3 ms·

> That's preposterous. Of course it is relevant. Nothing on this planet can happen without answering to the accounting it demands. It's irrelevant because noon

> That's preposterous. Of course it is relevant. Nothing on this planet can happen without answering to the accounting it demands. It's irrelevant because noone is suggesting creating or destroying energy. The scond law is the only relevant one. > 2- How it is that we REMOVE all of that energy we are going to use to save the planet from being utilized by system A to put it to work in system B and not kill all life on earth in the process. We don't get EXTRA solar energy. All life on earth has evolved and functions under this mostly constant beam of photons that hits us every day. You can't muck with that at a planetary scale without consequences. 60TW of solar (double the worldwide primary energy) is a 1000km square. You can halve that with next gen panels. Just the rooftops of existing buildings and existing paved areas exceed this by a substantial margin. Silicon PV is about the same albedo as asphalt or concrete. Solar solves the energy input so long as we end growth. It's cheap, sufficiently land efficient, sufficiently low pollution and 100% modular. > Simple example: Cover all ecuatorial land with solar panels. Fantastic. Everything under them dies. Not so great. That energy, hitting plants, land, water, etc, was actually doing something for the planet. It isn't some magical thing that has no purpose until we decide to save the planet. In addition to not needing any uncovered land, partial shade improves yield of many crops. The lettuce farms alone could produce 5% of world energy whilst increasing yield. > To do ANYTHING you need energy, time and resources (materials). Most of the processes being touted as solutions are horribly inefficient. This means most of the energy --no matter where it might come from-- will be wasted as heat. No material or resource is used with 100% efficiency either. > Everyone conveniently ignores reality when suggesting magical PLANETARY SCALE "solutions". What does "planetary scale" mean? It means more energy materials than one could possibly imagine. It also means manufacturing, moving, installing and maintaining things at a never-before-seen rate and scale. It means producing things OVER AND ABOVE ANYTHING HUMANITY MAKES TODAY at a rate and at a volume that might equal or dwarf the entire industrial output of the planet today. Everyone ignores the --likely-- billions of gallons of bunker fuel, diesel and gasoline we will have to burn just to make, move, install, operate and maintain these magical solutions. So that's the thing about modular solutions. You only have to prove it works once in one place where you know the inputs are all abundant and you can do it a million times. Solar is on track to cover current world energy demands by 2035. There is, as yet, no universally cheap and applicable storage method. Water electrolysis is one such technology. It is at a tipping point in price where it will replace fossil fuel methane derived hydrogen in a few years. To get it adopted all you have to do is publicly show one ammonia factory in one place how you can sell them a solar panel (or daytime electricity) and an electrolyser made of steel, copper and a little bit of nickel for less than they can buy methane. Similarly carbon capture is a fairly well known technology. If we had the balls to say "you don't get to emit or export any CO2 after 2030" to coal and gas plants, some of them will switch to ammonia or hydrogen. Others may import mining tailings and make carbonates. Others might make methane (and possibly even run on that next cycle). All of these things are physically doable, we just let them get away with polluting our world at present. I'd much rather get rid of all the coal plants and run the gas ones on hydrogen (this is physically possible today, but replacing all the coal is that production problem you mention), but real carbon capture (not the scam of pretending you've buried CO2 or using it to mine more oil) is a step forward. > They don't survive the test of deployment at scale because none of them pass physics. Not one. They can't. Why not? Sunlight is free and abundant. Once you understand that sunlight -> hydrogen -> fire -> electricity is a viable pathway for having energy in winter, then un-burning concentrated CO2 is in the worst case no different entropy wise. It's just a matter of mass producing a machine that does one of many known reactions. > Everyone ignores the --likely-- billions of gallons of bunker fuel, diesel and gasoline we will have to burn just to make, move, install, operate and maintain these magical solutions. ERoEI is the term you are looking for. For solar it takes about 2-5 years depending where it's installed, maybe it will go back up a little as the duck cu4ve gets worse. An electrolyser utilising 30% of solar energy that would otherwise be wasted to make hydrogen burnt in existing plant would have an eroei on the order of a few years as they're much simpler and smaller than the panels feeding them. A CO2 splitter is cheaper still, and making carbonates from mining tailings is exothermic.

