Research: The costs of renewables underestimated!

[gipper]

An exceedingly long read here but absolutely fatal to advocates of wind and solar. This shit is even far more expensive than I thought!!! Has a future but will remain a fringe energy source like Ive been saying for 20 years.

Article goes deeply into the mega-costs of "intermittent" renewables........something I knew little about before reading this article. Didn't know almost all renewable energy is intermittent. Also.....everything you see in here from the climate crusaders on pricing does not include any mention of projections on future increase in subsidies as the pricing increases ( due to staggering costs of building transmission lines for example )

Renewable energy is a scam and always has been as scam...........and most interesting is from this article, the reduction of CO2 has been vastly overstated by advocates of renewables!!


There may be some cases where intermittent renewables are helpful additions without buffering (especially when the current fuel is oil, and wind or solar can help reduce fuel usage), but there are likely to be many other instances where the costs involved greatly exceed the benefits gained.

If we look at recently published information about how much intermittent electricity is being added to the electric grid, the amounts are surprisingly small. Overall, worldwide, the amount of electricity generated by a combination of wind and solar (nearly all of it intermittent) was 5.2% in 2016. On an area by area basis, the percentages of wind and solar are as shown in Figure 1.




















http://www.theenergycollective.com/gail-tverberg/2409208/researchers-underestimating-cost-wind-solar

Subscribe to read
UK plans to ban sale of new petrol and diesel cars by 2040

His promise to ban other cars - including hybrid vehicles - shifts the government further from its existing position, which was an "ambition" for all cars to be zero-emission by 2040.

Burn that 1 gallon at a fossil fuel plant and you produce enough electricity to do 1/3 widget of work. Use that electricity in an electric car and it is able to use, at best, 62% (according to enthusiastic advocates of the electric car, mind you) of that 1/3. That means 21% efficiency on its best day.

Do Electric Cars Really Reduce Dependence on Fossil Fuels?
politicaloutcast.com/do-electric-cars-really-reduce-dependence-on-fossil-fuels/

The stupidity of the left knows, no bounds. They believe that the world is burning up, yet today in the "Dog Days of Summer" (July 26th, 2017) the temperature outside was 64 degrees F. So now the FORCED selection of only driving all electric cars will be mandatory on the people of England, and when the Brits have to burn more CO2 producing coal fired electricity, or use solar and wind, which then there wont be enough electricity, will the Brits wake up and remove such idiot politicians from office? The only reason why Wind and Solar is getting close to being cheaper than fossil fuels is the Cap and Tax that Obama put on CO2 producing products. Without those extreme taxes on the poor and middle class, then Wind and Solar would be way more expensive. Oh you liberals forgot about that tax Obama promised you would pay, here is video of your messiah putting the screws to you.

When poor Euros are freezing to death this winter, thanks to the radical Left's imposition of renewal energy, those deaths will be ignored. It is all about good intentions. Fuck the little people.

 

[danielpalos]

Sad we need a study to State the obvious..........EU " "free" energy costs double and triple utility bills.....process has begun inMN......

Solar energy has plunged in price—where does it go from here?

Right..........yet energy costs In. Eu still result in poverty and business with energy intensive production come to the US......

Improving technologies means more solar energy will be available. Large buildings could cover their energy costs.

Perhaps just a smidge s0n...........decades from now, solar will still be decidedly fringe..........well, at least according to Obama's 2016 EIA Report from last year.

But you can continue to hang in bubble land s0n..........God bless.

This fully transparent solar cell could make every window and screen a power source - ExtremeTech

 

[danielpalos]

An exceedingly long read here but absolutely fatal to advocates of wind and solar. This shit is even far more expensive than I thought!!! Has a future but will remain a fringe energy source like Ive been saying for 20 years.

Article goes deeply into the mega-costs of "intermittent" renewables........something I knew little about before reading this article. Didn't know almost all renewable energy is intermittent. Also.....everything you see in here from the climate crusaders on pricing does not include any mention of projections on future increase in subsidies as the pricing increases ( due to staggering costs of building transmission lines for example )

Renewable energy is a scam and always has been as scam...........and most interesting is from this article, the reduction of CO2 has been vastly overstated by advocates of renewables!!


