Australian Politics Forum - The case for renewables

lee

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 21404
Gender: male

The case for renewables
Jul 30^th, 2015 at 1:04pm

Just how much can we rely on renewables? Let's study PV systems.

A case study from the USA

'It also equates to a square having sides 171.3 km in length. In practicality the required area would be much larger for allowance between panels to allow construction crews access and to periodically clean the panels as dust and dirt significantly affect conversion efficiency. This requires 29,333,333,333 (29.33 billion) solar panels and 4.4 million battery modules contained in a number 40 shipping container (40 feet X 6 feet 8 feet,) covering a surface area of 130.8 km2 or a square with sides of 11.4 km with zero space between modules. This data is presented in a straightforward fashion for nonscientists in the publication “Going Solar.”

http://fusion4freedom.us/going-solar/

'Twenty nine and 1/3 billion is a very large number of panels to manufacture. As pointed out in “Going Solar” it would take 929 years to produce this number of panels if they could be built at the rate of 1 per second. '

http://fuelrfuture.com/review-of-forbes-on-line-magazine-article-solar-energy-re...

And then of course competing economies would also want the PV cells, presumably. How long for the world to have enough panels?

Back to top

IP Logged

Chimp_Logic Gold Member Offline πολιτικός Posts: 4826 Mawson Base Gender:	Re: The case for renewables Reply #1 - Jul 30^th, 2015 at 1:24pm Why are you using PV systems as a test case of renewable energy efficacy and efficiency? Why not use large scale Solar thermal power which also operates under base load conditions?
Back to top	Mini Ice Age (2014-2029) Dr Sircus cures cancer with Baking Soda and Magnesium - Jethro the MENTAL GIANT & his flute madness IP Logged

Chimp_Logic Gold Member Offline πολιτικός Posts: 4826 Mawson Base Gender:	Re: The case for renewables Reply #2 - Jul 30^th, 2015 at 1:26pm LOOK lee LOOK
Back to top	Mini Ice Age (2014-2029) Dr Sircus cures cancer with Baking Soda and Magnesium - Jethro the MENTAL GIANT & his flute madness IP Logged

lee

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 21404
Gender: male

Re: The case for renewables
Reply #3 - Jul 30^th, 2015 at 3:02pm

Wow, bird flamers. What is the stated output? What is normal output? How long do the panels last?

How much energy does the making of PV panels take? Can it be done from solar power efficiently?

'But since the sun doesn’t shine all the time, the plant uses natural gas to keep the water hot. And, apparently, there hasn’t been enough sun to do that.

Bright Source Energy, the company operating the plant, is petitioning the California government, requesting permission to burn more natural gas and to emit 94,749 more tons of carbon dioxide per year. That’s the equivalent of emissions from about 16,500 automobiles. (See full story at the Hockey Schtick)'

https://wryheat.wordpress.com/2014/08/24/ivanpah-solar-plant-wants-to-burn-more-...

So tell me again how efficient it is.

Back to top

« Last Edit: Jul 30^th, 2015 at 3:07pm by lee »

IP Logged

BatteriesNotIncluded

Gold Member

Offline

MediocrityNET: because
people died for this!

Posts: 26966

Re: The case for renewables
Reply #4 - Jul 30^th, 2015 at 3:44pm

Annual sunshine hours map of the world

.." High Voltage DC (HVDC) technology is a proven and economical method of power transmission over very long distances and also a trusted method to connect asynchronous grids or grids of different frequencies. With HVDC energy can also be transported in both directions.[66] For long-distance transmission HVDC suffers lower electrical losses than alternating current (AC) transmission."..

source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Desertec

Back to top

*Sure....they're anti competitive as any subsidised job is. It wouldn't be there without the tax payer. Very damned difficult for a brainwashed collectivist to understand that I know.... (swaggy) *

IP Logged

Pho Huc Gold Member Offline Australian Politics Posts: 985 Victoria Gender:	Re: The case for renewables Reply #5 - Jul 30^th, 2015 at 3:48pm Solar thermal doesn't use photovoltaic cells, just plain old mirrors. Thats one its main advantages.
Back to top	The law locks up the man who steals the goose from the common, but leaves the greater criminal loose who steals the common from the goose (convict saying) IP Logged

Rider

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 2669
OnTheRoad
Gender: male

Re: The case for renewables
Reply #6 - Jul 30^th, 2015 at 5:17pm

Chimp_Logic wrote on Jul 30^th, 2015 at 1:24pm:

Why are you using PV systems as a test case of renewable energy efficacy and efficiency?

