Solar vs natural gas what do you think?

Blues Man

Gold Member
Joined
Aug 28, 2016
Messages
10,590
Reaction score
2,771
Points
195
Wrong , Corky.

I have faith the Americans are stupid enough to vote for a politician of the 2 major parties and that they actually believe their vote matters and that the fuckiong government cares about them.

And unlike you morons I don't make shit up

http://xn--drmstrre-64ad.dk/wp-content/wind/miller/windpower web/en/tour/wres/annu.htm


The Capacity Factor
Another way of stating the annual energy output from a wind turbine is to look at the capacity factor for the turbine in its particular location. By capacity factor we mean its actual annual energy output divided by the theoretical maximum output, if the machine were running at its rated (maximum) power during all of the 8766 hours of the year.
Example: If a 600 kW turbine produces 1.5 million kWh in a year, its capacity factor is = 1500000 : ( 365.25 * 24 * 600 ) = 1500000 : 5259600 = 0.285 = 28.5 per cent.
Capacity factors may theoretically vary from 0 to 100 per cent, but in practice they will usually range from 20 to 70 per cent, and mostly be around 25-30 per cent.
Your math is wrong ... for a name-plate capacity of 600 kW we'd have 5,259,600 kW-hrs per year ... then your ratio would be 1 ... if we choose to shut our power plant down 75% of the time, then of course we'd only see 25% of the output ... duh ... the main reason to shut down is lack of demand ... say 2am on a mild fall early morning ... no A/C, no arc welders, no iron smelting, no cement making ... just a few little children's nightlights running (LED's) ... we're better off running a 50 kW unit and save maintenance costs on the big units ...

The above is true for ALL power plants of any kind ...

Ah ... but solar/wind/hydro shuts down at times NOT of our choosing ... something well known since the first drought at the first earthen dam built by cro-magnon man ... duh ... and solar is the worst ... with a name-plate capacity of 200 W/m^2, we immediately lose half due to night-time, and half again while the sun is low to the horizon ... thus your 25% actual production ...

These people think intermittent power supplies will be able to power us into the future.

No ... this is strictly your own misunderstanding ... I'm glad someone has set your straight ... no one else in the entire world believe solar panels worked at night ... no one else believed wind will work on calm days ... no one else thinks hydro works when the river runs dry ... if you're only listening to the stupidest people you can find, maybe your rhetoric will come off just as stupid ...

I've ran the numbers for solar where I live, and it fails miserably ... no way can I compete with grid power ... the same with wind and hydro locally ... not with the main BPA trunk lines running down to California just a few miles away ... those are connected to a solar farm where it's usually sunny, wind mills where it's usually windy and hydro on a river that has never run dry ... my cost is 6.3¢/kW-hr ... and that river is always running, we always have power ... this cost has been going down as we add more wind and solar, at a time when fossil fuel electricity costs are going up ... our future doesn't depend on the availability of cheap oil ...

What about yourself ... what does your future look like when fossil fuels start running out? ...
The reason is the fucking wind doesn't blow all the time or it doesn't blow hard enough or it blows too fast. And the reason your costs are low is because of tax payer subsidies. What will it be when those stop because they will have to eventually.

In fact I think wind and solar add up to what 5% of the power production in the country yet have received some 30 billion in subsidies. Hydro will never get any bigger because we won't build any more dams like Hoover.

You might want to read what I said. It is WIND that only produces 25% of its rated capacity not solar.

And if you bothered to read anything I have posted you would know that I realize we will stop using fossil fuels.

What we need is to start our research into the next generation of nuclear reactors, namely LFTR reactors because there is no way that wind and solar can even meet our current needs without fossil fuel backups never mind the exponentially increased demand of an entirely electric powered country.

And I do think we should get off fossil fuels as quickly as possible but wind and solar ain't ever gonna cut it.
 
Last edited:

anynameyouwish

Gold Member
Joined
Nov 28, 2018
Messages
5,921
Reaction score
1,462
Points
170
Thousands of square miles of solar and we get nothing from it unless the sun is shining and someone cleans the panels regularly....
and how do we replace energy in the sun as we use it up?

in 100 years the sun will go dark!

i blame biden
hillary
obama
hollywood
democrats
witches
 

Grumblenuts

Gold Member
Joined
Oct 16, 2017
Messages
5,305
Reaction score
1,069
Points
140
Let me try to be clear. English is not my first language. I am much interested in solar but I believe gas gives more power than solar can today and gas plants work in any weather day or night. We have much gas from the sea so use it as it is much more clean than coal.
I believe lighting my house on fire would give me more power than solar could today. It could work in any weather day or night. We have much wood to burn from the woods so use it to construct housing as it is much cleaner than coal.

