know how feasible it is or any copycats?

>>10127563
solar system’s economic payback time is now shorter than ever before, typically within the 5-10 year range for most solar investments, nothing else in the energy sector will pay for itself this quickly

>>10122091
>road traffic makes more noise
No fucking shit sherlock, you can hear traffic easily a mile away

>>10122211
>(((deregulate))) environmental protections
>see, fossil fuels and renewables cause environmental problems!
>except the fossil fuels don't
>we're keeping the fossil fuels and you can shove the solar panels up your ass
is there anything dumber than Amerifat conservatards?

>>10128437
I got a cunning plan, we build a wind farm near a highway.

>>10126177
Try going to the countryside and see it for yourself, bugman.
Not him.

>>10128421
Yep, don't disagree. Just saying organizations will want to spend money on immediate tangible benefits first. Unless it's a certain kind of org, large solar installations may be too low on the list to ever get built. On that note, government incentives can change that, so it seems a lot more viable if politicians decide to use your tax dollars on it in one way or another.

>>10129066
There’s no point to subsidize uneconomic fucking gay solar panels everywhere...

>>10129109
>There’s no point to subsidize
... because it's already cheap enough
Farming solar energy in large scale is literally a licence to print money.

>>10130580
Only b cause it’s massively subsidized, and power companies are forced to buy all the power it provides, despite the fact they can’t even use it...

And even then it’s nowhere near as profitable as nuclear or natural gas

>>10131095
>>nuclear profitable
hahahahaha good one. If nuclear is so profitable why are many nuke plants on the verge of shutting down?

>>10131325
artificial restrictions and bureaucratic red tape

>>10131331
Nope, the problem is that natural gas is just too fucking cheap and nuke plants aren't cost competitive:
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0360544217307491
We really should subsidize them.

>>10131325
Cuz all existing nuke plants are old, and facing bureaucratic difficulties in renewing permits. It’s all a big fucking joke, the state in all western countries deliberately killed nuclear power in the 70s.

>>10131376
No one would buy solar if solar faced the same red tape as nuclear

>>10131376
how old are those reactors? this wouldn't be an issue if building new (better) reactors was easier
subsidies never hurt anybody either

Nice, nuclear fag again. Shilling atomic power on 4chan makes no sense. Nobody here will ever build a power plant.
Ironically shilling photovoltaic makes much more sense. Because some home owners might think about installing rooftop solar.

I still don't get why we don't have low voltage DC appliances. even cars use efficient DC motors now, which could be used in refridgeratos and washing machines, and most of our current electric appliances already use 24V (or less) DC circuits internally... they just use 110-240V transformers to get electricity from the mains, so why the fuck do we still have to buy appliances that use AC electricity? why do people have to convert from low voltage DC to AC to use the energy collected by their solar PV panels?

>>10132460
>>even cars use efficient DC motors now,
No.

>>10131415
Look at how horribly unesthetic that is
Literally no smoke stacks....

>>10132494
they are not DC, they use (AFAIU, I'm far from knowledgeable...) electronically controlled alternating current motors + circuitry, but still, from what I've read, they are efficient enough to be used with solar panels without wasting too much energy, aren't they?

>>10131415
shilling nuclear makes sense because people on 4chan vote and must be made aware that anti-nuclear politicians are ultimately responsible or climate change being as much of a threat as it is

>>10132570
in that application I believe the English word is "chimney"

>>10133058
yeah, i've always seen those motors attached to inverters. efficiency issues there probably aren't too big in the grand scheme of things.

>>10128444
Sadly, no. These NPCs are the bottom of the bottom. Friendly reminder that over 40% of amerimongs actually believe in angels.

>>10128421

Typical payback for investments is less than 5 years with gas turbines taking 3-4 years. It's better but not the best.

>>10131415
>impying you can't have both
Solar isn't viable everywhere thanks to seasons and weather.
In a perfect world you'd have a diversified power grid that is locally optimized. I always think of Buckminster Fuller's global power grid, get a more lossless way to transmit electricity and you could have a power system that moves around any local surplus to anywhere else with a drain. You would have solar farms all along the equator and in deserts, Tidal and wave harnesses off the coast, wind farms on the planes, hydroelectic on rivers, with nuclear and conventional power plants filling in the gaps. If everything works together you can do more with less.
The big problems is transmission and storage.

