Solar panel breakthrough.

[martin-w 3,235]

1 hour ago, G-RFRY said:

The miners debunked it they mine the materials to make the solar panels and the coal.  

 

Ive no idea what you are talking about.  All resources have to be obtained, often involving mining. Its unavoidable, minerals don't materialise out of thin air. The question is which technology has mining practices that are the most damaging, and how can we reduce that impact.

Re More and his documentaries: Pretty much everything I have typed has been met with criticism and opposing viewpoints. So its only fair, as you have brought up the topic of More's controversial documentary (once again) that I do the same. For balance you see.

Below are just a few examples of how More's documentary is deliberately misleading, out of date, and designed to be controversial. Its about making money from the documentary for More and his collaborator. Its what he does. I'm sure we can all remember the bonkers claims he made about the UK NHS, claiming it was awesome, how all nations should do it and ignoring all the issues its faces.

 

What Michael Moore’s New Climate Documentary Gets Wrong About Renewables

https://www.forbes.com/sites/davidrvetter/2020/05/13/what-michael-moores-new-climate-documentary-gets-wrong-about-renewables/?sh=7794c36d464d

Quote

Right off the bat, Gibbs is indulging in an argument called the baseload power fallacy, which says that conventional energy generation—fossil fuels or nuclear power—is required to produce electricity because some renewable energy sources, such as wind and sun, are intermittent.

 

 

Quote

This highlights another issue with Planet of the Humans: a great deal of the data presented, and indeed the footage, date to a time when the energy industry looked a lot different. The sector has evolved at breakneck pace since 2010; Gibbs’ arguments have not.

 

 

Quote

Here the message is that solar power is an expensive, inefficient boondoggle—and indeed, in 2010, when the footage was taken, solar power was inefficient and expensive. Ten years later, through new developments in the field and in production, solar photovoltaic panels are massively more efficient, and far cheaper. Renewables are already, in many cases, cheaper than fossil fuels.

 

 

Quote

This is a variant of the baseload power fallacy, plus a further fallacy, central to the film’s premise, that renewable energy generation generates the same amount of emissions as fossil fuel generation. This simply isn’t true: even an old meta-analysis of studies on windfarms, produced back in 2010 when turbines were far less efficient than they are now, found that an average turbine generates 20 times more energy than it takes to produce. New research from Denmark indicates modern onshore turbines could have a far longer lifespan than originally anticipated—up to 35 years on average.

 

Quote

 Gibbs is either unaware of—or unwilling to talk about—the practically limitless potential of green hydrogen from 100% renewable sources, which is being rolled out worldwide, with 100+ megawatt facilities planned in many countries.

 

Quote

Eight years ago, that argument held some water. Now, with coal and oil in collapse, and renewables in many large countries generating more power than all other sources put together, the displacement argument isn’t just quaint—it is entirely outmoded.

 

 

Edited February 25, 2021 by martin-w

[martin-w 3,235]

Quote

Scientists and environmental activists have already disputed many of the assertions in the movie, which was released on YouTube on April 21. One commonly cited problem is that the film’s renewable energy claims are often a decade out of date — ancient in green tech years — and misleading. Here’s a closer look at five of those claims.

https://www.sciencenews.org/article/what-michael-moore-new-film-gets-wrong-about-renewable-energy

 

There are of course as multitude of videos on YouTube doing a great job of debunking More's video, but the one below is from one of my favoured channels... Not that any of the critics here will bother to watch it. Deniers don't!

One of the guys they interviewed and drew conclusions from about his solar panel powered festival was from a 2005 video.16 years ago! 😁 I think this spells out that the video was deliberately misleading. Video clips from 2010 re the Chevrolet Volt too. And More's documentary also includes a video interview with the owner of a solar farm from 2008! A lifetime away in solar development terms. This is how deceptive More's documentary is, pretty much all of the video footage he shows is from grater than a decade ago. By leaving the dates of his footage he is deliberately misleading the audience! 

Re your comment regarding coal. If you mean what I think you do, see  8:44 in video below.

This is a 30 minute video but if anyone is unbiased regarding renewable energy, rather than looking for anything to trash it, then this video destroys Michael More's disingenuous "documentary". 

