Climate Change, 'Greenhouse' effects, Environment, etc part III

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"?

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.

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.

... 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. ...

... 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?

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.

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.

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.

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.

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

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

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

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.

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.