You call that simple?

The simplest

solution would be to make clouds to reflect sun light before it hits the ground

and is re emitted as infrared or heat energy.

How would you do that, and how do you conclude that's the "simplest solution"?

------------------------------------------------------------


As I mentioned earlier there are no weather models big enough to predict

the outcome of tinkering with global weather yet.

As to how tethered stratospheric balloons as are already used for

weather data collection could be scaled up for test for 100 million

robot ships cruising the Atlantic for 12 billion just for 2 projects,

many more have been proposed. Both of these are engineering problems

requiring no new science.

Say you do this so that sub Saharan Africa got enough rain to become

grass lands again, the prairie eco system sucks more co2 that rain forest.

but this sort of thing would be foolhardily with no way to predict the out come.

And right now say 10 years or so will be needed to build the computers

and tune the models to even begin to play with this.

---

This is the type of bad information that the alternative energy field is constantly being bombarded with.

http://www.affordable-solar.com/store/solar-panels/CSI-CS6P-245P-245W-Solar-Panel-STD-Frame#datasheets-lnk I show these fairly randomly selected panels (NOT the most efficient on the market) to be rated at over 600KW per acre. This would be less than 2 acres per MW.

An area off 100 miles square (10,000 square miles) can produce more electricity than the USA currently uses. This would be about the size of.. oh an old nuclear test site.

S^S. Did you actually look at the data sheets provided on your link ?

There is a big difference between laboratory figures and "real world" performance. According to the data sheet under "real world" operating conditions the output of those panels drops by nearly 25% compared to the laboratory test figures that the manufacturer uses for their publicity blurbs. Also from the data sheets it appears that efficiency of those panels falls off severely with temperature leading to a total shut down at anything above 25V (look at the load curves) even if the temperature is only 5deg C. For the temperature to be that low at the high point of the sun you would have to be in the high latitudes which means that the solar energy falling on them would be much reduced from the 1000W/M^2 used in the lab test, reducing the output even further.

Nor do you take into account the IxR losses in the wiring of a solar farm and the additional losses in the large sine wave inverters necessary to make the output of the solar farm suitable for connection to the main power grid.

You also neglect the effect of weather conditions where cloud cover reduces the output. As has been stated before, the average annual output of a solar farm is only 30% of its nominal rating, meaning that your figures of a 100 mile square solar farm to equal the output of the US grid needs to be multiplied by a factor of three. Where in the world could you build a 30,000 square mile solar farm without causing significant environmental damage ?

My figures are taken from the two large solar farms located within 10kM from where I live. As I said, Solar and wind are nothing but "feel good" solutions promoted by those who have no idea of the realities of the engineering problems and the practicalities involved.

T.A.

... My own feelings on the matter of "alternative energy" is that wind and solar are just "feel good" solutions suitable only for small scale power production. At 10 acres per Megawatt, the physical size of solar power stations becomes an environmental issue in itself. Wind farms sound good but the turbines can only operate over a limited range of wind speeds. ...

That reads like more prejudice than real fact.

If you were to add in the vast areas of open cast mining scoured for old dirty coal fired power stations, and the area needed for tipping the resultant fly ash, how does that add up in your calculations. And then there is the monstrosity of destruction and toxic wasteland that most of Alberta is being laid waste to. That is also set to poison the great lakes... And all for what? (So Sarah Palin can scream "Burn baby, burn!"?...)

Wind turbines are real and work well when well utilised. Just like any other well utilised system. One good example is the Canary Islands that get the majority of the electricity needed for the islands, including for desalination plants, all from just one wind farm in an industrial area on Gran Canaria.


The problem appears to more one of politics, subsidies, and lobbying/corruption.

All on our only one planet,
Martin

---

See new freedom: Mageia Linux
Take a look for yourself: Linux Format
The Future is what We all make IT (GPLv3)

... Fossil-Fuel Subsidies of Rich Nations Five Times Climate Aid

... In 2011, 22 industrialized nations paid $58.7 billion in subsidies to the oil, coal and gas industries and to consumers of the fuels, compared with climate-aid flows of $11.2 billion...


And that as compared to the cost of going green...?

And what of the full cost and consequences of all the pollution?

Just one curious example of the effects of fuel subsidies:

Wind power deadline sees US firms rush to build turbines

US energy companies are racing to install wind turbines before a federal tax credit expires at the end of this year. ...

... At that point there was less than 1.5 gigawatts of power generating capacity provided by wind across the country. That figure has grown dramatically. This year has seen around 12 gigawatts of wind power capacity installed, outpacing even natural gas projects which have boomed on the back of cheap shale. ...


