# Stuff and Things > HISTORY, veterans & science >  The U.S. could power the WORLD with solar panels.

## brainflame

If you are one of those human caused global warming deniers, this thread won't interest you.  But for those of you with some intelligence, you may find it interesting.  Just think of it.  The U.S. could become the new Saudi Arabia of electricity.  Though transmitting that electricity around the world could be a bit of a challenge.  I will show you two pictures.  The first shows the total area of the U.S. covered in solar panels it would take to power the WORLD!  Keep in mind that those solar panels wouldn't have to be all in one spot or where they are shown to be.  We have more than enough useless desert area in the U.S. to do it.

  The second picture I will show you shows the entire area compared to the U.S. it would take to power just the U.S.  It shows a square area that is about 140 miles per side.  Though Elon Musk thinks it could be done with a total area that is only 100 miles per side.  And Elon Musk's engineering skills have made him a multi billionaire.  So don't be so quick to discount what he says.  What is the major problem with this approach?  The energy to be gotten from the sun is FREE!!!  And there isn't a lot of money to be made from free.

solar panels to power the world 2.jpg 


Solar to power the U.S..png

----------

Swedgin (11-02-2021)

----------


## Catfucious

Liberals crack me up lol

----------

12icer (11-02-2021),Brat (11-01-2021),Captain Kirk! (11-05-2021),Fall River (11-02-2021),Lone Gunman (11-01-2021),MisterVeritis (11-06-2021),Old Ridge Runner (11-02-2021)

----------


## QuaseMarco

China would be enriched as they supply most of the solar panels we use.

----------

12icer (11-02-2021),Brat (11-01-2021),Fall River (11-02-2021),Lone Gunman (11-01-2021),Old Ridge Runner (11-02-2021)

----------


## Jen

We could stop ALL traffic ..............with electric cars.

----------

12icer (11-02-2021),Brat (11-01-2021),Fall River (11-02-2021),Lone Gunman (11-01-2021),Old Ridge Runner (11-02-2021),Sunsettommy (11-11-2021),Swedgin (11-05-2021)

----------


## Call_me_Ishmael

Do it.  Get the illegals to clean the dirty panels every day.

----------

12icer (11-02-2021),Catfucious (11-01-2021),Fall River (11-02-2021),Old Ridge Runner (11-02-2021),Swedgin (11-02-2021)

----------


## Call_me_Ishmael

> Liberals crack me up lol


Liberals are up each other's crack.

----------

12icer (11-02-2021),Captain Kirk! (11-05-2021)

----------


## Brat

Aaaaaaaaand... IGGY!

----------

12icer (11-11-2021),Jen (11-01-2021)

----------


## MedicineBow

> If you are one of those human caused global warming deniers, this thread won't interest you.  But for those of you with some intelligence, you may find it interesting.  Just think of it.  The U.S. could become the new Saudi Arabia of electricity.  Though transmitting that electricity around the world could be a bit of a challenge.  I will show you two pictures.  The first shows the total area of the U.S. covered in solar panels it would take to power the WORLD!  Keep in mind that those solar panels wouldn't have to be all in one spot or where they are shown to be.  We have more than enough useless desert area in the U.S. to do it.
> 
>   The second picture I will show you shows the entire area compared to the U.S. it would take to power just the U.S.  It shows a square area that is about 140 miles per side.  Though Elon Musk thinks it could be done with a total area that is only 100 miles per side.  And Elon Musk's engineering skills have made him a multi billionaire.  So don't be so quick to discount what he says.  What is the major problem with this approach?  The energy to be gotten from the sun is FREE!!!  And there isn't a lot of money to be made from free.
> 
> solar panels to power the world 2.jpg 
> 
> 
> Solar to power the U.S..png


Gee, why hasn't anyone thought of that, or implemented it?

----------

12icer (11-02-2021),Brat (11-01-2021)

----------


## Thom Paine

> Liberals crack me up lol


A exact reprint of what he's been pushing at other sites...  it's not selling where I've seen it posted.

----------

12icer (11-02-2021),Brat (11-01-2021),Fall River (11-02-2021),Old Ridge Runner (11-02-2021)

----------


## Physics Hunter

We can't even make enough to power a nationwide fleet of electric cars...

https://thepoliticsforums.com/thread...DOUBLE-for-EVs

There are so many EE and Material Science problems with what you suggest that it is hilarious.   :Smiley ROFLMAO: 

My favorite thing though, is that those deserts are protected habitat and the envoro watermelons would never allow 1/100th of that level of a solar farm.

facepalmdouble.jpg

----------

12icer (11-02-2021),Brat (11-02-2021),JMWinPR (11-06-2021),Old Ridge Runner (11-02-2021),Sunsettommy (11-11-2021),Swedgin (11-05-2021)

----------


## Brat

Aww, let's just pay for everything, shall we?  The big bad USA can afford it, right?   :Cheers:

----------

12icer (11-02-2021),Fall River (11-02-2021),Old Ridge Runner (11-02-2021)

----------


## Wilson2

> If you are one of those human caused global warming deniers, this thread won't interest you.  But for those of you with some intelligence, you may find it interesting.  Just think of it.  The U.S. could become the new Saudi Arabia of electricity.  Though transmitting that electricity around the world could be a bit of a challenge.  I will show you two pictures.  The first shows the total area of the U.S. covered in solar panels it would take to power the WORLD!  Keep in mind that those solar panels wouldn't have to be all in one spot or where they are shown to be.  We have more than enough useless desert area in the U.S. to do it.
> 
>   The second picture I will show you shows the entire area compared to the U.S. it would take to power just the U.S.  It shows a square area that is about 140 miles per side.  Though Elon Musk thinks it could be done with a total area that is only 100 miles per side.  And Elon Musk's engineering skills have made him a multi billionaire.  So don't be so quick to discount what he says.  What is the major problem with this approach?  The energy to be gotten from the sun is FREE!!!  And there isn't a lot of money to be made from free.
> 
> Attachment 63281 
> 
> 
> Attachment 63282


Free?   Nothing is free.

You just have solar panels.   What about at night and cloudy weather and hurricanes?  You need batteries, and a lot of them.   

And solar panels generate DC voltage of 10-30 amps.  TO distribute that energy you need to convert it to 13,800 V AC to tie into the existing power grid (you arent going to replace the entire national power grid).   That means inverter plants, and a lot of them, probably 1,000s of these plants.   And power lines to carry that energy to tie into the grid.

And since you didnt give the source for your pictures, I'm guessing its just the area for solar panels only.   Not accounting for the fact panels need to tilt and have line of sight to the sun all day.  That doubles your area.

Plus maintenance access, cable routing, warehouses, roads, office buildings.

I'll claim when its all designed and built its 3 times the area on your pictures.  Probably more than that because the area on your charts is maybe extremely optimistic?


And there is the little problem that solar panels are not suitable for the entire USA, these arrays will have to be in the southern states, and those will be limited further because some won't have suitable weather or geography or physical access.   You are talking about areas in maybe 8-10 states.

----------

12icer (11-02-2021),Brat (11-02-2021),Fall River (11-02-2021),Well Bonded (11-02-2021)

----------


## Oceander

:Smiley ROFLMAO: 


"Deniers" - the only thing I deny is the intelligence of a liberal - for the simple reason that, to-date, no evidence has been found that such a mythical quality actually exists.  One would be more likely to find rainbow-colored unicorns before one found a liberal/prog with more than the minimum number of brain-cells necessary to maintain basic autonomous bodily functions.

----------

12icer (11-02-2021),Brat (11-02-2021),Old Ridge Runner (11-02-2021)

----------


## Well Bonded

> We have more than enough useless desert area in the U.S. to do it.


100% false. 



> The second picture I will show you shows the entire area compared to the U.S. it would take to power just the U.S.  It shows a square area that is about 140 miles per side.  Though Elon Musk thinks it could be done with a total area that is only 100 miles per side.  And Elon Musk's engineering skills have made him a multi billionaire.  So don't be so quick to discount what he says.  What is the major problem with this approach?  The energy to be gotten from the sun is FREE!!!  And there isn't a lot of money to be made from free.


Again 100% false, that much solar energy might power a small town for a few hours a day, but unless you forgot the sun doesn't shine at night and solar panels need solar energy to produce electrical energy so at night they do not produce any energy.

You need to get a clue before falling for dumb crap like this again.

----------

12icer (11-02-2021),Captain Kirk! (11-05-2021),Fall River (11-02-2021),MisterVeritis (11-06-2021)

----------


## East of the Beast

So, if energy from the sun is free....Does that mean there'll be no more electric bills?

----------

12icer (11-02-2021),Fall River (11-02-2021),Sunsettommy (11-02-2021),Swedgin (11-11-2021),Wilson2 (11-02-2021)

----------


## Swedgin

I am 1000% FOR the implementation of Solar Power.

EVERYWHERE.

But, I also understand, not only the limitations, but, the unforeseen issues:

#1.  Maintenance is not "free."  
#2.  Even IF we could produce this massive amount of energy, we can not currently "send" it far.  We would need better battery technology and/or massive superconducting lines to "ship" the electrical power.
#3.  Unintended consequences:  What would this do to the environment.  Sure, you and I will say "It's just desert."  Naturalists WILL have a differing opinion, I assure you.  What about effects on local weather?  Bird populations, etc.?

Again, I am 1000% FOR the implementation of Solar Power anywhere and everywhere we can find to use it.

But, I understand that our science is still EARTH 2020's, not the United Federation of Planets, in the 24th Century.....

----------

12icer (11-02-2021),Brat (11-02-2021)

----------


## Well Bonded

> Free?   Nothing is free.
> 
> You just have solar panels.   What about at night and cloudy weather and hurricanes?  You need batteries, and a lot of them.


And batteries are incredibly expensive and the most common type such as those used in Tesla's cannot be recycled. So where it all of that pollution going to be placed?




> And solar panels generate DC voltage of 10-30 amps.


Maybe 10 amps, a LG 380 watt panel puts out 10 amps at 36 volts and that is about the highest power panel around right now.  

[TO distribute that energy you need to convert it to 13,800 V AC to tie into the existing power grid (you arent going to replace the entire national power grid).[/quote]

Not even close, 13.92Kv is distribution level to tie to the grid it needs to stepped up to transmission level 235, 000 to 1,000,000 VAC, 235 KV to 1 MV. 

But that i just the beginning  A/C cannot be used for long range transmission, so lets say someone built that solar farm in AZ, which is a great place for solar, but needed to get that energy up to the NE where solar is not practical, so they build a 3 phase 1 MV 1  gigawatt (GW) transmission line from AZ to PA, once they energized that line they would discover all of the going into that line is gone at the other end.

So where did it go?

Inductive loss's ate it all up, lots of power in nothing out, total fail.

The only solution is DC transmission, with DC all their is are static loss's and insulator loss's, so they take the same line 1 phase and dump the power in and at the far end maybe 70% comes out, the rest is still lost, well that's not very profitable is it.           




> That means inverter plants, and a lot of them, probably 1,000s of hese plants.


Inverters (AC) or convertors (DC) either way both introduce additional loss's, AC maybe 15% DC 2 DC 20%-30%. 






> Not accounting for the fact panels need to tilt and have line of sight to the sun all day.  That doubles your area.


Actually in the Southern latitudes panel tilt is not needed, that's an up North thing, that's why AZ is ideal for solar while ME sucks for solar, which by the way precludes the cover the US in panel to power the world brainstorm, or should I say brainfart.  



> Plus maintenance access, cable routing, warehouses, roads, office buildings.


While needed it's small potatoes compared to the panels and electronics. 



> I'll claim when its all designed and built its 3 times the area on your pictures.  Probably more than that because the area on your charts is maybe extremely optimistic?


Considering everything that is required it would be way more than that.



> And there is the little problem that solar panels are not suitable for the entire USA, these arrays will have to be in the southern states, and those will be limited further because some won't have suitable weather or geography or physical access.   You are talking about areas in maybe 8-10 states.


And only a few Southern states at that, may be 8 tops.

It's a poorly thought out wet dream by someone who doesn't fully understand solar PV systems.

----------

12icer (11-02-2021)

----------


## Well Bonded

> So, if energy from the sun is free....Does that mean there'll be no more electric bills?


Only if you own enough panels and have the acreage to mount them. 

I have the acreage, a good location and the skills to design and install solar and I still cannot make a business case for doing so here, by the time I break even I'm a third of the way through the life of th epanels and halfway through the life of the storage batteries. 

Solar is a feel good treadmill, you spend a lot, save a little and get to brag how you are saving the earth, then reality sets in, the pollution your solar system will have created is really going to mess the earth up with some very dangerous materials if not disposed of just right.

Solar only makes sense if you cannot get a grid connection.

----------

12icer (11-02-2021),Fall River (11-02-2021),MisterVeritis (11-06-2021),Swedgin (11-02-2021)

----------


## UKSmartypants

> If you are one of those human caused global warming deniers, this thread won't interest you.  But for those of you with some intelligence, you may find it interesting.  Just think of it.  The U.S. could become the new Saudi Arabia of electricity.  Though transmitting that electricity around the world could be a bit of a challenge.  I will show you two pictures.  The first shows the total area of the U.S. covered in solar panels it would take to power the WORLD!  Keep in mind that those solar panels wouldn't have to be all in one spot or where they are shown to be.  We have more than enough useless desert area in the U.S. to do it.
> 
>   The second picture I will show you shows the entire area compared to the U.S. it would take to power just the U.S.  It shows a square area that is about 140 miles per side.  Though Elon Musk thinks it could be done with a total area that is only 100 miles per side.  And Elon Musk's engineering skills have made him a multi billionaire.  So don't be so quick to discount what he says.  What is the major problem with this approach?  The energy to be gotten from the sun is FREE!!!  And there isn't a lot of money to be made from free.
> 
> Attachment 63281 
> 
> 
> Attachment 63282



Ah, see the problem with this post is you're one of the gullibles who think solar panels are 'green'.

Let me tell you about solar panels. They are made with some of the nastiest, most toxic metals on the planet, including cadmium.  All around the world, discarded panels are piling up, because no one wants the thoroughly nasty, dangerous , toxic job of recycling them.

