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?

Annual sunshine hours map of the world

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

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


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

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

co-generation: otherwise known as synergy 

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


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.

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

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



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.

Rider wrote on Jul 30^th, 2015 at 8:39pm:


so solar plants are spastic now? You couple your standard bigotry against people who are different with your innate hatred of children and sprinkle some derange lunacy and ignorance and then enter this forum totally intellectually disarmed.

You are incapable of even posing a remotely sensible question let alone comprehend the basics of AGW.

A primary school student understands how human activities are driving global temperatures upwards and the intimate link between this increase and climate change, speciation loss, habitat destruction, ocean chemistry alteration, and rising sea levels etc.

Oh but the Great Rider rides into the coal sunset like a smelly putrid stenched up  fossil freak maggot and hopes that nobody will notice a thing.

Apologise and then leave

http://www.repowerportaugusta.org/making-solar-thermal-happen-forum

lee wrote on Jul 30^th, 2015 at 10:26pm:


What proportion of South Australia's power requirements is met with renewable energy sources?

lee wrote on Jul 31^st, 2015 at 11:55am:


as we speak, what proportion of Sth Australia's power needs are met by renewable energy sources?

BatteriesNotIncluded wrote on Jul 31^st, 2015 at 1:46pm:


And you arguing in favour of renewables pretty much proves they aren't worth supporting..

lee wrote on Jul 30^th, 2015 at 9:01pm:


It was an effective long term solution.
They closed it down and went to diesel generators I believe.

Quote:


white-cliffs-solar-energy-glory-recognised

renewable power is effective, reliable.

Chimp_Logic wrote on Jul 31^st, 2015 at 7:48pm:


Compare to the crap YOU spew out...that was very polite, so, no, I will NOT apologise (especially not to an idiot like DRAH, or you, for that matter)

Chimp_Logic wrote on Jul 31^st, 2015 at 12:08am:


Which state has the highest electricity costs to consumers?  Yup...SA.....muppet.

gizmo_2655 wrote on Jul 31^st, 2015 at 7:21pm:

rowan dean doesn't know how markets work: he is the joke of foxtel and they are all cringing because he got his ass handed to him   

gizmo_2655 wrote on Jul 31^st, 2015 at 8:41pm:

Gizmo doesn't like it when he is called out on the nomenclature of 'multi-year ice' 

Hint: nomenclature is why science is done by consensus 

gizmo_2655 wrote on Aug 1^st, 2015 at 6:12pm:

Gizmo doesn't know what nomenclature is!!



Gizmo loves me long time and he wants every man woman and child to watch our love over and over again.... 

gizmo_2655 wrote on Aug 2^nd, 2015 at 5:17pm:



Pseudo-science is.

lee wrote on Aug 2^nd, 2015 at 5:21pm:

--> lee loves gizmo long time but gizmo love me more!!! 

lee wrote on Aug 2^nd, 2015 at 5:55pm:


Oh hell NO!!!!