3 ms·

Please learn to read, or at least learn some basic arithmetic to check if your misinterpretation is even logically coherent. This is a rather extreme example of

Please learn to read, or at least learn some basic arithmetic to check if your misinterpretation is even logically coherent. This is a rather extreme example of condescending from a position of ignorance. Made even worse by literally having the correct answer in front of you. Being so confidently wrong all the time must be incredibly exhausting. The 1% is the additional gain for smart tracking algorithms (such as going to 0 degree tilt during diffuse light) on top of the bifacial gain of 5-15% which is on top of the tilting gain of 15-25%. This is stated clearly in the paper. Take this EIA report as an example (california utility installations have a high share of single axis): https://www.eia.gov/electricity/monthly/epm_table_grapher.php?t=epmt_6_07_b https://www.eia.gov/electricity/monthly/epm_table_grapher.ph... The amount of overprovision needed to provide a consistent monthly output is lower with wind and solar than with either alone. Wind outperforms solar watt for watt significantly in winter. Solar outperforms wind marginally in summer, but at $0.7-1.1/W for a 2022 tilting system vs $1.10-1.30/W for wind. This trend is echoed on a day to day and hour to hour basis as well. Repeating unsubstantiated statistics based on comparing an all wind system to an all solar system also doesn't add anything to the discussion. You are correct in that bifacial tilting systems don't magically increase GHI, but they do provably gather the valuable off-noon energy much more cost effectively (whilst leaving 30-40% of the noon energy on the table). More importantly they gather a much larger proportion of diffuse light, so the minima aren't as low during cloudy weather.

robomartin 4y ago
Hopeless. The energy produced by 100 acres of wind requires 1200 acres of solar...and you are going on and on about a purported 5%, 10%, 25% gain. Who gives a fuck? Any accountant would take a 100 acre solution over a 1200 acre nightmare. You seem to be exquisitely capable of attempting to derail conversations with irrelevant noise. Energy production per installed GW: Wind: 3.07 TWh/GW Solar: 1.33 TWh/GW (solar is reliably off half the time) Land use per GW: Wind: 750 acres/GW Solar: 3,900 acres/GW Land use to provide all Tesla Master Plan solar + wind: Wind: 1 Hawaii (area of all islands) Solar: 12 Hawaii's or, Wind: 2.5% of California Solar: 30% of California Annual Operations and Maintenance costs : Wind: 1.00 Solar: 1.33 times wind O&M Initial investment in factories: Wind: $212 billion Solar: $ 11 billion Storage required for 95% reliability: Wind: 3 hours Solar: >12 hours Wind requires 4x less batteries, with all the cost, recycling and ecological advantages this delivers. Build supply chain origin: Wind: Diverse Solar: Heavy reliance on China Long term supply chain (maintenance, parts, etc.) origin: Wind: Diverse Solar: Heavy reliance on China (forever) These are facts from Tesla's Master Plan Part 3 and the sources they list. And you are arguing over an imaginary 25% gain? Even if you are right, the comparison isn't even close. If you want to invalidate my ideas about wind, attack the list I just reprinted above --which means, attack the data and sources provided by Tesla. BTW, operation and maintenance costs on a fixed solar system --per MPP3-- is already 33% greater than solar. Tracking solar is even more expensive. I don't have a clue how much. I'll guess 50% (and I'll be I am right). You are missing the forest for the trees. Have a good life.
- Schroedingersat 4y ago
  You brought up the weird diversion with strange non-facts about tilting. I merely mentioned (and sourced) that it is now the cheapest source of energy pretty much world-wide. It was just a bizarre misreading of other people's work as what you just posted. This absolute certainty combined with rank ignorance is known as the Dunning Kruger effect. You should look it up (but please refrain from reading half of the wiki article and then lecturing others on some bizarre misinterpretation of it). The choice to go on a tangent where you ranted about the improvement of a smart tilting algorithm being 1% was yours. Also I'm not arguing against the tesla master plan. It's founded on the assumption of roughly doubling final energy in the US rather than putting any effort into efficiency (such as by spending one of those trillions on transit, insulation and missing middle housing), but this is to be expected from a car and battery company asking for handouts. It also has a few slightly pessimistic generalisations and assumes the regulatory hurdles for solar will stay, but the inflation driven costs for wind will not. But over all it is fine, and is a broad overview related to reality. It does not anywhere contain the conclusion that a country can be run on land based wind energy alone, nor does it say anything about solar (which is the current US mix that has a high share of single axis) costing more in O&M. Nor does it contain the assumption that one power source can be subbed for another without taking into account *when* each power source produces. You cannot substitute them one for one. And you cannot assume transmission is unbouded and free. You made all of that up and then proceded to try and use other people's words as an argument from authority. Nobody anywhere is suggesting an all wind grid. It would be incredibly brittle. Similarly nobody is suggesting an all solar one. I guess this bizarre rant isn't harmful like the nuclear one though, so I'll leave you to keep raving,