Now, what could be done if most (if not all) of the fossil fuels subsidies and tax breaks were instead given to non-polluting power generation? (Note the careful description there of "non-polluting".)


All on our only planet,
Martin

---

See new freedom: Mageia Linux
Take a look for yourself: Linux Format
The Future is what We all make IT (GPLv3)

Wind turbines are real and work well when well utilised. Just like any other well utilised system. One good example is the Canary Islands that get the majority of the electricity needed for the islands, including for desalination plants, all from just one wind farm in an industrial area on Gran Canaria.

OK, I'll admit an error on the maximum wind speed. The 40kMH max before shut down came from the wind farms I was checking out 10 years ago. The latest units can obviously do better than that.

But I still ask. What do you do when the sun isn't shining and the wind isn't blowing ? Not all locations are suitable for "reverse hydro" storage, batteries are impractical for the capacities needed (from the construction, location and disposal points of view) and hot salt is only suitable if the salt is already available locally.

Regarding battery storage. I have a bit to do with this professionally. The problems are the rare earths required to make the most efficient storage cells are hellishly expensive, the cells themselves have a life of less than 10 years even under ideal climatic conditions and the more charge/discharge cycles they are required to perform shortens their life even further. The other problem is that the materials they are made out of are highly toxic which makes them difficult to dispose of or recycle.

Martin. I'm willing to listen if you have something constructive to say but please get off the "Blame big coal/big oil" jag. If it wasn't because of the demand for their products they wouldn't be big at all. The problem is a matter of efficiency and availability, NOT conspiracy.

T.A.

Good points worthy of a longer a reply, but sorry sometime later.

In brief: No singular one tech is the one total solution. You need to use a diverse mix to maximise what can be done.

... Martin. I'm willing to listen if you have something constructive to say but please get off the "Blame big coal/big oil" jag. If it wasn't because of the demand for their products they wouldn't be big at all. The problem is a matter of efficiency and availability, NOT conspiracy.

Sorry, but that is a bit of a blinkered sop. There are many ways to fuel electricity generation. Fossil fuels are definitely not the only solution and they are perhaps the worst of the solutions.

So... Why the very highly skewed subsidies for fossil fuels and not other fuels? Why the zero cost imposed for the obvious pollution? Why the zero cost imposed for the environmental damage for extracting the fossil fuels in the first place? And why are the fossil fuels industries now waging the same dirty tricks media campaign, in some cases using the same unscrupulous media people, that previously 'defended' the tobacco industry for decades?

The tobacco industry kills people for a quick cheap profit out of other's misery. It looks like the fossil fuels industry is now doing the same...


We've taken advantage of cheap dirty fuel to power our industrial revolution. Time now to kick out the dirt and forge ahead still, but cleanly. We have the technology to do that already. Hell... We had the beginnings of that technology during the oil crisis in the 1970's... So how come we are still stuck on dirty pollution?...

And the FUD the fossil fuels industry have funded to shirk their blame and boost and extend their profits is simply staggering. "Heartland Institute" lies anyone?... Are we all suckers or what?



All on our only one planet,
Martin

---

See new freedom: Mageia Linux
Take a look for yourself: Linux Format
The Future is what We all make IT (GPLv3)

As I said, Solar and wind are nothing but "feel good" solutions promoted by those who have no idea of the realities of the engineering problems and the practicalities involved.

Solar and wind cannot provide more than about 5% into the renewable energy mix. It all helps but not a viable long term solution.

Again, Source please Chris?

---

Janice

We have legally binding targets to cut our emissions by at least 80% by
2050, and to source 15% of our energy from renewable sources by 2020.

Energy bill

I still believe that at current estimates wind and solar are at about 5%. It is expected not to get above 15% in the foreseeable future.

"Are about" has nothing to do with capability. Wind for example has been growing more than double per year in the U.S.A.

Now what politics wish to permit.. is another matter entirely.

---

Janice

To get some idea of the problems of using solar and wind energy read these.

Germany Rethinks Path to Green Future
and also read the other articles from the link - German Energy Revolution

Germany's wind power chaos should be a warning to the UK

I'm so glad you asked!

OK, I'll admit an error on the maximum wind speed. The 40kMH max before shut down came from the wind farms I was checking out 10 years ago. The latest units can obviously do better than that.

But I still ask. What do you do when the sun isn't shining and the wind isn't blowing ?

Consumption spikes in the afternoon, same as solar power is at its max, so on a large scale such as a nation or regional power grid, solar power should be thought of as a way of bridging the gap between baseload and peak. The intermittency of solar power is therefore not a problem; it is most available exactly when it is needed: when millions of people crank up the AC simultaneously. Now, how do we compensate for the intermittency of wind?

