quote:

ORIGINAL: PeonForHer

quote:

I guess we could always go back to methane as another power source. Every sewer in the world produces tonnes of it each year and at one stage it lit a lot of the lamps in London with a VERY simple technology. And notice, I never mentioned harnessing fido up to the intake valve ?

Yet gods - London was once lit by fart gas?

Well, never let it be said that there isn't something new to be learned on this forum!

quote:

ORIGINAL: thompsonx

Since the total of all solar plants utility and non, is about 1.55%, and utiltity scale is about .65% and residential is about .94% it is clear to see that both generate less than a single percentage point.

Please get a grown up to read and explane what I posted. I said that the reflecting mirror system is a single digit percentage of all the solar power generated. Your cite says that plant is capable of generating 392 megawatts. The usa capacity in solar is 22,700mw. Perhaps you could get a grown up to do the math for you

http://www.seia.org/research-resources/solar-industry-data

quote:


That same logic would necessarily apply to nuclear, coal and oil power also since they recieve subsidies.

LOL. is math difficult for you?

Solar and wind get 40% of the energy subsidies in the US and together produce 2 % of the power. Using the governments phoney "cost levelizing" where phoney global warming and health issues costs are ascribe to fossil fuels, coal has power costs around $65/MWhr. Solar and wind costs are in excess of $200.


This means that absent subsidies, solar and wind cannot compete in a power environment where utiities deliver power at a fixed price - unless the price is very high - which causes other issues such as loss of jobs.

Why do you think it is important to polute the environment for job creation/retention?

quote:


For the record - once you take out levelizatin charges - the real cost of coal is on the order of $40/MWhr.

The sun is free

quote:

ORIGINAL: thompsonx

ORIGINAL: Phydeaux

Do you know what the improvement was in field delivered solar over the last three years? Of course not. But I do. Standard grade solar cells went from 19.5% to 22%.

Do you know what the maximum theoretical efficiency is? Of course not.
Do you know how much power is delivered at ground level? Of course not.


So far you have shown us that you do not know much at all.

It takes power to make power—even with a solar grand plan. From the mining of quartz sand to the coating with ethylene-vinyl acetate, manufacturing a photovoltaic (PV) solar cell requires energy—most often derived from the burning of fossil fuels. But a new analysis finds that even accounting for all the energy and waste involved, PV power would cut air pollution—including the greenhouse gases that cause climate change—by nearly 90 percent if it replaced fossil fuels.

Environmental engineer Vasilis Fthenakis, a senior scientist at Brookhaven National Laboratory in Upton, N.Y., and his colleagues examined the four most common types of PV cells: multicrystalline silicon, monocrystalline silicon, ribbon silicon and thin-film. (Other contenders, such as amorphous silicon or superefficient multijunction cells were excluded for lack of data or lack of widespread application to date.) Even taking into account the low efficiency of thin-film solar cells or the energy needed to purify silicon for the other types of PV, all proved to entail significantly fewer emissions in their entire life cycle than the fossil fuels needed to produce an equivalent amount of electricity.

In fact, most of their dirty side derived from the indirect emissions of the coal-burning power plants or other fossil fuels used to generate the electricity for PV manufacturing facilities.

These four types of solar cells pay back the energy involved in their manufacture in one to three years, according to an earlier analysis by the same team. And even the most energy-intensive to produce—monocrystalline silicate cells with the highest energy conversion efficiency of 14 percent—emit just 55 grams (1.9 ounces) of globe warming pollution per kilowatt-hour—a fraction of the near one kilogram (2.2 pounds) of greenhouse gases emitted by a coal-fired power plant per kilowatt-hour.

Even though thin-film solar PVs employ heavy metals such as cadmium recovered from mining slimes, the overall toxic emissions are "90 to 300 times lower than those from coal power plants," the researchers write in Environmental Science & Technology.

The energy benefits of solar photovoltaics will only improve as the technology continues to boost its efficiency at converting sunlight to electricity or proves to last longer than the 30 years anticipated by manufacturers. "There is no reason for this not to last a lot more than 30 years," Fthenakis says.

If solar energy begins to power its own production—a so-called PV breeder cycle, in which PV-generated electricity goes to produce more PV cells—the outlook is even sunnier. "I think 30 percent of the energy consumption in the [manufacturing] facilities is easily met from the land they have available [on] the roof and in the parking lot," Fthenakis says.

