/sci/ - Science & Math

>>8928420
>100% bullshit
No, but it's never going to be a grid level solution. I think it's reasonable to have them for personal use, but that's only because you should have some actual infrastructure as a fall back on.

>>8928420
the really good panels are being cockblocked by environmentalists because they contain small amounts of lead (about as much as you have in your car).

>>8928426
What makes them "really good"? Their efficiency or lifetime?

>>8928420
Solar is great for some applications. Passive solar is best overall, active solar is the worst since it eats up so many resources.

Passive solar is stuff like solar batch water heaters and solar cookers, (light to heat). This can be used to make electric from the heat (solar thermal power station.) Energy storage is typicality done as thermal mass (molten salts, water, cement/stone, etc.) Passive solar can be as simple as a stone/cement floor/wall in your home to collect the energy and release it as thermal energy at night when it is cool or hanging your clothing out to dry in the sun. However, passive solar systems can still be extremely complicated and have high maintenance depending on design and size.

Active solar is photovoltaic cells, (light to electricity). Energy storage is typically done using batteries, though high speed flywheels, compressed air, and elevated water are also used.

Hybrid solar typicality combines active and passive solar. An example are hybrid solar PV panels that have water heat exchangers on the back. The PVs produce electric while the water heat exchangers produce hot water for domestic use. Other types skip the water heat exchanger in favor of Peltier thermoelectric modules to generate more electricity.

The largest problem with active solar is energy storage. It is almost always very costly and uses lots of resources. The storage mediums that are really good are almost always based on location.

>>8928439
cost. it would make solar roof's viable, even without subsidies. i can't remember the technical term NREL used when they came up with them, but the panels would be slightly more expensive than cardboard.

>>8928449
Interesting, I think you are referring to this: https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2014/07/140717151535.htm

The method sounds like it is too difficult for an amateur to replicate.

It's good for unused roof space and distributed production. Absolutely ridiculous for a plant. Takes way too much space and other alternatives are better.

>>8928420
Pretty much what >>8928425 said, maybe for supplementing a more stable form of power generation for base load like nuclear as well.

>>8928420
Energy return on investment is better than the oil sands

>>8928420
>This tells me the expected lifetime of a solar installation is likely to be 25 years

Something that lasts 25 years and powers anything even at a decreasing capacity, is still better than throwing money into the ground to get limited resources out. To give you a better point of reference, imagine gas prices in 25 years due to supply and demand.

>>8928686
>Something that lasts 25 years and powers anything even at a decreasing capacity, is still better than throwing money into the ground to get limited resources out.
Better by what metric?

>To give you a better point of reference, imagine gas prices in 25 years due to supply and demand.
And? If you don't accurately account for the costs of solar this is meaningless. Which is why I'm asking.

>>8928420
OP I want to start some kind of Green Energy / Recycling company.

I am researching this very question now. In a bit I will post my findings here, no "bullshit", with sources and real life references.

Here is my public key so you guys know it's me:

0cb180af1047ceee47918034830de9f0543f177f13037fd082198388819ac992

spreading solar around in cities is fucking retarded

Do people buy and use their own small generators attached to the grid

I love the idea of solar, but I'd have to cut down all the forest on my lot to use it.

What now environmentalists?

>>8928812
go live in a desert instead.

>>8928420
Start here:
https://bravenewclimate.com/2014/08/22/catch-22-of-energy-storage/
https://physics.ucsd.edu/do-the-math/2011/08/nation-sized-battery/
https://dothemath.ucsd.edu/2011/11/pump-up-the-storage/

>>8928894
That first article is excellent, I just downloaded the paper mentioned in it. Thanks a lot, I'll get to the other articles after I finish with this paper.

It gets exactly to the point I was wondering about. Though the author shifts a bit to pushing for nuclear and I have heard veeeeeery similar claims made about nuclear power, that after factoring in costs of waste storage and transportation that nuclear is also not a panacea. How much of that is due to unreasonable levels of required "safety" I don't know.

Anyway, thanks.

>>8928803
>Do people buy and use their own small generators attached to the grid

Every single household I know of has their own gasoline powered, electric generator. Well some are diesel, some propane, and some are natural gas. Only a very few use them as every day power generation, usually on farms with free gas. The rest just use them when the power is out. Some have a grid tie so that when the electric goes out the generator kicks on instantly.

Of course this is a rural area, not a city. However, in the closest city tons and tons of people have these as well.

>>8928812
Use a pole or tower.

>>8928812
move to where you have a small stream on your property. This redneck invested $50 and runs his lights and tv and fridge.
https://youtu.be/ZmHY9DkD1Hw

>>8928923
>Scientist !!ThFjnJh4Ek
>pushing for nuclear

No fucking shit. All he posts is that bullshit. Yet, he knows literally nothing at all about it. He just shit posts over and over like the tripfag he is.

>>8928930
You can do the same thing with a VAWT. I like his setup. Too bad I can't sue something like that in my area. Flood stage is sometimes as high as 10 feet about normal stage. Sometimes cars are washed through.

>>8928939
>VAWT
I hear those things are loud though, like a truck idling.

>>8928923
I personally think the weapons proliferation angle is a bigger concern. Radiation release from reactor accidents is a concern, but IMO much more easily handled. Waste is a complete non-issue.

>>8928931
You think that you somehow disproved my arguments. I disagree. If you do manage to do so, then I'll stop posting those arguments.

>>8928952
>Waste is a complete non-issue.

Waste is the ONLY issue. Waste is the one and only thing that's preventing nuclear power from expanding.

That doesn't mean that waste *should* be an issue -- it only means that from a practical politic perspective, waste has turned out to be THE ONE issue.

>>8928973
I think you're mistaken. Waste is not the largest problem, politically or in practice. Waste takes up so little space and so few incidents have occured from modern waste storage leaks.

The biggest problems are:
Politically: fear of meltdown.
Pragmatically: Upfront cost and the cost of maintenance.

The upfront cost for nuclear is so undeniably high, but even with that factored in, energy production is pretty even with wind, solar, and CCS coal produciton per kWh.
The main problem in my opinion are the exorbitant maintence costs on reactors after 40 years. Short of a complete teardown and rebuild, these issues are why France is phasing out nuclear from its energy fleet (from 80% to a planned 50%). Nuclear is just very costly after a while (though, it does have a much longer effective lifespan than wind and especially solar).

>>8928961
No, because you never ever relent regardless of the info and sources posted. You say no and then post the same shit over and over again like a flatearther. You've been doing that for years now. So, fuck you and your shilling, you are not worth the time.

>>8929021
Thats a nice Tapir you have there!

>>8928929
>use a pole or tower
If I were actually putting up a pole large enough to stand over the tree line, I'd be better off with some sort of horizontal wind solution instead. But if I were putting up something that big, I'd have to have the trees removed anyway. Servicing it would be relatively impossible compared to a ground level array.

>>8929021
He didn't even bring up nuclear take a fucking pill.

>>8928930
The stream is sadly about 5 houses down the road. Also a bit bigger than said redneck's stream. So it's a great idea but not one I can work with.

>>8928420
bump


>attempting to build a solar panel
>have professors speak as though they understand solar panels
>i speculate.

i have a b. board hooked up to some cells...i've also had a hard time finding credible information on solar. my next step is to book shop.


>>where are the open patents from elon musk!
>>i'd imagine they'd be useful.

>>8928420
>Is it a meme?
Lrn2meme fgt pls

>>8929126
Put up a bunch of masts, run cables between them, and suspend the panels on the cables, then build a bunch of monkey bars suspended from the cables so you can service it.
ezpz

>>8929145
He did in his "sources".

>>8928894
Wanted to thank you again for those three links, they are extremely informative.

I am a little depressed about how bad solar works out right now. I had in my mind some kind of sun-powered water pump to drive a small generator during off-sun times and the last link really fucking put me in my place.

>>8928930
This is nice and all but relying on water levels over time is pretty questionable. Sunny days are a lot more reliable than this, especially in areas that experience winters where such small flows (as in that video) would likely freeze.

>>8929009
>40 years
nigga, if we went full nuclear we'd run out of fissile uranium in like ~25 years

>>8929190
>sunny days are much more reliable
>especially in winter
nigga are you pretending to be retarded

>>8929235
It'd be a bit longer than that. There's a fracking method that is being studied that pulls it from the ground.

>>8929237
You still get energy on a cloudy day in winter, for PV. You don't get anything at all from a frozen waterway.

Assuming average solar panel generation of 200W/sq m and global power consumption 150 PWh per year. You would need about 85,000 square kilometers of solar panels to satisfy global demand - or about 10% the area of the Sahara desert.
Impossible? No.
Massively impractical given current global/political/economic situation? Yes.
Worth doing? Absolutely...

>>8929252
I suck dicks.
>1% the area of the Sahara Desert.

>>8929252
My problem is the resources needed for making, repairing, and replacing PVs.

>>8929278
In the desert it's likely you wouldn't use PV but anyway distributing power isn't simple, and you still have the problem that you aren't generating power at all the times you're using it which is at least three quarters of what this thread is about.

Obviously enough energy is released from the sun to power our gadgets. Since we're imagining we can imagine things might as well dream up a dream of a dyson swarm.

>>8928930
>hurr only costs 50 bucks
>just need 1k+ of free shit given to you!

