Is Green Energy Viable?

[macsen rufus]

Solar is not going to be practical for a while. Not until they can figure out how to make all the little hexes line up a row.

If you're an advocate of solar energy and don't know what I'm talking about, educate yourself.

I'll admit this has been bugging me. I'm pretty damn sure you're just trolling, because it's a "debating" tactic you've used before (I'm even calling it the "Vladimir manoeuvre" now), which seems to be to hurl some obscure gibberish into the fray then make the claim that anyone who doesn't understand said gibberish automatically loses the debate. It's another take on the Emperor's New Clothes, I think.

So with my university-level education on this topic, and a few years experience installing the things on people's roofs (along with wind turbines, solar water heating, heat-exchange ventilation etc etc), I have no idea what you mean by the "little hexes" (sounds like something out of Harry Potter, tbh).

So I'm calling your hand. Lay it on the table and show your cards, enlighten us, O wise one

[cmacq]

Right,
Your quite right. I live in the US southwest, and solar has been in use here, a variety of types at a variety of scales for quite a while now.

Please see Abengoa Solar

Also here are the basic stats on a few US solar plants.

Solar Thermal Energy Plants; proposed and operational
Solar Company & Electric Utility: BrightSource Energy and Pacific Gas & Electric. PLant Location: Mojave Desert, USA.
Megawatts: 500 MW, with plans to expand to 900 MW.
Status: Scheduled to be operational in 2011.

Solar Company & Electric Utility: Stirling Energy Systems and San Diego Gas & Electric. Plant Location: Mojave Desert, USA.
Megawatts: 500 MW, with possible expansion to 850 MW.
Status: Will be operational in 2011.

Solar Company & Electric Utility: Solel and Pacific Gas & Electric. Plant Location: Mojave Desert, USA.
Megawatts: 553 MW.
Status: Will be operational in 2011.

Solar Company: Solar Partners. Plant Location: California, USA.
Megawatts: 400 MW.
Status: Scheduled to be operational in 2012.

Solar Company & Electric Utility: Florida Power & Light and Southern California Edison. Plant Location: Mojave Desert, USA.
Megawatts: 310 MW.
Status: Operational.

Solar Company & Electric Utility: Florida Power & Light. Plant Location: Florida, USA
Megawatts: 300 MW.
Status: Scheduled to be operational in 2011.

Solar Company & Electric Utility: Abengoa Solar and Arizona Public Service Co. Plant Location: Arizona, USA.
Megawatts: 280 MW.
Status: Scheduled to be operational in 2011.

Solar Company & Electric Utility: Florida Power & Light. Plant Location: Mojave Desert, USA.
Megawatts: 250 MW.
Status: Scheduled to be operational in 2011.

Solar Company & Electric Utility: Ausra and Pacific Gas & Electric. Plant Location: California, USA.
Megawatts: 177 MW.
Status: Scheduled to be operational in 2010.

Photovoltaic (PV) Solar Power Plants; proposed and operational
By 2011, Deming, New Mexico, USA will be the home of the world’s largest solar power plant. This 300 Megawatt solar facility will be 15 times the size of the current largest solar plant on the planet. New Solar Ventures and Solar Torx are the companies behind the project. The solar energy plant will cover as many as 1,300 hectares and employ between 300 and 400 people. The project’s planners estimate that the plant will supply enough energy to power 240,000 homes.

The Solana solar plant, 70 miles from Pheonix, near Gila Bend, Arizona, USA, will compliment the Deming plant when both begin operations in 2011. It will produce 280 megawatts of energy, provide 1,500 jobs, and cover an area of 769 hectares. The solar power facility will be the child of Abengoa Solar and Arizona Public Service Company. However, the project depends on the United States Congress to renew clean energy tax credits, which would otherwise expire at the end of 2008.

An 80 megawatt solar farm in Fresno, California, USA will be completed by 2011. Cleantech, together with the California Construction Authority, will be responsible for construction. When finished, the plant will occupy about 260 hectares. It will be called the Kings River Conservation District Community Choice Solar Farm. In addition to this solar farm, Cleantech is in the preparing to develop several other facilities of a similar size also in California.

Las Vegas, Nevada, USA 14.2 megawatt solar park operated by SunPower. It’s located at the Nellis Air Force Base, which it powers. Saves the Air Force base an estimated $1 million USD annually in energy costs. The solar array covers an area of over 56 hectares and employs 70,000 PV panels.

[Whacker]

I submit the following: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pebble_bed_reactor

A nuclear reactor design that is very near foolproof if designed correctly, and far less likely (again by design) to catastrophically fail a la windscale, 3 mile, chernobyl, etc.

Looks great to me, the one problem I can see that will cause it to never take off is that it's not condusive to acting as a breeder reactor, ie. breeding nuclear materials for use in weaponry.

/shrug

[Raz]

I still don't know why we don't just use tilde-energy. As in, as the tide comes in, it spins a spinny thing... the water is then pumped back out as you don't want the spinny thing spinning backward. But seriously, I can't see too many bad points in that... it' renewable, it's clean, and if the planet keeps warming there'll forever be enough water to run this tilde-power-generator featuring spinny thing.

Edit: Spinny thing = Turbine.

[LittleGrizzly]

I always thought tide energy would be something we would use alot more in UK being a little island, is it just not effecient or too expensive ?

[Whacker]

Ti(l)de energy solutions tend to have a rather significant impact on the local ecosystem where they are installed. Not only do they tend to kill the local critters, the screen meshes that are installed on both sides to prevent Flipper from getting mulched need to be cleaned often as not to restrict water flow.