And, as Fthenakis and colleagues argued in a recent article in Scientific American, if storage technologies such as compressed air improve, then PV could provide the majority of electricity needs in the U.S. "With storage," Fthenakis says, "it is feasible to go to 100 percent."


http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/solar-cells-prove-cleaner-way-to-produce-power/

quote:

ORIGINAL: Dvr22999874

If a combination of home mounted and field mounted solar panels were used and then a solar battery or batteries, fitted to as many houses as possible, private electricity bills would be negligible, industry would be able to tap into it, thus lowering their costs and man-made pollution would be down. Add that to wind and wave generation and keep seeking new improvements and innovations and it should lower our reliance on most, if not all of the fossil fuels. Of course this technology is comparatively expensive at the moment, ( most new technology is), but the more it is pushed, the more attractive it would/should become, except to the oil companies, coal mines and power station owners et al ( not forgetting fido who is never wrong and has never lied of course).

quote:

ORIGINAL: Phydeaux

quote:

ORIGINAL: Tkman117

quote:

ORIGINAL: Phydeaux

quote:

ORIGINAL: Tkman117

quote:

ORIGINAL: Phydeaux

quote:

ORIGINAL: Dvr22999874

I am interested to know how solar power cells create a problem for aviation ? Also interested to know how those same cells fry 28,000 birds a year. Those cells GATHER solar energy and they radiate nothing. NOTHING at all, so how can they perform these anti-miracles ?
How do they cost more than any other power source (natural gas or coal )? They are passive and once installed, just need cleaning once a year or so.
How do they cost more than a regular power plant to build ? And even if there is a truthful answer for this, what are the running costs of solar power cells, compared to the running costs of those power plants ?Those cells gather power for about 12 hours a day (That's a half a day in my part of the world) and the storage facilities are expensive at the present time but getting less expensive by the month. But even with another form of backup power for the times when the sun don't shine, free energy is surely a lot cheaper than energy one has to pay for ? Our electricity bill is less than 25% of what it was before we had solar panels installed.
It DOES require more space for a solar field than a regular power-plant but once in place it is ecologically neutral.
Name calling rarely accomplishes anything but I have to say Ron, I think you have labelled fido totally correctly; in fact, maybe just a touch conservatively.

Well asshole, because, if you knew a damn thing about solar power plants you would know this ISN'T a powercell application. They take a few hectares of land - cover them with heliotropic mirrors, and then focus sunlight on a tower, which typically uses pressurized water or molten salt to then generate power via a turbine.


But of course, you'd rather call names rather than actually read an article.

As for "those cells gather power".. reiterating - pv cells are not in use here, and if there isn't adequate power to pressurize the water, or superheat the molten salt - no power gets generated...

And yet the number of solar generators such as the one you're referring to are in the minority, there are less than 100 of these power stations worldwide. Smaller scale and localized solar panels are a much bigger market in the first place, not to mention the kind of solar factories you mention are typically located in locations with high levels of solar activity. I.E. deserts and other locations where avian acitivity is minimal when compared to other locations. Environments where the impact of these "solar factories" have a minimal impact on the local environment. Plus why are you so concerned about environment impacts when you're defending the use of fossil fuels which are warming the atmosphere and oceans and are causing a greater overall impact on various forms of life in general? Seems rather hypocritical to claim one impacts organisms and the other doesn't. But, oh wait, you don't care about facts. You just love the fact that oil is rather cheap right now and you don't want things to change. Pathetic.

Oh, by which you are conceding that you were completely incorrect in your original post. And rather than admitting it you engage in further character assassination.

So, brilliant birdman - do you understand that chinese companies were dumping solar panels in the US market far below price to produce? That the US opened a trade dispute vs china on this very matter?

Do you know that no such a luminary as Warren Buffet (liberal icon) has said - that if it were not for tax incentives, solar and wind farms would make no sense whatsoever?

Why am I concerned about environmental impacts? Because unlike you, I actually care about actual science, and actual wildlife.
For example - your beloved windfarms are killing more than a million golden eagles a year in the US. The fine to kill one is $10K. For killing 38 of these protected species - as well as 336 other protected species - and oregon wind farm will be paying 2.5 million. And its only just starting.

http://savetheeaglesinternational.org/new/us-windfarms-kill-10-20-times-more-than-previously-thought.html
http://indiancountrytodaymedianetwork.com/2015/01/09/wind-power-co-pay-25-million-killing-golden-eagles-other-protected-birds-158633

3) Solar is advancing year by year and to demonize it is arrogant and ignorant of the progress it has been making.
4) To ignore the impacts climate change has had on worldwide ecology in exchange for the localized impacts of renewables is so hypocritical it shouldn't even need to be pointed out. Urban sprawl aside, climate change is one of the largest contributors to the planet's newest major extinction event. To ignore it is to literally be the right wing partisan hack you claim not to be.

