Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Solar cells are commonly protected by glass, which adds considerable weight. A 3' square panel is not only inflexible and unable to conform to aerodynamic contours, but adds about 25 lbs of glass while giving maybe 75 watts mid-day. If an average day is 12 hours and the sunlight is useful for half of that, the output is 6 (hrs) x 75 watts = .45 kwh
So solar cells will power your house but not your car? Well, okay, we'll have to charge them up from the power grid. But that's goling to mean considedrably more electricity than we currently produce, isn't it? And you have just explained that we cannot get that from solar energy. Nor can we get it from wind power, for according to this reprimand I recieved in post #27 on page 2 of the thread about a man driving his Tesla from New York to Florida and back for $0:
"But anyone who studies the facts knows that wind power makes a good complement to solar power because wind is often strongest at night"
wind power compliments solar power and so therefore would produce no more.
I'm not saying, "Hey guys, get your act together," I am merely yielding to the "experts" in this field. And that means electric cars cannot be powered from green sources. We will need to build an enormous number of nuclear-powered and coal-fired plants to produce all the additional electricity electric vehicles are going to need.
wind power compliments (sic) solar power and so therefore would produce no more.
That's a fundamental misunderstanding of what I said.
As the dictionary defines it, a "complement" is something that completes something else or makes it better. Wind power complements solar energy because solar energy is strongest during the day, while wind power is strongest at night. So they complement each other, making for a better and more complete power cycle than either can provide alone.
Quote:
I'm not saying, "Hey guys, get your act together," I am merely yielding to the "experts" in this field. And that means electric cars cannot be powered from green sources.
Again, you've got this twisted. As it happens the most power is wasted during the time of lightest demand, from midnight to 6 am, which also happens to be the best time to recharge EVs.
Quote:
We will need to build an enormous number of nuclear-powered and coal-fired plants to produce all the additional electricity electric vehicles are going to need.
Not at all. Energy is fungible. You can put energy into a system in one place, take it out in a different form in another. As renewable energy sources come online they can not only replace traditional electricity sources, but also displace traditional energy uses such as burning gasoline to power vehicles. It's a big buildup of renewable power sources that we need. In the US we're so far only at about 4-5% of the total.
Coal fired plants? Even in China they've begun cutting back on building new coal-fired plants, and are building new solar and wind powered facilities instead.
Nuclear? I think that era has passed. The accidents at Three Mile Island, Chernobyl, and Fukushima have convinced many people that nuclear energy is not worth the risks, nor the long term environmental costs. In the US plans for new plants are being delayed or canceled. The amount of electricity being generated in the US from nuclear energy has dropped to its lowest level since 1980. It's dead, Jim.
Nuclear? I think that era has passed. In the US plans for new plants are being delayed or canceled. The amount of electricity being generated in the US from nuclear energy has dropped to its lowest level since 1980. It's dead, Jim.
All of which can change quite dramatically with Congressional elections every two years and Presidential elections every four years. There seems to be quite a rebellion building. If private individuals want to live Green they may do so, if your State or Local governments wish to support Green Energy they may do so. But it will probably be several decades before the Federal Government gets enthusiastic about it again.
All of which can change quite dramatically with Congressional elections every two years and Presidential elections every four years. There seems to be quite a rebellion building. If private individuals want to live Green they may do so, if your State or Local governments wish to support Green Energy they may do so. But it will probably be several decades before the Federal Government gets enthusiastic about it again.
Let's leave politics out of it. This isn't the forum for that.
What I'm looking at is that the public support for nuclear plants has plummeted, and opposition has grown. And that means that the process of getting approval for new plants has gotten longer and more costly, so backers and investors are turning away from nuclear energy.
So solar cells will power your house but not your car? Well, okay, we'll have to charge them up from the power grid. But that's goling to mean considedrably more electricity than we currently produce, isn't it? And you have just explained that we cannot get that from solar energy. Nor can we get it from wind power, for according to this reprimand I recieved in post #27 on page 2 of the thread about a man driving his Tesla from New York to Florida and back for $0:
"But anyone who studies the facts knows that wind power makes a good complement to solar power because wind is often strongest at night"
wind power compliments solar power and so therefore would produce no more.
I'm not saying, "Hey guys, get your act together," I am merely yielding to the "experts" in this field. And that means electric cars cannot be powered from green sources. We will need to build an enormous number of nuclear-powered and coal-fired plants to produce all the additional electricity electric vehicles are going to need.