>>8929009
>The upfront cost for nuclear is so undeniably high
It's no more expensive than any other form of power plant

>>8929447
Reduce
Reuse
Recycle

>>8929447
>>8928930
>https://youtu.be/ZmHY9DkD1Hw [Embed]
You could do the same thing with nice new equipment and a 10x battery bank for $10,000. Or you could do it like he did and collect the free and fixable parts over time and spend money as needed. It's like you're mad at him for having the ability to haggle, find deals on craigslist, and have a few friends/buddy's. I know we look down upon rednecks here at /sci/ but I think this one outsmarted you.
>>8929190
If you live in a hilly/mountain area, sunlight is something you aren't going to get much of, especially in the winter.

>>8929009
Nuclear is far cheaper than most people realize. Nuclear is only expensive in certain countries because the governments have made it so.
http://euanmearns.com/nuclear-capital-costs-three-mile-island-and-chernobyl/

>>8928699
>Better by what metric?
Financial? Clearly you're not concerned with solar being an environmentally viable alternative to fossil fuels since you tried to make the case that producing panels causes more net pollution than an alternative. Which, by the way, the environmental resource cost of solar is immensely less less than that of coal and oil.

>And If you don't accurately account for the costs of solar this is meaningless. Which is why I'm asking.
What? You can't actually think that the cost of solar energy is more than that of conventional fuels over the course of 25 years. I feel like your fishing for scholars to find you alternative opinions on the sensible, congruent understanding of renewable energy. Something that is virtually infinite > something that is not virtually infinite, regardless of initial startup cost to get the world on board.

>>8929998
>since you tried to make the case that producing panels causes more net pollution than an alternative
I made no such case.

>You can't actually think that the cost of solar energy is more than that of conventional fuels over the course of 25 years.
Why not?

>>8929998
>Something that is virtually infinite > something that is not virtually infinite, regardless of initial startup cost to get the world on board.
But it's not just a startup cost. It's a constant, ongoing process to constantly recycle and remanufacture the solar cells and batteries. It's a never-ending drain on the economy, and the intrinsic manufacture costs are so high compared to the energy outputs that it's not sustainable.

>Battery lifetime and solar panel lifetime has to be accounted for. I've seen power output datasheets that indicate solar setups lose something like 50% of their net output over ten years. This tells me the expected lifetime of a solar
installation is likely to be 25 years, then you have to pollute more to get more batteries and dispose of your old ones (how?) and possibly newer panels, too.
Implying batteries aren't getting more efficient and battery recycling won't be a thing ever. The cost of that is negligible compared to what drilling does to the land as well as the air and seas with its pollution.

>Why not?
This has to be a meme. Gas prices in the past 25 years have nearly tripled. Now some of that was due to the war in Iraq but for america, the prices have stabilized again. And like I said before, supply and demand. As the available resource of nonrenewable energy goes down, cost goes up. As far as environmental cost for solar, btw, the only real issue is shading large areas for solar fields which might negatively impact wildlife. But these solar fields would be in arid, sunny climates to begin with and power could always be routed back to a city's grid. ive never seen anyone idiotic enough to say that solar's cost (either financial or any other cost) is higher than that of fossil fuels.

>>8930013
Economists and ecologists disagree but my guess is you're both of those so I'll leave this thread now.

>>8930014
>The cost of that is negligible compared to what drilling does to the land as well as the air and seas with its pollution.
Because materials in batteries don't come from the earth?

> As the available resource of nonrenewable energy goes down, cost goes up.
This is not under dispute from me. But you're refusing to count the fact that a lot of non-renewable shit goes into solar, too, for reasons I find utterly mysterious. You're basically just playing tumblrite "I don't have time to educate you" which is fine, but then just don't post in the thread.

>>8928420
alberta canada is going with wind power. 10% is now produced by wind and that is only 900 wind mills. wind is the future my friend. and ocean waves.

Solar is a joke
Want hot water? welp all I can do is this mild water
Need your apliances running? welp, it isnt sunny now boy
Batteries then? Oh right, it requires you to be rich
Nice

>>8930107
maybe solar is a joke if a lavish lifestyle is needed, but for living in general...i don't see why it would be a bad option

>inB4 the above

Neither a meme nor the answer.

It will help us lengthen the time we have to either
1) Adapt to a life without economic sources of fossil fuel ( think 19th century standard of living) or
2) Come up with an alternative fuel supply that carries the same or greater utility of fossil fuel.

As a fuel source itself it will never replace the utility of fossil fuel, which essentially is solar power but highly condescended into a form which requires no batteries, and which took 100's of millions of years to create. (Think every time you go on a road trip you are burning though the solar power equivalent of thousands of years of sunlight falling on a big patch of ground )

The greatest disadvantage of solar power is the requirement of batteries to store it which is still expensive, despite declining costs inefficient and the production of which also comes from non-renewable sources and at an environmental cost.

However for uses that tap into as an immediate use or near immediate use its a useful substitute to be used INSTEAD of fossil fuel, along with wind power and other such alternatives.

TL;DR. Its buying us a little extra time, that's all.

No seriusly, solar is good, quick, relatively cheap, low manteinance and easy to get done, but if you need a lot of power or you live in a fairly cloudy environment then you get to pay a fortune, then you will have to pay it again 20-30 years later and replace some panels and batteries in the meanwhile.
I'll say the key in solar is high concentration PV
I've been researching myself for a project and it's truly the future of solar plants with conversion efficiency up to 46% in much smaller areas, but it's expensive enough just o be affordable for mass production.
Anyways, now that on-grid energy storage seems not to be a problem, any kind of intermitent renewable energy production is viable.

>>8930171
>Anyways, now that on-grid energy storage seems not to be a problem
What is the color of the sky in your delusional world?

>>8930016
Yea, some do, like frauds and liars like Mark Jacobson. Mark Jacobson is arguably the most respected and renowned expert in the green community, and the guy is a liar and a fraud. If they promote such a person to their most respected position, then it's clear that the entire Green movement is nothing but a sham, filled with liars, frauds, and true-believers.

>>8929920
Necessity is the mother of invention. I live in a high concentration redneck area. Most are dumb as bricks as you'd expect. However, some are not, but act like most other rednecks except they do stuff like in the vid >>8928930 Thus, I surmise that the rest of humanity is about the same minus the accent and love for country music.

>>8930334
>then it's clear that the entire Green movement is nothing but a sham, filled with liars, frauds, and true-believers.

Just like nucleartards, amirite, kid?

>>8930344
I love that guys accent, combined with his pretty genius repurposing of an alternator and his frugal engineering, it puts /sci/ to shame. Free power bill!

perhaps I'm just tetarted

>but i dnt understand where the majority of the cost from a solar set up comes from; slightly damages cells are avail online for a fair price

>>8930412
I fully agree. It makes me want to get more parts together for a VAWT system after this year's initial farming setup when things are dull.

>>8930431
Most people don't know how to >>>/diy/ things nor have the tools or inspiration to do so. I think I'd start with freecycle and craigslist for free, full-sized, broken PV panels. Those are usually pretty easy to fix. Then move onto buying damaged cells if needed.

>>8930344
>Just like nucleartards, amirite, kid?
That's the best argument that you can do? "I know you are but what am I?" / "You too!".

>>8930998
>say stupid things
>get called out for it
>get butt blasted

Very adult of you.

>>8931028
>get mad at one of the few actual contributors to this thread
fictional actual Piper Harron detected

>>8929235
I thought Breeder reactors could increase the amount of uranium?

>>8931028
kys moron

>>8928894
>>8928923
Reminder: Scientist is effectively a human spambot pushing for nuclear power and against anything competing with it, mostly by posting and reposting the same garbage links. He's mentally ill and unemployable, so doing this makes him feel like he's still contributing to society. He's too emotionally invested to ever be able to acknowledge problems in the arguments he spams, since that would mean facing the reality that he's been at best wasting his time, and more realistically, spreading confusion and misinformation.

>>8931187
Breeder reactors are plutonium reactors that are cased in U238 (depleted uranium). Hence "breeder" - more fuel is produced during the reaction.

Apparently there's ~200 years' worth of economically available uranium at current usage (~10% total energy production) so 20 years is reasonable.
Of course "economically available" is a loaded term, of the oil fields we know of, only a small percentage of the total oil in the ground is "economically available" - as the value grows the business case to extract more of it with different methods grows (hence fracking...).
There are also other potential nuclear fuels available.

Since plutonium is created as a fission product of uranium, and plutonium can be created in plutonium breeder reactors...we can safely assume we'll have fission power generation for some time to come.

Also asteroid mining - uranium is rare on Earth because it's a heavy element. Most of the planet's supply is deep in the mantle, only a small amount is brought to the surface by volcanic events and asteroid impacts.
It would be reasonable to assume that uranium is more common in rocky asteroids.

>>8930112
>i don't see why it would be a bad option
When a generation has to live like their grandparents did, they consider it completely intolerable. A "depression." Actually, the great depression. You may be prepared to manage, but history has shown Commissar Cletus and Commissar Jamal will not be, and they won't be satisfied until they have deprived you.

>>8931063
>>8931206
>taking your trip off to shitpost further

>>>/b/

>nuclear tard spam troll in yet another solar thread

How original.

>>8930048
Without getting into a long-winded explanation, Southern Alberta (where the vast majority of those wind farms are) also has vastly more wind than the average locale. If you set up those windmills nearly anywhere else, their energy output would go directly into the shitter.

>>8931235
Uranium prices are rock bottom, talking about "uranium reserves" when noone is even looking for them or mining existing known reserves is nonsense

>>8931250
Not me.

