Solar Power Destroys Miles and Miles of Desert

[Andylusion]

lol,

a DESERT IS A FUCKING WASTE LAND. Most of the desert solar is built on isn't useable.

I've come to the conclusion that both parties in this country are full of people that are truly sick in the head.

It is? You need to get out more, sport! Here's what you want to destroy. Yes, dry lake beds are featureless. But the rest of the desert is beautiful and THIS is what they want to cover up.

Yeah, nobody lives there. Nobody is going to have dangerous fracking chemicals near where their kids go to school. No one has to worry about earthquakes. No one has to worry about their water supply getting poisoned.

Do you have a point or are you just going to whine and pout?

That is my point - that if we can build energy infrastructure in the desert instead of near people, then people won't be as adversely affected.

Plus, where's a better place to put solar panels?

I was not aware that the eco-nuts actually care that much about people, as much as "biodiversity" and saving the spotted owl. Eco-nuts tend to only care about people, when they see a way to use that to their own advantage.

If we follow the eco-nut agenda of preventing damage to the Earth.... then we can't put the solar panels anywhere, because no matter where they are put, they will have a negative effect on the "environment" (especially when you deem all human activity as bad).

If on the other hand, you are building your premise that we MUST use solar panels, and therefore we MUST place them somewhere.... well then yeah, the desert would be the best possible location. I would agree with that.

 

[Billy_Bob]

Because Wind and Solar are weak sources of Electricity, kind of like making a copy of copy. To equal 1 nuclear power plant, Solar will have to cover over a 1000 square miles of land. It is just a literal impossibility to increase Solar and Wind to 1% of of the energy we need

Then make that argument rather than making bogus arguments about concern for wind turbine safety or desert destruction.

That is a valid discussion to have.

Do you only see one thread when you read the topics? I have made that argument, this OP is specific to miles and miles of destroyed land. I can not post more than 1 topic?

The argument here, is not "bogus". We are destroying public land, land literally given to corporations the government picks. I could use some free land, but I am not rich so no free land for me.

You think 1000's of miles of destruction of the desert is a great idea, to save the earth? We must kill the animals and destroy the land to save the Earth?

yes many things I reply to, off topic, that does not mean I have not addressed everything that I have stated. I have a lot of threads I have started.

I think you could probably make a decent argument about the cost benefit analysis of nuclear versus solar- but that is not what you are doing here.

When you in the same post complain both that 'pristine' desert is being destroyed- and that that desert could be used to grow cotton- you are contradicting yourself- and just appearing to be partisan against solar.

I enjoy the desert- but the desert is destroyed as much when it is used for cotton production as when it is used for solar energy.

And as far as 'destroying 1,000 of miles of desert'- every energy production uses resources. Hydroelectric 'destroys' thousands of miles of habitat. The question always is whether the overall cost is worth it or not.

It isn't comparable.

The highest level of efficient solar generation, only happens in desert areas of high sunlight energy. In those specific areas, solar can make power, and then you could try and compare it to a nuclear, or any conventional power plant.

The problem is, you can't transmit that power over vast distances. Even if, and this is a massive "if", you could build enough solar panels to cover the desert, and generate enough power for the entire country, it doesn't matter. A rough estimate of transmission losses, are about 1.1% per 100 miles. By the time the power reached New York, the power loss over that distance, would be incredible.

Not to mention, without local power supplies, you have 2,000+ miles of power lines to get the power from Arizona to New York, and one problem at any section, and New York is in the dark?

So while the idea of comparing solar to nuclear is a nifty theoretical excessive, it's a practical non-starter. There will always be conventional sources of power providing electricity to the masses. There will never be a time, in which we are not burning coal, gas, and nuclear fuel for power. Never.

Not unless they make some massive scientific break through. I'm skeptical of that though. The entire planet is looking for the holy grail of cheap clean energy, and if it was there to be found, I think someone would have found it by now.

This is an odd post. First of all, we transmit power from the dams in north central Washington state to San Diego, via huge DC line. So, we already know ways to tranmit huge amounts of power large distances. Second, we have Montana, Wyoming, Nebraska, and several other high wind states closer to New York.

The breakthroughs in science are already adaquete for supplying a major portion of our power from renewables. Further breakthroughs will result in supplying all of our power from renewables. And people like you will be screeching it cannot be done all the way as we do it.

Electrical transmission physics do not change from AC to DC. Those lines are AC not DC. Every 300 miles on those lines are what they call step up transformers. These take the energy sent down the line and its loss, stepping it back up to the correct voltage while consuming some of the power.

The ONLY place DC is used is at grid crossover points where two grids meet. The PHASE must be matched exactly compared to earth ground or you will have a massive explosion. This can only be done by conversion to DC and then modulated to match the opposing grid.

