Global Warming & Climate Change Discussion

[twilyth]

Look at the DOE estimates table. Nuclear ($96.1/MWh) and natural gas ($64.4/MWh) is still cheaper than PV ($130/MWh).

I guess you didn't bother looking into how the various nat gas figures were arrived at. Hint - combined cycle usage won't be applicable in most locations. So really the appropriate figure for nat gas is really $128/mwh and not $64. IOW, about the same as PV solar. And btw, those solar figures are a year old. The cost per mwh for solar drops every year. That's not the case with nat gas.

 

[Fourstaff]

Because property values in deserts are literally dust cheap. Large solar facilities simply don't exist in high property value areas because the value of the property itself makes it a poor investment.

Lucky for us, there are lots of deserts which we can use.

Lockheed Martin is convinced they'll have a working prototype in 10 years with the aim of producing 100 MW of power in a package that fits in the back of a straight truck.

I am not convinced until they out the first prototype.

Because China copied US designs without the massive investment costs those US companies took on. It's effectively patent infringement and you know how much China cares about those (hint: they don't). China is infamous for producing illegal knockoffs.

Sounds like patenting is preventing a full blown solar revolution, not material costs. Sounds like solar will make much more sense for countries who have little respect for patents (see: developing countries).

I personally have a strong belief in solar power: its more reliable and predictable than wind, more plentiful than hydro, and its fuel is free.

 

[FordGT90Concept]

The climate has changed since its inception....incredible as it seems.

Yup, "climate change" doesn't imply warmer or colder, wetter or drier, sunnier or cloudier. All it implies is that it is different, for better or worse.

I guess you didn't bother looking into how the various nat gas figures were arrived at. Hint - combined cycle usage won't be applicable in most locations. So really the appropriate figure for nat gas is really $128/mwh and not $64. IOW, about the same as PV solar. And btw, those solar figures are a year old. The cost per mwh for solar drops every year. That's not the case with nat gas.

Natural gas is dropping too (for the past year anyway):
http://www.nasdaq.com/markets/natural-gas.aspx?timeframe=1y
It is subject to change with supply and demand.

You're right, it was wrong of me to take the cheapest one. I'm in no way advocating natural gas but it is what is replacing coal and supplementing solar/wind.

Lucky for us, there are lots of deserts which we can use.

But there isn't a lot of demand for electricity in those deserts (Salt Lake City, Los Angeles, Reno, and Las Vegas are the exceptions to the rule). Transmitting electricity over long distances has it's own problems. For example, energy lost as heat subtracts away from the efficacy of solar systems due to location. You might be producing power at 40% in a desert using PV panels but figure in the transmission costs and it may fall to 30%. That 10% difference can make or break solar projects.

I am not convinced until they out the first prototype.

Same, but I am hopeful. Lockheed has a strong track record of doing the thought-to-be impossible.

Sounds like patenting is preventing a full blown solar revolution, not material costs. Sounds like solar will make much more sense for countries who have little respect for patents (see: developing countries).

Perhaps but that doesn't change the fact that solar power density is extremely low (~250 W/m2 at max if memory serves--disregarding time of day, cloud cover, the entire spectrum of radiation, and at 100% efficiency).

I personally have a strong belief in solar power: its more reliable and predictable than wind, more plentiful than hydro, and its fuel is free.

Actually, it is neither more reliable, nor more predictable than wind. Wind is very easy to predict because it operates as a function of well understood concepts (high pressure, low pressure, storm systems, etc.). We can guesstimate a week in advance what the wind will be like with a great degree of accuracy. Solar, as demonstrated by Ivanpah, can throw up completely different figures than anticipate just because of minor cloud cover which ties back into the cloud effect on climate change question. We can't accurately predict what clouds are going to do to the climate and we also can't accurately predict what clouds are going to do to solar power systems. Clouds have little impact on surface wind.

Hydro, disregarding the impact on the local ecosystem, is the best source of energy but industrialized countries have already fully exploited this resource to a degree that is reasonable. Hydro as a new energy source is only plausible in countries where it hasn't already been exploited (e.g. third world nations).

PV fuel is the panels themselves excited by light radiation. The panels are not free and they come at large environmental costs compared to the electricity they yield. @rruff inadvertently pointed this out a few posts back.

 

[twilyth]

Different type of PV cells have different spectral responses. So some will produce more power in diffuse light filtered by clouds than others.

 

[CAPSLOCKSTUCK]

Unsu u u u u bed.

