Cycles

Message boards : Politics : Cycles
Message board moderation

To post messages, you must log in.

Previous · 1 . . . 5 · 6 · 7 · 8 · 9 · Next

AuthorMessage
Мишель
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 26 Nov 13
Posts: 3073
Credit: 87,868
RAC: 0
Netherlands
Message 1516434 - Posted: 15 May 2014, 8:31:01 UTC - in response to Message 1516311.  

It would seem that some MIT Engineers have a different view.

Those people also claim that high doses of radiation are good for you.
ID: 1516434 · Report as offensive
W-K 666 Project Donor
Volunteer tester

Send message
Joined: 18 May 99
Posts: 19012
Credit: 40,757,560
RAC: 67
United Kingdom
Message 1516442 - Posted: 15 May 2014, 10:24:50 UTC - in response to Message 1516432.  

No, that is a simple matter of having enough of those things around to provide energy. Imagine the power production if you put solar panels on every roof in the United States. And given the increasing efficiency of each new generation of solar panels it is only a matter of time before they produce all the energy we need.


Time to take off the rose tinted spectacles, if that ever happens it will probably be in about 200 years or longer.
ID: 1516442 · Report as offensive
Profile The Simonator
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 18 Nov 04
Posts: 5700
Credit: 3,855,702
RAC: 50
United Kingdom
Message 1516444 - Posted: 15 May 2014, 10:39:02 UTC - in response to Message 1516432.  

No, that is a simple matter of having enough of those things around to provide energy. Imagine the power production if you put solar panels on every roof in the United States. And given the increasing efficiency of each new generation of solar panels it is only a matter of time before they produce all the energy we need.

I'm not sure about them producing all the energy we need, they don't work too well at night for example.
However, they could certainly be part of the solution, along with tidal, wind, etc. Between them they'd produce all the energy we need, because when one isn't working the others will fill in the gap.
Life on earth is the global equivalent of not storing things in the fridge.
ID: 1516444 · Report as offensive
Мишель
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 26 Nov 13
Posts: 3073
Credit: 87,868
RAC: 0
Netherlands
Message 1516445 - Posted: 15 May 2014, 10:41:20 UTC - in response to Message 1516442.  

Time to take off the rose tinted spectacles, if that ever happens it will probably be in about 200 years or longer.

Why would I? The price of solar panels is constantly dropping while efficiency is constantly increasing.

My spectacles aren't rose tinted.
The future just looks very sunny.

That is what people constantly forget. Technology doesn't stand still, its advancing, its getting better, its getting cheaper and its getting more efficient. Take that into account when you say how long it will take to do something.
ID: 1516445 · Report as offensive
Мишель
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 26 Nov 13
Posts: 3073
Credit: 87,868
RAC: 0
Netherlands
Message 1516446 - Posted: 15 May 2014, 10:43:06 UTC - in response to Message 1516444.  

No, that is a simple matter of having enough of those things around to provide energy. Imagine the power production if you put solar panels on every roof in the United States. And given the increasing efficiency of each new generation of solar panels it is only a matter of time before they produce all the energy we need.

I'm not sure about them producing all the energy we need, they don't work too well at night for example.
However, they could certainly be part of the solution, along with tidal, wind, etc. Between them they'd produce all the energy we need, because when one isn't working the others will fill in the gap.

Excess power during the day can create hydrogen which we can then use to fill in the needs during the night. But you are right, if we diversify our sources of energy along with wind, tidal and some limited amount of nuclear energy we got all the power we need.
ID: 1516446 · Report as offensive
bobby
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 22 Mar 02
Posts: 2866
Credit: 17,789,109
RAC: 3
United States
Message 1516458 - Posted: 15 May 2014, 11:39:22 UTC - in response to Message 1516444.  

No, that is a simple matter of having enough of those things around to provide energy. Imagine the power production if you put solar panels on every roof in the United States. And given the increasing efficiency of each new generation of solar panels it is only a matter of time before they produce all the energy we need.

I'm not sure about them producing all the energy we need, they don't work too well at night for example.
However, they could certainly be part of the solution, along with tidal, wind, etc. Between them they'd produce all the energy we need, because when one isn't working the others will fill in the gap.