>>8931254
>Implying he isn't anti nuclear trying to make /sci/ look bad

>>8928420
>oh boy a solar energy thread
>can't wait to discuss passive and active solar systems and their advantages, disadvantages, and personal experiences with them
>*click on thread to read posts*
>*read read*
>discussion devolves into nuclear bullshit
>summoning an angry chin

•••Every•••God•••Damn•••Fucking•••Time•••

Make your own fucking thread.

>>8928973

>Waste is the one and only thing that's preventing nuclear power from expanding.

Wrong.

>>8929235

>what is a breeder reactor?
>what is seawater extraction?

>>8932513
Thanks for your contribution to the topic.

>>8932543
This is my post: >>8928442

>>8932513
I'm surprised I don't see more passive solar on youtube, especially people trying to go 100% off the grid. Seems like a really practical way to keep their homes at the right temperature. Is it too difficult for a person and his three best friends to do right? They just don't know about it? Materials too expensive for minimalists?

solar has only one application were it makes itself $$ , space.
on earth open to environment, it breaks down constantly.
they tell you 20 years b4 replacement, its a lie.
you will replace or scrap in less then 5.

>>8932569
>you will replace or scrap in less then 5.
This seems very unlikely to me, where are you getting this info?

>>8932560
>>8932513
>I'm surprised I don't see more passive solar on youtube
My terminology is wrong. I meant what wiki has a page on as "seasonal thermal energy storage." It seems to me to be a very straightforward process to build an insulated water bed. I guess the real estate required and the amount of earth to move might be prohibitive for amateurs.

Germany has 7% of its energy be solar power. It might be impractical for home owners but when you make those very large fields of solar panels a country starts seeing its energy prices decrease quickly.

>>8932614
>>8932560
It is exceedingly simple and not very expensive. There are many applications. Check out "solar evacuated tubes" for the store-bought stuff. Lots of people do diy stuff, but usually not when it comes to energy for some reason. Parts for something like this image are really cheap or even free if you have a salvage source. You just need to have the skills and tools to do it.

The only passive solar wiki I know of is the one for solar cooking:

http://solarcooking.wikia.com/

There does need to be more of this stuff online in wiki form.

http://www.appropedia.org/Category:Passive_solar
http://www.appropedia.org/Passive_solar_design
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solar_chimney
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Passive_solar_building_design

>>8932569
My cousin has had the same solar panel for his power backup system for about 15 years now without problems for the panel itself. The main thing is keeping it clean of dust, leaves, and snow.

>>8932740

Its the contrary, very large fields of solar are useless (only there for political reasons) as they run against the concept of dezentralised, autonomous grid systems where lots of high-voltage distribution and transformation and ground cable installation and maintainance is no longer needed.

Solar power is a blessing for libertarian, off-grid people and a curse to collectivists and big industry, if only it was more efficient, which will surely come with time...

>>8932740

>7% of its energy be solar power

7% of its ELECTRICITY, which is less than a half of the total energy consumption.

If you look at the total energy (including transportation and heating), solar is below 2%.

>>8932740
>It might be impractical for home owners but when you make those very large fields of solar panels a country starts seeing its energy prices decrease quickly.
It is extremely rare that something impractical to do on a small scale becomes more practical on a large scale. In fact I cannot think of a single instance of this phenomenon you appear to think is universal.

>>8932740
???
Germany has way high electricity prices, precisely because of solar and wind, as opposed to France, which has relatively cheap electricity prices, because of nuclear. Ditto for CO2 emissions, because Germany uses a lot of coal instead of nuclear.

>>8932519
Also:
http://energyfromthorium.com/cubic-meter/

>>8933001
>oh they are talking about solar again!
>better post NUCLEAR NUCLEAR NUCLEAR NUCLEAR NUCLEAR

>>8933015
>production of energy from other sources doesn't impact solar energy
you dum

Keep in mind solar is marketed to the hipsters charging their phones with meme solar chargers to save muh gaia.
It's basically scheme to use these retards as leverage and leech fat government money. Selling products directly to them is merely a nice bonus.

>>8932742
Going off the numbers on this page, with some rounding and guessing as to exact dimensions of the liquid reservoir, it appears you'd need approximately a 6mx6mx6m storage tank (or equivalent series of tubes) with good insulation and proper depth (?) for a house. The actual figure I came up with was 171 cubic meters, so you could get by with a 12m x 12m x 1m storage bed.

How deep do these have to be? Put the top of it at 2 meters, maybe? 3 meters?

>>8933104
>this page
http://www.dlsc.ca/how.htm

>>8933104
It really depends a lot on the house design. Like how my neighbors have a $400/month heating bill and I have a $25/mo heating bill. I weatherized my place and added better insulation. They live in a breazy improperly insulated home in comparison. There's also how much solar radiation the house is able to attain during the day via windows. That makes a massive difference.

If you are retro fitting a solar heating system into an existing house, you must keep these things in mind, when you need to know the size. I've seen a few people use solar evacuated tubes hooked up to PEX piping that goes into their basement where there is a cheap inflatable pool from Walmart stuck into a wooden frame for added durability. It is 12'/3.6 meters wide and 30"/76cm deep. It heats their entire home in a moderate temp zone. Theirs isn't thermosiphon, it uses an electric pump and fan both hooked to the thermostat.

https://www.walmart.com/ip/Summer-Escapes-12-x-30-Quick-Set-Round-Above-Ground-Swimming-Pool-with-Filter-Pump-System/39264348

>>8933109
That's an interesting way to store thermal energy. It is constantly being lost though. No wonder it takes up so a large area.

>>8933158
>It is constantly being lost though.
Well yeah you're not going to be able to store heat energy without losses. But the point is to have it in a stable temperature zone with good insulation so you don't lose too much. Static air is a pretty good insulator so I actually don't think the losses would be so bad. This would argue for a spherical or capsule storage tank to minimize the volume to surface ratio.

>>8933370
It is worse for those in ground tubes since the soil is the thermal mass and not insulated. I was thinking of doing a similar setup with bore holes for summer cooling using a solar chimney.

>>8933394
Oh those bore holes aren't filled with water for the thermal capacity?

They offered me installed solar panel at 32 cents the watt.

It's that convenient? I have the land and the goverment gives me a subside.

>>8933733
>subsides

Go for it. The best I can get out of anyone is money off my electric bill for net metering.

>>8928420

Unfortunately much of your information is incorrect, skewed significantly against solar.

The overwhelming majority of Solar PV systems DO NOT use batteries or any energy storage of any sort. The put excess energy back into the electrical system, turning your meter backwards. The process of allowing the meter to turn backwards during periods of excess production is called "net metering" and most energy distributors allow for it. Anything about batteries is therefore irrelevant, unless you want to start talking about solar-PV-powered vehicles (not just cars, but planes and such too) or things that actually require energy storage.

Furthermore, Solar PV does not lose 50% of its output over 10 years. Standards degradation is about 1% per year.

Solar can't compete with gasoline, jet fuel, etc. in many ways (planes, "fill up & go" gasoline cars, etc.), and, in fact, I think those fuels should be conserved not because of bullshit CO2 reasons but rather because it is a superior source of spatially compact and nearly instantaneously refilled & supplied power, but solar is a lot better than what your information would suggest. Is there a near conspiracy against coal, to prevent it being used? Sure, you might go so far as to say that there is an anti-coal conspiracy, but Solar PV isn't complete crap.

-- experienced solar installer

What exactly is wrong with making huge solar power plants? Couldn't you just build so many solar panels that a whole region has enough electricity even for when there is no sunlight? I'm thinking of places like Australia and Africa with lots of sunlight. Why is a concern to be expensive? As long as it produces more energy than it consumes and investments are paid off within some 50 years what's wrong with a country building solar? What about that guy who said whatever solar power is thrown into a grid will have a priority making the power clock go backwards when it passes through a household or something like that? And my final question is wouldn't solar be specially benefits to third world countries? If yes how can they be successfully implemented?

>>8934031
Nope

Theorically speaking, what would happen if a country started shitting enough solar panels to power its entire subcontinent? I imagine energy prices would drastically lower, but wouldn't there be massive unemployment in the energy sector? What would happen to all the unused supply of energy? And thanks for the previous well elaborated reply as well.

>>8934031
>Couldn't you just build so many solar panels that a whole region has enough electricity even for when there is no sunlight?

I don't see how without batteries. And current batteries take too much energy to make for the scheme to work.
https://bravenewclimate.com/2014/08/22/catch-22-of-energy-storage/

> As long as it produces more energy than it consumes and investments are paid off within some 50 years what's wrong with a country building solar?

Let me explain a bit about the above point, and point out your wrong understanding and assumptions.

Your quote here is implicitly assuming that the stuff lasts forever. Nothing lasts forever, and especially not solar cells nor batteries. Solar cells usually have a lifetime of around 25 years. Batteries usually have a lifetime of around 5 years (often much less). Thus, it's not just "built it and forget about it". It's a constant, never-ending project to replace the things as they wear out. They only make so much energy over their lifetime, and they cost such and such amount of energy to make.

TBC

>>8934186
>>8934031
EROEI is just a proxy for the number that really matters. The number that really matters is the fraction of our population that must work in energy to maintain our industrialized society and standard of living. If EROEI is less than 1, then it's impossible (energy inputs are greater than energy outputs). However, if the EROEI is bigger than 1, but not by much, then this likely means that we will need a shitton of human labor input in order to maintain this system (i.e. the constant effort to replace all of our solar cells every 25 years, and our batteries every 5 years).