According to cancer biologist David H. Nguyen, PhD, toxic chemicals in solar panels include cadmium telluride, copper indium selenide, cadmium gallium (di)selenide, copper indium gallium (di)selenide, hexafluoroethane, lead, and polyvinyl fluoride. Silicon tetrachloride, a byproduct of producing crystalline silicon, is also highly toxic.


Not even India -  a country that will happily cut up a 30 year old oil tanker by hand, not even they will touch solar panels with a barge pole. It takes ten times as much water to recycle a solar panel than it did to assemble it, and per Kilowatt/hour, solar panels make more toxic waste than  used nuclear fuel rods. Cara Libby, Senior Technical Leader of Solar Energy at the Electric Power Research Institute (EPRI), admits that there is no lucrative amount of salvageable parts on any type of solar panel.  So theres no commercial reason to touch them.

_
Stanford Magazine_ also points out that solar energy has a higher carbon footprint than wind and nuclear energy. Ray Weiss, a professor of Geochemistry at the Scripps Institution of Oceanography, explains that a number of solar panels release nitrogen trifluoride (NF3), a chemical compound 17,000 times worse for the atmosphere than carbon dioxide. 


Solar isnt green, ist just another toxic time bomb.  In many countries in the world, they are classed as Hazardous non-Radioactive waste.

----------

12icer (11-02-2021),Brat (11-02-2021),Fall River (11-02-2021),Sunsettommy (11-02-2021),Swedgin (11-02-2021),Well Bonded (11-02-2021)

----------


## 12icer

The solar "farms' I have seen being built NOW are not being built in a space efficient way. The tower approach is much more efficient and could produce 4 times as much in the same area as the ones I am watching be built on hundreds of acres of prime productive farm land. 
Using direct and focus it Should be possible to produce enough power to eclipse a 100 acre solar farm with a small installation. As with ANY solar installation it requires a long solar day and works best in areas with the longest active solar times.

----------

Swedgin (11-02-2021)

----------


## Oceander

A solar array farm this large would, in fact, be the first clearly provable instance of human activity causing global warming.  The amount of waste heat something like that would throw off would upend the entire North American weather pattern, and substantially increase the mean global temperature.

In other words, far from being a solution to anthropogenic climate change, it would be anthropogenic climate change.

----------

12icer (11-02-2021),Brat (11-02-2021),East of the Beast (11-02-2021),Swedgin (11-02-2021)

----------


## UKSmartypants

And just a little note on Silicon Tetrachloride, because its such a nasty substance it deserves its own post.

It forms as a green fuming liquid with no surface tension, which means it can flow almost anywhere, it doesnt bunch up like water does because of the zero surface tension.

It attacks most metals in air, causing alkaline metals like sodium, and lithium to deflagrate and gives off the metal silicate and chlorine gas. It decomposes rapidly on contact with water, in high concentrations it deflagrates. So when you breathe it in, its a real bitch. On breathing it in, when it touches your lung tissue and mucous membranes it instantly decomposes into Hydrogen Chloride, which then reacts with more water to make Hydrochloric acid, and gaseous Chlorine. Both these are highly corrosive and so they set about dissolving your lung tissue and eating through your throat lining.  The mouth, lips, esophagus, and stomach could also be severely burned if you swallow; nausea and diarrhea can result; and, in severe cases, collapse, unconsciousness, and death can occur. 

So hands up anyone that wants to recycle solar panels ?

----------

Sunsettommy (11-02-2021),Swedgin (11-02-2021),Wildrose (11-10-2021)

----------


## Fall River

".....transmitting that electricity around the world would be a bit of a challenge."

A bit of a challenge?  Who in their right mind would even make such a statement.

----------

MisterVeritis (11-06-2021),Swedgin (11-02-2021)

----------


## UKSmartypants

> ".....transmitting that electricity around the world would be a bit of a challenge."
> 
> A bit of a challenge?  Who in their right mind would even make such a statement.


well apart from the fallacious green logic of the OP, power is transmitted all over from country to country.  The usual mode is undersea cable, known as Interconnectors. The Uk has multiple ones, in fact the one from france just blew up in a fire.  





China has switched  to DC for long distance, theres a connector over the Yangtze River, 1.2 million volts at 120 amps. Touching that would tend to fry you to a crisp sharpish.


*The secret world of power generation, and the arrival of Earth-spanning super grids*The secret world of power generation, and the arrival of Earth-spanning super grids - Page 2 of 2 - ExtremeTech

----------


## Well Bonded

I know a guy who has 1800, 315 watt solar panels he cannot sell for $35 each, which is $20 more than he paid for the lot.

He thought he could make a decent buck turning them over and is now stuck with them, he tried to recycle some of the shabby ones, but the best price he could get was to pay $110 each to have them legally recycled and since he bought so many, he is sort of stuck with a cradle to grave problem, so he can't just toss them in a dump somewhere. 

I took a few of them off his hands to use at my comm sites around the state, but even at his price I cannot make a case for solar here, it creates too many problems for the few dollars it may save me.

----------

12icer (11-02-2021)

----------


## Well Bonded

By the way, isn't it neat how some posters start out a thread with an insult like this.

"If you are one of those human caused global warming deniers, this thread won't interest you.  But for those of you with some intelligence, you may find it interesting."

In other words, unless you totally agree with me your an idiot which means I'm the smartest one around, so get over it you neanderthal.   

Only a a-hole who cannot defend their own thoughts, post something that stupid.

----------

Sunsettommy (11-02-2021),Swedgin (11-11-2021)

----------


## UKSmartypants

> By the way, isn't it neat how some posters start out a thread with an insult like this.
> 
> "If you are one of those human caused global warming deniers, this thread won't interest you.  But for those of you with some intelligence, you may find it interesting."
> 
> In other words, unless you totally agree with me your an idiot which means I'm the smartest one around, so get over it you neanderthal.   
> 
> Only a a-hole who cannot defend their own thoughts, post something that stupid.



I returned the reposte in my post.....

----------


## Well Bonded

> The solar "farms' I have seen being built NOW are not being built in a space efficient way. The tower approach is much more efficient and could produce 4 times as much in the same area as the ones I am watching be built on hundreds of acres of prime productive farm land. 
> Using direct and focus it Should be possible to produce enough power to eclipse a 100 acre solar farm with a small installation. As with ANY solar installation it requires a long solar day and works best in areas with the longest active solar times.


The cost of the precision aiming mechanics to make such a system work would eliminate any value it could gain and it would still require acres of property and hundreds of employees to maintain. 

Another solar wet dream.

----------


## Sunsettommy

> If you are one of those human caused global warming deniers, this thread won't interest you.  But for those of you with some intelligence, you may find it interesting.  Just think of it.  The U.S. could become the new Saudi Arabia of electricity.  Though transmitting that electricity around the world could be a bit of a challenge.  I will show you two pictures.  The first shows the total area of the U.S. covered in solar panels it would take to power the WORLD!  Keep in mind that those solar panels wouldn't have to be all in one spot or where they are shown to be.  We have more than enough useless desert area in the U.S. to do it.
> 
>   The second picture I will show you shows the entire area compared to the U.S. it would take to power just the U.S.  It shows a square area that is about 140 miles per side.  Though Elon Musk thinks it could be done with a total area that is only 100 miles per side.  And Elon Musk's engineering skills have made him a multi billionaire.  So don't be so quick to discount what he says.  What is the major problem with this approach?  The energy to be gotten from the sun is FREE!!!  And there isn't a lot of money to be made from free.
> 
> Attachment 63281 
> 
> 
> Attachment 63282


Ha ha ha, first you start with an insult then make hilarious claims that has been addressed many times already.


Here is the latest post showing why Solar and Windpower is still a Low Mass Niche power supplier even if it covers the planet by area.


Watts Up With That?


*Texas State Geologist Scott Tinker: The Bad Assumptions Underpinning COP26 and the Impending Energy Train Wreck*11/1/2021

Excerpt:


Guest Reality can be a harsh teacher by David Middleton


The world is already in an energy crisis of sorts due to the tremendous misallocation of capital from functioning energy infrastructure to mythical energy infrastructure. This has largely been driven by the false perception that a massive reduction in greenhouse gas emissions is the only way to save our planet (cue George Carlin). As if this wasnt bad enough, the COP 26 path to net-zero emissions is paved with nothing other than bad assumptions.


LINK

----------

Brat (11-02-2021)

----------


## brainflame

> Liberals crack me up lol


  With human caused global warming speeding up, you won't be laughing long.

----------


## brainflame

> China would be enriched as they supply most of the solar panels we use.


  We are perfectly capable of making them here.  Along with anything else the Chinese make.  We just need to move away from our slavery based economic system.

----------


## brainflame

> We could stop ALL traffic ..............with electric cars.


  Not sure what you're trying to say.  But all cars should have been made to be electric 30 years ago.

----------


## brainflame

> Do it.  Get the illegals to clean the dirty panels every day.


  The only thing we need to get illegals to do is go back to where they came from.  In pieces if necessary.

----------


## brainflame

> Gee, why hasn't anyone thought of that, or implemented it?


  Reread the last two sentences of my thread.

----------


## brainflame

> A exact reprint of what he's been pushing at other sites...  it's not selling where I've seen it posted.


  Well I'm pushing it here now.  So tell me.  Why aren't you buying.

----------


## OldSchool

> Reread the last two sentences of my thread.


Say "please" and I might read too.  :Big Grin:

----------


## Jen

> Not sure what you're trying to say.  But all cars should have been made to be electric 30 years ago.


 :Smiley ROFLMAO:   You're not sure what I am trying to say.


Okay.  So.   It takes a few minutes to fill up a car with gasoline.  How long does it take to recharge a car?  8 hours?  Something like that?  If all cars were electric, they would spend more time recharging than they would spend out driving.  No long trips would be possible.  Long commutes would be prohibitive.  

But, of course, I understand that the electric cars are just for the peons.  The rich and famous have their private jets and gas guzzling SUV's now even though they have the ability to have moved away from gasoline by now if they really felt it was important.........

----------

Brat (11-02-2021)

----------


## brainflame

> We can't even make enough to power a nationwide fleet of electric cars...
> 
> https://thepoliticsforums.com/thread...DOUBLE-for-EVs
> 
> There are so many EE and Material Science problems with what you suggest that it is hilarious.  
> 
> My favorite thing though, is that those deserts are protected habitat and the envoro watermelons would never allow 1/100th of that level of a solar farm.
> 
> Attachment 63288



  Solar panels exist.  They're being used right at this moment.  So much for your "Material Science problems."  And the second picture I showed could power the entire U.S.  Day and night.  And charge all the electric cars in the U.S. even if they were all electric.  Lastly, deserts are worthless.  Take one square mile of desert.  There is far more life in one square foot of forest.  Any sane environmentalist would choose sacrificing some desert in exchange for saving the planet.  Also, solar panels in desert areas might just provide more habitat for life.  So in that regard, we wouldn't be sacrificing anything.

----------


## Brat

> With human caused global warming speeding up, you won't be laughing long.


There is no such a thing.

----------

Thom Paine (11-03-2021)

----------


## brainflame

> Aww, let's just pay for everything, shall we?  The big bad USA can afford it, right?


  Compare the cost of solar panels to the cost of destroying the planet.

----------


## OldSchool

Seriously speaking - there was a push for solar panel 'sales' to the average home homeowner in 1986. Yes - I know..... promoters made it sound great. And so.... I dressed my best and pitched their sales theme.... I was more interested the installation and actual implications of solar energy as a suitable power sourse, but they said we had to sell them first. That entire sales pitch was an ultimate failure. It was a scam. I don't think times have changed.

----------

Brat (11-02-2021),Swedgin (11-05-2021),Thom Paine (11-03-2021)

----------


## Brat

> Compare the cost of solar panels to the cost of destroying the planet.


What are you, 14?

----------

Wilson2 (11-02-2021)

----------


## OldSchool

> Not sure what you're trying to say.  But all cars should have been made to be electric 30 years ago.


Because the fuel sources that power electric energy plants are so green..... they won't contribute to the man-made climate change farce. right  :Geez:

----------

Brat (11-02-2021)

----------


## memesofine

wow, name calling and all. GloBULL WARMING cult members aren't a very nice bunch, are they? but the brainwashed never are.

goreendnear.png



green.png

----------

Brat (11-02-2021),Swedgin (11-05-2021)

----------


## Brat

Watch this space.   :Thumbsup20:

----------


## brainflame

> Free?   Nothing is free.
> 
> You just have solar panels.   What about at night and cloudy weather and hurricanes?  You need batteries, and a lot of them.   
> 
> And solar panels generate DC voltage of 10-30 amps.  TO distribute that energy you need to convert it to 13,800 V AC to tie into the existing power grid (you arent going to replace the entire national power grid).   That means inverter plants, and a lot of them, probably 1,000s of these plants.   And power lines to carry that energy to tie into the grid.
> 
> And since you didnt give the source for your pictures, I'm guessing its just the area for solar panels only.   Not accounting for the fact panels need to tilt and have line of sight to the sun all day.  That doubles your area.
> 
> Plus maintenance access, cable routing, warehouses, roads, office buildings.
> ...


  The electricity you get from solar panels is FREEEEEEEEE!!!!!!!!!!!!  Deal with it.  Also, in 1 to 4 years the electricity you get from a solar panel is what it would take to create the solar panel to begin with.  That is everything from mining the ore it is made of to the finished product.  The solar panels themselves last from around 20 to 30 years.

  Next, nighttime means nothing.  You just save the extra electricity for nighttime use.  Yes, batteries are one way.  You could also use capacitors.  Or even a perfectly balanced spinning disk.  On a larger scale, using the excess energy to heat sodium could also be done.  Another point is that solar panels will work even on cloudy days.  Just not as well.  And it isn't always cloudy everywhere.  You would still need a power grid to transmit electricity from areas where the sun is shining to areas where it isn't.  Neither do they need to be pointed exactly toward the sun.  Just close is close enough.  

