6 ms·

I am rooting for Tesla, but if they are counting on a "solar electric economy," that makes me worry. Let's target something practical, like a nuclear/natural ga

by NoPiece 14y ago

I am rooting for Tesla, but if they are counting on a "solar electric economy," that makes me worry. Let's target something practical, like a nuclear/natural gas/solar electric economy.

dmcy22 14y ago
Elon is the Chairman of SolarCity, "the leading residential solar provider in the U.S." http://www.solarcity.com/media-center/elon-musk.aspx http://www.solarcity.com/media-center/elon-musk.aspx
ams6110 14y ago
I don't see Tesla as counting on it directly. They would like to see it happen, but all they need to fuel their cars is a source of electricity. If for some reason utility-scale solar power is never practical, that doesn't really impede anything they are trying to do with their vehicles.
mpyne 14y ago
Read the whole thing, I'll bet you'll be satisfied with his answers regarding that. The way he's discussing it, EVs are an immediate win for efficiency with the option (not requirement) of being solar-sustainable.
greghinch 14y ago
I agree it presents quite a few challenges, and with the tech today it's hard to see solar as viable. However, from what I understand of Mr. Musk's plan, I agree with his idea that almost all energy on Earth came from the sun (and in the case of hydrocarbons all of it), and so the most efficient way to capture that energy should be directly. Nuclear and geothermal aside, nearly every other form of energy capture we do is indirect and represents a huge waste.
- jessriedel 14y ago
  The alternate, hand-wavy argument that comes to the opposite conclusion is this: The Earth gets 10^17 Watts from the sun. This power is at it's most diffuse when it initially strikes the Earth as sunlight. After initially striking the Earth, this power transferred into the air, ocean, and land in complicated ways that result in very strong concentrations in some areas (e.g. high winds). Intuitively, it should be easiest and cheapest to go to those places and harvest the energy where it is dense, rather than where it is diffuse. After all, we are not anywhere near tapping into the total energy flux from the sun. It's not a matter of efficiency (sun's ray/usable power) as much as cost. Much better to go and harvest at a place where the energy is 10 times denser than sunlight, even if there were all sorts of losses along the way.
  - greghinch 14y ago
    Sustainability has to come into it though. In some mediums this is less of a concern (wind perhaps), but it's paramount when it comes to hydrocarbons. The "cost" right now on sourcing energy from oil and coal does not reflect the true "price" when you take things like pollution into account. This needs to be quantified for all forms of energy collection and extraction in order to have a true representation of value/efficiency. Then solar starts to make a lot more sense.
    - jessriedel 14y ago
      Yes of course. From context, we are restricting our attention to renewables.
mtgx 14y ago
Tesla doesn't depend on the whole solar economy to be successful. It mostly depends on its own solar-based superchargers, and those have nothing to do with the health of the solar economy. Whether solar energy will be 50% of US energy production, or just stay at 5%, it will be irrelevant for Tesla cars, as they will still get free charging from its own solar superchargers.
- ams6110 14y ago
  The charging may be free, but they definitely have a cost to Tesla. I wonder by what margin the electrical cost savings will offset the investment and expenses associated with the charging stations?
jaggederest 14y ago
Once you plug an 85kwh battery pack into your house, suddenly solar starts looking a lot more feasible. That's at least a day worth of storage.
- sliverstorm 14y ago
  Storage is only part of the problem, and not one of the most important parts either IMO if you are not cutting off from the grid.
  - jaggederest 14y ago
    On a society wide scale? We only need as much solar power as is taken up by rooftops if we have effective storage. Once you start reaching 25% penetration of electric cars hooked to the grid, it's compensation for base load.
mburns 14y ago
Nuclear regulation is a bear to work through. The lower third of the United States, particularly the southwest, could migrate toward a more solar-based economy today, economically, without the red tape or regulation around handling radioactive fuel. It isn't as ambitious or forward-thinking, but it is also vastly easier to get started.
forgottenpaswrd 14y ago
I find it very practical. The best solar panels are 40% efficient, they are very very expensive today but it is a real possibility that someone someway could get this level of efficiency in the future cheaply. You get over 1000W/m2 of sun radiation so you could get over 400W/m2. probably it does not look like much but given that plants are 1% efficient, and most radiation escapes earth it really is. You could absorb sun's energy and then use that energy to grow plants!! in a much more efficient way(inside buildings, under the surface).

