Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Alt-E: The real picture

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #16
    Re: Alt-E: The real picture

    Nice find.

    The 10% Mr. Beckmann refers to, however, has significantly improved since then.

    At present price points, a 20% efficiency solar cell/15% net efficiency PV electricity plant is roughly equivalent to a diesel generator in terms of cost.

    Only if efficiency is increased over 35% (solar cell level) and 30% (net PV plant efficiency level) do you start getting anywhere near present electricity generation costs.

    Now it is certainly likely these costs will increase over time, but it won't be that fast.

    Comment


    • #17
      Re: Alt-E: The real picture

      Originally posted by c1ue View Post
      Really?

      I'd like to understand the basis for your view expressed above.

      From my view - which is people working in the solar PV industry - there absolutely are all sorts of improvements in efficiency which would, at a minimum, bring solar PV close to parity with existing fossil fuel electricity generation. We're not talking pie-in-the-sky, we're talking about devices and designs which are demonstrably functional, but have not bridged the gap from custom lab work to assembly line production.
      Solar is not the only Alt E sector, why not let the Chinese invest resources in improving the technology.

      The problem is that 'could' is not the same as will, or even the same as probably.

      On the other hand, I can point to all sorts of things which will absolutely cause problems irrespective of CO2 - that is human development.

      The fundamental problem with Catastrophic Anthropogenic CO2 caused global warming is that none of the predictions are coming true in any way. Floods, hurricanes, tornadoes, desertification, etc etc - every single one of the effects which CAGW is supposed to engender have failed to materialize in reality.

      Even the 'projection' of temperature trends has failed. Why then should any credence whatsoever be given to this view?
      Because by scaring people you get action.

      The straight physics based calculation on CO2 release is 1.2 degrees C by 2100.

      Or in other words, little to no difference vs. today.
      Its not a straight physics calculation and you know that, Its too complex for anyone to say but it will have some effect. Why wait when the alternative is possible.

      Actually it is. Because Greenhouse gas theory does not account for Venus' actual measured surface temperature. From straight greenhouse gas theory, Venus' surface temperature should be half what is actually is - thus the theory is wrong even there.
      come on now your pushing credibility, I said that scientist got greenhouse theory from the CO2 in Venus Atmosphere not that it accounted for all the heat on Venus.

      The effect is so small as to be nonexistent. For one thing, the manufacturing portion of lifetime CO2 emissions associated with a laptop is 50%:
      Yeah half the CO2 from the lifetime emissions from a computer is small!

      http://fatknowledge.blogspot.com/200...f-macbook.html

      For another thing, the 230 kg CO2 associated with manufacture above is puny compared to the 3661 kg CO2 emitted by per person gasoline consumption in the US (416 gallons per person, 8.8 kg CO2 per gallon gasoline):

      http://www.ehow.com/facts_7311765_mu...llon-gas_.html

      Throw in the costs of building/maintaining infrastructure, growing/transporting/cooking/disposing food, other utilities, lighting, heating/cooling, etc etc - manufacturing of electronics is insignificant.
      Good find I was looking for how much energy it took to manufacture a phone.

      230 / 3661 *100 = 6% for one Item manufactured abroad is insignificant, because us westerners only buy one Item a year which we used to produce from abroad.

      Though I don't think its a bad thing!

      Pity you are so ignorant.
      Now now behave its only a debate.

      The population of Russia is far more concentrated than 'density' makes it appear. For one thing, the population East of the Urals is nearly zero.
      Tell that Napoleon or Hitler they also thought Russia was just the big population centre's and paid the price.

      For another thing, Russia is far poorer than the US. In the US, everyone has a car and far more people lived in detached housing - while most people in Russia still live in Soviet era housing.
      Everyone in the US does not need a car, Russia have very bad winters with old housing and a huge inefficient energy resource sector yet they still use less energy per capita. Can you just imagine how poor their energy infrastructure is?

      Are you advocating that solution for the US?
      No, i'm saying The USA can and will/should be more smarter about its energy use.

      I'd also note that Canada has only a slightly higher population density than Russia,
      and consumes something like 70% more power per capita. Of course, GDP per capita in Canada is also 80% higher than Russia's...
      Have not been to Canada so have not seen how they waste energy, I suspect their energy use and GDP is tied to USA because of their huge resource sector.

      Whatever the US fetish might be - it is quite clear that PCO will drive prices higher.

      Seems like a self correcting problem to me.
      Well its always going to be a self correcting problem, but do we risk extreme events to get there or control our own destiny.

      I completely agree with the idea that alternative energy is key to the long term future.
      Cool, we agree on something...

