Renewable Energy + Battery Storage = Fossil Fuels Obsolete, Even Natural Gas

ginjawarrior

ginjawarrior

Well-Known Member
Fogdog said:
This is interesting.

One of the main criticisms you have of PV is that the tech isn't all that mature and there are obstacles to installing them.
Click to expand...
PV tech is getting as close to mature as it could be. There's the laws of thermodynamics that gets in the way.
The industry needed to produce 3000km2 a year just for the USA is non existent.

Atm we're using fossil fuels to make renewables at a rate that cannot possibly cure the problems with co2

There are some things I can really get behind like
A simple coating cools solar panels by reflecting the heat into outer space
Click to expand...


https://www.google.co.uk/amp/s/www.zmescience.com/ecology/renewable-energy-ecology/reflecting-heat-in-space-solar-panel-53543/amp/[/quote]
I could really get behind the idea of a push for next 10 20 years get nuclear to 25-30 land then spend the next 100 years plutting down solar along with the heat reflection as a double whammy.

But if we set off trying to do it alongside cutting back nuclear then it's going to be too late by the time you've built enough to do anything



Yet you talk about nuclear as if the tech is mature (it is but the mature tech is the same kind that brought Japan to decide it is not worth the investment). When we talk about technical issues with the current tech, you cite reactor designs that are purely hypothetical or have their own drawbacks.
Click to expand...
nothing is perfect every energy source has its own problems.

They aren't purely hypothetical there's been examples of pretty much all of them built around in various universities. It's just they haven't been put in to large commercial scale yet. The theory behind them is very well known.

Nuclear is dirty, unsafe and creates hazards to the communities around them. None of this exists with solar.
Click to expand...
I've lived near a nuclear power station all my life.

The only hazard it has to me is the armed security if I ever broke into the site....

The mining of the massive amount of materials needed to build 3000km² is dirty and creates hazards for the community around

The processing of materials is dirty and will create hazards for the community around

And don't get me started on the many many many factories needed to produce 3000km² a year

Musk's giga factory? It would be nothing compared to what's needed
 
Fogdog

Fogdog

Well-Known Member
ginjawarrior said:
PV tech is getting as close to mature as it could be. There's the laws of thermodynamics that gets in the way.
The industry needed to produce 3000km2 a year just for the USA is non existent.

Atm we're using fossil fuels to make renewables at a rate that cannot possibly cure the problems with co2

There are some things I can really get behind like


https://www.google.co.uk/amp/s/www.zmescience.com/ecology/renewable-energy-ecology/reflecting-heat-in-space-solar-panel-53543/amp/
I could really get behind the idea of a push for next 10 20 years get nuclear to 25-30 land then spend the next 100 years plutting down solar along with the heat reflection as a double whammy.

But if we set off trying to do it alongside cutting back nuclear then it's going to be too late by the time you've built enough to do anything



nothing is perfect every energy source has its own problems.

They aren't purely hypothetical there's been examples of pretty much all of them built around in various universities. It's just they haven't been put in to large commercial scale yet. The theory behind them is very well known.

I've lived near a nuclear power station all my life.

The only hazard it has to me is the armed security if I ever broke into the site....

The mining of the massive amount of materials needed to build 3000km² is dirty and creates hazards for the community around

The processing of materials is dirty and will create hazards for the community around

And don't get me started on the many many many factories needed to produce 3000km² a year

Musk's giga factory? It would be nothing compared to what's needed
Click to expand...
Fukushima, Three Mile Island,

Has anything like that happened with solar power?

You keep sweeping the safety record of nuclear under the rug. There have been nearly a hundred nuclear power plant accidents, in many at least one person killed and in most, radiation released.

Not to mention that no commercial outfit will fund the building of a nuclear reactor in the US.

You haven't named anything about solar that is anywhere close to what nuclear power plant accidents have done.

And nuclear isn't necessary. A bit part to keep the lights on where needed is all that makes any sense.
 
UncleBuck

UncleBuck

Well-Known Member
The Government said:
It's very simple. Your plants outside, (you do grow cannabis plants don't you?) Are sitting around at atmospheric co2 levels around 400ppm that are at least 1/3 of what they really need to reach full potential and 1/2 way to them not growing at all.

So what's the ideal atmospheric saturation of co2 for humans that need plants to survive? Surely an expert like yourself knows this simple answer since you sound the alarm so loudly at the present saturation levels.
Click to expand...
You’re still dodging

Why can’t you cite one expert on your side?
 
Fogdog

Fogdog

Well-Known Member
Dmannn said:
Here is a quick search, doesn't talk about the kinds of waste but i can tell you it isn't nice. Any kind of electro plating or acid etch washing (processing photo glass) produces toxic waste.

http://www.businessinsider.com/solar-panel-makers-grappling-with-waste-2013-2
Click to expand...
So, I totally agree with you. Manufacturing PV can be a source of pollution if not managed. The problems are hardly any different from most industries but not insignificant. The last paragraph gets at why I'm not so put off by it:

The roughly 20-year life of a solar panel still makes it some of the cleanest energy technology currently available. Producing solar is still significantly cleaner than fossil fuels. Energy derived from natural gas and coal-fired power plants, for example, creates more than 10 times more hazardous waste than the same energy created by a solar panel, according to Mulvaney.

There are issues. Especially in about 20 years when today's panels need to be retired. We have to recycle them rather than bury them in a waste site. We haven't built that capability yet. It is an economic problem not a technical one but still, we haven't built up the capacity for recycling them.

