Redpill me on solar energy

redpill me on solar energy

i am a electrical engineering freshman and this meme seems to be spewed every week during introduction to engineering classes

is it really efficient or is it just another dumb liberal idea for
>muh green energy

Other urls found in this thread:

euanmearns.com/the-energy-return-of-solar-pv/
ted.com/talks/michael_shellenberger_how_fear_of_nuclear_power_is_hurting_the_environment
twitter.com/NSFWRedditVideo

>much slide thread

GET IN HERE

it's a very good concept and theoretical applications of it could do wonders, but currently there's no really good way to implement it
solar panels are the biggest memes, most actually useful energy sources utilizing solar are thermal in nautre

The costs have come down alot and it is really good for peak loading since the energy output matches energy demand. Still, it is expensive compared to other sources including wind power. It is economical in remote places where there is no electrical grid to connect to.

There needs to be more research to reduce the costs and boost efficiency.

It works, but nowhere near as efficiently as greenies would have you believe.
Basically solar is a good supplemental power source, but should never be trusted as a primary.

>really good for peak loading
NO.

Google "duck curve".

t. 7-year energy industry fag, electricity supply and management side

Well, it is more efficient than photosythnesis. If we didn't give a shit how they got there, a thousand square mile plant in the middle of Australia or the Sahara could power the world. Problem is, they currently are very environmentally expensive to produce. Mass scale production would lead to pollution problems in their creation.

They work great in their niche, and would probably be decent for majority of residential use in the horse latitudes, but they just can't dominate the power supply market themselves.

Good idea for supplimentary or space power, but they can't work for everything, and have decent limitations for large scale power requirements.

T. Mechanical Engineer

Pretty straight forward:
>takes roughly the same amount of energy to produce as it will produce over it's lifetime at peak production.
>takes very little to damage the panel and reduce productivity.
>Good for remote applications (space, Antarctica, desert) where production infrastructure doesn't exist.

Basically. It's good for small scale applications in specific circumstances, but it's shit for anything you would want to run a grid off of.

>slide thread
You faggots make up a new term every week, what does this mean this time?

our energy demands are extremely high due to the easy abundance of energy in fossil fuels

solar cells are cool but they can't really keep up with the established power systems

As an engineering student, you should understand when it is a good option and when it is not a good option.

That's about all there is to it.

Why don't you enjoy your kinex sets and leave grid management to people who could pass E&M physics.

Solar and renewables in general are unreliable and in some ways unpredictable. This leads to increased volatility, both economically and physically on grids. Should go without saying that this is BAD.
Energy supply needs to be reliable, safe, and cheap, in that order imo. Solar is practically none of those. We consider it "green" because we let rice niggers make the panels on the other side of the world. Google "mile wide caustic lake China".

Solar is good for two things only.
Space
Off-grid or micro grid operations.
Residential solar is a meme propped up by subsidies and fraught with fraud. Industrial scale solar is a joke. Look at ivanpah, biggest failure yet. They had to rush build gas plants and beg for an extension on the contract to make up for what the pv didn't produce.

Here you go. Solar power is a net loss if you stray just a little ways from the equator.

euanmearns.com/the-energy-return-of-solar-pv/

It's just libs trying to assuage their self-imposed guilt.

It took how long for China to get up 5 gigawatts of energy and we need to fill 20 Terawatts.

That should be enough for you. Renewable sources cannot even keep up with growth.

Right, so the real engineering question becomes how much extra funding to put into development of this potential energy source as an investment.

My guess is probably some but not a lot. And we should be focusing particularly on where it makes the most sense, and not just on "OH LOOK AT ME I BOUGHT A PRIUS AND SOLAR PANELS AND GOT A TAX WRITEOFF I'M SO GREEN"

my teacher told me you invest a lot in renewable energy because you depend a lot on russia

is it true germanbro?

How many solar panels did your teacher say it would take to stop depending on Russia?