[Vladimir]

I'll admit this has been bugging me. I'm pretty damn sure you're just trolling, because it's a "debating" tactic you've used before (I'm even calling it the "Vladimir manoeuvre" now), which seems to be to hurl some obscure gibberish into the fray then make the claim that anyone who doesn't understand said gibberish automatically loses the debate. It's another take on the Emperor's New Clothes, I think.

So with my university-level education on this topic, and a few years experience installing the things on people's roofs (along with wind turbines, solar water heating, heat-exchange ventilation etc etc), I have no idea what you mean by the "little hexes" (sounds like something out of Harry Potter, tbh).

So I'm calling your hand. Lay it on the table and show your cards, enlighten us, O wise one

Well this graduate student who works in an office is about to educate you.

Current solar energy is a foolish investment because it only converts energy from the infrared portion of the EM spectrum into electricity. The new layered solar cells will absorb light from more of the spectrum dramatically increasing it's efficiency. The problem is getting the hexagonal structure of these materials to line up perfectly to improve efficiency. Only then will solar cells become an efficient source of energy.

You're arguing with yourself if you think that is what this is. I'm simply here to educate, like my new hero Gordon Ramsay; he makes Simon look like a . Obscure? Hardly. Just science. But don't take my word for it; go find it!

[macsen rufus]

Thank you, Vladimir.

Current solar energy is a foolish investment because it only converts energy from the infrared portion of the EM spectrum into electricity. The new layered solar cells will absorb light from more of the spectrum dramatically increasing it's efficiency. The problem is getting the hexagonal structure of these materials to line up perfectly to improve efficiency. Only then will solar cells become an efficient source of energy.

THAT makes sense.

Solar is not going to be practical for a while. Not until they can figure out how to make all the little hexes line up a row.

but that was so vague as to not really convey any sense. It implies firstly that ALL solar power is photovoltaic, which it isn't, and that multi-layered PVs are the only PVs, which they aren't, and you don't really specify what you mean by "practical". To my mind "practical" means it works - which current technology does, and there are applications where it outperforms grid-connected supplies from conventional sources. It's a matter of appropriateness.

But you cannot dismiss an entire field of endeavour based on the difficulties of only one branch of research.

Commercial PVs to date can vary from 1-15+% efficiency, and improvements would be highly welcome, but there are plenty of existing systems using current technology making significant contributions, with or without their little hexes lined up

[russia almighty]

Solar panels have gotten better, much better. The thing is, the more efficient they are, the more you will pay for them.


We were looking into buying some 40's for our house, uh, it'd of been expensive, lets put it that way.

Nuclear, ah that issue. 3 mile is not a good example of a reactor failure, but anything of western safety standards and operator training being better than their USSR counter parts. I'm tempted to say, the nation-states that would use nuclear power as a core energy source, already have nuclear weaponry, making the point of breeding moot. There are other options for fuel, thorium is one. It is much more abundant then Uranium, and India and the U.S are the KSA of the stuff (basically, no dealing with unstable states). Only problem is though, while it's uranium isotope doesn't have a long half life, it's even nastier than the stuff current Uranium reactors produce. There is also the issue of water cooling; it's cool to put them in say the Mississippi states, where water is widely available, but what about the south west, where droughts are a big problem?

I wouldn't even waste time with alternate fuels for cars. The electric motor would be easier to transition to than something a chemical or bioengineer cooked up.

[rory_20_uk]

First off, I think that the viability depends on the country where it is being instigated and the electricity network in the country. Green energy has less need for a centralised system than say nuclear, where small reactors are not a great idea.

If countries such as the UAE / Saudi invested in the technology they would be able to reduce their need for other forms of power; such places have the double bonus of not only producing electricity, but reducing the need for air conditioning which uses masses of electricity.

The cost is great at the moment, but with increased research and volume of production this will decrease. This of course is true of all forms of green energy.

Reducing the need for energy supplies from areas of the world that is energy rich is of course another important factor to bear in mind.

[Old Geezer]

Windmills kill 500 million birds every month in the USA and that means there are so many bugs that will will be smothered by 100-foot-high tide of the litlle buggers before the year 2012. Solar power will be destroyed by solar flares soon after 2012 so even if we build bird-friendly windmills, we are all doomed to die in the dark.

[a completely inoffensive name]

Windmills kill 500 million birds every month in the USA and that means there are so many bugs that will will be smothered by 100-foot-high tide of the litlle buggers before the year 2012. Solar power will be destroyed by solar flares soon after 2012 so even if we build bird-friendly windmills, we are all doomed to die in the dark.

500 million every month? 6 billion every year? Just in the U.S.? You must be credible, you don't even need to site sources!

[PershsNhpios]

Green energy?

Ba ha ha ha ha!

And I had my thread locked about Super Galatic Robots! Green energy!
I bet you want to live in a land where the sky is always blue, too!

[Avicenna]

Simply improving energy generation won't do.

The underlying problem is that the human population is skyrocketing, and Earth simply cannot support it.

In addition to improving/revolutionising our ways of getting energy, we have to manage to cut the human population, or our planet will do so for us. It's happening either way.

[Ramses II CP]

Simply improving energy generation won't do.

The underlying problem is that the human population is skyrocketing, and Earth simply cannot support it.

In addition to improving/revolutionising our ways of getting energy, we have to manage to cut the human population, or our planet will do so for us. It's happening either way.

Precisely right. Population control is at the heart of all the 'green' movements. If we don't figure that out everything is a short term solution.