4 ms·

All we need to invent is the wireless energy receiver! We did, and we've already hit the quantum limit of how efficient they can be. It isn't enough. Well it

All we need to invent is the wireless energy receiver! We did, and we've already hit the quantum limit of how efficient they can be. It isn't enough. Well it is enough, but there isn't an efficient method to store or transmit the captured power. Solar is awesome, but the places it is most available also happens to be where it is least needed, in general, I'm aware of Saudi Arabia. It should also be pointed out that Solar is the most [1] green house gas producing method of green energy. Wind, Nuclear, Hydro-Electric, and Tidal are all vastly more carbon efficient. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Life-cycle_greenhouse-gas_emissions_of_energy_sources https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Life-cycle_greenhouse-gas_emis...

fisherjeff 10y ago
Not disagreeing with anything you said but it's worth pointing out that concentrated solar is competitive in terms of GHG emissions.
Reason077 10y ago
It should also be pointed out that Solar is the most [1] green house gas producing method of green energy. ... but still tiny compared to any form of fossil fuel or biomass! Presumably the carbon footprint of solar is largely made up of fossil fuel used in the production and installation of PV panels themselves. This would decline over time as the grid, and vehicles, become greener. Eventually, new panels would be produced using energy from existing panels, closing the loop. Wind, Nuclear, Hydro-Electric, and Tidal are all vastly more carbon efficient. The difference is pretty small according to the table you posted. They're all much, much better than fossil fuels.
sulam 10y ago
To save some people the click -- minimum warming potential by a few less-than-randomly selected sources: Coal: 770 Gas: 410 Rooftop solar: 26 Offshore wind: 8 Nuclear: 3.7 So, the word "vastly" above might be overstating things. Solar certainly isn't the most efficient, but it's pretty damn efficient compared to anything produced by biological processes.
- valarauca1 10y ago
  400% and 700% are a vast difference. I'm not comparing Roof Top solar to Coal or Natural Gas yes very clear winner there. I'm comparing it to Hydro-Electric, Nuclear, Tidal, and Wind where it is by far the dirtiest.
  - sulam 10y ago
    You know, I edited out a sentence that read something like "unless you're playing statistical games with percentages" because I thought to myself that this was an unfair projection of what you might be thinking. Thank you for making it clear that I was not being unfair, even in my pre-edited state. They are a small difference compared to extractive mining. Statistics rhetorical tricks aside, the world would be much better off if we were using any mix of the non-extractive power technologies, even if that mix heavily weights rooftop solar. Fundamentally the fact that rooftop solar is something I can put some money into tomorrow and see the results in six months means it is effective, which offends many people who would prefer that we spend our efforts in ineffective ways, either for ideological reasons (amusing that nuclear doesn't appeal to these types) or because they wish to maintain the status quo. Since the science shows that status quo is going to drown the island I live on inside of 75 years, I'm not a big fan of this point of view. My island is probably already dead, and the 80K people that live here need to find a new home in our or our children's lifetimes, but I am motivated to make choices that don't produce more stories like mine.
sulam 10y ago
When you say "it isn't enough", what exactly are you referring to? It isn't enough for what? It doesn't have to do everything. But it's something, and something you can personally choose to do. As opposed to, oh, for example a geothermal facility, which I can't exactly put in my back yard.

fisherjeff 10y ago

Not disagreeing with anything you said but it's worth pointing out that concentrated solar is competitive in terms of GHG emissions.

Reason077 10y ago

It should also be pointed out that Solar is the most [1] green house gas producing method of green energy. ... but still tiny compared to any form of fossil fuel or biomass! Presumably the carbon footprint of solar is largely made up of fossil fuel used in the production and installation of PV panels themselves. This would decline over time as the grid, and vehicles, become greener. Eventually, new panels would be produced using energy from existing panels, closing the loop. Wind, Nuclear, Hydro-Electric, and Tidal are all vastly more carbon efficient. The difference is pretty small according to the table you posted. They're all much, much better than fossil fuels.

sulam 10y ago

To save some people the click -- minimum warming potential by a few less-than-randomly selected sources: Coal: 770 Gas: 410 Rooftop solar: 26 Offshore wind: 8 Nuclear: 3.7 So, the word "vastly" above might be overstating things. Solar certainly isn't the most efficient, but it's pretty damn efficient compared to anything produced by biological processes.

valarauca1 10y ago
400% and 700% are a vast difference. I'm not comparing Roof Top solar to Coal or Natural Gas yes very clear winner there. I'm comparing it to Hydro-Electric, Nuclear, Tidal, and Wind where it is by far the dirtiest.
- sulam 10y ago
  You know, I edited out a sentence that read something like "unless you're playing statistical games with percentages" because I thought to myself that this was an unfair projection of what you might be thinking. Thank you for making it clear that I was not being unfair, even in my pre-edited state. They are a small difference compared to extractive mining. Statistics rhetorical tricks aside, the world would be much better off if we were using any mix of the non-extractive power technologies, even if that mix heavily weights rooftop solar. Fundamentally the fact that rooftop solar is something I can put some money into tomorrow and see the results in six months means it is effective, which offends many people who would prefer that we spend our efforts in ineffective ways, either for ideological reasons (amusing that nuclear doesn't appeal to these types) or because they wish to maintain the status quo. Since the science shows that status quo is going to drown the island I live on inside of 75 years, I'm not a big fan of this point of view. My island is probably already dead, and the 80K people that live here need to find a new home in our or our children's lifetimes, but I am motivated to make choices that don't produce more stories like mine.

sulam 10y ago

When you say "it isn't enough", what exactly are you referring to? It isn't enough for what? It doesn't have to do everything. But it's something, and something you can personally choose to do. As opposed to, oh, for example a geothermal facility, which I can't exactly put in my back yard.