Phydeaux
Posts: 4828
Joined: 1/4/2004
Status: offline
|
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.
|
RE: So.. what moron said... - 
Profile
New Messages
No New Messages
Hot Topic w/ New Messages
Hot Topic w/o New Messages
Locked w/ New Messages
Locked w/o New Messages
Post New Thread