 

 

 

 

Edited February 25, 2021 by martin-w

[martin-w 3,235]

In terms of the original subject matter in this thread, solar cells... with everything that's be going on in this thread, I forgot to mention, Sheffield University here in the UK, actually have a perovskite solar paint. I recall it has an efficiency of 10%. Not that efficiency is so important when you can replace paint that you would use anyway and paint entire structures. So entire buildings being coated with the power generating paint rather than conventional paint. Vehicles could be coated with the paint too, or pretty much anything. 

There are even energy storing house bricks now. Both solar paint and house bricks thanks to nanotechnology of course.

The future is bright for nanotechnology.  

Edited February 25, 2021 by martin-w

[Ted Striker 338]

Martin, Do you live in a passive home and/or is it powered by solar panels?

Ted

[martin-w 3,235]

10 minutes ago, Ted Striker said:

Martin, Do you live in a passive home and/or is it powered by solar panels?

Ted

 

 

I would love to answer yes to both of those questions Ted. But I'm in a rented house, my daughters rented cottage in Guernsey. If there's one available when we buy, I'd grab it, or if I were buying land and building myself I'd go for it. For 10K more or so, I'd be mad not too. 

[Ted Striker 338]

3 hours ago, martin-w said:

I would love to answer yes to both of those questions

Most people can't afford to build custom passive homes and are just struggling to get the most square footage they can for the funds they have.

Maybe the cost/benefit ratio is better where you live but in Denver, which gets plenty of sun, it doesn't make economic sense to me to purchase solar panels. Maybe things will change in the future.

My house is the envy of the young environmentalists moving into the neighborhood as it has a large south facing roof with no adjacent houses to block the sun. I'm always asked at the block parties why I haven't installed solar panels yet. I'll tell you what I tell them.

My highest utility bill last year was $137.98 in September. Most of it, $88.41, was for electricity of which 50% fed my air conditioner with the rest of the bill being for natural gas heating. My average electric bill is $45/month when not running the air conditioner. I'll be in my grave before I paid off any investment in solar panels with that. My utility stopped building coal plants years ago and I think it currently has a 20-30% renewable energy portfolio from wind and solar. It make more sense for me to buy renewable energy from them.

My next door neighbor has solar panels on her roof and initially was trying to talk me into getting them. She was sold based on the government rebates and the salesman's forecast of future utility rates. Well those exponentially rising rates did not materialize, they have remained nearly constant. In addition, she recently had to replace her roof due to hail damage and had to hire a solar contractor to remove the panels and reinstall them so the roof could work could be done. She doesn't talk about her solar panels any more.

I agree that renewable energy and sustainability are the way we should go in the future. When it is truly cost effective it will happen.

Ted

[martin-w 3,235]

1 hour ago, Ted Striker said:

Most people can't afford to build custom passive homes and are just struggling to get the most square footage they can for the funds they have.

 

 

If you take a look at what I posted earlier, I recall it was around £10,000 extra for a passive house. Many passive house builders have reduced the additional cost down to just a few percent. There aren't many major volume house building companies that build passive houses, although there is an entire street in North Wales that's all passive, and for a very reasonable cost too. But usually, as you say, its purchase the land and employ a builder to build a custom passive house (or non-passive but to the latest stringent building regulations) for you. Here in the UK, its actually cheaper to buy the land and employ a builder to build a house for you, rather than buy a new house from a volume builder. We have  a TV show called Grand Designs, that's been around for years, and you usually find that the properties they build are worth much more when valued after the build. It's about having the courage to do it really, rather than cost.

We have very stringent building regulation in the UK, especially in regard to thermal insulation for new build houses. I guess the passive or almost passive standard is just as nudge up from that. You may not have such stringent regs in the US perhaps.

 

I know it varies wildly in the US dependant on state, so I'm not sure if you have volume building companies that build entire neighbourhoods like we do, or if your houses are built by smaller building companies. But if its the former, I would be very surprised if its cheaper than buying the land and building yourself.

 

Quote

Maybe the cost/benefit ratio is better where you live but in Denver, which gets plenty of sun, it doesn't make economic sense to me to purchase solar panels. Maybe things will change in the future.

 

$88.41  for  electricity for September you say. Quite comparable to the electricity cost I paid when in the UK. And its works here. Savings over 25 years amount to anywhere between £6,000 and £15,000 dependant on the size of the installation. Installation costs vary from £5000 to £8,000 again dependant on the size of the installation. Not huge savings over 25 years but worth it if you intend to stay in the property long term. 

