4 ms·

About your first link from 2014: renewable energy is already cheaper. About your second link: no one has claimed that we all damage already done is reversible.

by Ma8ee 5y ago

About your first link from 2014: renewable energy is already cheaper. About your second link: no one has claimed that we all damage already done is reversible. Apparently I have to teach you that power is energy per unit of time, that is we have 173,000 TJ/s. And then we can do some simple calculation from energy equivalence of 35 billion barrels of oil (213,000,000 TJ) and find that corresponds to about 20 minutes of sunlight hitting Earth. Or calculating from power instead, we burn 6.75 GW of oil, or about 3e-11 of the incoming sun power. There's plenty of energy available, and nowadays sun energy is cheaper than coal. You don't even need high school math for this. So, as you see, the "not closed system", is kind of relevant. What is irrelevant is how much plant matter that is required to produce said oil. No one, absolutely no one, has suggested that we should make new oil by burying plant matter for a long time.

robomartin 5y ago
Nice bit of high school math after a google search. Good job. Pointless though. You are pointing at solar energy coming into the planet as if it were some magical juju bean that can solve all of our problems. Well, it isn't. Had you actually read the report from which you got some of this information you would know just how wrong you are in trying to reduce the entirety of reality into a single variable: Solar energy. The whole idea is preposterous. In your attempt to look smart and convert power to energy using a google search you fail to understand the key difference between power and energy in real life. Using a simple example: The solar array I built in the back of my house can produce a theoretical maximum of 14,000 W any given instant (power). Assuming that is true (not even close), this means I could collect a theoretical 104 kW hours of energy over eight hours (also not true). Talking about energy is pointless because we do not use energy, we use power, we use the instantaneous version of, in this case, using electrons to do some work. If you add-up the energy production capacity of all the power plants in the US (multiply their power output by 24 hours and add them all up) you can easily believe we have enough to charge 300 million electric cars. And that would be wrong. We do not have enough POWER generating capacity to support such a fleet. The energy calculation isn't correct because you can't use it to deliver power beyond the instantaneous power delivery capacity we have. The only way this would be true is if our future electric cars sat there for 24 hours to charge. And then there's the reality that converting solar energy to anything useful is a horribly inefficient process. My 13 kW array covers about 80 square meters. That is a theoretical 80 kW (round numbers) of solar energy. At best, with all conditions being perfect, I have generated 11 kW. My average peak over several years in operation is about 8 kW. So 10% of the energy that hits it, at the PEAK moment in the day, much worse on either side of that curve. Counting energy, when what you need is power is a fantasy. Oher solar energy conversion processes are even worse, as an example, geothermal is about 2% efficient, at best. Do not reduce reality to a single variable. It isn't. It is a complex multivariate problem. > About your first link from 2014: renewable energy is already cheaper. You probably didn't even read it. Did you? The paper has NOTHING to do with cost. It has everything to do with "can we achieve zero emissions with renewables". And that means all renewables, not just solar. The answer is a solid "no". > About your second link: no one has claimed that we all damage already done is reversible. No idea what you are saying. You probably didn't read that either.
- Ma8ee 5y ago
  No, I don’t read the old, long papers after a short glance seeing that their initial assumptions are wrong or the subject doesn’t seem to relevant. If you have a point to make, make it. Then you can cite papers if say your numbers need some backing by actual research. I really get the feeling that you don’t understand how power relates to energy. What are you trying to say about peak power capacity and charging of cars? You do know that not all cars are driven at exactly the same time or are charged at exactly the same time? Also, of course we need to increase our electricity production if more things, like cars, are going to be run on electricity. The efficiency of solar panels doesn’t matter much. You remember that ratio between incoming energy and energy usage? We have a lot of zeros to take from. It doesn’t matter that the average solar panel only converts about a fifth of incoming energy, because the incoming energy is abundant and completely free. The same argument can be made about geothermal. And the same argument can be made about storing energy as hydrogen. Yes, the conversation will be inefficient, but that doesn’t matter because you do it sunny, windy days, electricity will be more or less free. Finally, I’m sorry you think my argument is too simple. But calling it magical juju doesn’t refute it. The amount of solar radiation hitting earth is a very well established, and easy to understand, scientific fact. And if you remember, that fact was used to refute your statement that earth should be seen as a closed system. You didn’t even try to defend that statement, so I hope you never try to use it again without embarrassment.
  - robomartin 5y ago
    It is a closed system. Energy in -> Energy out. No magic. What this means is that we don't get to claim "and then a miracle occurs" when proposing a solutions. This is exactly what all so-called solutions boil down to. Including what you are talking about. You are citing the total energy landing on a hemisphere and completely ignoring that we can't harvest even a small fraction of that. Solar energy is very, very far from free. I built a 13 kW array on my property, I can assure you it was not free. I can also assure likely produced far more CO2 than it will ever save us. This is where you need to understand manufacturing and construction. I won't even go into the shit I had to go through with the County of Los Angeles. I have 64,000 POUNDS of concrete anchoring this array to the ground --which LA County forced upon me. How much CO2 do you think it cost to produce, transport and install that? How about the non-trivial structure it is mounted on? I could go on. This idea that solar energy is free is just plain silly. You are refusing to read one of the most scientifically honest papers ever done on the question of whether or not solar energy (actually, all renewables combined) can stop atmospheric CO2 build-up and reverse it and you actually want to school me on having a valid argument. And, speaking of energy vs. power. Lots of sunlight falls above and below latitudes where converting it into other usable forms of energy is just pointless. If you want to be honest about solar energy, well, you have to do the math. It isn't what you think it is. Do you even have solar? Here's the output of my 13 kW array on an average day: https://i.imgur.com/LTMNDO1.png https://i.imgur.com/LTMNDO1.png Do you see what happens? No, it isn't magical juju beans. You can't quote some theoretical number and actually believe this stuff is usable. Besides, you could convert the entire planet to the most optimal forms of solar and wind power and you would still do nothing to stop atmospheric CO2 accumulation. Not sure why you are even arguing about solar. It's pointless. > I really get the feeling that you don’t understand how power relates to energy. What are you trying to say about peak power capacity and charging of cars? You do know that not all cars are driven at exactly the same time or are charged at exactly the same time? That's very funny. I have a nasty habit. I do not open my mouth unless I know what I am talking about. Which means I go way --ridiculously so-- out of my way to research things as far as necessary in order to understand and verify my claims. In the case of cars charging in the US, I actually developed a mathematical model that included behavioral elements and charging cars across our various time zones. This, for example, is one of the outputs of the analysis: https://i.imgur.com/wTwm82a.png https://i.imgur.com/wTwm82a.png This includes considering such things as a portion of the fleet fast-charging while others slow charge. I considers the effect of people going to work and coming home at different times across our six time zones, etc. I am not typing stuff I pull out of my ass my friend. You can either make the effort to understand and attempt to do your own math or just ignore it and believe whatever you might wish. The only thing that would be better than this model would be to write more complex behavioral simulation code and take into account far more variables than I did. I'll do that one day when I have the time. I don't think the end-result will be radically different from the simpler model. Like I said, unlike most people, I go very far towards actually understanding things before I open my mouth. Hey. Live long and prosper.

