4 ms·

Why is solar bad?

JohnHaugeland 4y ago
Because the average nameplate capacity of solar is below 20% globally, and infill is natural gas. Solar is only zero carbon if you look at it out of context. This planet has nighttime. This planet has bad weather. Solar fans usually say "batteries," but that's absolute nonsense; there is nowhere near enough copper on this planet to wire them up, or lithium or lead to make them. When they're not grid backed, which is what we're discussing here, they'd have to be half the size of your house, they'd cost $600k, and you'd have to replace them every 25 years. You think the housing crisis is bad? Wait for the battery crisis that solar fans want. There's a reason that every time they build a solar plant, they build a natural gas plant right next door. After that, someone inevitably insists that we can just cover the planet in transmission wires. And I mean, if you even think that through for a tenth of a second On top of that, *solar plants don't work*. Ivanpah has wanted to shut down for 20 years straight because it's bleeding money, and produces less than 10% of the power it was expected to, but the state won't let it, because then their green laws aren't satisfied anymore (and they're only satisfied now because nobody counts the infill carbon.) Another thing nobody seems to understand is flywheel smoothing. The variability in power is being physically smoothed by (usually) a large spinning piece of rock, similar to the metal disc that smooths power demand in your car. You remember how the one at Level3 cut a notch through the highway when it spun out of the building? That was with a professional maintenance team. You want one of those in every house, or at every city block? Energiewende failed for a reason. Germany threw almost two trillion dollars at it for 14 years, and all they did was 6x their cost of power, drive their reliability down, and increase their carbon output (even with flywheels, start/stop cycles aren't free; turning those gas plants on and off is a disaster.) Solar only makes sense if you look at it on paper, driven by an amateur who's googling shit. As soon as you look at what actually happens at plants, start folding in all the topics you didn't know about, experience, look at whether there are materials to support the fantasy, look at what can be recycled instead of just saying "recycle it," etc? It just doesn't work. One of the world's largest and most industrialized nations tried for 14 years, and it was a disaster. Just look at the real world evidence.
- nicwolff 4y ago
  > You remember how the one at Level3 cut a notch through the highway when it spun out of the building? Uh, no I don't. Link?
- notacoward 4y ago
  > When they're not grid backed, which is what we're discussing here Are we? Or is it just your deliberate narrowing of the topic for convenience? > After that, someone inevitably insists that we can just cover the planet in transmission wires. Ah, yes, "Someone" a.k.a. Straw Man. > solar plants don't work. Ivanpah has wanted to shut down Ivanpah is solar thermal. The main thing making it less competitive is cost reduction in medium- and large-scale PV installations, and [citation needed] for them wanting to shut down. > Another thing nobody seems to understand is flywheel smoothing Another thing nobody cares about in this context because it's not essential. Most large solar projects are turning to molten salt (not batteries BTW) for storage. In such a system, there's no need for flywheel smoothing. > You remember how the one at Level3 cut a notch through the highway No. Do you remember the thousands of oil spills, fires, and other adverse events associated with fossil fuels, or the nuclear-power-plant disasters? No technology is perfectly safe. It's not sufficient to cherry-pick an example or two. To have any kind of point here, you'd have to show that overall solar is less safe than alternatives. > driven by an amateur who's googling shit. Totally uncalled for, against the guidelines, and also more descriptive of the people pimping nuclear. That's the very epitome of "works great on paper" google-research, ignoring still-unsolved problems with older designs and hand-waving over anticipated problems with as-yet-untried ones. > Just look at the real world evidence. Please take your own advice.
  - JohnHaugeland 4y ago
    > > When they're not grid backed, which is what we're discussing here > > Are we? Or is it just your deliberate narrowing of the topic for convenience? This attempt at a table turning shows that you really have no understanding of the mechanics of this discussion. Yes, that is exactly what people excluding you are discussing. I have no interest in engaging with you, because you've made clear that you have no understanding of the material.

