4 ms·

It's pretty decided that Solar will never be able to produce even close to sufficient energy to serve as a baseline energy source.

starbeast 8y ago
Including all losses, to power everything in the world with solar it comes to around twice the area of Portugal with current tech.
pfdietz 8y ago
That's utterly wrong. How could you come to that conclusion?
- ThomPete 8y ago
  How can you come to another conclusion by all means. Convince me that solar can serve as a base powersource.
  - pfdietz 8y ago
    I was criticizing this statement of yours: "It's pretty decided that Solar will never be able to produce even close to sufficient energy to serve as a baseline energy source." No, it has not been pretty decided. You are lying there. I don't need to show solar can do that, I am disputing your claim that it has been shown it can't do that, and calling you a liar for making that statement. Consider: you are claiming that it has been decided that not just now, but at no point in the future, will solar suffice. Regardless of technological advances, known or unknown, you are saying this issue has been settled. How could that possibly be true?
    - ThomPete 8y ago
      You are welcome to find any peer reviewed paper that proposes that. If we are allowed to just hope for things then fusion would be a much better method. Solar and wind is currently delivering around 1% of our energy needs, even with extreme improvements and investments to change that, which would be absurd it will not in any sensible way be able to deliver enough energy for our increasing needs. So again show an actually proven rational proposal or we are just talking wishes like fusion and then sun def wouldnt be used as a base source.
      - pfdietz 8y ago
        I'm not letting you off the hook, liar. You said it was "pretty settled". Justify that claim -- present evidence that it is in fact "pretty settled" -- or admit you were just lying. I do not have to prove your claim wrong.
        ThomPete 8y ago
        The evidence is pretty simple. We currently use 1% despite all the advances in solar. That makes 100% solar is not going to happen pretty settled when you factor in cost, materials, efficiency, reliability etc. I don't have to prove anything. You are welcome to believe in solar but you won't find any realistic proposals out there. If that existed all you had to do was to show it to me. But you won't because it doesn't exist. In other words, pretty settled.
        pfdietz 8y ago
        LOL Your claim is that because solar is only 1%, it can never be 100%? There was a time nuclear was less than 1% of our generating capacity. Why didn't this logic apply then? Or, for that matter, why doesn't it apply to any other technology that passes through 1% market share on its way up from 0%? You are simply ridiculous.
        ThomPete 8y ago
        That's not my claim but it's part of it, there is a reason why it's only 1% and it's not because it doesn't have political support. You still haven't actually put forward any realistic proposal for how a 100% solar grid system would work realistically providing us with stable and scalable energy and ability to solve the world increasing energy needs. So you can call me what you want that doesn't change that fact.
  - starbeast 8y ago
    ~20 terawatts = humans ~90,000 terawatts = sunlight hitting surface of earth
    - ThomPete 8y ago
      Yes now put in the missing part. What is the maximum effeciency we can hope for and what is the areal plus inventions that needs to be done, the cost and the environmental consequence of large solar farms etc etc. fusion has a much better chance of being a reality than solar or even solar and wind together. You are living in a fantasyworld.
      - pfdietz 8y ago
        Fusion has pretty much no chance of being a reality, in the sense of being economically competitive. And this has been known for more than 35 years. http://www.askmar.com/Robert%20Bussard/The%20Trouble%20With%20Fusion.pdf http://www.askmar.com/Robert%20Bussard/The%20Trouble%20With%... (See? That's how you give a reference to back up a claim.)
        ThomPete 8y ago
        And yet the Chinese just succeded with an important step. You are using something written in 1983 as your support enough said.
        pfdietz 8y ago
        The Chinese succeeded at something that doesn't do anything to address the devastating, fundamental argument Lidsky gave back in the 1980s. Lidksy's argument is as valid today as it was then.
        ThomPete 8y ago
        They succeeded in one of the steps toward a solution. How far is wind and solar with realistic fuel-cells?

starbeast 8y ago

Including all losses, to power everything in the world with solar it comes to around twice the area of Portugal with current tech.

pfdietz 8y ago

That's utterly wrong. How could you come to that conclusion?

ThomPete 8y ago
How can you come to another conclusion by all means. Convince me that solar can serve as a base powersource.
- pfdietz 8y ago
  I was criticizing this statement of yours: "It's pretty decided that Solar will never be able to produce even close to sufficient energy to serve as a baseline energy source." No, it has not been pretty decided. You are lying there. I don't need to show solar can do that, I am disputing your claim that it has been shown it can't do that, and calling you a liar for making that statement. Consider: you are claiming that it has been decided that not just now, but at no point in the future, will solar suffice. Regardless of technological advances, known or unknown, you are saying this issue has been settled. How could that possibly be true?
  - ThomPete 8y ago
    You are welcome to find any peer reviewed paper that proposes that. If we are allowed to just hope for things then fusion would be a much better method. Solar and wind is currently delivering around 1% of our energy needs, even with extreme improvements and investments to change that, which would be absurd it will not in any sensible way be able to deliver enough energy for our increasing needs. So again show an actually proven rational proposal or we are just talking wishes like fusion and then sun def wouldnt be used as a base source.
    - pfdietz 8y ago
      I'm not letting you off the hook, liar. You said it was "pretty settled". Justify that claim -- present evidence that it is in fact "pretty settled" -- or admit you were just lying. I do not have to prove your claim wrong.
      - ThomPete 8y ago
        The evidence is pretty simple. We currently use 1% despite all the advances in solar. That makes 100% solar is not going to happen pretty settled when you factor in cost, materials, efficiency, reliability etc. I don't have to prove anything. You are welcome to believe in solar but you won't find any realistic proposals out there. If that existed all you had to do was to show it to me. But you won't because it doesn't exist. In other words, pretty settled.
        pfdietz 8y ago
        LOL Your claim is that because solar is only 1%, it can never be 100%? There was a time nuclear was less than 1% of our generating capacity. Why didn't this logic apply then? Or, for that matter, why doesn't it apply to any other technology that passes through 1% market share on its way up from 0%? You are simply ridiculous.
        ThomPete 8y ago
        That's not my claim but it's part of it, there is a reason why it's only 1% and it's not because it doesn't have political support. You still haven't actually put forward any realistic proposal for how a 100% solar grid system would work realistically providing us with stable and scalable energy and ability to solve the world increasing energy needs. So you can call me what you want that doesn't change that fact.
- starbeast 8y ago
  ~20 terawatts = humans ~90,000 terawatts = sunlight hitting surface of earth
  - ThomPete 8y ago
    Yes now put in the missing part. What is the maximum effeciency we can hope for and what is the areal plus inventions that needs to be done, the cost and the environmental consequence of large solar farms etc etc. fusion has a much better chance of being a reality than solar or even solar and wind together. You are living in a fantasyworld.
    - pfdietz 8y ago
      Fusion has pretty much no chance of being a reality, in the sense of being economically competitive. And this has been known for more than 35 years. http://www.askmar.com/Robert%20Bussard/The%20Trouble%20With%20Fusion.pdf http://www.askmar.com/Robert%20Bussard/The%20Trouble%20With%... (See? That's how you give a reference to back up a claim.)
      - ThomPete 8y ago
        And yet the Chinese just succeded with an important step. You are using something written in 1983 as your support enough said.
        pfdietz 8y ago
        The Chinese succeeded at something that doesn't do anything to address the devastating, fundamental argument Lidsky gave back in the 1980s. Lidksy's argument is as valid today as it was then.
        ThomPete 8y ago
        They succeeded in one of the steps toward a solution. How far is wind and solar with realistic fuel-cells?