July 12, 2020
The real purpose of Solar nergy
David C. Moyer posted this link at Facebook:
Nuclear Power can Play a Big Role in the Energy Transition
He says:
A commenter named Michael complained:
Wait, what physics said solar can't provide a large portion of our electricity? It certainly can; the limitation is our current ability to harness it. That's an issue of research and funding though.
Darren replied:
A base load power plant is around 1,000 MW. Tell me how batteries can replace that. Batteries require recharging possibly from a 24/7 source.
The primary issue was settled during the Electric War Between Edison/Wall Street on one hand and Westinghouse/
The result was the electric grid which made modern civilization possible via high voltage power transmission.
Until the decentralized power generation espoused by Edison can replace the 24/7 mega power transmitted by high voltage lines espoused by Tesla and Westinghouse we're stuck with the grid and large base load plants.
Michael said:
The Earth absorbs roughly 174 PW of solar power. Cut that in half to account for night time (or really to account for the dark side of the Earth) and that would be just shy of 100,000,000 times the "base load power plant".
What? I reply:
Michael Leung your statement is completely illogical. It presupposed the entire surface of the Earth is covered with solar cells. Sure; that'll supply us with plenty of power but all life on Earth would die from lack of sunlight.
I further throw in:
What I find interesting is that proposals for building large solar satellites (where sunlight is raw, and plentiful) are as opposed by the fans of solar energy as is nuclear. Unless we have some major revolution in solar technology that would be a better way to go (notice I didn't say good; too much lost in transmission and the like.) In my humble opinion many of those who promote wind and solar do so not because they think it will provide for all our needs but because they want the world to do with less and eventually for the population to drop. Oh, and so they can control the populace as surely as ancient Egypt or China controlled their people by controlling the water supply. Energy is the measure of wealth.
Nuclear Power can Play a Big Role in the Energy Transition
He says:
I am not philosophically anti anything. However, the physics says that solar and wind will not
be sufficient to provide even a large portion of our electricity, much
less nearly all of it. Solar can be useful, although it is expensive,
but it does tend to be available when peak loads are being experienced,
especially in summer time. I find that wind is much less useful except
maybe off shore or other areas where there is almost always wind.
In-land, here where I live, the wind power is usually available when it
is not needed and not available when needed. It is a simple matter to
go online to PJM's website and see that happening in real time or
looking at past data. Nuke isn't the am all and be all, either,
because, at least with current technology throttling up and down is
awkward. Newer technologies might make that work better. But nuke
should be a bigger piece of the pie than it is now.
Wait, what physics said solar can't provide a large portion of our electricity? It certainly can; the limitation is our current ability to harness it. That's an issue of research and funding though.
Darren replied:
A base load power plant is around 1,000 MW. Tell me how batteries can replace that. Batteries require recharging possibly from a 24/7 source.
The primary issue was settled during the Electric War Between Edison/Wall Street on one hand and Westinghouse/
The result was the electric grid which made modern civilization possible via high voltage power transmission.
Until the decentralized power generation espoused by Edison can replace the 24/7 mega power transmitted by high voltage lines espoused by Tesla and Westinghouse we're stuck with the grid and large base load plants.
Michael said:
The Earth absorbs roughly 174 PW of solar power. Cut that in half to account for night time (or really to account for the dark side of the Earth) and that would be just shy of 100,000,000 times the "base load power plant".
What? I reply:
Michael Leung your statement is completely illogical. It presupposed the entire surface of the Earth is covered with solar cells. Sure; that'll supply us with plenty of power but all life on Earth would die from lack of sunlight.
I further throw in:
What I find interesting is that proposals for building large solar satellites (where sunlight is raw, and plentiful) are as opposed by the fans of solar energy as is nuclear. Unless we have some major revolution in solar technology that would be a better way to go (notice I didn't say good; too much lost in transmission and the like.) In my humble opinion many of those who promote wind and solar do so not because they think it will provide for all our needs but because they want the world to do with less and eventually for the population to drop. Oh, and so they can control the populace as surely as ancient Egypt or China controlled their people by controlling the water supply. Energy is the measure of wealth.
Posted by: Timothy Birdnow at
10:10 AM
| No Comments
| Add Comment
Post contains 549 words, total size 4 kb.
24kb generated in CPU 0.0138, elapsed 0.1812 seconds.
35 queries taking 0.172 seconds, 183 records returned.
Powered by Minx 1.1.6c-pink.
35 queries taking 0.172 seconds, 183 records returned.
Powered by Minx 1.1.6c-pink.
