Sent to me by an American epal.  :-/


Quote:

An easy to understand presentation of the unsustainability and costliness ($, human, and environmental) of wind and solar energy in only 5:20.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RqppRC37OgI&feature=emb_logo

Yep turns out green energy is not so green after all and leaves a carbon footprint that is substantial.

It's only recently that I have gone negative on green energy before that I thought it would be good to have both green and fossil fuels working together.

Now find one of these AGW religious maniacs and try telling them that wind farms and solar panels are bad for the environment....LOL

You better wear some riot gear.......... :)

Ajax wrote on Dec 28^th, 2020 at 9:56am:

Yep turns out green energy is not so green after all and leaves a carbon footprint that is substantial. It's only recently that I have gone negative on green energy before that I thought it would be good to have both green and fossil fuels working together. Now find one of these AGW religious maniacs and try telling them that wind farms and solar panels are bad for the environment....LOL You better wear some riot gear.......... :)

I'd second that.

Neferti wrote on Dec 28^th, 2020 at 6:42am:

Sent to me by an American epal.  :-/ Quote: An easy to understand presentation of the unsustainability and costliness ($, human, and environmental) of wind and solar energy in only 5:20. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RqppRC37OgI&feature=emb_logo

Excellent video Nef.
Everyone needs to watch it.

Lots of misinformation in that video produced by a right wing conservative organisation which calls itself a University but is actually not. To start with there is no predefined limit on the capture of solar and wind energy, at this time it is only defined by the limit of our technology, to note, solar panels are twice as efficient and considerably cheaper than 5 years ago  and we can expect them to become increasingly more viable as technology evolves. Really the video is full of nonsense and very little science based or factual  claims, really quite simplistic claims aimed at the the unknowledgable.

rhino wrote on Dec 28^th, 2020 at 2:55pm:

solar panels are twice as efficient and considerably cheaper than 5 years ago  and we can expect them to become increasingly more viable as technology evolves. .

In 1985 UNSW  made a solar cell that was 20% efficient it was patented in 1992.

Today (2020) the best available solar cells are about 24% efficient which is nowhere near twice as efficient.

They haven't made huge gains in the last 30 years with solar panel efficiency.

Yes the cost has come down

Baronvonrort wrote on Dec 28^th, 2020 at 3:02pm:

rhino wrote on Dec 28th, 2020 at 2:55pm: solar panels are twice as efficient and considerably cheaper than 5 years ago  and we can expect them to become increasingly more viable as technology evolves. . In 1985 UNSW  made a solar cell that was 20% efficient it was patented in 1992. Today (2020) the best available solar cells are about 24% efficient which is nowhere near twice as efficient. They haven't made huge gains in the last 30 years with solar panel efficiency. Yes the cost has come down

Like I said, aimed at the unknowledgable, like you demonstrate here. start with this, do some further reading and lets see if you actually qualify to debate me on this

Quote:

It is important to understand that the efficiency of an individual solar cell does not equate to the efficiency of solar panels (modules) as a system. While solar panel efficiency is generally around 15-20%, solar cell efficiency can reach 42% in some cases.

https://www.greenmatch.co.uk/blog/2014/11/how-efficient-are-solar-panels

rhino wrote on Dec 28^th, 2020 at 3:07pm:

Baronvonrort wrote on Dec 28th, 2020 at 3:02pm: rhino wrote on Dec 28th, 2020 at 2:55pm: solar panels are twice as efficient and considerably cheaper than 5 years ago  and we can expect them to become increasingly more viable as technology evolves. . In 1985 UNSW  made a solar cell that was 20% efficient it was patented in 1992. Today (2020) the best available solar cells are about 24% efficient which is nowhere near twice as efficient. They haven't made huge gains in the last 30 years with solar panel efficiency. Yes the cost has come down Like I said, aimed at the unknowledgable, like you demonstrate here. start with this, do some further reading and lets see if you actually qualify to debate me on this Quote: It is important to understand that the efficiency of an individual solar cell does not equate to the efficiency of solar panels (modules) as a system. While solar panel efficiency is generally around 15-20%, solar cell efficiency can reach 42% in some cases. https://www.greenmatch.co.uk/blog/2014/11/how-efficient-are-solar-panels

I have been using solar panels for over 30 years on yachts.