Still, we haven't yet found a safe storage solution for nuclear waste. After all this time, nuclear plants are just storing their waste awaiting the day that some unfortunate county becomes the nation's nuclear waste depository.
 
Dmannn

Dmannn

Well-Known Member
Fogdog said:
So, I totally agree with you. Manufacturing PV can be a source of pollution if not managed. The problems are hardly any different from most industries but not insignificant. The last paragraph gets at why I'm not so put off by it:

The roughly 20-year life of a solar panel still makes it some of the cleanest energy technology currently available. Producing solar is still significantly cleaner than fossil fuels. Energy derived from natural gas and coal-fired power plants, for example, creates more than 10 times more hazardous waste than the same energy created by a solar panel, according to Mulvaney.

There are issues. Especially in about 20 years when today's panels need to be retired. We have to recycle them rather than bury them in a waste site. We haven't built that capability yet. It is an economic problem not a technical one but still, we haven't built up the capacity for recycling them.

Still, we haven't yet found a safe storage solution for nuclear waste. After all this time, nuclear plants are just storing their waste awaiting the day that some unfortunate county becomes the nation's nuclear waste depository.
Click to expand...
I think the 20 year "life" is the time of the panels denotes the 85% or better efficacy rating. There are older panels in use, they are just not as efficient after a couple decades.

The current types of nuclear reactors are breeder reactors for creating plutonium, used in bombs and nuclear medicine/agriculture.

The nuclear reactors that most of the people are pushing for the future are called Liquid fluoride thorium reactors. Are such safer and designed to shut down if a meltdown is eminent. Don't create massive amounts of radioactive waste. Use far less water. And the material used for the reaction does not start out active so mining is safer and cleaner.
 
Fogdog

Fogdog

Well-Known Member
Dmannn said:
I think the 20 year "life" is the time of the panels denotes the 85% or better efficacy rating. There are older panels in use, they are just not as efficient after a couple decades.

The current types of nuclear reactors are breeder reactors for creating plutonium, used in bombs and nuclear medicine/agriculture.

The nuclear reactors that most of the people are pushing for the future are called Liquid fluoride thorium reactors. Are such safer and designed to shut down if a meltdown is eminent. Don't create massive amounts of radioactive waste. Use far less water. And the material used for the reaction does not start out active so mining is safer and cleaner.
Click to expand...
Thorium reactors have been "just about to go commercial" for about 20 years. It's still in development though. Why is that? Please don't tell me it's political. I'd be happy to see the US fund research and a pilot program to understand the technical issues. What I don't get is why we would make them part of the energy supply system when solar can meet most of the same needs that nuclear would satisfy.

Yes, we still need power when the sun goes down and there might be a need for some nuclear. I just don't understand why we would, given how dirty and unsafe even thorium reactors are.

The Fukushima and all other commercial reactors are not breeder rectors they are fission reactors that use U238 and cooling towers and can fail disastrously. Breeder reactors are proposed as fission nuclear waste disposalls (spent rods). The problem with them is they produce plutonium. So, they are not only dirty, unsafe and create waste but also produce fuel for nuclear bombs.

None of this exists if we use solar.
 
Last edited:
Buddha2525

Buddha2525

Well-Known Member
Fogdog said:
Thorium reactors have been "just about to go commercial" for about 20 years. It's still in development though. Why is that? Please don't tell me it's political. I'd be happy to see the US fund research and a pilot program to understand the technical issues. What I don't get is why we would make them part of the energy supply system when solar can meet most of the same needs that nuclear would satisfy.

Yes, we still need power when the sun goes down and there might be a need for some nuclear. I just don't understand why we would, given how dirty and unsafe even thorium reactors are.

The Fukushima and all other commercial reactors are not breeder rectors they are fission reactors that use U238 and cooling towers and can fail disastrously. Breeder reactors are proposed as fission nuclear waste disposalls (spent rods). The problem with them is they produce plutonium. So, they are not only dirty, unsafe and create waste but also produce fuel for nuclear bombs.

None of this exists if we use solar.
Click to expand...
I've researched thorium once. The conclusion from pretty much everyone, although completely safe before using in a nuclear reactor, there's waste nonetheless that's very toxic and takes nearly forever to go away, just like current reactors, after being used.

It's pretty much a nice pipe dream for conspiracy theorists.
 
ginjawarrior

ginjawarrior

Well-Known Member
Fogdog said:
Fukushima, Three Mile Island,
Click to expand...
the fact you need to go back 39 years or point to the reactor that was hit by massive earth quake and tsunami speaks more to the saftey of nuclear than its dangers...

both of those problems are very localized and didnt kill anyone

Nuclear is by far and away the safest power source we have ever had per unit of energy produced hands down
You keep sweeping the safety record of nuclear under the rug. There have been nearly a hundred nuclear power plant accidents, in many at least one person killed and in most, radiation released.
Click to expand...
again per unit of energy produced nuclear is by far and away the safest power source we have ever had
 
captainmorgan

captainmorgan

Well-Known Member
ginjawarrior said:
the fact you need to go back 39 years or point to the reactor that was hit by massive earth quake and tsunami speaks more to the saftey of nuclear than its dangers...

both of those problems are very localized and didnt kill anyone

Nuclear is by far and away the safest power source we have ever had per unit of energy produced hands down

again per unit of energy produced nuclear is by far and away the safest power source we have ever had
Click to expand...

Yeah, completely safe. What about the mountains of highly radioactive waste that are piling up with no end in sight.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top