There may be some cases where intermittent renewables are helpful additions without buffering (especially when the current fuel is oil, and wind or solar can help reduce fuel usage), but there are likely to be many other instances where the costs involved greatly exceed the benefits gained.

If we look at recently published information about how much intermittent electricity is being added to the electric grid, the amounts are surprisingly small. Overall, worldwide, the amount of electricity generated by a combination of wind and solar (nearly all of it intermittent) was 5.2% in 2016. On an area by area basis, the percentages of wind and solar are as shown in Figure 1.




















http://www.theenergycollective.com/gail-tverberg/2409208/researchers-underestimating-cost-wind-solar

Advances in technologies will make this a moot point. There is already, solar windows technologies that can upgrade current windows on any building or skyscraper.

I graduated college with a degree in architectural design in 1976. At that time solar energy was the next "big thing". Easy peasy.

That was 41 years ago.

Mark

That was then, This is now:

This fully transparent solar cell could make every window and screen a power source - ExtremeTech

 

[80zephyr]

An exceedingly long read here but absolutely fatal to advocates of wind and solar. This shit is even far more expensive than I thought!!! Has a future but will remain a fringe energy source like Ive been saying for 20 years.

Article goes deeply into the mega-costs of "intermittent" renewables........something I knew little about before reading this article. Didn't know almost all renewable energy is intermittent. Also.....everything you see in here from the climate crusaders on pricing does not include any mention of projections on future increase in subsidies as the pricing increases ( due to staggering costs of building transmission lines for example )

Renewable energy is a scam and always has been as scam...........and most interesting is from this article, the reduction of CO2 has been vastly overstated by advocates of renewables!!


There may be some cases where intermittent renewables are helpful additions without buffering (especially when the current fuel is oil, and wind or solar can help reduce fuel usage), but there are likely to be many other instances where the costs involved greatly exceed the benefits gained.

If we look at recently published information about how much intermittent electricity is being added to the electric grid, the amounts are surprisingly small. Overall, worldwide, the amount of electricity generated by a combination of wind and solar (nearly all of it intermittent) was 5.2% in 2016. On an area by area basis, the percentages of wind and solar are as shown in Figure 1.




















http://www.theenergycollective.com/gail-tverberg/2409208/researchers-underestimating-cost-wind-solar

Advances in technologies will make this a moot point. There is already, solar windows technologies that can upgrade current windows on any building or skyscraper.

I graduated college with a degree in architectural design in 1976. At that time solar energy was the next "big thing". Easy peasy.

That was 41 years ago.

Mark

That was then, This is now:

This fully transparent solar cell could make every window and screen a power source - ExtremeTech

I'll wait until we have real proof. I don't know your age, but I have heard this "now" stuff for 40 years.

Almost every year, I have heard that they have a cure for diabetes, and its still not here.

Until it happens, I will remain unconvinced.

Mark

 

[danielpalos]

An exceedingly long read here but absolutely fatal to advocates of wind and solar. This shit is even far more expensive than I thought!!! Has a future but will remain a fringe energy source like Ive been saying for 20 years.

Article goes deeply into the mega-costs of "intermittent" renewables........something I knew little about before reading this article. Didn't know almost all renewable energy is intermittent. Also.....everything you see in here from the climate crusaders on pricing does not include any mention of projections on future increase in subsidies as the pricing increases ( due to staggering costs of building transmission lines for example )

Renewable energy is a scam and always has been as scam...........and most interesting is from this article, the reduction of CO2 has been vastly overstated by advocates of renewables!!


There may be some cases where intermittent renewables are helpful additions without buffering (especially when the current fuel is oil, and wind or solar can help reduce fuel usage), but there are likely to be many other instances where the costs involved greatly exceed the benefits gained.

