This page is a permanent link to the reply below and its nested replies. See all post replies »
zonavar68 · 51-55, M
And Solar is not 'free' because all the hardware (solar panels, etc.) still has to be manufactured, transported, installed/assembled, and maintained, and all that incurs costs.
Same basic reasons why wind energy is not 'free'.
They are also not 'zero emissions' so the net-zero zealots can't rightfully claim them as 'signature' systems.
Also solar power is grossly inefficient - solar panels are no more than 25 percent efficient so all the other solar energy they absorbed gets wasted as heat. This is why using solar as an energy transformation source to charge electric cars is a pure green-wash.
Same basic reasons why wind energy is not 'free'.
They are also not 'zero emissions' so the net-zero zealots can't rightfully claim them as 'signature' systems.
Also solar power is grossly inefficient - solar panels are no more than 25 percent efficient so all the other solar energy they absorbed gets wasted as heat. This is why using solar as an energy transformation source to charge electric cars is a pure green-wash.
ElwoodBlues · M
@zonavar68 Not free, but cheaper than coal & natural gas in many locations. Not zero emissions, but a hell of a lot cleaner than any fossil fuel.
Also solar power is grossly inefficient
Compared to what?? Have you ever tried to calculate the "efficiency" of sunlight to ancient forests to subterranean oil to gasoline? Seriously dude!!
zonavar68 · 51-55, M
@ElwoodBlues Cheaper? Is it? Based on what metric? It's certainly different, and the emissions profile is different, but solar isn't necessarily cheaper simply because it's considered 'greener'. Solar panels are no more than 25 pct efficient, which doesn't make them 'effective' as a wholesale solution. Also the requirements of solar are vast (but again very different). Also solar is a huge waste problem that's getting worse, much like EV's are a massive emerging waste problem.
ElwoodBlues · M
@zonavar68
Dollars per kWh over 10 years
Solar panels are mostly glass & aluminum; quite recyclable - especially when measured as tons of waste per kWh generated!
https://www.technologyreview.com/2021/08/19/1032215/solar-panels-recycling/
EVs are cars with batteries instead of engines. Thus most of the car makes no change to existing issues. What about the battery?
Not that it's such a large amount of material over the 120,000 mile lifetime of the car
Cheaper? Is it? Based on what metric?
Dollars per kWh over 10 years
Solar panels are no more than 25 pct efficient, which doesn't make them 'effective' as a wholesale solution.
Based on what metric?Also the requirements of solar are vast (but again very different).
Based on what metric?Solar panels are mostly glass & aluminum; quite recyclable - especially when measured as tons of waste per kWh generated!
About 8 million metric tons of decommissioned solar panels could accumulate globally by 2030.
Worldwide that's TINY.https://www.technologyreview.com/2021/08/19/1032215/solar-panels-recycling/
EVs are cars with batteries instead of engines. Thus most of the car makes no change to existing issues. What about the battery?
Step Inside The Factory That Recycles 95 Percent Of EV Batteries
https://jalopnik.com/step-inside-the-factory-that-recycles-95-percent-of-ev-1850793666 Not that it's such a large amount of material over the 120,000 mile lifetime of the car
It is estimated that there’s about 63 kg of lithium in a 70 kWh Tesla Model S battery pack, which weighs over 1,000 lbs (~453 kg).
https://electrek.co/2016/11/01/breakdown-raw-materials-tesla-batteries-possible-bottleneck/
MethDozer · M
@zonavar68 You're misundersranding the concept of efficiency. They only convert 25% of the energy into electricity, that is true. Yet the fuel "solar rays" are insanely abundant and free. So at a 25% conversion you're doing awesome over other sources. Plus most of our production methods are inefficient in their conversion. Most of our systems waste most of the stores energy into wasted heat.
MethDozer · M
@zonavar68 contrary to popular reasoning efficiency is not synomnyous with practicality.
For example an external combustion steam engine is actually more efficient than an internal combustion engine but it is far, far, far less practical. Also the level of efficiency is dependent on what the application is. Using the same example. The steam engine is more energy efficient, however it has a horrible power to weight and size ratio. So in a locomotion application it is going to be a less efficient machine because it has to move it's own weight and size along with the mass you are intending to move.
For example an external combustion steam engine is actually more efficient than an internal combustion engine but it is far, far, far less practical. Also the level of efficiency is dependent on what the application is. Using the same example. The steam engine is more energy efficient, however it has a horrible power to weight and size ratio. So in a locomotion application it is going to be a less efficient machine because it has to move it's own weight and size along with the mass you are intending to move.
zonavar68 · 51-55, M
@MethDozer Energy efficiency is not the full story as once you start comparing transport modes themselves the landscape changes. Rail is nearly 100 times more energy efficient as a land-based transport method than road. But legislative frameworks favour road because governments leverage massive tax revenue from road and almost nil (by comparison) from rail. The vested interests are what drives government policy, and what drive the net-zero zealots who won't accept anything other than net-zero that is technically impossible to achieve. Air transport can be considered either extremely efficient or extremely inefficient depending on how you look at it. Also marine transport is actually extremely efficient, but then you have another element - time - as a prevailing factor which is another dimension on how you compare very slow (marine) against very fair (air) transport and factor it's energy usage to gauge 'efficiency'. Practical efficiency is very different from commercial efficiency.
MethDozer · M
@zonavar68 That's my point, solar and wind actually have a very good practicality to them.
As for interest and legislation that is irrelevant because that is all changeable and artificial man made hurdles.
That all said part of the whole green process everyone on both sides ignore or pay only token lip service to is reduction of use. We use a lot of energy for trivial things that we could benefit immensely doing away with.
As for interest and legislation that is irrelevant because that is all changeable and artificial man made hurdles.
That all said part of the whole green process everyone on both sides ignore or pay only token lip service to is reduction of use. We use a lot of energy for trivial things that we could benefit immensely doing away with.
zonavar68 · 51-55, M
@MethDozer agree and this is a core fundamental issue. Human society in suburban enclaves is inherently very energy inefficent and reducing energy usage overall is very difficult to achieve unless there's another ice age very soon and humanity is force back to time before modern technology came about (so back around 500 years at least).