How is Solar Energy sustainable?

[n0spam4me]

Technology needs to be refined, note that many years ago, the only technology available for electrical energy storage was a lead-acid battery, however technology has become refined over the years such that we can now have battery powered flying toys (etc.... ) The fact is, Solar ( photovoltaic ) is in its infancy, is one factor here. The analog to this scene is the evolution in light bulbs, the incandescent light served for more than a century, and a proposed replacement was the "CFL" lamp, but it had HUGE problems, and now we have the LED light that is taking over as a practical replacement for the incandescent lamp. So the solar panel of today may be simply a marginally productive tangent and possibly the heat-engine type solar utilization is the way to go, time will tell. The truly sustainable aspect will be achieved at such time as there is sufficient capacity in alternative energy to power the factory that produces the hardware necessary for the use of the alternative energy technology. We are obviously decades away from that program ( some genius please prove me wrong ) however it is completely valid to work toward that goal.

 

[hadit]

Technology needs to be refined, note that many years ago, the only technology available for electrical energy storage was a lead-acid battery, however technology has become refined over the years such that we can now have battery powered flying toys (etc.... ) The fact is, Solar ( photovoltaic ) is in its infancy, is one factor here. The analog to this scene is the evolution in light bulbs, the incandescent light served for more than a century, and a proposed replacement was the "CFL" lamp, but it had HUGE problems, and now we have the LED light that is taking over as a practical replacement for the incandescent lamp. So the solar panel of today may be simply a marginally productive tangent and possibly the heat-engine type solar utilization is the way to go, time will tell. The truly sustainable aspect will be achieved at such time as there is sufficient capacity in alternative energy to power the factory that produces the hardware necessary for the use of the alternative energy technology. We are obviously decades away from that program ( some genius please prove me wrong ) however it is completely valid to work toward that goal.

The geek in me loves new technology. The realist in me decries efforts to force the adoption of new technology before it's mature and stable.

 

[n0spam4me]

as an example, if the "CFL" light had existed in a laboratory only it may have taken many decades to figure out its true practicality or lack thereof, but in the market place, there is the crucible of progress, things get tested and in ways that a laboratory model would never see. The photovoltaic panels that are in use right now are testing the technology and its all part of the process of proving out what systems will truly benefit humankind & what technologies are not productive.

 

[elektra]

Such a simple question, such a simple word, thrown out as fact, indisputable.

Solar is sustainable.

Sure, the sun shines, on some days, on others, not. Forever no, but long enough.

But Solar Energy is much different than simply stating, "The Sun Shines!" Solar is the Sun, Solar Energy is Heavy Industry. Is heavy Industry Sustainable?

Now, if Solar Panels grew on trees, that would qualify as, Sustainable.

Sustainability - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia

In ecology, sustainability is how biological systems remain diverse and productive. Long-lived and healthy wetlands and forests are examples of sustainable biological systems

Solar Energy, gets a free pass, on sustainability.

Can we continue to divert our money, our labor into Solar, at rates that are simply expressed best as 100's of billions of dollars? Is that sustainable?

We can not sustain the whims of Government, Special Interest corporations, University "research", the "scientists".

Thus far Solar has failed to produce electricity in quantity to make any difference, other than in EXPENSE.

How is Solar Sustainable? That makes no sense at all.

Solar's sustainable because the Sun will outlive the human race by far. Didn't they cover that in school for ya?

Is solar a preferred technology to oil is a better question. Short answer's no. As it stands right now, the solar panels used in solar energy generation are too inefficient to replace existing proven technology as with oil, coal, nuclear, etc. Friendlier and safer than those, sure. But unless you're okay blanketing every free square mile with solar panels (when we bitch and moan enough as it is about windmills) I don't see it as practical.

No one technology is practical by itself. Rather, some are better in some locations than others. Tidal plants are preferred near the ocean for example, solar's preferred way the hell out in the middle of the Mojave, nuclear near rivers which don't ever dry up (and away from faultlines,) oil near major ports, etc.

Eventually oil will run out. Oil industry itself says about 60 years with "proven reserves" meaning if we don't drill and discover any more new sources. But whether that's right or pessismistic and it'll last 100 years doesnt' much matter. Eventually it's gonna and we're gonna need a backup supply so we don't go through an adjustment period with a tiny fraction of what we had with oil when we still had it. So we need to perfect all the others like solar, tidal, geothermal, wind, and even nuclear now when it's mostly an optional supply and not yet a critical need. If we don't work on alt supplies until we literally have nothing else we're royally screwed.

