69 replies to this topic

[Jay the Avenger]

It's now 10 years later and we can clearly see solar is winning.

 

I claim my victory over elrond/externaltraveler in my claim that solar would win.

 

 

No I don't. But luckily, I happen to understand the implications of exponential growth. I also know that nanotechnology has the potential to increase efficiency of products by a thousandfold or more.

I'm not sure exactly what you are saying here, but you are not going to increase the efficiency of solar cells above 100%. I'm not exactly sure what the best cells produce now, but it sure isn't a thousand time less than 100%

If it doesn't, then we'll just have to put down a vast array of solar panels in the Sahara. Whatever it takes.

You really really really really really don't like nuclear power do you?

 

 

[corb]

It's now 10 years later and we can clearly see solar is winning.

 

I claim my victory over elrond/externaltraveler in my claim that solar would win.

 

 

No I don't. But luckily, I happen to understand the implications of exponential growth. I also know that nanotechnology has the potential to increase efficiency of products by a thousandfold or more.

I'm not sure exactly what you are saying here, but you are not going to increase the efficiency of solar cells above 100%. I'm not exactly sure what the best cells produce now, but it sure isn't a thousand time less than 100%

If it doesn't, then we'll just have to put down a vast array of solar panels in the Sahara. Whatever it takes.

You really really really really really don't like nuclear power do you?

 

 

 

Good you do that.
Doesn't change the fact, you're wrong.

 

 

[Jay the Avenger]

Good you do that.

Doesn't change the fact, you're wrong.

 

There's a bunch of nuclear reactors under construction at any given point in time.

 

Is the number of reactors being built growing exponentially?

 

Is their output growing exponentially?

 

No, it isn't.

 

Matter of fact... it seems to be flatlining a bit.

 

Counteracting a 'momentum'-based argument with a 'fixed point in time statistics'-based argument is like bringing a knife to a gun fight.

 

Solar comes first.

 

And once it's taken care of our energy demands, additional nuclear output won't even be necessary anymore.

 

Nuclear might provide a whopping 20% of the world's energy in 2100.

 

Solar is leaving nuclear in the dust.

 

 

And that is how you formulate an objective, rational, reality based argument.

 

See you in 10 years.

[corb]

Most of my family works in power plants, that's basically all they ever talk about.

The Fukushima disaster had a slight negative effect on the industry, sure, but realistically nuclear is the only alternative to coal.
Will solar be used more in the near future - yeah probably, it has a large following of fanatics who hardly understand how inefficient an energy source it actually is. But that's about it, you'll always need the constant supply coal and nuclear plants provide.

 

Oh, and the countries shutting down their nuclear plants - they'll become completely dependent on gas imports in the future with the new retarded emision laws becoming active and with the relations the EU has with Russia and the ME and Northern Africa and the situation in those regions, I'm thinking the whole idea will inevitably fall apart.

 

 

Through much of 2012, the Energiewende, Germany’s pioneering effort to construct an energy system around renewables while simultaneously phasing out nuclear power and cutting carbon emissions, was on a roll. Plunging prices and eye-popping production figures for wind and solar power seemed to fulfill all the visionary prognostications. Germany shrugged off the shuttering of nearly half its nuclear plants without a backward glance: not only did it not suffer the predicted power shortages, it boosted electricity exports. Renewable power pushed market prices down and threatened to drive gas- and coal-burning power plants into bankruptcy. The press and the green blogosphere celebrated passed benchmark after shattered milepost, including the day in May when, according to Treehugger.com’s headline, “Half of Germany Was Running on Solar Power.”

 

But statistics on Germany’s electricity sector for the whole of 2012 are now in, and when you look beyond the cherry-picked hype, the results are dismal and disquieting. Despite massive construction of new capacity, electricity output from renewables, especially from wind and solar, grew at a sluggish rate. Germany is indeed avoiding blackouts—by opening new coal- and gas-fired plants. Renewable electricity is proving so unreliable and chaotic that it is starting to undermine the stability of the European grid and provoke international incidents. The spiraling cost of the renewables surge has sparked a backlash, including government proposals to slash subsidies and deployment rates. Worst of all, the Energiewende made no progress at all in clearing the German grid of fossil fuels or abating greenhouse emissions—nor is it likely to for at least a decade longer

[redFishBlueFish]

 

I've spent the last two days researching this issue.

In the end, hydrogen will be created out of renewable resources. This has been the whole idea behind hydrogen ever since its conception.

The use of fossil fuels to generate hydrogen will only be used as an intermediary step towards a fullblown hydrogen economy.

Hydrogen is obviously the answer to the energy-problem. Anybody who thinks otherwise, should spend more time doing his research, IMO.

Two whole days huh?

Unless you want to cover the Sahara desert in solar panels these renewable energy sources you are talking about won't come close to making up the difference fossil fuels provide.

Why is everyone so afraid of nuclear energy? We don't need to waste our time and money on things like wind turbines that provide intermittent power at a huge cost. We have tapped into the power of the atom. Lets use it!

Your hydrogen economy would work just fine if it had nuclear power as it's base.

 

 

Everyone is scared of nuclear because of nuclear explosions, 3 mile, Chernobyl, and Fukushima. Many people associate the nuclear explosions they've seen from WW2 and the Manhattan project with what would happen at a nuclear reactor if lost control. It doesn't help that there were films like The China Syndrome, either.