by Ma8ee 5y ago

robomartin 5y ago

Nice bit of high school math after a google search. Good job. Pointless though. You are pointing at solar energy coming into the planet as if it were some magical juju bean that can solve all of our problems. Well, it isn't. Had you actually read the report from which you got some of this information you would know just how wrong you are in trying to reduce the entirety of reality into a single variable: Solar energy. The whole idea is preposterous. In your attempt to look smart and convert power to energy using a google search you fail to understand the key difference between power and energy in real life. Using a simple example: The solar array I built in the back of my house can produce a theoretical maximum of 14,000 W any given instant (power). Assuming that is true (not even close), this means I could collect a theoretical 104 kW hours of energy over eight hours (also not true). Talking about energy is pointless because we do not use energy, we use power, we use the instantaneous version of, in this case, using electrons to do some work. If you add-up the energy production capacity of all the power plants in the US (multiply their power output by 24 hours and add them all up) you can easily believe we have enough to charge 300 million electric cars. And that would be wrong. We do not have enough POWER generating capacity to support such a fleet. The energy calculation isn't correct because you can't use it to deliver power beyond the instantaneous power delivery capacity we have. The only way this would be true is if our future electric cars sat there for 24 hours to charge. And then there's the reality that converting solar energy to anything useful is a horribly inefficient process. My 13 kW array covers about 80 square meters. That is a theoretical 80 kW (round numbers) of solar energy. At best, with all conditions being perfect, I have generated 11 kW. My average peak over several years in operation is about 8 kW. So 10% of the energy that hits it, at the PEAK moment in the day, much worse on either side of that curve. Counting energy, when what you need is power is a fantasy. Oher solar energy conversion processes are even worse, as an example, geothermal is about 2% efficient, at best. Do not reduce reality to a single variable. It isn't. It is a complex multivariate problem. > About your first link from 2014: renewable energy is already cheaper. You probably didn't even read it. Did you? The paper has NOTHING to do with cost. It has everything to do with "can we achieve zero emissions with renewables". And that means all renewables, not just solar. The answer is a solid "no". > About your second link: no one has claimed that we all damage already done is reversible. No idea what you are saying. You probably didn't read that either.