 

Quote

she recently had to replace her roof due to hail damage and had to hire a solar contractor to remove the panels and reinstall them so the roof could work could be done. 

 

Good grief, must be pretty huge hail. We don't have any weather issue like that in the UK. Mind you, a lot of your houses are simple felt shingles I believe. All of our roofs are very substantial slate or tile roofs and the contractors carry out a full survey to make sure the roof is in good condition. . 

 

Quote

 I'll be in my grave before I paid off any investment in solar panels with that.

 

Are the installation costs very big then. As I say, not too bad really here.

 

Quote

I agree that renewable energy and sustainability are the way we should go in the future. When it is truly cost effective it will happen.

 

It is truly cost effective now for many, not all of course. And yes, solar panel efficiency is improving rapidly and cost are continuing to drop rapidly. So more and more people will be finding it a no brainer.

 

Quote

My utility stopped building coal plants years ago and I think it currently has a 20-30% renewable energy portfolio from wind and solar. It make more sense for me to buy renewable energy from them.

 

Here in Guernsey, we buy our electricity from France,100% renewable. In the UK, renewable energy for 2020 Q1 was 47%. 

Edited February 25, 2021 by martin-w

[goates 576]

9 minutes ago, martin-w said:

Good grief, must be pretty huge hail. We don't have any weather issue like that in the UK. Mind you, a lot of your houses are simple felt shingles I believe. All of our roofs are very substantial slate or tile roofs and the contractors carry out a full survey to make sure the roof is in good condition.

We do get pretty good sized hail in Western Canada.

https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/calgary/calgary-hailstorm-costly-damage-1.5642317

https://dailyhive.com/calgary/baseball-sized-hail-hit-alberta-august-long-weekend-2019

Here's a more recent article about the passive house in Calgary, Alberta, I linked earlier in the thread. This goes into more details about how it has worked since they built the house.

https://www.buildwithrise.com/stories/calgary-passive-house

[HighBypass 2,339]

On 2/22/2021 at 10:25 PM, dave2013 said:

Lastly, there is the negative impact of clearing off thousands of acres of land to build the solar plants, an environmental disaster IMO.

Not if you build the solar farms out in a desert. Granted there are flora and fauna which exist, but at least we are not talking chopping down acres of rain forest. In fact some deserts already have a helpful infrastructure - a railway: The ability to transport a lot of supplies a great distance in one go.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mauritania_Railway

Now, it will be expensive to pipe that renewable energy across great distances, but heck, if we are talking actual renewable energy instead of fossil fuels, then the expense for the greater good is rendered irrelevant, correct?

[goates 576]

5 minutes ago, HighBypass said:

Not if you build the solar farms out in a desert.

Or start by building them on mall roof tops and over top of the vast uncovered parking lots that exist all over cities (at least in North America).

[HighBypass 2,339]

Which begs the question why not do that wholesale right now? After all it would be relatively cheap to access the electricity grid from those locations.. Are there some construction ordinances which won't allow the covering of malls or building "gazebos with solar panels atop them" above the parking spaces? Or is it just down to money as per my "build them in a desert theory"? 

[goates 576]

1 minute ago, HighBypass said:

Which begs the question why not do that wholesale right now?

Money is certainly a factor, but regulations and the way the electrical grids are currently designed for fewer and larger power plants rather than for more distributed sources are also a big issue.

[Mace 1,926]

22 minutes ago, HighBypass said:

Now, it will be expensive to pipe that renewable energy across great distances, but heck, if we are talking actual renewable energy instead of fossil fuels, then the expense for the greater good is rendered irrelevant, correct?

What we need is "wireless electricity", where we can transmit the energy to a satellite, then transmit it down to where it is needed.

[goates 576]

Just now, Mace said:

What we need is "wireless electricity", where we can transmit the energy to a satellite, then transmit it down to where it is needed.

If you could do that, you could just generate the electricity in orbit and beam it down to the ground.

[Mace 1,926]

Just now, goates said:

If you could do that, you could just generate the electricity in orbit and beam it down to the ground.

Well that's true.  But I was thinking more in terms of Mauretania that Mark had mentioned.  There aren't very many people there.  But it could generate a LOT of solar energy, but no real practical way to get it out of Mauretania.