 

I would be 100% support of nuclear energy if governments weren't so damn sloppy about it. There are alternative and much more efficient reactors from the LWRS and HWRS. Lets build a reactor, have it heat up, then cool all the way back to start with water and generate electricity out of that process, repeat. Could we do it a little better than this? The irony of all of this is, there is a LWRS in my backyard. Literally, I could drive 30 minutes and be at the security gate, lol. But there is always some kind of "incident" with nuclear waste in the news. I am one of those Kirk Sorensen fanboys. I love his dream of LFTR plants powered by thorium. It's pretty awesome.

 

Lastly, I know many people are betting on nuclear fusion, instead of fission. Anytime there is fusion news, they are freaking out. lol.

 

A carbon free country vs a carbon based one is so different, the redesigns needed for this to happen would be insane. 

Edited by redFishBlueFish, 23 July 2014 - 04:41 AM.

[A941]

What do you people think about Thorium reactors?

As far as i know there would be enough nuclear fuel for a couple of of millenia around, but are the reactors as safe as they say?

 

[redFishBlueFish]

LFTR powered Throium plants, cooled with molten salt. Not really interested in the LWRS or HWRS. There is plenty of Thorium on most moons and/or planets in our own solar system. I would imagine it to be the same outside. Australia and India have huge deposits of it. The moon has a huge concentration of it. 

 

As far as I am concerned, reactors are as safe as their design, upkeep, and people that own them.

Edited by redFishBlueFish, 24 July 2014 - 01:14 AM.

[Jay the Avenger]

See you in 10 years.

 

It's now almost 10 years later, and solar is eclipsing nuclear.

 

We can now clearly see that I was right, all along.

 

Sorry, detractors... but I win this argument.

 

Do you want to admit it, or do I need to come in here and claim victory once more, in another decade?

 

Source in Dutch:

 

https://innovationor...rgie-overbodig/

 

Translation in English:

 

https://innovationor...&_x_tr_pto=wapp

[Mind]

What was the original definition of winning, for those who did not read through the entire thread. The idea that solar would power more of the world than nuclear by this time.

 

Solar has certainly gained a lot in the last 10 years and nuclear has not, but it is not because of technology, but rather politics. Nuclear (including thorium and fusion) has tremendous potential to power the earth and power humanity through outer space, but environmentalists keep destroying its potential. Instead of nuclear plants, actual plants - such as forest and fields - are being destroyed to make way for solar farms (and wind farms) - even in cold northern climates where there is no hope for a return on investment or a positive EROI.

 

I like the idea of roof-top solar, but that is about it. Solar certainly has not met Kurzweil's prediction of exponential progress/adoption and won't anytime soon.

 

On the other topic in the thread title, oil/coal/fossil fuels are still no where close to running out - which was debated in this old "peak oil" thread.

[Daniel Cooper]

It's now almost 10 years later, and solar is eclipsing nuclear.
 
We can now clearly see that I was right, all along.
 
Sorry, detractors... but I win this argument.
 
Do you want to admit it, or do I need to come in here and claim victory once more, in another decade?
 
Source in Dutch:
 
https://innovationor...rgie-overbodig/
 
Translation in English:
 
https://innovationor...&_x_tr_pto=wapp

 
In the USA - Data from www.eia.gov.



In the USA, nuclear stands at 18.2%, all solar at 3.4%.

Solar has issues. It doesn't work when the sun isn't shinning, so you need some large scale energy storage mechanism. And, given current efficiencies, you'd literally need to pave over a substantial amount of every developed country with solar panels to meet current energy requirements significantly from solar. People think of it as a benign environmental friendly energy source, but that's an overstatement. Once you start covering up large tracts of land with panels (solar farms) that also has an environmental impact.

 

Some Western European countries (Germany for instance) have scaled back their commitment to solar in the last few years as the trade-offs have become more apparent. Energy shortages and a less reliable power grid have been an issue there.

 

Let me suggest that in the Netherlands, the reason solar is beating nuclear is that the they never had much commitment and subsequently never built much nuclear (looks like 3.5% of their energy comes from nuclear). If the US only got 3.5% of it's energy from nuclear then indeed nuclear and solar would be essentially tied here.

 

But even the Netherlands still gets 61% of it's energy from fossil fuels unless I've done the math wrong. That's just slightly more than the US. 

 

How much can they grow that 10%? Is it going to double anytime soon? Or is it plateauing? How do you handle the variability in solar generation? If you can't store it, you have to have backup generation available, which if you aren't doing nuclear is going to be fossil fueled. That ends up being very expensive since you have redundant power generation infrastructure that is only partially used.

 

So when you say that you were right all along and have won the argument, were you speaking specifically about Holland or including the world beyond that?

 

Also I might add, you were completely off base about the hydrogen economy which 20 years later never happened. That's because as others pointed out, hydrogen is not an energy source. There is no where on the planet where I can drill a well and pump molecular hydrogen out of the ground. Hydrogen is an energy storage mechanism, and a difficult one to deal with at that. Also keep in mind that every time you do a conversion of energy from one form to another, that nasty 2nd Law of Thermodynamics comes into play. You take an efficiency hit twice when you store energy - when you put it in, and when you take it out. Entropy is a wicked mistress.

 

 

Edited by Daniel Cooper, 18 July 2023 - 06:19 PM.