robomartin 4y ago

Hopeless. The energy produced by 100 acres of wind requires 1200 acres of solar...and you are going on and on about a purported 5%, 10%, 25% gain. Who gives a fuck? Any accountant would take a 100 acre solution over a 1200 acre nightmare. You seem to be exquisitely capable of attempting to derail conversations with irrelevant noise. Energy production per installed GW: Wind: 3.07 TWh/GW Solar: 1.33 TWh/GW (solar is reliably off half the time) Land use per GW: Wind: 750 acres/GW Solar: 3,900 acres/GW Land use to provide all Tesla Master Plan solar + wind: Wind: 1 Hawaii (area of all islands) Solar: 12 Hawaii's or, Wind: 2.5% of California Solar: 30% of California Annual Operations and Maintenance costs : Wind: 1.00 Solar: 1.33 times wind O&M Initial investment in factories: Wind: $212 billion Solar: $ 11 billion Storage required for 95% reliability: Wind: 3 hours Solar: >12 hours Wind requires 4x less batteries, with all the cost, recycling and ecological advantages this delivers. Build supply chain origin: Wind: Diverse Solar: Heavy reliance on China Long term supply chain (maintenance, parts, etc.) origin: Wind: Diverse Solar: Heavy reliance on China (forever) These are facts from Tesla's Master Plan Part 3 and the sources they list. And you are arguing over an imaginary 25% gain? Even if you are right, the comparison isn't even close. If you want to invalidate my ideas about wind, attack the list I just reprinted above --which means, attack the data and sources provided by Tesla. BTW, operation and maintenance costs on a fixed solar system --per MPP3-- is already 33% greater than solar. Tracking solar is even more expensive. I don't have a clue how much. I'll guess 50% (and I'll be I am right). You are missing the forest for the trees. Have a good life.

Schroedingersat 4y ago
You brought up the weird diversion with strange non-facts about tilting. I merely mentioned (and sourced) that it is now the cheapest source of energy pretty much world-wide. It was just a bizarre misreading of other people's work as what you just posted. This absolute certainty combined with rank ignorance is known as the Dunning Kruger effect. You should look it up (but please refrain from reading half of the wiki article and then lecturing others on some bizarre misinterpretation of it). The choice to go on a tangent where you ranted about the improvement of a smart tilting algorithm being 1% was yours. Also I'm not arguing against the tesla master plan. It's founded on the assumption of roughly doubling final energy in the US rather than putting any effort into efficiency (such as by spending one of those trillions on transit, insulation and missing middle housing), but this is to be expected from a car and battery company asking for handouts. It also has a few slightly pessimistic generalisations and assumes the regulatory hurdles for solar will stay, but the inflation driven costs for wind will not. But over all it is fine, and is a broad overview related to reality. It does not anywhere contain the conclusion that a country can be run on land based wind energy alone, nor does it say anything about solar (which is the current US mix that has a high share of single axis) costing more in O&M. Nor does it contain the assumption that one power source can be subbed for another without taking into account *when* each power source produces. You cannot substitute them one for one. And you cannot assume transmission is unbouded and free. You made all of that up and then proceded to try and use other people's words as an argument from authority. Nobody anywhere is suggesting an all wind grid. It would be incredibly brittle. Similarly nobody is suggesting an all solar one. I guess this bizarre rant isn't harmful like the nuclear one though, so I'll leave you to keep raving,