Currently, fossil fuels have an EROEI of around 50. Even with that high of a ratio, about 1% of our population works in energy supply. An EROEI of 7 is still net energy positive, the neighborhood of solar cells plus batteries, but it will likely require such a large fraction of our population to work on such a thing that we could not maintain our society.

It's like using farm animals. Using farm animals to do useful work has an EROEI greater than 1, but it's such a small ratio, with a such a large human labor requirement, that we could not use farm animals to power our society. Our society would collapse if we could only use farm animals for energy. The same is true, for exactly the same sort of reasons, for current tech solar cells and batteries.

>>8934189
>An EROEI of 7 is still net energy positive, the neighborhood of solar cells plus batteries,

Correction: The numbers that I currently calculate, using wildly simplistic and simplifying assumptions, while being as generous as I can while still attached to the real world, are much worse.
https://docs.google.com/document/d/1_0aZwNFdJIZW8MG1P-D7NjaY3Hc6DkEe42lSFlcULHk/edit

>>8928420
The resources need to make solar possible: where do they come from? Until solar can generate the energy needed to mine, process, and transport the goods requried to keep it maintained, it will always play second fiddle to fossil fuels. If it starts to take up a larger part of energy production, then it cuts into the fossil fuel market, which makes said fuels more expensive and the resource extraction/processing more expensive. Not to mention all the other things dependent on fossil fuels that would become more expensive (food, drugs, synthetic clothing, many precursor chems that go in almost everything now).

Solar is cheap as hell at the utility scale. Also with utility installations you can moderate power production on site, do you don't run into grid issues. A lot of people in this thread are talking about batteries, which are really the most expensive way of storing energy. You can also used compressed air storage/turbine or maintain a reservoir of heated fluid that you use to drive a heat engine when production goes down.

This is also only an issue when you're using solar as your main source of energy. Solar at the utility scale can provide a very consistent and predictable amount of energy, especially with the amount of historical solar data and weather forecasting we have today. You can forego storage altogether and just pair it with a conventional fuel source that modulates around solar production.

Currently on an LCOE basis natural gas, solar, and wind energy are the cheapest and most competitive, much more so than coal. It's also nice that these three cheap sources also have relatively low capital expenses compared to other sources. Natural gas supplemented with utility scale solar and wind (depending on your geographical location) is the most competitive energy blend in our current economy.

>>8934251
>A lot of people in this thread are talking about batteries, which are really the most expensive way of storing energy. You can also used compressed air storage/turbine or maintain a reservoir of heated fluid that you use to drive a heat engine when production goes down.

That's not really true.

> You can forego storage altogether and just pair it with a conventional fuel source that modulates around solar production.

For practical purposes, it's only sunny about 1/5 of the day. What are you going to do for the other 4/5? I care deeply about climate change and ocean acidification, which means this is a complete non-starter. We need to get off fossil fuels now.

> Currently on an LCOE basis natural gas, solar, and wind energy are the cheapest and most competitive, much more so than coal.

Because they're being built by fossil fuels. And because they don't include the batteries to make them into reliable power. Unreliable power is nifty up to small portions of total power, but eventually benefits stop to plummet. I need a 100% solution for CO2 emissions from the grid, and solar is practically useless to get me there. Wind too.

> Natural gas supplemented with utility scale solar and wind (depending on your geographical location) is the most competitive energy blend in our current economy.

Yea, if you don't give a damn about actually doing something about global warming and ocean acidification.

>>8930167
You know we can synthesize hydrocarbon fuels, right?

why dont we make a SHADOW POWERED PLANT

and then cover it up with SOLAR PANELS to create the shadow

>>8934186
>https://bravenewclimate.com/2014/08/22/catch-22-of-energy-storage/
Posting the same bullshit blog poster over and over.
Stop using pessimistic data from fifteen years ago and people might bother responding to you.

>>8934522
The story is still the same.

>>8934551
>for years now nuclear shill tripfag is STILL shitting up solar threads

You are lucky I'm not a mod or I'd ban your ass permanently every time you changed your IP and did shit like this. Because, it is trolling. GTFO this thread. Go do your autistic shitposting in your own shill thread about nuclear power. All you do is derail threads about anything dealing with energy that doesn't have anything to do with nuclear and steer it towards nuclear power.

This makes you a shill. A person who is either paid by pro-nuclear entities or someone who just fucking loves ____ thing and autistically posts about it every chance he gets. I wouldn't be surprised if you were both.

I'm not saying nuclear is bad or anything like that, but holy fuck discuss that shit in a dedicated thread.

>>8934614
As long as people post bullshit that I can correct, I'll be here to correct it.

Take your concern and shove it up your ass.

>>8934615
I appreciate what you do, thank for keeping the ignorant hippy solar cocksuckers in check.

>>8934614
It's best just to hide his posts.

>>8934522
You can learn a LOT about searching the owner of a website/blog.

whois shows the following location in this image. The owner is "Barry Brooke". If you wiki up Australia nuclear shit you get,

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_power_in_Australia

In which is found,

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_power_in_Australia#Scientists

>Barry Brook is the current Chair of Environmental Sustainability at the University of Tasmania and a former professor of climate science in the School of Earth and Environmental Sciences at the University of Adelaide. He has been a strong advocate for nuclear power since 2009, promoting the technology as a means to mitigate the impacts of climate change, especially the Integral Fast Reactor.[73] His most recent book is Why vs Why: Nuclear Power. The book was co-authored with Professor Ian Lowe, who represents opposing views.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barry_Brook_(scientist)

Who happens to be the same person who owns that website and wrote that blog article.

>>8934615
You were not correcting anything. You were just shitposting your links again.

>>8934629
>>8934630
The argument holds water independent of the person's history. This is naked ad hom. You can run the numbers like I have, and it's still just as true today.

>>8934630
If you don't like reality you can go back to redit, I'm sure there's a bunch of likeminded cocksuckers there eagerly waiting to hear from you.

>>8934633
Just because someone mentions solar doesn't mean you have to correct them with nuclear. That's fucking retarded logic. Good luck using your precious nuclear on a camping trip to recharge your sat phone. Good luck getting the government to allow you to use your RTG for your mountain top sheep farm where literally no utilities exist.

All you are doing is, "lol solar sucks, use nuclear instead faggots!!" You are just as bad as someone posting cars in a bicycle thread.

>>8934643
Look at my involvement. OP asked a question, and I attempted to answer it. It was genuinely helpful, which is a shitton better than most posts and threads on sci.

>>8934645
Sure thing, kid.

the majority of solar installations done in australia used sub-par materials and untrained workers. unless you go to a BIG company and pay extra (often upwards of $1000 for a small array), buy the material yourself for the installers, or your installer offers tiered products, you will receive a cheap, half tested, chinese unit that is expected to break during the warranty period and be replaced because they are so fucking cheap. even if you choose an installer with tiers, if you get a call saying they can do you a better deal on materials, dont do it, because its a trick to sell you legitimate shite.

you must have a b class electrical license or be constantly supervised by a fully qualified sparky when installing solar arrays. this is most often not adhered to, as it is VASTLY more profitable to only half follow the rules. Usually a company will have one or more fully qualified electricians to do their end of the job (grid to home), and the installers will simply have experience with electrical or roof work. If an inspector shows up, tools down and "yeah the sparkie has just gone to the hardware store".

because of all this i have absoutely no faith in the solar industry, at least here in australia. more often than not you will get dangerously short changed. i think the entire industry at the moment is built around pumping and dumping because they know this isnt going to work long term

>>8934658
Christ, everything something about Australia comes up like this I'm glad I live in the USA in an area without most building codes or the requirement of utility licenses to do shit on my own property.

I can cobble together all the shit I want for solar and plaster my entire place with it if I choose. The only thing that ever needs inspected is the electrical meter on the outside of the house, but only if you want a utility company to hook up power from the grid. Otherwise, you can do anything you want.

Here, even the worst panels I've seen are actually pretty robust (not including those shit solar yard lights holy fuck). In fact, your post sort of sounds like what those shitty ones are like the panels on the solar yard lights. Those things turn milky after like 2 years and are pretty much worthless. I think they are designed to do that so you need to replace them all the time. They are all from China, fyi.

>>8933915
>Solar PV does not lose 50% of its output over 10 years. Standards degradation is about 1% per year.
Are you talking just about the panel itself? I will try to find the chart I saw but I am 99% sure it was of a total installation.

>>8934189
>Currently, fossil fuels have an EROEI of around 50. Even with that high of a ratio, about 1% of our population works in energy supply. An EROEI of 7 is still net energy positive, the neighborhood of solar cells plus batteries, but it will likely require such a large fraction of our population to work on such a thing that we could not maintain our society.
It's not just how much human labor will have to replace things, it's also how much living standards will have to fall.

>>8934629
So what? The problems he points out with solar are backed up by published research. His opinion on whether we should use nuclear power or not are irrelevant.

>>8934796
>The problems he points out with solar are backed up by published research.
A single piece of old, widely contradicted research.
Basically ANY modern study puts solar's EROEI several times higher, but after each time someone points that out he "forgets".

>>8934849
>Basically ANY modern study puts solar's EROEI several times higher, but after each time someone points that out he "forgets".
I would greatly appreciate one of these studies instead of wild shitposting based on nuclear power which he didn't even bring up.

>>8934850
>he didn't even bring up

Except for posting anti-everything else blog articles for pro-nuclear. It is shilling. Plain and simple. It has no place in these threads.