Picking one of the "what can solar power do during the night" comments at random, from one of the links I posted earlier:

5. The Nevada Solar One plant in Boulder City, Nevada, has a 64-MW generating capacity and uses molten salts to store extra heat which can then be drawn and used at night. Nevada Solar One cost $220-250 million. Its power costs slightly more than wind power but less than photovoltaic power.


(source)
I think you'll find it's a bit more complicated than that ...

ID: 1516458 · Report as offensive
W-K 666 Project Donor
Volunteer tester

Send message
Joined: 18 May 99
Posts: 19012
Credit: 40,757,560
RAC: 67
United Kingdom
Message 1516459 - Posted: 15 May 2014, 11:40:40 UTC - in response to Message 1516445.  

Time to take off the rose tinted spectacles, if that ever happens it will probably be in about 200 years or longer.

Why would I? The price of solar panels is constantly dropping while efficiency is constantly increasing.

My spectacles aren't rose tinted.
The future just looks very sunny.

That is what people constantly forget. Technology doesn't stand still, its advancing, its getting better, its getting cheaper and its getting more efficient. Take that into account when you say how long it will take to do something.

And don't forget to produce each ton of silicon (98% pure) there is 1.5 tons of CO2 produced.

And 98% pure silicon is actually useless to produce electronic components, it needs to be 99.9999999% pure.
ID: 1516459 · Report as offensive
Profile The Simonator
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 18 Nov 04
Posts: 5700
Credit: 3,855,702
RAC: 50
United Kingdom
Message 1516463 - Posted: 15 May 2014, 11:54:38 UTC - in response to Message 1516446.  

Excess power during the day can create hydrogen which we can then use to fill in the needs during the night. But you are right, if we diversify our sources of energy along with wind, tidal and some limited amount of nuclear energy we got all the power we need.

Ah, now there's an idea! And we can also use that to fill our cars.
Life on earth is the global equivalent of not storing things in the fridge.
ID: 1516463 · Report as offensive
W-K 666 Project Donor
Volunteer tester

Send message
Joined: 18 May 99
Posts: 19012
Credit: 40,757,560
RAC: 67
United Kingdom
Message 1516464 - Posted: 15 May 2014, 11:54:48 UTC - in response to Message 1516445.  

Time to take off the rose tinted spectacles, if that ever happens it will probably be in about 200 years or longer.

Why would I? The price of solar panels is constantly dropping while efficiency is constantly increasing.

My spectacles aren't rose tinted.
The future just looks very sunny.

That is what people constantly forget. Technology doesn't stand still, its advancing, its getting better, its getting cheaper and its getting more efficient. Take that into account when you say how long it will take to do something.

Before you go any further, do the maths on how much you can hope to get out of a solar panel at your location.
If you get the 15% over the approx 20 year life, as quoted in that MIT report you will be very fortunate.

And if you want to know why I know that, it is because I was an Electronics engineer for 50 years, started apprenticeship at 15 in 1961 and retired 1986. And because of that have ex-colleagues who went on to work for Siemens Solar and Varta batteries before they lost their jobs because European manufacturing couldn't compete with the loss making production in China.
ID: 1516464 · Report as offensive
OzzFan Crowdfunding Project Donor*Special Project $75 donorSpecial Project $250 donor
Volunteer tester
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 9 Apr 02
Posts: 15691
Credit: 84,761,841
RAC: 28
United States
Message 1516466 - Posted: 15 May 2014, 12:00:13 UTC - in response to Message 1516434.  

It would seem that some MIT Engineers have a different view.

Those people also claim that high doses of radiation are good for you.


Cite reference please?
ID: 1516466 · Report as offensive
Мишель
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 26 Nov 13
Posts: 3073
Credit: 87,868
RAC: 0
Netherlands
Message 1516468 - Posted: 15 May 2014, 12:10:24 UTC - in response to Message 1516464.  

Before you go any further, do the maths on how much you can hope to get out of a solar panel at your location.
If you get the 15% over the approx 20 year life, as quoted in that MIT report you will be very fortunate.

And if you want to know why I know that, it is because I was an Electronics engineer for 50 years, started apprenticeship at 15 in 1961 and retired 1986. And because of that have ex-colleagues who went on to work for Siemens Solar and Varta batteries before they lost their jobs because European manufacturing couldn't compete with the loss making production in China.

