Fogdog
Well-Known Member
Look in the Oregon out-door growers threads if you want to see my average work. Do you need help with the search tool?
Renewable Energy + Battery Storage = Fossil Fuels Obsolete, Even Natural Gas
- Thread starter ttystikk
- Start date
Fogdog
Well-Known Member
Justin-case
Well-Known Member
Don't laugh, ttys posts have a npk rating of 0.7-0.3-0.4 same as steer manure.
Fogdog
Well-Known Member
The hubris. A Kong sized ego. Puny intellectual with maniacal confidence.
Though I will say that a few years ago I earnestly began posting in a thread where indoor pot growers were all loving on each other claiming they were going to save humanity by the growing technology they were developing. Though there was division whether the future was in organic or hydroponic growing.
Eventually one admitted that wheat wasn't a very good indoor crop but claimed I was holding up progress because I was skeptical that everybody on the planet would eventually be able to feed themselves from indoor growing. When I continued to question the science and economics behind their claims I was accused of interfering with mankind's colonization of the outer reaches of the solar system. As if NASA needed them.
So, I'm not surprised. tty isn't the only one who is grandiose about the importance of their hobby for the future of mankind.
HEY, @The Government , you should share more about your in depth knowlege of indoor growing so that you can save mankind's future in space colonization too. Suggest you do that on the grower's forums. Or this thread. This thread is pretty good for that too.
Last edited:
ttystikk
Well-Known Member
Can't contribute or offer support, just shit on those who are working towards solutions.
That says everything worth knowing about you.
Fogdog
Well-Known Member
Have you even taken college level courses in botany or ag science? Or biochem or any life science?
I read some of your posts when you were developing a "novel and innovative LED light for vertical growing." It wasn't bad. You managed to work through some freshman-level math. Still, you talk as if your work is on the level of NASA scientists or maybe university researchers. Have you published your work in a reputable scientific journal?
Whatever happened to that LED design you were working on? I'm sure it was a stunning success. Have you brought it to market yet?
The Government
Member
No silly boy, I'm the government. I may search your co2 starved plants at some point but for now I have a fuck ton of research funding "as it relates to anthropomorphic warming" research to approve with my rubber stamp. Keeps me busy.
The Government
Member
Haha good one.
I'm not endorsing it, just sharing my experience. I pay around $0.09 per kwH, how about you?
The Government
Member
What is the optimal co2 saturation for earths atmosphere then? Surely your cooks consensus has a clear number that isn't close to starving plants to death.
The Government
Member
Assuming my gender. I bought several from companies that make metal detectors in the hospitality industry after the Vegas shooting, did you get some of that genius?
captainmorgan
Well-Known Member
Congratulation, you have reached the critical thinking level of a flat earther.
The Government
Member
Non-answer #1. Congrats on being first.
Fogdog
Well-Known Member
First, lets be clear. I know I'm talking to yet another manifestation of some clueless deplorable person who was banned yet keeps crawling back to this site as a sock. I don't know why you shits do that. To me, you've degraded yourself by begging for more attention from people who find no use for your syphilitic services and would at most put a quarter in your jar if they met your sorry ass on the street.
Second,
anthropomorphic warming
LOL
ginjawarrior
Well-Known Member
http://www.withouthotair.com/c30/page_236.shtmlFigure 30.3. The little square strikes again. The 600 km by 600 km square in North America, completely
filled with concentrating solar power, would provide enough power to give 500 million
people the average American’s consumption of 250 kWh/d.
This map also shows the square of size 600 km by 600 km in Africa, which we met earlier.
I’ve assumed a power density of 15 W/m2, as before.
The area of one yellow square is a little bigger than the area of Arizona, and 16 times the
area of New Jersey. Within each big square is a smaller 145 km by 145 km square showing
the area required in the desert – one New Jersey – to supply 30 million people with 250 kWh
per day per person.
now he's been quite generous with those numbers and made assumptions about more efficient use of power..
here we can do a quick and dirty back of the envelope calculation to see if he's close
https://www.eia.gov/energyexplained/?page=us_energy_home
now we convert Btu into KWH using google
97,728,000,000,000,000btu = 28641249545799 KWH
then kwh into mwh for ease
28641249545799 KWH = 28641249546 MWH
so total usa power comsumption
28641249546 MWH
now we need to find out the how much energy solar towers create per m2 of land
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solana_Generating_Station
this power station produced 723966MWH in 2017
it used 1920 acres to do so
1920acres = 7769964m2
now we need to work out how many MWH are produced per square meter a year
723966MWH / 7769964m2
=
0.093 MWH/m2 per year.
ok so now we need to divide the total yearly power consumption by power produced per meter
28641249546mwh / 0.093mwh/m2
=
307970425226m2 needed to produce that power
in km2
=
307970.km2 needed......
arizona =295,254 km²
307970.km2 is needed
back before i knew the scale of it all i too dreamed for a future with just renewables powering everything
now im just realistic about it all
roof top solar is less efficient per m2 than solar thermal
Last edited:
UncleBuck
Well-Known Member
So not one expert then?
