There is no way you guys think dstne actually thinks millions of solar panels in space are a good idea... quite the opposite, and we can all probably agree that it's not the best solution for the time being. Solar power can be helpful, and there are plenty of reasons to use it, but options like coal and oil are just better for now.
@Oliver131313 said in #21:
> Solar power can be helpful, and there are plenty of reasons to use it, but options like coal and oil are just better for now.
They decisively are NOT. Your thinking seems to be stuck in the 1980s. It's 2024 and solar power is vastly more cost effective than both coal and oil. See my post #18 for sources of this claim.
Of course solar power cannot be used everywhere (it makes little sense in the arctic circle or in regions with a lot of all-year cloud cover).
The efficiency of solar cells keeps improving:
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Photovoltaics#Solar_cell_efficiencies
The development of photovoltaic units has greatly benefitted from a version of Moore's law (en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moore's_law). Moore's law roughly states that the number of transistors (≈semiconductor devices) per microchip doubles every ≈2 years. This explains the exponential growth of computing power over last few decades.
Since PV modules are made of semiconductor materials (like silicon) as well, it's no surprise that a similar development has been observed in them: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Swanson%27s_law
Currently PV module costs go down 75% per decade (exponential decay of the costs).
And it's already way cheaper in terms of levelised cost of electricity than coal is (oil is mostly used for transportation, not for electrical power generation). See post #18.
"Crystalline silicon photovoltaic cell prices have fallen from $76.67 per watt in 1977 to $0.36 per watt in 2014."
(Source: Swanson's law wikipedia article)
The total installed solar power is also growing exponentially (tenfold increase in installed power per decade):
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solar_cell#Declining_costs_and_exponential_growth
> [...] options like coal and oil are just better for now.
Broad assertions like this are seldom true, especially when they are presented without a shred of evidence.
> Solar power can be helpful, and there are plenty of reasons to use it, but options like coal and oil are just better for now.
They decisively are NOT. Your thinking seems to be stuck in the 1980s. It's 2024 and solar power is vastly more cost effective than both coal and oil. See my post #18 for sources of this claim.
Of course solar power cannot be used everywhere (it makes little sense in the arctic circle or in regions with a lot of all-year cloud cover).
The efficiency of solar cells keeps improving:
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Photovoltaics#Solar_cell_efficiencies
The development of photovoltaic units has greatly benefitted from a version of Moore's law (en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moore's_law). Moore's law roughly states that the number of transistors (≈semiconductor devices) per microchip doubles every ≈2 years. This explains the exponential growth of computing power over last few decades.
Since PV modules are made of semiconductor materials (like silicon) as well, it's no surprise that a similar development has been observed in them: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Swanson%27s_law
Currently PV module costs go down 75% per decade (exponential decay of the costs).
And it's already way cheaper in terms of levelised cost of electricity than coal is (oil is mostly used for transportation, not for electrical power generation). See post #18.
"Crystalline silicon photovoltaic cell prices have fallen from $76.67 per watt in 1977 to $0.36 per watt in 2014."
(Source: Swanson's law wikipedia article)
The total installed solar power is also growing exponentially (tenfold increase in installed power per decade):
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solar_cell#Declining_costs_and_exponential_growth
> [...] options like coal and oil are just better for now.
Broad assertions like this are seldom true, especially when they are presented without a shred of evidence.
@BorisOspasky said in #20:
>
@BorisOspasky said in #19:
>
See the real solution us to move into the Sun, then there is no more light dilution and we are able to end night! Perfect!
>
@BorisOspasky said in #19:
>
See the real solution us to move into the Sun, then there is no more light dilution and we are able to end night! Perfect!
More reliable would be a better way to say it.
@dstne said in #23:
> See the real solution us to move into the Sun, then there is no more light dilution and we are able to end night! Perfect!
W idea
> See the real solution us to move into the Sun, then there is no more light dilution and we are able to end night! Perfect!
W idea
@Thalassokrator said in #22:
>
If solar panels are truly much superior, then why aren’t we trying to convert at all. If they truly were more energy efficient and cost efficient why aren’t big businesses trying to get in on this idea?
Space. Solar panels take a lot of space to run.
They lay flat on the ground (or tilted depending on what type of farms they are) and take up a ton of space for the amount of energy production. a coal or nuclear power plant produces more energy for the space it takes up, especially because they can be built up when solar panels can’t.
Anyways, just a thought, not a counter argument.
>
If solar panels are truly much superior, then why aren’t we trying to convert at all. If they truly were more energy efficient and cost efficient why aren’t big businesses trying to get in on this idea?
Space. Solar panels take a lot of space to run.
They lay flat on the ground (or tilted depending on what type of farms they are) and take up a ton of space for the amount of energy production. a coal or nuclear power plant produces more energy for the space it takes up, especially because they can be built up when solar panels can’t.
Anyways, just a thought, not a counter argument.
@Oliver131313 said in #24:
> More reliable would be a better way to say it.
Yes, both solar and wind power are weather dependent. On their own. Solar power generation can also only happen during daytime (big surprise). Combining them with energy storage methods can mitigate/eliminate these drawbacks. Using an appropriate (for the geographical location and climatic conditions) mix of these renewable energies alongside others (and nuclear energy) and energy storage a highly reliable electrical grid can be constructed that doesn't need any coal. Again, see #18.