Better flow batteries when?

>>8934880
Let it go mate. About those studies you mentioned...

>>8934189
>The number that really matters is the fraction of our population that must work in energy to maintain our industrialized society and standard of living. If EROEI is less than 1, then it's impossible (energy inputs are greater than energy outputs). However, if the EROEI is bigger than 1, but not by much, then this likely means that we will need a shitton of human labor input in order to maintain this system
That doesn't follow at all, though. Labor and energy requirements are entirely separate things, that can't be expected to closely correlate.

The energy spent recovering and refining fossil fuels is spent mainly on extracting and refining them: complex labor adapting to the variation of the natural world. The energy spent producing solar cells and batteries is mostly manufacturing: orderly, automatable factory processes.

>(i.e. the constant effort to replace all of our solar cells every 25 years, and our batteries every 5 years).
Solar cells don't need replacing every 25 years. We actually don't know how long they'll last. We expect most to retain at least 80% of their initial output for 25 years (they lose the first 5-10% pretty quickly due to chemical changes, then it slows down). There are solar cells still working fine at over half a century old. It wouldn't be the least bit surprising if they're still putting out over 50% of their initial output after a full century.

As for grid/house batteries, there's no established market for them (just a few pilot projects), so there has been little investment in producing batteries suitable for the purpose. Tesla's already advertising a 10-year warranty on batteries rated for over 5,000 cycles, and when the first units need replacing a decade later, we'll certainly have much longer-lasting, lower-cost replacements.

>>8934893
Look, posting individual studies is a shit way to argue. Pretending they don't exist until someone posts them in the thread is an even shittier way to argue.

Most individual peer-reviewed, published studies (let alone "studies" that are just somebody's blog) are low quality and basically wrong. You don't get much out of reading just one, and you can generally find some to support whatever position you want to push, so "Look, this study says X!" is basically the same as saying "I choose to believe X!" If you're going to study the literature, you have to study the literature. You have to read a variety of studies NOT chosen to support any particular conclusion, and you have to approach them all critically.

>>8935054
>Labor and energy requirements are entirely separate things, that can't be expected to closely correlate.
That would surprise me, since an enormous amount of labor-saving devices require energy, which if decreased, would necessitate the re-introduction of human labor.

Washing clothes, drying clothes, cutting lumber, processing lumber, woodworking, farming, transportation...

We're obviously not giving up large-scale production of food, but how are you going to move it without a lot of power? And if we go from 50 to 25 EROEI where the fuck is that power coming from?

>>8935067
>Look, posting individual studies is a shit way to argue.
That poster (maybe >(you)) brought it up. I wasn't asking for an argument, I was asking for resources to understand what the deal with solar is.

>>8935071
Why don't you spend some time on google, rather than put in zero effort and demand to be spoonfed by someone you're also treating with distrust and a certain amount of contempt?

Be honest: you were asking for resources rhetorically. If he actually provided some, you would at most have skimmed them looking for something you could use to discredit them. If you were genuinely interested in studying this, you would put in your own effort first, and then engage based on what you had gathered so far.

>>8935091
typical solar fag
funny how you call scientist guy a shill

>>8935091
>someone you're also treating with distrust and a certain amount of contempt?
Jesus christ dude just bow out of the thread. I haven't treated you with contempt at all. YOU brought up "other studies" to contrast the one obliquely mentioned here which YOU treated with explicit contempt. I merely asked for followup on such a comment. If people taking you on good faith that you actually have access to the things you say you have is "contempt" you don't belong on the internet.

I have googled this and that's why I started the thread because the shit I find on google is a thousand times more questionable, made by combinations of solar power companies whose bias is obvious and backyard scientists who may not appreciate the details.

>If he actually provided some
If by "he" you mean the tripfag, he's literally the only one that provided any information which was useful. Everyone else is just "yeah that's bullshit because of stuff I don't have time to share with you shitlord." Fine, if you don't have time you don't have time, if you don't have the inclination then you don't have the inclination, but what the fuck are you doing shitposting in this thread in that case?

Build coal power plant
Build coal mine
Build transportation of coal from mine to plant
Build utility poles and wires to every house we can power with coal plant
Maintain all this infrastructure

vs

Put solar panels on house roofs
Install batteries

>What one has a lower carbon footprint?

>>8935104
clearly the one where 50% of the population dies because we can't produce and distribute enough food

>>8934673
The US is going to be cracking down on solar pretty soon though.

>>8935108
gotta pay for those immigrants' education and medical bills, time to tax the sun

>>8935112
Nah. The US is just too enamored with coal to allow solar power to continue growing.

>>8935107
My political science class had a discussion on this topic. We were to brainstorm ways to help a village deal with poor sanitation killing the population. My solution was to do nothing and eventually the death rate will slow and stop as they shrink in size.

>>8934893
That was someone else, but you can use:

https://scholar.google.com/

...to find pretty much anything you want in this discussion. No one here is your mother or school teacher. Do your own work.

>>8935107
Electric isn't needed to produce or transport food.

>>8934761

The inverter(s) will eventually go out and need to be replaced, but there's basically nothing else in the system other than the panels & inverter(s).

>>8935344
>inverter

>dc to ac back to dc
>why?
>because shekels

Build your system around DC, not AC. Toss out those inverters.

>there's basically nothing else in the system other than the panels & inverter(s).

PV to Charge Controller to Battery Array to Appliances

That's the simplest you can get it while being the most efficient and having the least amount of wear on your components.

I appreciate looking for reliable sources, and I encourage that. Don't trust me - I'm an idiot.

Having said that, it looks like a simple enough calculation for the bare-bone basics.

https://docs.google.com/document/d/1_0aZwNFdJIZW8MG1P-D7NjaY3Hc6DkEe42lSFlcULHk/edit

IMHO, the problem is around the source numbers, specifically the energy manufacture costs of solar cells and the batteries (or other storage), and the lifetime characteristics of the batteries (or other storage). I tried to use generous / reasonable modern numbers for solar and batteries.

PS: If someone cites some solar cell other than poly Si, like the cadmium tellurium, I'm going to be pissed. Tellurium is almost as rare as gold in the Earth's crust. I picked poly Si because at least we won't have material shortage problems (AFAIK).

>>8935367
>2017
>Using DC
AC master race. You wish you had a magnetic field.

>>8935397
>I'm an idiot
You're telling the truth for once.

>>8935397
meant for:
>>8935099

>>8935397
I'd rather use passive solar with thermal mass storage than active solar with chemical batteries.

>>8935402
I don't know offhand. I strongly suspect it sucks about as hard or even harder, but I don't have sources or arguments available.

Fun factoid: The Ivanpah solar facility in California is a concentrating solar thermal plant. They chose a working fluid that needs to be heated up in the morning in order to reach operational temperatures. They decided to use nat gas to do this. This goddamned so-called green power plant burns 1/4 of the nat gas of a nat gas turbine of the same actual yearly energy output.

>>8935344
Most people discussing this are considering the problem of storage. I appreciate that you'd like to consider the problem from a homeowner connected to the grid but this just pushes the storage problem back. If we want a solar energy economy then we have to consider storage.

>>8935410
>This goddamned so-called green power plant burns 1/4 of the nat gas of a nat gas turbine of the same actual yearly energy output.
Very illuminating.

>>8935400
99% of your household appliances use DC. AC is for distribution. Once it reaches your appliance it is rectified into DC internally. Some stuff like blenders/Dremels use AC fully while toasters can use AC or DC. Everything with a wall adapter uses DC and the rectifier is inside the box of the wall adapter.

Thus, most appliances go from AC to DC in a standard house while in a solar house it goes from DC to AC back to DC, with lots of loss. Smart people plan their system so it is only DC to DC with minimal upscaling/downscaling for the DC-to-DC converter, if one is even needed.

>You wish you had a magnetic field.

I'm not even sure what you are referring to specifically.

>>8935410
>I don't know offhand. I strongly suspect it sucks about as hard or even harder, but I don't have sources or arguments available.

Why so instantly contrarian? Once you have a thermal mass storage set up there's little to no maintenance, depending on the style. It can be as simple as a slab of concrete floor in your house where sun from the window hits it during the day.

>>8935233
>Electric isn't needed to produce or transport food.
So how is it harvested and distributed? By apparating? Are we in the Harry Potter universe?

>>8935416
Because the only commercial concentrating solar thermal plants that I actually see with this kind of solar thermal storage last for 8 hours. I suspect that thermal losses to the environment from the storage make iill-suited to storage over a time period of approx 1 week, which is what we need (IMHO AFAICT) to maintain our 99.95% approx grid uptime.

>>8935416
I know, I'm joking.

>>8935421
You literally know nothing at all about farming do you?

>>8935416
>Once you have a thermal mass storage set up there's little to no maintenance, depending on the style. It can be as simple as a slab of concrete floor in your house where sun from the window hits it during the day.
So you're running CSP to thermal storage to... stirling generators?

>>8935425
How are you planning to transport food without electricity? Are we going back to using iceboxes and having ice warehouses?

>>8935427
I was being generous: I assumed some sort of liquid salt storage, with a conventional turbine heat engine, probably with a standard steam turbine and heat exchanger.

>>8935425
I know there is no farm within walking distance to my grocery store.

>>8935425
>>8935428
Are you two quibbling over "fossil fuels are not electricity" ?