  Next, it doesn't take much to put the electricity from a solar panel into the grid.  Sure, you would have to convert it to AC.  After that, all you would need is a one way electric valve.  If you used such a thing and hooked up a little 9 volt battery to the power grid, that would be 9 less volts any electric power plant would have to put out.  So on and so on.  Your arguments against just fall flat.  And I will give you a source for you if that's what you want.  Just say if you need more.


www.freeingenergy.com  how-much-solar-would-itHow much solar would it take to power the U.S.?

----------


## brainflame

> "Deniers" - the only thing I deny is the intelligence of a liberal - for the simple reason that, to-date, no evidence has been found that such a mythical quality actually exists.  One would be more likely to find rainbow-colored unicorns before one found a liberal/prog with more than the minimum number of brain-cells necessary to maintain basic autonomous bodily functions.


  Where is the dislike button.

----------


## memesofine

brainflameout is fitting. that's all.  :Sofa:   :Smiley ROFLMAO:

----------

Brat (11-02-2021)

----------


## brainflame

> 100% false. 
> 
> 
> Again 100% false, that much solar energy might power a small town for a few hours a day, but unless you forgot the sun doesn't shine at night and solar panels need solar energy to produce electrical energy so at night they do not produce any energy.
> 
> You need to get a clue before falling for dumb crap like this again.


  It's 100% true!  Deal with it.

www.freeingenergy.com  how-much-solar-would-itHow much solar would it take to power the U.S.?

----------


## 12icer

> Well Bonded
> 
> "The cost of the precision aiming mechanics to make such a system work would eliminate any value it could gain and it would still require acres of property and hundreds of employees to maintain.
> 
> Another solar wet dream."



Actually not it is not theory it is fact. There are towers of panels built with multiple layers that produce much more per acre than single trackers like the ones that are being put up in northwest Alabama close to where they just demolished a longstanding coal fired steam plant. The GC is Aerotek. TVA is looking at Both sides of the river in the area.
This was going on in 2016.
Alabama to build its largest solar farm, with enough power for 15K homes | Computerworld

For me solar is way to environmentally toxic to even produce an acre of farm. The Climate change lie propagandist have no Idea how their poorly planned technology will affect the environment over ten years. They will be wondering where they can get a single sip of potable water, and where they can find land to grow their food.

----------


## brainflame

> So, if energy from the sun is free....Does that mean there'll be no more electric bills?


  The actor Ed Begley Jr has been using them for decades.  He recently built himself a fairly large house with a swimming pool.  He also drives an electric car.  Which he probably charges at his house.  His monthly utility bills are around $10.00.

----------


## Well Bonded

[QUOTE=12icer;2897673]Actually not it is not theory it is fact. There are towers of panels built with multiple layers that produce much more per acre than single trackers like the ones that are being put up in northwest Alabama close to where they just demolished a longstanding coal fired steam plant. The GC is Aerotek. TVA is looking at Both sides of the river in the area.
This was going on in 2016.

And that is a standard PV farm, not what you where talking about.

Nice try at moving the goal posts, but that was a fail.

----------


## memesofine

what gets me, is only 20 years ago they were warning us of GLOBULL WARMING. well when that wasn't happening for them, they changed it to: *climate change.* now how so convenient because the freaking climate changes all the time. You can see who the snakes are who is pushing this BS is just that. snakes in the grass, who is out to take away our lives we have now in the 21 century to make sure we all go back to living in caves with them in control of every aspect of out lives. my gawd wake the hell up.

----------

Brat (11-02-2021)

----------


## brainflame

> I am 1000% FOR the implementation of Solar Power.
> 
> EVERYWHERE.
> 
> But, I also understand, not only the limitations, but, the unforeseen issues:
> 
> #1.  Maintenance is not "free."  
> #2.  Even IF we could produce this massive amount of energy, we can not currently "send" it far.  We would need better battery technology and/or massive superconducting lines to "ship" the electrical power.
> #3.  Unintended consequences:  What would this do to the environment.  Sure, you and I will say "It's just desert."  Naturalists WILL have a differing opinion, I assure you.  What about effects on local weather?  Bird populations, etc.?
> ...



  Glad to see somebody around here has their shit together.  But as for your unforeseen issues, there isn't much maintenance involved.  Possibly using a broom with a long handle to pull snow down off the panels is about it.  A severe hailstorm might damage them.  But that would be rare.  Next, what you bring up depends on whether or not you have solar panels on your roof or a large solar farm out in desert areas.  So for a solution, you would have to be more specific with the problem.

  Next, right at this moment there are large solar farms operating.  No unforeseen consequences have arisen.  Now if you are talking about those large solar arrays that use mirrors to focus light to the top of a tower, that is a different matter.  I was watching some show where they showed an area of sky near one of those.  Every now and then you would see a puff of smoke appear.  That was from birds getting instantly fried from flying into the concentrated light beam.
  As for using desert areas, what could a naturalist say.  As I was telling someone else, there is more life in one square foot of forest than there is in one square mile of basically useless desert.  And as for the life in those desert areas, it is more than likely that the solar panels will provide a boon to the life there rather than a hindrance.  By providing habitat.  Also, any environmentalist that has any sense would rather "sacrifice" some desert rather than see the world destroyed.

----------


## Well Bonded

> The electricity you get from solar panels is FREEEEEEEEE!!!!!!!!!!!!


Total bullshit, between the cost of building the panels and once worn out they are much more expensive than any form of generation we have now. 

A single solar panel cradle to grave, creates more pollution that a gas powered turbine cranking out 100X more power in the same lifespan.

You reallyhave no clue of what you are talking about.

----------

Brat (11-02-2021),Sunsettommy (11-02-2021)

----------


## memesofine

lol, the world has been around for how many freaking years already. and all of a SUDDEN we are going to DESTROY IT. HOW SO FREAKING FREAKISH TO THINK man has the power to change the climate of our world. that is a psychopath for sure. I will never follow someone who spews that shit.

----------

Brat (11-02-2021)

----------


## Well Bonded

> We are perfectly capable of making them here.  Along with anything else the Chinese make.  We just need to move away from our slavery based economic system.


Totally impossible because of the pollution controls we have in the U.S., solar panel production is a very polluting industry, which is why it is in China where life doesn't count.

----------

Brat (11-02-2021),memesofine (11-02-2021)

----------


## brainflame

> Ah, see the problem with this post is you're one of the gullibles who think solar panels are 'green'.
> 
> Let me tell you about solar panels. They are made with some of the nastiest, most toxic metals on the planet, including cadmium.  All around the world, discarded panels are piling up, because no one wants the thoroughly nasty, dangerous , toxic job of recycling them.
> 
> According to cancer biologist David H. Nguyen, PhD, toxic chemicals in solar panels include cadmium telluride, copper indium selenide, cadmium gallium (di)selenide, copper indium gallium (di)selenide, hexafluoroethane, lead, and polyvinyl fluoride. Silicon tetrachloride, a byproduct of producing crystalline silicon, is also highly toxic.
> 
> 
> Not even India -  a country that will happily cut up a 30 year old oil tanker by hand, not even they will touch solar panels with a barge pole. It takes ten times as much water to recycle a solar panel than it did to assemble it, and per Kilowatt/hour, solar panels make more toxic waste than  used nuclear fuel rods. Cara Libby, Senior Technical Leader of Solar Energy at the Electric Power Research Institute (EPRI), admits that there is no lucrative amount of salvageable parts on any type of solar panel.  So theres no commercial reason to touch them.
> 
> ...


  No matter how bad you say solar panels are, obviously not using them is FAR worse.  As for some of the things you said, let's give reality a try.

www.ablison.com  are-solar-panels-toxic-or-badAre Solar Panels Toxic or Bad for the Environment? 2021 ...

----------


## memesofine

> No matter how bad you say solar panels are, obviously not using them is FAR worse.  As for some of the things you said, let's give reality a try.
> 
> www.ablison.com › are-solar-panels-toxic-or-badAre Solar Panels Toxic or Bad for the Environment? 2021 ...


Obviously that is YOUR OPINION, not a majority of the people in the country or world. so stop beating a dead horse. we aren't buying it here. Fortunately, we aren't all stupid and I didn't have to be some paid and bought off weather nobody, like Prince Charles spewing to form my own opinion.

----------

Brat (11-02-2021),Swedgin (11-11-2021)

----------


## OldSchool

It's true:




> Total bullshit, between the cost of building the panels and once worn out they are much more expensive than any form of generation we have now. 
> 
> A single solar panel cradle to grave, creates more pollution that a gas powered turbine cranking out 100X more power in the same lifespan.
> 
> You reallyhave no clue of what you are talking about.


Energy expenditures/costs involved with the entire manufacturing & installation process... are not conducive to promises of free energy without using environmental resources.

----------

Brat (11-02-2021)

----------


## brainflame

> The solar "farms' I have seen being built NOW are not being built in a space efficient way. The tower approach is much more efficient and could produce 4 times as much in the same area as the ones I am watching be built on hundreds of acres of prime productive farm land. 
> Using direct and focus it Should be possible to produce enough power to eclipse a 100 acre solar farm with a small installation. As with ANY solar installation it requires a long solar day and works best in areas with the longest active solar times.


  Solar panels are efficient enough.  As for the tower approach, I take you you are talking about using mirrors to focus sunlight at the top of a tower.  I was watching a program about one of those once.  They showed an area of sky near one where every now and then you would see a puff of smoke appear.  Those puffs of smoke were from birds flying into the focused sunlight and getting instantly fried.  Not very environmentally friendly.

----------


## Well Bonded

> No matter how bad you say solar panels are, obviously not using them is FAR worse.  As for some of the things you said, let's give reality a try.


More BS, please point to a environmentaly safe way to recycle used panels.

You cannot because they are so full of toxins no one can figure how to do it.

----------

Brat (11-02-2021),memesofine (11-02-2021),Sunsettommy (11-03-2021)

----------


## memesofine

> More BS, please point to a environmentaly safe way to recycle used panels.
> 
> You cannot because they are so full of toxins no one can figure how to do it.


You are beating your head against a brick wall. You will never change the opinion of a globull warming cultist. sickening how they don't care about the rest of humanity and their lives

----------

Brat (11-02-2021),Sunsettommy (11-02-2021),Well Bonded (11-02-2021)

----------


## Well Bonded

> It's true:
> 
> 
> 
> Energy expenditures/costs involved with the entire manufacturing & installation process... are not conducive to promises of free energy without using environmental resources.


Which solar is one of the worst when it comes to using environmental resources.

----------

Brat (11-02-2021)

----------


## Well Bonded

> You are beating your head against a brick wall. You will never change the opinion of a globull warming cultist. sickening how they don't care about the rest of humanity and their lives


Which leaves one to wonder who pays them to post their BS here?

----------

Brat (11-02-2021),Wilson2 (11-02-2021)

----------


## OldSchool

I asked 'the genie in a bottle' for free energy. He said "sure, no problem"..... solar energy was the answer. All I had to pay in return was an arm and a leg.  :Dontknow:

----------

Brat (11-02-2021),Well Bonded (11-02-2021)

----------


## brainflame

> A solar array farm this large would, in fact, be the first clearly provable instance of human activity causing global warming.  The amount of waste heat something like that would throw off would upend the entire North American weather pattern, and substantially increase the mean global temperature.
> 
> In other words, far from being a solution to anthropogenic climate change, it would be anthropogenic climate change.


  I have heard people say that a large solar array would increase heating and others say that it would create less heat.  It doesn't really matter.  If the sum falls on your roof, it is going to heat it up.  If a solar panel is there instead, it isn't going to make any difference.  If the sun falls on the ground out in the desert, it is going to heat it up.  If there is a solar panel in the way, it isn't going to matter.  If it in fact turns out that they do cause heating, just make the plastic sheeting covering them more of a milky white color.  It will reflect some of the light away without hurting the amount of light that reached the actual panel much.  After all, you could probably take about 10 layers of wax paper and look at the sun through it.  But it would probably still be way too bright to look at.

----------


## Well Bonded

> I asked 'the genie in a bottle' for free energy. He said "sure, no problem"..... solar energy was the answer. All I had to pay in return was an arm and a leg.


And to have your children live with some serious toxins once those panels where retired. 

But we will be gone by then, so why worry, it's another generations problem, sort of like the government spending them into financial slavery.

----------

memesofine (11-02-2021)

----------


## OldSchool

> Which solar is one of the worst when it comes to using environmental resources.


Going out on a limb, without researching.... Wind energy.

Manufacturing costs (in teams of fuel alone for installations) have gotta be pretty high.

Oh - question was "solar", opps

----------


## brainflame

> And just a little note on Silicon Tetrachloride, because its such a nasty substance it deserves its own post.
> 
> It forms as a green fuming liquid with no surface tension, which means it can flow almost anywhere, it doesnt bunch up like water does because of the zero surface tension.
> 
> It attacks most metals in air, causing alkaline metals like sodium, and lithium to deflagrate and gives off the metal silicate and chlorine gas. It decomposes rapidly on contact with water, in high concentrations it deflagrates. So when you breathe it in, its a real bitch. On breathing it in, when it touches your lung tissue and mucous membranes it instantly decomposes into Hydrogen Chloride, which then reacts with more water to make Hydrochloric acid, and gaseous Chlorine. Both these are highly corrosive and so they set about dissolving your lung tissue and eating through your throat lining.  The mouth, lips, esophagus, and stomach could also be severely burned if you swallow; nausea and diarrhea can result; and, in severe cases, collapse, unconsciousness, and death can occur. 
> 
> So hands up anyone that wants to recycle solar panels ?


 

  Read this.

www.ablison.com  are-solar-panels-toxic-or-badAre Solar Panels Toxic or Bad for the Environment? 2021 ...

----------


## Brat

I reiterate my opinion that this is a 14 year old.  And now iggied.

Also, his Daddy probably works for Ablison.

----------


## memesofine

> And to have your children live with some serious toxins once those panels where retired. 
> 
> But we will be gone by then, so why worry, it's another generations problem, sort of like the government spending them into financial slavery.


well don't ya know. these elected people who wears their pants the same as we little folks do, they know what is the best for us. I'm sorry I just need a freaking laugh. how some people can swallow the crap these in our government and those who are not elected to anything (bill gates, fauksi the liar, our own CDC, etc to tell us what is best for us is a joke. I just wish more people would wake up to them AND SOON. they are out to destroy our economy, our freedoms and our way of living all in name of Climate change, aka Globbull warming. just look at the tyrants in governments today.

