What's new
US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum

This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!

Wind farms, a benefit for all.

OP
O

Old Rocks

Diamond Member
Joined
Oct 31, 2008
Messages
60,278
Reaction score
7,937
Points
1,840
Location
Portland, Ore.
Wind is almost as inefficient as solar:

CapacityFactor2020-1200x675.png
What a dumb ass post. OK, by rated best output, wind and solar are not that efficient. Yet, in cost per watt, they beat all but hydropower, which is also a renewable.
View attachment 502118
Yes but wind and solar break down OFTEN-----
LOL You are telling lies again. First, with solar, there is almost nothing to break down. And wind turbines are less complex, hence mechanically more reliable, than coal or gas fired plants. Another little fact that you knownothings prefer to ignore, if you take the total area that a nuke plant takes up, and put down solar panels, it will generate more electricity than the nuke plant, and generate no dangerous by products, as nukes do.
 
OP
O

Old Rocks

Diamond Member
Joined
Oct 31, 2008
Messages
60,278
Reaction score
7,937
Points
1,840
Location
Portland, Ore.
:abgg2q.jpg: :abgg2q.jpg: :abgg2q.jpg:

Ask the people of Texas how they feel about renewables these days?

Blackouts are ghey
It was the gas fired plants and nukes that were the primary problems in February. And if they had a lot more solar, they would be generating juice like crazy right now. And if they did not have the fucking stupid GOP running things, they would not have had about 700 people die from the failures of the GOP politicians to regulate their grid. Minnesota and the Dakotas were far colder and did not experience those problems.

 

theHawk

Registered Conservative
Joined
Sep 20, 2005
Messages
36,558
Reaction score
25,565
Points
1,905
Location
Arizona
, if you take the total area that a nuke plant takes up, and put down solar panels, it will generate more electricity than the nuke plant
What a bunch of horse shit. It would take 100 square kilometers to make 2000 MW with solar panels. PLUS they can’t produce jack shit at night or when cloudy.
 
OP
O

Old Rocks

Diamond Member
Joined
Oct 31, 2008
Messages
60,278
Reaction score
7,937
Points
1,840
Location
Portland, Ore.
, if you take the total area that a nuke plant takes up, and put down solar panels, it will generate more electricity than the nuke plant
What a bunch of horse shit. It would take 100 square kilometers to make 2000 MW with solar panels. PLUS they can’t produce jack shit at night or when cloudy.
100 km^2 of solar would produce about 5 GW of electricity. Ever hear of the many methods of grid scale storage?

"US electricity consumption is about 425 GW on average
The EIA give a figure of 3,725,101 thousand Megawatt Hours of total electricity sales in 2013, i.e. 3725 TWh in a year. That’s equivalent to 425 GW.

The area shown is 10,000 km2 in NW Texas
Looking at the map presented by Elon Musk, and comparing it with a scale map of the US, leads me to an estimate that the square, in North-West Texas, is about 100km along the side, and thus has a total surface area of 100km x 100km, i.e. 10,000 km2

Average PV yield in NW Texas is about 21%
The USA National Renewable Energy Lab (NREL) provides an online calculator for PV yields, called PVWatts. I looked at the data for location TMY2 Amarillo, TX, which seems close to the area in question. A 1 kW system would generate 1,838 kWh per year (on a 10o slope facing south), which is equivalent to 210W; that gives a ratio of generated power to capacity of 21%.

The highest efficiency we currently get from solar modules is about 24%
Table 2 of Green et al’s Solar cell efficiency tables (Version 45) gives the best PV module as being 24% efficient. And that translates to installed capacity of 0.24 GW/km2, given the standard measure of 1 full sun being equal to 1 kW/m2.

Calculation
10,000 km2 x 0.24 GW/km2 x 21% = 500 GW
Which is more than current US electricity consumption of 425 GW.

 

badger2

Gold Member
Joined
Oct 22, 2016
Messages
10,061
Reaction score
1,110
Points
140
Stupid Homo sapiens. As if petroleum-addiction flatulence didn’t kill Nature, too.
 

badger2

Gold Member
Joined
Oct 22, 2016
Messages
10,061
Reaction score
1,110
Points
140
The URL is too ridiculous to transcribe, so look it up yourself: ‘Congress Extends Solar Incentive.’
 

badger2

Gold Member
Joined
Oct 22, 2016
Messages
10,061
Reaction score
1,110
Points
140
Asshole #108 should be permanently boycotted for stupidity. That’s what batteries are for. Duh
 
OP
O

Old Rocks

Diamond Member
Joined
Oct 31, 2008
Messages
60,278
Reaction score
7,937
Points
1,840
Location
Portland, Ore.
Asshole #108 should be permanently boycotted for stupidity. That’s what batteries are for. Duh
What are their amp hours under load?
I imagine that a 150 MW/hr battery has a pretty big amp hour rating under load. And then there are the homes that are in VPP's. They are already building a 250 MW one in South Australia.
 

jc456

Diamond Member
Joined
Dec 18, 2013
Messages
99,815
Reaction score
12,927
Points
2,180

theHawk

Registered Conservative
Joined
Sep 20, 2005
Messages
36,558
Reaction score
25,565
Points
1,905
Location
Arizona
, if you take the total area that a nuke plant takes up, and put down solar panels, it will generate more electricity than the nuke plant
What a bunch of horse shit. It would take 100 square kilometers to make 2000 MW with solar panels. PLUS they can’t produce jack shit at night or when cloudy.
100 km^2 of solar would produce about 5 GW of electricity. Ever hear of the many methods of grid scale storage?

"US electricity consumption is about 425 GW on average
The EIA give a figure of 3,725,101 thousand Megawatt Hours of total electricity sales in 2013, i.e. 3725 TWh in a year. That’s equivalent to 425 GW.

The area shown is 10,000 km2 in NW Texas
Looking at the map presented by Elon Musk, and comparing it with a scale map of the US, leads me to an estimate that the square, in North-West Texas, is about 100km along the side, and thus has a total surface area of 100km x 100km, i.e. 10,000 km2

Average PV yield in NW Texas is about 21%
The USA National Renewable Energy Lab (NREL) provides an online calculator for PV yields, called PVWatts. I looked at the data for location TMY2 Amarillo, TX, which seems close to the area in question. A 1 kW system would generate 1,838 kWh per year (on a 10o slope facing south), which is equivalent to 210W; that gives a ratio of generated power to capacity of 21%.

The highest efficiency we currently get from solar modules is about 24%
Table 2 of Green et al’s Solar cell efficiency tables (Version 45) gives the best PV module as being 24% efficient. And that translates to installed capacity of 0.24 GW/km2, given the standard measure of 1 full sun being equal to 1 kW/m2.

Calculation
10,000 km2 x 0.24 GW/km2 x 21% = 500 GW
Which is more than current US electricity consumption of 425 GW.

If that was true then they would be doing it already.
You claimed the area of a nuclear plant could produced more power than a nuclear plant, you lied.
 

HenryBHough

Platinum Member
Joined
Jul 14, 2011
Messages
31,197
Reaction score
7,169
Points
1,140
Location
Oak Grove, Massachusetts
The really great part about the bird-killers is that their steel is welcomed by China for recycling when they are torn down. Torn down? Why?

In many places because the companies that made them are out of business and there are no repair parts available.
 

USMB Server Goals

Total amount
$350.00
Goal
$350.00

New Topics

Most reactions - Past 7 days

Forum List

Top