It’s just you in your trailer with your opinion that no credible expert shares?
ginjawarrior
Well-Known Member
im not comparing the 2 im pointing out the reactor broke because it was hit by earthquake and tsunami
ginjawarrior
Well-Known Member
no not forever that is a problem with the old reactor design..
new ones can burn the waste till its only radioactive for a few hundred years....
the problem is the shear scale of it
we are burning fossil fuels and pumping more co2 into the atmosphere for drops in the bucket for what is needed
if say we were already powered by nuclear and were not pumping co2 into the atmosphere then whilst i might complain a bit about the land use i wouldnt have the objections that i do now
The human body contains trace amounts of radionuclides which are ingested daily through water and food intake. Here are the estimated concentrations of radionuclides calculated for a 70 kg adult based ICRP 30 data:
Natural Radioactivity in your body
Nuclide
Total Mass of Nuclide
Found in the Body
Total Activity of Nuclide
Found in the Body
Daily Intake of Nuclides
Uranium
90 µg
1.1 Bq
1.9 µg
Thorium
30 µg
0.11 Bq
3 µg
Potassium 40
17 mg
4.4 kBq
0.39 mg
Radium
31 pg
1.1 Bq
2.3 pg
Carbon 14
22 ng
3.7 kBq
1.8 ng
Tritium
0.06 pg
23 Bq
0.003 pg
Polonium
0.2 pg
37 Bq
~0.6 fg
Reference: Idaho State University, http://www.physics.isu.edu/radinf/natural.htm
An average adult body (weight 70 kg) contains approximately 140 g potassium (chemical symbol K). For every 10,000 atoms of stable potassium there are 1.2 radioactive atoms of 40K. Hence the human body has approximately 17 mg of 40K. With a half-life of 1.28 billion years, 4400 of these 40K atoms disintegrate every second by radioactive decay. On average around 11% (480) of these decays result in the emission of a gamma photon (energy 1.46 MeV) and approximately 50% (240) escape the body. These photons escape the body in all directions.
© Physics Dept. Trinity College Dublin, 2005
no suprisingly enough i havent seen it done once yet
it is orders of magnitude less than what is needed for solar or wind
solar or wind need continual replacement too
we use the waste rather than throwing it all away
all the time we're still chucking out CO2 we're stealing from or great grandchildren in a much much more dramatic way as the effects of CO2 are global. the risk from any one nuclear power station is local
Fogdog
Well-Known Member
Solar farms have their place in the overall switch to solar as the main supplier of energy. Agree that tty is bonkers if he thinks they can provide more than 5% or total worldwide needs. Toss in 3% for geothermal, 2% for hydro and perhaps 5% nuclear. Wind and tidal energy potential is enormous but perhaps due to environmental and developmental issues we can just use those sources to make up any deficit in the remaining balance, perhaps 2%-10% of worldwide needs.
So, what about Photovoltaic systems? Can they match 80% of wordwide demand?
Household photovoltaic systems convert sunlight to electrical energy at about 12% efficiency. Commercial systems are higher, perhaps 18% efficient. These are today's efficiencies. Maximum theoretical efficiency (wikipedia) is about 33%.
Big advantage PV has over the other power plant or energy farms is they can be located at the "last mile" and so don't incur efficiency loss and the high cost of transmission to the end user.
The sun delivers 89,000 tW to the earth. In 2001, energy demand was about 10 tW.
Fossil fuels produce about 80% of today's energy demands. We can assume the same was true in 2001.
http://www.sandia.gov/~jytsao/Solar FAQs.pdf On page ten, the work up how much surface area is needed to supply worldwide energy needs as well as that of the US. In the Sandia paper, they estimate 2% of US would be enough to replace fossil fuels. Same with worldwide. For the US, 2% surface area would be the equivalent of North or South Dakota.
The bottom line is that Solar PV systems can replace fossil fuel with alternatives making up the rest of the balance. Not saying "easy" and not saying 80% energy from PV is cast in stone. I'd like to see a panel of experts brought together with the mission to provide a working recommendation to Congress that is backed by the scientific community as the template from which our government could base their policy, spending and taxation decisions in order to free us from fossil fuels.
So, what about Photovoltaic systems? Can they match 80% of wordwide demand?
Household photovoltaic systems convert sunlight to electrical energy at about 12% efficiency. Commercial systems are higher, perhaps 18% efficient. These are today's efficiencies. Maximum theoretical efficiency (wikipedia) is about 33%.
Big advantage PV has over the other power plant or energy farms is they can be located at the "last mile" and so don't incur efficiency loss and the high cost of transmission to the end user.
The sun delivers 89,000 tW to the earth. In 2001, energy demand was about 10 tW.
Fossil fuels produce about 80% of today's energy demands. We can assume the same was true in 2001.
http://www.sandia.gov/~jytsao/Solar FAQs.pdf On page ten, the work up how much surface area is needed to supply worldwide energy needs as well as that of the US. In the Sandia paper, they estimate 2% of US would be enough to replace fossil fuels. Same with worldwide. For the US, 2% surface area would be the equivalent of North or South Dakota.
The bottom line is that Solar PV systems can replace fossil fuel with alternatives making up the rest of the balance. Not saying "easy" and not saying 80% energy from PV is cast in stone. I'd like to see a panel of experts brought together with the mission to provide a working recommendation to Congress that is backed by the scientific community as the template from which our government could base their policy, spending and taxation decisions in order to free us from fossil fuels.
Last edited:
The Government
Member
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.
SneekyNinja
Well-Known Member
If you put PV solar on every rooftop you could produce 30 to 50% of the requirements.
There's a number of papers on it, you can read the literature and draw your own conclusions.
Wind turbines can conservatively do 2MW each...
You're just obviously involved in nuclear power, whether it be through stocks or employment, and are clearly biased as fuck so you're unwilling to deviate.