If we look at recently published information about how much intermittent electricity is being added to the electric grid, the amounts are surprisingly small. Overall, worldwide, the amount of electricity generated by a combination of wind and solar (nearly all of it intermittent) was 5.2% in 2016. On an area by area basis, the percentages of wind and solar are as shown in Figure 1.




















http://www.theenergycollective.com/gail-tverberg/2409208/researchers-underestimating-cost-wind-solar

Advances in technologies will make this a moot point. There is already, solar windows technologies that can upgrade current windows on any building or skyscraper.

I graduated college with a degree in architectural design in 1976. At that time solar energy was the next "big thing". Easy peasy.

That was 41 years ago.

Mark

That was then, This is now:

This fully transparent solar cell could make every window and screen a power source - ExtremeTech

I'll wait until we have real proof. I don't know your age, but I have heard this "now" stuff for 40 years.

Almost every year, I have heard that they have a cure for diabetes, and its still not here.

Until it happens, I will remain unconvinced.

Mark

Same here; links, or it didn't happen:
Emerging Technologies in Solar Power Market Report 2017-2027

 

[80zephyr]

An exceedingly long read here but absolutely fatal to advocates of wind and solar. This shit is even far more expensive than I thought!!! Has a future but will remain a fringe energy source like Ive been saying for 20 years.

Article goes deeply into the mega-costs of "intermittent" renewables........something I knew little about before reading this article. Didn't know almost all renewable energy is intermittent. Also.....everything you see in here from the climate crusaders on pricing does not include any mention of projections on future increase in subsidies as the pricing increases ( due to staggering costs of building transmission lines for example )

Renewable energy is a scam and always has been as scam...........and most interesting is from this article, the reduction of CO2 has been vastly overstated by advocates of renewables!!


There may be some cases where intermittent renewables are helpful additions without buffering (especially when the current fuel is oil, and wind or solar can help reduce fuel usage), but there are likely to be many other instances where the costs involved greatly exceed the benefits gained.

If we look at recently published information about how much intermittent electricity is being added to the electric grid, the amounts are surprisingly small. Overall, worldwide, the amount of electricity generated by a combination of wind and solar (nearly all of it intermittent) was 5.2% in 2016. On an area by area basis, the percentages of wind and solar are as shown in Figure 1.




















http://www.theenergycollective.com/gail-tverberg/2409208/researchers-underestimating-cost-wind-solar

Advances in technologies will make this a moot point. There is already, solar windows technologies that can upgrade current windows on any building or skyscraper.

I graduated college with a degree in architectural design in 1976. At that time solar energy was the next "big thing". Easy peasy.

That was 41 years ago.

Mark

That was then, This is now:

This fully transparent solar cell could make every window and screen a power source - ExtremeTech

I'll wait until we have real proof. I don't know your age, but I have heard this "now" stuff for 40 years.

Almost every year, I have heard that they have a cure for diabetes, and its still not here.

Until it happens, I will remain unconvinced.

Mark

Same here; links, or it didn't happen:
Emerging Technologies in Solar Power Market Report 2017-2027

Forecasts are not what happened. Its projection. Hell, in the 1980's Photovoltaic shingles were the next new thing, and your link shows that Photovoltaic is STILL being forecast.

Mark

 

[danielpalos]

Advances in technologies will make this a moot point. There is already, solar windows technologies that can upgrade current windows on any building or skyscraper.

I graduated college with a degree in architectural design in 1976. At that time solar energy was the next "big thing". Easy peasy.

That was 41 years ago.

Mark

That was then, This is now:

This fully transparent solar cell could make every window and screen a power source - ExtremeTech

I'll wait until we have real proof. I don't know your age, but I have heard this "now" stuff for 40 years.

Almost every year, I have heard that they have a cure for diabetes, and its still not here.

Until it happens, I will remain unconvinced.

Mark

Same here; links, or it didn't happen:
Emerging Technologies in Solar Power Market Report 2017-2027

Forecasts are not what happened. Its projection. Hell, in the 1980's Photovoltaic shingles were the next new thing, and your link shows that Photovoltaic is STILL being forecast.

Mark

The field of astronomy has experienced, "exponential gains from efficiencies", from new technologies. So will the solar energy sector.

 

[polarbear]

Sad we need a study to State the obvious..........EU " "free" energy costs double and triple utility bills.....process has begun inMN......