Why not use large scale Solar thermal power which also operates under base load conditions?

https://churlsgonewild.files.wordpress.com/2011/06/solar_thermal_plant.jpg
http://www.flagsol.com/flagsol/cms/upload/images/Andasol-I224.jpg

Efficiency? How many thousands of hectares need to be covered to replace a coal fired power station?

Back to top

IP Logged

lee

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 21404
Gender: male

Re: The case for renewables
Reply #7 - Jul 30^th, 2015 at 5:31pm

Pho Huc wrote on Jul 30^th, 2015 at 3:48pm:

Solar thermal doesn't use photovoltaic cells, just plain old mirrors.
Thats one its main advantages.

Bright Source runs Ivanpah, which uses plain old mirrors.

But the solar thermal - molten salt etc, is not providing enough to keep it going. That's why it needs natural gas to keep running efficiently.

Back to top

IP Logged

BatteriesNotIncluded

Gold Member

Offline

MediocrityNET: because
people died for this!

Posts: 26966

Re: The case for renewables
Reply #8 - Jul 30^th, 2015 at 5:44pm

lee wrote on Jul 30^th, 2015 at 5:31pm:

Pho Huc wrote on Jul 30^th, 2015 at 3:48pm:

Solar thermal doesn't use photovoltaic cells, just plain old mirrors.
Thats one its main advantages.

Bright Source runs Ivanpah, which uses plain old mirrors.

But the solar thermal - molten salt etc, is not providing enough to keep it going. That's why it needs natural gas to keep running efficiently.

co-generation: otherwise known as synergy Wink

Back to top

*Sure....they're anti competitive as any subsidised job is. It wouldn't be there without the tax payer. Very damned difficult for a brainwashed collectivist to understand that I know.... (swaggy) *

IP Logged

Chimp_Logic

Gold Member

Offline

πολιτικός

Posts: 4826
Mawson Base
Gender: male

Re: The case for renewables
Reply #9 - Jul 30^th, 2015 at 5:51pm

lee wrote on Jul 30^th, 2015 at 5:31pm:

Pho Huc wrote on Jul 30^th, 2015 at 3:48pm:

Solar thermal doesn't use photovoltaic cells, just plain old mirrors.
Thats one its main advantages.

Bright Source runs Ivanpah, which uses plain old mirrors.

But the solar thermal - molten salt etc, is not providing enough to keep it going. That's why it needs natural gas to keep running efficiently.

so your argument for burning coal to make electricity is that solar thermal needs 5% of its heating capacity supplied by gas, so it is forbidden to use solar thermal because it is sometimes only 95% renewable whereas coal and other fossil fuels are 0% renewable.

You certainly have given this a lot of thought havent you lee - very impressive reasoning

Well done lee.

Back to top

Mini Ice Age (2014-2029)
Dr Sircus cures cancer with Baking Soda and Magnesium - Jethro the MENTAL GIANT & his flute madness

IP Logged

Chimp_Logic

Gold Member

Offline

πολιτικός

Posts: 4826
Mawson Base
Gender: male

Re: The case for renewables
Reply #10 - Jul 30^th, 2015 at 5:52pm

Rider wrote on Jul 30^th, 2015 at 5:17pm:

Chimp_Logic wrote on Jul 30^th, 2015 at 1:24pm:

Why are you using PV systems as a test case of renewable energy efficacy and efficiency?

Why not use large scale Solar thermal power which also operates under base load conditions?

https://churlsgonewild.files.wordpress.com/2011/06/solar_thermal_plant.jpg
http://www.flagsol.com/flagsol/cms/upload/images/Andasol-I224.jpg

Efficiency? How many thousands of hectares need to be covered to replace a coal fired power station?

Australia doesnt have any spare land anywhere that is drenched in sunshine???

Well done rider - you are certainly one of the great forward looking thinkers of our time arent you Rider.