----------

Brat (11-02-2021)

----------


## brainflame

> ".....transmitting that electricity around the world would be a bit of a challenge."
> 
> A bit of a challenge?  Who in their right mind would even make such a statement.


  Nikola Tesla.  That's who.  He thought electricity could be transmitted wirelessly.  But when he was building a prototype transmitter, J P Morgan pulled the financing.  After all.  How do you charge somebody for something they receive for free.  Another way to transmit power could be done with masers bounced off satellites.  It would have to be done in a rather diffuse manner as to not harm wildlife or heat the atmosphere.

----------


## Well Bonded

> If it in fact turns out that they do cause heating, just make the plastic sheeting covering them more of a milky white color.


This is an excellent demonstration of how ignorant you are, solar panels are covered in a thin sheet of tempered glass.

However by blocking the ground below them, they really screw up the natural warming of the earth that produces convection raising moisture and heat into the atmosphere, solar panels only produce dry heat, without moisture and that will have serious effects on weather patterns, way more that the environmentalists claim doing nothing will.   

They are a serious problem waiting to happen if deployed in a massive scale.

----------

memesofine (11-02-2021)

----------


## brainflame

> well apart from the fallacious green logic of the OP, power is transmitted all over from country to country.  The usual mode is undersea cable, known as Interconnectors. The Uk has multiple ones, in fact the one from france just blew up in a fire.  
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> China has switched  to DC for long distance, theres a connector over the Yangtze River, 1.2 million volts at 120 amps. Touching that would tend to fry you to a crisp sharpish.
> 
> 
> ...



  The Chinese must be pretty stupid.  The whole reason that AC won out over DC in the first place was because AC was easier to transmit.

----------


## memesofine

I can't stand people who act they know all and is nothing but a brianwashed sheep.

----------

Brat (11-02-2021)

----------


## OldSchool

> Nikola Tesla.  That's who.  He thought electricity could be transmitted wirelessly.  But when he was building a prototype transmitter, J P Morgan pulled the financing.  After all.  How do you charge somebody for something they receive for free.  Another way to transmit power could be done with masers bounced off satellites.  It would have to be done in a rather diffuse manner as to not harm wildlife or heat the atmosphere.


I see... Nikola Tesla was the father of wireless phone charging technology.

----------

Brat (11-02-2021)

----------


## brainflame

> I know a guy who has 1800, 315 watt solar panels he cannot sell for $35 each, which is $20 more than he paid for the lot.
> 
> He thought he could make a decent buck turning them over and is now stuck with them, he tried to recycle some of the shabby ones, but the best price he could get was to pay $110 each to have them legally recycled and since he bought so many, he is sort of stuck with a cradle to grave problem, so he can't just toss them in a dump somewhere. 
> 
> I took a few of them off his hands to use at my comm sites around the state, but even at his price I cannot make a case for solar here, it creates too many problems for the few dollars it may save me.


  Some states will actually pay you to install solar panels.  So they can't be that big of a problem.

----------


## OldSchool

> Some states will actually pay you to install solar panels.  So they can't be that big of a problem.


Where does the State's money come from?

----------

Brat (11-02-2021)

----------


## brainflame

> By the way, isn't it neat how some posters start out a thread with an insult like this.
> 
> "If you are one of those human caused global warming deniers, this thread won't interest you.  But for those of you with some intelligence, you may find it interesting."
> 
> In other words, unless you totally agree with me your an idiot which means I'm the smartest one around, so get over it you neanderthal.   
> 
> Only a a-hole who cannot defend their own thoughts, post something that stupid.


  Human caused global warming is a reality.  Those who deny it are just plain stupid.  Criminally stupid.  And I didn't doubt that were some of them around here.  So I fired the first shot.

----------


## Wilson2

> 2897625[/URL]]What are you, 14?


LOL I thought the same thing.   Must be a kid and not that smart even at 14.

----------

Brat (11-02-2021)

----------


## OldSchool

> Human caused global warming is a reality.  Those who deny it are just plain stupid.  Criminally stupid.  And I didn't doubt that were some of them around here.  So I fired the first shot.


Politically motivated goals and the suckers who buy into the whole free energy thing are the real problem.

----------

Brat (11-02-2021)

----------


## brainflame

> Ha ha ha, first you start with an insult then make hilarious claims that has been addressed many times already.
> 
> 
> Here is the latest post showing why Solar and Windpower is still a Low Mass Niche power supplier even if it covers the planet by area.
> 
> 
> Watts Up With That?
> 
> 
> ...


e


  Yeah.  And I have seen human cause global warming "debunked" endlessly.  At many forums.  The whole lot are idiots, at best.  Those who are against solar panels are just more of the same.

----------


## brainflame

> You're not sure what I am trying to say.
> 
> 
> Okay.  So.   It takes a few minutes to fill up a car with gasoline.  How long does it take to recharge a car?  8 hours?  Something like that?  If all cars were electric, they would spend more time recharging than they would spend out driving.  No long trips would be possible.  Long commutes would be prohibitive.  
> 
> But, of course, I understand that the electric cars are just for the peons.  The rich and famous have their private jets and gas guzzling SUV's now even though they have the ability to have moved away from gasoline by now if they really felt it was important.........


  There is a documentary you need to watch.  It's called, "Who killed the electric car."  After you've done that, get back to me.

----------


## brainflame

> There is no such a thing.


  You are wrong.

----------


## OldSchool

I like pumpkin pie, with lightly frosted whipped cream.

----------

Brat (11-02-2021)

----------


## brainflame

> Seriously speaking - there was a push for solar panel 'sales' to the average home homeowner in 1986. Yes - I know..... promoters made it sound great. And so.... I dressed my best and pitched their sales theme.... I was more interested the installation and actual implications of solar energy as a suitable power sourse, but they said we had to sell them first. That entire sales pitch was an ultimate failure. It was a scam. I don't think times have changed.


  Check into the government funded programs.  Not some fly by night company looking to make a buck.

----------


## OldSchool

> Check into the *government funded programs*.  Not some fly by night company looking to make a buck.


Sure, it's not like they're spending our bucks. Get real!

----------

Brat (11-02-2021)

----------


## brainflame

> Because the fuel sources that power electric energy plants are so green..... they won't contribute to the man-made climate change farce. right


  Coal fired power generating plants are far from green.  But with the cost of fuel being a factor you can be sure that they burn that fuel as efficiently as possible.  As for gas powered cars, only 12 to 30% of the energy in gasoline is turned into useful energy.  For an electric motor, 85 to 90% of the electricity put into it is turned into useful energy.

----------


## Brat

Junior, just go back to Mommy's basement.

----------


## OldSchool

> Coal fired power generating plants are far from green.  But with the cost of fuel being a factor you can be sure that they burn that fuel as efficiently as possible.  As for gas powered cars, only 12 to 30% of the energy in gasoline is turned into useful energy.  *For an electric motor, 85 to 90% of the electricity put into it is turned into useful energy.*


At what cost to produce the electricity?

----------

Brat (11-03-2021)

----------


## OldSchool

> e
> 
> 
>   Yeah.  And *I have seen human cause global warming "debunked" endlessly*.  At many forums.  The whole lot are idiots, at best.  Those who are against solar panels are just more of the same.


It's true that some folks don't realize that man-made global warming/climate change created the Rocky Mountains and Death Valley.

----------

Brat (11-03-2021)

----------


## Call_me_Ishmael

> Human caused global warming is a reality.  Those who deny it are just plain stupid.  Criminally stupid.  And I didn't doubt that were some of them around here.  So I fired the first shot.


Al Gore ..brain on fire.... err... brain burned out.

----------

Brat (11-03-2021)

----------


## Sunsettommy

> e
> 
> 
>   Yeah.  And I have seen human cause global warming "debunked" endlessly.  At many forums.  The whole lot are idiots, at best.  Those who are against solar panels are just more of the same.



First of all you started with a stupid insult of people for the most part who don't deny warming trend since the 1970's. Your insults are juvenile indication that you have little depth in backing your beliefs.

Secondly you make sweeping statements that would impress politicians but not people with science background and my three decades of debate with warmist/alarmists who are known to be profoundly ignorant of the topic, so far you haven't shown any indication you are a literate person.

Actually in every forum I debate on climate stuff, it is the warmist/alarmists who learn they get repeatedly exposed as cut and paste parrots and show profound ignorance of the topic in which some of them run away. It is why I go search for a new forum to debate a new crop of warmist/alarmists to once again expose their inability to make a decent argument.


The Human contribution is negligible because the amount of CO2 emitted is very small yearly while nature emits the other 95%, since it is standard knowledge that CO2 by itself doesn't generate much warming and very little warm forcing left at the 414 ppm level of today of which even most warmist/alarmist scientist have long agreed on. 




LINK

===

See how little warm forcing it has after 270 years?

"Next, here is the radical change in downwelling radiation at the surface from the increase in CO2 that is supposed to be driving the “CLIMATE EMERGENCY!!!” What I’ve shown is the change that in theory would have occurred from the changes in CO2 from 1750 to the present, and the change that in theory will occur in the future when CO2 increases from its present value to twice the 1750 value. This is using the generally accepted (although not rigorously derived) claim that the downwelling radiation change from a doubling of CO2 is 3.5 watts per square metre (W/m2). The purpose is to show how small these CO2-caused changes are compared to total downwelling radiation.





=====

Solar Panels materials are very toxic and currently not recyclable at all, doesn't provide power at night (Isn't 24/7 power supplier) and even during the day under cloudy skies snow covered times in winter which is notorious for cloudy days and degrades over time.


My family has a large Solar array at the 28 acre ranch where it shows a continuously running power generation readout window that changes radically downward 25-50% when a cloud blocks the sun for a short while and very little power generation in the cloudy winter the region gets. 


I suggest you cool your insults since it is marking you as another low information warmist.

----------

Brat (11-03-2021)

----------


## Physics Hunter

> Solar panels exist.  They're being used right at this moment.  So much for your "Material Science problems."  And the second picture I showed could power the entire U.S.  Day and night.  And charge all the electric cars in the U.S. even if they were all electric.  Lastly, deserts are worthless.  Take one square mile of desert.  There is far more life in one square foot of forest.  Any *sane environmentalist* would choose sacrificing some desert in exchange for saving the planet.  Also, solar panels in desert areas might just provide more habitat for life.  So in that regard, we wouldn't be sacrificing anything.


 :Smiley ROFLMAO: 

You don't know shit from apple butter!

I dare you to find a sane enviro-watermellon!   :Smiley ROFLMAO: 

Give up on tech and maybe try comedy, you are killing on the latter.

----------

Brat (11-03-2021)

----------


## UKSmartypants

> No matter how bad you say solar panels are, obviously not using them is FAR worse.  As for some of the things you said, let's give reality a try.
> 
> www.ablison.com › are-solar-panels-toxic-or-badAre Solar Panels Toxic or Bad for the Environment? 2021 ...



well no, since they create more pollution than a nuclear power plant,  let go for the less polluting alternative, that provides power no matter if the sun shines or not - Nuclear power.  And Fusion power will be here within 10-25 years anyway.

SOlar panels are an environmetal catastrophe waiting to happen. Chine has been chucking old solar panels into landfill ,and they poiss out all the toxic material into the surrounding countryside and water table. 

Wind and solar are intermittent low energy density sources, they are a waste of effort, plus they are peddled on the back of being 'green', which they are NOT!.


Also your article has numerous falsehoods and inaccuracies, the worst of which is  

_"It would help if you remembered that a solar panel would produce electricity every day for 30 to 35 years_"

The operational life of  a solar panel is 10-20 years.  That makes the economic arguments in the article nonsense.

----------

Brat (11-03-2021),Physics Hunter (11-03-2021),Sunsettommy (11-03-2021),Swedgin (11-11-2021)

----------


## Physics Hunter

> well no, since they create more pollution than a nuclear power plant,  let go for the less polluting alternative, that provides power no matter if the sun shines or not - Nuclear power.  And Fusion power will be here within 10-25 years anyway.
> 
> SOlar panels are an environmetal catastrophe waiting to happen. Chine has been chucking old solar panels into landfill ,and they poiss out all the toxic material into the surrounding countryside and water table. 
> 
> Wind and solar are intermittent low energy density sources, they are a waste of effort, plus they are peddled on the back of being 'green', which they are NOT!.
> 
> 
> Also your article has numerous falsehoods and inaccuracies, the worst of which is  
> 
> ...



I did not think the dumbass was worthy of such, but well done.

----------


## Well Bonded

> Some states will actually pay you to install solar panels.  So they can't be that big of a problem.


That's Federal money which is out of the taxpayers pockets.

----------

Brat (11-03-2021)

----------


## UKSmartypants

> Some states will actually pay you to install solar panels.  So they can't be that big of a problem.



No all it means is they are ignoring the disposal issue  and kicking the can down the road when in 10-20 years it wont be their problem any more.

----------

Swedgin (11-11-2021),Well Bonded (11-03-2021)

----------


## Well Bonded

> Wind and solar are intermittent low energy density sources, they are a waste of effort, plus they are peddled on the back of being 'green', which they are NOT!.


There is something the solar proponents never tell anyone or maybe don't admit to themselves. 

For every watt of solar deployed a watt of fossil must be built to back up the solar, people expect uninterrupted power 24/7 and neither wind nor solar can meet that demand so backup power must be built to fill in the gaps where solar and wind fail to meet the grid demands. 

Now the nasty part is the backup power must be able to be quickly spun up, to do that requires peakers which are polluting and inefficient compared to conventional generation.

As such a solar farm long term creates more greenhouse gas's than it eliminates, therefore if man made global warming did actually exist, solar will just make it worse.

I have a lot of experience with solar, I have been designing and contracting the installation of solar systems for over 2 decades now, it has it's place, but replacing conventional generation is not one of those places.

Where solar shines, pardon the pun, is in remote areas where utility lines are not run or cannot be run, remote livestock wells, remote measuring stations, powering trackside signalling and grade crossings, etc.