      Once again, why does this require massive short term subsidies for production of immature technology?
      Because you have to get the ball rolling somehow, its not the most efficient way granted however there will be more research into Alt E industries because of subsidies. And its politically easier than slapping a tax on fossil fuels.

      Comment


      • #18
        Re: Alt-E: The real picture

        Originally posted by TechDread
        Solar is not the only Alt E sector, why not let the Chinese invest resources in improving the technology.
        They are, but they are also building 1 coal fired electricity plant per week and 1 nuclear power plant per month.

        Clearly a very different set of priorities in China.

        Originally posted by TechDread
        Because by scaring people you get action.
        Except it isn't working. Scares are great until they're found out to be false, then the backfire. That's what we're seeing now.

        Originally posted by TechDread
        Its not a straight physics calculation and you know that, Its too complex for anyone to say but it will have some effect. Why wait when the alternative is possible.
        You'll have to define what the alternative is.

        Equally, some effect isn't the same as significant effect. More importantly, you're now vacillating between precautionary principle and scientific basis.

        Originally posted by TechDread
        come on now your pushing credibility, I said that scientist got greenhouse theory from the CO2 in Venus Atmosphere not that it accounted for all the heat on Venus.
        No, greenhouse gas theory existed before probes were sent to sample Venus' temperature. Read up on Arrhenius.

        Originally posted by TechDread
        Tell that Napoleon or Hitler they also thought Russia was just the big population centre's and paid the price.
        Population can move, and did in World War II. Napoleon was a different set of issues entirely.

        Originally posted by TechDread
        Everyone in the US does not need a car, Russia have very bad winters with old housing and a huge inefficient energy resource sector yet they still use less energy per capita. Can you just imagine how poor their energy infrastructure is?
        No argument with old, but inefficient is all relative. Is having communal hot water/water pipe ice prevention old and inefficient? How does Russian utility consumption per capita compare with Americans in Minnesota or New England?

        The old Russian housing is also much smaller than the US. Which is more inefficient, energy consumption wise: a 3000 square foot standalone McMansion with all the greenwashing bells and whistles vs. 800 square foot apartments clustered together in 12 story/ 8 apartment per floor/multiple buildings adjoining arrangement?

        Originally posted by TechDread
        No, i'm saying The USA can and will/should be more smarter about its energy use.
        Easy to say, not so easy to do. Tearing down the McMansions and rebuilding is one option, but that isn't going to happen without direct government intervention.

        Originally posted by TechDread
        Have not been to Canada so have not seen how they waste energy, I suspect their energy use and GDP is tied to USA because of their huge resource sector.
        Some of it is, but the majority is because Canada is very far north. It is cold, has long winters, and thus Canadians use a lot of energy to heat their homes and keep road/transport clear of snow. You can see similar profiles in cold areas of the US like Minnesota and New England.

        Originally posted by TechDread
        Well its always going to be a self correcting problem, but do we risk extreme events to get there or control our own destiny.
        The risk has to be credible - and the types of hype being put out due to Anthropogenic CO2 Catastrophe are not. The litany of lies includes: Hurricanes, tornadoes, flooding, drought, Himalayan glaciers/Indian water supply, sea level rise, ad nauseam.

        Originally posted by TechDread
        Because you have to get the ball rolling somehow, its not the most efficient way granted however there will be more research into Alt E industries because of subsidies. And its politically easier than slapping a tax on fossil fuels.
        Wrong. As I know a number of people that were/are deeply involved in the solar industry R & D side - the types and amounts of subsidies given for solar have encouraged the least efficient/oldest forms of solar technology, because these are the ones most able to sell to the public quickly.

        Thus the companies which try to develop new technology are shoved aside from venture investment by companies which can reap the subsidies most quickly - i.e. the old and obsolete - while there is enormous pressure on said R & D companies to get to market ASAP as opposed to develop a better product.

        Comment


        • #19
          Re: Alt-E: The real picture

          Originally posted by c1ue View Post
          ...Some of it is, but the majority is because Canada is very far north. It is cold, has long winters, and thus Canadians use a lot of energy to heat their homes and keep road/transport clear of snow. You can see similar profiles in cold areas of the US like Minnesota and New England....
          one reason for any diff tween canada and new england might be that they pay quite a bit less in the great white north than they do in new england, per KWH - since they (BC esp) have hydro and new englanders do a lot of their heating with #2 oil

          that and the stereotype of the ole yankee frugality being what it is (mostly true) they tend to keep the house downright frosty (and keeps me battlin with em when i visit during cold wx, just to keep the damn thermostat above 65.. ;)

          Comment

          Working...
          X