robomartin 4y ago
> It's irrelevant because noone is suggesting creating or destroying energy. I have a feeling you might not fully grasp this. A simple way to explain this law is the "no free lunch" idea. You can't get a free lunch. Someone, somewhere, somehow, has to pay for it. This means that if it took 1 unit of energy to go from point A to point B, returning to point A isn't going to magically happen with less energy. Energy isn't ever created or destroyed, it is transformed. Always. In a real system, nothing is 100% efficient. Which means some of that energy will be converted (transformed) into some other form of energy. More often than not we end up heat. And, in a really inefficient system (which is what we are talking about with all of these so-called solutions) the amount of waste energy is just massive. And that's the issue. You can't get a free lunch. You don't get to add a bunch of CO2 to the atmosphere using x units of energy and remove using x/2 units, it's more like x * 10 or x * 100. If someone claims they can fix this with less energy that went into creating the problem in the first place, they are violating conservation of energy because they would have to CREATE massive amounts of energy in order to achieve that. And you cannot do that. If I claimed I could capture enough CO2 from the atmosphere in one hour with the energy provided by a car battery everyone would laugh at me. People intuitively understand you need much more than that, both time and energy. And yet, what we are being told is not very different in scale to this ridiculous example. It takes about 100K years for the planet to bring down atmospheric CO2 by 100 ppm. We are talking about doing the same thing in 30 years and with, comparably speaking, an insignificant amount of energy and resources. No different from the obviously ridiculous car battery and one hour joke. > 60TW of solar (double the worldwide primary energy) is a 1000km square. Sure. And a cow is a uniform sphere of milk one meter in diameter. This is the problem with all this hand-wavy stuff. No amount of solar will EVER stop or reverse atmospheric CO2. Not now, not ever. It has nothing whatsoever to do with solar panel efficiency. It has to do with physics. And the physics says, no, you cannot do it. You could transition the entire world to the most optimal forms of renewable energies --forms we have yet to develop-- and it will do NOTHING to atmospheric CO2 concentration. In fact, it will continue to rise. The only force that can affect this is the planet itself. And it does that through a combination of time (tens of thousands of years) and weather (rain, hurricanes, cyclones, etc.). You don't have to believe me on this. We have known this since at least 2014. Here's the paper that opened my eyes. The researchers, admit going into this fully biased and with the intent to prove, as they put it, once and for all, that a full deployment of renewables was the solution. They ended-up discovering they were very wrong. Kudos for publishing it. These days that takes guts. The hatred out there any time one dares to question the cult this thing has become is absolutely incredible. Science and knowledge does not advance when hatred is what one gets back for daring to propose something might not be right. It's really sad. Truly. It's a perfect emperor-has-no-clothes type of scenario. Except, if you dare to speak up your life and career could be ruined by the rabid mobs. > Why not? Sunlight is free and abundant. That's a hand-wavy argument. You have to account for the reality of solar vs. the fantasy of it. Building my 13 kW array was an education in more ways than one. I do not regret building it at all. However, as an engineer, it made me understand just how much bullshit is being floated in this domain as well. A solar power plant that can match the output of a conventional power generation plant (the technology does not matter) has to be built with a capacity equal to at least 7 to 10 times the required steady-state power output. In simple terms: If you need a 1 GW power plant that can output 1 GW 24/7, you either build a 1 GW nuclear power plan or a 10 GW (or more) solar facility. That's what is required in order for the solar installation to deliver the same power 24/7. I have written about this before. I won't repeat all of it here. I can show the need for a 3x multiplier with less than high school math. Here's the output from my solar array on a good day: https://i.imgur.com/Fl8ARJd.png https://i.imgur.com/Fl8ARJd.png If we call that a parabola, the area under the curve (the integral) is 2/3 the area of the enclosing rectangle. The rectangle would represent the output of something like a nuclear or other steady form of power generation. In order to match the output of a steady power source, we have to build a solar array that is 1.5 times larger than this, and, of course, add a large amount of storage to be able to fill the dead zones. Simple physics and math. Impossible to dispute. And yet it doesn't end there. In simple terms, this only covers 12 hours of the day. Now you have to DOUBLE that system in order to be able to have enough energy to maintain that steady peak power output for 24 hours. We are now at a multiplier of 3. Here's another --more typical-- image from my solar array: https://i.imgur.com/SOr30bX.png https://i.imgur.com/SOr30bX.png What are those massive dips, lasting hours, that cut down output 25% to 50%? That's horrible. Clouds. Weather. Yup. As I said earlier...the reality of solar vs. the fantasy of solar. I've done the math. I won't bother with the details here. You very quickly approach having to build a system in the 10x range, or more. Look at this daily output chart, again, from my own system, to, again, understand reality: https://i.imgur.com/bGuCH2F.png https://i.imgur.com/bGuCH2F.png More panels, tons of batteries and, even with that, you have to overbuild and live with the issues. Your 60 TW system is, at best, a 6 TW system. And, when you take into account other factors, failures, maintenance and the 15 to 20 year lifetime of the massive number of panels, electronics, batteries, etc. required to make this go. Well, again, reality vs. fantasy. I don't have problem with solar. I invested in it and I would do it again. I simply prefer to talk about the reality of things rather than engage in self-defeating cult fantasies that serve no purpose at all. Solar will help. A lot. Yet, we need nuclear. I don't believe we can go much further without nuclear. We need to double our power generation and delivery capacity in order to transition to electric transportation. That is not going to happen with solar and wind. Nuclear is a must.