EVs used as commuter vehicles will typically charge at night when there is ample wind resource. Not all areas have a great wind resource so some of the charging energy will come from conventional resources. That's still a smaller carbon footprint than an ICE.
When those of us considered experts talk about wind and solar being complementary, we are speaking of capacity not energy. BTW there is plenty of capacity and energy to accommodate quite a few EVs. Don't sweat the small stuff.
Nuclear? I think that era has passed. The accidents at Three Mile Island, Chernobyl, and Fukushima have convinced many people that nuclear energy is not worth the risks, nor the long term environmental costs. In the US plans for new plants are being delayed or canceled. The amount of electricity being generated in the US from nuclear energy has dropped to its lowest level since 1980. It's dead, Jim.
I'm not defending the technology but there are 26 new nuclear plants under development. Two units are under construction.
I'm not defending the technology but there are 26 new nuclear plants under development. Two units are under construction.
Some sources say four are under construction, some say five, but they are all additional reactors at existing sites, where permitting is much simpler than it is for brand new sites.
Of the 26 under development, some have been in development for up to 20 years, and 8 have been suspended. At least 45 public groups are opposing further development. It's just getting harder and harder, and more and more expensive to build reactor power plants. Back in 2011, banking giant HSBC issued this analysis, which 3 years later seems to be spot on...
Quote:
"With Three Mile Island and Fukushima as a backdrop, the US public may find it difficult to support major nuclear new build and we expect that no new plant extensions will be granted either. Thus we expect the clean energy standard under discussion in US legislative chambers will see a far greater emphasis on gas and renewables plus efficiency"
HSBC (2011). Climate investment update: Japan's nuclear crisis and the case for clean energy. HSBC Global Research, March 18.
Not only have public opinion and economic conditions turned against nuclear energy, but the extended drought is causing investors and regulators to rethink some plans, because nuclear reactors use a lot of water for cooling. Existing nuclear plants have had to cut production due to the drought, and plans in development have had to be changed.
I have no doubt that a few more reactor plants will be approved and go online... there are huge investments already made in some, so they're nearly unstoppable now... but I think the parade has largely passed by already.
Keep in mind that they still haven't solved the problem of nuclear waste disposal after all these years. To me that's the ultimate issue in opposition to any kind of renewal of the naive view that nuclear energy is clean energy.
Not only have public opinion and economic conditions turned against nuclear energy, but the extended drought is causing investors and regulators to rethink some plans, because nuclear reactors use a lot of water for cooling. Existing nuclear plants have had to cut production due to the drought, and plans in development have had to be changed.
Keep in mind that they still haven't solved the problem of nuclear waste disposal after all these years. To me that's the ultimate issue in opposition to any kind of renewal of the naive view that nuclear energy is clean energy.
France gets something like 70% of its electricity from nuclear power. The French seem quite happy with it and they've figured out a way to re-cycle their nuclear waste.
The nuclear plants you are so critical of use designs from the 1950s. You seem closed-minded to the fact there just might have been an advance or two in the half-century or so since then. The pebble bed reactor, for instance, does not use water as a coolant and the Adams Atomic Engine is a promising design.
Some sources say four are under construction, some say five, but they are all additional reactors at existing sites, where permitting is much simpler than it is for brand new sites.
Of the 26 under development, some have been in development for up to 20 years, and 8 have been suspended. At least 45 public groups are opposing further development. It's just getting harder and harder, and more and more expensive to build reactor power plants. Back in 2011, banking giant HSBC issued this analysis, which 3 years later seems to be spot on...
Not only have public opinion and economic conditions turned against nuclear energy, but the extended drought is causing investors and regulators to rethink some plans, because nuclear reactors use a lot of water for cooling. Existing nuclear plants have had to cut production due to the drought, and plans in development have had to be changed.
I have no doubt that a few more reactor plants will be approved and go online... there are huge investments already made in some, so they're nearly unstoppable now... but I think the parade has largely passed by already.
Keep in mind that they still haven't solved the problem of nuclear waste disposal after all these years. To me that's the ultimate issue in opposition to any kind of renewal of the naive view that nuclear energy is clean energy.
The biggest question is whether this new generation of nuclear plants can be brought on line at or under projected costs. It was the cost over runs and excess capacity that caused the demise of the previous nuclear age.
BTW there are a large number of sites where additional plants can be built.
Two units are actually under construction. Four more units have signed contracts.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