>>10133292
the secret is high voltage DC transmission

>>10133292
Solar is viable everywhere in the US and most of the world. Germany is less lucky with weather, but solar is still profitable. Transmission is solved. UHVDC got only minimal losses. You can produce hydrogen and methane from excess energy and feed it into the gas grid. This solves storage and transport.

>>10133581
Solar is not economically viable anywhere without substantial subsidies and retarded investors

>>10133609
your brain is not viable anywhere even with all subsidies

>>10133581
>Solar is viable everywhere in the US
That's a lovely map of averages. Meanwhile you've got acres of solar farms in wisconsin covered under a foot of snow during short winter days.
Are you going to put all your eggs in one basket and hopes the entire country of canada doesn't freeze to death in a blizzard? Or hope you don't live on a northern slope of anything.

>>10126161
I love this aesthetic.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u_K1URyarE0

>>10133839
Here we got even some snow as well. Guess what happens once the sun come out?
The snow slides off the black, wet glass-like surface of the solar panels. Efficiency also goes up if it's cold.
On a national level you always got an energy mix. Solar with wind and biomass and hydro and geothermic and fossil fuel.

>>10119426
Wind energy is 100% ass and ideas of using it should be discarded

Damn this thread is so comfy

>>10127545
Solar engineer here; flat isn’t perfect but it’s never that bad a way to go. In many residential projects they simply follow the roofline rather than find the optimum angle.

>>10135697
why? seems fine in the right places.

>>10133275
> with gas turbines taking 3-4 years.
Depending on the price of gas. Double the input price, and what is your ROI then? How much does sunlight cost? Oh yeah, it's free.

Propane or methane ROI (return on investment for you burger flippers) depends on season (competition with residential heating markets), proximity to a refinery, transportation costs of fuel (Imagine Hawaii vs. the Midwest US) and, if you live in Eurofagland, an added bonus of your nation's trade status with the mother Russia.

Solar is a MUCH better investment for its relatively small startup costs. To just spit out a single number for propane or methane is just idiotic.

>>10121980
>just protein
>nutrient-rich

>>10121980
> a vat of bacteria
So you're going to feed the world on yogurt and cheese?

You'd still need some lactating animal for the milk. Unless you're interested in starting a human dairy

>>10126879
No one recycles them, anon. Those two efforts in California are the only attempts with groundswell, anywhere.

Nuclear is unironically the cleanest source of energy. It produces no hard to contain waste gas, produces little solid waste, and what waste there is can be easily recycled. Even the hippies who originally killed it have reversed course and become one of its strongest advocates since it's now become unprofitable with all government support for new reactors drying up due to public opinion.

>>10135838
It would be infinitely better if we had the actual storage capacity to even out the inevitable peaks and valleys of production that comes with it. Right now, when it makes too much, the electricity is dumped onto other grids for pocket change, while when it makes too little, it requires outside sources. It's an okay tertiary source, but it should NEVER be the primary.

>>10135126
> black, wet glass-like surface
> black
> wet
> covered in white stuff
> sliding down

>>10127923
Look at ARPA-E electrofuels for some work that was focused on creating fuel rather than fuel
>>10135896
protein is the first step. Should also be possible to make lipids, carbohydrates, and basically anything organic food component.
>>10135917
>>milk
65% percent of the world population is lactose intolerant.

>>10135941
>lactose intolerant myth
just start drinking milk, you'll get better as digesting it

>>10135943
its not a myth if you’re missing the genes that code for the necessary enzymes it will cause inflammation and scarring in the gut, you can take probiotics and sort of condition the gut to cope with it but you will never digest it properly or get the benefits from it lactose tolerant people who have those enzymes do.

>>10124102
>The glass plates surrounding CdTe material sandwiched between them (as in all commercial modules) seal during a fire and do not allow any cadmium release.
so what if there is no fire, but they shatter?

>>10135949
you're not missing the genes though, you just never stimulated them to activate
don't be a pussy anon

Molten Salt (Thorium) Reactors are the future.

>>10135953
that’s not how it works at all, there are whole lineages of people who don’t have those mutations and feeding them milk will just tear up their gut lining. If you’re trolling i mean at least be funnier

>>10128642
based Baldrick

>>10135960
>whole lineages
>65% of the world
that's 100 people max, like two or three families dumbass
go drink milk now

>>10135941
For that half there's kimchi. Or, if you're a kraut, well, kraut.

