2 ms·

Lets not look at the maximum we can hope for ever. Lets look instead at figures for what is commercially available now. So, say 27% maximum conversion. Average

Lets not look at the maximum we can hope for ever. Lets look instead at figures for what is commercially available now. So, say 27% maximum conversion. Average insolation gives us ~6kWh over a square meter over a day, 27% of that gets us to 1.62kWh, divide by 24 to get the wattage, that's a 67.5 watts per square meter average before we get to storage or transmission. HVDC has losses of ~3% per 1000km. Now lets look at round trip efficiency for storage. Typically you see a quoted figure of around 70% depending on technology type. So lets say a 65% loss (edit - this should read 65% efficiency, or alternatively a 35% loss) from storage and transmission. We are now at ~44 watts per square meter, which gives us 456,000 square km from the 20 terawatt rating of humans. So ~5 Portugals, which is admittedly higher than my original figure of 2 Portugals, though you would presumably site your panels somewhere that gets better than average insolation, places like the Sahara, for example. Also, for comparison, the Sahara desert is ~100 Portugals and the area currently used by humans for agriculture is ~550 Portugals.

ThomPete 8y ago
And nuclear can do 1000w per m2 just to put things in perspective here and that's currently. Now add to the problem of solar that it's unreliable, we haven't actually solved creating proper fuel cells and have no proper grid to distribute it through which is why ex. Denmark had to get their energy from the Germans this summer because Denmark who is based most on wind didn't get any wind and had to get from Germany who didn't actually use solar but instead coal. So you would need to actually solve that kind of problems too which we aren't even close to. In other words. Whatever reality you or others imagine with solar or renewables you are far away from showing anything close to it being a realistic solution. I am all for renewables but let's make it support a more fundamental and solid energy base like nuclear and then add solar on top instead proposing an inferior energy form when betters are out there.
- starbeast 8y ago
  >I am all for renewables You have stated elsewhere that you think wind and solar are to do with communism. I am not sure exactly where you were going with that as an argument, but I really don't believe that you meant it in a 'yayy, communism' kind of a way.
  - ThomPete 8y ago
    No I haven't said that at all. I have said that the claim that wind and solar is the way forward is to do with the "communism has never been tried" argument. Why do you need to lie about what I actually said.
    - starbeast 8y ago
      That may have been what you meant, but it was not what you said. pjc50 said: This is very much the "true communism has never been tried" argument, isn't it? Unless you know a way of building it without people? Then you said: "No its not at all the same cause thats not what i mean. I mean that people are ignorant to the dangers not that its dangerous. Has nothing to do with communism, wind and solar on the other hand do." The way this reads it is as though you have skipped the reference and have started talking about communism itself as opposed to the "true communism has never been tried" argument. Now this may have been unintentional on your part due to poor English, but if I have misunderstood it was not due to me trying to conflate your words in any way. You did the conflation for me.
      - ThomPete 8y ago
        That's what I said which is pretty obvious from the context. You just decided to misunderstand it or are as poor at reading English as I am at writing it.
        starbeast 8y ago
        Perhaps I can't parse English, or perhaps I am deliberately trying to misunderstand you. Couldn't possibly be that you are being a bit confusing in the first place, of course, as that would shift a little bit of blame to your court and we cannot possibly have that, now can we? Must be that I am being a bastard (which is fair assumption really, I can be a bit of a bastard). With that all said however, the interpretation you are putting forward (which it would only be reasonable to take as the correct interpretation of your words, as it is you describing what you meant to say), still doesn't support the notion that you are "all for renewables", now does it?

ThomPete 8y ago

And nuclear can do 1000w per m2 just to put things in perspective here and that's currently. Now add to the problem of solar that it's unreliable, we haven't actually solved creating proper fuel cells and have no proper grid to distribute it through which is why ex. Denmark had to get their energy from the Germans this summer because Denmark who is based most on wind didn't get any wind and had to get from Germany who didn't actually use solar but instead coal. So you would need to actually solve that kind of problems too which we aren't even close to. In other words. Whatever reality you or others imagine with solar or renewables you are far away from showing anything close to it being a realistic solution. I am all for renewables but let's make it support a more fundamental and solid energy base like nuclear and then add solar on top instead proposing an inferior energy form when betters are out there.

starbeast 8y ago
>I am all for renewables You have stated elsewhere that you think wind and solar are to do with communism. I am not sure exactly where you were going with that as an argument, but I really don't believe that you meant it in a 'yayy, communism' kind of a way.
- ThomPete 8y ago
  No I haven't said that at all. I have said that the claim that wind and solar is the way forward is to do with the "communism has never been tried" argument. Why do you need to lie about what I actually said.
  - starbeast 8y ago
    That may have been what you meant, but it was not what you said. pjc50 said: This is very much the "true communism has never been tried" argument, isn't it? Unless you know a way of building it without people? Then you said: "No its not at all the same cause thats not what i mean. I mean that people are ignorant to the dangers not that its dangerous. Has nothing to do with communism, wind and solar on the other hand do." The way this reads it is as though you have skipped the reference and have started talking about communism itself as opposed to the "true communism has never been tried" argument. Now this may have been unintentional on your part due to poor English, but if I have misunderstood it was not due to me trying to conflate your words in any way. You did the conflation for me.
    - ThomPete 8y ago
      That's what I said which is pretty obvious from the context. You just decided to misunderstand it or are as poor at reading English as I am at writing it.
      - starbeast 8y ago
        Perhaps I can't parse English, or perhaps I am deliberately trying to misunderstand you. Couldn't possibly be that you are being a bit confusing in the first place, of course, as that would shift a little bit of blame to your court and we cannot possibly have that, now can we? Must be that I am being a bastard (which is fair assumption really, I can be a bit of a bastard). With that all said however, the interpretation you are putting forward (which it would only be reasonable to take as the correct interpretation of your words, as it is you describing what you meant to say), still doesn't support the notion that you are "all for renewables", now does it?