Solar energy has plunged in price—where does it go from here?

Right..........yet energy costs In. Eu still result in poverty and business with energy intensive production come to the US......

Improving technologies means more solar energy will be available. Large buildings could cover their energy costs.

Perhaps just a smidge s0n...........decades from now, solar will still be decidedly fringe..........well, at least according to Obama's 2016 EIA Report from last year.

But you can continue to hang in bubble land s0n..........God bless.

This fully transparent solar cell could make every window and screen a power source - ExtremeTech

A "power source" ??? are you kidding:
(copied from the link you posted)
"The prototype TLSC currently has an efficiency of around 1%, but they think 10% should be possible once production commences. " "should be" possible that`s now not "was then" as you have been boasting and even if the "should be" becomes an "is now" it's still laughable because it assumes that the panel is inclined and angled at 90 deg with the incident sun light.
While in reality its directionally and vertically fixed and facing the sun at best for only 1 solar hour within a 15 deg angle. Which would be the time span when it is 1% efficient
Do the math !!...and you call that a "power source"? You have no idea what it takes to qualify as a "power source" beyond a cell phone or a small flashlight. Even a toy like this produces more "power" than your "could be" window :

It "could" even produce "power" if you piss on it in your toilet

 

[Mikeoxenormous]

An exceedingly long read here but absolutely fatal to advocates of wind and solar. This shit is even far more expensive than I thought!!! Has a future but will remain a fringe energy source like Ive been saying for 20 years.

Article goes deeply into the mega-costs of "intermittent" renewables........something I knew little about before reading this article. Didn't know almost all renewable energy is intermittent. Also.....everything you see in here from the climate crusaders on pricing does not include any mention of projections on future increase in subsidies as the pricing increases ( due to staggering costs of building transmission lines for example )

Renewable energy is a scam and always has been as scam...........and most interesting is from this article, the reduction of CO2 has been vastly overstated by advocates of renewables!!


There may be some cases where intermittent renewables are helpful additions without buffering (especially when the current fuel is oil, and wind or solar can help reduce fuel usage), but there are likely to be many other instances where the costs involved greatly exceed the benefits gained.

If we look at recently published information about how much intermittent electricity is being added to the electric grid, the amounts are surprisingly small. Overall, worldwide, the amount of electricity generated by a combination of wind and solar (nearly all of it intermittent) was 5.2% in 2016. On an area by area basis, the percentages of wind and solar are as shown in Figure 1.




















http://www.theenergycollective.com/gail-tverberg/2409208/researchers-underestimating-cost-wind-solar

Advances in technologies will make this a moot point. There is already, solar windows technologies that can upgrade current windows on any building or skyscraper.

I graduated college with a degree in architectural design in 1976. At that time solar energy was the next "big thing". Easy peasy.

That was 41 years ago.

Mark

That was then, This is now:

This fully transparent solar cell could make every window and screen a power source - ExtremeTech

I'll wait until we have real proof. I don't know your age, but I have heard this "now" stuff for 40 years.

Almost every year, I have heard that they have a cure for diabetes, and its still not here.

Until it happens, I will remain unconvinced.

Mark

There is a cure for Type 2 diabetes, but then it requires the person with it, to stop eating like a pig. But then that is called FAT SHAMING, and the political correct crowd, mostly candidate of the type 2, don't want to have to stop being gluttonous, because then the EBT cards that the liberals are willing to give will come to an end.

 

[danielpalos]

Solar energy has plunged in price—where does it go from here?

Right..........yet energy costs In. Eu still result in poverty and business with energy intensive production come to the US......

Improving technologies means more solar energy will be available. Large buildings could cover their energy costs.

Perhaps just a smidge s0n...........decades from now, solar will still be decidedly fringe..........well, at least according to Obama's 2016 EIA Report from last year.

But you can continue to hang in bubble land s0n..........God bless.