>>10126172
you have poor taste, this setup is nice

>>10135952
> What if fire?
> Safe
> What if shatter?
What if they are hit by a direct strike from a nuclear weapon in World War III? You worry too fucking much.

>>10126847
i think the gov should fund just such a project, or mandate that the giants like walmart do this for their enormous, always mostly empty parking lots

>>10135793
solar installer here, i can confirm all this

>>10135962
>get trolled XD

>>10135971
answer the question, queer. When they shatter, they are no longer encased by glass and spread that way. How is that safe?

Since this seems to be the dedicated greenfag thread, I'll ask a question. Why the FUCK is human waste just dumped into the sea? It could be put through large biogas tanks to produce Methane gas and reticulated to the house as well as large amount of potent fertiliser which is important because peak phosphorous is a big concern. This wouldn't even require much of an infrastructure change, waste is already pumped into large tanks where it is treated before being dumped, these tanks can be used as biogas generators and then connected up to the existing gas infrastructure.

Generally utility scale solar/wind works better than residential/spotty installations. When you have a single utility plant, you get better economics and it's a lot easier to manage the grid.

>>10136560
just economics. right now lots of gas is produced incredibly cheaply. especially since obama started fracking like crazy

>>10135986
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cadmium_telluride_photovoltaics#Safety
>>By themselves, cadmium and tellurium are toxic and carcinogenic, but CdTe forms a crystalline lattice that is highly stable, and is several orders of magnitude less toxic than cadmium.[64] The glass plates surrounding CdTe material sandwiched between them (as in all commercial modules) seal during a fire and do not allow any cadmium release
They're too expensive to throw away:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cadmium_telluride_photovoltaics#Recycling
CdTe is probably not going to scale though, just because tellurium is so fucking rare.

>>10136772
I bet asteroids have tellurium

>>10136757
It was trump who was responsible for the boom, shill

>>10136776
we'll probably have cheaper means of producing solar cells than by the time we start mining asteroids. Perovskite solar cells could enable solar cells to be made very cheaply. Not only because they're made from common elements, but that processing is essentially carried out at room temperature.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Perovskite_solar_cell

>>10131385
>No one would buy solar if solar faced the same red tape as nuclear
Fortunately it doesn't need red tape.

>>10135933
Solarsexual.

>>10136802
lol

>>10135886
in Europe they even use excess wind and solar energy to produce hydrogen and methane

>>10136802
>falling for the jew puppet

>>10121980
>Solar panels are more efficient at solar conversion than photosynthesis

Not yet, plants are still the most efficent converting solar radiation into energy (chemical one but still), the thing is solar panels go directly to electrical one to the loss is less.

>>10137559
Photosynthetic efficiency is 3 to 6% of total solar radiation and if you burn biomass for electricity you get even more losses. For biodiesel you end up with 0,3% efficiency.
Modern solar panels got more then 20% efficiency or. This is obviously much, much better.

>>10135932
You can use wind turbines to generate hydrogen.
I also saw something in my newsfeed a few weeks ago where they've made some headway with "liquid sunshine."
In a perfect world you'd just need some efficient high capacity batteries.

Christ muh green energy is hideous. But itll save the planet maybe

green energy is growing for years, especially in rural states

>>10138617

You're committing Carlin's error. The planet is doing just fine. The object in question is the human species and the other creatures that scuttle about on the planet's surface.

>>10137685
For direct electricity it can be.

But I think the last person was talking about making food, which is stupid as plant do have a lower conversion rate but don't have multiple steps, and a few high efficiency steps can be far worse then one low efficiency depending on the setup.

"Most efficient" is very misleading without context.

Some very old energy harvesting methods that are considered laughable to day actually are more effective, as they don't have all these electrical conversion steps. They lost because of other factors.

It comes to a WOW factor as they often lacking peak power which people overvalue to day, because people like their 1 super powerful engine as appose to 6 large stationary engines that are only 20% the output. Also people can't do math.

it's definitely better then destroying forests and farmland to mine fossil fuel

>>10139924
they also destroy a lot of your beloved nature when they mine the ressources for the panels. and guess how they mine them: with fossil fuels :^)

large majority of fossil fuel mining is very environmentally friendly. ironically its environmentalists who push for stupid shit like tarsands

>>10126161
>>10134237
>>10126536
>>10135967
Yeah, the Wal*Mart ceiling and stacked cinderblocks aesthetic is just what I was going for to achieve that "rural white trash America in 2018" feel.

