- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
re: The world's biggest deserts could be the best places for harvesting solar energy, right?
Posted on 2/21/21 at 5:20 pm to bluedragon
Posted on 2/21/21 at 5:20 pm to bluedragon
quote:
The biggest killer in solar efficiency is ...heat. As heat builds in the panel the efficiency declines rapidly.
I wouldn’t say it’s the biggest, but certainly a factor. The reality is it’s always specific to that build. Shade or a lack of SRF can have a much larger impact than ambient or latent heat from conversation.
quote:
On large solar farms there is a sled designed to be assembled and transported by truck. About 8-9 feet wide and forty to forty five feet long. On that sled, is the converter, a distribution transformer and computer controls.
I’ve seen it with centralized inverter units and also with many smaller, more dispersed ones. It really depends on the use case, supply chain, etc. each design has pros and cons.
quote:
To run a wind or solar farm requires a power source upstream
True and wind needs a bunch but it’s really overblown for solar. You really only need a couple Wh to wake up the electronics and get it rolling. I did dark starts in PR with a car battery.
This post was edited on 2/21/21 at 5:25 pm
0
Posted on 2/21/21 at 5:21 pm to EA6B
quote:
Since it doesn’t rain much in the desert who is going to clean off all the dust and sand that will accumulate on the solar panels further reducing their efficiency?
Camels, who else.
Posted on 2/21/21 at 5:35 pm to L.A.
quote:
While solar panels absorb most of the sunlight that reaches them, only around 15% of that incoming energy gets converted to electricity. The rest is returned to the environment as heat.
There really hasn't been any significant break-through in solar power for at least the last 35-40 years.
Yeah, the 'cost' has dropped BUT that is because most are being manufactured in, you guessed it, China.
They are using low wage folks with little or no regulations to hamper production.
We have heard that there are major break throughs 'just right around the corner' for the last 35-40 years.
Solar power has some applications that are good but its still no-where near what our nation is going to need for its current and future power needs.
We are going to need lots and lots of oil and LNG for a long time.
Maybe one day, just maybe, many will wake-up see that nuclear power is the way to go for our future power needs. But don't hold your breath.
Posted on 2/21/21 at 5:41 pm to Reubaltaich
quote:
There really hasn't been any significant break-through in solar power for at least the last 35-40 years.
I wouldn’t say that. SunPower makes a 415W module that’s 22.3% efficient. 5 years ago everyone thought 250W modules were the shite. Not they crank out 350W modules in the same footprint. I’d call that significant and it’s only in the past 5 years.
Posted on 2/21/21 at 5:52 pm to boxcar willie
quote:
Not only do we need greener alternatives for environmental reasons, but there just isn't an endless supply of fossil fuels. While there are downsides to nuclear, it still seems the best alternative for now, and we could still put more effort and resources into working out its downside issues
And what about the damage done to the natural habitants of the area? Is there a guide that shows the value of one environmental issue vs another? Ie it's ok to kill 'X' amount birds by windmills in the name of environmental issue 'Y'.
So fossil fuels are to blame for Polar Bears losing their natural habitat, but it's ok for solar panels to destroy the natural habitat of the Camel.
Just trying to understand it all
Posted on 2/21/21 at 6:15 pm to L.A.
I like to ask dumb questions from time to time.
Q: How do we know the world wouldn't be better off being a couple of degrees warmer? Would more CO2 promote more plant growth(food)?
Q: How do we know the world wouldn't be better off being a couple of degrees warmer? Would more CO2 promote more plant growth(food)?
Posted on 2/21/21 at 7:15 pm to billjamin
quote:
billjamin
I have taken an interest in solar power for a long time.
I do think there is potential there but I have yet to see actual, tangible results for the average home-owner.
It really hasn't made economic sense to me on a personal level to go completely to solar.
Now, I once read that it would take 5 acres of solar panels just to power a small 5000 BTU AC window unit for an average day of usage.
I am not trying to post some 'gotcha' scenario but I would like to know what you would think about this.
Next questions
How many solar panels would I need to power an average 2200 square foot home that is all electric for a family of four that lives in the Louisiana?
How much money would I be looking at to have this?
TIA
Posted on 2/21/21 at 7:17 pm to TOSOV
quote:
And what about the damage done to the natural habitants of the area? Is there a guide that shows the value of one environmental issue vs another? Ie it's ok to kill 'X' amount birds by windmills in the name of environmental issue 'Y'. So fossil fuels are to blame for Polar Bears losing their natural habitat, but it's ok for solar panels to destroy the natural habitat of the Camel. Just trying to understand it all
I really dislike the term “green”. It’s really just something politicians use. Most everyone who works in what would be considered green or renewable have diverse energy backgrounds and think things like the green deal deal are a joke. I refer to it as AOCs bartending school dissertation or essay. Ok done with the rant.
To your point, yes they all have environmental impacts. Solar and storage require some fricked up mining practices. Wind has a disposal problem. Fracking isn’t all sunshine and roses and neither is anything. None of them are perfectly safe or environmentally friendly. They do environmental impact studies on all of this stuff and someone, somewhere decides what gets the green light and what doesn’t. Typically that someone is the person writing the check.