In simplest terms, in a test area of less than 850km x 850km (approx. the area of one state in the central United States), it is possible to spatially distribute just 19 wind farms such that even though the wind may be still all across one or more of the wind farms, it is never still across all of them simultaneously.

[url= www.stanford.edu/group/efmh/winds/aj07_jamc.pdf]It was found that an average of 33% and a maximum of 47% of yearly averaged wind power from interconnected farms can be used as reliable, baseload electric power. Equally significant, interconnecting multiple wind farms to a common point and then connecting that point to a far-away city can allow the long-distance portion of transmission capacity to be reduced, for example, by 20% with only a 1.6% loss of energy. Although most parameters, such as intermittency, improved less than linearly as the number of interconnected sites increased, no saturation of the benefits was found. Thus, the benefits of interconnection continue to increase with more and more interconnected sites.[/url]

---

But I don't think the demand varies as much as the green sources vary.



UK last 24 hrs live, from http://www.nationalgrid.com/uk/Electricity/Data/Realtime/Demand/demand24.htm



German fluctuations in May 2012

The peer-reviewed study I posted refutes the assertion which you have attempted to support with a mere 24-hour snapshot.

But I don't think the demand varies as much as the green sources vary...

UK last 24 hrs live, from http://www.nationalgrid.com/uk/Electricity/Data/Realtime/Demand/demand24.htm

In addition, as it's similar in area but not necessarily optimally located for wind power, your little island may very well not have a sufficient mix of area and wind to implement the strategy proposed in the Archer & Jacobson paper, a study which used some of the best land in the United States for wind power. But mainland Europe certainly could. And sea tends to be windier than land, so your little island may yet be able to go as green as Denmark.

Regarding the German graph, that's exactly what is expected of solar power. It looks to me like it's perfectly timed to meet peak demand, which is known to occur in the afternoon. Don't you agree?

---

Wind turbines are real and work well when well utilised. Just like any other well utilised system. One good example is the Canary Islands that get the majority of the electricity needed for the islands, including for desalination plants, all from just one wind farm in an industrial area on Gran Canaria.

OK, I'll admit an error on the maximum wind speed. The 40kMH max before shut down came from the wind farms I was checking out 10 years ago. The latest units can obviously do better than that.

But I still ask. What do you do when the sun isn't shining and the wind isn't blowing ? Not all locations are suitable for "reverse hydro" storage, batteries are impractical for the capacities needed (from the construction, location and disposal points of view) and hot salt is only suitable if the salt is already available locally.

Regarding battery storage. I have a bit to do with this professionally. The problems are the rare earths required to make the most efficient storage cells are hellishly expensive, the cells themselves have a life of less than 10 years even under ideal climatic conditions and the more charge/discharge cycles they are required to perform shortens their life even further. The other problem is that the materials they are made out of are highly toxic which makes them difficult to dispose of or recycle.

Martin. I'm willing to listen if you have something constructive to say but please get off the "Blame big coal/big oil" jag. If it wasn't because of the demand for their products they wouldn't be big at all. The problem is a matter of efficiency and availability, NOT conspiracy.

T.A.

Why not just go back to the Nickel-Iron NiFe battrey? that technology goes back 100 years+ It is green as they say compared to lead acid and otehr new battery types. it has a service life of 20 to 30 years and I have read 50 in some cases. It seems for solar and wind power it would be just the ticket. The phone companys used them for backup and probally some rural areas still have them. Yes they have disadvantages. But if I was to go off grid Id buy them. to bad at the moment they are not made in the US.

---

[/quote]

Old James

This is the type of bad information that the alternative energy field is constantly being bombarded with.

http://www.affordable-solar.com/store/solar-panels/CSI-CS6P-245P-245W-Solar-Panel-STD-Frame#datasheets-lnk I show these fairly randomly selected panels (NOT the most efficient on the market) to be rated at over 600KW per acre. This would be less than 2 acres per MW.

An area off 100 miles square (10,000 square miles) can produce more electricity than the USA currently uses. This would be about the size of.. oh an old nuclear test site.

S^S. Did you actually look at the data sheets provided on your link ?

There is a big difference between laboratory figures and "real world" performance. According to the data sheet under "real world" operating conditions the output of those panels drops by nearly 25% compared to the laboratory test figures that the manufacturer uses for their publicity blurbs. Also from the data sheets it appears that efficiency of those panels falls off severely with temperature leading to a total shut down at anything above 25V (look at the load curves) even if the temperature is only 5deg C. For the temperature to be that low at the high point of the sun you would have to be in the high latitudes which means that the solar energy falling on them would be much reduced from the 1000W/M^2 used in the lab test, reducing the output even further.