Do you even read your links?


Quote:

Which Factors Determine Solar Panel Efficiency? Solar panels are usually able to process 15% to 22% of solar energy into usable energy, depending on factors like placement, orientation, weather conditions, and similar. The amount of sunlight that solar panel systems are able to convert into actual electricity is called performance, and the outcome determines the solar panel efficiency. To determine solar panel efficiency, panels are tested at Standard Test Conditions (STC). STC specifies a temperature of 25°C and an irradiance of 1,000 W/m2. This is the equivalent of a sunny day with the incident light hitting a sun-facing 37°-tilted surface. Under these test conditions, a solar panel efficiency of 15% with a 1 m2 surface area would produce 150 Watts.

What solar panels can achieve 42% efficiency under same test conditions are they the unobtanium brand?

rhino said CELLS, not panels!

Whoops, thought this was in Extremism, sorry Booby!

Jovial Monk wrote on Dec 28^th, 2020 at 3:22pm:

rhino said CELLS, not panels! Whoops, thought this was in Extremism, sorry Booby!

Monk,
You called me "Booby" and you posted while banned.
This will be reported.

You Christian! And after I warned you off posting in Critters and Gardens. Not honest, not a christian. An idiot and a hypocrite, fake christian.

I made a simple mistake. I could have had lee banned forum wide but I am not an arsehole like you.

I forgave Neferti her post in Cs&Gs too you non-christian!

Jovial Monk wrote on Dec 28^th, 2020 at 3:32pm:

You Christian! And after I warned you off posting in Critters and Gardens. Not honest, not a christian. An idiot and a hypocrite, fake christian. I made a simple mistake. I could have had lee banned forum wide but I am not an arsehole like you.

You posted again whilst banned.

Prager “University!”

;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D

Only a Booby would uncritically believe that rubbish!

Jovial Monk wrote on Dec 28^th, 2020 at 3:32pm:

I could have had lee banned forum wide but I am not an arsehole like you.

You threatened it and didn't follow through. You have also not provided a reason. An arsehole? - Perhaps.

Jovial Monk wrote on Dec 28^th, 2020 at 3:46pm:

Prager “University!” ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D Only a Booby would uncritically believe that rubbish!

You keep pushing and wonder about a banning? ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D

rhino wrote on Dec 28^th, 2020 at 3:07pm:

Quote: It is important to understand that the efficiency of an individual solar cell does not equate to the efficiency of solar panels (modules) as a system. While solar panel efficiency is generally around 15-20%, solar cell efficiency can reach 42% in some cases.

So we have these solar cells that can reach 42% but the panels are somewhat less. Seems to be a lot of lost energy somewhere.

Jovial Monk wrote on Dec 28^th, 2020 at 3:46pm:

Prager “University!” ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D Only a Booby would uncritically believe that rubbish!

That's 3 times in a row that Monk
has posted whilst banned.

Bobby. wrote on Dec 28^th, 2020 at 4:10pm:

Jovial Monk wrote on Dec 28th, 2020 at 3:46pm: Prager “University!” ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D Only a Booby would uncritically believe that rubbish! That's 3 times in a row that Monk has posted whilst banned.

Doesn't that attract a forum wide ban?

Neferti wrote on Dec 28^th, 2020 at 4:24pm:

Bobby. wrote on Dec 28th, 2020 at 4:10pm: Jovial Monk wrote on Dec 28th, 2020 at 3:46pm: Prager “University!” ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D Only a Booby would uncritically believe that rubbish! That's 3 times in a row that Monk has posted whilst banned. Doesn't that attract a forum wide ban?

He posted again at 5.13pm so I assume he hasn't been banned yet.

