4 ms·

Wow, when you look at this picture: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Fullneed.jpg http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Fullneed.jpg You realize that our electric

by fallat 12y ago

Wow, when you look at this picture: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Fullneed.jpg http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Fullneed.jpg You realize that our electrical problems could be solved in 5-10 hard working years. This makes me think that maybe our current solar panels aren't as bad as they seem. Or we're really using them wrong.

JoeAltmaier 12y ago
I'm dubious. First, it only works during daylight hours. Second, its ecologically disastrous (sterilizes the ecosystem under the facility due to lack of sunlight). Third, centralized generation adds transmission losses which are substantial. I favor orbital generation, which mitigates all of these.
- static_noise 12y ago
  > ecologically disastrous Assuming that it is - which has yet to be evaulated in each case - what would we lose if we plant these solar cells in a desert where noone really lives now?
  - JoeAltmaier 12y ago
    What does it matter who lives there? That's absolutely irrelevant to the ecological impact of the project. Desert doesn't mean the same as 'no ecology'. Its in fact more fragile that other ecologies, dependent upon scare resources and balanced with a very predictable annual cycle of sun and moisture. Square kilometers of solar panels blotting out the light is a vast disruption of the desert ecosystem. There is no need to evaluate its impact on the ecosystem. Complete disruption is the result.
    - arrrg 12y ago
      The interesting question, however, is not that. It’s whether that complete disruption is a worthwhile tradeoff. We make those tradeoffs all the time and just saying there is disruption is really not enough …
      - JoeAltmaier 12y ago
        Solar has the disadvantage of disrupting ecosystems in geometrically huge areas, unexperienced in human history. Worse than strip-mining. Worse than city growth. On the order of the invention of agriculture. Compare with Thorium reactors for instance, which could supply all our power needs for centuries, with negligible impact on the ecosystem. That's the tradeoff.
    - agumonkey 12y ago
      What would actually happen ? heat reduction under the panel will surely be a big change. Maybe it would allow an ecosystem to develop, being detrimental to the panel grid. Maybe it they will just share space nicely.
    - Sanddancer 12y ago
      There are regions of deserts though where there is no ecology. For example, there are huge portions of the Atacama Desert that don't even have microbial life forms in the soil, so placing a solar facility there won't impact any known form of life. Additionally, there are solar panels that are transparent [1] which could also help minimize the ecological impact of solar generation. Furthermore, one can spread out the solar panels, to again minimize the impact in ecosystems. Yes, blindly using solar can be detrimental, but done right, you can mitigate the impact. [1] http://www.bloomberg.com/news/videos/2015-03-23/invisible-solar-cells-that-could-power-skyscrapers http://www.bloomberg.com/news/videos/2015-03-23/invisible-so...
- blacksmith_tb 12y ago
  Continuing to burn large quantities of fossil fuels is also ecologically disastrous; given that the deserts are not processing large amounts of CO2 (compared to, say, forests, or phytoplankton), damaging them seems like the lesser of two evils. Orbital generation would be terrific, but seems more difficult to realize.
- revelation 12y ago
  You got to be kidding. You can't seriously make the argument that we shouldn't do solar for all our power needs because it will rob sunlight from the ecosystem under the panels. That's astounding. I mean, just a take look around you. Where's all the ecology gone?
  - JoeAltmaier 12y ago
    Me and Greenpeace, yes. When we're talking square miles of ecology reduced to sterile dirt in the dark under panels, we're talking about disruption similar to plowing, or mining.
    - JoeAltmaier 12y ago
      Ok, me and Greenpeace cofounder Patrick Moore
agumonkey 12y ago
It seems to good to be true. Also, if that project would succeed, I have a pretty strong feeling it will end up like us getting a larger hard drive. 1 year later people usage would raise above its capacity.

by fallat 12y ago

JoeAltmaier 12y ago

I'm dubious. First, it only works during daylight hours. Second, its ecologically disastrous (sterilizes the ecosystem under the facility due to lack of sunlight). Third, centralized generation adds transmission losses which are substantial. I favor orbital generation, which mitigates all of these.

static_noise 12y ago
> ecologically disastrous Assuming that it is - which has yet to be evaulated in each case - what would we lose if we plant these solar cells in a desert where noone really lives now?
- JoeAltmaier 12y ago
  What does it matter who lives there? That's absolutely irrelevant to the ecological impact of the project. Desert doesn't mean the same as 'no ecology'. Its in fact more fragile that other ecologies, dependent upon scare resources and balanced with a very predictable annual cycle of sun and moisture. Square kilometers of solar panels blotting out the light is a vast disruption of the desert ecosystem. There is no need to evaluate its impact on the ecosystem. Complete disruption is the result.
  - arrrg 12y ago
    The interesting question, however, is not that. It’s whether that complete disruption is a worthwhile tradeoff. We make those tradeoffs all the time and just saying there is disruption is really not enough …
    - JoeAltmaier 12y ago
      Solar has the disadvantage of disrupting ecosystems in geometrically huge areas, unexperienced in human history. Worse than strip-mining. Worse than city growth. On the order of the invention of agriculture. Compare with Thorium reactors for instance, which could supply all our power needs for centuries, with negligible impact on the ecosystem. That's the tradeoff.
  - agumonkey 12y ago
    What would actually happen ? heat reduction under the panel will surely be a big change. Maybe it would allow an ecosystem to develop, being detrimental to the panel grid. Maybe it they will just share space nicely.
  - Sanddancer 12y ago
    There are regions of deserts though where there is no ecology. For example, there are huge portions of the Atacama Desert that don't even have microbial life forms in the soil, so placing a solar facility there won't impact any known form of life. Additionally, there are solar panels that are transparent [1] which could also help minimize the ecological impact of solar generation. Furthermore, one can spread out the solar panels, to again minimize the impact in ecosystems. Yes, blindly using solar can be detrimental, but done right, you can mitigate the impact. [1] http://www.bloomberg.com/news/videos/2015-03-23/invisible-solar-cells-that-could-power-skyscrapers http://www.bloomberg.com/news/videos/2015-03-23/invisible-so...
blacksmith_tb 12y ago
Continuing to burn large quantities of fossil fuels is also ecologically disastrous; given that the deserts are not processing large amounts of CO2 (compared to, say, forests, or phytoplankton), damaging them seems like the lesser of two evils. Orbital generation would be terrific, but seems more difficult to realize.
revelation 12y ago
You got to be kidding. You can't seriously make the argument that we shouldn't do solar for all our power needs because it will rob sunlight from the ecosystem under the panels. That's astounding. I mean, just a take look around you. Where's all the ecology gone?
- JoeAltmaier 12y ago
  Me and Greenpeace, yes. When we're talking square miles of ecology reduced to sterile dirt in the dark under panels, we're talking about disruption similar to plowing, or mining.
  - JoeAltmaier 12y ago
    Ok, me and Greenpeace cofounder Patrick Moore

agumonkey 12y ago

It seems to good to be true. Also, if that project would succeed, I have a pretty strong feeling it will end up like us getting a larger hard drive. 1 year later people usage would raise above its capacity.