Business as usual is just not the way to go here if we want to limit the increase in average global temperature to less than 2ºC. And that (at least) should be our aim as more severe climate change will badly hurt public health and our economies. 1.5ºC would be better (but has already been made all but unachievable due to our inaction), every tenth of a degree counts and is NOT imperceptible:
A very rough back-of-the-envelope estimation I did a while back shows that an increase in global average temperature of a tenth of a degree means adding on the order of 10^20 Joules (24,000 Mt of TNT) of energy to the atmospheric system. That's the energy equivalent of more than 400 Tsar Bombas (the most powerful thermonuclear device ever created or tested). A full degree correspondingly is like thousands (more than 4000) of Tsar Bombas of energy. The corresponding numbers are 1600 and 16,000 castle bravo detonations, in case you're American.
> More reliable would be a better way to say it.
Yes, both solar and wind power are weather dependent. On their own. Solar power generation can also only happen during daytime (big surprise). Combining them with energy storage methods can mitigate/eliminate these drawbacks. Using an appropriate (for the geographical location and climatic conditions) mix of these renewable energies alongside others (and nuclear energy) and energy storage a highly reliable electrical grid can be constructed that doesn't need any coal. Again, see #18.
Business as usual is just not the way to go here if we want to limit the increase in average global temperature to less than 2ºC. And that (at least) should be our aim as more severe climate change will badly hurt public health and our economies. 1.5ºC would be better (but has already been made all but unachievable due to our inaction), every tenth of a degree counts and is NOT imperceptible:
A very rough back-of-the-envelope estimation I did a while back shows that an increase in global average temperature of a tenth of a degree means adding on the order of 10^20 Joules (24,000 Mt of TNT) of energy to the atmospheric system. That's the energy equivalent of more than 400 Tsar Bombas (the most powerful thermonuclear device ever created or tested). A full degree correspondingly is like thousands (more than 4000) of Tsar Bombas of energy. The corresponding numbers are 1600 and 16,000 castle bravo detonations, in case you're American.
@dstne said in #26:
> If solar panels are truly much superior, then why aren’t we trying to convert it all. If they truly were more energy efficient and cost efficient why aren’t big businesses trying to get in on this idea?
They are. Read post #22. The installed solar power is growing exponentially. "Grid-connected solar photovoltaics (PV) is the fastest growing energy technology in the world, growing from a cumulative installed capacity of 7.7 GW in 2007, to 320 GW in 2016." Source: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_photovoltaics_companies
There are countless of companies producing photovoltaics. And countless of businesses that use PV.
> Space. Solar panels take a lot of space to run.
True, the energy density of utility PV is much lower than say that of a nuclear power plant.
But PV can be installed in otherwise unused areas (rural areas with bad Soil quality index), mountain slopes too steep for agriculture or residential areas, roofs of houses, etc. So this drawback is not as bad as it might seem at first glance.
> They lay flat on the ground (or tilted depending on what type of farms they are) [...]
They usually do not lay flat on the ground (unless you're at the equator). They are tilted at an optimal angle depending on geographical latitude because the maximum elevation angle of the sun depends on latitude. And PV modules work most efficiently when the sunlight comes in perpendicular relative to the surface of the PV module.
> [...] especially because they [nuclear or coal power plants] can be built up when solar panels can’t.
You can build a nuclear power plant on the roof of your house? Perhaps I'm not understanding you correctly here.
> Anyways, just a thought, not a counter argument.
It's much appreciated! I'd take civil and cordial discussions over shouting matches every day of the week!
> If solar panels are truly much superior, then why aren’t we trying to convert it all. If they truly were more energy efficient and cost efficient why aren’t big businesses trying to get in on this idea?
They are. Read post #22. The installed solar power is growing exponentially. "Grid-connected solar photovoltaics (PV) is the fastest growing energy technology in the world, growing from a cumulative installed capacity of 7.7 GW in 2007, to 320 GW in 2016." Source: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_photovoltaics_companies
There are countless of companies producing photovoltaics. And countless of businesses that use PV.
> Space. Solar panels take a lot of space to run.
True, the energy density of utility PV is much lower than say that of a nuclear power plant.
But PV can be installed in otherwise unused areas (rural areas with bad Soil quality index), mountain slopes too steep for agriculture or residential areas, roofs of houses, etc. So this drawback is not as bad as it might seem at first glance.
> They lay flat on the ground (or tilted depending on what type of farms they are) [...]
They usually do not lay flat on the ground (unless you're at the equator). They are tilted at an optimal angle depending on geographical latitude because the maximum elevation angle of the sun depends on latitude. And PV modules work most efficiently when the sunlight comes in perpendicular relative to the surface of the PV module.
> [...] especially because they [nuclear or coal power plants] can be built up when solar panels can’t.
You can build a nuclear power plant on the roof of your house? Perhaps I'm not understanding you correctly here.
> Anyways, just a thought, not a counter argument.
It's much appreciated! I'd take civil and cordial discussions over shouting matches every day of the week!
@Thalassokrator said in #28:
> You can build a nuclear power plant on the roof of your house? Perhaps I'm not understanding you correctly her
Are you telling me you do not bought a cottage far in the woods coming with the nuclear power plant option???
Lmao
> You can build a nuclear power plant on the roof of your house? Perhaps I'm not understanding you correctly her
Are you telling me you do not bought a cottage far in the woods coming with the nuclear power plant option???
Lmao