You mean that link to the blog of two MIT engineers?

And again, solar panels get better and better. The more efficient they become, the more power they produce. And they are becoming more efficient. They keep increasing in efficiency every year. Sure, I agree with Simon that solar power alone is probably insufficient. But with the combination of a number of green sources it works out.
ID: 1516468 · Report as offensive
W-K 666 Project Donor
Volunteer tester

Send message
Joined: 18 May 99
Posts: 19012
Credit: 40,757,560
RAC: 67
United Kingdom
Message 1516471 - Posted: 15 May 2014, 12:27:22 UTC - in response to Message 1516468.  

Before you go any further, do the maths on how much you can hope to get out of a solar panel at your location.
If you get the 15% over the approx 20 year life, as quoted in that MIT report you will be very fortunate.

And if you want to know why I know that, it is because I was an Electronics engineer for 50 years, started apprenticeship at 15 in 1961 and retired 1986. And because of that have ex-colleagues who went on to work for Siemens Solar and Varta batteries before they lost their jobs because European manufacturing couldn't compete with the loss making production in China.

You mean that link to the blog of two MIT engineers?

And again, solar panels get better and better. The more efficient they become, the more power they produce. And they are becoming more efficient. They keep increasing in efficiency every year. Sure, I agree with Simon that solar power alone is probably insufficient. But with the combination of a number of green sources it works out.

How much better on average/year?
ID: 1516471 · Report as offensive
Мишель
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 26 Nov 13
Posts: 3073
Credit: 87,868
RAC: 0
Netherlands
Message 1516473 - Posted: 15 May 2014, 12:43:39 UTC - in response to Message 1516471.  

How much better on average/year?

Read this

A while ago, I was able to briefly interview Dave DeGraaff, SunPower’s general manager in the module products group about the progress being made with respect to growing panel efficiencies. SunPower knows a good deal about such matters, since they have some of the most efficient panels in the industry and keep pushing the envelope. Their E Series panels currently enjoy one of the highest conversion rates, at over 20.5%. Their new X Series panel currently stands at 21.5%, and it’s projected to increase to 23% by 2015. SunPower’s Efficiency Roadmap shows an overall absolute efficiency improvement of 6% over the eight-year period from 2007 to 2015 (from 17 to 23%). This is a big selling point for the company, since you can get 60% more energy from the same space.


6% increase over an 8 year period.
ID: 1516473 · Report as offensive
W-K 666 Project Donor
Volunteer tester

Send message
Joined: 18 May 99
Posts: 19012
Credit: 40,757,560
RAC: 67
United Kingdom
Message 1516475 - Posted: 15 May 2014, 12:54:22 UTC - in response to Message 1516473.  

How much better on average/year?

Read this

A while ago, I was able to briefly interview Dave DeGraaff, SunPower’s general manager in the module products group about the progress being made with respect to growing panel efficiencies. SunPower knows a good deal about such matters, since they have some of the most efficient panels in the industry and keep pushing the envelope. Their E Series panels currently enjoy one of the highest conversion rates, at over 20.5%. Their new X Series panel currently stands at 21.5%, and it’s projected to increase to 23% by 2015. SunPower’s Efficiency Roadmap shows an overall absolute efficiency improvement of 6% over the eight-year period from 2007 to 2015 (from 17 to 23%). This is a big selling point for the company, since you can get 60% more energy from the same space.


6% increase over an 8 year period.

I don't want to know what somebody with a vested interested in selling a product wants you to think. I want to know how much per/year increase there has been over the previous years.

N.B. I first studied this subject in the early 70's.
ID: 1516475 · Report as offensive
Мишель
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 26 Nov 13
Posts: 3073
Credit: 87,868
RAC: 0
Netherlands
Message 1516486 - Posted: 15 May 2014, 13:11:55 UTC - in response to Message 1516475.  

I don't want to know what somebody with a vested interested in selling a product wants you to think. I want to know how much per/year increase there has been over the previous years.

N.B. I first studied this subject in the early 70's.

