"Green" Batteries

[IamIan]

Originally Posted by NeilBlanchard

Living creatures do not change the balance of carbon in the system.

Burning fossil fuels does change the balance of carbon in the air.

It's just a question of time scale.
Fossil fuels got that carbon from living creatures that sequestered it.
On a Large enough time scale total planet Carbon does not change... but on shorter time scales it does ... and living creatures are a big part of why and how that happens.

Originally Posted by Awd180

First, I don't disagree with reducing a carbon footprint but it has been shown in a number of reports that removing all personal use combustion engines wouldn't effect the carbon footprint.

There is far more to pollution and 'Green' than just the carbon footprint.
And per unit of work that gets done , ICEs in vehicles produce significantly more of those other non-Carbon pollutants per year , or per unit of fuel energy input.

Not the biggest piece ... but a disproportionally larger contributor compared to the work that gets done from / by them.

Originally Posted by Awd180

the cleanest with nearly 0 emissions a year is nuclear (only emissions are from backup diesel and gas generators).

Originally Posted by Awd180

To consider other forms of green energy product you need to also consider how they are made.

For Nuclear as well.

Don't forget to include all the pollution of building the nuclear ... mining the materials ... refining the material ... transporting the materials ... operation ... containment / disposal of all waste ... even the waste they often just vent into the air ... etc.

When the whole life cycle is all added in ... Nuclear is no where near 0 emissions any more.

Although individual studies give various results ... some painting the nuclear picture you describe , others painting the opposite ... I have not read them all ... but the trend I've seen seems to be ... that the difference in results comes from how much of the whole system , the study looks at ... smaller snap shoots more favor nuclear being very clean , even compared to RE ... larger snap shoots of the entire nuclear power system over longer period of time seem to paint a far less clean image of it compared to RE.

Originally Posted by Awd180

Wind mills and solar panels need plastics and a large amount of them, the more plastics produced is just as bad if not worse for the environment. Plus wind mills and solar panels couldn't meet the needs of society, especially if we need them to power transportation as well.

They do not 'need' plastics ... wind mills and hydro power were in use before the invention of plastics.

They use some plastic ... so does nuclear ... but it is a comparatively small % ... the vast majority of a Wind Mill for example is steel ... not plastic.

I'll agree the total net needs to be included ... including the production of the device... but the pollution and or carbon foot print of the RE production is not nearly as large as you seem to suggest there ... All combined , they are often net cleaner than any of the non-RE options.

As for Solar + Wind "couldn't met the needs of society"... that is incorrect... we don't yet have enough deployed to do so ... but there is way more than enough to be able to do so.

In 2007 annual energy consumption for the entire U.S. was ~100 Quadrillion BTUs ... transportation is a small % of that total ... that total is less than 0.5% of the total solar energy available in the US ... plus more is also available from wind , hydro , etc.(EPA Annual Energy Outlook 2009)

Originally Posted by Awd180

Hope this helps open some peoples minds, granted mine is open and I believe the technology is growing it's just the pros and cons need to be weighed justly.

100% agree.

[guudasitgets]

Originally Posted by IamIan

In 2008 when you bought it ... you had other cleaner , less pollution to operate vehicles to choose from ... you chose to buy that more polluting per mile vehicle instead

Seriously?
So now you know more about what my finances were like back then? Like I almost lost everything and had pretty much $500 dollars to my name and 300 of it I spent buying that car and one week later I started driving it and started my road back to recovery.

Nope couldn't buy a Prius for $300 bucks, But if you want to mail a check and start buying cars for me I'm all ears.

[NeilBlanchard]

Where does the carbon that animals breath out come from? Think about that.

[Awd180]

Originally Posted by IamIan

It's just a question of time scale.
Fossil fuels got that carbon from living creatures that sequestered it.
On a Large enough time scale total planet Carbon does not change... but on shorter time scales it does ... and living creatures are a big part of why and how that happens.



There is far more to pollution and 'Green' than just the carbon footprint.
And per unit of work that gets done , ICEs in vehicles produce significantly more of those other non-Carbon pollutants per year , or per unit of fuel energy input.

Not the biggest piece ... but a disproportionally larger contributor compared to the work that gets done from / by them.





For Nuclear as well.

Don't forget to include all the pollution of building the nuclear ... mining the materials ... refining the material ... transporting the materials ... operation ... containment / disposal of all waste ... even the waste they often just vent into the air ... etc.

When the whole life cycle is all added in ... Nuclear is no where near 0 emissions any more.

Although individual studies give various results ... some painting the nuclear picture you describe , others painting the opposite ... I have not read them all ... but the trend I've seen seems to be ... that the difference in results comes from how much of the whole system , the study looks at ... smaller snap shoots more favor nuclear being very clean , even compared to RE ... larger snap shoots of the entire nuclear power system over longer period of time seem to paint a far less clean image of it compared to RE.



They do not 'need' plastics ... wind mills and hydro power were in use before the invention of plastics.

They use some plastic ... so does nuclear ... but it is a comparatively small % ... the vast majority of a Wind Mill for example is steel ... not plastic.

I'll agree the total net needs to be included ... including the production of the device... but the pollution and or carbon foot print of the RE production is not nearly as large as you seem to suggest there ... All combined , they are often net cleaner than any of the non-RE options.

As for Solar + Wind "couldn't met the needs of society"... that is incorrect... we don't yet have enough deployed to do so ... but there is way more than enough to be able to do so.

In 2007 annual energy consumption for the entire U.S. was ~100 Quadrillion BTUs ... transportation is a small % of that total ... that total is less than 0.5% of the total solar energy available in the US ... plus more is also available from wind , hydro , etc.(EPA Annual Energy Outlook 2009)



100% agree.