Back to top

Mini Ice Age (2014-2029)
Dr Sircus cures cancer with Baking Soda and Magnesium - Jethro the MENTAL GIANT & his flute madness

IP Logged

BatteriesNotIncluded

Gold Member

Offline

MediocrityNET: because
people died for this!

Posts: 26966

Re: The case for renewables
Reply #11 - Jul 30^th, 2015 at 6:43pm

Chimp_Logic wrote on Jul 30^th, 2015 at 5:51pm:

lee wrote on Jul 30^th, 2015 at 5:31pm:

Pho Huc wrote on Jul 30^th, 2015 at 3:48pm:

Solar thermal doesn't use photovoltaic cells, just plain old mirrors.
Thats one its main advantages.

Bright Source runs Ivanpah, which uses plain old mirrors.

But the solar thermal - molten salt etc, is not providing enough to keep it going. That's why it needs natural gas to keep running efficiently.

so your argument for burning coal to make electricity is that solar thermal needs 5% of its heating capacity supplied by gas, so it is forbidden to use solar thermal because it is sometimes only 95% renewable whereas coal and other fossil fuels are 0% renewable.

You certainly have given this a lot of thought havent you lee - very impressive reasoning

Well done lee.

With a brain like lees who needs enemies Cheesy

Back to top

*Sure....they're anti competitive as any subsidised job is. It wouldn't be there without the tax payer. Very damned difficult for a brainwashed collectivist to understand that I know.... (swaggy) *

IP Logged

Sprintcyclist Gold Member Offline OzPolitic Posts: 41983 Gender:	Re: The case for renewables Reply #12 - Jul 30^th, 2015 at 6:45pm I am a big fan of renewables. Think they are better done 'locally' where best suited. White Cliffs in NSW used to be totally solar powered. It's doable
Back to top	Modern Classic Right Wing IP Logged

BatteriesNotIncluded

Gold Member

Offline

MediocrityNET: because
people died for this!

Posts: 26966

Re: The case for renewables
Reply #13 - Jul 30^th, 2015 at 6:46pm

Chimp_Logic wrote on Jul 30^th, 2015 at 5:52pm:

Rider wrote on Jul 30^th, 2015 at 5:17pm:

Chimp_Logic wrote on Jul 30^th, 2015 at 1:24pm:

Why are you using PV systems as a test case of renewable energy efficacy and efficiency?

Why not use large scale Solar thermal power which also operates under base load conditions?

https://churlsgonewild.files.wordpress.com/2011/06/solar_thermal_plant.jpg
http://www.flagsol.com/flagsol/cms/upload/images/Andasol-I224.jpg

Efficiency? How many thousands of hectares need to be covered to replace a coal fired power station?

Australia doesnt have any spare land anywhere that is drenched in sunshine???

Well done rider - you are certainly one of the great forward looking thinkers of our time arent you Rider.

http://thumbs.media.smithsonianmag.com//filer/Australia.jpg__800x600_q85_crop.jp...

We could build enough solar thermal to power the world by wifi ... probably Shocked

Hey, I just thought of a business plan Cheesy

Back to top

*Sure....they're anti competitive as any subsidised job is. It wouldn't be there without the tax payer. Very damned difficult for a brainwashed collectivist to understand that I know.... (swaggy) *

IP Logged

lee

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 21404
Gender: male

Re: The case for renewables
Reply #14 - Jul 30^th, 2015 at 7:11pm

BatteriesNotIncluded wrote on Jul 30^th, 2015 at 6:46pm:

Hey, I just thought of a business plan

Go for it, without subsidies.

'Under its current license, the project is allowed to use up to 328 million standard cubic feet of natural gas (MMSCF) per year at each of its three units. That's with the proviso that the total amount of natural gas used can't climb above 5 percent of the energy the project gets from the sun. Ivanpah's owners (doing business as the shell corporations Solar Partners I, II, and VIII) want that upper limit increased to 525 MMSCF per year per unit, and the 5 percent limit abolished altogether.

If you're wondering about that acronym, MMSCF is a bit of natural gas industry jargon based loosely on Roman numerals, with M meaning 1,000. A standard cubic foot, generally speaking, is the amount of natural gas that would take up a cubic foot of volume at sea level at room temperature.'

http://www.kcet.org/news/redefine/rewire/solar/concentrating-solar/ivanpah-solar...

Apparently 5% just ain't enough.

Back to top

IP Logged