This fully transparent solar cell could make every window and screen a power source - ExtremeTech

A "power source" ??? are you kidding:
(copied from the link you posted)
"The prototype TLSC currently has an efficiency of around 1%, but they think 10% should be possible once production commences. " "should be" possible that`s now not "was then" as you have been boasting and even if the "should be" becomes an "is now" it's still laughable because it assumes that the panel is inclined and angled at 90 deg with the incident sun light.
While in reality its directionally and vertically fixed and facing the sun at best for only 1 solar hour within a 15 deg angle. Which would be the time span when it is 1% efficient
Do the math !!...and you call that a "power source"? You have no idea what it takes to qualify as a "power source" beyond a cell phone or a small flashlight. Even a toy like this produces more "power" than your "could be" window :

It "could" even produce "power" if you piss on it in your toilet

It is about economy of scale. "A glass tower" covers a lot of area.

 

[polarbear]

Right..........yet energy costs In. Eu still result in poverty and business with energy intensive production come to the US......

Improving technologies means more solar energy will be available. Large buildings could cover their energy costs.

Perhaps just a smidge s0n...........decades from now, solar will still be decidedly fringe..........well, at least according to Obama's 2016 EIA Report from last year.

But you can continue to hang in bubble land s0n..........God bless.

This fully transparent solar cell could make every window and screen a power source - ExtremeTech

A "power source" ??? are you kidding:
(copied from the link you posted)
"The prototype TLSC currently has an efficiency of around 1%, but they think 10% should be possible once production commences. " "should be" possible that`s now not "was then" as you have been boasting and even if the "should be" becomes an "is now" it's still laughable because it assumes that the panel is inclined and angled at 90 deg with the incident sun light.
While in reality its directionally and vertically fixed and facing the sun at best for only 1 solar hour within a 15 deg angle. Which would be the time span when it is 1% efficient
Do the math !!...and you call that a "power source"? You have no idea what it takes to qualify as a "power source" beyond a cell phone or a small flashlight. Even a toy like this produces more "power" than your "could be" window :

It "could" even produce "power" if you piss on it in your toilet

It is about economy of scale. "A glass tower" covers a lot of area.

With the photovoltaic glass that you posted you need a lot more area than "A glass tower covers"
Are you some sort of Bozo who can't understand that the people who are trying to market it intend it to charge cell phones not a "glass tower" ?
Unlike conventional solar that glass panel looks at only a fraction of the spectrum normal panels convert into electrical power ! And only an idiot would mount those on the walls of a building in an upright position as windows on "glass towers" are.
If you do you would only get as little as 2 or 3 watts per m^2 out of this Mickey Mouse device. HtF is that in any way useful?
Fck it's unbelievable how technically illiterate so many of you "alternate energy" idiots are
You might as well suggest they scrap their back up generators and use their cellphones to keep the lights on and the elevators operational during a power failure.

 

[skookerasbil]

Improving technologies means more solar energy will be available. Large buildings could cover their energy costs.

Perhaps just a smidge s0n...........decades from now, solar will still be decidedly fringe..........well, at least according to Obama's 2016 EIA Report from last year.

But you can continue to hang in bubble land s0n..........God bless.

This fully transparent solar cell could make every window and screen a power source - ExtremeTech

A "power source" ??? are you kidding:
(copied from the link you posted)
"The prototype TLSC currently has an efficiency of around 1%, but they think 10% should be possible once production commences. " "should be" possible that`s now not "was then" as you have been boasting and even if the "should be" becomes an "is now" it's still laughable because it assumes that the panel is inclined and angled at 90 deg with the incident sun light.
While in reality its directionally and vertically fixed and facing the sun at best for only 1 solar hour within a 15 deg angle. Which would be the time span when it is 1% efficient
Do the math !!...and you call that a "power source"? You have no idea what it takes to qualify as a "power source" beyond a cell phone or a small flashlight. Even a toy like this produces more "power" than your "could be" window :

It "could" even produce "power" if you piss on it in your toilet

It is about economy of scale. "A glass tower" covers a lot of area.

