The climate change consensus extends beyond climate scientists

[redpoint5]

Originally Posted by All Darc

I have a question.

Is a power plant of a given X watts value (like 10)KW) refered to the type and quantity of solar panels ?. Is this value refered as the summatory of the solar panels output (in ideal sun condition), even that it don't work at noght or almost nothing in heavy cloud rain weather ?

For example, If I placed 100 solar panels of 250W each one, will this be a 25000W (25KW) solar power plant ?
I suspect it's not, because if was so a identical system on sahara desert and one identical in Finland, would produce a very different final output per month.

In case Sendler's response wasn't clear, your assumption about solar production ratings is correct. They are rated for best case conditions, but end up performing at just a fraction of their rating since the sun isn't always shining, isn't always at the right angle, and isn't always clear of clouds. As Sendler points out, Germany's solar farms average just 10% of the power output of their rating.

[All Darc]

Strange... I saw a report of 1year ago or so, and the price to intal a solar power plant, measuring from KW, was nearly the same as intall solar panels in home. Home system are not get from manufactures, but from stores, and so large power plants would be, if measured by KW, much cheaper than home system.

[freebeard]

...out performs poorly...

[/jk]

And even if you successfully replace all electricity, this is only 20-30% of all embodied energy we use to have this life style.

There's the other entire side of the equation. Vertical farms and wind powered sailing ships, houses that grow from a bio-engineered seed in five years, an accountable [smirk] AI for President of the World — any number of black swan events could make a better ROI.

[sendler]

Originally Posted by All Darc

Strange... I saw a report of 1year ago or so, and the price to intal a solar power plant, measuring from KW, was nearly the same as intall solar panels in home. .

Home rooftop grid tie is $3.30 USD/ W installed in the USA right now. I can buy the parts for $1.60/ W. Renovus just quoted me $2.17/ W for community solar where I pay them to put my panels in as part of a farm instead of on my roof which is actually pretty close to the commercial rate for a large solar farm. State and Federal rebates give back 55%

[oil pan 4]

Originally Posted by All Darc

I have a question.

Is a power plant of a given X watts value (like 10)KW) refered to the type and quantity of solar panels ?. Is this value refered as the summatory of the solar panels output (in ideal sun condition), even that it don't work at noght or almost nothing in heavy cloud rain weather ?

For example, If I placed 100 solar panels of 250W each one, will this be a 25000W (25KW) solar power plant ?
I suspect it's not, because if was so a identical system on sahara desert and one identical in Finland, would produce a very different final output per month.

Yes pretty much.
Then when you start charging batteries or transmitting the power long distance, overall losses are even higher.
A remote solar farm would have transmission losses of up to 20%. This is where individual roof top solar grid tie systems win big and the huge government funded projects lose.

[All Darc]

What a sh... A huge system, where a lot of people or a company or initiative, bought direct from factory, and installed together, close panels, with some simple inclination system with one axis to track a littlke the sun (increasing 25% of efficience), should be much cheaper per KW than a solar panel home system.

It should be be 50% of price ofm a home system.

And about power plant of a given KW number, makes no sense,. It should be calculated checking the anual averaghe of solar irradiation.
A coal power plant have it's power output given by the summatory capacity of their generator.

All these really anoys me, it's nonsense.

[oil pan 4]

Trackers are expensive and they break a lot.
Then let's say your panels are 300ish watt, 35 or so volts each and you run 20 of them in serries per set. If 1 panel tracker goes down or even if a leaf covers 1 solar cell is can cut the output in half. Your trackers have to be synchronized because the max amp output is limited by your lowest production panel.
I would rather see individuals with solar panels rather than big government.
Plus building giant solar farms is putting all your eggs in one basket so to speak. One fire, flood, mild tornado or bad hail storm can wipe out a multi billion dollar solar farm.
Plus there is always going to be some neo hippie out there that tries to stop the solar farms construction because it might interfere with some rare desert critter.
The only thing that can stop people from putting solar panels on their roof is an HOA. To me wanting to live in an HOA would be like wanting to live in nazi germany.

Another advantage individuals have is were are all connected to the power grid. The middle of the desert isn't. Long distance transmission lines have to be built to get the power out of there. Which involves more nimby neo hippie bs.

[freebeard]

It should be be 50% of price ofm a home system.
....
All these really anoys me, it's nonsense.

Of course it's all nonsense. 'Consider the lilies of the field, how they grow: they neither toil nor spin..'

If the home is an Earthship made of bamboo, instead of a box made to receive external input, the better comparison can be made.

[NeilBlanchard]

We need a mix of 3 or more renewable sources, and some storage to get to 100% renewable energy. Biomass is renewable, and can come from sewage and farm waste, or it can be pyrolysis. Methane can be stored, and used more easily than natural gas.

Pumped storage, and other gravity based storage systems are easy to do. Millions of EV's could be used to buffer the grid, and grid batteries are being developed that are far less expensive and longer lasting than lithium. Distributed small scale battery storage will help a lot.

Click on the map to see what the renewable energy system in your area could look like:

Our 100% Clean Energy Vision - The Solutions Project

I'm not sure what the worry about "nameplate capacity" is all about.

Enough sunlight hits the earth in ONE HOUR to power ALL HUMAN NEEDS FOR ONE YEAR. And wind, wave, tidal, biomass, geothermal in total, could power the world about 16X OVER.

[sendler]

Sorry. Not trying to be negative. Just pragmatic. That solution map you keep posting is typical greenwashing fluff. This percent. That percent. Blah,blah. There is no substance on that sight. No cost. No land use. No resource depletion. Our energy consumption is immense. Electricity is only 1/4 of it. .46 TW continuous electrical average for the USA. Mix it up any way you want. 2000 more 600MW solar farms. 1/2 and 1/2 wind. Whatever. Trying to store 10 TWh just to make it through the night without a blackout. Store it anyway you want. The scale is immense. That is 10,000 BigF'nBatteries. Just for the USA. Just for electrical. Just for 1 day. Use hydro if you can find it. Or gravity rail. Whatever. The scale is still immense. Please wake up people.
.
For some reason, engineers are the people that seem to grasp the scale of our dilemma in replacing fossil fuels.
.
MacKay wrote a very objective book on the feasability of solar and wind plus storage ever replacing our total energy.
.
Please read if you really want to know about the abilities of new energy.
.
http://www.withouthotair.com/cft.pdf
.
Tom Murphy do the math is also important to read.
.
https://dothemath.ucsd.edu/post-index/
.
And...
.
The objection to the constant quoting of nameplate capacity is because it is also an intentional greenwashing by the trade magazines to promote new energy. When in fact the newest "600MW" solar farm that costs blah blah per kW on feed in tarrif supported bid, really only makes 30% of that. And rooftop in NY does 1/2 of that.
.
Wind is the same. The best onshore wind farms do 25%.