Why is solar bad?

Because the average nameplate capacity of solar is below 20% globally, and infill is natural gas. Solar is only zero carbon if you look at it out of context. This planet has nighttime. This planet has bad weather. Solar fans usually say "batteries," but that's absolute nonsense; there is nowhere near enough copper on this planet to wire them up, or lithium or lead to make them. When they're not grid backed, which is what we're discussing here, they'd have to be half the size of your house, they'd cost $600k, and you'd have to replace them every 25 years. You think the housing crisis is bad? Wait for the battery crisis that solar fans want. There's a reason that every time they build a solar plant, they build a natural gas plant right next door. After that, someone inevitably insists that we can just cover the planet in transmission wires. And I mean, if you even think that through for a tenth of a second On top of that, *solar plants don't work*. Ivanpah has wanted to shut down for 20 years straight because it's bleeding money, and produces less than 10% of the power it was expected to, but the state won't let it, because then their green laws aren't satisfied anymore (and they're only satisfied now because nobody counts the infill carbon.) Another thing nobody seems to understand is flywheel smoothing. The variability in power is being physically smoothed by (usually) a large spinning piece of rock, similar to the metal disc that smooths power demand in your car. You remember how the one at Level3 cut a notch through the highway when it spun out of the building? That was with a professional maintenance team. You want one of those in every house, or at every city block? Energiewende failed for a reason. Germany threw almost two trillion dollars at it for 14 years, and all they did was 6x their cost of power, drive their reliability down, and increase their carbon output (even with flywheels, start/stop cycles aren't free; turning those gas plants on and off is a disaster.) Solar only makes sense if you look at it on paper, driven by an amateur who's googling shit. As soon as you look at what actually happens at plants, start folding in all the topics you didn't know about, experience, look at whether there are materials to support the fantasy, look at what can be recycled instead of just saying "recycle it," etc? It just doesn't work. One of the world's largest and most industrialized nations tried for 14 years, and it was a disaster. Just look at the real world evidence.

nicwolff 4y ago
> You remember how the one at Level3 cut a notch through the highway when it spun out of the building? Uh, no I don't. Link?
notacoward 4y ago
> When they're not grid backed, which is what we're discussing here Are we? Or is it just your deliberate narrowing of the topic for convenience? > After that, someone inevitably insists that we can just cover the planet in transmission wires. Ah, yes, "Someone" a.k.a. Straw Man. > solar plants don't work. Ivanpah has wanted to shut down Ivanpah is solar thermal. The main thing making it less competitive is cost reduction in medium- and large-scale PV installations, and [citation needed] for them wanting to shut down. > Another thing nobody seems to understand is flywheel smoothing Another thing nobody cares about in this context because it's not essential. Most large solar projects are turning to molten salt (not batteries BTW) for storage. In such a system, there's no need for flywheel smoothing. > You remember how the one at Level3 cut a notch through the highway No. Do you remember the thousands of oil spills, fires, and other adverse events associated with fossil fuels, or the nuclear-power-plant disasters? No technology is perfectly safe. It's not sufficient to cherry-pick an example or two. To have any kind of point here, you'd have to show that overall solar is less safe than alternatives. > driven by an amateur who's googling shit. Totally uncalled for, against the guidelines, and also more descriptive of the people pimping nuclear. That's the very epitome of "works great on paper" google-research, ignoring still-unsolved problems with older designs and hand-waving over anticipated problems with as-yet-untried ones. > Just look at the real world evidence. Please take your own advice.
- JohnHaugeland 4y ago
  > > When they're not grid backed, which is what we're discussing here > > Are we? Or is it just your deliberate narrowing of the topic for convenience? This attempt at a table turning shows that you really have no understanding of the mechanics of this discussion. Yes, that is exactly what people excluding you are discussing. I have no interest in engaging with you, because you've made clear that you have no understanding of the material.