With the photovoltaic glass that you posted you need a lot more area than "A glass tower covers"
Are you some sort of Bozo who can't understand that the people who are trying to market it intend it to charge cell phones not a "glass tower" ?
Unlike conventional solar that glass panel looks at only a fraction of the spectrum normal panels convert into electrical power ! And only an idiot would mount those on the walls of a building in an upright position as windows on "glass towers" are.
If you do you would only get as little as 2 or 3 watts per m^2 out of this Mickey Mouse device. HtF is that in any way useful?
Fck it's unbelievable how technically illiterate so many of you "alternate energy" idiots are
You might as well suggest they scrap their back up generators and use their cellphones to keep the lights on and the elevators operational during a power failure.

He is a bozo.....read some of his posts. Lives in Pajamaland......nothing we can do.

 

[danielpalos]

Improving technologies means more solar energy will be available. Large buildings could cover their energy costs.

Perhaps just a smidge s0n...........decades from now, solar will still be decidedly fringe..........well, at least according to Obama's 2016 EIA Report from last year.

But you can continue to hang in bubble land s0n..........God bless.

This fully transparent solar cell could make every window and screen a power source - ExtremeTech

A "power source" ??? are you kidding:
(copied from the link you posted)
"The prototype TLSC currently has an efficiency of around 1%, but they think 10% should be possible once production commences. " "should be" possible that`s now not "was then" as you have been boasting and even if the "should be" becomes an "is now" it's still laughable because it assumes that the panel is inclined and angled at 90 deg with the incident sun light.
While in reality its directionally and vertically fixed and facing the sun at best for only 1 solar hour within a 15 deg angle. Which would be the time span when it is 1% efficient
Do the math !!...and you call that a "power source"? You have no idea what it takes to qualify as a "power source" beyond a cell phone or a small flashlight. Even a toy like this produces more "power" than your "could be" window :

It "could" even produce "power" if you piss on it in your toilet

It is about economy of scale. "A glass tower" covers a lot of area.

With the photovoltaic glass that you posted you need a lot more area than "A glass tower covers"
Are you some sort of Bozo who can't understand that the people who are trying to market it intend it to charge cell phones not a "glass tower" ?
Unlike conventional solar that glass panel looks at only a fraction of the spectrum normal panels convert into electrical power ! And only an idiot would mount those on the walls of a building in an upright position as windows on "glass towers" are.
If you do you would only get as little as 2 or 3 watts per m^2 out of this Mickey Mouse device. HtF is that in any way useful?
Fck it's unbelievable how technically illiterate so many of you "alternate energy" idiots are
You might as well suggest they scrap their back up generators and use their cellphones to keep the lights on and the elevators operational during a power failure.

Skyscrapers cover a lot of area.

 

[SSDD]

Skyscrapers cover a lot of area.

Right..and there might be a few minutes a day when any ONE outside wall is directly in line with the sun, and even then, the glass walls are vertical...that means that they aren't angled to take advantage of incoming sunlight...and you are talking about sky scrapers which tend to cluster in groups which would then put the lower half of the structure in semi permanent shade.

It is clear that whoever has thought about this, hasn't put much actual thought into it....the only place where such buildings might be useful is far north where the sun is never high in the sky...that would allow the vertical angle of the glass to capture more sunlight...of course, that far north, solar becomes very inefficient.

In short..bad idea...unworkable..but I am sure than some green with more money than sense will actually build the thing and prove to the rest of the world that it doesn't work.

 

[danielpalos]

Skyscrapers cover a lot of area.

Right..and there might be a few minutes a day when any ONE outside wall is directly in line with the sun, and even then, the glass walls are vertical...that means that they aren't angled to take advantage of incoming sunlight...and you are talking about sky scrapers which tend to cluster in groups which would then put the lower half of the structure in semi permanent shade.

It is clear that whoever has thought about this, hasn't put much actual thought into it....the only place where such buildings might be useful is far north where the sun is never high in the sky...that would allow the vertical angle of the glass to capture more sunlight...of course, that far north, solar becomes very inefficient.

In short..bad idea...unworkable..but I am sure than some green with more money than sense will actually build the thing and prove to the rest of the world that it doesn't work.

You only have a fallacy of false cause. It clouds your judgment.

 

[Billy_Bob]

Skyscrapers cover a lot of area.