by NoPiece 14y ago

I am rooting for Tesla, but if they are counting on a "solar electric economy," that makes me worry. Let's target something practical, like a nuclear/natural gas/solar electric economy.

dmcy22 14y ago

Elon is the Chairman of SolarCity, "the leading residential solar provider in the U.S." http://www.solarcity.com/media-center/elon-musk.aspx http://www.solarcity.com/media-center/elon-musk.aspx

ams6110 14y ago

I don't see Tesla as counting on it directly. They would like to see it happen, but all they need to fuel their cars is a source of electricity. If for some reason utility-scale solar power is never practical, that doesn't really impede anything they are trying to do with their vehicles.

mpyne 14y ago

Read the whole thing, I'll bet you'll be satisfied with his answers regarding that. The way he's discussing it, EVs are an immediate win for efficiency with the option (not requirement) of being solar-sustainable.

greghinch 14y ago

I agree it presents quite a few challenges, and with the tech today it's hard to see solar as viable. However, from what I understand of Mr. Musk's plan, I agree with his idea that almost all energy on Earth came from the sun (and in the case of hydrocarbons all of it), and so the most efficient way to capture that energy should be directly. Nuclear and geothermal aside, nearly every other form of energy capture we do is indirect and represents a huge waste.

jessriedel 14y ago
The alternate, hand-wavy argument that comes to the opposite conclusion is this: The Earth gets 10^17 Watts from the sun. This power is at it's most diffuse when it initially strikes the Earth as sunlight. After initially striking the Earth, this power transferred into the air, ocean, and land in complicated ways that result in very strong concentrations in some areas (e.g. high winds). Intuitively, it should be easiest and cheapest to go to those places and harvest the energy where it is dense, rather than where it is diffuse. After all, we are not anywhere near tapping into the total energy flux from the sun. It's not a matter of efficiency (sun's ray/usable power) as much as cost. Much better to go and harvest at a place where the energy is 10 times denser than sunlight, even if there were all sorts of losses along the way.
- greghinch 14y ago
  Sustainability has to come into it though. In some mediums this is less of a concern (wind perhaps), but it's paramount when it comes to hydrocarbons. The "cost" right now on sourcing energy from oil and coal does not reflect the true "price" when you take things like pollution into account. This needs to be quantified for all forms of energy collection and extraction in order to have a true representation of value/efficiency. Then solar starts to make a lot more sense.
  - jessriedel 14y ago
    Yes of course. From context, we are restricting our attention to renewables.

mtgx 14y ago

Tesla doesn't depend on the whole solar economy to be successful. It mostly depends on its own solar-based superchargers, and those have nothing to do with the health of the solar economy. Whether solar energy will be 50% of US energy production, or just stay at 5%, it will be irrelevant for Tesla cars, as they will still get free charging from its own solar superchargers.

ams6110 14y ago
The charging may be free, but they definitely have a cost to Tesla. I wonder by what margin the electrical cost savings will offset the investment and expenses associated with the charging stations?

jaggederest 14y ago

Once you plug an 85kwh battery pack into your house, suddenly solar starts looking a lot more feasible. That's at least a day worth of storage.

sliverstorm 14y ago
Storage is only part of the problem, and not one of the most important parts either IMO if you are not cutting off from the grid.
- jaggederest 14y ago
  On a society wide scale? We only need as much solar power as is taken up by rooftops if we have effective storage. Once you start reaching 25% penetration of electric cars hooked to the grid, it's compensation for base load.

mburns 14y ago

Nuclear regulation is a bear to work through. The lower third of the United States, particularly the southwest, could migrate toward a more solar-based economy today, economically, without the red tape or regulation around handling radioactive fuel. It isn't as ambitious or forward-thinking, but it is also vastly easier to get started.

forgottenpaswrd 14y ago

I find it very practical. The best solar panels are 40% efficient, they are very very expensive today but it is a real possibility that someone someway could get this level of efficiency in the future cheaply. You get over 1000W/m2 of sun radiation so you could get over 400W/m2. probably it does not look like much but given that plants are 1% efficient, and most radiation escapes earth it really is. You could absorb sun's energy and then use that energy to grow plants!! in a much more efficient way(inside buildings, under the surface).