How many solar generating facilities for $60 Billion a year?

[Eeyore]

So those people who want free electricity

Who said it was free ?

Graham

 

[Eeyore]

So those people who want free electricity would install some sort of storage
system (yes they will have to pay up front for the batteries and the
maintenance but they get free electricity

Have you ANY idea how expensive battery storage of electricity is ? It's INSANE.

And where's this FREE electricity coming from.

You're an ignorant deluded fool.

Graham

 

[Eeyore]

The government pays for it

Fucking MORON.

Where do you think the government gets its money from ? Do you think they have
an endless supply of it ?

When the system is big enough to supply electric to home users then it can
be built larger to include industry. Until then they will have to use the
old fashion way of power plants making electricity...
I am not saying to shut down the old power plants, will still need them for
night time use for those that don't want to have batteries in their house...

Locate the PV power plants in different areas, even if those areas are not
the best in getting sun power. The locations, why not use the right of ways
along freeways, railroads, airport runways, military bases... Again once
the system is big enough to handle home usage, give industries the chance to
place PV systems on their roofs, the more they have on roof the lower the
rate they have to pay for night time use... Same thing can be done for home
owners...

You're a bloody MORON !

Crackpots like you who haven't even thought once about using a calculator to
examine the pure IDIOCY of their ideas are 2 a penny.

Now piss off.

Graham

 

[Mauried]

I just meant that it's feasible. It will just require big
infrastructures. But not only solar requires big infrastructures
then I listed some non solar big infrastructure examples.


Oil + Gas import cost between 5 and 10% of nations GDP (no transport,
no reffining, no distribution included). USA *imports* 13 million oil
barrel *a_day*(1): 13E6 x 100 x 365 = $474 billion a year: 3% of US GDP
Only for oil imports. For European countries or Japan, it's close to
10% of GDP if you add natural gas.

Not little money either (not talking to *whom* we pay that money).

Solar will have a cost and benefits.

For the cost of storage, I just took the dams example: 30 dams or
one single Itaipu to show there too that it's 'feasible'. But tuning
kWh price as a reverse function of sun availability would promote
investments in any kind of storage, another possibility.


*RIGHT* . And for oil, coal, gas: price is rising, *suspected* to
cause a global warming via CO2 emission when burned, reserves are
limited and out of our control, rotten the air we breathe (ozone
in summer + small particules all year long). Not talking of oil
spills, oil wars, oil dictatures, ...

Solar is feasible *now* with current technology.

Erdy

(1)https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/rankorder/2175rank.html

What do the imports of oil and gas have to do with Solar Power.
The majority of the worlds power stations are running on either coal
or are nukes.

If you wish to replace the Coal Power stations with Solar, you will
still import oil and gas.

Solar power doesnt remove the need for oil and gas.

 

[Erdemal]

What do the imports of oil and gas have to do with Solar Power.
The majority of the worlds power stations are running on either coal
or are nukes.

If you wish to replace the Coal Power stations with Solar, you will
still import oil and gas.

Solar power doesnt remove the need for oil and gas.

You win. You're the best.

Erdy

 

[Eeyore]

May remove the need to import petroleum to the USA from countries they
can't get along with.

With luck that may at least stop the USA starting wars all over the place.

Graham

 

[Eeyore]

For instance, railroads can be run almost entirely on electricity.

Absolutely but what would be the 'environmental impact' in terms of energy
and resources used electrifying say a 3000 mi US transcontinental rail
track compared with the benefits ensuing therefrom ? I bet the numbers are
shockingly bad.

Graham

 

[Eeyore]

High speed rail between cities can replace short-hop airlines.

Not while you still have roads crossing rail tracks. Nor can you mix
'ordinary' rail with high speed. The benchmark French TGV runs on
dedicated rails.

Graham

 

[Eeyore]

Electric cars are emerging in a viable form

Show me even ONE viable electric only car.

Graham

 

[Eeyore]

While the Earth turns solar will never be a total replacement for
electricity 24 hours a day.

Besides what is the problem with only have the electricity supplied to the
house when the sun is out and having home owners having their own battery
storage?

Batteries are too costly and short lived for realistic heavy power storage.

Graham

 

[Mauried]

You win. You're the best.