Getting back into my bunker.


Making electricity from hot air.

ps having margarine on my toast , i dont believe the c....s about that either.
I might have a glass of red wine with it because thats ok as well.

 

[FordGT90Concept]

Different type of PV cells have different spectral responses. So some will produce more power in diffuse light filtered by clouds than others.

Yes...my point is, of all energy sources, solar is just about the least dense because it is a function of surface area. They contribute to atmospheric warming through production as well as absorption (as opposed to reflection) of solar energy; thusly, the environmental impact is linear. About the only place where the absorption is neutralized is on asphalt roof tops with a clear view of the sun because the asphalt has the same effect. Building the solar panel itself can only be mitigated, not eliminated, through industrial and mining processes.

Solar is much more effective outside of Earth's atmosphere.

 

[CAPSLOCKSTUCK]

That really hasn't changed since the 1995 IPCC report.

What that scientists "currently" predict.

Says it all.

 

[FordGT90Concept]

Well...CO2 keeps rising at a relatively constant rate and that's mostly what they were looking at back in 1990, 1995, and then in 2001, and 2007. Based on that one metric, their predictions shouldn't have changed.

Keep the line going and it hits where it is now: ~400 ppmV.

If you think about it, ~310 to ~400 in 55 years is a pretty rapid change.

 

[CAPSLOCKSTUCK]

I officially declare....
Mine was the shortest unsubbing in history.
97% of unsubbing scientists agree with me.

 

[twilyth]

Yes...my point is, of all energy sources, solar is just about the least dense because it is a function of surface area. They contribute to atmospheric warming through production as well as absorption (as opposed to reflection) of solar energy; thusly, the environmental impact is linear. About the only place where the absorption is neutralized is on asphalt roof tops with a clear view of the sun because the asphalt has the same effect. Building the solar panel itself can only be mitigated, not eliminated, through industrial and mining processes.

Solar is much more effective outside of Earth's atmosphere.

What are you talking about? Warming through absorption? That's not going to affect climate. Do you understand how greenhouse warming works? Certain gases trap infrared radiation in the atmosphere preventing them from being reflected back into space. That happens all over the globe not just in specific locations. The amount of atmospheric warming from pv cells is negligible.

I think someone already posted this but here it is again - the carbon footprint for solar is virtually zero compared to other sources of power

 

[FordGT90Concept]

On average, 2 W/m2 are absorbed from the sun which contributes to heating of the atmosphere. The surface type, itself, effects that. The darker the surface, in general, the more is absorbed as opposed to reflected. Cadmium telluride to produce PV is very dark; the mirrors used on thermal solar are extremely reflective. Of course there's a lot of surface area on the planet but every little bit matters.

When a material absorbs the energy outright, the warming is done instantly making greenhouse gases moot. If the surface reflects it, the density, type, and altitude of the greenhouse gases determine, on average, how much is reflected back at Earth and this cycle repeats until the energy either leaves the Earth or it is completely absorbed in the atmosphere or on the Earth.

Imagine if the entire planet had a mirror finish. Earth wouldn't be very warm because even with an unchanged amount of green house gases, most of that energy will escape because the Earth absorbs very little of it.


http://www.firstsolar.com/en/solutions/fuel-displacement

PV by itself may have a tiny bit lower CO2 emissions than nuclear but when you add the natural gas in required to supplement solar, PV isn't even close. Even if people are putting these panels on their own houses and connected to the grid for night power, those natural gas plants have to be built to fill in the gaps. I already demonstrated this happened in a big way at PSE&G.

I can't find the page your picture is on. I'm really curious what that asterisk is for.

 

[twilyth]

On average, 2 W/m2 are absorbed from the sun which contributes to heating of the atmosphere. The surface type, itself, effects that. The darker the surface, in general, the more is absorbed as opposed to reflected. Cadmium telluride to produce PV is very dark; the mirrors used on thermal solar are extremely reflective. Of course there's a lot of surface area on the planet but every little bit matters.

When a material absorbs the energy outright, the warming is done instantly making greenhouse gases moot. If the surface reflects it, the density, type, and altitude of the greenhouse gases determine, on average, how much is reflected back at Earth and this cycle repeats until the energy either leaves the Earth or it is completely absorbed in the atmosphere or on the Earth.