We do need to keep investing in all of them though. It would be irresponsible not to develop technology that uses a fuel source that’s prevalent and free (wind and sun). But the idea it will replace fossils? Yeah that’s a joke.
This post was edited on 2/21/21 at 7:27 pm
Posted on 2/21/21 at 7:26 pm to Reubaltaich
quote:
It really hasn't made economic sense to me on a personal level to go completely to solar.
It’s very dependent on your individual circumstances. My wife’s family ranch has an off grid capable system that powers 2 houses. But it’s a ground mount and optimized. If you haven’t already I would have someone run an Aurora or similar simulation and see what you got for irradiance and roof space. Don’t trust the garbage Google Sunroof data.
quote:
Now, I once read that it would take 5 acres of solar panels just to power a small 5000 BTU AC window unit for an average day of usage.
Idk where you read that but 5 acres will get you a MW usually. That’s more than enough to run a lot of AC units.
quote:
How many solar panels would I need to power an average 2200 square foot home that is all electric for a family of four that lives in the Louisiana?
It’s hard to say because you really need to know roof space, angles, latitude, etc. also consumer behavior, number of electric vs gas appliances makes a huge difference. Most residential systems with high offset are around 12kW. Someone can chime in and correct me but I think that’ll run you about 30-35 and you’ll get a 26% tax rebate. That’s a big swag though, I’ve been out the resi pricing game for long enough to be out of the loop.
ETA: my SIL paid 32k for a system that was estimated to produce 15,454kWh its first full year. So compare that to your annual consumption and its gives you an idea. This is a year ago though so it may have changed a little.
This post was edited on 2/21/21 at 7:51 pm
Posted on 2/21/21 at 7:33 pm to L.A.
I thought we already were aware that solar farms are terrible for the environment. Why do they need more studies that say this?
Posted on 2/21/21 at 7:35 pm to L.A.
quote:
Researchers imagine it might be possible to transform the world’s largest desert, the Sahara, into a giant solar farm, capable of meeting four times the world’s current energy demand.
I am 100% for this, but does anyone see one giant flaw with this solution?
Posted on 2/21/21 at 7:37 pm to squid_hunt
quote:
I am 100% for this, but does anyone see one giant flaw with this solution?
The Sahara desert is excruciatingly hot? And it actually holds an ecosystem?
Posted on 2/21/21 at 7:38 pm to boogiewoogie1978
quote:
quote:Nuclear. This is the way.
No thanks.
I love that this came from Arkansas. Beautiful.
Posted on 2/21/21 at 7:41 pm to tiggerthetooth
quote:
The Sahara desert is excruciatingly hot? And it actually holds an ecosystem?
Eh. Gotta break a couple eggs to make an omelette. Somebody's ecosystem is always going to be destroyed. Not saying it has to be the Sahara, but somewhere.
I was thinking that if you supplied 4x the world's power, the demand would immediately rise to fill it.
Posted on 2/21/21 at 7:50 pm to AggieHank86
quote:
One would think that technological improvements would lead to a greater conversion rate (efficiency) over time ... certainly long before completion of enough solar farms to cover hundreds of thousands of square kilometers.
And if you double the efficiency, would that not halve the required surface area, for example?
The greatest amount of solar energy delivered to the surface of the Earth on a per unit area base is 1000W/m^2. Thats it. No matter how efficient solar cells become they will never do better than that on this planet. If the entire Saharan desert was covered with 100% efficient solar cells and the sun delivered 1000W every day light hour to all 9.2x10^15 square meters it still wouldn't meet the world's energy demands, because night and because solar power is about the lowest in terms of actual delivered-to-the-grid-for-installed-capacity energy source there is. Solar will never be a base load source for this planet unless we kill of 90% of the population.
This post was edited on 2/21/21 at 7:51 pm
Posted on 2/21/21 at 7:56 pm to Clames
quote:
Solar will never be a base load source for this planet unless we kill of 90% of the population.
Now we're talking solutions!
Posted on 2/21/21 at 8:03 pm to L.A.
Maybe they should realize harnessing energy will have side effects of some sort we just have to accept no matter the energy source of energy so either deal with it and use most efficient form or go back to Stone Age
Posted on 2/21/21 at 8:04 pm to Clames
quote:
The greatest amount of solar energy delivered to the surface of the Earth on a per unit area base is 1000W/m^2. Thats it. No matter how efficient solar cells become they will never do better than that on this planet. If the entire Saharan desert was covered with 100% efficient solar cells and the sun delivered 1000W every day light hour to all 9.2x10^15 square meters it still wouldn't meet the world's energy demands, because night and because solar power is about the lowest in terms of actual delivered-to-the-grid-for-installed-capacity energy source there is. Solar will never be a base load source for this planet unless we kill of 90% of the population.
How many hours of irradiance per day and what did you use for global consumption? Not saying your wrong, I’m curious.
Posted on 2/21/21 at 8:10 pm to L.A.
In other words, solar power is not what all the Green New Deal folks would have us believe...what a surprise!
Posted on 2/21/21 at 9:28 pm to Tiger in Texas
The future lies on the surface of the moon. Helium 3. Safe, fissionable and hardly any on Earth. Only 7 tonnes could power the entire United States for a year. There's at least 100,000 years worth estimated on the surface of the moon to power the entirety of Earth's needs. Likely much more.
Page 3 of 4
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News