Right..and there might be a few minutes a day when any ONE outside wall is directly in line with the sun, and even then, the glass walls are vertical...that means that they aren't angled to take advantage of incoming sunlight...and you are talking about sky scrapers which tend to cluster in groups which would then put the lower half of the structure in semi permanent shade.

It is clear that whoever has thought about this, hasn't put much actual thought into it....the only place where such buildings might be useful is far north where the sun is never high in the sky...that would allow the vertical angle of the glass to capture more sunlight...of course, that far north, solar becomes very inefficient.

In short..bad idea...unworkable..but I am sure than some green with more money than sense will actually build the thing and prove to the rest of the world that it doesn't work.

You only have a fallacy of false cause. It clouds your judgment.

Let me put this in your language and age ability to understand... IT WON'T FUCKING WORK YOU MORON!!

Angle of incidence is greater than 15 deg, all of the time, which means your photo cell will only receive about 1/100 of its 90 deg optimal operating requirement. its output would then be just .35 amps @ 12 volts (4.2 watts) for a panel rated at 350 watts @ 12 volts...

 

[danielpalos]

Skyscrapers cover a lot of area.

Right..and there might be a few minutes a day when any ONE outside wall is directly in line with the sun, and even then, the glass walls are vertical...that means that they aren't angled to take advantage of incoming sunlight...and you are talking about sky scrapers which tend to cluster in groups which would then put the lower half of the structure in semi permanent shade.

It is clear that whoever has thought about this, hasn't put much actual thought into it....the only place where such buildings might be useful is far north where the sun is never high in the sky...that would allow the vertical angle of the glass to capture more sunlight...of course, that far north, solar becomes very inefficient.

In short..bad idea...unworkable..but I am sure than some green with more money than sense will actually build the thing and prove to the rest of the world that it doesn't work.

You only have a fallacy of false cause. It clouds your judgment.

Let me put this in your language and age ability to understand... IT WON'T FUCKING WORK YOU MORON!!

Angle of incidence is greater than 15 deg, all of the time, which means your photo cell will only receive about 1/100 of its 90 deg optimal operating requirement. its output would them be just .35 amps @ 12 volts (4.2 watts) for a panel rated at 350 watts @ 12 volts...

You simply don't understand economies of scale. That is just one building.

 

[Billy_Bob]

Skyscrapers cover a lot of area.

Right..and there might be a few minutes a day when any ONE outside wall is directly in line with the sun, and even then, the glass walls are vertical...that means that they aren't angled to take advantage of incoming sunlight...and you are talking about sky scrapers which tend to cluster in groups which would then put the lower half of the structure in semi permanent shade.

It is clear that whoever has thought about this, hasn't put much actual thought into it....the only place where such buildings might be useful is far north where the sun is never high in the sky...that would allow the vertical angle of the glass to capture more sunlight...of course, that far north, solar becomes very inefficient.

In short..bad idea...unworkable..but I am sure than some green with more money than sense will actually build the thing and prove to the rest of the world that it doesn't work.

You only have a fallacy of false cause. It clouds your judgment.

Let me put this in your language and age ability to understand... IT WON'T FUCKING WORK YOU MORON!!

Angle of incidence is greater than 15 deg, all of the time, which means your photo cell will only receive about 1/100 of its 90 deg optimal operating requirement. its output would them be just .35 amps @ 12 volts (4.2 watts) for a panel rated at 350 watts @ 12 volts...

You simply don't understand economies of scale. That is just one building.

You don't know how a photovoltaic cell works and why it would take billions of windows to get what a properly placed PV array would... You do not understand Ohms law or power distribution issues..

My original statement stands.. Your a fucking moron..

How do Photovoltaics Work? | Science Mission Directorate

 

[Billy_Bob]

This high quality cell will charge a phone from indirect sunlight (greater than 15 deg Angle Of Incidence) in about four to six hours and in direct sunlight (at less than 15 deg AOI) will charge the phone in about 35 min... Can you tell me why, moron?

 

[Billy_Bob]

I have one of these to top charge my trailer battery..

just wow... you want to spend thousands for something I can buy for 31 bucks...