Tkman,
Do you know what the improvement was in field delivered solar over the last three years? Of course not. But I do. Standard grade solar cells went from 19.5% to 22%.

Do you know what the maximum theoretical efficiency is? Of course not.
Do you know how much power is delivered at ground level? Of course not.

Do you know the average nameplate utilization figure for solar power? Of course not. But its 17%. So when you install 1 GW of solar power - you get on average 170 MW of power. Mind you - you're still paying for that whole GW installed.

Once again - most of what you talk about is absolute bullshit. I've already posted the satellite temperature data that shows statistically there has not been any global warming over the last 20 years over 96% of the planet. Where there has been disting warming is in the north polar region.

Show me a keystone species in that area that is facing an extinction event. You can't. And just to save you some time, there are more polar bears now than there has been in 30 years.

If you can't demonstrate extinction events in the one area showing warmng- why in the world do you think climate is driving extinction events.

More to the point - the left is ALWAYS making dire catastrophic predictions. No snow in the USA. No glaciers in the himalayas. They weren't true - and they still aren't true. But the point is - we have now had, putatively, 42 years of global warming.

How much damage can you demonstrate- in billions of dollars. The simple fact is - the economic benefit of cheaper power has vastly outwayed the remediation cost. And every single study that has looked at that - including the seminal work in the field, the Yale report - has found the same thing.

I don't ignore a damn thing - I read on this subject way more than you do. But I can tell you this - if the science were true, it would'n't need to be falsified.

Now, by the way - I actually have found one paper, whose science isn't falsified and it suggests that we now have had one year of warmer temperatures, and it suggests some reasons to think that this trend may continue for awhile. I agree with his science, and his conclusions. However the idea that climate will be ever warmer is simply false.

Again, I have quoted you the actual words of the IPCC where they admitted the contribution by CO2 was logarithic. It now takes a 10 fold increase in co2 - according to the ipcc - to result in a .3 degree increase in temperature. It simply is not the emergency you make it out to be. Since 1880 we have had (using falsified data) a .4 degree increase in temperature.

This is .04 degrees per decade - as compared to the IPCC prediction of 1.2 degrees per decade.

quote:

ORIGINAL: itsSIRtou

quote:

ORIGINAL: Phydeaux

quote:

ORIGINAL: Tkman117

quote:

ORIGINAL: Phydeaux

quote:

ORIGINAL: Tkman117

quote:

ORIGINAL: Phydeaux

quote:

ORIGINAL: Dvr22999874

I am interested to know how solar power cells create a problem for aviation ? Also interested to know how those same cells fry 28,000 birds a year. Those cells GATHER solar energy and they radiate nothing. NOTHING at all, so how can they perform these anti-miracles ?
How do they cost more than any other power source (natural gas or coal )? They are passive and once installed, just need cleaning once a year or so.
How do they cost more than a regular power plant to build ? And even if there is a truthful answer for this, what are the running costs of solar power cells, compared to the running costs of those power plants ?Those cells gather power for about 12 hours a day (That's a half a day in my part of the world) and the storage facilities are expensive at the present time but getting less expensive by the month. But even with another form of backup power for the times when the sun don't shine, free energy is surely a lot cheaper than energy one has to pay for ? Our electricity bill is less than 25% of what it was before we had solar panels installed.
It DOES require more space for a solar field than a regular power-plant but once in place it is ecologically neutral.
Name calling rarely accomplishes anything but I have to say Ron, I think you have labelled fido totally correctly; in fact, maybe just a touch conservatively.

Well asshole, because, if you knew a damn thing about solar power plants you would know this ISN'T a powercell application. They take a few hectares of land - cover them with heliotropic mirrors, and then focus sunlight on a tower, which typically uses pressurized water or molten salt to then generate power via a turbine.


But of course, you'd rather call names rather than actually read an article.

As for "those cells gather power".. reiterating - pv cells are not in use here, and if there isn't adequate power to pressurize the water, or superheat the molten salt - no power gets generated...