>>8935099
>>If he actually provided some
>If by "he" you mean the tripfag
I mean the person you were talking to, who you apparently assume I am. How the fuck did you interpret the rest of that sentence?

Oh right, you didn't read it, because you're not interested in engaging honestly. You just want to feel like you won an argument. Here's the context:

>>>>>>>>Basically ANY modern study puts solar's EROEI several times higher, but after each time someone points that out he "forgets".
>>>>>>>I would greatly appreciate one of these studies instead of wild shitposting based on nuclear power which he didn't even bring up.
>>>>>>Except for posting anti-everything else blog articles for pro-nuclear.
>>>>>Let it go mate. About those studies you mentioned...
I enter here:
>>>>Look, posting individual studies is a shit way to argue. Pretending they don't exist until someone posts them in the thread is an even shittier way to argue.
>>>I wasn't asking for an argument, I was asking for resources to understand what the deal with solar is.
>>Be honest: you were asking for resources rhetorically. If he actually provided some, you would at most have skimmed them looking for something you could use to discredit them.

>I haven't treated [him] with contempt at all.
Yeah man, your "wild shitposting" and "Let it go mate." aren't contemptuous, right?

>[HE] brought up "other studies" to contrast the one obliquely mentioned here which [HE] treated with explicit contempt. I merely asked for followup on such a comment.
You put no effort in, and tried to maneuver so your opponent in an argument would accept both the burden of proof and you as impartial judge. Because you're an unbelievable shit.

>>8935429
It's hard to keep a context up. Some people are thinking about DIY "homesteaders", others are thinking about middle-aged yuppies in the suburbs, still others are thinking about all the amazing deserts in the US where land is doing nothing but wasting sunlight and we can just magically make CSP stations all over the US.

>>8935434
>You put no effort in, and tried to maneuver so your opponent in an argument would accept both the burden of proof and you as impartial judge. Because you're an unbelievable shit.

If someone comes into an argument, and they make a claim, it's entirely reasonable to demand of this person: "how do you know that?" aka "citations please".

>>8935423
>>8935427
I wonder how much energy would be saved if every building that needed heating used a passive method of heating as part of their overall heating plan; such as the concrete slab floor in front of a window.

>>8935428
>>8935430
Absorption refrigerators. They can use any heat source to create cold. That's flame or sun powered. They don't have moving parts in order to function.

What do you guys think of my green energy solution? It's difficult because the quantosphereTM is very small but I think quantum turbines are the way to go.

>>8935434
>you're not interested in engaging honestly. You just want to feel like you won an argument.
What fucking argument? What is wrong with you?

>>8935438
Indeed. Good point.

>>8935440
Not enough. I'm all for energy efficiency, but worldwide net energy demands are only going to go up, and by a lot. Today's worldwide electricity usage is around 2.5 TW. We should expect at least 30 TW in the near future, and possibly as high as 70 TW. We're soon going to have 10 billion people on the planet, and the rest of the world is quickly industrializing, and a reasonable target is Europe's 1 KW per person. However, if we're serious about global warming, we'll need to transition other energy to electricity, which could easily bump that to 3 KW per person, and maybe even up to 7 KW per person.

Throw on energy efficiency improvements of even ludicrous 80% energy saved, and total energy usage worldwide is still going to go up.

So, I'm all for energy efficiency improvements, but it's orthogonal to this discussion. We need a lot of clean energy, and we need it now.

>>8935441
>Not putting blades on both sides
I improved your design and doubled the power output, it's mine now, kiddo.

>>8935449
DONT FUCKING STEAL IT. I HAVEN'T GOTTEN MY PATENT YET

>>8935447
>literally don't use less energy or use devices that use less energy
>make more energy instead to cure the "energy crisis"

I forgot, you're the nuclear tard.

> We need a lot of clean energy, and we need it now.

No, all we need is air, water, food, and shelter. You don't need electricity for that.

>>8935452
>Implying he knows anything about nuclear besides popsci garbage
Why should we limit ourselves only to the bare minimum we need for survival?

>>8935461
>Why should we limit ourselves only to the bare minimum we need for survival?

Because that's all that is needed to reproduce. Everything else is a distraction.

>>8935464
>I don't like things so people shouldn't have them

>>8935440
>Absorption refrigerators.
And this has to do with the planting, harvesting, and distribution of food... how?

>>8935466
Don't confuse the word "need" with the word "want".

>>8935623
Check the posts that is in reply to. They are referring to using refrigerated trucks that use electric AC units for transporting food from field to store.

>>8935447
>We should expect at least 30 TW in the near future, and possibly as high as 70 TW.

These predictions never come true.

>>8935439
>If someone comes into an argument, and they make a claim, it's entirely reasonable to demand of this person: "how do you know that?"
It's entirely reasonable to *ask*. If you think it's "entirely reasonable to demand", that's just more of your mental illness and inability to function socially.

Anyway in this case, "how do you know that?" was answered before it was asked:
>>>>Basically ANY modern study puts solar's EROEI several times higher, but after each time someone points that out [the mentally-ill unemployable human spambot known as Scientist] "forgets".
This is easily independently checked and confirmed. You can spend about ten minutes on google and see from a dozen reliable sources that even in the worst locations, with pessimistic panel lifespan assumptions, today's solar gets an EROEI of about 10. In the best locations with optimistic panel lifespan, it's more like 50 or 100 (we actually have no idea how long good PV panels will take to "wear out", there are half-century-old ones that still work fine).

You have to dig, cherry-pick, and ignore low source credibility and bad arguments together to come up with the numbers you use.

Anyway, if the response is along the lines of:
>"citations please".
...that shows bad faith. Normal people don't hang around with citations for everything they know, so you know you're just sending them to do what you'd do yourself if your intentions were honest: search for it on the internet. What you're really saying is, "I won't look for myself! YOU have to prove it to ME! And of course I'm going to continue to be hostile and unreasonable!"

>>8934295

Yes, I had heard of it, but my understanding was that the synthesis of hydrocarbons as a condescended energy supply was prohibitively expensive, regardless of the power source. But perhaps my information is way out of date. I certainly haven't heard of any anyone doing it on a commercial scale, would you care to point out a source where it is fact feasible? Or are you just talking out of your arse?

>>8935367

>>DC to AC back to DC
>>Why?

While DC is becoming more popular, many things in a house are still AC, so it is only DC->AC for those loads, not DC->AC->DC. I suppose you might be able to go out there and find a lot of appliances, computers, etc. in DC, avoiding the unnecessary conversion (although you would still need voltage stepdown converters), but even so, there is the issue of transmission. AC transmits much better than DC, which is of course why the electrical grid is AC.

Even if you wanted to ignore transmission losses entirely, if you want to avoid the problem of having storage, the conversion to AC allows you to dump the excess power back onto the grid, eliminating the need for batteries. That alone makes the conversion to AC worth it.

>>PV to Charge Controller to Battery Array to Appliances

Batteries? You're doing it wrong! >:(

Battery-backed systems are not economical!

>>8928439
>>8928449
levelized cost of electricity (LCOE) for PV is and average $125/MWh

energy returned on energy invested (EROEI) for PV is less than 7


How is this NOT the worst form of electrical production

>>8935782
What? Are you going to kill a few billion people? Are you going to install dictatorial regimes to prevent the rest of the world from reaching Europe's standard of living? These are inescapable numbers, based on hard, undeniable facts. The rest of the world is going to burn coal to get there, unless we can offer them something else that is cost comparable.

>>8935452
So, troll, gotcha.

>>8936252
What's the alternative?
I know a guy on another board uses massive flywheels for his generators.

>>8936304
>africans will reach europe's standard of living
lmao how? genes are just gonna stop mattering we're all equal and stuff lmao

>>8936304
nothing wrong with killing billions of "people"

Imagine if the whole fucking world was white first world countries.

>>8936252
>many things in a house are still AC

Open up those items and you'll find a stepdown transformer and a bridge rectifier. Thus DC.

Using a DC-to-DC converter is more efficient than using a stepdown transformer. This is especially true when the voltages are nearly the same. Thus, when building your PV array/battery array you need to take into account the average voltage your DC appliances need. Match that and everything will be more efficient.

>Battery-backed systems are not economical!

All solar PV systems must have a battery in order to prevent the load from pulling directly from the PV panels. Not having a battery severely shortens the PV lifespan. You don't need a massive array, just a good enough one to take the loads required. You could use super capacitors instead, but those come with more/different problems and components. I personally would rather use super caps, but they are just not up to speed with my needs.

If you have an inverter, often times they use large normal caps to help take AC voltage spikes for things like big AC motors that kick on and off. DC motors don't have that problem so at least that won't be happening to a solar system. But, you should never hook an appliance load up directly to your PV array. Even a solar charge controller has caps in it.

>>8936304
>Are you going to install dictatorial regimes to prevent the rest of the world from reaching Europe's standard of living?

no, China will.

>>8936304
Each one of these "SunCatcher" Sterling engine dishes produces something like 25kw. Even without shitty energy storage, that's a lot of power for daytime usage.

>>8936680
Every time I research these it seems the companies are out of business.

>>8936729
Yup. They keep trying to build massive fields of them in remote locations and such. Basically, they are dooming their idea from the start. They should be marketing it to smaller entities instead of larger governmental bodies.

>>8936680
I'm entirely guessing, but I bet the EROEI of any Stirling engine is going to be absolute shit.