This is one of the problems why wind generators have such a significant loss. Each generator is at a different point in phase cycle and they must all match or you have a huge fireball... Even power plants use phase matching for all of their connected generators.

 

[Skull Pilot]

lol,

a DESERT IS A FUCKING WASTE LAND. Most of the desert solar is built on isn't useable.

I've come to the conclusion that both parties in this country are full of people that are truly sick in the head.

It is? You need to get out more, sport! Here's what you want to destroy. Yes, dry lake beds are featureless. But the rest of the desert is beautiful and THIS is what they want to cover up.

Yeah, nobody lives there. Nobody is going to have dangerous fracking chemicals near where their kids go to school. No one has to worry about earthquakes. No one has to worry about their water supply getting poisoned.

Do you have a point or are you just going to whine and pout?

That is my point - that if we can build energy infrastructure in the desert instead of near people, then people won't be as adversely affected.

Plus, where's a better place to put solar panels?

I was not aware that the eco-nuts actually care that much about people, as much as "biodiversity" and saving the spotted owl. Eco-nuts tend to only care about people, when they see a way to use that to their own advantage.

If we follow the eco-nut agenda of preventing damage to the Earth.... then we can't put the solar panels anywhere, because no matter where they are put, they will have a negative effect on the "environment" (especially when you deem all human activity as bad).

If on the other hand, you are building your premise that we MUST use solar panels, and therefore we MUST place them somewhere.... well then yeah, the desert would be the best possible location. I would agree with that.

Why is it the best possible location when we already have millions of acres of roof tops that can be used instead of spoiling some of our last wild lands?

 

[Old Rocks]

Then make that argument rather than making bogus arguments about concern for wind turbine safety or desert destruction.

That is a valid discussion to have.

Do you only see one thread when you read the topics? I have made that argument, this OP is specific to miles and miles of destroyed land. I can not post more than 1 topic?

The argument here, is not "bogus". We are destroying public land, land literally given to corporations the government picks. I could use some free land, but I am not rich so no free land for me.

You think 1000's of miles of destruction of the desert is a great idea, to save the earth? We must kill the animals and destroy the land to save the Earth?

yes many things I reply to, off topic, that does not mean I have not addressed everything that I have stated. I have a lot of threads I have started.

I think you could probably make a decent argument about the cost benefit analysis of nuclear versus solar- but that is not what you are doing here.

When you in the same post complain both that 'pristine' desert is being destroyed- and that that desert could be used to grow cotton- you are contradicting yourself- and just appearing to be partisan against solar.

I enjoy the desert- but the desert is destroyed as much when it is used for cotton production as when it is used for solar energy.

And as far as 'destroying 1,000 of miles of desert'- every energy production uses resources. Hydroelectric 'destroys' thousands of miles of habitat. The question always is whether the overall cost is worth it or not.

It isn't comparable.

The highest level of efficient solar generation, only happens in desert areas of high sunlight energy. In those specific areas, solar can make power, and then you could try and compare it to a nuclear, or any conventional power plant.

The problem is, you can't transmit that power over vast distances. Even if, and this is a massive "if", you could build enough solar panels to cover the desert, and generate enough power for the entire country, it doesn't matter. A rough estimate of transmission losses, are about 1.1% per 100 miles. By the time the power reached New York, the power loss over that distance, would be incredible.

Not to mention, without local power supplies, you have 2,000+ miles of power lines to get the power from Arizona to New York, and one problem at any section, and New York is in the dark?

So while the idea of comparing solar to nuclear is a nifty theoretical excessive, it's a practical non-starter. There will always be conventional sources of power providing electricity to the masses. There will never be a time, in which we are not burning coal, gas, and nuclear fuel for power. Never.

Not unless they make some massive scientific break through. I'm skeptical of that though. The entire planet is looking for the holy grail of cheap clean energy, and if it was there to be found, I think someone would have found it by now.

This is an odd post. First of all, we transmit power from the dams in north central Washington state to San Diego, via huge DC line. So, we already know ways to tranmit huge amounts of power large distances. Second, we have Montana, Wyoming, Nebraska, and several other high wind states closer to New York.

The breakthroughs in science are already adaquete for supplying a major portion of our power from renewables. Further breakthroughs will result in supplying all of our power from renewables. And people like you will be screeching it cannot be done all the way as we do it.

Electrical transmission physics do not change from AC to DC. Those lines are AC not DC. Every 300 miles on those lines are what they call step up transformers. These take the energy sent down the line and its loss, stepping it back up to the correct voltage while consuming some of the power.

The ONLY place DC is used is at grid crossover points where two grids meet. The PHASE must be matched exactly compared to earth ground or you will have a massive explosion. This can only be done by conversion to DC and then modulated to match the opposing grid.