Imagine if the entire planet had a mirror finish. Earth wouldn't be very warm because even with an unchanged amount of green house gases, most of that energy will escape because the Earth absorbs very little of it.


http://www.firstsolar.com/en/solutions/fuel-displacement

PV by itself may have a tiny bit lower CO2 emissions than nuclear but when you add the natural gas in required to supplement solar, PV isn't even close. Even if people are putting these panels on their own houses and connected to the grid for night power, those natural gas plants have to be built to fill in the gaps. I already demonstrated this happened in a big way at PSE&G.

I can't find the page your picture is on. I'm really curious what that asterisk is for.

http://misfitsarchitecture.com/2013/06/

So you're seriously going to argue that radiant heat from solar panels will contribute to climate change? Unbelievable.

As for the need to supplement PV with other dispatchable power sources - so what? The whole point here is to reduce the amount of CO2 dumped into the atmosphere. PV does that.

 

[FordGT90Concept]

http://misfitsarchitecture.com/2013/06/

That's a blog hotlinking images and taking them out of context with a lot of dead links.

So you're seriously going to argue that radiant heat from solar panels will contribute to climate change? Unbelievable.

It matters in the big picture especially when you're talking about covering hundreds of square miles in these things. It's like the antithesis of a rain forest in terms of climate.

As for the need to supplement PV with other dispatchable power sources - so what? The whole point here is to reduce the amount of CO2 dumped into the atmosphere. PV does that.

I always look long term (100+ years) not short term. Every little bit counts if the goal is to reduce human contributions of water vapor, carbon dioxide, and methane to the atmosphere. Sure PV reduces it some, but not enough for the simple fact it isn't a base load power source.

 

[SK-1]

Here we go. This is another reason to question the entire premise.

Humans the main cause of glacier melt worldwide
http://www.usatoday.com/story/weather/2014/08/14/glacier-melt-global-warming/14064023/

One Of The Largest Glaciers On Earth Melting Due To Global Warming
http://au.ibtimes.com/one-largest-glaciers-earth-melting-due-global-warming-1415715

Now lets quote the scientist.

According to Rintoul, it was too soon to say if the melting of the glacier was a result of global warming. He said that their observations could not tell how things had changed over time. His reason was that it was the first time that measurements were made in that area.

Again...this is not a good way to fill the church pews.

 

[twilyth]

That's a blog hotlinking images and taking them out of context.


It matters in the big picture especially when you're talking about covering hundreds of square miles in these things. It's like the antithesis of a rain forest in terms of climate.


I always look long term (100+ years) not short term. Every little bit counts if the goal is to reduce human contributions of water vapor, carbon dioxide, and methane to the atmosphere. Sure PV reduces it some, but not enough for the simple fact it isn't a base load power source.

First of all, the whole idea of PV contributing significantly to warming the atmosphere is ridiculous. If you can provide something to substantiate that claim, fine, but I doubt that you can. I'll wait though.

And if you're looking 100 years ahead, you shouldn't assume that PV tech will remain static - right? You're being just a tad bit inconsistent there don't you think?

 

[FordGT90Concept]

There's already two obvious problems with CdTe...
1) Cadmium is toxic and uncontained unlike uranium fuel.
2) Tellurium is as rare as platinum.
Mass, cheap production is unrealistic for a long period of time. As demand increases, so will the price.

First of all, the whole idea of PV contributing significantly to warming the atmosphere is ridiculous. If you can provide something to substantiate that claim, fine, but I doubt that you can. I'll wait though.

This doesn't talk about in the warming sense (I sourced most of that information from that NSF video a while back) but it does talk about some numbers in regards to what stays and what goes: http://www.oregon.gov/ODOT/HWY/OIPP/docs/Solar_GlarePotentialWL.pdf

More generally:
http://missionscience.nasa.gov/ems/13_radiationbudget.html
Especially note this image:

Left is good, right is bad. PV panels deliberately transition the balance in their area from left to right. The more of the planet they cover, the worse it gets. Note the areas on the right that are especially dark: they're forests which are really, really good at taking only what they need and sending the rest back. This is why deforestation is a double whammy for warming (less reflected, less CO2 turned into O2).

And if you're looking 100 years ahead, you shouldn't assume that PV tech will remain static - right? You're being just a tad bit inconsistent there don't you think?

It won't, but the amount and types of sunlight reaching the surface of the Earth largely won't. You can't get 1+1=10. Solar is a finite resource.

 

[twilyth]

[1]There's already two obvious problems with CdTe...
1) Cadmium is toxic and uncontained unlike uranium fuel.
2) Tellurium is as rare as platinum.
Mass, cheap production is unrealistic for a long period of time. As demand increases, so will the price.