Engineers have equations for these things.

she did not mention numbers but said yurop was afraid of depending on russia for energy which i thought was kekworthy

we invest a lot in renewable because it looks like the right thing to do and the government wants it

the solar cell manufacturers sold a lot on subsidies and did not bring R&D forward.

Russian dependency has little to do with it, we're talking about the real energy market here where renewables don't qualify. we use a lot of coal because it's not nuclear, we have that ourselves and it can also be shipped.

All renewables were contributing like 5% of the consumed energy in the year.

No, energy dependence on Russia is important. The oil pipelines being fought over in the middle east and central asia are a big part of this -- who controls the energy? Even back when Ronald Reagan was president, they line was to never become dependent on Russia for energy. During WWII, it was a race against Germany's development of coal gassification technology by going all out with our plentiful oil.

You can call that geopolitics, but I call it engineering and logistics. A good class exercise would be to consider what it would take, using any combination of alternative energy sources, to cut Russia off. Then you can add in the additional variable of whether you need to cut Russia off entirely, and where to compromise.

And then there are many other variables to include in your model in order to start to make it realistic.

Solar energy is not price competitive with hydrocarbon fuels.
Liberals want to throw taxpayer money at the problem.
It's something only private industry will deliver

No amount of money can change the physical laws that limit the efficiency of solar panels. You're thinking about science fiction now.

>space solar power

Solar has its applications. I don't mind if some very small fraction of investment goes to trying to improve it (and I think private should hold the bag for a lot.)

Don't read unnecessary things into what I said.

Solar energy on the planet's surface is so diffuse I highly doubt it will ever be a significant percentage of total energy usage. Nuclear is the future once fossil fuels are done.

There are ways around it such as using mirrors to focus sunlight.
The core issue is a chemistry problem (how do you design a solar photovoltaic harvesting system that is both cheap and efficient?)

In many cases, because the components are often built on China, it would take many many years for a solar panel to offset the carbon footprint made to manufacture one.

They're good in principal, but not at the point where they can make the cost/benefit ratio worth it.

It's horribly inefficient in states that don't have perfect climate for it 24/7 and if lack the ability to have it facing the sun at any given point.

The cost alone will put you back by about 7 years (assuming average U.S. paying job and U.S. dollaritos for all of this) by that point you'll have to start replacing most of the panels, it's a vicious cycle for almost 15-20 years until you really start making a profit off of it.

The ones that are actually worth the money, the average consumer could not afford anyways so it's not logical at all (talking hundreds of thousands U.S.).
For big businesses this could be a great alternative, Japan for instance has built entire buildings with solar panel windows.
There are so many panels it runs the entire building and a few buildings worth of buildings in the area.

>base microwave efficiency: 70%

>after attenuation, 40%

>getting through the atmosphere, 20% efficiency.

>utter waste of money compared to terrestrial installations

Nope.

it's because the greens / liberals always lie to us that it's a great alternative in a bid to get revenue up, which should also improve the technology, right? They wager the lie will only be apparent when the technology has already improved so much that it's no longer a lie.

The panels themselves can only absorb like 40% of the photon's energy due to hard thermodynamic limits. Mirrors won't fix that.

physically impossible to transport that energy such great distances due to the resistive losses involved

If there is no investment on return, then the government should leave it to the venture capitalists to get it over the hump.

Too bad the government does not answer to the people.

There's also the part where you have to launch it on a rocket, making it prohibitively expensive.

SSP is a meme just like Fusion; it will never be cost effective.

Its only potential near term application is to beam power to remotely operating soldiers.

there is no redpill. Solar energy is meme energy.

I have no problem with renewable energy, In fact I would love if we could be totally green. But the fact is, it's just not gonna happen. Maybe a few decades from now we will figure out the issues, but it just ain't happening right now

It's not impossible but since you're converting the energy to microwaves and back again, then transmitting the energy over millions of miles, then through the thick air reduces the energy you get on the ground to nearly zilch.