Monk's MRB
http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1609136039

Baronvonrort wrote on Dec 28^th, 2020 at 3:18pm:

rhino wrote on Dec 28th, 2020 at 3:07pm: Baronvonrort wrote on Dec 28th, 2020 at 3:02pm: rhino wrote on Dec 28th, 2020 at 2:55pm: solar panels are twice as efficient and considerably cheaper than 5 years ago  and we can expect them to become increasingly more viable as technology evolves. . In 1985 UNSW  made a solar cell that was 20% efficient it was patented in 1992. Today (2020) the best available solar cells are about 24% efficient which is nowhere near twice as efficient. They haven't made huge gains in the last 30 years with solar panel efficiency. Yes the cost has come down Like I said, aimed at the unknowledgable, like you demonstrate here. start with this, do some further reading and lets see if you actually qualify to debate me on this Quote: It is important to understand that the efficiency of an individual solar cell does not equate to the efficiency of solar panels (modules) as a system. While solar panel efficiency is generally around 15-20%, solar cell efficiency can reach 42% in some cases. https://www.greenmatch.co.uk/blog/2014/11/how-efficient-are-solar-panels I have been using solar panels for over 30 years on yachts. Do you even read your links? [quote] Which Factors Determine Solar Panel Efficiency? Solar panels are usually able to process 15% to 22% of solar energy into usable energy, depending on factors like placement, orientation, weather conditions, and similar. The amount of sunlight that solar panel systems are able to convert into actual electricity is called performance, and the outcome determines the solar panel efficiency. To determine solar panel efficiency, panels are tested at Standard Test Conditions (STC). STC specifies a temperature of 25°C and an irradiance of 1,000 W/m2. This is the equivalent of a sunny day with the incident light hitting a sun-facing 37°-tilted surface. Under these test conditions, a solar panel efficiency of 15% with a 1 m2 surface area would produce 150 Watts.

What solar panels can achieve 42% efficiency under same test conditions are they the unobtanium brand?


[/quote]You still arent getting it, further reading required for you.

lee wrote on Dec 28^th, 2020 at 4:08pm:

rhino wrote on Dec 28th, 2020 at 3:07pm: Quote: It is important to understand that the efficiency of an individual solar cell does not equate to the efficiency of solar panels (modules) as a system. While solar panel efficiency is generally around 15-20%, solar cell efficiency can reach 42% in some cases. So we have these solar cells that can reach 42% but the panels are somewhat less. Seems to be a lot of lost energy somewhere.

Im not going to teach you imbeciles the basics here, go and learn something first. Bugger me you trumpers are stupid.

rhino wrote on Dec 28^th, 2020 at 4:36pm:

Im not going to teach you imbeciles the basics here, go and learn something first.

It's you pots petal. They say the PV value is ~205 but cell value is up to 42%. So you can either explain the loss (interconnections, variability because of multiple junctions etc) or waffle. Or ignore it.

Merely parroting something, of which you have no understanding, just doesn't cut it.

"The fundamental (detailed balance) limit of the performance of a tandem structure is presented. The model takes into account the fact that a particular cell is not only illuminated by part of the solar irradiance but also by the electroluminescence of other cells of the set. Whereas under 1 sun irradiance a single solar cell only converts 30% of the solar energy, a tandem structure of two cells can convert 42%, a tandem structure of three cells can convert 49%, etc. Under the highest possible light concentration, these efficiencies are 40% (one cell), 55% (two cells), 63% (three cells), etc."

Detailed balance limit of the efficiency of tandem solar cells

https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1980JPhD...13..839D/abstract

"Where Does The 67% Of Energy Loss Go?

    47% of the solar energy gets converted to heat.
    18% of the photons pass through the solar cell.
    02% of energy is lost from local recombination of newly created holes and electrons.
    33% of the sun's energy is theoretically converted to electricity.
    100% total sun's energy."