And yet the number of solar generators such as the one you're referring to are in the minority, there are less than 100 of these power stations worldwide. Smaller scale and localized solar panels are a much bigger market in the first place, not to mention the kind of solar factories you mention are typically located in locations with high levels of solar activity. I.E. deserts and other locations where avian acitivity is minimal when compared to other locations. Environments where the impact of these "solar factories" have a minimal impact on the local environment. Plus why are you so concerned about environment impacts when you're defending the use of fossil fuels which are warming the atmosphere and oceans and are causing a greater overall impact on various forms of life in general? Seems rather hypocritical to claim one impacts organisms and the other doesn't. But, oh wait, you don't care about facts. You just love the fact that oil is rather cheap right now and you don't want things to change. Pathetic.

Oh, by which you are conceding that you were completely incorrect in your original post. And rather than admitting it you engage in further character assassination.

So, brilliant birdman - do you understand that chinese companies were dumping solar panels in the US market far below price to produce? That the US opened a trade dispute vs china on this very matter?

Do you know that no such a luminary as Warren Buffet (liberal icon) has said - that if it were not for tax incentives, solar and wind farms would make no sense whatsoever?

Why am I concerned about environmental impacts? Because unlike you, I actually care about actual science, and actual wildlife.
For example - your beloved windfarms are killing more than a million golden eagles a year in the US. The fine to kill one is $10K. For killing 38 of these protected species - as well as 336 other protected species - and oregon wind farm will be paying 2.5 million. And its only just starting.

http://savetheeaglesinternational.org/new/us-windfarms-kill-10-20-times-more-than-previously-thought.html
http://indiancountrytodaymedianetwork.com/2015/01/09/wind-power-co-pay-25-million-killing-golden-eagles-other-protected-birds-158633

3) Solar is advancing year by year and to demonize it is arrogant and ignorant of the progress it has been making.
4) To ignore the impacts climate change has had on worldwide ecology in exchange for the localized impacts of renewables is so hypocritical it shouldn't even need to be pointed out. Urban sprawl aside, climate change is one of the largest contributors to the planet's newest major extinction event. To ignore it is to literally be the right wing partisan hack you claim not to be.

Tkman,
Do you know what the improvement was in field delivered solar over the last three years? Of course not. But I do. Standard grade solar cells went from 19.5% to 22%.

Do you know what the maximum theoretical efficiency is? Of course not.
Do you know how much power is delivered at ground level? Of course not.

Do you know the average nameplate utilization figure for solar power? Of course not. But its 17%. So when you install 1 GW of solar power - you get on average 170 MW of power. Mind you - you're still paying for that whole GW installed.

Once again - most of what you talk about is absolute bullshit. I've already posted the satellite temperature data that shows statistically there has not been any global warming over the last 20 years over 96% of the planet. Where there has been disting warming is in the north polar region.

Show me a keystone species in that area that is facing an extinction event. You can't. And just to save you some time, there are more polar bears now than there has been in 30 years.

If you can't demonstrate extinction events in the one area showing warmng- why in the world do you think climate is driving extinction events.

More to the point - the left is ALWAYS making dire catastrophic predictions. No snow in the USA. No glaciers in the himalayas. They weren't true - and they still aren't true. But the point is - we have now had, putatively, 42 years of global warming.

How much damage can you demonstrate- in billions of dollars. The simple fact is - the economic benefit of cheaper power has vastly outwayed the remediation cost. And every single study that has looked at that - including the seminal work in the field, the Yale report - has found the same thing.

I don't ignore a damn thing - I read on this subject way more than you do. But I can tell you this - if the science were true, it would'n't need to be falsified.

Now, by the way - I actually have found one paper, whose science isn't falsified and it suggests that we now have had one year of warmer temperatures, and it suggests some reasons to think that this trend may continue for awhile. I agree with his science, and his conclusions. However the idea that climate will be ever warmer is simply false.

Again, I have quoted you the actual words of the IPCC where they admitted the contribution by CO2 was logarithic. It now takes a 10 fold increase in co2 - according to the ipcc - to result in a .3 degree increase in temperature. It simply is not the emergency you make it out to be. Since 1880 we have had (using falsified data) a .4 degree increase in temperature.

This is .04 degrees per decade - as compared to the IPCC prediction of 1.2 degrees per decade.