>>8936680
>>8936729
>>8936825
The company they were in bed with canceled the contract or whatever they had going:

https://www.greentechmedia.com/articles/read/more-bad-news-for-stirling-so-cal-edison-cancels-power-purchase

>>8938164
>There are three kinds of lies:
>1: Damned Lies
>2: Statistics
>3: EROEI

EROEI for Stirling engines would a bit difficult due to the many designs and features people use when building them. That can be something as simple as the type of gas they use inside. A backyard DIY job using tin cans and air may have better EROEI than the most modern ones using a closed system with the best working gas (Hydrogen), but that has all manner of problems. Which is why companies use helium, thus making containment issues a problem. I'd rather use nitrogen or air.

They are not as efficient as steam engines. Design type and maintenance is always a balancing act too. People tend to forget KiSS when designing these things.

I think the best way to design them is as simple as possible with the easiest gas to work with (air) with as large a reflector array and cooling array as possible.

FYI, after exaushtive searching the best I could find for a solar Stirling engine is from this pdf,

Pic from Page 3:
https://cudenverengineering.files.wordpress.com/2013/03/ieee_greentech_2013_paper_84.pdf

Where it seems that a system like the SunCatcher would be slightly less than using PVs. Since EROEI is for things like fuels, it is a bit of a stretch to use if the non-fuel stuff like solar, hydro, and wind. It seems no one agrees on the method of calculating EROEI for the latter group.

>>8938500
EROEI is for primary energy sources, not for fuels.

It's to answer two questions:

If the EROEI is less than 1, then it's a perpetual motion machine, which means it's impossible. A system of EROEI < 1 means that it cannot sustain itself.

If the EROEI is greater than 1, but still small, then the question is: Can it be used to maintain our industrial standard of living? Right now, with energy dense fossil fuels, about 1% of our workforce works in energy. The small EROEI of solar plus batteries indicates that we will need massively more of our workforce to work in primary energy supply in order to produce the same amount of total primary energy for society. It needs to produce enough primary energy output per unit of human labor to allow for our industrial society. For example, using farm animals to do work is a form of primary energy supply, but a very shitty one that cannot maintain our industrial standard of living, because the primary energy output per unit of human labor is too small. That's the problem with solar.

Practically speaking, you need very high energy density, or you need very very low human labor requirements, or both, in order to power an industrial society. Solar is neither.

>>8939431
The specific dispute is that the traditional definition of EROEI is based on fossil fuels, and it is a calculation of how much energy it takes to extract and produce that fuel. Because renewable energy sources do not have an energy cost associated with its source, it uses the production cost instead.

>>8939481
Yeah, and? You seem to be making a point which you intend as something to contradict what I've written, but I'm not seeing it.

>>8938500
>https://cudenverengineering.files.wordpress.com/2013/03/ieee_greentech_2013_paper_84.pdf
Very nice find. I'm surprised this setup does so bad. It compares basically directly with PV, which by itself is cool, except transporting a PV for the equivalent wattage is a hell of a lot easier since it is primarily surface area and doesn't take up volume. Additionally it is very easy to damage a reflective surface through transportation which would eat into power production, while PV is a bit more robust mechanically.

>>8928420
Solar is a meme. Parabolic mirrors, piping, and turbines are the better option.

>>8939608
>Parabolic mirrors, piping, and turbines are the better option.

That's also solar....

>>8939710
That's just how amazing solar is, infinite EROI, since solar > solar.

>>8939589
>I'm surprised this setup does so bad

Obtaining "work" or electric from solar radiation is actually really difficult. 1.367 kw per square meter may fall on Earth, but we will never be able to harness it very well. Thankfully, there's a lot of it and we can use a lot of space.

I have a solar box cooker that has 1.48 square meters of reflector space (over 2kwh potential). The best it can do get to is 450F/232C in about 15 minutes (with nothing in it) which is comparable to my natural gas oven, fyi. I'm about to refit it with aluminized polyester (emergency blanket) to see how well that will perform. The point is, this is about as low tech and low maintenance as you can possibly get with solar that isn't a slab of thermal mass in front of a window. It is still pretty inefficient, but I use it because baking inside during the summer sucks and the AC costs money to run.

>pic related

>>8939738
kek except for pesky equipment replacements over time

>>8928420
photovoltaic panels are great when you consider how they are supposed to be used.

They are meant as small scale, off grid power subsidy. With proper care you can simply replace worn cells and bussing.

Mass produced panels, photovoltaic farms and batteries are a completely separate issue.

I oversaw solarpanel production for 5 years and built and maintain my own for my house.

Photovoltaics great but misunderstood.

>>8928420
Why isn't there a google filter for this board? You type in shit to post a new thread then 4chan send it to google which gives search answers to whatever you just spewed forth. If that doesn't help, you can continue to post a new thread.

>>8940967
>implying I didn't already google this
>implying that isn't specifically mentioned in the OP
>implying you read the thread and all the good content in it
Why isn't there an autoban for shitposters that respond to OP in a 217 post thread?

Do we really need to store the energy from solar though? Can't it just supplement other energy sources?

>>8941024
>don't respond to the OP

>>8941067
>shitposting

>>8941143
>replying to the OP is shitposting.

you mean the OP is shitposting

>>8941772
"no"

>>8936648

You ***DO NOT*** need batteries or storage of any kind. The energy produced by the PV panels is converted into AC, and any excess energy that isn't used in the home is put back onto the electrical grid, turning the electric meter backwards. Excess energy IS NOT stored; it is immediately used by neighbors.

I have installed dozens of Solar PV systems, but only two had batteries. The overwhelming majority of residential Solar PV installations do not have storage of any kind.

>>8942273
Yeah. It's a great decision personally. However, if everyone did that, including the grid maintainers, then the grid collapses. Basically, you're a leach on the grid.

>>8942273
>you DO NOT need batteries or storage of any kind
Translation: solar is not viable right now.

>>8936667
>>All solar PV systems must have a battery in order to prevent the load from pulling directly from the PV panels.

Incorrect.

The overwhelming majority of residential PV systems convert to AC and feed the panel, backfeeding any excess energy into the electrical grid, making batteries completely unnecessary.

Let me repeat that, just to be clear: THE OVERWHELMING MAJORITY OF RESIDENTIAL SOLAR PV SYSTEMS HAVE NO BATTERIES OR LOCALIZED STORAGE OF ANY KIND.

>>8942281
Hey, it's totally viable with government subsidies and 1:1 net metering. AFAIK, it's a great buy with those in place, if you're ethically ok with being a leach on the system.

>>8942276
>>Yeah. It's a great decision personally. However, if everyone did that, including the grid maintainers, then the grid collapses. Basically, you're a leach on the grid.

You pay a monthly fee to be connected to the grid. It's not that big of a deal for the power distributors.

>>8942285
>>Hey, it's totally viable with government subsidies and 1:1 net metering. AFAIK, it's a great buy with those in place, if you're ethically ok with being a leach on the system.

As of other forms of energy aren't subsidized by the government. *rolleyes*

The very cheapest form of power generation that I'm aware of (government interference notwithstanding) is coal.

If you are an advocate for coal, then by all means you can stand on your soapbox and claim that coal would be the cheapest if not for an anti-coal conspiracy, and I'll agree with you... but pretending like solar isn't competitive with and preferable to nuclear, natural gas (fracking), etc. isn't honest.

>>8942310
>>8942310
>but pretending like solar isn't competitive with and preferable to nuclear, natural gas (fracking), etc. isn't honest.
If solar worked, it would be preferable to coal and nat gas. Solar doesn't work. Solar is not going to replace coal and nat gas, because it physically, fundamentally, cannot, with current tech. From my perspective, a perspective based on evidence and grounded in reality, nuclear is the only thing with current tech that can replace nat gas, coal, and other CO2 sources for electricity generation.

>>8942325
And again, some of the core evidence that is the basis of my claims can be found here:

https://bravenewclimate.com/2014/08/22/catch-22-of-energy-storage/
https://physics.ucsd.edu/do-the-math/2011/08/nation-sized-battery/
https://dothemath.ucsd.edu/2011/11/pump-up-the-storage/

fracking dominates everything right now, even with scaled back wells we are pulling more than before OPEC tried to kill it with price dumps.

We have so much natural gas and oil in shale that we are basically saudi arabia or iraq, except we won't get invaded for our oil.

OPEC literally begged US producers to scale back a few months ago and got a big middle finger.

I work in nuclear.
Nuclear sucks. I can't say it out loud in the industry or I get hated. But Nuclear has to resort to trying to engineer its way to safety and reduction of waste, but no level of engineering (outside of maybe extremely experimental thorium reactors) is going to solve the fundamental hazards of nuclear.

>>8942328
this

+solar and other locally effective reneweble energy investments are the ticket

>>8942360
>I work in nuclear.
95% chance of bald-faced lie.
What, do you work as a secretary or something?

PS:
There is no waste problem. It's entirely a political fiction.

>>8933001
>Germany has way high electricity prices, precisely because of solar and wind
It's mosly due to taxes. The extra cost for all renewables is less than 7 cent per kWh. And it's only that high because industry with high energy use is exempt from paying that. So the rest has to cover for them.

>as opposed to France, which has relatively cheap electricity prices, because of nuclear.
Electricity prices in France are highly subsidized and, like all state owned companies, not sustainable in the long term. And even so, the French industry has repeatedly threatened to relocate to Germany because for industry the energy cost there are lower.

