The climate change consensus extends beyond climate scientists

[freebeard]

This affirms something that I believe, that a global tax based on shaky science is a Bad Thing. Shaky science? Let's start with astrophysics:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Bl4fVY2d5ok

TLDR; the outer planets farther from the Sun have the more violent storms.

Hey, let's have politicians debate the different between a treaty and an accord.

[sendler]

Originally Posted by NeilBlanchard

Why then is wind and solar

The Topaz solar farm is doing 1301 GWh per year on 25km^2 of land and cost $2.4B.
.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Topaz_Solar_Farm
.
If it really were to try to replace anything it would need storage since it operates at 24.4% of rated capacity. 6Gwh of batteries doesn't really get you through the night occasionally. $200/kWh.$1.5B. And the batteries will last how long? And can't cover a single cloudy day without a gas plant or something else.
.
A single Gen3+ Westinghouse AP1000 Reactor for $7B will make this much power in 50 days on 1km of land.
.
AP1000 Pressurized Water Reactor | Westinghouse Nuclear
.
Day, night, rain, shine. 0 carbon. And there are better designs just waiting to be built if we let them. The World needs 30 TeraWatts all electric by 2200 when the oil runs out.

[oil pan 4]

Nuclear power is the only thing affordable that will make rated power day and night around the clock.
The only other thing that can kind of do that is hydro if there is enough water.

[sendler]

And now I see that there is alot of misinformation about cost. If the two new AP1000 nuclear plants outside Atlanta really come in at $7B each they will be 1/4 the cost of grid scale photovoltaic plus storage. And consume 1/25 the space. And be much more versatile and reliable. And don't have to be located in the desert.

[oil pan 4]

These huge super expensive over priced underperforming solar arrays make me laugh.
Then I remember who paid for it, then I don't laugh.

[sendler]

Forgot the Nuclear plant was making 8 times the power of Topaz solar so the land use of a comparable solar farm would be 200km^2
.
Solar and wind are just not realistically dense enough. People just do not take into consideration the immense amount of power being consumed. 2.7 TeraWatt continuous electric. 17 TeraWatt continuous total energy.
.
600,000 km^2 in the optimum sunniest locations plus storage covered with solar panels to replace just the electricity of what we are using right now. multiply that times 6 to replace all energy. And double that every 70 years for 2% growth.
.
.

.
.

[rmay635703]

Originally Posted by sendler

The Topaz solar farm is doing 1301 GWh per year on 25km^2 of land

If it really were to try to replace anything it would need storage since it operates at 24.4% of rated capacity. .

Why?

Oil fired power is only 8% cap factor and natural gas and coal hover under 50% in most markets.

Solar power can load balance during the daylight hours, "other " types of power plants can easily ramp up if there is a disruption or large unexpected nighttime load.

Nuclear power as of today wastes 99% of its fuel, only Thorium could invert that factor.

I would love to see more nuclear but only MSR and "passive" nuclear power.

The Japanese were the only people to get a passive nuclear recharging EV, the radium battery only made 500 watts but it was an excellent showcase of what the future could hold.

[Frank Lee]

Originally Posted by sendler

Forgot the Nuclear plant was making 8 times the power of Topaz solar so the land use of a comparable solar farm would be 200km^2
.
Solar and wind are just not realistically dense enough. People just do not take into consideration the immense amount of power being consumed. 2.7 TeraWatt continuous electric. 17 TeraWatt continuous total energy...
.
.

Too much focus on generating capacity; not enough on conservation.

[oil pan 4]

Make industrial power uses put at least some of their motors on instrument controlled variable frequency drives.
It will save more power and CO2 than anything you can force consumers to do.
Right now something like only 4% of industrial motors are on drives.

[sendler]

Originally Posted by rmay635703

Why?

Why solar needs storage to replace fossil fuel or nuclear fired electriclal generation: The Topaz solar farm has been running for a few years now so there is some good long term data. It is operating at 25% of it's rated capacity because solar by nature will be either weak or off most of the time as the sun goes over. You obviously can't do studies on the effectiveness of solar using the rated capacity of the panels. This is where all of the kumbaya numbers in the media come from that have everyone brainwashed right now. Just stating the cost per rated capacity. They know it is wrong and keep stating it anyway to push the agenda that solar has become cheaper than other forms of electricity.
.
And Topaz is located in a southern desert. What percentage of capacity is a panel going to produce in NYC or Toronto.
.
But electrical grids have to be stable. So if solar and wind want to replace fossil fuel, they have to have enough storage to make up for the down times. I like heavy rail/ gravity storage.
.
Conversion efficiency of different methods was never brought up. The 25% factor of Topaz is the on/ off time. It would be like saying a gas or nuclear plant was broken 75% of the time.
.
Please people. Look ahead. Even if you want to discount carbon emission problems as a reason to act. There is an energy crunch coming as fossil fuels will inevitably dwindle. Energy is health and prosperity. It takes a century to repace 17 TW. We need to make the right altruistic decisions now and work steadily to pull this off without a crash.
.
Let’s Run the Numbers – Nuclear Energy vs. Wind and Solar | The Energy Reality Project
.