Solar panel breakthrough.

[martin-w 3,235]

1 hour ago, dave2013 said:

I encourage everyone to watch the documentary film Planet of th humans

Dave

 

Well yes, you would.

And I would encourage everyone to read why it was wrong.

 

https://theconversation.com/3-times-michael-moores-film-planet-of-the-humans-gets-the-facts-wrong-and-3-times-it-gets-them-right-137890

Widely criticised by experts as out of date, misleading.

"But the film, produced by Moore and written and directed by his long-time collaborator Jeff Gibbs, has been widely criticised by energy and climate experts, who say it fails to provide context on the benefits of renewable energy and the negative impacts of fossil fuels, and is based on out-of-date information."

https://www.desmogblog.com/topics/jeff-gibbs

"But the film, directed by Jeff Gibbs, a long-time Moore collaborator, is not the climate message we’ve all been waiting for — it’s a nihilistic take, riddled with errors about clean energy and climate activism. With very little evidence"

 

https://www.vox.com/2020/4/28/21238597/michael-moore-planet-of-the-humans-climate-change

Edited February 20, 2021 by martin-w

[martin-w 3,235]

Thats two of you now that have taken  this topic, which was about the latest photovoltaic technology, fusion etc and used it to spread the anti renewable energy mantra. Can I suggest you refrain, before this topic is locked.

[Mace 1,908]

Self-derailment is a wonderful thing.

[WingZ 547]

Unfortunately YouTube has pulled this video due to copyright infringement.

However, luckily you can see some informed commentary about said movie here:

 

 

I am hoping this might be the end of this particular diversion, because the next thing, we are going to hear the Truth about Texas...

 

Edited February 20, 2021 by WingZ

[dave2013 1,129]

On 2/17/2021 at 11:42 PM, WingZ said:

Sounds lovely, but hope it doesn't cost 3x as much.

Lifespan, weight, and $/kWh is all that is of interest on my roof.

It certainly does sound lovely.  I, too, wish that we could live in a world where energy is free and 100% renewable.

The reality is that so-called green energy is going to be a lot more expensive, and the way things are going it will be forced upon us whether we like it or not.

Green energy also means many thousands of acres of land, along with its vegetation and wildlife, being cleared off for massive solar plants, and many thousands more wind turbines being put up to enhance the world's natural beauty.  Then there are the thousands of battery plants that will need to be built to store the energy so it is available at night, when the wind is not blowing, when the sun is obscured by clouds, when snow covers the solar panels, or when the wind turbines freeze up.

IMO, and that of many experts who know what they're talking about, a mix of primarily nuclear, then natural gas, and finally some wind and solar where they make sense, is the way to go.

Dave

[HighBypass 2,339]

3 hours ago, dave2013 said:

Green energy also means many thousands of acres of land, along with its vegetation and wildlife, being cleared off for massive solar plants,

Sahara and Gobi deserts anyone?? In fact most any desert on this planet. Who cares what the expense of the infrastructure is - the energy is renewable right? - thousands of uninhabitable (and I mean uninhabitable to the majority of flora and fauna, not just us humans!) square miles of sand and rock just waiting for enormous wind and solar arrays...

We can land on comets and small asteroids, we can drop a rover (with helicopter included!) off on another planet via a hovering rocket pod. We can build stuff in deserts.. 

[dave2013 1,129]

1 hour ago, HighBypass said:

Sahara and Gobi deserts anyone?? In fact most any desert on this planet. Who cares what the expense of the infrastructure is - the energy is renewable right? - thousands of uninhabitable (and I mean uninhabitable to the majority of flora and fauna, not just us humans!) square miles of sand and rock just waiting for enormous wind and solar arrays...

Well, I suppose you could build the solar plants in the Sahara and Gobi deserts, but then you'd have to build thousands of miles of transmission lines to get all that green power to where it's really needed.

Another issue which you may not be aware of is that most deserts actually have substantial vegetation and wildlife.  They are not just empty wastelands of dirt and sand.

I am not against solar and wind power.  I just believe that it has to be utilized in a realistic, practical, and cost-effective way.

Dave

[dave2013 1,129]

9 hours ago, martin-w said:

Thats two of you now that have taken  this topic, which was about the latest photovoltaic technology, fusion etc and used it to spread the anti renewable energy mantra. Can I suggest you refrain, before this topic is locked.

I am not against renewable energy. 

I'm happy to see that the panels are getting more efficient and cost-effective.

Dave

Edited February 21, 2021 by dave2013

[COBS 25]

The original linked article needs to be carefully and clinically read  in a dispassionate manner.

Who or what organisation has done the research mentioned .

Who is making the claimed numerical efficiencies and on what basis .

Towards the end it seems to relate to semi conductors and chips , but not specifically to solar cells, I construed the article as a cunningly contrived article , not as a serious exposition of scientific facts that could be verified at independant sources .