Solar increases the use of oil, you think we can build and rebuild solar, consuming more oil forever. You are confusing the sunshine for the man made objects that collect the sun.

 

[elektra]

Technology needs to be refined, note that many years ago, the only technology available for electrical energy storage was a lead-acid battery, however technology has become refined over the years such that we can now have battery powered flying toys (etc.... ) The fact is, Solar ( photovoltaic ) is in its infancy, is one factor here. The analog to this scene is the evolution in light bulbs, the incandescent light served for more than a century, and a proposed replacement was the "CFL" lamp, but it had HUGE problems, and now we have the LED light that is taking over as a practical replacement for the incandescent lamp. So the solar panel of today may be simply a marginally productive tangent and possibly the heat-engine type solar utilization is the way to go, time will tell. The truly sustainable aspect will be achieved at such time as there is sufficient capacity in alternative energy to power the factory that produces the hardware necessary for the use of the alternative energy technology. We are obviously decades away from that program ( some genius please prove me wrong ) however it is completely valid to work toward that goal.

The geek in me loves new technology. The realist in me decries efforts to force the adoption of new technology before it's mature and stable.

Solar and wind is old technology. Literally zero advances in wind turbines. Solar we see some new stuff but it is all oil dependent.

 

[HenryBHough]

California would be much improved were it 100% covered with solar panels. Because solar panels don't vote.

 

[elektra]

Got any more bad investment ideas elektra? Please post them.

Apple CEO Tim Cook Will partner with First Solar on 850M CA solar farm

Apple to build $850M solar energy farm in CA

Long term, its an incredibly bad investment,Thanks, the headline should be:

APPLE to destroy 4 square miles of farmland.

This is great, the rich people who own Apple can afford to destroy 4 square miles of farmland, how sustainable is that? And from your link it states that the 4 square miles will power 60,000 homes. That is not taking into account the capacity factor of about 23%.

Is that a fair trade? 4 square miles of farmland to maybe power 15,000 homes? 1.2 million individual Solar panels. Of course we need batteries because most people use their homes at night.

Sustainable? I wonder, any grants involved? Maybe there are some Professors or whole departments of a University involved?

Solar is stabbing a fork in the eye of Americans.

OMG. We are all going to starve.

Oh wait, Republicans don't care if anyone starves. Ask children whose food stamps were cut. Nevermind.

Republicans support green energy, just us conservatives oppose green energy. It's all about making money. The price tag is 10-11 trillion dollars. Big bucks for wallstreet, the 9il companiee, and banks.

 

[elektra]

Solar and Wind can not even supply the electricity to pump the water that Solar uses in California. That is done with Fossil Fuels.

Source please.

Our Solar and Wind industry can not pump water. Solar on homes use water supplied by the state or cities. That is not ran on Solar. Never will be. Solar only supplies power to homes. Every headline about Solar states this. Not one article has ever mentioned pumping water. If you can find something that states Solar will pump water, feel free to post it but I can not find.it. Simply seeing how much energy is needed to move water shows the sheer madness in pursuing a source of electricity that will never meet 1% of that need.

How much energy does California use to move water Big Picture Agriculture

It consumes an average of 5 billion kWh/yr, more than 25 percent of the total electricity consumption for the entire state of New Mexico. The California Energy Commission reports that SWP energy use accounts for 2 to 3 percent of all electricity consumed in California.

The SWP consumes so much energy because of where it sends its water. To convey water to Southern California from the Sacramento–San Joaquin Delta, the SWP must pump it 2,000 feet over the Tehachapi Mountains, the highest lift of any water system in the world. Pumping one acre-foot of SWP water to the region requires approximately 3,000 kWh. Southern California’s other major source of imported water is also energy intensive: pumping one acre-foot of Colorado River Aqueduct water to Southern California requires about 2,000 kWh.

In fact, according to an estimate from the Metropolitan Water District of Southern California, the amount of electricity used to deliver water to residential customers in Southern California is equal to one-third of the total average household electric use in Southern California.

