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..........

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



Excellent video Nef.
Everyone needs to watch it.

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


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

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


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

Do you even read your links?

Quote:


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

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



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

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

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



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

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


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.

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


Doesn't that attract a forum wide ban?

Baronvonrort wrote on Dec 28^th, 2020 at 3:18pm:
You still arent getting it, further reading required for you.

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



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

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


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:



Perhaps you could show this alleged whinging petal.

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



Wait a minute -
apologise for lying

Reply #24 - Today at 7:27pm

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


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.

Booby, I repeat:

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

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 7:17pm:



Cease posting.

Diddums.

You have never posted an environmental topic, have you?

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


Can you ban me too Bobby?

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


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     

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



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

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


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.