"The record for a multi-junction cell is held by the University Of New South Wales (UNSW) in Sydney, Australia at 43% using a five cell tandem approach. However, the UNSW tandem cell is very expensive. In addition to the cost issue, there are other constraints that make the tandem cells complex. For example, all the layers must be lattice compatible with one another in their crystalline structure and the currents from each individual cell must match the other cells. Multi-junction cells are commercially used in only special applications because their expense currently outweighs any efficiency improvement. "

http://www.solarcellcentral.com/limits_page.html

rhino wrote on Dec 28^th, 2020 at 4:34pm:

Baronvonrort wrote on Dec 28th, 2020 at 3:18pm: rhino wrote on Dec 28th, 2020 at 3:07pm: Baronvonrort wrote on Dec 28th, 2020 at 3:02pm: rhino wrote on Dec 28th, 2020 at 2:55pm: solar panels are twice as efficient and considerably cheaper than 5 years ago  and we can expect them to become increasingly more viable as technology evolves. . In 1985 UNSW  made a solar cell that was 20% efficient it was patented in 1992. Today (2020) the best available solar cells are about 24% efficient which is nowhere near twice as efficient. They haven't made huge gains in the last 30 years with solar panel efficiency. Yes the cost has come down Like I said, aimed at the unknowledgable, like you demonstrate here. start with this, do some further reading and lets see if you actually qualify to debate me on this Quote: It is important to understand that the efficiency of an individual solar cell does not equate to the efficiency of solar panels (modules) as a system. While solar panel efficiency is generally around 15-20%, solar cell efficiency can reach 42% in some cases. https://www.greenmatch.co.uk/blog/2014/11/how-efficient-are-solar-panels I have been using solar panels for over 30 years on yachts. Do you even read your links? [quote] Which Factors Determine Solar Panel Efficiency? Solar panels are usually able to process 15% to 22% of solar energy into usable energy, depending on factors like placement, orientation, weather conditions, and similar. The amount of sunlight that solar panel systems are able to convert into actual electricity is called performance, and the outcome determines the solar panel efficiency. To determine solar panel efficiency, panels are tested at Standard Test Conditions (STC). STC specifies a temperature of 25°C and an irradiance of 1,000 W/m2. This is the equivalent of a sunny day with the incident light hitting a sun-facing 37°-tilted surface. Under these test conditions, a solar panel efficiency of 15% with a 1 m2 surface area would produce 150 Watts. What solar panels can achieve 42% efficiency under same test conditions are they the unobtanium brand?

You still arent getting it, further reading required for you.
[/quote]

I am getting it where are these panels that some claim to be 42% efficient give us a brand name.


Quote:

What are the most efficient solar panels in 2020? Right now, SunPower manufactures the most efficient panels on the market, the Series X, which boast a whopping 22.8% efficiency rating. https://www.solarreviews.com/blog/what-are-the-most-efficient-solar-panels

I have some of these panels they aint cheap- https://www.solbian.eu/en/4-flexible-solar-panels

lee wrote on Dec 28^th, 2020 at 4:02pm:

Jovial Monk wrote on Dec 28th, 2020 at 3:32pm: I could have had lee banned forum wide but I am not an arsehole like you. You threatened it and didn't follow through. You have also not provided a reason. An arsehole? - Perhaps.

Well....ya see, Lee.  It goes like this.  What you are whingeing about Monk having done to you is exactly (sort of) what Bobby has done to Monk who inadvertently breached his ban here.  Bobby goads him some more, Monk responds, and is now banned Forum wide because Bobby went off squealling to FD/GMods.

How about you show some consistency, hey?  How about you get up Bobby for actually seeking (and getting) a Forum ban on Monk, as opposed to your situation, where Monk merely gave you a heads up, and did not seek to have you banned Forum wide?

Way past time the cultist mentality here broke down.

