Power companies going the way of the landline by 2030?

[SunEagle]

Well, then there's your lack of motivation right there; there's no reason to stop burning fossil fuel from your point of view, so any action the government takes to discourage fossil fuel use or encourage renewable energy is seen as a waste. Correct? Wrong.



That's the prisoner's dilemma. The way out is tit for tat; each country needs to take small steps now, and as they see others taking small steps, it will encourage them to take more. And that does seem to be happening; even China seems to be working hard to pump up its renewable energy production.
So that's no excuse for inaction on our part.

I fully support renewable energy generation. I also know we need more than RE to provide the electricity we use.

What I do not support is the actions taken by the controlling party to raise the cost of fossil fuel generation (which we still need) though fear tactics just to satisfy their foolish beliefs.

We can't get other countries to stop killing each other, how can we get them to stop using the cheapest fuel available to them.

As for getting others to follow the reduction of fossil fuel burning, I think there is a better chance of me winning the mega-million lottery.

[SunEagle]

Suneagle's in Florida so no worries about the effects of climate change there.

I'm not worried about getting my feet wet. Besides there are plenty of places inland that will never see the tides.

[SunEagle]

Of course nobody is proposing that we actually pave Maricopa County with PV and try to transmit the energy to the rest of the country. This is just a back-of-the-envelope calculation to show that there's plenty of land for all the solar we need. To counter statements like this:



But since you asked....The U.S. has a total of 1,164,022 MW of total generating capacity, or 1.16e+12W. That's less than half of the PV capacity we would need to actually generate all the power we need in a year (remember, we need about 3.7e+12W of PV to generate our annual consumption). So a PV array sized to meet the peak electric demand in the U.S. would fit in Maricopa County with quite a bit of room to spare.

The reason we need less than half as much PV to meet the peak demand vs. generating all our power is because the sun doesn't shine all the time. So to generate all our power from PV we need to generate excess power during the daytime and store it somehow for later.

So once again we come back to the fact that the problem is finding a way to store all the power, not finding places to put the solar panels.

While I still don't necessarily agree with your math the discussion is mute. Energy storage (or lack of) is the biggest barrier.

[DanKegel]

Do you think fossil fuel is running out?

No. But I think we should leave it in the ground to avoid making the oceans so acidic that shellfish can't grow,
and to avoid the otherwise inevitable climate changes.

Since this thread is in "Solar industry trends", and this thread has morphed into a rehash
of whether carbon dioxide emissions are harmful to the environment,
I think it's now wandered off topic. If Sunking wants to debate the topic,
he should open a new thread in the appropriate forum.

(edit) I've gone and opened a new thread, folks who want to debate whether
anthropogenic climate change is real and/or whether carbon dioxide harms the environment
can take it to

http://www.solarpaneltalk.com/showthread.php?20677-Is-Carbon-Dioxide-Good-For-You-Are-Fossil-Fuels-good-for-the-environment

[pleppik]

Let me ask you one very simple question.

Do you think fossil fuel is running out?

That sounds like the wrong question to me.

The right question would be, "what price are willing to pay for fossil fuel, both economic and environmental, and how long are willing to pay it?"

It should be fairly obvious that fossil fuel is a finite resource so of course it is running out. But it should also be fairly obvious that we have centuries of supply left if we don't care how much it costs to extract or how much damage we do in the process. And it should also be obvious that there is a fairly substantial price to be paid, both economic and environmental, for our current level of fossil fuel usage.

[Sunking]

he considers anyone who disagrees an idiot.

I did not call you an idiot, you did that all by yourself.

Let me ask you one very simple question.

Do you think fossil fuel is running out?

[pleppik]

I agree that Storage is the main barrier to get over. But your math is based on what was used in kWh in the US in a year. It needs to be based on worst case "peak demand" and length of time for that demand. You also will need a large percentage of spare generation capabilities above peak demand due to equipment failure and system outages for maintenance (panels do need to be cleaned every now and then).

Go back and find out what the total US "electrical generating" capacity is and then determine the amount of area needed for pv panels to match that, including the extra wattage required for the short Winter hours of "perfect" sunlight.

Then think about how to transport all that energy to the use points country wide and the "losses" that will happen due to voltage drop.

Look it all sounds feasible on paper concerning the amount of area needed for pv to generate what we use, but in reality the logistics makes that math on paper a fantasy.