This is one of the problems why wind generators have such a significant loss. Each generator is at a different point in phase cycle and they must all match or you have a huge fireball... Even power plants use phase matching for all of their connected generators.

Now Billy Boob, save yourself some embarressment and do a little research before posting. Memory plays tricks, you thought that all the high power tranmission lines were AC, and I thought the big DC line was from the Grand Coulee to San Diego, and it is from Celilo to LA.


Map of the route of the Pacific Intertie transmission route and stations
The Pacific DC Intertie (also called Path 65) is an electric power transmission line that transmits electricity from the Pacific Northwest to the Los Angeles area using high voltage direct current (HVDC). The line capacity is 3,100 megawatts, which is enough to serve two to three million Los Angeles households and represents almost half (48.7%) of the Los Angeles Department of Water and Power (LADWP) electrical system's peak capacity.[1]

The intertie originates near the Columbia River at the Celilo Converter Station of Bonneville Power Administration's grid outside The Dalles, Oregon and is connected to the Sylmar Converter Stationnorth of Los Angeles, which is owned by five utility companies and managed by LADWP. The Intertie can transmit power in either direction, but power flows mostly from north to south.

The idea of sending hydroelectric power to Southern California had been proposed as early as the 1930s, but was opposed and scrapped. By 1961, US president John F. Kennedy authorized a large public works project, using new high voltage direct current technology from Sweden. The project was undertaken as a close collaboration between General Electric of the US and ASEA of Sweden. Private California power companies had opposed the project but their technical objections were rebutted byUno Lamm of ASEA at an IEEE meeting in New York in 1963. When completed in 1970 the combined AC and DC transmission system was estimated to save consumers in Los Angeles approximately US $600,000 per day by use of cheaper electric power from projects on the Columbia River.

One advantage of direct current over AC is that DC current penetrates the entire conductor as opposed to AC current which only penetrates to the so-called skin depth. For the same conductor size the effective resistance is greater with AC than DC, so that more power is lost as heat. In general the power losses for HVDC are less than an AC line if the line length is over 500 -600 miles and with advances in conversion technology this distance has been reduced considerably. A DC line is also ideal for connecting together two AC systems that are not synchronized with each other. HVDC lines can help stabilize a power grid against cascading blackouts, since power flow through the line is controllable.

Pacific DC Intertie - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia

 

[elektra]

Start a thread on nuclear power- you appear to know about it- give us your best argument, including the most promising strategies that are being used to address the storage and disposal of nuclear waste.

I already started a thread on nuclear power, I do not need another.

We do not need a strategy to store spent nuclear fuel, we have stored spent nuclear fuel for the last 60 years with zero problems. I know, I work in the Nuclear power industry, right now I am inspecting a CANDU reactor. At this particular plant I have stood next to new fuel before being put in the reactor. At other reactors like Three Mile Island I literally stood 20' away from spent nuclear fuel. Looked straight at it, through a pool of boronated, water.

Long term, we should be recycling the spent nuclear fuel, we only use a fraction of its power, we can use more of its power, better reactor design and recycling in breeder reactors.

Years ago, I read about a reactor they they had built in another country, where the after the reactor was shut off, you could remove the fuel rod by hand in a matter of days.

I can't for the life of me find anything referring to that now. You don't happen to have heard of that anywhere? It was an experimental reactor, not a commercial.

I assume it was a low power core, and they said the rods still emitted low level radiation. They didn't actually remove the rods by hand, but only that you could.

You ever heard of anything like that? I read about it years ago, but I can't find article at all now.

never heard of it, sounds something like a candu, heavy water reactor like bruce nuclear or opg, they have another in argentina.

 

[elektra]

A desert in Arizona produces cotton, A desert in California produces artichokes, there are birds and animals that live there, Butterflies and bugs.

Using the desert is using the desert.

A desert planted with cotton is as destroyed as 'pristine' desert' as is a desert with a solar plant.

You are against wind power and against solar power- and I have yet to see you oppose any 'traditional' power source.

Why?

Because Wind and Solar are weak sources of Electricity, kind of like making a copy of copy. To equal 1 nuclear power plant, Solar will have to cover over a 1000 square miles of land. It is just a literal impossibility to increase Solar and Wind to 1% of of the energy we need

Then make that argument rather than making bogus arguments about concern for wind turbine safety or desert destruction.

That is a valid discussion to have.

Do you only see one thread when you read the topics? I have made that argument, this OP is specific to miles and miles of destroyed land. I can not post more than 1 topic?

The argument here, is not "bogus". We are destroying public land, land literally given to corporations the government picks. I could use some free land, but I am not rich so no free land for me.