Notice any errors in the thought processes employed above? You've moved your goalposts. You say you're interested in solar, but keep arguing gas vs. coal. Make up your mind. You're selling gas. Blues Man is pushing nukes. Reiny's all about horsepower.

Coefficient of Performance is the only meaningful way to compare such things "across fields." One must observe the systems from equivalent points since all is relative and honestly account for all inputs (costs) and outputs (benefits). The Sun shines for free every day. Extracting fuels consumes energy. Burning them produces pollution. All of it matters.
 

Blues Man

Gold Member
Joined
Aug 28, 2016
Messages
10,590
Reaction score
2,771
Points
195
Let me try to be clear. English is not my first language. I am much interested in solar but I believe gas gives more power than solar can today and gas plants work in any weather day or night. We have much gas from the sea so use it as it is much more clean than coal.
I believe lighting my house on fire would give me more power than solar could today. It could work in any weather day or night. We have much wood to burn from the woods so use it to construct housing as it is much cleaner than coal.

Notice any errors in the thought processes employed above? You've moved your goalposts. You say you're interested in solar, but keep arguing gas vs. coal. Make up your mind. You're selling gas. Blues Man is pushing nukes. Reiny's all about horsepower.

Coefficient of Performance is the only meaningful way to compare such things "across fields." One must observe the systems from equivalent points since all is relative and honestly account for all inputs (costs) and outputs (benefits). The Sun shines for free every day. Extracting fuels consumes energy. Burning them produces pollution. All of it matters.
so compare a 1 GW wind farm that will produce .25 GW in a year to a 1 GW nuclear reactor that will produce .9 GW in a year and tell me which is the better option.
 
OP
S

shoshi

Gold Member
Joined
Oct 28, 2020
Messages
504
Reaction score
244
Points
158
Let me try to be clear. English is not my first language. I am much interested in solar but I believe gas gives more power than solar can today and gas plants work in any weather day or night. We have much gas from the sea so use it as it is much more clean than coal.
I believe lighting my house on fire would give me more power than solar could today. It could work in any weather day or night. We have much wood to burn from the woods so use it to construct housing as it is much cleaner than coal.

Notice any errors in the thought processes employed above? You've moved your goalposts. You say you're interested in solar, but keep arguing gas vs. coal. Make up your mind. You're selling gas. Blues Man is pushing nukes. Reiny's all about horsepower.

Coefficient of Performance is the only meaningful way to compare such things "across fields." One must observe the systems from equivalent points since all is relative and honestly account for all inputs (costs) and outputs (benefits). The Sun shines for free every day. Extracting fuels consumes energy. Burning them produces pollution. All of it matters.
Solar cannot produce enough power to replace gas or coal. But it can reduce the need but not replace it.
 

danielpalos

Diamond Member
Joined
Jan 24, 2015
Messages
62,807
Reaction score
2,803
Points
1,855
Location
Alta California, federalist.
Eilat is not a small town. For it to be 100% solar powered during the day is impressive. I do not agree with his condemnation of gas power. a gas fired plant is not nearly as polluting as coal and solar cannot produce the power at this time to replace conventional power plants www.youtube.com/watch?v=p7YINRaEeNw
Sure. Why not phaze out the worst polluters and save on clean up costs, afterward?
 
OP
S

shoshi

Gold Member
Joined
Oct 28, 2020
Messages
504
Reaction score
244
Points
158

Blues Man

Gold Member
Joined
Aug 28, 2016
Messages
10,590
Reaction score
2,771
Points
195
Let me try to be clear. English is not my first language. I am much interested in solar but I believe gas gives more power than solar can today and gas plants work in any weather day or night. We have much gas from the sea so use it as it is much more clean than coal.
I believe lighting my house on fire would give me more power than solar could today. It could work in any weather day or night. We have much wood to burn from the woods so use it to construct housing as it is much cleaner than coal.

Notice any errors in the thought processes employed above? You've moved your goalposts. You say you're interested in solar, but keep arguing gas vs. coal. Make up your mind. You're selling gas. Blues Man is pushing nukes. Reiny's all about horsepower.

Coefficient of Performance is the only meaningful way to compare such things "across fields." One must observe the systems from equivalent points since all is relative and honestly account for all inputs (costs) and outputs (benefits). The Sun shines for free every day. Extracting fuels consumes energy. Burning them produces pollution. All of it matters.
Solar cannot produce enough power to replace gas or coal. But it can reduce the need but not replace it.
Nuclear power can replace fossil fuels 100%
 

Grumblenuts

Gold Member
Joined
Oct 16, 2017
Messages
5,305
Reaction score
1,069
Points
140
so compare a 1 GW wind farm that will produce .25 GW in a year to a 1 GW nuclear reactor that will produce .9 GW in a year and tell me which is the better option.
so compare a 1 GW wind farm that will produce 0 pollution per year to a 1 GW nuclear reactor that will produce lots of radioactive waste per year plus still can't interest any private insurers and tell me which is the better option.
Or consider comparing their COPs, which was my actual point.
 