And truth be told, without stealing peoples money to pay for other peoples solar it would never be affordable. 

And you ought to see what hailstorm can do to a solar farm, hundreds of panels all destroyed in a few minutes and creating a disposal nightmare that the state (taxpayers) had to clean up after the company that owned the farm went bankrupt, taking a whole bunch of investors down the tubes with it too.    




> Also your article has numerous falsehoods and inaccuracies, the worst of which is  
> 
> _"It would help if you remembered that a solar panel would produce electricity every day for 30 to 35 years_"
> 
> The operational life of  a solar panel is 10-20 years.  That makes the economic arguments in the article nonsense.


A solar panel begins wearing out as soon as it is exposed to the sun, excepting infant mortality, they go about 15 years before they become depleted to 60% output or less, then they have to be changed out with new panels.

It's a financial treadmill, just about the time the system pays for it self, it begins to shut down, so it must be replaced or should I say renewed.

That's the ticket, call it renewable energy and fools will fall for the false promise's of the technology.

----------

Brat (11-03-2021),Sunsettommy (11-03-2021)

----------


## Swedgin

> But as for your unforeseen issues, there isn't much maintenance involved.


--Of course there is.  The Golden Gate Bridge doesn't require "much maintenance," but there are crews pretty much painting sections of it at all times.  Solar Panels will get dirty.  Sand will blow on to them needing removal.  Wires will deteriorate and loosen.  Even Mt. Rushmore requires maintenance.  




> Also, any environmentalist that has any sense would rather "sacrifice" some desert rather than see the world destroyed.


--Incorrect.  There is ALWAYA a group of environmentalists who will complain about ANY unnatural addition to an area.  Everything you say about these panels perhaps "helping" life in the desert has been said about pipelines in Alaska.  Hell, environmentalists shut down an oil field in Alaska, that is nothing more than an ice sheet...

But, the biggest problem with Solar technology, right now, is that it simply has not matured to the point of being cost-effective.  (If it had, trust me...there would be companies making solar panels like PC's, TV's and Automobiles...)

The best way to push the use of Solar technology is to make it marketable.

Build the Market...and they will come.....

----------

Brat (11-03-2021)

----------


## UKSmartypants

Why a planetary electric supergrid will never happen

----------


## Brat

Just one hailstorm with baseball size hail (or larger!) will destroy all those panels.  And broken ones are toxic, no one wants to handle them.  So China throws them in the sea.

----------

Fall River (11-04-2021)

----------


## UKSmartypants

> Just one hailstorm with baseball size hail (or larger!) will destroy all those panels.  And broken ones are toxic, no one wants to handle them.  So China throws them in the sea.



Mainly they are throwing them into landfill, where they leach out toxic metals and poison the local population and wild life, not that it bothers the CCP, humans are a cheap consumable  to the CCP


also

----------

Brat (11-03-2021),Fall River (11-04-2021)

----------


## brainflame

> Sure, it's not like they're spending our bucks. Get real!


  Yes, they're spending your bucks.  So get on board and save some of your own.

----------


## brainflame

> More BS, please point to a environmentaly safe way to recycle used panels.
> 
> You cannot because they are so full of toxins no one can figure how to do it.


  That's BS.  Solar panels can be recycled.  There are many websites that talk about doing so.  I will give you a link to one that might be right up your ally.  But the bottom line is that they can be recycled.

www.technologyreview.com  solar-panels-recyclingSolar panels are a pain to recycle. These companies are ...

----------


## East of the Beast

Here's the deal.My county is getting it's first solar farm.It will take 70 acres of farmland to produce a year of electricity for approximately 1500 homes. A directional bored gas well takes up roughly a half acre and the NG produced would power several power plants with zero CO2 emissions.....solar is stupid on a large scale.

----------

Brat (11-04-2021),Swedgin (11-05-2021)

----------


## brainflame

> This is an excellent demonstration of how ignorant you are, solar panels are covered in a thin sheet of tempered glass.
> 
> However by blocking the ground below them, they really screw up the natural warming of the earth that produces convection raising moisture and heat into the atmosphere, solar panels only produce dry heat, without moisture and that will have serious effects on weather patterns, way more that the environmentalists claim doing nothing will.   
> 
> They are a serious problem waiting to happen if deployed in a massive scale.



  Solar panels are or can be covered by anything.  Glass, plastic, it doesn't matter.  Neither does it matter if you're heating a solar panel or the ground.  It might be better to heat the solar panel.  Because unlike the ground, the sun can't dry them out.  Lastly, without a doubt, there are far more serious problem happening from not deploying them on a massive scale.

----------


## brainflame

> I can't stand people who act they know all and is nothing but a brianwashed sheep.


  Then you must love me.  :Smiley20:

----------


## brainflame

> Politically motivated goals and the suckers who buy into the whole free energy thing are the real problem.


  Human caused global warming is a scientific fact.  Politics has nothing to do with it.

----------


## brainflame

> At what cost to produce the electricity?


  A LOT less if the electricity is from solar panels.  Solar panels last from 20 to 30 years.  It takes one to four years of their energy output to equal the amount of energy it took to create them.  That is everything from mining the ore they are made from to the finished product.  That sounds pretty damn efficient to me.  Even "if" there may be some extra cost involved in recycling them.

----------


## brainflame

> First of all you started with a stupid insult of people for the most part who don't deny warming trend since the 1970's. Your insults are juvenile indication that you have little depth in backing your beliefs.
> 
> Secondly you make sweeping statements that would impress politicians but not people with science background and my three decades of debate with warmist/alarmists who are known to be profoundly ignorant of the topic, so far you haven't shown any indication you are a literate person.
> 
> Actually in every forum I debate on climate stuff, it is the warmist/alarmists who learn they get repeatedly exposed as cut and paste parrots and show profound ignorance of the topic in which some of them run away. It is why I go search for a new forum to debate a new crop of warmist/alarmists to once again expose their inability to make a decent argument.
> 
> 
> The Human contribution is negligible because the amount of CO2 emitted is very small yearly while nature emits the other 95%, since it is standard knowledge that CO2 by itself doesn't generate much warming and very little warm forcing left at the 414 ppm level of today of which even most warmist/alarmist scientist have long agreed on. 
> 
> ...



  Sorry.  This isn't a human caused global warming thread.

----------


## tlmjl

:Geez:

----------


## East of the Beast

> Human caused global warming is a scientific fact.  Politics has nothing to do with it.


Global warming is a designed event.Man has zero to do with it.......and whoever thinks different is a fool in my book..

----------

Authentic (11-04-2021),Brat (11-04-2021)

----------


## Authentic

> Sorry.  This isn't a human caused global warming thread.


Just as well, since there is no such thing.

----------

Brat (11-04-2021)

----------


## brainflame

> --Of course there is.  The Golden Gate Bridge doesn't require "much maintenance," but there are crews pretty much painting sections of it at all times.  Solar Panels will get dirty.  Sand will blow on to them needing removal.  Wires will deteriorate and loosen.  Even Mt. Rushmore requires maintenance.  
> 
> 
> 
> --Incorrect.  There is ALWAYA a group of environmentalists who will complain about ANY unnatural addition to an area.  Everything you say about these panels perhaps "helping" life in the desert has been said about pipelines in Alaska.  Hell, environmentalists shut down an oil field in Alaska, that is nothing more than an ice sheet...
> 
> But, the biggest problem with Solar technology, right now, is that it simply has not matured to the point of being cost-effective.  (If it had, trust me...there would be companies making solar panels like PC's, TV's and Automobiles...)
> 
> The best way to push the use of Solar technology is to make it marketable.
> ...



  Solar panels aren't a bridge.  Once they're in place, that's it.  They require no more maintenance than your roof itself does.  In some places the only problem there could be is with snow.  If the snow doesn't just slide off by itself, all you would need is a push broom used in reverse with a long handle to pull the snow off of the panels.  As for them getting dirty, they can't get that dirty.  Take any pane of glass that is as dirty as you think they might get.  Then try to look at the sun through it.  It wouldn't be much different than looking at the sun directly.  Which would be a bad idea.  Also, ever see a rock in the desert?  (Or anywhere for that matter)  Has it ever been so dirty that you couldn't actually SEE the rock?  Well it works both ways.  If you can see the rock, the solar panel would still "see" the sun.  The main point of everything is that of course it would be best if we didn't need to use solar panels at all.  But with human caused global warming a reality, it has to be done.  Any obstacles that get in the way just need to be dealt with.  Even if it means installing them through a socialist process.  You know, like funding police, firefighters, schools, the military, etc.  If you want to know more about solar panels, I provided a couple of links.




science.howstuffworks.com  environmental  greenStudy Says Solar Panels on Half of Roofs Could Meet World's ...
news.energysage.com  does-my-roof-have-to-face*Does My Solar Roof* Need to Face South? | EnergySage

----------


## Brat

:BangHead:

----------


## brainflame

> Just one hailstorm with baseball size hail (or larger!) will destroy all those panels.  And broken ones are toxic, no one wants to handle them.  So China throws them in the sea.


  Just put thicker glass or plastic on them.  Also, I don't think they're THAT toxic.  It's not like radiation.  And as a last ditch effort in disposing of them safely, how about this.  You grind them up into dust.  Then mix that dust into some cement.  After it sets, coat them in plastic and dump them into the ocean.  The only thing that will leech out of them would come from the plastic coating itself.  And that wouldn't be much.

----------


## brainflame

> That's Federal money which is out of the taxpayers pockets.


  Anything is better than fossil fuels.  There are places where they just plow the tops off mountains to get at coal instead of hiring miners.  How much does that cost the U.S. taxpayer.  Or how about all those toxic super fund sights around the U.S.  How much does cleaning that up cost.  (If it can ever be done)  Also, after the 9-11 attacks, all the gas stations I saw had long lines of cars at them waiting to get gas.  In effect, cramming money into the pockets of the people who carried out the attacks.  That's just fucking nuts!!!

----------


## brainflame

> No all it means is they are ignoring the disposal issue  and kicking the can down the road when in 10-20 years it wont be their problem any more.


  Any disposal problems aren't that big of a deal.  Here are some websites for you.

newenglandcleanenergy.com  energymiser  2018/08/07Does Solar Pay For Itself? | New England Clean Energy


news.energysage.com  recycling-solar-panelsSolar Panel Recycling: How it Works and Why it's Important ...

----------


## brainflame

> Here's the deal.My county is getting it's first solar farm.It will take 70 acres of farmland to produce a year of electricity for approximately 1500 homes. A directional bored gas well takes up roughly a half acre and the NG produced would power several power plants with zero CO2 emissions.....solar is stupid on a large scale.


  Congratulations.  I think that's the stupidest thing I've ever read.  You can't burn fossil fuels without creating CO2.

----------


## East of the Beast

> Congratulations.  I think that's the stupidest thing I've ever read.  You can't burn fossil fuels without creating CO2.


my bad, I was thinking CO.

----------


## Wilson2

> A LOT less if the electricity is from solar panels.  Solar panels last from 20 to 30 years.  It takes one to four years of their energy output to equal the amount of energy it took to create them.  That is everything from mining the ore they are made from to the finished product.  That sounds pretty damn efficient to me.  Even "if" there may be some extra cost involved in recycling them.


You keep ignoring batteries.   Are you going to only use electricity when its sunny outside?   Batteries last about 7 years, less if you deep cycle them too frequently.

You seem to think all thats needed is a bunch of solar panels.  Panels are just one component in the system.   Batteries for example.  Motors to turn the panels to track the sun don't last 20 years, probably not even 10.   Inverters and controllers to convert the panel voltage and current into something usable. Lots of wires, and big big cables.

The battery system is a far greater problem than the panel system.   You don't even scratch the surface of the system when all you talk about is panels.


Solar panels are great for point of use applications, not so much for a huge power plant.

----------

Brat (11-04-2021),East of the Beast (11-05-2021)

----------


## Well Bonded

> Just put thicker glass or plastic on them.


Which lowers the transmittance greatly reducing the output of the panel, you really don't have a clue as to how hey work do you?




> Also, I don't think they're THAT toxic.


I guess you cannot read, they contain some very toxic materials.  




> It's not like radiation.  And as a last ditch effort in disposing of them safely, how about this.  You grind them up into dust.  Then mix that dust into some cement.  After it sets, coat them in plastic and dump them into the ocean.  The only thing that will leech out of them would come from the plastic coating itself.  And that wouldn't be much.


What a genius idea, throwing more crap in the ocean, yes sir you are one heck of a environmentalist all right.

----------


## Well Bonded

> You can't burn fossil fuels without creating CO2.


And without CO2 there would be no food to eat and everyone would starve.

----------


## Authentic

> And without CO2 there would be no food to eat and everyone would starve.


Kewl!

----------


## Captain Kirk!

> If you are one of those human caused global warming deniers, this thread won't interest you.  But for those of you with some intelligence, you may find it interesting.  Just think of it.  The U.S. could become the new Saudi Arabia of electricity.  Though transmitting that electricity around the world could be a bit of a challenge.  I will show you two pictures.  The first shows the total area of the U.S. covered in solar panels it would take to power the WORLD!  Keep in mind that those solar panels wouldn't have to be all in one spot or where they are shown to be.  We have more than enough useless desert area in the U.S. to do it.
> 
>   The second picture I will show you shows the entire area compared to the U.S. it would take to power just the U.S.  It shows a square area that is about 140 miles per side.  Though Elon Musk thinks it could be done with a total area that is only 100 miles per side.  And Elon Musk's engineering skills have made him a multi billionaire.  So don't be so quick to discount what he says.  What is the major problem with this approach?  The energy to be gotten from the sun is FREE!!!  And there isn't a lot of money to be made from free.
> 
> Attachment 63281 
> 
> 
> Attachment 63282


Total bullshit. What happens when the sun goes down or is obstructed? lol

----------


## Captain Kirk!

> Human caused global warming is a scientific fact.  Politics has nothing to do with it.


Total bullshit.

----------

Thom Paine (11-05-2021)

----------


## UKSmartypants

> Congratulations.  I think that's the stupidest thing I've ever read.  You can't burn fossil fuels without creating CO2.