>>10119426
Solar power isn't a solution. Dumb negros working out how to output more when they all ignore 'heat', AKA energy. What will the birds do if the world is covered in solar panels?

>>10133292
>>10133581
Germany actually produces MORE solar electricity than America does with the fucking incidence of ALASKA. America is just too capitalist to even bother to try.

>>10133609
So basically like capitalism.

>>10135933
Oh boy, we got us another tile patterns / Ohio River Valley here.

>>10135953
>>10135962
What a boring zoomer retard.

>>10140233
>destroy a lot of your beloved nature when they mine the ressources for the panels.

Good joke, solar cells are mostly made of glass and silicon. Both are made of sand. You just need a bucket and a shovel to "mine it". Buildings are made of the same "resource". If you are worried we run out of sand you should live in a tent.

>>10140366
>tent
>made of dead dinosaurs

>>10133609
that's largely only true because it's competing with established systems that also have the benefit of decades of hefty subsidies

if we put fossil fuel up against solar in a truly equal footing, no subsidies for either, no existing networks to lean on, they'd be fairly competitive

>>10140285
t. Know-nothing

>>10140399
Monitor, not mirror. Or more likely a shitty iPhone in your case.

>>10140389
they don't mind

>>10140233
>ironically its environmentalists who push for stupid shit like tarsands
No it isn't. Typical rightwing retard.

>>10141121
>muh politics
back to /pol/, zoomer.

>>10141216
>Lying about shit that's easily refutable by looking outdoors

>back to /pol/, zoomer.
Sad when a zoomer has spent so much time alone they begin talking to themselves...

I seriously don't understand why solar PV and water heating isn't mixed. from what I've read, water heating is very efficient, PV cells work best in low temps, and there are solar panels that have highly efficient (almost 30%, see >>10134899 ), which I guess it means little energy could be lost if the setup is done right.

>>10141295
like this? it's quite common in northern regions

>>10141295
>>10142122
not like that. I meant to say panels that are both PV AND water heaters at the same time.

>>10142335
this is just unnecessary complicated, there is enough space on your roof to put it side by side if you want both

>>10135126
>2 inches of snow
wow haha it just slide right off!

>>10142589
>this is just unnecessary complicated
does it have to be? I guess it'd be a metter of finding ways to do these things at the same time:
- transfer a high % of waste heat from the PV cells to the cold water, and
- make sure your PV cells get enough sun. if possible, their whole area should be able to absorb every single ray of light exposed to the sun
I'll admit I'm mostly ignorant about the topic, but I can't see how this could become too difficult... and by that I mean, much more difficult than building water heating solar panels + PV panels is already

>there is enough space on your roof to put it side by side if you want both
not everyone has a big roof or enough area for their needs, and also, for whatever reason, not everyone thinks having lots of solar (water heating or PV) panels in their roof is a good idea. having smaller, dual-purpose panels would be

>>10143496
electricity and water don't like each other

>>10119427
>>10120955
It is already on large scales in some countries. It will only get larger. I think it is the least resource intensive power generation aside from hydro. You don't have the same inputs as solar panels require and in the same square area you can produce more energy than solar 24/7. Since the bulk of the work done in the biogas system comes from microbes, the energy inputs are only waste products. Those waste products produce biogas and high nitrogen fertilizer. Because of the microbes, you get more out of it than you are putting into it, due to what amounts to as microbial slavery.

>>10124102
>>10123701
>>10122211
Solar panels typically use aluminum, cadmium, copper, gallium, indium, iron, lead, nickel, silica, silver, tellurium, tin and zinc. The use of these things isn't that bad, but the processing and mining of them can be quite hazardous to the environment. The end of the life of the panel can also be a hazardous point.

>>10124851
>>10124301
>>10124874
>>10126177
>>10128880
>>10126161
Raising the panels higher up into the air helps increase the amount of diffused and ambient light to reach the ground. Still there's diminishing returns. It is far better to have the panels on all the unused rooftop space. That will even help reduce transmission losses since the buildings are what needs the power in the first place, not some pasture land.

