The climate change consensus extends beyond climate scientists

[gone-ot]

Originally Posted by All Darc

The solar trackers paradox :

Why increase cost a lot by putting trackers to increase energy output in 40%, if you need more than 50% more space to create a solar farm with trackers, since the trackers require space for the shadows generated but the panels with trackers ?

Why not just put the panells in almost 90 degree, (in tropical countries it's possible) and put panels closer, since without trackers you can optimize space ?

It's a "Make Hay While the Sun Shines" approach, be as efficient as physically possible (by tracking)...but, OH!, those mechanical alignment and wear problems!

[freebeard]

A sarcasm shortage in Brazil? Who knew?

Originally Posted by redpoint5

Solar can make financial sense at the micro level because individuals don't have to contend with the enormously difficult problem of balancing power supply with demand in real time.

Solar MQTT. Selfish Solar on a Global Scale - BOB (Battery on Board). - EVTV Motor Verks

Hurricane Florence again pointed up both the vulnerability of our grid system and the advantages of solar power – along with its’ principle weakness.... One nuclear power plant was shut down entirely and two others operated at limited capacity, while over half of Duke Energy’s 3.4 million customers were without power for nearly a week and some 80,000 suffered outages for nearly two weeks.

But the damage to solar installations across the state was trivial with a handful of panels damaged.

If we take the costs of the national average kiloWatt-hour of electrical power, we find that less than 30% actually goes to power production. Another 30% goes to transmission, that is the transportation from a power plant to an urban area. And about 40% goes to distribution, the local wiring within a community.

And of course, both transmission and distribution are still done primarilly with overhead wires that also feature efficiency losses of 10-12%.

This is why I’m increasingly focused on the concept of generating power AT the point of use. Solar photovoltaic technology is no longer a science project.
....
And so for the present, we advocate maintaining a link to the grid. But we advocate you remain under the utility grid radar by simply maintaining a basic 200A 240vac link to the grid and paying the monthly minimum connection fee. Do NOT seek a “net metering” agreement or do anything to alert them that you are anything but a very low usage residential or commercial customer.

As it is QUITE common to have empty houses or apartments or dark warehouses for months or years, they really don’t have much in the way of tools to DETECT that you don’t use much electricity – as long as you pay that $11.24 connection fee every month. And you quite likely need to have a grid connection just for local code compliance.

And so you should have one. And use it as little as possible as a backup to augment your power system.

So we’ve inverted the usual scenario. Instead of a battery back up system for grid power, we envision a grid backed up battery system.

And we advocate abandoning the kumbayah vision of everybody sharing and loving each other. Do NOT seek net metering or compensation from the grid operator.

We call this SELFISH SOLAR. And of course the end mission remains the same – total independence from the grid ultimately. And we further see it as based on repurposed EV batteries for solar energy storage.

[redpoint5]

...and we're back to the subject of leveling the grid via smart connected EVs. Creating a "cellular" (small zone) grid of interconnected homes might improve efficiency and robustness.

Self-reliance appeals to me, especially if it saves me money. As it is, I don't think self-reliance can save me money unless my battery backup solution doubles as something else I need, such as transportation.

[Xist]

Redpoint,

[evil voice] You're evil!



It is good to know that 70% of electricity is lost between generation and end users. I shared before that rooftop solar costs twice as much as what it costs a solar farm, but if it costs twice as much, but actually provides 5/3rds the value, that sounds like a good benefit.

[sendler]

Originally Posted by aerohead

Please bear in mind that this level of consumption is contextual,conditional.
With the stroke of a pen,it could be curtailed drastically.

How so???
?
How much less? So if we magically cut primary energy consumption in half tomorrow, we would be at 4% from solar and wind with installed storage still not a visible percentage an any chart.
.
Do not forget that most energy is embodied into civilization infrastructure and food production. Every massive efficiency transition is estimated to eventually buy us 1/2. Eventually. Theoretically.
.
So far to go. So little liquid fuel to get there.

[sendler]

PDF round up of hundreds of small modular reactor designs under consideration.
.
https://aris.iaea.org/Publications/SMR-Book_2018.pdf
.

[oil pan 4]

Originally Posted by Xist

Redpoint,

[evil voice] You're evil!



It is good to know that 70% of electricity is lost between generation and end users. I shared before that rooftop solar costs twice as much as what it costs a solar farm, but if it costs twice as much, but actually provides 5/3rds the value, that sounds like a good benefit.

Not 70% of electricity, around 70% of the fuels original energy, unless it's a natural gas burned in a
combined cycle plant.
Or a large 2 stroke diesel engine, when I say large I mean like 50,000hp and bigger.

The most efficient a single rankine cycle plant can be is around 42% on paper. In real life its like it's more like 35 to 38%.
A Rankine cycle running off the heat rejection of a Brayton cycle can achieve combined system efficiency of around 70%.
Nuclear pressurized water reactors tend to run a little less efficient to achieve a wider margin of safety, mainly due to the limitations of a 2 pass water system. Can anyone blame them?

[redpoint5]

Originally Posted by Xist

It is good to know that 70% of electricity is lost between generation and end users. I shared before that rooftop solar costs twice as much as what it costs a solar farm, but if it costs twice as much, but actually provides 5/3rds the value, that sounds like a good benefit.

It's not 70% loss of electricity; it's 70% of the cost is in infrastructure to interconnect everything and transmit power.

My cellular grid idea still involves interconnection and transmission costs; it's perhaps a little cheaper because the infrastructure would encompass only the area that makes the most sense. This leaves people out in rural areas still dependant on the existing grid infrastructure. If they are expected to bear their actual cost in supplying electricity to them, then it will require a huge upfront cost, and would incentivise people to move from rural areas to more populated areas. Perhaps not entirely a bad idea, although more populated areas also tend to have their own added cost of living expenses (SF is insane/why do people live there).

[RedDevil]

While you can point solar cells towards the sun, that also raises the temperature in those panels making them less efficient. So part of the gain that should be had will be lost to reduced PV efficiency, especially on hot days.

Also, by placing the panels so that they do not ever face the sun straight on (like laying them almost flat at higher latitudes) allows for using smaller, cheaper inverters.
Laying them flat makes them catch more light in the hours just after sunrise and before sunset, especially in May to July.

It is hard to make a tracking system that does not expose the leads in some way.
A fixed roof mounted system can have the leads completely hidden under the panels.

All in all the cost, complexity and vulnerability of tracking systems usually outweighs the benefits. The cheaper panels will get, the less tracking systems make sense.

[All Darc]

Have you figured out how diapers it's killing the planet ?

Population don't stop growing. And the reason they don't want to stop, the political, it's because there will be many old people alive to be taken care, requiring young people to assist, care of then, change their diapers and spent money with health care.
So the new pollitics try to pull this problem away as they can, with new medicines research (stemm cell in CHina), with more people born to get more young in relation to the numbers of old people. They try to keep the diapers away.

But the planet no longer can hold a lot of people, population growing.

The city of Domes, in Logan's Run fictional fantasy, had a solution, killing people before they get old. This would avoit about colapse of the system, reduce costs, avoit dirty diapers and need of caretakers.



Also avoid back pain, reduce incidence of cellulits in women, prevents skin premature agging.