Well you can, or rather, you can capture it and wash it out in a scrubber, so there are no hydrocarbon emissions.  But big tech doesnt want to do that, they want to sell us expensive electricity and enslave us with ecoloonery.  You can also  eliminate the hydrocarbon waste by burning at  a much higher temperature than it burns naturally, eg by injecting oxygen into the bottom.

----------

Swedgin (11-05-2021)

----------


## Swedgin

> Solar panels aren't a bridge. Once they're in place, that's it.


--Bridges require maintenance.  If not, then why is Congress trying to pass a $1.5 Trillion dollar infrastructure bill?  (After years of people in both parties saying "We need to fix our bridges???")




> They require no more maintenance than your roof itself does.


--Roof's require maintenance.  Gutters, which are part of the roof system, need to be cleaned.  Vents may come loose.  The environment wears on them.  And, it is strongly suggested that people have their roof's replaced about every 10 years.




> In some places the only problem there could be is with snow. If the snow doesn't just slide off by itself, all you would need is a push broom used in reverse with a long handle to pull the snow off of the panels.


--SNOW is WATER.  And trust me...WATER is an incredibly destructive element.  It will find a way to seep in.  It will deteriorate almost anything over time.  So sure.  The first few years of snow or rain, may do nothing.  Wait a few years longer....




> As for them getting dirty, they can't get that dirty. Take any pane of glass that is as dirty as you think they might get. Then try to look at the sun through it. It wouldn't be much different than looking at the sun directly.


--Okay, right.  Solar Panels will never require cleaning.  Dust will not limit sunlight.  (Hey, maybe we can just plant them in the ground, with a bit of sand strewn across.  Won't matter, right?)  What do you think happens when water and sand/dirt particles are mixed over time?  Mountains are worn down.  Flat land is eroded into rivers.  Etc.




> Also, ever see a rock in the desert? (Or anywhere for that matter) Has it ever been so dirty that you couldn't actually SEE the rock? Well it works both ways. If you can see the rock, the solar panel would still "see" the sun.


--That is not the way the physics of light work AT ALL!  But, to borrow your analogy:  Which "rock in the desert" would you see from a distance, first:  The white rock, that someone just washed?  The pink rock that has 1 year of dust and dirt particles on it?  OR the dark rock, with 10 years of dirt and dust collected on it?  By this very (weak) analogy, an unmaintained solar panel, that is not cleaned periodically, will have reduced effect.




> The main point of everything is that of course it would be best if we didn't need to use solar panels at all. But with human caused global warming a reality, it has to be done.


--We could reduce the human population.  We could force large segments of the human population back into pre-industrial societies.  But, even if we do that, we may need to do something about the REAL cause of Global Warming:  The Sun...




> Any obstacles that get in the way just need to be dealt with. Even if it means installing them through a socialist process.


--You just lost me with that.  (In fact...I am now wondering if SOCIALISN is not your real goal, here.)  Whatever the case, can you tell me ONE...JUST ONE "Socialist/Communist" society that has been "good" for the environment?  Just ONE....  By contrast, I still say that if we allowed the purchase of Solar Panels to be 100% tax deductible, for just a few years, we would effectively jump-start capitalist industry.  Solar Panels would quickly become cheaper, even as they become more effective.  (Oh, and, there would be a sizable market for people to clean, and maintenance these solar panels that you say don't need such...)




> You know, like funding police, firefighters, schools, the military, etc. If you want to know more about solar panels, I provided a couple of links.


--Well, more like funding hydroelectric dams, nuclear plants (which, currently, are FAR more efficient and effective than any solar...), and those dirty coal plants (Which the "socialist" Chinese are creating almost every week.  You know...because Solar Panels are so effective...


And still, we have yet to address HOW we would get this energy across the continent, much less the globe.  Unless we first develop some sort of mass, super-conducting lines (which will still require...MAINTENANCE!), we could barely ship any of this energy to New York.

What about the industry, materials, and waste involved to create these panels?

What do we do when they "break" or "go bad."  (No need to explain to me how solar panels will effectively last forever, as I reject that concept based on observable reality.)

What happens at night?

Again, I am 100% FOR the development of Solar Power (Along with more use of Nuclear, Hydrothermal, Wind, Tides, etc.)

But we have to be HONEST in addressing the drawbacks and negatives.

Otherwise, we may as well be discussing dilithium crystals and anti-matter warp engines to warp us to new worlds in distant star systems.....

----------


## UKSmartypants

> Just put thicker glass or plastic on them.  Also, I don't think they're THAT toxic.  It's not like radiation.  And as a last ditch effort in disposing of them safely, how about this.  You grind them up into dust.  Then mix that dust into some cement.  After it sets, coat them in plastic and dump them into the ocean.  The only thing that will leech out of them would come from the plastic coating itself.  And that wouldn't be much.


well my post and links proved that they ARE that toxic, and the green loons are hiding or ignoring the fact. Why do you think even India doesnt want the job of recycling them.  You are practising the same denialism about this as the rest of the ecoloons, in the face of well researched peer reviewed science.

And making glass creates HUGE amounts of carbon, and uses massive amounts of energy,  and plastic microparticles are  becoming a massive
 problem both as dumped waste and the fact plastics are now entering the food chains and affecting bacteria, and changing genes.


This is the problem, all these 'green; ideas like you are proposing , when researched properly, arent green and have the same or other problems as existing methods and solutions.


Making cement crates pollution, uses energy and crates carbon. The solution has been tried with nuclear fuel rods, and radioactive alleles still leach out.  And you are still dumping toxic waste albiet on the sea bed. 

Its all bollox, you are deluding yourself.

----------

Foghorn (11-05-2021)

----------


## UKSmartypants

> Total bullshit.



I agree. theres is no definitive proof that humans cause global warming. Why did global warming occur in the past, before humans existed?

----------

Foghorn (11-05-2021),Swedgin (11-05-2021)

----------


## Swedgin

> I agree. theres is no definitive proof that humans cause global warming. Why did global warming occur in the past, before humans existed?


Cow poop!

HEY...I bet that's why it was warmer when the Dinosaurs were around!  I mean, can you imagine the mounds of Brontosaurus poop, and all the global warming methane they produced?

----------

Foghorn (11-05-2021)

----------


## Foghorn

I'm outraged that I've been denied a private jet to fly to Scotland in order to educate the elites on global warming.

----------

Swedgin (11-05-2021)

----------


## Swedgin

> By the way, isn't it neat how some posters start out a thread with an insult like this.
> 
> "If you are one of those human caused global warming deniers, this thread won't interest you.  But for those of you with some intelligence, you may find it interesting."
> 
> In other words, unless you totally agree with me your an idiot which means I'm the smartest one around, so get over it you neanderthal.   
> 
> Only a a-hole who cannot defend their own thoughts, post something that stupid.


DING!  DING!  DING!  DING!

THIS is the perfect example of how the very people PUSHING new, Green energy, have turned it into a neo-religious crusade.   With many, many, many other things, completely outside the science and debate of energy, attached. (ie Socialist ideals, centralized planning, etc.)

I can all but GURANTEE that 90% of us in this thread would be putting Solar Panels on, or around our homes, IF they were financially feasible.  Even if, it only meant we would start to 'break even' on our investment within 5-10 years.  We would still see the worth of them, even OUTSIDE Global Warming Hysteria.

For decades, I have been pushing for these new energies, with the argument that ONCE we have them, all kinds of benefits come about**:  Cheaper energy.  Redundancy (if the grid goes down, and you have a solar panel or thermal generator, guess what?  You still got power!).  Near infinite sustainability (Good or bad, our species WILL run out of fossil fuels, someday).  NATIONAL SECTURITY!!!!!!

None of these POSITIVE factors involve baptism into the faith of global warming (and, it's apparent NEED for international Socialism...)

We can do it.  Just not magically, and, it will take a bit longer than, the day after tomorrow.

But my way tries to stress the POSITIVE, not threaten the NEGATIVE.

Think about it this way:

A person does not have to be a Vegetarian, in order to appreciate vegetables.  (Even though...many vegetarians want policies that will force EVERYONE into becoming Vegetarian.)

Do we see a pattern here?

----------

Foghorn (11-05-2021)

----------


## Captain Kirk!

> I agree. theres is no definitive proof that humans cause global warming. Why did global warming occur in the past, before humans existed?


Dinosaur farts?

----------


## Swedgin

Folks, and @brainflame

THIS:




> Human caused global warming is a reality.  *Those who deny it are just plain stupid.* * Criminally stupid.*  And I didn't doubt that were some of them around here.  So I fired the first shot.


..is how you lose your argument....
PS  Can anyone show me the actual LAW that states a person MUST believe in Human caused Global Warming, or be held criminally liable?

Anyone???

----------

Captain Kirk! (11-05-2021)

----------


## Swedgin

> Not sure what you're trying to say.  But all cars should have been made to be electric 30 years ago.


We have those!

Electric Car from 30 years ago:

----------

Foghorn (11-05-2021)

----------


## Foghorn

I was intrigued by an episode of _This Old House_ that explained the entire process of building a neighborhood with "zero footprint".  Not sure how close to "zero" it really is, but they were heading in the right direction.

Essentially, they were using geothermal and you can add solar panels on your home if you want.

It's called Whisper Valley


They do pack them in like sardines tho.


Screenshot 2021-11-05 075345.jpg

----------


## Swedgin

> A directional bored gas well takes up roughly a half acre and the NG produced would power several power plants with zero CO2 emissions..*...solar is stupid on a large scale*.


EXACTLY!

But, if/when, we can make it a bit more efficient, it would be wonderful as a redundant, individual source of power.

We have to think "fish eggs," instead of "caviar."

Already, we have started in many areas where Solar is absolutely FANTASTIC:

--Yard lights.
--Small solar lanterns in tribal Africa.
--Emergency phones on roads.

Note that these are small uses.  Even solar panels on a home, will not likely power everything a family uses.  BUT...it would take some of that use off the grid.

We just need to make it more cost-effective, while drawing back the expectations that so many have about Solar power being the "magic bullet" that will power everything.  In a few years....

----------


## Well Bonded

As I stated solar has it's places in the world and it has dropped way low in price, but as power for the mass's, it's still not there yet, there are still too many downsides to be worked out, the primary ones being storage and panel efficiency.

Even in places like South Florida or AZ it is not a practical substitute for a grid connection, what is seldom taken into consideration is storage inefficiency, if a person use's say 1000 Kilowatt Hours (Kwh) per month/33.33 Kwh per day they will need a minimum of 432 square feet of PV generation and that is if the sun shines every day of the year which is impossible, so in reality they will need more like 950 square feet of PV generation.

But here is where people get their wallets kicked, if they don't have storage they must dump the excess back through the meter to be sold back to the utility and depending on how that is tariff they might get a credit against power sold to them by the utility or the utility might buy the power from them at a wholesale rate.

So if they are paying say $.10 per Kwh the utility might credit them $.04 per Kwh, which kills their dream of selling power back to the power company.

That is known as a grid tie system and it has another seldom discussed problem, if grid power is lost the solar system by Code must isolate itself, so even if the sun is shining brightly their power is off, they cannot use their solar. power system until the grid comes back up. 

The only solution to that is local storage such as a Powerwall, but that adds an additional $10,000 to the cost of the system, lasts only 10 years at best and requires a safe place to install the battery, preferably outside on/in a fireproof cabinet away from from the home.




> A person does not have to be a Vegetarian, in order to appreciate vegetables.  (Even though...many vegetarians want policies that will force EVERYONE into becoming Vegetarian.)
> 
> Do we see a pattern here?


It's the same with the Vaxholes, they did it... So you must do it too. 

Long before I was a teenager I was taught just because some of you friends do something dumb, doesn't mean you should do it too. 

Now that doesn't I haven't done some dumb things over the years but those I did where of my own design, not a copy of someone else's stupidity.

----------

Swedgin (11-05-2021)

----------


## Swedgin

> Now that doesn't I haven't done some dumb things over the years but those I did where of my own design, not a copy of someone else's stupidity.


LOL, back in my day, I always tried to go above and beyond someone else's stupidity!

Didn't typically turn out, all that well!

----------


## Swedgin

> Well you can, or rather, you can capture it and wash it out in a scrubber, so there are no hydrocarbon emissions.  But big tech doesnt want to do that, they want to sell us expensive electricity and enslave us with ecoloonery.  You can also  eliminate the hydrocarbon waste by burning at  a much higher temperature than it burns naturally, eg by injecting oxygen into the bottom.


IF we ever get an economical way of creating carbon-fibers, carbon CAPTURE may be a money-making venture!

All that carbon suddenly has an intrinsic value.  LOL, we may actually PUSH coal-burning plants, in order to create both cheap energy and cheap carbon.

----------


## UKSmartypants

> IF we ever get an economical way of creating carbon-fibers, carbon CAPTURE may be a money-making venture!
> 
> All that carbon suddenly has an intrinsic value.  LOL, we may actually PUSH coal-burning plants, in order to create both cheap energy and cheap carbon.



Well thats what baffles me

1. ECOLOONS:   dont burn coal because it make CO2

2. FOOD INDUSTRY: We have a crisis, were running out of bottled CO2


There's a severe disconnect of thinking going on here.

----------

Physics Hunter (11-06-2021)

----------


## brainflame

> You keep ignoring batteries.   Are you going to only use electricity when its sunny outside?   Batteries last about 7 years, less if you deep cycle them too frequently.
> 
> You seem to think all thats needed is a bunch of solar panels.  Panels are just one component in the system.   Batteries for example.  Motors to turn the panels to track the sun don't last 20 years, probably not even 10.   Inverters and controllers to convert the panel voltage and current into something usable. Lots of wires, and big big cables.
> 
> The battery system is a far greater problem than the panel system.   You don't even scratch the surface of the system when all you talk about is panels.
> 
> 
> Solar panels are great for point of use applications, not so much for a huge power plant.



  Batteries aren't that big of a problem.  You could also use capacitors.  Which last longer.  There are other ways to store excess energy as well.  Next, electric motors last a very long time.  Not that it really matters for what you speak of.  Because solar panels don't have to directly face the sun to work.  All of that aside, as I told somebody else, it would be best if we didn't use solar panels at all.  But human caused global warming makes them a necessity.  Despite any difficulties that might arise.  Which from how wide spread their use is now, is known to be not much.  Also, one website I was at said that if half of the roofs in the U.S had solar panels, that would give us all the energy we need.