You ignore the simple melting of ice in a full glass will overflow it.

quote:




You ignore the melting of global ice that if all that were to melt it would put the Oceanside low-lying cities of the world underwater, endanger, displace, or cause to become extinct numerous species.

quote:




You sit there and chicken fight the facts when the simple fact is the indiscriminate dumping of chemicals into the atmosphere is just plain fucking wrong.... period.

quote:



And Phydeaux, even if all the denial bull shit were true,

quote:



its still fucked up that business and industry is too selfish & too God damn lazy to do the right thing in the first damn place.

quote:

Especially since the technologies available to do so, and better technologies are coming online every year.

quote:



Maybe we should put you and people like you in a room with these pollutants and see how long it is before you ask if not beg to get out.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Phydeaux

1. The CO2 isn't a "thin layer" - it is dispersed in throughout our atmosphere - which is more than 10 miles deep.
2. If CO2 were a layer - it would be about 4000 feet thick.
3. CO2 at the edge of the atmoshere cools the planet, by reradiating energy to space - this is why solar flux at the edge of the atmosphere is 1360 or so W/m2, and at the ground is 1050 or so.
4. The CO2 thats actually most effective at trapping heat is in the lower atmosphere - not the upper atmosphere.

But he got one thing right. Chemistry for him, is hard. Apparently so is physics.

Who is this idiot?

John Kerry. Secretary of State. Speaking at a climate conference Feb, 2014.
http://www.state.gov/secretary/remarks/2014/02/221704.htm

quote:

ORIGINAL: Phydeaux

quote:

ORIGINAL: Dvr22999874

If a combination of home mounted and field mounted solar panels were used and then a solar battery or batteries, fitted to as many houses as possible, private electricity bills would be negligible, industry would be able to tap into it, thus lowering their costs and man-made pollution would be down. Add that to wind and wave generation and keep seeking new improvements and innovations and it should lower our reliance on most, if not all of the fossil fuels. Of course this technology is comparatively expensive at the moment, ( most new technology is), but the more it is pushed, the more attractive it would/should become, except to the oil companies, coal mines and power station owners et al ( not forgetting fido who is never wrong and has never lied of course).

If its such a good slam dunk idea mate - explain why germany and denmark and britain and spain are cutting subsidies for solar/wind power, eh?

quote:

ORIGINAL: crazyml

quote:

ORIGINAL: Phydeaux

1. The CO2 isn't a "thin layer" - it is dispersed in throughout our atmosphere - which is more than 10 miles deep.
2. If CO2 were a layer - it would be about 4000 feet thick.
3. CO2 at the edge of the atmoshere cools the planet, by reradiating energy to space - this is why solar flux at the edge of the atmosphere is 1360 or so W/m2, and at the ground is 1050 or so.
4. The CO2 thats actually most effective at trapping heat is in the lower atmosphere - not the upper atmosphere.

But he got one thing right. Chemistry for him, is hard. Apparently so is physics.

Who is this idiot?

John Kerry. Secretary of State. Speaking at a climate conference Feb, 2014.
http://www.state.gov/secretary/remarks/2014/02/221704.htm

Since the quote you pulled doesn't mention CO2, it rather seems like you're being the moron.

quote:


And the scientists agree that emissions coming from deforestation and from agriculture can also send enormous quantities of carbon pollution into our atmosphere....

Try and picture a very thin layer of gases – a quarter-inch, half an inch, somewhere in that vicinity – that’s how thick it is. It’s in our atmosphere. It’s way up there at the edge of the atmosphere. And for millions of years – literally millions of years – we know that layer has acted like a thermal blanket for the planet – trapping the sun’s heat and warming the surface of the Earth to the ideal, life-sustaining temperature. Average temperature of the Earth has been about 57 degrees Fahrenheit, which keeps life going. Life itself on Earth exists because of the so-called greenhouse effect. But in modern times, as human beings have emitted gases into the air that come from all the things we do, that blanket has grown thicker and it traps more and more heat beneath it, raising the temperature of the planet. It’s called the greenhouse effect because it works exactly like a greenhouse in which you grow a lot of the fruit that you eat here.

quote:

ORIGINAL: crazyml

quote:

ORIGINAL: Phydeaux

quote:

ORIGINAL: Dvr22999874

If a combination of home mounted and field mounted solar panels were used and then a solar battery or batteries, fitted to as many houses as possible, private electricity bills would be negligible, industry would be able to tap into it, thus lowering their costs and man-made pollution would be down. Add that to wind and wave generation and keep seeking new improvements and innovations and it should lower our reliance on most, if not all of the fossil fuels. Of course this technology is comparatively expensive at the moment, ( most new technology is), but the more it is pushed, the more attractive it would/should become, except to the oil companies, coal mines and power station owners et al ( not forgetting fido who is never wrong and has never lied of course).

If its such a good slam dunk idea mate - explain why germany and denmark and britain and spain are cutting subsidies for solar/wind power, eh?

Because they are increasingly economically viable. Mate.