One needs to be very careful when dealing with these environmental issues  as the forums can tend to be populated by some ideological fanatics that browbeat and circumvent any frank discussions.

Cheers

Karol

[Fielder 3,663]

14 hours ago, WingZ said:

 

 

I am hoping this might be the end of this particular diversion, because the next thing, we are going to hear the Truth about Texas...

 

 

We won't have to worry about wind power until Texas freezes over, yeah like that's ever gonna happen.

[martin-w 3,235]

14 hours ago, dave2013 said:

 

Green energy also means many thousands of acres of land, along with its vegetation and wildlife, being cleared off for massive solar plants, and many thousands more wind turbines being put up to enhance the world's natural beauty.  

 

 

 

Okay, I give up. It's clearly the viability of renewable energy we are debating now. Fair enough. 

 

Your statements are either incorrect or misleading. there are many myths that keeps getting propagated.

Wind farms: 

Although wind turbines are large structures, they are relatively small at the base. The average turbine measures just eight to 10 metres across at the foot of each tower. Turbines are typically spaced between 250 and 800 metres apart. Sometimes they may be spaced further apart depending on the requirements of the turbine model or other technical design issues.

The result is that the overall land use and footprint impact of wind farms is minimal. When you consider the space devoted to towers, substations and access roads it is estimated that wind farms displace only five per cent of the land found within the entire wind farm.

For farmers, this means that crops can continue to be planted right up to the base of turbines, and they can be harvested with the usual farm machinery. For ranchers, it means that livestock can continue to graze on land in and around the towers, even while the tower is in operation.

And in many regions, the UK in particular, offshore wind farms are VERY effective, in fact cheaper than new coal fired or nuclear power stations. 

https://www.evwind.es/2020/06/25/solar-and-wind-power-now-cheaper-than-coal/75326#:~:text=IRENA entitled Renewable Power Generation,IRENA%2C said in a study.

 

https://www.irena.org/newsroom/pressreleases/2020/Jun/Renewables-Increasingly-Beat-Even-Cheapest-Coal-Competitors-on-Cost

 

https://www.carbonbrief.org/analysis-record-low-uk-offshore-wind-cheaper-than-existing-gas-plants-by-2023

 

As for the way they look, that's subjective, I think they look great. 

Solar: Land impact can be reduced significantly by siting solar on land already in use—such as landfills, parking structures, and rooftops. This also puts energy closer to where it is being consumed, reducing the need for additional transmission infrastructure and the impact of grid congestion.

It’s also important to note that, in a life cycle analysis, land use for utility-scale solar is still less than the average U.S. coal-fired power plant.  And renewable energy generation requires drastically less water; nearly zero, compared to coal’s average.

And the point of course, is that we aren't going to cover the planet with JUST photovoltaic panels, or JUST wind turbines. What is required is a mix of ALL renewable energy types. And yes, if we need nuclear we may have to include that in the equitation too.

Answers to 5 Renewable Energy Myths

https://perspectives.se.com/latest-perspectives/definitive-answers-to-5-pervasive-renewable-energy-myths

 

 

 

 

 

Edited February 21, 2021 by martin-w

[martin-w 3,235]

9 hours ago, dave2013 said:

 

I am not against solar and wind power.  I just believe that it has to be utilized in a realistic, practical, and cost-effective way.

Dave

 

Err... that's exactly what's happening. 

[martin-w 3,235]

5 hours ago, COBS said:

The original linked article needs to be carefully and clinically read  in a dispassionate manner.

Who or what organisation has done the research mentioned .

Who is making the claimed numerical efficiencies and on what basis .

 

Karol

 

Seems genuine to me.

 

Quote

Towards the end it seems to relate to semi conductors and chips , but not specifically to solar cells,

 

Ive no idea what you mean. Silicon is a semiconductor, by far the most common semiconductor used in photovoltaic cells.

 

Quote

not as a serious exposition of scientific facts that could be verified at independant sources

 

Papers will have been written and patents applied for. 

It was actually the government labs that achieved this breakthrough. Researchers at the U.S. Department of Energy’s National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL)

https://commercialsolarguy.com/2020/04/14/50-efficient-solar-cell/

 

EDIT: It was also published in Nature, so yes, as I said, papers written for peer review.

 

https://www.nature.com/articles/s41560-020-0598-5

Edited February 21, 2021 by martin-w

[stans 702]

19 hours ago, martin-w said:

Thats two of you now that have taken  this topic, which was about the latest photovoltaic technology, fusion etc and used it to spread the anti renewable energy mantra. Can I suggest you refrain, before this topic is locked.

And I am in before the lock! 😉

[martin-w 3,235]

2 minutes ago, stans said:

And I am in before the lock! 😉

 

Ive given up now.