bintananth
behind a desk
A project I worked on twelve years ago was a hockey arena in Pennsylvania. The energy code said "this must have 250kW of solar panels".
Yeah, that didn't happen and it got built without any solar panels.
'Climate Change' and the coming 'Climate Lockdown'
- Thread starter DarthOne
- Start date
Yeah, that didn't happen and it got built without any solar panels.
Solar's main benefit is no moving parts, unlike hydro, geothermal, and wind.
No bearings or blades to replace, no need to keep it oiled and have a large, heavily geared transmission and generator system.
So from a purely maintenance standpoint, solar is rather favorable to the end user.
In terms of environmental issues, the 'cleanest' renewable is old school stream/riverside paddle-wheel hydro systems that don't really affect wildlife/fish populations the way modern turbines and dams do. Doesn't generate huge amounts of power, and is more susceptible to low water issues, but is pretty much 'clean' outside the generator and transmission housings. Still is a maintenance issue over time for lubricating oil and bearing replacements.
If the 'field-reversed pulse' fusion designs work out, that would become the closest to a true 'clean energy', because boron and hydrogen are pretty fucking common elements, are non-radioactive, and easy to source for most places.
Did you know that, if you have solar panels to generate your energy in Germany, you have to pay taxes on the energy you consume... that you've generated yourself... with equipment you bought with your own money... and installed/had installed on your own dime. I mean, that seems like sucha roundabout way to describe Germany: you're fixing the issues the state created in the first place -- and they still tax you for that. 
You can't make that shit up...
You can't make that shit up...
Bigking321
Well-known member
Eh... yes and no.
You're correct about the ease of use for the end user.
To get to the end user is a lot more messy.
And solar actually needs to be maintained. If they aren't regularly cleaned they rapidly lose effectiveness. Peak efficiency is usually impossible after a year or so just due to environmental factors causing wear and tear. And if it gets damaged enough straight into a landfill.
The larger solar complexes are even worse. Some of the best locations for them is dry desert locations due to the lack of cloud cover. But there is also a ton of dust that needs to be constantly cleaned off to maintain efficiency. The best way to do that? Fresh water. In a desert.
I feel that any energy gains from solar are offset by the amount of energy that goes into generating it.
That being said solar is a very important technology to develop. It is pretty much perfect for generating energy in space. No atmosphere? No problem. Ideal even.
Last edited:
Solar can be done better, however there are large parts of the nation which are rather empty, have cheap land that is doing nothing, and already have decent grids nearby to hook into. Yes, it has some maintenance, but nothing as intensive as stuff with large generator systems required.
Solar is more than just a fancy way of spinning a magnet in a generator.
Also, lots of buildings are now putting solar on top of shades over parking areas, which is smart. It removes the asphalt heat-sink effect of parking lots, while adding cheap, un-obtrusive solar into urban areas while shading the ground beneath.
mrttao
Well-known member
Others have addressed the cleaning issue. But let me add this
Sure, they last longer than wind turbines.
But you still need to replace them in time.
No moving parts does not mean no wear and tear.
Sure, they last longer than wind turbines.
But you still need to replace them in time.
Bigking321
Well-known member
If we could recycle them it would be one thing, and I could be wrong, but I believe when they are damaged enough they are just done. Into a landfill with no resource recovery. Time to mine more rare earths!
Not going to lie I think it's a little suspicious that figures for 'how much energy does it make to create a solar panel/turbine vs how much does it generate in it's lifetime?' are hard to find.
I have found a few figures on solar-panel sales websites but that's an obvious conflict of interest now isn't it?
I'm sure they generate more than they cost, but it's still shady.
Also a little strange how in many of these 'progressive green states/countries' you don't even make any money for surplus energy going into the grid.
I have found a few figures on solar-panel sales websites but that's an obvious conflict of interest now isn't it?
I'm sure they generate more than they cost, but it's still shady.
Also a little strange how in many of these 'progressive green states/countries' you don't even make any money for surplus energy going into the grid.
bintananth
behind a desk
The 250kW of solar which didn't get built would have been much more expensive than the 601kW supercharged 4.7L V8 my brother-in-laws '08 Koenigsegg has in his garage.
Depends on how much cash you want to spend on very fancy, very complex smelting/metallurgy/contamination issues, some amount of base element reclamation could be done, but that's almost as energy intensive as mining more is by the time you get the stuff back into a new solar cell.
Some of the bio-synthetic solar cells, which use what amounts to almost an man-made leaf to generate energy, might be another avenue, but then we are throwing biochem in on top of all of it. Also, very low output compared to normal solar.
Simonbob
Well-known member
What was I told? Ah, yes.
"10 years, on average, to pay back the energy required to make them." Given the amount of power they produce goes down over the years, I suspect we're talking them making less than 20% over the construction amount.
Bigking321
Well-known member
Do they even last ten years? That seems very optimistic to me.
And is that 10 years at peak efficiency? Because that's actually impossible. Except for in space. Then that's much more achievable.
And is that 10 years at peak efficiency? Because that's actually impossible. Except for in space. Then that's much more achievable.
That depends, are these properly made solar panels or the much more common 'made in china' versions?
This is a map on where solar power is ideal
This is one where wind is ideal.
We have limited resources and their becoming a lot more limited because of Russian retardation. Im all for using renewables but we have to use them smart and put them in the places where they will do the most good.
bintananth
behind a desk
When I was in college (late '90s) the company I worked for did energy studies for IHELA (Iowa Higher Education Loan Authority).
Most of it was bullshit which amounted to recommending that old incandescent light fixtures get replaced with fluoresent ones, insulating the walls and roof, and replacing the old single pane windows with multi-pane windows.
Yes, I am a jaded engineer.
Last edited:
Did you know that, if you have solar panels to generate your energy in Germany, you have to pay taxes on the energy you consume... that you've generated yourself... with equipment you bought with your own money... and installed/had installed on your own dime. I mean, that seems like sucha roundabout way to describe Germany: you're fixing the issues the state created in the first place -- and they still tax you for that.
Charging you money for things you did for yourself with your own funds is pretty common for greedy governments worldwide, I'm afraid.
If they even LET you do things with your own money lmao.
Collecting water which falls straight out of the sky is illegal in so, so many places.
It's only a crime if they catch you. It's not as if such regimes have any moral legitimacy.
Cannot disagree with that!
But they don't catch you until they do. ;P