Well then do a Google search yourself if you are unwilling to believe the sources I posted.
ID: 1516486 · Report as offensive
Profile William Rothamel
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 25 Oct 06
Posts: 3756
Credit: 1,999,735
RAC: 4
United States
Message 1516496 - Posted: 15 May 2014, 13:36:16 UTC - in response to Message 1516486.  

How is cost per watt tracking increases in efficiency ??

I dream of the day when they will cost no more than high quality roof shingles.
ID: 1516496 · Report as offensive
Batter Up
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 5 May 99
Posts: 1946
Credit: 24,860,347
RAC: 0
United States
Message 1516526 - Posted: 15 May 2014, 14:59:06 UTC - in response to Message 1516367.  
Last modified: 15 May 2014, 15:09:33 UTC

"Batter Up" wrote:
"CLYDE" wrote:
What is the need of people to label, and put people down, instead of arguing the facts/opinion?


It is a Machiavellian way of discrediting truth that hinders an agenda.


Oh, nevermind.


Some of us have eyes to see and ears to hear.
Jul 23, 2013
Rep. Johnson urges House to act on climate change
Issues: Environment
I accept your apology.

N.B. I first studied this subject in the early 70's.
Do you have a link to your paper? I didn't think so.
ID: 1516526 · Report as offensive
OzzFan Crowdfunding Project Donor*Special Project $75 donorSpecial Project $250 donor
Volunteer tester
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 9 Apr 02
Posts: 15691
Credit: 84,761,841
RAC: 28
United States
Message 1516550 - Posted: 15 May 2014, 15:58:55 UTC - in response to Message 1516526.  

"Batter Up" wrote:
"CLYDE" wrote:
What is the need of people to label, and put people down, instead of arguing the facts/opinion?


It is a Machiavellian way of discrediting truth that hinders an agenda.


Oh, nevermind.


Some of us have eyes to see and ears to hear.
Jul 23, 2013
Rep. Johnson urges House to act on climate change
Issues: Environment
I accept your apology.


Doesn't change that you also use labels to discredit. Some of us understand that there's far more to the Universe than what we can see with our eyes or hear with our ears, which is why we have built tools for such purposes.

No apology has been offered.
ID: 1516550 · Report as offensive
Batter Up
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 5 May 99
Posts: 1946
Credit: 24,860,347
RAC: 0
United States
Message 1516552 - Posted: 15 May 2014, 16:04:04 UTC - in response to Message 1516550.  

"Batter Up" wrote:
"CLYDE" wrote:
What is the need of people to label, and put people down, instead of arguing the facts/opinion?


It is a Machiavellian way of discrediting truth that hinders an agenda.


Oh, nevermind.


Some of us have eyes to see and ears to hear.
Jul 23, 2013
Rep. Johnson urges House to act on climate change
Issues: Environment
I accept your apology.


Doesn't change that you also use labels to discredit. Some of us understand that there's far more to the Universe than what we can see with our eyes or hear with our ears, which is why we have built tools for such purposes.

No apology has been offered.

But you do agree with me that the good congressman believes humans are the cause of global warming as I stated.
ID: 1516552 · Report as offensive
OzzFan Crowdfunding Project Donor*Special Project $75 donorSpecial Project $250 donor
Volunteer tester
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 9 Apr 02
Posts: 15691
Credit: 84,761,841
RAC: 28
United States
Message 1516567 - Posted: 15 May 2014, 16:26:36 UTC - in response to Message 1516552.  

Doesn't change that you also use labels to discredit. Some of us understand that there's far more to the Universe than what we can see with our eyes or hear with our ears, which is why we have built tools for such purposes.

No apology has been offered.

But you do agree with me that the good congressman believes humans are the cause of global warming as I stated.


Yes. A "correct" label doesn't mean it can't used to discredit an entire group. Am I correct that you were utilizing this Congressman's obvious lack of understanding of plate tectonics as a way to imply that all "changers" share the same basic misunderstandings of science?
ID: 1516567 · Report as offensive
Previous · 1 . . . 5 · 6 · 7 · 8 · 9 · Next

Message boards : Politics : Cycles


 
©2024 University of California
 
SETI@home and Astropulse are funded by grants from the National Science Foundation, NASA, and donations from SETI@home volunteers. AstroPulse is funded in part by the NSF through grant AST-0307956.