Some types of farming can work with solar, but then you'll have power lines all over the fucking place. Rabbit farming using rabbit tractors can have solar panels on them. Rabbits are farmed in cages with solar panels on top. The cages are moved along the ground of pasture land. The cages get moved at least twice a day as the pasture is eaten. It is quite efficient, but you'd need to design a good way to keep the power transmission lines from being a problem. I don't see it happening outside small DIY farms.

>>10135972
>>10127563
Subsidies are a thing and all power companies in all types compete for them.

>>10130580
>>10131095
>>10131376
All power is actually super cheap due to heavy subsidies. That includes all coal, nuclear, hydro, gas, and renewables. If there were no subsidies, you'd more than likely not be able to afford the amount of power you use right now. I'm talking like $5-$8 per kilowatt hour for any energy source you'd want to use.

The future of farming is insect, grub and bacteria based to continue the ever proliferating, cancerous growth of overspilling humanity once earth's native ecosystems have inevitably been raped and salted beyond repair. Your grandchildren will eat cockroaches and moths and grandchildren will eat bacteria soaked pulp

>>10144930
>unironically using "native ecosystems" to separate them from humans
are you implying that we're aliens that don't belong on this planet?

>>10144940
Yes. Humanity, or more accurately human consciousness, is an alien and cruel mistake of the universe

>>10140396
>if we put fossil fuel up against solar in a truly equal footing, no subsidies for either, no existing networks to lean on, they'd be fairly competitive

This is the case in the third world, coal still wins by a huge margin.

>>10144945
It being a mistake means it's produced by the universe, therefore not alien. It can't be both ways. Try again, you retarded wannabe philosofaggot. Try growing out of your edgy high school phase first.

>>10144930
>UN insect eating propaganda

BOOOOOO!!!!

Anyone who is pro insect has no clue about any type of farming and loves swallowing cash crop propaganda.

>>10144945
one day even earth wont exist. would that make the universe better off?

solar is expanding quickly, building it utility scale on grassland while still using it might be an option

Is it just pure sci-fi nonsense to use the plasma from fusion Reactors to atomize waste and potentially recycle certain elements? To clarify, I'm asking if it's even theoretically possible if you assume we achieve positive power fusion plants, does the basic physics make sense? I feel it would be a real silver bullet even if it was just used for disposal but It also seems like wishful thinking.

>>10119426
I personally don't think so. Climate change will make farmland more valuable, put the solar farms in the desert, it will finally make the land useful.

>>10145794
>solar farms in the desert

Transmission losses are the main problem with that.

in deserts you build power towers

What is the net energy gain from solar after you subtract out the total energy cost involved in their fabrication, deployment, and maintenance?

>>10147344
much better than tar sands!

>>10147344
It strongly depends on lifetime, location and which kind of solar power. In worst case (solar panel in Alaska) your solar panel may only produce 15 times more energy then used for manufacturing. In very sunny locations you could get up to 100 times more energy.
>>10147483
For comparison, from tar sands you get only 3 times more energy then needed for extraction.

>>10147344
Add in the cost of mining & refining and recycling the materials too. Then you need to decide which type of solar you'll be using; active or passive. Passive solar is super easy and super cheap. In fact, just painting a slab of concrete floor or block wall in your home near a sunny window black or other dark color will help reduce heating costs in your home at no further cost. In the summer, just lower the window blind/curtain to stop its effects. A solar box cooker, made from reused/recycled materials is passive and very efficient. Or, you can build an active solar power plant like those in >>10147333 where it can eat up land, cost a shit load of money, have terrible power transmission problems, have heat loss problems during nighttime storage, and so on. I think the halfway points are passive solar water heating or photovoltaic cells. As with all things solar, people living nearer the equator can use cheaper systems that give them more energy while people living closer to the poles will have less energy that can be captured and need to use different systems.

With all that in mind, which of those or combination would you want to calculate losses and gains?

>>10147631
I love making passive solar stuff. It is so easy and cheap to do, yet gives really good results. Stuff like in this image is very weather dependent, but stuff like water heaters and thermal mass is less so.