Ma8ee 5y ago
No, I don’t read the old, long papers after a short glance seeing that their initial assumptions are wrong or the subject doesn’t seem to relevant. If you have a point to make, make it. Then you can cite papers if say your numbers need some backing by actual research. I really get the feeling that you don’t understand how power relates to energy. What are you trying to say about peak power capacity and charging of cars? You do know that not all cars are driven at exactly the same time or are charged at exactly the same time? Also, of course we need to increase our electricity production if more things, like cars, are going to be run on electricity. The efficiency of solar panels doesn’t matter much. You remember that ratio between incoming energy and energy usage? We have a lot of zeros to take from. It doesn’t matter that the average solar panel only converts about a fifth of incoming energy, because the incoming energy is abundant and completely free. The same argument can be made about geothermal. And the same argument can be made about storing energy as hydrogen. Yes, the conversation will be inefficient, but that doesn’t matter because you do it sunny, windy days, electricity will be more or less free. Finally, I’m sorry you think my argument is too simple. But calling it magical juju doesn’t refute it. The amount of solar radiation hitting earth is a very well established, and easy to understand, scientific fact. And if you remember, that fact was used to refute your statement that earth should be seen as a closed system. You didn’t even try to defend that statement, so I hope you never try to use it again without embarrassment.
- robomartin 5y ago
  It is a closed system. Energy in -> Energy out. No magic. What this means is that we don't get to claim "and then a miracle occurs" when proposing a solutions. This is exactly what all so-called solutions boil down to. Including what you are talking about. You are citing the total energy landing on a hemisphere and completely ignoring that we can't harvest even a small fraction of that. Solar energy is very, very far from free. I built a 13 kW array on my property, I can assure you it was not free. I can also assure likely produced far more CO2 than it will ever save us. This is where you need to understand manufacturing and construction. I won't even go into the shit I had to go through with the County of Los Angeles. I have 64,000 POUNDS of concrete anchoring this array to the ground --which LA County forced upon me. How much CO2 do you think it cost to produce, transport and install that? How about the non-trivial structure it is mounted on? I could go on. This idea that solar energy is free is just plain silly. You are refusing to read one of the most scientifically honest papers ever done on the question of whether or not solar energy (actually, all renewables combined) can stop atmospheric CO2 build-up and reverse it and you actually want to school me on having a valid argument. And, speaking of energy vs. power. Lots of sunlight falls above and below latitudes where converting it into other usable forms of energy is just pointless. If you want to be honest about solar energy, well, you have to do the math. It isn't what you think it is. Do you even have solar? Here's the output of my 13 kW array on an average day: https://i.imgur.com/LTMNDO1.png https://i.imgur.com/LTMNDO1.png Do you see what happens? No, it isn't magical juju beans. You can't quote some theoretical number and actually believe this stuff is usable. Besides, you could convert the entire planet to the most optimal forms of solar and wind power and you would still do nothing to stop atmospheric CO2 accumulation. Not sure why you are even arguing about solar. It's pointless. > I really get the feeling that you don’t understand how power relates to energy. What are you trying to say about peak power capacity and charging of cars? You do know that not all cars are driven at exactly the same time or are charged at exactly the same time? That's very funny. I have a nasty habit. I do not open my mouth unless I know what I am talking about. Which means I go way --ridiculously so-- out of my way to research things as far as necessary in order to understand and verify my claims. In the case of cars charging in the US, I actually developed a mathematical model that included behavioral elements and charging cars across our various time zones. This, for example, is one of the outputs of the analysis: https://i.imgur.com/wTwm82a.png https://i.imgur.com/wTwm82a.png This includes considering such things as a portion of the fleet fast-charging while others slow charge. I considers the effect of people going to work and coming home at different times across our six time zones, etc. I am not typing stuff I pull out of my ass my friend. You can either make the effort to understand and attempt to do your own math or just ignore it and believe whatever you might wish. The only thing that would be better than this model would be to write more complex behavioral simulation code and take into account far more variables than I did. I'll do that one day when I have the time. I don't think the end-result will be radically different from the simpler model. Like I said, unlike most people, I go very far towards actually understanding things before I open my mouth. Hey. Live long and prosper.