It will generate more current (due to the increased number of photons)

I think he was referring to actually using it in space, like to power small satellites and shit. Solar farms in space wouldn't make any kind of sense.

People need to stop trying to invest in green energy and start investing in research to minimize losses for energy transmission.

Once thats effective for super long distance you can actually make those best case scenario wind and solar farms

The greens are mostly just idealistic simpletons. Those in the government pushing solar are getting kickbacks from lobbiests and manufacturers.

right, most of that energy will be lost as heat

muh baseload

I just fucking told you that the panels can only absorb so much, it doesn't have anything to do with how many photons are being directed at them.

Cost is falling by 80% per decade.

Maybe it hits a wall, but play the curve

Unfortunately there are physical limits to how far you can transport electrons. Silver is the most conductive metal but it's scarce and oxidizes easily.
Superconducting cables require energy input (like LN2 cooling), and you can't cool an entire power grid with liquid nitrogen

Most of it will be lost as attenuation as the microwaves will propagate according to the inverse square law. You'd need a gigantic dish to collect it

Space is the only reasonable place for solar collectors. Too bad that with current technology you need to change them every 5-15 years, manufacturing them as non-green as it gets, and there's no way to store and transport all this energy back to the Earth.

The main issue of solar tech is storage: batteries.

Musk wants to improve battery tech (gigafactory) for use in other companies (tesla, solarcity) and space-bound power gathering satellites (spacex)

Current renewable energy is a meme, though there's no reason not to take the field seriously

So you're saying that next decade solar panels will be 160% efficient, or is that fundamentally impossible and we've already hit the limits of thermodynamics?

Yeah the leftie green folks forget that advanced energy tech involves all sorts of toxic metals like cadmium, arsenic, lead, etc

you're literally retarded

It's a liberal sham industry they promote so they can jew the taxpayer for shekels.

Remember that Mr. Shekelberg fuck who got a shitload of taxpayer monies from Obama early on to produce solar panels in the USA? that factory went kaput within a year, but of course the crony corporate fuck made out like a bandit.

Its useful for joe schmoe but not going to power a factory or new york city.
I live off grid, solar is very turn key and reliable.

Where do you get that?

I'm saying it will cost 20% of what it does now, whatever its efficiency.

Batteries are 13,000 times less energy dense than gasoline.

We are never going to make up a 13,000 fold difference.

Based on what? Hope?

I don't believe in the singularity meme.

that's why hydrogen storage/transport isn't feasible either, people promising a H2 economy were bullshitting.
hydrocarbons are king for now. we should take advantage of that

You don't need to, since battery -> electric motor implies a 10% loss, while gasoline -> gas motor implies an 80% loss

The funny part about that picture is the solar array isn't even aimed at the sun. How many pro-solar people are even going to think about that?

People who actually use solar know what they're talking about.

It's not a magic bullet that will solve all problems, however there is absolutely no reason not to put photovoltaic panels on your roof if you're in a sunny area and use solar thermal energy in areas that have a lot of sun.

Even if you don't have a battery having a system where your house will run the air conditioner for an hour before you get home using solar power will be beneficial.

I think that once battery technology becomes more than sufficient we're likely to reach a tipping point where everyone pretty much just goes off grid because there isn't any point in being cucked by energy companies anymore.

Battery technology changes slowly but with Teslas gigafactory pumping out batteries and recent research showing that you can double the capacity of lithium ion batteries I think it's basically inevitable.

Once you build the infrastructure to collect the energy from the sun it is much less intensive and cheaper to rely on solar energy than mining hundreds if not thousands of metres underground or from the bottom of the ocean.

Also, I know this is controversial but I actually believe in climate change and I think that people rely on cars too much, more people should ride their bicycle like me. Stop letting yourself be cucked by gasoline corporations and the automobile industry.

And the batteries weighing 13,000 times as much for the equivalent amount of energy in gasoline doesn't sap all the gains?

wind is more cost effective and scaleable

buying solar is a waste of money when wind exists

Never heard of this.
If I'm understanding it, the problem is the variation in demand is growing, and the ramp during the afternoon is tough to supply.