First I read the current epa report on energy consumption, coal is the leader with an astounding amount. Other wise it's been calculated by numerous people capable of providing valid results, covering the glob in solar panels wouldn't come close to meeting a small percent of our needs. The same for wind and water, the wind isn't predictable enough and harvesting power from water ways is to limited.

[RedDevil]

Originally Posted by Awd180

... Other wise it's been calculated by numerous people capable of providing valid results, covering the glob in solar panels wouldn't come close to meeting a small percent of our needs...

Ah ha, so you did not work that out by yourself.
I did.

A typical solar panel can deliver say 100 Watt per square meter.
The globe does have a lot of square meters. If we take just land for practicality that's 148,940,000,000,000 of them, according to Wikipedia.

The panel will only yield power half of the time, and almost never reach its peak. It will be more effective close to the equator and in areas with al lot of fair weather. If their average production is just 10% of their full capacity we're on the safe side. It is likely more than that, but 10% is enough for now.

So the earth could yield 1,489,400,000,000,000 Watt continuously (1.489 pentaWatt; 10% of 100W per square meter)
The total world energy consumption in 2008 according to Wikipedia was 143.851 pentaWatthour.
So in just 4 days the solar cells would have provided all the energy the earth needs in a full year. Not just electric but all, including oil etc.

It does not cover a small percentage of our needs, I give you that.
It covers 9200% of our needs. Being conservative in panel efficiency and exposure...

Such a pity those panels are so expensive, or else...
Some companies claim it will be possible in the near future to print solar panels just like any ordinary newspaper.
If that ever becomes true the whole ball game is turned over. You can choose any color for your car as long as it is solar panel color Same for your roof plating, same for outer walls, you name it.

Time for bed around here. I'll sleep well tonight.

[Xist]

Originally Posted by RedDevil

It does not cover a small percentage of our needs, I give you that.
It covers 9200% of our needs. Being conservative in panel efficiency and exposure...

Well, good. We only need to cover 1/92nd of the current land. There are more than enough places that I will never visit!

[Awd180]

Originally Posted by RedDevil

Ah ha, so you did not work that out by yourself.
I did.

A typical solar panel can deliver say 100 Watt per square meter.
The globe does have a lot of square meters. If we take just land for practicality that's 148,940,000,000,000 of them, according to Wikipedia.

The panel will only yield power half of the time, and almost never reach its peak. It will be more effective close to the equator anwd in areas with al lot orf fair weather. If their average production is just 10% of their full capacity we're on the safe side. It is likely more than that, but 10% is enough for now.

So the earth could yield 1,489,400,000,000,000 Watt continuously (1.489 pentaWatt)
The total world energy consumption in 2008 according to Wuikipedia was 143.851 pentaWatthour.
So in just 4 days the solar cells would have provided all the energy the earth needs in a full year. Not just electric but all, including oil etc.

It does not cover a small percentage of our needs, I give you that.
It covers 9200% of our needs. Being conservative in panel efficiency and exposure...

Such a pity those panels are so expensive, or else...
Some companies claim it will be possible in the near future to print solar panels just like any ordinary newspaper.
If that ever becomes true the whole ball game is turned over. You can choose any color for your car as long as it is solar panel color Same for your roof plating, same for outer walls, you name it.

Time for bed around here. I'll sleep well tonight.

Land Area (148,429,000 sq km) 29.1%
or 148,429,000,000 sq m not 148429000000 000

But still you get into functionality of a solar at a peak around the equator, why? Alaska has the longest days.

Your figures don't account for error, weather, and rotational speed of the earth, the reports I've read are run from trial performance of solar cells in operation. Solar cells are fixed and can't track the path of the sun, not to mention clearing that much land or the fraction that could contribute the amount of energy produced threw coal would be more damaging.

Solar cells are viable source for individual use but not a complete answer.

In ten years it may be the best choice, but for now it's not. You're finding variables but missing the other factors at play, there is and still is enough destruction of land for energy, industrial, and society.

[sheepdog 44]

^ Is that all the land on earth, or just the usable land (dessert city etc.) Lets not forget wind, tidal, Geo, infrared etc. Far more than enough renewable energy potential.

There's storage of that excess energy during the day to deal with too, like a "green" battery.

The one thing i don't like about solar is that the lifespan of a panel is anywhere from 20-40 years. If you're going to be making macro scale installations, you're not going to want to replace the whole thing every half a century.

[Xist]

Originally Posted by sheepdog 44

^ Is that all the land on earth, or just the usable land (dessert city etc.) Lets not forget wind, tidal, Geo, infrared etc. Far more than enough renewable energy potential.

There's storage of that excess energy during the day to deal with too, like a "green" battery.

The one thing i don't like about solar is that the lifespan of a panel is anywhere from 20-40 years. If you're going to be making macro scale installations, you're not going to want to replace the whole thing every half a century.

If it were even possible to do this, I bet that it would take 20-40 years, and hopefully technology would keep pace with increasing demand, since by the time we would finish, we would need to start replacing them.

[NeilBlanchard]

The amount of energy from the sun that hits the earth in one hour is enough to power the entire globe for an entire year. So given inefficiencies and losses and that we can't cover everything with PV panels - it would take a month to gather enough energy for an entire year.

And that is just solar PV. Overall from all the different sources of renewable energy, we can gather about 16X as much energy as we need.

http://earththeoperatorsmanual.com/f...erators-manual
POWERING THE PLANET | Earth: The Operators' Manual
http://earththeoperatorsmanual.com/f...ergy-quest-usa