If you want to heat your living space up more, just install a well insulated window on the sunny side. That's 1kw per square meter of solar energy minus the losses for reflection and going through each pane of glass (about 10% loss per pane of glass.) So, 1kw drops to about 900watts through 1 pane then 810watts through the second pane. Angle of the window to the sun plays a huge role too. Skylights in the roof are angled better than wall windows for summer heating, but in winter the wall windows can get more sun when the sun is lower. Use blinds/insulated curtains to control heating/cooling from the windows at night/summer. Thermal mass that can soak up the sun during the day and release it at night can play an important role too.

>>10147344
For renewable it makes more sense to calculate energy payback time. In Canada and Northern Europe it's 1-2 years. In southern states it's between 3 months and half a year.

>>10147905
>energy payback time

What is that?

>>10148014
what does it sound like

>>10148026
Pay back 100% from mining to lifetime use or just lifetime use? Because there's no pay back where I live for solar. Just panels themselves without a battery array would take 25 years to pay back themselves without any maintenance at all. Since they need maintenance they never pay back because of diminishing returns and lifespan. It is cheaper and more manageable for me to use utility power with a single battery backup. Then again my power bill is usually less than $35/month.

Then you have to factor in what type of renewables. Wind, solar, hydro, or whatever. Then decide on what type as stated in >>10147631

So, what are you talking about?

>>10148037
the amount of time it takes to recoup the energy spent to create it, idiot, you're talking about monetary payback, which is different because capitalism doesn't prioritize energy requirements

>>10148040
Then it also doesn't payback and never will. The reason it is done is because people need it and government subsidies. Meaning, all and I mean ALL energy generation is a massive money & resource sink. This has to do with physics. To think otherwise is ignorance and sci-fi.

>>10119426
Comfy thread

>>10119426
Wheat and solar plants would compete for light.

>>10149629
some crops grow better with shading

>>10148073
it does pay back, in some states it's even a great investment

>>10149770
>a great investment
As long as the government gibs keep flowing.

>>10149802
I don't complain if they insist to give me a tax break for installing solar panels.

ITT: Brainwashed burgers thinking renewable energy is a political issue.

>>10149770
>>10150236
Your tax dollars are what pays for it in the first place.

>>10150261
Everything is subsidized, so yes, it is.

>>10150327
your tax dollars end up in my pocket because I put solar panels on my roof and use the energy to power my Tesla

>>10150436
You do realize that everyone's tax dollars ends up back in their own pocket eventually right?

>>10150760
I prefer your tax money in my pocket.

>>10140233
>large majority of fossil fuel mining is very environmentally friendly
imagine being this stupid

>>10140233
>large majority of fossil fuel mining is very environmentally friendly.
hahahahahaha

>>10147641
Passive solar homes need to catch on more. It's saving significant money on winter heating just by orienting the house and windows toward the southern sky. If I ever build a house I'm definitely doing this. Seasonal thermal storage in underground tanks is also an interesting idea but I'm not sure how much heating it would actually yield over a winter. With good insulation practices and materials and a solar water heater home resource use could be cut significantly. There's even biogas using home sewage and food scraps, and animal manure if it's a homestead. Heating the home interior and water are typically the biggest energy uses but a smart approach from multiple angles could nearly eliminate fossil fuel use.

>>10140233
>large majority of fossil fuel mining is very environmentally friendly.
hahahaha

>>10151071
If I was going to build a dream house I'd definitely go with earthwork. Imagine if a hobbit was a doomsday prepper with a fallout shelter.
You don't have to get under that much dirt before the temperature gets pretty constantly regulated.
You can some interesting stuff with concrete, old tires, and packed earth.

>>10119426
I thought we already did this?

>>10149766
seems to be true for grass

>>10147333
If you have that much land and need that much energy you might as well build a nuclear power plant

>>10152426
Why burn money with such useless shit?
Solar plants can be build much cheaper and faster. Solar does not blow up and does not produce radioactive waste.

>>10152426
Nuclear plants need water for cooling

>>10139608
seems wind is replacing coal

>>10152784
Not true
It’s just a convenient way to do it

>>10153691
Dry cooling like thorium is a meme that doesn't meet real world needs and design constraints.