Blues Man

Gold Member
Joined
Aug 28, 2016
Messages
10,590
Reaction score
2,771
Points
195
so compare a 1 GW wind farm that will produce .25 GW in a year to a 1 GW nuclear reactor that will produce .9 GW in a year and tell me which is the better option.
so compare a 1 GW wind farm that will produce 0 pollution per year to a 1 GW nuclear reactor that will produce lots of radioactive waste per year plus still can't interest any private insurers and tell me which is the better option.
Or consider comparing their COPs, which was my actual point.
Actually LFTR breeders produce less waste than our outdated light water reactors and they can even be configured to run on the nuclear waste we already have.

And if we were smart we could use our spent nuclear fuel to get a piece of the trillion dollar medical isotope market.

And to get the rated capacity of wind the COP would have to be multiplied by 4

Next generation reactors would be cheaper to build because they run at 1 atmosphere not several hundred like our reactors do now. So no need for huge containment towers and no need to be near large bodies of water thereby reducing not only transmission loss but transmission cost as they can be built close to where the power is needed
 

Grumblenuts

Gold Member
Joined
Oct 16, 2017
Messages
5,305
Reaction score
1,069
Points
140
Notice anyone arguing, one trick pony?

Boy do you appear to wish!
 

ReinyDays

Gold Member
Joined
Oct 5, 2019
Messages
5,390
Reaction score
2,046
Points
210
Location
State of Jefferson
The reason is the fucking wind doesn't blow all the time or it doesn't blow hard enough or it blows too fast. And the reason your costs are low is because of tax payer subsidies. What will it be when those stop because they will have to eventually.
Our wind farm up north isn't receiving any subsides right now ... they've been fully exposed to the Free Market for over five years now ...

BUT ... that location has a few ideal conditions ... starting with the immediate proximity to adequate transmission lines to Seattle, Portland, San Francisco, Los Angeles and all points in between ... second is a remarkably constant wind field there due to topography ... and the land is a worthless desert waste, no property taxes were being collected before, so forgiving property taxes for ten years didn't hurt the State budget ... and of course today they are paying taxes and just in time to install new $250/yd^2 carpet in the Capitol ...

The river always runs ... there's always power on the grid ... if your location doesn't have all these benefits, then don't bother ...

I agree with you 100% about nuclear ... and I believe we should have started this program 20 years ago ... however, our current design is a failure, we have to admit we made terrible mistakes and start literally from scratch on our basic design ... I had to look up LFTR and absolutely we need to abandon water as the primary coolant ... molten salt doesn't vaporize and blow up the reaction vessel ... and important safety feature ... if we can get thorium to work, and it looks like we can, we have the added safety feature of producing our fissionable material "on demand" ... and I'm guessing here that if we can incorporate this into a "breeder" design, we mostly eliminate the waste product issues ...

It will be expensive ... this current $30 billion in subsidies will look like nothing in comparison ... hell, the military spending protecting the Middle East oil fields will look cheap ...
 

james bond

Gold Member
Joined
Oct 17, 2015
Messages
9,369
Reaction score
1,055
Points
170
Natural gas is a combustible mixture of hydrocarbon gases. While natural gas is formed primarily of methane, it can also include ethane, propane, butane and pentane. The composition of natural gas can vary widely, but below is a chart outlining the typical makeup of natural gas before it is refined.

Typical Composition of Natural Gas
MethaneCH4
70-90%​
EthaneC2H6
0-20%​
PropaneC3H8
ButaneC4H10
Carbon DioxideCO2
0-8%​
OxygenO2
0-0.2%​
NitrogenN2
0-5%​
Hydrogen sulphideH2S
0-5%​
Rare gasesA, He, Ne, Xe
trace​
Why are we concerned about it?
If methane leaks into the air before being used — from a leaky pipe, for instance — it absorbs the sun's heat, warming the atmosphere. For this reason, it's considered a greenhouse gas, like carbon dioxide.

Why is it as critical to address as carbon dioxide?
In the first two decades after its release, methane is 84 times more potent than carbon dioxide. We must address both types of emissions if we want to reduce the impact of climate change.
Why do you believe climate change is the end of the world when you don't believe the second coming? Even your lib news shows it's not a problem -- New Technology Claims to Pinpoint Even Small Methane Leaks From Space.

People want to plug up a leak.

This is why we need a more common sense approach like another Trump presidency would have done.
 

Most reactions - Past 7 days

Forum List

Top