Your comparison is flawed. It's like saying: 'look I don't have to pay anything. I just use my credit card.' Of coure this isn't sustainable.

http://uk.reuters.com/article/us-edf-britain-subsidies-idUKKCN18D0MV
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/business/2016/07/13/hinkley-point-subsidy-bill-quadruples-as-power-price-forecasts-f/
https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2016/mar/17/french-government-edf-united-front-hinkley-point-money-nuclear-plant-union
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2015-07-22/edf-ordered-by-eu-to-repay-1-5-billion-tax-subsidy-to-france
https://miningawareness.wordpress.com/2016/08/11/eu-investigating-unfair-french-state-subsidies-to-the-nuclear-sector-arevas-4-billion-euro-bailout-by-french-taxpayers/

>>8934186
>https://bravenewclimate.com/2014/08/22/catch-22-of-energy-storage/
The 1980s called. They want their data back.

>>8942410
The same holds true with modern data. Batteries are not getting substantially cheaper / better on these metrics.

>>8942402
>hinkley-point
This is a construction in England, not France. It's no surprise that England and Green Peace are fucking up the construction cycle.

Some of your other sources does the standard tactics in this discussion: Assume an extremely, and unrealistic, danger from nuclear power plant accidents and radiation, and cite the liability guarantees, and pretend that this is worth a vast sum of money and call that a "subsidy", even though no actual money has been paid out. Ditto for absurd projected decommissioning costs, which also haven't yet been paid out.

In short, your sources are unreliable, and full of shit.

>>8942412
>The same holds true with modern data
no

>>8942414
numbers don't lie
nuclear is heavily sibisidized

>>8942432
Here's a grossly simplified analysis of mine. Please point out where you think that I'm using out-of-date numbers.
https://docs.google.com/document/d/1_0aZwNFdJIZW8MG1P-D7NjaY3Hc6DkEe42lSFlcULHk/edit

Conclusion:
Buffered EROEI = 4.40

>>8942434
Only in the land of Green Peace nutters AFAICT.

>>8928420

Solar is not going to solve the problem. All those memes about "solar is cheaper" fail to include total system costs.

https://ourfiniteworld.com/2017/05/05/why-we-should-be-concerned-about-low-oil-prices/

>>8942445
What problem was it ever supposed to solve again?

>>8933733
That is a nice poncho.

>>8942273
>net metering

Illegal where I live (thanks coal lobbyist!)

>PV to AC

Use DC appliances and skip all that shit.

>>8942281
Energy storage is not viable right now.

>>8942276
How is net metering being a leach? You pay for any power you get from the company plus a base charge even if you don't use power. Any excess power you make gets put into the grid and you either get that amount of money taken off your usage bill or you get paid depending on what state/country you live in.

>>8942326
What does energy storage have to do with solar?

>>8942328
I can attest to this. In the past 3 years there's been like 500 well drilled in my area. The place sounds like a fucking factory 24/7. This is a rural community and everyone sold their rights to them at dirt cheap prices. The google maps of it looks horrific with massive well pads everywhere and massive sump lakes everywhere. Something like 10% of the hills and valleys have been bulldozed over for those things.

>nuclear power is the answ--

>>8942378
>There is no waste problem. It's entirely a political fiction.

You store it in your backyard then.

>>8942438
>Only in the land of Green Peace nutters AFAICT.

Are you mental?

https://www.google.com/search?q=nuclear+power+subsidies

Fucking shill.

In order for any centralized power generation to become viable, you'd need to pay about $10 per kilowatt. That's the reason why all power generation is heavily subsidized. No one wants to pay that much directly. They still end up paying indirectly via taxes to their government.

>>8942535
What does petroleum storage on fire have to do with nuclear?

Last I heard anything decent about solar, some Japanese company was working on technology to send them up into space and get the power transmitted back to earth using microwaves.

http://www.jspacesystems.or.jp/en_project_ssps/

It's pretty much a pipe dream at this point though.

>>8942966
Even if it isn't a pipe dream, talk about global warming. Grabbing a ton of energy from space and shooting it back to earth will cause climate change, if CO2 emissions do.

>>8928420
Storage is too expensive. Even with the cheapest option, hydro pumped storage it's more expensive than coal, gas, nuclear. If you don't have a nice area for hydro pumped storage then it's not even close.

The lowest cost battery number I've found is 60 cents per kilowatt hour for lead acid batteries, expanded over their lifetime. Not including installation, maintenance, a building to store the batteries in, wiring/inverting, or anything else. $1.10 per kilowatt hour is more reasonable for the cheapest battery storage.

Current nuclear runs in the range of 4 to 6 cents, while coal depending on the cleaning is 3 to 7 with gas almost completely dependent on the price of gas, ranging between 2 to 12 cents.

New nuclear using light water reactors will be 5 to 10.

New nuclear with a LFTR might be 0.5 to 4 cents depending on how little containment is required.

Solar is viable for low power remote applications.
Solar cost run 15 to 35 cents for home to grid level applications. It's wildly more expensive for smaller outputs but that's not really a factor for what we are talking about.

A good video that goes into explaining why solar is bad for grid level applications.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2zD0m_ci-oo

We will need another cubic mile of oil equivalent energy production in the next 50 years. Pic related is how you make it.

>>8930022
But which uses more resources? Renewable or nonrenewable. Answer carefully.

>>8930048
>alberta canada is going with wind power.
Not when the NDP get kicked out in the next election. It's too expensive. Already the provincial regulator is going bankrupt because costs have gone up and the producers have contracts that allow them to avoid selling below cost.

In short wind is subsidized by coal, gas and nuclear and touted as viable. But when cost effective producers are not required to prop up wind or solar it doesn't work.

Ontario has the same problem, although in that case they just lowered the price of electricity in Michigan because wind and solar gets to be first on the grid and the two nuclear plants end up dumping power to the grid because they can't scale up and down to match the wind and solar output changes.

>>8943031
You try to pretend solar power doesn't use any non-renewable resources if it were to be a substitute for hydrocarbons, but it's been so well-covered in this thread that that position is false there isn't even a point in continuing with your bullshit.

>>8934031
>Why is a concern to be expensive? As long as it produces more energy than it consumes and investments are paid off within some 50 years what's wrong with a country building solar?

Because at market prices they never pay off. They require special pricing that's many times more expensive than conventional sources to break even. More expensive power is never a step forward.

>>8943020
Is your pic about how much of these things (hydro dams, nuclear plants) you could build with 1 CMO of energy, or how much you'd have to build to generate 1 CMO of energy?

>>8928442
There is any successful commercial passive solar system using Stirling cycle? That would be nice

>>8943087
Same dude, the point of my comment, is, which system should be more efficient? a electrovoltaic solar panel? or a parabole redirecting heat on a stirling generator?

>>8943109
The pdf above indicates they're just comparable, but I'm skeptical for reasons indicated

>>8938500
>>8939589

>>8943112
Thank you

>>8942521
That base rate that you're paying is almost certainly not high enough to pay for the reliable, on-demand power that you rely on.

>>8942543
Everything that you think you know is a lie. Don't listen to Green Peace and the green movement. They're full of liars and frauds, and the lied to. They're basically a religious cult.

>>8943361
Same goes for the pro-nuclear camp.

Just use less power, faggots.

>>8943356
Nothing you pay is high enough for that. Which is why all power is subsidized.

>>8943031
Renewable because you can use it indefinitely which means indefinite maintenance with infinite need for resources. Non-renewables run out and that's it, they have finite maintenance, no more resources used. Renewables' end game is when they run out of resources for maintenance.

>>8929009
>Fear of meltdown

Fucling degenerates. As if every achievement ever was done without failures. And nuclear power is fucking old and there is still so much to research.

I fucking hate hippies

Why no /photosynthesis/ yet

>>8943466
I wonder if meddling with CRISPR could power up the photosynthetic processes of microorganisms in order to create biochemical solar cells

>>8928425
Do you think turning the surface of the earth itself into a solar panel would be viable?

>>8943081
How much to generate 1 CMO.

>>8943109
Do you mean more efficient in terms of energy output per m^2 or in terms of cost?

>>8943416
>Nothing you pay is high enough for that. Which is why all power is subsidized.

The degree of subsidy is important. Solar and wind are stupidly expensive even with massive subsidies.

Coal, gas and nuclear are cheap even with tiny subsidies.

>>8943430
>What is regular replacement of solar cells, wind mills, batteries, etc.?

>>8943540
>>8943466
photosynthesis is extremely inefficient, unfortunately.

>>8943749
>repeating what was already stated

,

>>8943430
>Renewables' end game is when they run out of resources for maintenance.
Are there really people stupid enough to believe this?

There's nothing that can't be recycled, either directly from the used parts or by letting it return to nature and re-extracting it.

>>8945572
>that's the joke.jpg

>>8945572
>everything is recyclable
>but we have to switch off all these things that will run out
Not a logician, I see.

>>8945572
>Are there really people stupid enough to believe this?
>There's nothing that can't be recycled, either directly from the used parts or by letting it return to nature and re-extracting it.

When you run out of primary energy you have no energy to raise those second-order materials to first-order

2nd law of thermodynamics applies. All humans have so far been able to do is turn usable material into less useable material, in the long run, its what will doom our species. Yet, the cycles of nature are there before us to show us how to be sustainable. Only a few actually pay attention, being in a regression to the mean situation.

Take solar energy for example. A whole body of work in available 24hrs a day online for anyone to explore every facet. Yet morons come shitposting on a board with the express purpose of wasting people's time.

>>8945737
>I can't actually refute any figures or papers cited but trust me, solar is king
k