Power the U.S. With Solar Panels!

[Toddsterpatriot]

What the difference in efficiency between a power block of less than 500 MW compared to a power blocks larger than 1,000 MW?

And what's the difference in per-unit capital and expense costs between large and small power blocks?

I don't know. What's the difference?

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

there will be an incremental increase in solar radiation that does not warm the surface of the planet

Why do you keep claiming that radiation that hits a panel doesn't heat the planet?

The cooling effect was measured by satellites.

Moving energy from one spot to another doesn't result in net cooling of the planet.

 

[ding]

I don't know. What's the difference?

I'm not the one who claimed there was an economy of scale. That was you. If you don't know if there is a difference or how much the difference is then you don't know that there's an economy of scale that is different or materially different.

 

[ding]

Why do you keep claiming that radiation that hits a panel doesn't heat the planet?

Because daytime temps were 2C cooler with panels than without, Duh.

 

[alang1216]

More, and more again. You are choosing to ignore the front end cost which in most cases is so high that the alternative power sources fall apart long before they pay for themselves.

I put my system together 30 years ago, and I maintain it very carefully so it paid for itself over 10 years ago.

I didn't build it to save energy costs, I built it to HAVE energy when the grid went down, which, back when I built it, happened every year.

Do you have any reason to believe the trend will end anytime soon ?

 

[ding]

The cooling effect was measured by satellites.

Moving energy from one spot to another doesn't result in net cooling of the planet.

Yes, the cooling effect was measured by satellites.

No. it's incorrect to say that incrementally energy was moved from one spot to another.

There's approximately 18tWh of continuous waste heat from electricity in the world. Hardly any of it comes from solar. So as we replace other generating forms - which don't convert solar radiation into electricity - with solar which does convert solar radiation into electricity there will be an incremental increase in solar radiation that does not warm the surface of the planet but the waste heat won't change. So the decrease in solar radiation warming the surface of the planet won't be offset by an increase in waste heat from electricity use. I know this is a hard concept for you to understand not being good with math and all but it's just math.

 

[alang1216]

You've never heard of economies of scale?

Certainly a factor but so are many other factors, including the cost of energy transmission, construction, and capital.

 

[ding]

with solar which does convert solar radiation into electricity there will be an incremental increase in solar radiation that does not warm the surface of the planet

Exactly. Which is why there is a cooling effect.

 

[ding]

Certainly a factor but so are many other factors, including the cost of energy transmission, construction, and capital.

He's not even sure there is a difference.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

I'm not the one who claimed there was an economy of scale. That was you. If you don't know if there is a difference or how much the difference is then you don't know that there's an economy of scale that is different or materially different.

I'm not the one who claimed there was an economy of scale.

You doubt that there is?

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Because daytime temps were 2C cooler with panels than without, Duh.

No they weren't. Try to be more precise.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

No. it's incorrect to say that incrementally energy was moved from one spot to another.

Energy didn't move from the solar farm to the point of use?

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Yes, the cooling effect was measured by satellites.

No. it's incorrect to say that incrementally energy was moved from one spot to another.

There's approximately 18tWh of continuous waste heat from electricity in the world. Hardly any of it comes from solar. So as we replace other generating forms - which don't convert solar radiation into electricity - with solar which does convert solar radiation into electricity there will be an incremental increase in solar radiation that does not warm the surface of the planet but the waste heat won't change. So the decrease in solar radiation warming the surface of the planet won't be offset by an increase in waste heat from electricity use. I know this is a hard concept for you to understand not being good with math and all but it's just math.

There's approximately 18tWh of continuous waste heat from electricity in the world. Hardly any of it comes from solar.

If you want to claim that without this waste heat, ice sheets will spread across the world, do it.

It would be less silly than claiming that moving power from a panel to a city will cool the planet.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Certainly a factor but so are many other factors, including the cost of energy transmission, construction, and capital.

Yes, building two small plants instead of one larger one, with the same output, will have a higher cost of transmission and a higher cost of construction.

 

[alang1216]

Yes, building two small plants instead of one larger one, with the same output, will have a higher cost of transmission and a higher cost of construction.

That might be true if you built one across the street from the other but that is never going to be the case. The point is that if lots of homes have solar panels that feed power into the grid you don't need to build a big plant to serve the same population. A smaller plant will be cheaper to build and maintain.

By your logic we should build one giant powerplant in Iowa and ship the power to the entire US.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

That might be true if you built one across the street from the other but that is never going to be the case. The point is that if lots of homes have solar panels that feed power into the grid you don't need to build a big plant to serve the same population.

The bigger plant is already built and in use.
And now you want all these solar panels to replace the plant for a portion of the day.

 

[westwall]

Do you have any reason to believe the trend will end anytime soon ?

Yeah, amazingly enough I used the current numbers. And yes, that trend is ending soon. As government subsidies stop, the cost of solar increases dramatically.

 

[alang1216]

The bigger plant is already built and in use.

They don't last forever and it may be cost effective to replace an old plant with a smaller, more efficient one.

And now you want all these solar panels to replace the plant for a portion of the day.

If possible, absolutely.

 

[alang1216]

Yeah, amazingly enough I used the current numbers. And yes, that trend is ending soon. As government subsidies stop, the cost of solar increases dramatically.

So it is only gov't subsidies that lowered the cost of solar? I doubt that and I don't think you'll produce any evidence to back that up. Government subsidies may end but the technology will continue to develop.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

They don't last forever and it may be cost effective to replace an old plant with a smaller, more efficient one.


If possible, absolutely.

Running a gas or coal power plant only part of the day makes it more expensive.