Of course nobody is proposing that we actually pave Maricopa County with PV and try to transmit the energy to the rest of the country. This is just a back-of-the-envelope calculation to show that there's plenty of land for all the solar we need. To counter statements like this:

I don't think you have the correct math concerning the amount of square miles needed to duplicate the GigaWatts of power generation in the US. I doubt it would fit into even one state let alone a county.

But since you asked....The U.S. has a total of 1,164,022 MW of total generating capacity, or 1.16e+12W. That's less than half of the PV capacity we would need to actually generate all the power we need in a year (remember, we need about 3.7e+12W of PV to generate our annual consumption). So a PV array sized to meet the peak electric demand in the U.S. would fit in Maricopa County with quite a bit of room to spare.

The reason we need less than half as much PV to meet the peak demand vs. generating all our power is because the sun doesn't shine all the time. So to generate all our power from PV we need to generate excess power during the daytime and store it somehow for later.

So once again we come back to the fact that the problem is finding a way to store all the power, not finding places to put the solar panels.

[DanKegel]

There is not a damn thing you can do to stop CO2 emissions. It is just a waste of money and effort.

And there you have it. This is why Sunking is so unpleasant in every discussion on this board -- he's convinced that any effort to protect the environment is a waste of time and effort, and he considers anyone who disagrees an idiot.

[inetdog]

A warmer earth is greener, wetter, and can support more life. Get over it.

Unfortunately for some, just not more of the same life, nor in the same locations.

[Sunking]

There is not a damn thing you can do to stop CO2 emissions. It is just a waste of money and effort. Climate has been changing since the big bang, we are still coming out of the ice age. The earth has been much warmer than it is now. A warmer earth is greener, wetter, and can support more life. Get over it.

[inetdog]

Sobering thought on that note:

The uncontrolled (and uncontrollable??) accidental fires in coal mines in China produce more CO2 each year than the entire transportation fleet in the US.

[DanKegel]

I do not totally beleive that humans are the main reason for CO2 increase or that CO2 increase is the main cause of climate change.

Well, then there's your lack of motivation right there; there's no reason to stop burning fossil fuel from your point of view, so any action the government takes to discourage fossil fuel use or encourage renewable energy is seen as a waste. Correct?

The sad part is that if the US could stop right now using any and all forms of fossil fuel or be able to capture all forms of green house gases it will not make much of a difference in the amount of CO2 going into our atmosphere because of what the other countries use and burn.

That's the prisoner's dilemma. The way out is tit for tat; each country needs to take small steps now, and as they see others taking small steps, it will encourage them to take more. And that does seem to be happening; even China seems to be working hard to pump up its renewable energy production.
So that's no excuse for inaction on our part.

[SunEagle]

I guess you don't believe the science showing that fossil fuels cause ocean acidification and climate change?

Those are sufficient motivation for, e.g., insurance companies to raise rates for people likely to be affected by sea level increases.

Yes I believe the climate is changing and unfortunately the seas are rising but I do not totally beleive that humans are the main reason for CO2 increase or that CO2 increase is the main cause of climate change. But that is another story.


Even if most people believe we are causing climate change and acid oceans, they are not motivated in reducing their electric use. Unfortunately raising insurance rates is also not enough motivation for people to stop wasting electricity. If you want to have less CO2 going up then people need to reduce the amount of energy they use.

The sad part is that if the US could stop right now using any and all forms of fossil fuel or be able to capture all forms of green house gases it will not make much of a difference in the amount of CO2 going into our atmosphere because of what the other countries use and burn.

[Ian S]

I guess you don't believe the science showing that fossil fuels cause ocean acidification and climate change?

Those are sufficient motivation for, e.g., insurance companies to raise rates for people likely to be affected by sea level increases.

Suneagle's in Florida so no worries about the effects of climate change there.

[DanKegel]

Now if fossil and nuclear fuel was running out (LOL not in the next dozen lifetimes) then I could see people moving toward a major investment to do the above, but honestly there is not enough motivation for people to make those lifestyle changes and spend the money.

I guess you don't believe the science showing that fossil fuels cause ocean acidification and climate change?

Those are sufficient motivation for, e.g., insurance companies to raise rates for people likely to be affected by sea level increases.