Erdy

I dont win anything.
Im just trying to be realistic, something thats severly lacking in
this newsgroup.

 

[Eeyore]

So how do you store power from your PV's?
Or does your power go off at night

I don't have any PVs.

The best use for PV solar power is to reduce the need for (or use of)
fossil fuel driven peaking generation.

Grid power is the only sensible method for distributing large scale
electricity.

Graham

 

[Eeyore]

So using solar power to create electricity to you is a crackpot idea no
matter what anyone says...

It IS at current prices since it makes hopelessly expensive electricity
that requires subsidies.

What's wrong with the idea of PV solar to reduce the requirement for
peaking generation I'd like to know ? That's EXACTLY the idea behind the
current Califoria scheme AIUI.

Graham

 

[Mauried]

It IS at current prices since it makes hopelessly expensive electricity
that requires subsidies.

What's wrong with the idea of PV solar to reduce the requirement for
peaking generation I'd like to know ? That's EXACTLY the idea behind the
current Califoria scheme AIUI.

Graham

For any large scale power generation , Solar Thermal will always be
more cost effective than Solar PV.
Mirrors are much less expensive than Solar Panels.
Its unfortunate that Solar Thermal doesnt scale down very well.

 

[[email protected]]

Its unfortunate that Solar Thermal doesnt scale down very well.

It scales down very well for heating houses. Around here, houses need
5 times more heat energy than electrical energy, and PVs can cost
100 times more per peak watt.

Nick

 

[Mauried]

It scales down very well for heating houses. Around here, houses need
5 times more heat energy than electrical energy, and PVs can cost
100 times more per peak watt.

Nick

Yes thats true, but it doesnt scale down well for generating power in
your house.
Where can you buy a small domestic sized steam turbine and boiler.

 

[Erdeemal]

It was just to compare the discussed 30000 square miles solar PV cost
and current oil cost. If you read the thread you would knew.

With 30000 square miles of PV and the storage infrastructure, you
need nothing else. Getting all US energy from the sun was the
purpose of the thread.

I dont win anything.

No you dont.

Im just trying to be realistic, something thats severly lacking in
this newsgroup.

I was just trying to show that 100% sun energy would not be that
expensive compared to oil costs.

I dont think that 100% sun energy is reasonable but ?70% yes.

I learned here that when you have huge reserves of accessible
cheap coal, as USA does, why bother with Solar if you dont
*believe* in global warming. Coal can produce cheap electricity,
and be transformed in ethylen then gasoline, ethanol(btw much
cheaper than bio one), ...

Chosing solar is more a cultural and political issue than a
technical one.

Erdy

 

[Mauried]

It was just to compare the discussed 30000 square miles solar PV cost
and current oil cost. If you read the thread you would knew.


With 30000 square miles of PV and the storage infrastructure, you
need nothing else. Getting all US energy from the sun was the
purpose of the thread.


No you dont.


I was just trying to show that 100% sun energy would not be that
expensive compared to oil costs.

I dont think that 100% sun energy is reasonable but ?70% yes.

I learned here that when you have huge reserves of accessible
cheap coal, as USA does, why bother with Solar if you dont
*believe* in global warming. Coal can produce cheap electricity,
and be transformed in ethylen then gasoline, ethanol(btw much
cheaper than bio one), ...

Chosing solar is more a cultural and political issue than a
technical one.

Erdy

Well of course it is.
Just about everything in the world happens for political or cultural
reasons.
Its technically possible to give everyone in the world free solar
cells to put on their roofs.
This would solve most of the worlds energy problems, but it wont
happen.
Simply because something is technically possible doesnt mean it can
actually be done on a large scale.
Why not choose wind over solar, its cheaper and just as clean.

 

[[email protected]]

Why not choose wind over solar, its cheaper and just as clean.

With rare exception, PV arrays don't kill birds.

 

[[email protected]]

It's my understanding that, with rare exceptions, wind turbines
don't kill birds either.

More than PV.

There are agreements to run less than the total wind turbines in Altamont
Pass, to try to reduce the bird kills.

http://www.energy.ca.gov/pier/environmental/project_summaries/PS_500-01-019_THELANDER.PDF
http://www.eoearth.org/article/Altamont_Pass,_California