You think 1000's of miles of destruction of the desert is a great idea, to save the earth? We must kill the animals and destroy the land to save the Earth?

yes many things I reply to, off topic, that does not mean I have not addressed everything that I have stated. I have a lot of threads I have started.

I think you could probably make a decent argument about the cost benefit analysis of nuclear versus solar- but that is not what you are doing here.

When you in the same post complain both that 'pristine' desert is being destroyed- and that that desert could be used to grow cotton- you are contradicting yourself- and just appearing to be partisan against solar.

I enjoy the desert- but the desert is destroyed as much when it is used for cotton production as when it is used for solar energy.

And as far as 'destroying 1,000 of miles of desert'- every energy production uses resources. Hydroelectric 'destroys' thousands of miles of habitat. The question always is whether the overall cost is worth it or not.

You must have a comprehension problem, I did not say a desert could be used to produce cotton, I responded to somebody stating that the desert is a wasteland. I stated cotton is grown in the desert, that is not me advocating to grow cotton, it is simply a fact that shows that the desert is not a wasteland, hence lets turn the desert into an industrial zone.

You make no distinction between farming and industry, in stating that cotton/artichoke farming destroys the desert the same as covering 1000's of square miles with solar panels.

And of course I am partisan against solar, it does not work, its nothing but a scam, a huge waste of money that is forced on us, it is politics, wall street, banks, corporations making trillions, while sacking us with extreme taxes and a higher cost of living.

 

[Old Rocks]

LOL. Sure, ol' girl.

Installations Continue to Boom

• There are now over 17,500 MW of cumulative solar electric capacity operating in the U.S., enough to power more than 3.5 million average American homes.
• With over 49,000 installations in Q3, nearly 600,000 U.S. homes and buisnesses have now gone solar. Through Q3, a new solar project has been installed every 3 minutes in 2014.
• Growth in Q3 was led by the residential sector, which grew 58% over Q3 2014, and the utility-scale sector, which installed over 800 MW for the 3rd time in 12 months.

Sorry, old girl, you and the other dingleberries lose.

 

[jc456]

LOL. Sure, ol' girl.

Installations Continue to Boom

• There are now over 17,500 MW of cumulative solar electric capacity operating in the U.S., enough to power more than 3.5 million average American homes.
• With over 49,000 installations in Q3, nearly 600,000 U.S. homes and buisnesses have now gone solar. Through Q3, a new solar project has been installed every 3 minutes in 2014.
• Growth in Q3 was led by the residential sector, which grew 58% over Q3 2014, and the utility-scale sector, which installed over 800 MW for the 3rd time in 12 months.

Sorry, old girl, you and the other dingleberries lose.

huh? projection? the year 2014 is over dude.

 

[elektra]

LOL. Sure, ol' girl.

Installations Continue to Boom

• There are now over 17,500 MW of cumulative solar electric capacity operating in the U.S., enough to power more than 3.5 million average American homes.
• With over 49,000 installations in Q3, nearly 600,000 U.S. homes and buisnesses have now gone solar. Through Q3, a new solar project has been installed every 3 minutes in 2014.
• Growth in Q3 was led by the residential sector, which grew 58% over Q3 2014, and the utility-scale sector, which installed over 800 MW for the 3rd time in 12 months.

Sorry, old girl, you and the other dingleberries lose.

Can you post the total cost of the solar installed or is that a secret as well.

 

[Old Rocks]

Could you post the total cost of all the coal fired plants, the medical costs from the pollution they create, the cost of the land destroyed by mountain top removal and strip mining? How about the cost in human lives from the coal mines, both the disasters and black lung. And then there are at least a couple of rivers poisoned by that industry. Compared to all the costs of coal generation, solar, wind, and geothermal are very cheap.

 

[jc456]

Could you post the total cost of all the coal fired plants, the medical costs from the pollution they create, the cost of the land destroyed by mountain top removal and strip mining? How about the cost in human lives from the coal mines, both the disasters and black lung. And then there are at least a couple of rivers poisoned by that industry. Compared to all the costs of coal generation, solar, wind, and geothermal are very cheap.

strawman, big time dude!!!

 

[elektra]

Could you post the total cost of all the coal fired plants, the medical costs from the pollution they create, the cost of the land destroyed by mountain top removal and strip mining? How about the cost in human lives from the coal mines, both the disasters and black lung. And then there are at least a couple of rivers poisoned by that industry. Compared to all the costs of coal generation, solar, wind, and geothermal are very cheap.

Yes after you show the total amount if coal consumed by Industrial Solar Manufacture.

How about it old crock, how many tons of coal did solar manufacture consume.

Account for destruction solar manufacture causes.