>http://www.world-nuclear.org/information-library/current-and-future-generation/cooling-power-plants.aspx
>Hardly any US generating capacity uses dry cooling, and in the UK it has been ruled out as impractical and unreliable (in hot weather) for new nuclear plants. A 2009 US DOE study says they are three to four times more expensive than a recirculating wet cooling system. All US new plant licence applications have rejected dry cooling as infeasible for the site or unacceptable because of lost electrical generating efficiency and significantly higher capital and operating costs. For large units there are also safety implications relating to removal of decay heat after an emergency shutdown with loss of power. In Iran, four 1300 MWe German reactors planned in the 1970s at Isfahan and Saveh were to use dry cooling, with two 260m tall and 170m diameter cooling towers each. It is unlikely that large nuclear plants will adopt dry cooling in the foreseeable future.

>>10151163
Don't bring tires onto your property. They are toxic as fuck and leach heavy metals into your local water table. If you are thinking of, "earthship," do not ever build one. There are many other better in-ground and partially in-ground building methods that accomplish the same thing for less labor and no trash. Earthship is synonymous with, "landfill."

>>10151071
Yeah, there's so much that can be done with passive solar, it is pretty amazing actually.

For thermal storage though, most people use a roof mounted evacuated tubes to collect the heat, pump it to a basement, and store it in a huge container of water. The loop for the roof is filled with antifreeze to prevent winter breakage. That's an active system since there's an electric pump involved. Systems that are fully passive are usually two story structures or places that have a sloped hill below the structure. That way they can take advantage of thermosiphon flow and never need a pump (pic). Designing a thermosiphon system can be difficult & costly because you need to maximize flow and reduce drag. Basically, you just use the largest diameter pipes you can afford for the external loop and have as few elbows & bends as possible. Those favor straight runs instead of zig-zags or coils that pumped systems can use.

In places where there's no freeze dangers, the thermal mass is stored on the roof with the evacuated tubes. The water line itself runs to the roof and no secondary heat exchanger using antifreeze is required. The normal water pressure from the water main takes care of the pumping action as it is used.

comfy

>>10152611
Now calculate area that really urbanized area needs in winter and so it is usable elektricity by night? Isn't area you use just bigger than state you want to supply the power?

>>10126847
It is not sufficient to charge the parking lot.

>>10154345
Sure? Show your calculation please.

>>10154378
>>10154345
>minimum size of a standard parking space shall be nine feet wide and eighteen feet long.

That's nearly 50 square meters. At 100% solar efficiency (1kw per square meter) that'd be 50 kilowatts of solar energy.

>most efficient solar panels on the market today have efficiency ratings as high as 22.2%, whereas the majority of panels range from 15% to 17% efficiency rating.

Using the highest rating of solar panel, 50kw drops down to 11.1kw. Most public car charging stations are Level 2 public charging stations.

>With a level 2 charger, it takes around four hours to fully charge a 30 kWh battery car (standard battery for full electric cars). [up to 19.2 kilowatts/about 70 miles of range per hour of charging]

That's 19.2kw for a Level 2 charging station versus 11.1kw solar efficiency before transmission losses and storage losses. Using an average solar panel that gets 16% of the energy from the sun that's only 8kw minus any losses from panel to car battery. I think that getting 5kw would be more realistic in the real world. 5kw is a long ways from 19.2kw, but is closer to household charging where you'd get 4.5 miles of range per hour of charging.

All of that calculation is a bit suspect since we haven't established the type of electric vehicle being used. Also, parking lots are rarely full and even less filled with people charging cars. Thus, you have a shit load more panel space that can capture energy for fewer cars and store excess into batteries (more energy loss). In the end, it is doable, but only because there's not yet enough electric cars to strain the system. In the future, it will be barely viable with current electric car technology. But, in the future electric cars may be even more efficient than now.

I think it is a very close break even point currently. Where the amount of charging you are getting will be just enough to let you limp to the next charging station. Is that worth it? Is that helping the environment? I don't know.

>>10154719
Here's some more info. The numbers in the other post are just the maxes and may only reflect peak watts which would be a power spike I think, so take that into account. Toss in bad weather, latitude, & day/night cycles and I think solar parking lots for charging cars is slightly less than break even in the long run in regards to energy generation and use.

>>10154719
>>10154725
So covering company parking space with a solar roof could make sense. Employee cars park for hours anyway. So we got plenty of time for charging. After all they just need recharge for commute.

>>10154993
Yes, it would work for employees who are at work long enough for it to charge. Even on overcast days there should be enough to see them through after a full 8 hours of work or whatever. People who commute a long ways may have trouble though.

So: vehicle's efficiency, work time, and distance to work.