Nor do you take into account the IxR losses in the wiring of a solar farm and the additional losses in the large sine wave inverters necessary to make the output of the solar farm suitable for connection to the main power grid.

You also neglect the effect of weather conditions where cloud cover reduces the output. As has been stated before, the average annual output of a solar farm is only 30% of its nominal rating, meaning that your figures of a 100 mile square solar farm to equal the output of the US grid needs to be multiplied by a factor of three. Where in the world could you build a 30,000 square mile solar farm without causing significant environmental damage ?

My figures are taken from the two large solar farms located within 10kM from where I live. As I said, Solar and wind are nothing but "feel good" solutions promoted by those who have no idea of the realities of the engineering problems and the practicalities involved.

T.A.

While I agree with most of this for large installations big dc motors would

turn big ac generators with far less loss, though putting large installations

out in the desert far from city's would have large line losses and once again

change local weather.

---

As I said, Solar and wind are nothing but "feel good" solutions promoted by those who have no idea of the realities of the engineering problems and the practicalities involved.

Solar and wind cannot provide more than about 5% into the renewable energy mix. It all helps but not a viable long term solution.

---------------------------------------------------

the number could be as high as 15% but onlt with high environmental cost.

---

The only way forward is nuclear. OK, we have had Chernobyl, Three Mile Island, and Fukushima. But it has to be the only sensible solution.

these were phase 2, or phase 3, plants, phase 4 plants can be built so that

they unfocused as they get to hot and not melt down no water needed.

phase 4 plant's can also use the waste from phase 3 plants as fuel with

a small plutonium button to start the process.

Thus killing 2 birds with 1 stone, getting rid of nuclear waste and

providing safe power.

Remember the fly ash from coal fired plants produces more nuclear waste each

year, than all of the nuclear plants and accidents combined for the whole

history of nuclear power, if we do something with the high level waste.

---

So... Why the very highly skewed subsidies for fossil fuels and not other fuels? Why the zero cost imposed for the obvious pollution? Why the zero cost imposed for the environmental damage for extracting the fossil fuels in the first place?

So today make them pay the full cost of pollution. Instant bankruptcy and the cessation of extraction and as soon as everything already extracted is burned, all commerce stops. Within a few days massive worldwide riots. It is just as critical in our daily lives as water to drink, and air to breathe. That is why.

You ask about subsidies for other fuels. Nuclear is another fuel that is burned. Tell me it doesn't have a subsidy. Coal is fossil. Natural gas is fossil. Wood, look at timber subsidies. There are subsidies for alternative fuels like biodiesel. I think you are spewing a talking point.

It will take a century to wean us off fossil fuel. It is just too damn good as a fuel. We also need to find a battery that doesn't depend on super toxic rare earths. You know the saw about R&D. There are three things: What you will find, How long it will take, How much it will cost. You can only specify two of the three.

---

fos·sil

/ˈfäsəl/





Noun




1.The remains or impression of a prehistoric organism preserved in petrified form or as a mold or cast in rock: "sites rich in fossils".
2.derogatory. An antiquated or stubbornly unchanging person or thing: "he can be a cantankerous old fossil at times".




More info - Wikipedia - Dictionary.com - Answers.com - Merriam-Webster

__________________________________________

Please stop trying to confuse the term "fossil".

---

Janice

So... Why the very highly skewed subsidies for fossil fuels and not other fuels? Why the zero cost imposed for the obvious pollution? Why the zero cost imposed for the environmental damage for extracting the fossil fuels in the first place?

So today make them pay the full cost of pollution. Instant bankruptcy and the cessation of extraction and as soon as everything already extracted is burned, all commerce stops. Within a few days massive worldwide riots. It is just as critical in our daily lives as water to drink, and air to breathe. That is why.

Straw man. Nobody has suggested that, ever. We all know that our current standard of living requires a lot of energy. We're debating how it should be produced, not whether it should be produced. Do you have a case to make against simply eliminating the handouts and tax subsidies that oil and coal companies continue to receive, or don't you?

You ask about subsidies for other fuels... There are subsidies for alternative fuels like biodiesel. I think you are spewing a talking point.

What, if any, do you believe is the legitimate purpose of a subsidy? Or, to be a reasonable policy, what must be the purpose of a corporate subsidy? Do you really mean to defend the subsidies, or just to attack the people calling for reform?

It will take a century to wean us off fossil fuel.

Several countries in western Europe are showing faster progress than that. They may yet reach a wall, but the evidence currently available does not support your assertion.

---