(source: http://www.nrdc.org/water/conservation/edrain/edrain.pdf)

 

[Old Rocks]

Silly old girl, look right here. Your site states that it took about 5 gigawatts of power to pump the water in California. And the site below show where solar generated about 5 gigawatts of power last year. In other words, by just itself, solar could have done the job, with no help from wind. And there is more solar going in on a daily basis now. President Obama has won his bet on the renewables. Now the market will take over, and it will be the utilities driving the increase of wind, solar, and geothermal.

How much energy does California use to move water Big Picture Agriculture

It consumes an average of 5 billion kWh/yr, more than 25 percent of the total electricity consumption for the entire state of New Mexico. The California Energy Commission reports that SWP energy use accounts for 2 to 3 percent of all electricity consumed in California.

Increased solar and wind electricity generation in California are changing net load shapes - Today in Energy - U.S. Energy Information Administration EIA

Wind and solar plants do not incur any fuel costs to generate electricity, and, when available, they are among the first resources that grid operators use. Utility-scale solar has exhibited particularly significant growth in the past year, with hourly solar output reaching nearly 5 gigawatts (GW) by the end of September 2014. This amount represents more than 10% of the system's 2014 year-to-date hourly peak demand, and it is more than two-thirds higher than the peak hourly solar output level in 2013.

 

[danielpalos]

Such a simple question, such a simple word, thrown out as fact, indisputable.

Solar is sustainable.

Sure, the sun shines, on some days, on others, not. Forever no, but long enough.

But Solar Energy is much different than simply stating, "The Sun Shines!" Solar is the Sun, Solar Energy is Heavy Industry. Is heavy Industry Sustainable?

Now, if Solar Panels grew on trees, that would qualify as, Sustainable.

Sustainability - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia

In ecology, sustainability is how biological systems remain diverse and productive. Long-lived and healthy wetlands and forests are examples of sustainable biological systems

Solar Energy, gets a free pass, on sustainability.

Can we continue to divert our money, our labor into Solar, at rates that are simply expressed best as 100's of billions of dollars? Is that sustainable?

We can not sustain the whims of Government, Special Interest corporations, University "research", the "scientists".

Thus far Solar has failed to produce electricity in quantity to make any difference, other than in EXPENSE.

How is Solar Sustainable? That makes no sense at all.

it depends; i use a solar oven to propagate from seed in the winter and to dry bread for bread crumbs and to dry herbs such as lemon balm and spearmint in the summer.

 

[CultureCitizen]

How is Solar Sustainable? That makes no sense at all.

It's been working fine in the IIS during 14 years under rather harsh conditions.

 

[elektra]

How is Solar Sustainable? That makes no sense at all.

It's been working fine in the IIS during 14 years under rather harsh conditions.

IIS, what is that?

 

[CultureCitizen]

How is Solar Sustainable? That makes no sense at all.

It's been working fine in the IIS during 14 years under rather harsh conditions.

IIS, what is that?

Typo , sorry. ISS ( International space station ) .

 

[elektra]

as an example, if the "CFL" light had existed in a laboratory only it may have taken many decades to figure out its true practicality or lack thereof, but in the market place, there is the crucible of progress, things get tested and in ways that a laboratory model would never see. The photovoltaic panels that are in use right now are testing the technology and its all part of the process of proving out what systems will truly benefit humankind & what technologies are not productive.

So we are conducting a $1 Trillion dollar experiment with Tax Dollars so the Government can pick which corporations get rich while our Electric Bills get fixed at an extremely expensive rate, forever?

We have tested, proven which technology works, its not Solar.

Solar is Old, as Old as Earth itself. Man has used Solar since there Man has existed. We started modern Solar research, a 100 years ago. Solar Technology has proven itself as insignificant when compared to other forms of Energy Production.

"The Crucible of Progress". Solar has failed, and failed, and failed, do I need to link? No, ask yourself, are we still researching Solar in order to make it practical, the answer is yes.

 

[elektra]

It's been working fine in the IIS during 14 years under rather harsh conditions.
IIS, what is that?
Typo , sorry. ISS ( International space station )

You do not realize that in Space, Solar is not encumbered by the Atmosphere. Solar actually works a 1000 x's better. Literally.
That is why they test and rate Solar Panels at high elevations, not sea level. New Mexico to be exact.