robomartin 4y ago

> It's irrelevant because noone is suggesting creating or destroying energy. I have a feeling you might not fully grasp this. A simple way to explain this law is the "no free lunch" idea. You can't get a free lunch. Someone, somewhere, somehow, has to pay for it. This means that if it took 1 unit of energy to go from point A to point B, returning to point A isn't going to magically happen with less energy. Energy isn't ever created or destroyed, it is transformed. Always. In a real system, nothing is 100% efficient. Which means some of that energy will be converted (transformed) into some other form of energy. More often than not we end up heat. And, in a really inefficient system (which is what we are talking about with all of these so-called solutions) the amount of waste energy is just massive. And that's the issue. You can't get a free lunch. You don't get to add a bunch of CO2 to the atmosphere using x units of energy and remove using x/2 units, it's more like x * 10 or x * 100. If someone claims they can fix this with less energy that went into creating the problem in the first place, they are violating conservation of energy because they would have to CREATE massive amounts of energy in order to achieve that. And you cannot do that. If I claimed I could capture enough CO2 from the atmosphere in one hour with the energy provided by a car battery everyone would laugh at me. People intuitively understand you need much more than that, both time and energy. And yet, what we are being told is not very different in scale to this ridiculous example. It takes about 100K years for the planet to bring down atmospheric CO2 by 100 ppm. We are talking about doing the same thing in 30 years and with, comparably speaking, an insignificant amount of energy and resources. No different from the obviously ridiculous car battery and one hour joke. > 60TW of solar (double the worldwide primary energy) is a 1000km square. Sure. And a cow is a uniform sphere of milk one meter in diameter. This is the problem with all this hand-wavy stuff. No amount of solar will EVER stop or reverse atmospheric CO2. Not now, not ever. It has nothing whatsoever to do with solar panel efficiency. It has to do with physics. And the physics says, no, you cannot do it. You could transition the entire world to the most optimal forms of renewable energies --forms we have yet to develop-- and it will do NOTHING to atmospheric CO2 concentration. In fact, it will continue to rise. The only force that can affect this is the planet itself. And it does that through a combination of time (tens of thousands of years) and weather (rain, hurricanes, cyclones, etc.). You don't have to believe me on this. We have known this since at least 2014. Here's the paper that opened my eyes. The researchers, admit going into this fully biased and with the intent to prove, as they put it, once and for all, that a full deployment of renewables was the solution. They ended-up discovering they were very wrong. Kudos for publishing it. These days that takes guts. The hatred out there any time one dares to question the cult this thing has become is absolutely incredible. Science and knowledge does not advance when hatred is what one gets back for daring to propose something might not be right. It's really sad. Truly. It's a perfect emperor-has-no-clothes type of scenario. Except, if you dare to speak up your life and career could be ruined by the rabid mobs. > Why not? Sunlight is free and abundant. That's a hand-wavy argument. You have to account for the reality of solar vs. the fantasy of it. Building my 13 kW array was an education in more ways than one. I do not regret building it at all. However, as an engineer, it made me understand just how much bullshit is being floated in this domain as well. A solar power plant that can match the output of a conventional power generation plant (the technology does not matter) has to be built with a capacity equal to at least 7 to 10 times the required steady-state power output. In simple terms: If you need a 1 GW power plant that can output 1 GW 24/7, you either build a 1 GW nuclear power plan or a 10 GW (or more) solar facility. That's what is required in order for the solar installation to deliver the same power 24/7. I have written about this before. I won't repeat all of it here. I can show the need for a 3x multiplier with less than high school math. Here's the output from my solar array on a good day: https://i.imgur.com/Fl8ARJd.png https://i.imgur.com/Fl8ARJd.png If we call that a parabola, the area under the curve (the integral) is 2/3 the area of the enclosing rectangle. The rectangle would represent the output of something like a nuclear or other steady form of power generation. In order to match the output of a steady power source, we have to build a solar array that is 1.5 times larger than this, and, of course, add a large amount of storage to be able to fill the dead zones. Simple physics and math. Impossible to dispute. And yet it doesn't end there. In simple terms, this only covers 12 hours of the day. Now you have to DOUBLE that system in order to be able to have enough energy to maintain that steady peak power output for 24 hours. We are now at a multiplier of 3. Here's another --more typical-- image from my solar array: https://i.imgur.com/SOr30bX.png https://i.imgur.com/SOr30bX.png What are those massive dips, lasting hours, that cut down output 25% to 50%? That's horrible. Clouds. Weather. Yup. As I said earlier...the reality of solar vs. the fantasy of solar. I've done the math. I won't bother with the details here. You very quickly approach having to build a system in the 10x range, or more. Look at this daily output chart, again, from my own system, to, again, understand reality: https://i.imgur.com/bGuCH2F.png https://i.imgur.com/bGuCH2F.png More panels, tons of batteries and, even with that, you have to overbuild and live with the issues. Your 60 TW system is, at best, a 6 TW system. And, when you take into account other factors, failures, maintenance and the 15 to 20 year lifetime of the massive number of panels, electronics, batteries, etc. required to make this go. Well, again, reality vs. fantasy. I don't have problem with solar. I invested in it and I would do it again. I simply prefer to talk about the reality of things rather than engage in self-defeating cult fantasies that serve no purpose at all. Solar will help. A lot. Yet, we need nuclear. I don't believe we can go much further without nuclear. We need to double our power generation and delivery capacity in order to transition to electric transportation. That is not going to happen with solar and wind. Nuclear is a must.