You get to subtract some of that weight by not carrying an ICE around with you

That's a vague generalization. Arguably both should be built.

Either way not everywhere is windy reliably. Not everywhere is sunny reliably. Both are effective in the right circumstances.

IMO Solar has less people getting triggered by turbines ruining muh scenic views tho.

Like hydro, we've already tapped most of the sources of wind that have a positive EROEI.

They'll refuse to not make money, the industry agents will set a ton of fires and you'll need "solar insurance" by legal mandatory

The batteries will weigh more than the engine and gas tank combined if they both hold the same amount of energy.

it's a good idea but renewables are still too weak. Even if you could transport all of the energy to where it is needed. Also you would need so many cables because there will be hundreds of different pairs of consumers / producers that dynamically change all the time.
Renewable advocates pray there will be a the battery singularity because of this. Of course that is even less practical than connecting sources with less losses.

Depends on what you build the solar cell from.

Solar power is the future.

We just need better ways to extract its power. The person who unlocks that power will be one very very wealthy individual.

But not the same fraction more.

Look -- one has a trajectory, the other is tapped out.

Place your bet.

Rooftops are ubiquitous and there are lots of flat deserted areas that get a lot of sun in the USA. If you're in a southern state you'll be getting more than enough sun hitting your roof to justify getting rooftop panels.

I don't know what the situation regarding financing or whatever - wouldn't be surprised if you get cucked by energy companies.

Retard alert.

Seriously trying to do the math here, so bear with me.

Energy in one unit of battery = x
Energy in one unit of gasoline = 13000x

Usable energy from electric motor using one unit of battery = .9x
Usable energy from internal combustion engine using one unit of gasoline = .2(13000x) = 2600x

So gasoline is only 2889 times more dense with usable energy than a batter?

you wanted to boil some water, user? well there's no energy here right now. Try again in 5 min. then in 30. Then in a few hours.

If it's still not up by the end of next day, we will supply you a gas burner

Both are tapped out. Neither has a future free from the limits of thermodynamics.

You really need to grow up if you still believe in the "exponential progress singularity" meme

Money is better spent working on better ways to build solar panels than actually installing them. If they could replace shingles and cost a few pence extra they make perfect sense.

But renewable energy is not required because nuclear is as clean as we can get. Hippie types have done massive amounts of damage by trying to prevent nuclear power.

I wouldn't be surprised, I read that due to high energy costs people in Hawaii have been moving to Solar like crazy and the industry giants and regulators have passed legislation to fuck people over.

However, in the grand scheme of things I think that it will mostly be minor stepping stones. Some countries will adopt it a lot faster and prove undeniable evidence as a case study that solar is better than burning coal and once that happens the political will will manifest and sort out the problems.

solar is about powerful enough to power your lights. providing it's a sunny day. It's efficient in that there's no real loss in using it but it's a supplementary source of power at best.

hydro is pretty good if you have the rivers. dams fuck up marine ecology though somewhat.

wind is pretty good as well but again more as a supplementary and then it's somewhat irregular. I have a personal hunch it may have negative effects on wind patterns overall. Taking that energy out of the global climate can't go without some consequence.

nuclear is honestly the cleanest option but some of the worst consequences when things go bad. If you talk about pollution and contamination, hydrocarbons are still worse.

coal is the dominant because it is reliable and cheap to obtain

natural gas is just a less bad hydrocarbon.

Not efficient at all, the amount of energy required to make a panel puts out more pollutants and greenhouse gases that it can theoretically save during its operational life. Currently being heavily subsidized by YOUR tax dollars to get anywhere near affordable (which means we all pay for it so a few greenfags can feel good about themselves).

That's not to say that there shouldn't be further research into it. There are certain applications (supplemental power in places with poor/unreliable electrical grid infrastructure, some portable electronics, remote installations in certain environments, space platforms, etc) that are ideal for solar, but to roll it out now as a replacement for current power sources is premature and wasteful. Increases in efficiency dramatically lower the cost/mW and should be the focus.