Aussie wrote on Dec 28^th, 2020 at 6:20pm:

lee wrote on Dec 28th, 2020 at 4:02pm: Jovial Monk wrote on Dec 28th, 2020 at 3:32pm: I could have had lee banned forum wide but I am not an arsehole like you. You threatened it and didn't follow through. You have also not provided a reason. An arsehole? - Perhaps. Well....ya see, Lee.  It goes like this.  What you are whingeing about Monk having done to you is exactly (sort of) what Bobby has done to Monk who inadvertently breached his ban here.  Bobby goads him some more, Monk responds, and is now banned Forum wide because Bobby went off squealling to FD/GMods. How about you show some consistency, hey?  How about you get up Bobby for actually seeking (and getting) a Forum ban on Monk, as opposed to your situation, where Monk merely gave you a heads up, and did not seek to have you banned Forum wide? Way past time the cultist mentality here broke down.

Rubbish - Monk is still posting now.

http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1609136039

Aussie wrote on Dec 28^th, 2020 at 6:20pm:

Well....ya see, Lee.  It goes like this.  What you are whingeing about Monk having done to you is exactly (sort of) what Bobby has done to Monk who inadvertently breached his ban here.

Perhaps you could show this alleged whinging petal. ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D

lee wrote on Dec 28^th, 2020 at 6:36pm:

Aussie wrote on Dec 28th, 2020 at 6:20pm: Well....ya see, Lee.  It goes like this.  What you are whingeing about Monk having done to you is exactly (sort of) what Bobby has done to Monk who inadvertently breached his ban here. Perhaps you could show this alleged whinging petal. ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D

Sure:

Link.

Now....I am out of this fake Environment MRB.

Aussie wrote on Dec 28^th, 2020 at 6:44pm:

lee wrote on Dec 28th, 2020 at 6:36pm: Aussie wrote on Dec 28th, 2020 at 6:20pm: Well....ya see, Lee.  It goes like this.  What you are whingeing about Monk having done to you is exactly (sort of) what Bobby has done to Monk who inadvertently breached his ban here. Perhaps you could show this alleged whinging petal. ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D Sure: Link. Now....I am out of this fake Environment MRB.

Wait a minute -
apologise for lying

Reply #24 - Today at 7:27pm

Aussie wrote on Dec 28^th, 2020 at 6:44pm:

Sure: Link. Now....I am out of this fake Environment MRB.

Poor petal. The posts don't contain what you allege. ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D

I merely asked for clarification. ;)

lee wrote on Dec 28^th, 2020 at 6:48pm:

Aussie wrote on Dec 28th, 2020 at 6:44pm: Sure: Link. Now....I am out of this fake Environment MRB. Poor petal. The posts don't contain what you allege. ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D I merely asked for clarification. ;)

No...you were having a cry, you big girl's blouse and Monk has not done what he could have.  Yet here you are, in the place where a Mod of a crap MRB HAS done what you thought Monk had done to you, and you bleated to us.

Jayzuz.

Not only that, I saw Booby was replying to a topic in my MRB and warned him not to. Christian charity (unlike Booby who claims to be a christian) yet I make a mistake and he goes running to the GMods! Bah!

Booby, I repeat:

I thought I was replying to a topic in Extremism. I apologise for breaking your ban inadvertently.

What a shame, an interesting topic turned in to a slanging match.

Always happens in this MRB where the Mod has never posted about the Environment. Weird that, eh?

Jovial Monk wrote on Dec 28^th, 2020 at 7:15pm:

Not only that, I saw Booby was replying to a topic in my MRB and warned him not to. Christian charity (unlike Booby who claims to be a christian) yet I make a mistake and he goes running to the GMods! Bah!

Cease posting.

Jovial Monk wrote on Dec 28^th, 2020 at 7:17pm:

Booby, I repeat: I thought I was replying to a topic in Extremism. I apologise for breaking your ban inadvertently.

Cease posting.

Jovial Monk wrote on Dec 28^th, 2020 at 7:25pm:

Always happens in this MRB where the Mod has never posted about the Environment. Weird that, eh?

Cease posting.

Diddums.

You have never posted an environmental topic, have you?