----------


## brainflame

> Which lowers the transmittance greatly reducing the output of the panel, you really don't have a clue as to how hey work do you?
> 
> 
> 
> I guess you cannot read, they contain some very toxic materials.  
> 
> 
> 
> What a genius idea, throwing more crap in the ocean, yes sir you are one heck of a environmentalist all right.


  You could have them covered in plastic four feet thick.  It won't matter.  As long as you can see through it, it isn't going to lower the amount of sunlight that gets through.  Next, they may contain some toxic materials.  But they also contain some valuable materials.  In getting the valuable ones you can probably concentrate and contain the toxic elements.  If not destroy them completely.  But this is all pie in the sky BS.  It bottom line is that solar panels do more good than harm.

----------


## brainflame

> Total bullshit. What happens when the sun goes down or is obstructed? lol


  You just collect enough energy during the day to have enough left over to store for night time use.  As for cloudy days, solar panels still work on cloudy days.  Maybe not as well.  We would also still need an electric grid to transmit power from places where the sun is shining to places where it is cloudy.

----------


## brainflame

> Well you can, or rather, you can capture it and wash it out in a scrubber, so there are no hydrocarbon emissions.  But big tech doesnt want to do that, they want to sell us expensive electricity and enslave us with ecoloonery.  You can also  eliminate the hydrocarbon waste by burning at  a much higher temperature than it burns naturally, eg by injecting oxygen into the bottom.


Or.........  We could just go with solar panels and not have to burn anything at all.

----------


## Authentic

> Or.........  We could just go with solar panels and not have to burn anything at all.


A green energy solution would be harnessing heat energy from cremations.

----------


## nonsqtr

> A green energy solution would be harnessing heat energy from cremations.


Or we could just eat the brains of the dead like they do in New Guinea.

----------

Authentic (11-05-2021),brainflame (11-06-2021)

----------


## Brat

> You could have them covered in plastic four feet thick.  It won't matter.  As long as you can see through it, it isn't going to lower the amount of sunlight that gets through.  Next, they may contain some toxic materials.  But they also contain some valuable materials.  In getting the valuable ones you can probably concentrate and contain the toxic elements.  If not destroy them completely.  But this is all pie in the sky BS.  It bottom line is that solar panels do more good than harm.


F.O.S.

----------


## Wilson2

> 2901434[/URL]]Batteries aren't that big of a problem.  You could also use capacitors.  Which last longer.  There are other ways to store excess energy as well.  Next, electric motors last a very long time.  Not that it really matters for what you speak of.  Because solar panels don't have to directly face the sun to work.  All of that aside, as I told somebody else, it would be best if we didn't use solar panels at all.  But human caused global warming makes them a necessity.  Despite any difficulties that might arise.  Which from how wide spread their use is now, is known to be not much.  Also, one website I was at said that if half of the roofs in the U.S had solar panels, that would give us all the energy we need.


Total ignorance.   Solar panel are not the technical or cost issue, panels arent even the production issue.   Its batteries and there assembly into a huge battery pack of 10s of 1000s of batteries.    I worked electromagnetic launchers in the 1980s, we powered them with a warehouse of 30,000 truck batteries.    You have no idea of the problems encountered with such a system, plus the problems of 100,000+ amps running through the system.

 Capacitors?    Dont be utterly ridiculous.

You are clearly ignorant of the entire solar system subject.

----------

Brat (11-05-2021)

----------


## Well Bonded

> You could have them covered in plastic four feet thick.  It won't matter.  As long as you can see through it, it isn't going to lower the amount of sunlight that gets through.


Completely false, simply using plastic thicker than a food wrapper will reduce the output to an unacceptable lever and every doubling of the thickness of the glass reduces the output by four times. 

You really don't know much about solar panels do you?

----------


## Well Bonded

> You could also use capacitors.  Which last longer.


Incorrect on every count, capacitors cannot replace batteries, they lack the power density required, to achieve the capacity required to replace a 16Kw battery for solar would require one the size of a panel truck and would cost tens if not hundreds of thousands of dollars, they self discharge and the most common type, electrolytic's have a rather short lifespan.

Once again your ignorance of clearly on display for all to see.

----------


## Well Bonded

> Or we could just eat the brains of the dead like they do in New Guinea.


Not if they are "flamed" out.

----------


## nonsqtr

You could use photosynthesis, what you really want is the free electrons so terminate the process at the NADP stage. Not good for bursts of lots of juice, but might work for daily or as a supplement.

Then again, maybe we could remove CO2 from the air at the same time...

----------


## nonsqtr

> Batteries aren't that big of a problem.  You could also use capacitors.  Which last longer.  There are other ways to store excess energy as well.  Next, electric motors last a very long time.  Not that it really matters for what you speak of.  Because solar panels don't have to directly face the sun to work.  All of that aside, as I told somebody else, it would be best if we didn't use solar panels at all.  But human caused global warming makes them a necessity.  Despite any difficulties that might arise.  Which from how wide spread their use is now, is known to be not much.  Also, one website I was at said that if half of the roofs in the U.S had solar panels, that would give us all the energy we need.


Solar panels are THE most dangerous way to get energy. They're the opposite of green, disposing of today's solar panels will destroy the environment in no time at all.

Old batteries are kinda the same way, they're dangerous.

Fusion energy is the way to go. We're almost there.

I want my Mr Fusion home energy reactor

----------

Brat (11-06-2021)

----------


## UKSmartypants

> Or.........  We could just go with solar panels and not have to burn anything at all.



Except, as I already explained, with evidence, solar panels are massively polluting as compared to Nuclear or clean burn coal., a point that seems to fail to penetrate your pysche....

----------


## brainflame

> --Bridges require maintenance.  If not, then why is Congress trying to pass a $1.5 Trillion dollar infrastructure bill?  (After years of people in both parties saying "We need to fix our bridges???")
> 
> 
> 
> --Roof's require maintenance.  Gutters, which are part of the roof system, need to be cleaned.  Vents may come loose.  The environment wears on them.  And, it is strongly suggested that people have their roof's replaced about every 10 years.
> 
> 
> 
> --SNOW is WATER.  And trust me...WATER is an incredibly destructive element.  It will find a way to seep in.  It will deteriorate almost anything over time.  So sure.  The first few years of snow or rain, may do nothing.  Wait a few years longer....
> ...



  I don't have time for so much jibber jabber.  Pick a point out of all your garbage that you think is the most important and ask it.

----------


## brainflame

> well my post and links proved that they ARE that toxic, and the green loons are hiding or ignoring the fact. Why do you think even India doesnt want the job of recycling them.  You are practising the same denialism about this as the rest of the ecoloons, in the face of well researched peer reviewed science.
> 
> And making glass creates HUGE amounts of carbon, and uses massive amounts of energy,  and plastic microparticles are  becoming a massive
>  problem both as dumped waste and the fact plastics are now entering the food chains and affecting bacteria, and changing genes.
> 
> 
> This is the problem, all these 'green; ideas like you are proposing , when researched properly, arent green and have the same or other problems as existing methods and solutions.
> 
> 
> ...



  Fuck India.  And despite any BS you come up with, solar panels do more good than harm.  It takes 1 to 4 years of the energy they put out to equal the amount of energy is actually took to create them.  That is from mining the ore they are made of to the finished product!  How about adding another 6 months of their output for the energy it takes to cleanly process the discarded ones.  Then, how about we add another two years to be in the safe side for batteries, capacitors, transformers or whatever.  That's six and a half years.  Depending on how they're made, they last anywhere from 20 to 40 years!  Now, how about you give me some bullshit about how long it takes for those solar panels to "pay for" themselves.  I've got an answer for that too.

----------


## MisterVeritis

> Gee, why hasn't anyone thought of that, or implemented it?


Electricity has to go places. The world is a long ways away.

----------


## brainflame

> Folks, and @brainflame
> 
> THIS:
> 
> 
> 
> ..is how you lose your argument....
> PS  Can anyone show me the actual LAW that states a person MUST believe in Human caused Global Warming, or be held criminally liable?
> 
> Anyone???



  Ever watch the documentary, "The Corporation?"  Those with money are basically above the law.  That in itself is a crime.

----------


## brainflame

> Total ignorance.   Solar panel are not the technical or cost issue, panels arent even the production issue.   Its batteries and there assembly into a huge battery pack of 10s of 1000s of batteries.    I worked electromagnetic launchers in the 1980s, we powered them with a warehouse of 30,000 truck batteries.    You have no idea of the problems encountered with such a system, plus the problems of 100,000+ amps running through the system.
> 
>  Capacitors?    Dont be utterly ridiculous.
> 
> You are clearly ignorant of the entire solar system subject.


  Why don't you talk to Elon Musk.  He built a very large battery array in Australia.  Next, they are using capacitors to supplement the power of electric cars.  There is even talk of using them to replace the batteries all together.  Maybe you need to go back to school, fool.

----------


## brainflame

> Completely false, simply using plastic thicker than a food wrapper will reduce the output to an unacceptable lever and every doubling of the thickness of the glass reduces the output by four times. 
> 
> You really don't know much about solar panels do you?


  Please stop being an idiot.  If glass or plexiglas doesn't impede your vision, it isn't going to impede any light getting through to a solar panel.

----------


## brainflame

> Incorrect on every count, capacitors cannot replace batteries, they lack the power density required, to achieve the capacity required to replace a 16Kw battery for solar would require one the size of a panel truck and would cost tens if not hundreds of thousands of dollars, they self discharge and the most common type, electrolytic's have a rather short lifespan.
> 
> Once again your ignorance of clearly on display for all to see.


  You're a moron.  I looked it up myself.  In some electric cars they are using capacitors to supplement the battery power.  There was even talk of using capacitors to replace batteries completely in at least some electric cars.  They also last quite a bit longer than any rechargeable battery does.  And charging time for them is only limited by how much power you can put into them.

----------


## brainflame

> Except, as I already explained, with evidence, solar panels are massively polluting as compared to Nuclear or clean burn coal., a point that seems to fail to penetrate your pysche....


  Go to Chernobyl.  Go to Fukushima.  Or any of the other nuclear disaster sites around the world.  There are things you can do with the small amount of toxins you keep trying to make a big deal of.  But there isn't shit you can do about radiation.  Even trying to find a place to store nuclear waste is difficult.  Also, there is no such thing as clean burn anything.  You want to talk about difficulties, the difficulties in burning coal cleanly is beyond the beyond.  And even then you are still going to have toxic ash to deal with.

----------


## JMWinPR

> If you are one of those human caused global warming deniers, this thread won't interest you.  But for those of you with some intelligence, you may find it interesting.  Just think of it.  The U.S. could become the new Saudi Arabia of electricity.  Though transmitting that electricity around the world could be a bit of a challenge.  I will show you two pictures.  The first shows the total area of the U.S. covered in solar panels it would take to power the WORLD!  Keep in mind that those solar panels wouldn't have to be all in one spot or where they are shown to be.  We have more than enough useless desert area in the U.S. to do it.
> 
>   The second picture I will show you shows the entire area compared to the U.S. it would take to power just the U.S.  It shows a square area that is about 140 miles per side.  Though Elon Musk thinks it could be done with a total area that is only 100 miles per side.  And Elon Musk's engineering skills have made him a multi billionaire.  So don't be so quick to discount what he says.  What is the major problem with this approach?  The energy to be gotten from the sun is FREE!!!  And there isn't a lot of money to be made from free.
> 
> Attachment 63281 
> 
> 
> Attachment 63282


Gaia has been warming for the past 20,000 yrs and will continue to do so until the next ice age. Just has its done for the first 4 glaciations. Have you any idea of the size of the wire needed to transport that to Maine? Ain't nuff copper to do that.

----------


## brainflame

> Gaia has been warming for the past 20,000 yrs and will continue to do so until the next ice age. Just has its done for the first 4 glaciations. Have you any idea of the size of the wire needed to transport that to Maine? Ain't nuff copper to do that.


  I just started a thread about human caused global warming.  I invite you to read it and deny away.  As for transmitting electricity, that has already been gone over.  The biggest problem the deniers seem to have is with energy storage.  Which isn't much of a problem.

----------


## Authentic

> Electricity has to go places. The world is a long ways away.


The Earth is a magnet.

----------


## nonsqtr

> The biggest problem the deniers seem to have is with energy storage.  Which isn't much of a problem.


Must be a liberal. ^^^

----------


## FNguy

> Must be a liberal. ^^^


That's putting it nicely..

----------

Brat (11-10-2021)

----------


## Brat

Does anyone remember One White Duck?  Perhaps we could pond his ass?

----------


## Authentic

OP could make a CAPTCHA test with his pictures.

One could be "select all the images with mustaches".

----------


## Wilson2

> 2902707[/URL]]Why don't you talk to Elon Musk.  He built a very large battery array in Australia.  Next, they are using capacitors to supplement the power of electric cars.  There is even talk of using them to replace the batteries all together.  Maybe you need to go back to school, fool.


You are a nontechnical person who regurgitates public relations brochures.   You have no knowledge of capacitors or ultracapacitors or super capacitors.   You dont even read all the pr release.   Capacitors are used in electric cars for very short cycle power, such as stopping and starting.    They are nowhere near replacing batteries.   Get educated before posting, you make yourself look silly.

----------

Brat (11-06-2021),Well Bonded (11-07-2021)

----------


## UKSmartypants

> Why don't you talk to Elon Musk.  He built a very large battery array in Australia.  Next, they are using capacitors to supplement the power of electric cars.  There is even talk of using them to replace the batteries all together.  Maybe you need to go back to school, fool.



Capacitors do not generate electricity, they simply store it, and they are not constant voltage devices. Hence they are not and do not work like batteries.....

----------


## Well Bonded

> Capacitors do not generate electricity, they simply store it, and they are not constant voltage devices. Hence they are not and do not work like batteries.....


