doublejj
Well-Known Member
im not trying to supply america with power......only me!. Arizona can take care of itself
Renewable Energy + Battery Storage = Fossil Fuels Obsolete, Even Natural Gas
- Thread starter ttystikk
- Start date
ginjawarrior
Well-Known Member
wow you really got this whole climate change thing sorted here
so you are total self sufficient? you produc everything you need to live on your own land? building materials and car included right?
that elecetric car your planning on powering with your rooftop solar panels is only for use on your own land right?
ginjawarrior
Well-Known Member
what are they gonna run on good wishes and rainbows??soon trucks won't even use diesel fuel......
you'd need either coal, nuclear or solar panels running hundreds of miles in every direction in the background of that picture for that future
rooftop solar wont provide what you want
ginjawarrior
Well-Known Member
i take it you are total self sufficient in your home? all buuilding supplies were made by yourself onsite by hand? all solar panels made yourself from scratch by hand? this electric car you speak about is made totally from scratch and purley for use on your own land?
if so brilliant
its just a i got a bit confused by the wording in this post
"long way to addressing OUR energy problems"
"WE must start taking bigger steps into the future"
i thought i was the words of someone sensibly thinking about the worlds energy problems when in fact it was just an idiot hippy patting himself on the back for putting up a couple of panels and pretending that all the work needed doing is done
doublejj
Well-Known Member
solar panels covering warehouse roofs charging up batteries all day and charging trucks at night. Plus tesla is developing superchargers for these trucks at will charge them in 30min. It's not gonna happen overnight, we didn't get into this mess overnight, but solar is the future
ginjawarrior
Well-Known Member
you'd need more than warehouse roofs......
again an area the size of arizona
your damn right it wouldnt happen over night it would take hundreds of years to cover an area that size
to do it in 100 years
3000km2 a year for first 20 years
6000km2 a year after that
9000km2 a year after 40 years
just to grow by 1% a year
thats just for the usa
doublejj
Well-Known Member
quit building obsolete nuclear/coal power plants. Energize each home/business with as much solar as they have room and get them off the grid ASAP. This alone will greatly reduce demand on the grid. Forget your old centralized power plant thinking. local energy production is where it's at....kind of a farm-to-fork movement only with power. Make it local and use it local...pretty basic
ginjawarrior
Well-Known Member
magic thinking and hand waving....
you cannot get away from the large scale needed especially if you want your battery powered trucks
at least be fucking honest with what your asking by being realistic with the numbers
ttystikk
Well-Known Member
@doublejj is right; covering roofs with solar panels would be huge, not least because all that rooftop real estate is already there and otherwise unused.
Keep in mind that up to 30% of peer generated is lost in transmission from plant to customer. Rooftop solar doesn't suffer from this problem because the primary user is literally just feet from the source. That makes it even more efficient.
Solving the world's energy demands issues is going to take a flexible approach. You seem stuck on the notion that the one size of nuclear fits all and nothing else will do. That's incorrect and unrealistic; forest, nuclear needs to run flat out constantly, aka 'baseload' power generation. Yet power consumption is anything but flat; it fluctuates with time of day, day of the week, the seasons and with the rise and fall of various industries.
The notion that the only waste created by breeder reactor plants is the fuel is laughable; the whole facility becomes increasingly radioactive over time. In fact, long exposure to that very radiation is exactly why they have finite lifespans!
The half lives of all that radioactive material is measured in millennia; it will take longer for that material to become safe than the entirety of the story of human civilisation.
You seem awfully sanguine about leaving an incredibly dangerous and dirty legacy for our great grand children's great grandchildren. Maybe you don't care about that but once the costs are made clear, the vast majority of the rest of us most certainly do.
In other words, find a way to power your Xbox WITHOUT polluting the next 1000 generations of humans, FFS!
Last edited:
ttystikk
Well-Known Member
His solution is anything but magic; it's available and accessible. That model of a house that generates its own energy is scalable and repeatable nationwide.
Remember that America's building standard assumes buildings will only last 30 years; yet there are lots of buildings still working fine that are twice that old.
I think geothermal is the clean nuclear replacement of the future; there's plenty available, it's practically unlimited, it's carbon neutral and can run continuously.
ANC
Well-Known Member
I have recently looked into putting one of my LED lights on solar.
about 350W run for 12 hours a day needing 4.2kWh of power.
I looked at getting 4 260W panels. Now we have longish days, shortest days in winter are 5.8 hours.
Anyhow there is a very fancy calculator you can enter data into that uses google maps and climate maps to then give you a breakdown month to month of how much power you will be generating and the value thereof. Even with over 1kW of panels, for 3 months of the year, I would need to buy power from the network to top up the shortfall. Each of those panels is about the size of the LED fixture. So you would need 4 times the solar panel surface area that you have in grow space.
about 350W run for 12 hours a day needing 4.2kWh of power.
I looked at getting 4 260W panels. Now we have longish days, shortest days in winter are 5.8 hours.
Anyhow there is a very fancy calculator you can enter data into that uses google maps and climate maps to then give you a breakdown month to month of how much power you will be generating and the value thereof. Even with over 1kW of panels, for 3 months of the year, I would need to buy power from the network to top up the shortfall. Each of those panels is about the size of the LED fixture. So you would need 4 times the solar panel surface area that you have in grow space.
ginjawarrior
Well-Known Member
Your definition of huge is different to mine..
Already addressed with the initial link I posted to "without hot air"
He assumes added efficiency and gives a best case scenario of the arizona sized piece of land being enough for 500million people
So at best you would need 3/5 of Arizona land covered
I'm plenty flexible im all for the idea of adding renewables. I'm realistic about what is needed tho and nuclear has to without a doubt do a lot of the heavy lifting with this.
And as to your point about power consumption fluctuating.. renewables are the worst for that as they usually provide power during the times when they are not needed
Yeah most of what you just said falls squarely into "not even wrong"
You seem perfectly happy carrying on the status quo of pumping co2 into the atmosphere and fucking up the GLOBE for hundreds of thousands of years
What's with all these comments about screen savers and Xboxes?
Aren't you a fucking indoor grower.....?
ttystikk
Well-Known Member
Umm unless you're in a different city than I thought, your shortest day should have been last month and it was 9 hours 53 minutes. That's plenty long enough for good solar gain.
Yes, the standard calculation is about 4x the area under lights in solar panels.
Considering that the efficiency of indoor growing can be as much as 100 times more efficient than outdoors on an annualized basis, that's damn promising!
ttystikk
Well-Known Member
Solar power is very well matched to the cooling needs of building, considering tide buildings need cooling as a direct result of the sunlight falling on them!
Batteries are the secret. Stationary units can be less expensive types than mobile units because they don't need to be lightweight or compact.
Power utilities themselves are the ones doing the math and finding that renewables, specifically a combination of wind, solar and batteries, is more cost effective than fossil fuels, which is itself cheaper than nuclear.
Fogdog
Well-Known Member
Safety of nuclear power has been over estimated when making financial decisions for decades and the costs have come to rest on the utility's customers. You are just repeating the same old song and people have stopped listening.