 

[CultureCitizen]

We have tested, proven which technology works, its not Solar.

Might I point out that given how recent is the Fukushima accident applying such technology might not appeal to most citizens.

 

[CultureCitizen]

You do not realize that in Space, Solar is not encumbered by the Atmosphere. Solar actually works a 1000 x's better. Literally.
That is why they test and rate Solar Panels at high elevations, not sea level. New Mexico to be exact.

But in the thermosphere the temperature varies a lot more than in any part of the stratosphere ( -270 c to 500 c) , causing more damage to the panels... so they do last at least 14 years.

 

[elektra]

Technology needs to be refined, note that many years ago, the only technology available for electrical energy storage was a lead-acid battery, however technology has become refined over the years such that we can now have battery powered flying toys (etc.... ) The fact is, Solar ( photovoltaic ) is in its infancy, is one factor here. The analog to this scene is the evolution in light bulbs, the incandescent light served for more than a century, and a proposed replacement was the "CFL" lamp, but it had HUGE problems, and now we have the LED light that is taking over as a practical replacement for the incandescent lamp. So the solar panel of today may be simply a marginally productive tangent and possibly the heat-engine type solar utilization is the way to go, time will tell. The truly sustainable aspect will be achieved at such time as there is sufficient capacity in alternative energy to power the factory that produces the hardware necessary for the use of the alternative energy technology. We are obviously decades away from that program ( some genius please prove me wrong ) however it is completely valid to work toward that goal.

Practical? LED bulbs? Literally they cost a 1,000x's more, they use then again the same in natural resources, Incandescent bulbs were perfect, they were cheap, when I was a kid they were free, literally. We could exchange burnt out bulbs for new ones, of course someone got mad and sued, so the government outlawed giving away free light bulbs.

So you took something that cost next to nothing, and replaced it with something that uses more oil and natural resources to produce, and that is progress.

I had one light bulb last 30 years.

Evolution? As dictated by Government. That is hardly evolution, but the government did pay for all the research, so in order to keep all that bureaucracy operating, we will have to use our tax dollars to Research and Develop stuff, and then have the Government decide who gets rich selling it.

On top of this Evolution the Government must put its boot on everything us free people developed, they must demonize the simple, the light bulb, you must feel guilty for using the light bulb, a billion dollar marketing campaign, making us feel guilty, until we buy the LED light bulb developed by the Government, which supports Government researchers in Government Universities.

We must be kept in the dark, about the production of LED Bulbs, they built new factories, ignore the energy it took to build the factories. We increased mining for silica, let us ignore that. We increased the use of Fossil Fuels, to process the materials that it takes to make a LED light bulb.

It is insane, we could build 20 regular incandescent light bulbs for every 1 LED light bulb.

Increasing production, doubling production, quadrupling production, more, more, more, so that in the end we get less that cost more. Wall Street gets rich, Government employees stay fat, the Universities get rich, and we can afford none of it.

We increasingly look to the government, to take care of us, to feed us, to give us light.

Please government, give us light.

 

[elektra]

We have tested, proven which technology works, its not Solar.

Might I point out that given how recent is the Fukushima accident applying such technology might not appeal to most citizens.

GE Boiling Reactor? We have I think 9 of them in the USA, I have worked inside the one in Iowa. We shut ours down when the river reaches a certain level in the spring.

The BWR is an old, early 1960's design. I wonder if they used a computer to design the BWR (boiling water reactor). In the USA we have had one problem with BWR's, that would be Fermi outside of Detroit, I believe they traced that problem to a Beer can left in the system during construction, either way Fermi is the second reactor meltdown in the USA, TMI was the 3rd, TMI (I have worked at TMI) is PWR, pressurized water reactor with OTSG's, very few of this type of PWR was built. All by B&W, a company I am working for right now, on CANDU reactors.

So the idea that 1960's technology does not appeal to people is certainly true, at the same time those same people most likely do not know we have around 9 of those 1960's era reactors still operating. Over 40 years. Pretty impressive.

I think people will understand that today's Reactors are much different than what was designed without the aid of computers.

Its the year 2015 and we are struggling to build Solar and Wind, which we can not sustain. We do not have the land, the sun does not shine all the time, and who knows which way the wind blows, I guess it doesn't really matter, at all (sing to the tune of Bohemian Rhapsody).