- 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
The world's biggest deserts could be the best places for harvesting solar energy, right?
Posted on 2/21/21 at 12:28 pm
Posted on 2/21/21 at 12:28 pm
Not so fast, my friend.
tl;dr version: 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.
inverse dot com
tl;dr version: 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.
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. Blueprints have been drawn up for projects in Tunisia and Morocco that would supply electricity for millions of households in Europe.
While the black surfaces of solar panels absorb most of the sunlight that reaches them, only a fraction (around 15%) of that incoming energy gets converted to electricity. The rest is returned to the environment as heat. The panels are usually much darker than the ground they cover, so a vast expanse of solar cells will absorb a lot of additional energy and emit it as heat, affecting the climate.
If these effects were only local, they might not matter in a sparsely populated and barren desert. But the scale of the installations that would be needed to make a dent in the world’s fossil energy demand would be vast, covering thousands of square kilometers. Heat re-emitted from an area this size will be redistributed by the flow of air in the atmosphere, having regional and even global effects on the climate.
inverse dot com
21
Posted on 2/21/21 at 12:28 pm to L.A.
Well well well
Posted on 2/21/21 at 12:37 pm to L.A.
That is actually very interesting.
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?
But do you start the project just HOPING for the emergence of technology that does not now exist?
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?
But do you start the project just HOPING for the emergence of technology that does not now exist?
This post was edited on 2/21/21 at 12:42 pm
Posted on 2/21/21 at 12:40 pm to L.A.
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?
Posted on 2/21/21 at 12:48 pm to L.A.
Deserts are very fragile ecosystems so, again, green energy isn't so green.
Posted on 2/21/21 at 12:50 pm to L.A.
Converting photons to electrons creates heat, says every camera manufacturer ever, explaining why imaging sensors require heat sinks in cameras.
Posted on 2/21/21 at 12:56 pm to L.A.
We are no where near ready to give up our depency on oil and gas. The technology isn't there yet.
Posted on 2/21/21 at 1:10 pm to L.A.
Serious question, any idea if a large city would actually have a worse effect with pavement, glass and building?
Posted on 2/21/21 at 1:16 pm to L.A.
1st Law of Thermodynamics at work. Energy is neither created or destroyed. Simply changes form.
Posted on 2/21/21 at 2:05 pm to L.A.
The deserts being used for the burial ground for windmill props.
Posted on 2/21/21 at 2:22 pm to L.A.
It's no secret that solar panels lose efficiency if they get too hot. The technology simply isn't there. Just look at a map of solar irradiance.
Posted on 2/21/21 at 5:09 pm to L.A.
Posted on 2/21/21 at 5:18 pm to L.A.
(no message)
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 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 7:33 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 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 8:10 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 2/22/21 at 2:22 am to L.A.
Turning nature into a solar farm is retarded.
Putting solar panels on warehouses and other large buildings makes a lot more sense to me.
Cranking up Nuclear power makes the most sense. It is a shame we can't power the world 3X over with nuclear power right now.
Putting solar panels on warehouses and other large buildings makes a lot more sense to me.
Cranking up Nuclear power makes the most sense. It is a shame we can't power the world 3X over with nuclear power right now.
Page 1 of 2
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News