[2]This doesn't talk about in the warming sense (I sourced most of that information from that NSF video a while back) but it does talk about some numbers in regards to what stays and what goes: http://www.oregon.gov/ODOT/HWY/OIPP/docs/Solar_GlarePotentialWL.pdf

More generally:
http://missionscience.nasa.gov/ems/13_radiationbudget.html
Especially note this image:

Left is good, right is bad. PV panels deliberately transition the balance in their area from left to right. The more of the planet they cover, the worse it gets.


[3]It won't, but the amount and types of sunlight reaching the surface of the Earth largely won't. You can't get 1+1=10. Solar is a finite resource.

1. Again I have to repeat myself. In the future I'm just going to ignore those points you don't seem to grasp.

The fact of the matter is that PV tech is constantly changing and if you'd read that blog you would understand that there are safer alternatives that rely on safe chemical compounds.

2. Well duh. No one is claiming that PV panels don't absorb heat. The issue is whether or not the amount absorbed is meaningful and it isn't. At least you haven't provided any reason to believe that it is.

3. What does this even mean?

 

[FordGT90Concept]

1. I dislike repeating myself too.

2. Enjoy some reading. Long story short: if the albedo of the panels isn't equal to or greater than the surface without the panel, they'll contribute to atmospheric warming.

3. Wall of math for you. Long story short: ~2.88 kWh/day/m2 is the absolute maximum of solar energy that reaches the surface of the Earth (all types, no clouds, correct alignment, no dust). This is figuring 30% lost due to the atmosphere.

 

[twilyth]

1. I dislike repeating myself too.

2. Enjoy some reading. Long story short: if the albedo of the panels isn't equal to or greater than the surface without the panel, they'll contribute to atmospheric warming.

3. Wall of math for you. Long story short: ~2.88 kWh/day/m2 is the absolute maximum of solar energy that reaches the surface of the Earth (all types, no clouds, correct alignment, no dust). This is figuring 30% lost due to the atmosphere.

In other words, you have no proof of any kind that PV panels would contribute a significant amount to warming the atmosphere.

 

[entropy13]

Wait, so what is essentially being said is that there is an industry (or conspiracy) with less money and less power than the oil industry being able to outspend and overpower the latter?

Because according to the conspiracies themselves the two biggest industries in the world in terms of money and power are the oil industry and the military industry (which pays lip service to "going green", and gets involved in wars for the sake of oil apparently). Yet somehow they are being overwhelmed by the "go green" industries?

 

[twilyth]

I honestly don't know what the point is - at this point. Ford keeps making ridiculous arguments that have no apparent basis in fact and clings to them like they're some sort of life preserver.

 

[FordGT90Concept]

In other words, you have no proof of any kind that PV panels would contribute a significant amount to warming the atmosphere.

It depends on where they are built. I'm not talking about mining/manufacturing costs either.


Let's see how much surface area of ideal solar conditions one would need to equal Fort Calhoun's 4,261,454 MWh/y...
2.88 kWh/day * 365.25 = 1,051.92 kWh/y
4,261,454 MWh/y / 1.05 MWh/y = 4,058,527.62 meters squared or 1.57 square miles or 1002.89 acres

Remember, this is ideal conditions and no power at night. Fort Calhoun resides on 660 acres and it is in no way remarkable.

Now Palo Verte: 7530.83 acres of ideal panels compared to 4000 acres of land it sits on.

These panel acres are in terms of packed together, next to each other, and tracking the sun. This isn't even possible so it would inevitably take more room.

Remember, these figures are real (nuclear) versus imaginary (ideal solar).


Edit: Interesting note: solar may catch up to nuclear if it is in space, in geosynchronous orbit, and tracks the sun. It would only lose power when in Earth's shadow which is likely only 1/3 of the day. The rest of the time, it would be getting 100% power and not a curve due to losses in the atmosphere (especially due to angle).

 

[twilyth]

Give it up dude. It's a ridiculous argument for which you have no proof. Continue posting about it if you must but no is buying it and more importantly, no one cares.

 

[FordGT90Concept]

The math is proof. You choose not to acknowledge it. Obviously no one cares or they would be scoffing at solar like I do and virtually everyone else that looked at the math.

 

[twilyth]

The math is proof. You choose not to acknowledge it. Obviously no one cares or they would be scoffing at solar like I do and virtually everyone else that looked at the math.

All your so-called "math" shows is that dark surfaces radiate heat. Woo-hoo