Still an uncrossable divide.

yup.

Which is why you can outfit a Tesla with an ICE and go 780,000 miles on a tank of gas, right?

Battery efficiency is not maxed out. You know this. Why pretend

>nuclear is clean as we can get
Then why wasn't it cost-effective to shut down Fukushima after it was already old and decrepit, and to put the spent rods somewhere else?

I firmly believe that technocracy is the wrong way to go, but we clearly don't have our best people making the decisions.

Solar is progressing pretty quickly and can grant independence and freedom from the grid. Unless you have a cuckolding fetish I don't know why you'd shill for nuclear.

Nuclear plants are also quite expensive to run, maintain and cost a lot to demolish once they're out of date.

For all intents and purposes, it is. We need a thousandfold increase, and thermodynamics will allow only a twofold increase at absolute best, because you can't make things that are more than 100% efficient, and even getting past 50% is almost impossible for most things.

What if we just put all these costs out to the public, since they are public utilities? Do you think this could counterbalance all the Jew Academics and Jew politicians and Jew corporations and help people to make more rational decisions en large?

well in Australia even the life gets roasted to dust by the sun so that might be the one location where it makes sense

Nigga at that stage just build a solar boiler and drive a steam turbine.

The red pill is you cut the cords and go off grid. You dont need a lot of panels if you have a decent battery bank.

250w panel $400
3kw lithium bat bank $1200

Living off free electricity for the rest life?

Priceless.

Heat engines reached their max efficiency decades ago.

It's a good idea but it's not a universal idea. I'm electrical engineering master degree.

The only real green energy is nuclear. Too bad everyone and their moms afraid of it yet it's the safest thing ever. Same shit in airplanes everyones scared of airplanes yet you're 50 times more likely to die just driving your car to work.

It works say in Croatia. It doesn't work in Germany. Now someone gonna come and say GERMAN DA LEADER. GERMANY THIS THAT.

ted.com/talks/michael_shellenberger_how_fear_of_nuclear_power_is_hurting_the_environment

In germanies case going solar set them back a a decade in "green energy" and "CO2" savings.

It's simple really

>Red
Solar is okay these and would could generate say 50% of all electricity.
>Yellow
Solar is decent there but could never generate more then 20~40% depends on location
>Green
Killyourself

Solar will never match nuclear because a good old Nuclear powerplants of about say 1 GWe has a good uptime from 90~95% giving you 1 fucking Gigawatt of electrical energy every hour NO FAIL.

Menwhile Solar and Wind and finnicky as fuck go from 0~100% in a few hours.

So while solar is good and it should be used. It's never a PRIMARY SOURCE and should never be.

What is the greenest industrial country on earth right now by electricity per carbon whatever? France. Why? Nuclear.

Those will last maybe 5 years before it won't hold a charge anymore. It's still just a battery.

Curiosity: what's the lifetime of the battery pack? I've heard oldskool things about for instance using spare energy to pump water out of the ground so you have water and then storing it up high so you could have water pressure or use it to run a generator, for instance.

Thoughts?

-expensive
-only works when it's sunny out
-needs massive amounts of land

it's really simple physics. wind and solar alone will never meet the energy demands of a modern civilization. Nuclear is the only viable green energy source at the moment.

Australia is not the only place where it would be useful though, The South of the US, India, Southern China, All of SE Asia, All of Africa, The Mediteranian etc could all use it.

You could also set up a bunch of thing to harvest solar energy in Spain or in Morocco and send the energy to Europe.

Coming from you?

I read your posts buddy.

5 years at best. Then you need another super expensive one.

It's a scam.

Another reason batteries suck compared to fuel is that you have to carry all the reagents with the battery. With fuel you pull the other reagent of the reaction out of the air. I don't think battery energy density will ever be as good as hydrocarbon fuel, even theoretically. No matter the "trajectory." Yes I would bet on that.