Jovial Monk wrote on Dec 28^th, 2020 at 7:27pm:

Diddums. You have never posted an environmental topic, have you?

Cease posting.

Bobby. wrote on Dec 28^th, 2020 at 7:28pm:

Jovial Monk wrote on Dec 28th, 2020 at 7:27pm: Diddums. You have never posted an environmental topic, have you? Cease posting.

Can you ban me too Bobby?

The_Barnacle wrote on Jan 1^st, 2021 at 11:08am:

Can you ban me too Bobby?

Seeing as you only show up, throw a flash-bang* and run away - why would it be necessary? ;)

* a loud sound signifying nothing.

lee wrote on Jan 1^st, 2021 at 11:45am:

The_Barnacle wrote on Jan 1st, 2021 at 11:08am: Can you ban me too Bobby? Seeing as you only show up, throw a flash-bang* and run away - why would it be necessary? ;) * a loud sound signifying nothing.

Are you feeling irrelevant because no one is responding to your baiting posts?
Poor lee. A peice of advice. It might help if you actually held an opinion on something  ;)   

The_Barnacle wrote on Jan 1^st, 2021 at 12:03pm:

Poor lee. A peice of advice. It might help if you actually held an opinion on something

Poor petal. Should I be the spelling nazi for you - or let you work it out for yourself.

BTW - About opinions. I have many. Remember Australia is a carbon sink? I am sure you do, You didn't read the CSIRO piece correctly. ;)

You also have not got back to us for a reason for BoM's use of ACORN-2 and their adjustments for "statistical" reasons. ;) ;)

lee wrote on Jan 1^st, 2021 at 12:17pm:

The_Barnacle wrote on Jan 1st, 2021 at 12:03pm: Poor lee. A peice of advice. It might help if you actually held an opinion on something Poor petal. Should I be the spelling nazi for you - or let you work it out for yourself. BTW - About opinions. I have many. Remember Australia is a carbon sink? I am sure you do, You didn't read the CSIRO piece correctly. ;) You also have not got back to us for a reason for BoM's use of ACORN-2 and their adjustments for "statistical" reasons. ;) ;)

;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D
Do you really think you can bait me into wasting my time debating with you?
You are nothing but a pathetic troll

The_Barnacle wrote on Jan 1^st, 2021 at 12:20pm:

Do you really think you can bait me into wasting my time debating with you?

It is only a waste of time because you refuse to learn. ;)

rhino wrote on Dec 28^th, 2020 at 2:55pm:

Lots of misinformation in that video produced by a right wing conservative organisation which calls itself a University but is actually not. To start with there is no predefined limit on the capture of solar and wind energy, at this time it is only defined by the limit of our technology, to note, solar panels are twice as efficient and considerably cheaper than 5 years ago  and we can expect them to become increasingly more viable as technology evolves. Really the video is full of nonsense and very little science based or factual  claims, really quite simplistic claims aimed at the the unknowledgable.

You are very right Rhino.
In fact, NSW created a solar panel (cells are 'pyramid' shaped) that can gain 35% solar energy, late 2019. As the Scientist said - "There is so much 'potential' with Free Energy that it must be explored to the limit, even if it is not the only type of energy to be explored."

I don't think 'free' energy (Solar, Wind, Water,  etc) has a negative impact.
Some people take off their shirt to get some Vitamin D.
Others sit in a dark room and take manufactured tablets to get the hit - because it makes them feel 'technologically superior' where things have to be complex and costly to feel 'sophisticated' and to feel sophisticated means feeling superior and thus it must be the right way to go about it.
Things just can't be 'simple' like taking off one's shirt to get some Vitamin D. Of course, the Tablet muncher in the office with fake light will argue that 'Free Solar' (Vit D) causes 'sunburn'. True - EVERYTHING has a side effect.  ;)

I reckon this clip is a bit of a fabricated 'anti' effort.

It might not be 'Free', but its a lot less costly than the alternatives.  ;)