Caps store energy on 2 plates separated by an insulator, whereas (which I think you understand) batteries store energy on 2 plates that change chemically as they are charged and discharged, two different technologies for two different purposes. 

Now for a neat use for solar how's this. 

The vehicle is a 2011 Ford E-350 Wagon, within it are VHF, UHF, 800 Mhz trunking transceivers, also it has a 4G hotspot that runs 24/7 to provide a internet connection within the wagon and around it.

The problem is the continuous required to run the communications equipment will discharge the vehicles battery to below 12 volts in about 48 hours if it is not running, a second battery was added in the cargo area but they still went dead too often then I wanted to put up with.

The solution was install a 100 watt PV panel on the roof of the wagon, it was connected to a charge controller and a 18 to 5 volt power supply to run the in vehicle battery box exhaust fans. 

Something about having hydrogen gas collecting in the wagon I didn't think would be a good idea. 

On the roof

s1.jpg 

 Under the hood


s10.jpg
In the cargo area

s12.jpg

s13.jpg

Power Tap

s14.jpg

----------


## UKSmartypants

> With human caused global warming speeding up, you won't be laughing long.



Global warming didnt occur for 18 years, so  NASA, NOAAA and the other had to resort to fiddling the figures, and then they were caught out red handed at the University of East Anglia, making up data points that didnt fit the required graph.  Twice.  Thats why they stopped calling it Global Warming and switched to Climate Change

----------

MisterVeritis (11-11-2021),Oceander (11-11-2021)

----------


## UKSmartypants

> Caps store energy on 2 plates separated by an insulator, whereas (which I think you understand) batteries store energy on 2 plates that change chemically as they are charged and discharged, two different technologies for two different purposes.


Point is a battery generates a constant voltage whos regulation is determined by the internal resistance of the plates and electrolyte medium. Capacitors store energy (Joules), the amoutn of which is determined by the capacitiance in Farads, but they are NOT constant voltage devices, the voltage stored in a capacitor at any point is a function of the capacitance and the remaining stored energy, ie as you discharge a capacitor into  a load the voltage follows a downward parabolic curve.  So for a system that requires a fixed voltage, they arent the best plan.

Storing at a higher voltage is possible, , but even then, more circuitry is needed to take the solar panel output convert it to AC, multiply it up, and then you need a bigger better voltage regulator to take it back down to a usable voltage, just to get more stored energy that can be drained without having to cope with the voltage drop. It gets very messy. And inefficient.



Even ignoring the fact that solar panels are about as 'green' as a pile of radioactive dog shit, the only viable way to store solar power is to use it to pump water into a tower and then let the water fall down and drive a water turbine, and lose about 70% of the energy working  against gravity and in pump losses.  Solar, on the whole, is going to solve no problems but create more down the road.

----------


## Swedgin

> I don't have time for so much jibber jabber.  Pick a point out of all your garbage that you think is the most important and ask it.


EXACTLY!

It seems that your understanding of "Solar" power ends with the concept.

We might as well be talking about Warp Engines, Cold Fusion, or perpetual motion machines, as you do not care to go any further than the science FICTION discussion....

----------


## Swedgin

> So, if energy from the sun is free....Does that mean there'll be no more electric bills?


#1.  More than likely, it would only be a massive reduction in electric bills, as it is doubtful Solar Power could generate enough to power everything we need, over a 24 hour day.

#2.  That REDUCTION, however, could be massive.  Especially for things like Grocery stores in Arizona, during the Summer, or, in Michigan, during the Winter.

#3.  BUT...that means we have "unintended consequences:"
         A.  The Energy industry, and many of those jobs would go poof!
         B.  BUT...we will still need to keep the grid maintained.

#4.  And you would still have a "bill," as you will still have to maintain, and repair your solar panels from time to time.

----------


## Swedgin

> The Chinese must be pretty stupid.  The whole reason that AC won out over DC in the first place was because AC was easier to transmit.


Are you talking about the Chinese who are massively expanding their coal burning power plants???

----------

12icer (11-11-2021)

----------


## Oceander

> Some states will actually pay you to install solar panels.  So they can't be that big of a problem.


 :Smiley ROFLMAO:

----------

12icer (11-11-2021)

----------


## Swedgin

> Ever watch the documentary, "The Corporation?"  Those with money are basically above the law.  That in itself is a crime.



I would tend to agree on that.

But..your insult covers a good deal more people than "those with money."

In fact, it is quite often those WITHOUT much money who resist these new green energy concepts, as THEY are the ones who will be most effected by them, financially.

Your hero, Ed Begley, Jr., might be considered as among "those with money..."

Whatever the case, insult doesn't do much to convince people.....

----------

12icer (11-11-2021)

----------


## Well Bonded

> Are you talking about the Chinese who are massively expanding their coal burning power plants???


Keep in mind the OP had been banned from the forum for rule violations.

----------

12icer (11-11-2021),Swedgin (11-11-2021)

----------


## nonsqtr

> Keep in mind the OP had been banned from the forum for rule violations.


These oddball names somehow have a familiar ring to them. 

brain flame
chain break

Y'know... neptune spear.

----------

12icer (11-11-2021)

----------


## Swedgin

OKAY then!!

I am taking over this debate, in order to PUSH for the advancement of Solar Power for our species.

I would ask @UKSmartypants to throw all the sciency stuff at me, but, at the same time, keep an open mind on HOW we can advance it!

And lets just be clear about all the stupid going on:  I will admit that I provide more than my generous portion of it!

Now, to rehash MY feelings on Solar Power:

#1.  It's a good!  Why?  Because:

        A.  It is "mostly" free:  The energy from the Sun is hammering (HALF of) our globe every second.  In fact...almost EVERY BIT of our energy already comes from the Sun.  Food, which basically sores up energy from the Sun.. Fossil Fuels (Which were once biological, with energy stored up, then "saved" by natural processes).  Wind, as there would be no, or very little, wind currents, if not for the heat from the Sun.  Even if we get into Geothermal or Tides, the argument can be made that the Sun's GRAVITATIONAL effects create this energy.
        B.  It is "eternal," at least for Humanities perspective (Once the Sun goes, we got much bigger problems than Global Warming.  In fact, THAT issue will go away within minutes.  Of course...the Earth would already have been swallowed by our fat, RED sun, so...)  SOMEDAY, our species will go through most of our fossil fuels.  The Sun will still be here.  SOMEDAY, we will want to traverse our Solar system.  The SUN can help with that, just as it is already valuable for Space travel and exploration.  It literally will not "run out."  (Until it does, and, when it does...our species had best be watching from a new, faraway, home...)
       C.  PERSONAL OWNERSHIP:  It may not sound like much, but, I bet most of us would LOVE to know we have access, and control, of our OWN power source!
       D.  MY FAVORITE PART:  Ultimate redundancy.  Right now, if our "grid" goes down (say, to an Ice Storm...), small, personal solar panels could still provide enough to charge your iPhone, run a little bit of heat, etc.  This would be VERY beneficial on Hospitals, and Schools (From which "recovery" efforts are often based...)

#2.  BUT...it is limited, as well:
       A.  COST.  Right now, the cost of Solar Panels are prohibitive for most.  Even most businesses find that, when all is done, the Solar Panels will cost more than what they are currently paying.  
            (I will propose ways to help reduce these costs below...)"
       B.  Efficiency.  Right now, they only harness a fraction of the energy that hits them.  This WILL get better, but...at a cost.  The Panels used on the Mars Explorers are very efficient at about 29.5%.  AND, they are well made, in that they have stood up, very well.  BUT...they are definitely what we would consider, "pricey."  I do not have exact numbers, but, as I recall, it is around $7 million for roughly a 2' x 2' panel.  Not many homeowners can afford that....
       C.  Even with high efficiency, we still have TWO, MASSIVE issue that most do not even consider:  1.  HOW do we 'move' the energy from where the Solar Panels harness it, to the final destination?  Until we have efficient Superconducting technology, most of that energy wouldn't make it out of the state, much less across the continent.  Around the world?  Laughable!  2.  If we can't move it, how do we "store" it?  Again...BATTERIES are more a limitation than the solar panels themselves.  While we constantly improve them, our methods of storing electrical energy are still somewhat...limited.  Quite simply, as it stands, a Solar/Battery Farm is not cost efficient at this time.
       D.  Despite the whole "It's FREE!" mantra, Solar Panels STILL have to be maintained (that is a cost).  They STILL have to be repaired (NOTHING lasts forever.  Even the Golden Gate Bridge and Mt. Rushmore need maintenance, and, occasional repair.  This is a fact of reality that many try to ignore.  It can't be ignored.
       E.  UKSmartypants (and others), you are up!  List any other negatives/limitations to Solar Power that you can come up with....

#3.  HOW do we make them more effective, and, efficient:
      A.  Create the market, and the market will come!!!!  MY PLAN:  MASSIVE tax write off's (maybe, for the entire cost of the Solar Panels!).  I feel this would encourage many, especially larger businesses and manufacturers to "take the leap" into solar power.  And, over time, once the FREE MARKET gets going...we end up with cheaper, more efficient panels.  (For those of you who remember the early PC's...consider how far we have come, due to FREE MARKET forces:  my first PC was around $2,500.00 in the 1990's.  Today, I can buy an iPhone with more than 100 times the computing power and storage, for around $1,000.00.  I remember the same dynamic when it comes to audio systems, TV's and speakers...)  The BIG negative (but positive for those building the panels...)", is that, after a few years, there will be better, cheaper, solar panels.  That's a good negative to have!
      B.  Fund and push research into better battery and superconducting technology.  This will have benefits above and beyond Solar Power.  LESS waste is numerically the same as MORE.  
      C.  UKSmartypants, and others, please add any of your thoughts on how to make Solar Power more cost effective.

Now, for a prediction:  In the end, it will likely be CONSERVATIVE Industrialists and Entrepenuers who make Solar Power a "thing."

The Lefties still won't be happy.

----------


## Well Bonded

> A.  Create the market, and the market will come!!!!  MY PLAN:  MASSIVE tax write off's (maybe, for the entire cost of the Solar Panels!).


In other words steal money from one class of taxpayers to give to another class of taxpayers.

You lost me right there, I cannot support taxing anyone to benefit others.

----------

12icer (11-11-2021),Foghorn (11-11-2021),Swedgin (11-11-2021)

----------


## Swedgin

> In other words steal money from one class of taxpayers to give to another class of taxpayers.
> 
> You lost me right there, I cannot support taxing anyone to benefit others.


Well, I tend to be universally FOR tax deductions.  I just feel that is a much better method, than:  A.  Collecting taxes, then, B. Spending tax money as GOVERNMENT sees fit.

Also, this would benefit ANYONE and EVERYONE who purchases Solar Panels.

As it is, we have subsidies for Gas companies, Investment firms, and all kinds of things like that.

The  "common" citizen gets no real benefit from that.

----------


## Well Bonded

> Well, I tend to be universally FOR tax deductions.  I just feel that is a much better method, than:  A.  Collecting taxes, then, B. Spending tax money as GOVERNMENT sees fit.
> 
> Also, this would benefit ANYONE and EVERYONE who purchases Solar Panels.


At the expense of those who don't or cannot. 

 Not a good idea.
If someone wants solar let them pay out of their own pocket and let the market work it out, not the taxpayers.

----------

Foghorn (11-11-2021),Swedgin (11-11-2021)

----------


## Swedgin

> At the expense of those who don't or cannot. 
> 
> Not a good idea.


Fair enough.

----------


## Foghorn

Since everyone seems to be in love with social experimentation I've got an experiment worth pondering:  Declare 2022 a 100% tax-free year.

No income tax, no property tax, no gasoline tax, no parking meters, no "fees" to enter state parks, no nothing.  Nada.

Put that in your Socialist pipe and smoke it.

----------

Swedgin (11-11-2021)

----------


## 12icer

As the use of solar panels expands, the technology that produces the most stable power retracts. That is the problem with solar panels, wind turbines and most other forms of power. There are many ways to produce power that are completely untapped because of "green", as in money, energy conglomerates. Small dedicated natural gas plants are one of the most stable and cost effective ways to produce electrical energy yet they are "carbon producers". There are more under patent that are not being investigated too.

The cost in aquifer pollution is not worth the amount of power produced by solar panels to me. Just like dumping used oil out of the pan when you change your cars oil is abhorrent to me. 
The REAL pollution crisis will soon and already is in some areas of the world potable water. You see all kinds of people saying the lakes have dried up because of global climate change, BS the bottled water industry takes trillions of gallons of water out of the natural replenishment cycle and puts it on shelves all over the world.
The idea that most humans are capable of really following a multiplanic process to the end result of all its possible, probable and actual effects on even ONE factor of a global scale environmental process is ludicrous.

----------

Swedgin (11-11-2021)

----------


## Swedgin

> Since everyone seems to be in love with social experimentation I've got an experiment worth pondering:  Declare 2022 a 100% tax-free year.
> 
> No income tax, no property tax, no gasoline tax, no parking meters, no "fees" to enter state parks, no nothing.  Nada.
> 
> Put that in your Socialist pipe and smoke it.


I like the idea, but...a bit TOO much of a good thing.  (Which will result in BAD things)

For my part, I would just prefer FEWER taxes (at the Federal level, in particular) and, BETTER returns on the massive amounts we already pay.

The BIGGEST problem with Government spending, is, Government waste.

(And, the fact, that Government is doing way too many things, that Governments are not set up to do, unless they dive into Despotism....)

----------


## ruthless terrier

pure solar power (and wind) is complex in that you have to use BIG batteries to store the electricity. in other words you need to have access to power when the sun doesn't shine .. or when the wind stops blowing. maintaining and watching the batteries is expensive. and manufacturing a battery requires lead or lithium which brings us back to industrial pollution.

----------

Swedgin (11-11-2021)

----------


## Well Bonded

> Since everyone seems to be in love with social experimentation I've got an experiment worth pondering:  Declare 2022 a 100% tax-free year.
> 
> No income tax, no property tax, no gasoline tax, no parking meters, no "fees" to enter state parks, no nothing.  Nada.
> 
> Put that in your Socialist pipe and smoke it.


That could be a forever thing, just nullify out oll state sales tax's and pass a nationwide flat rate sales tax, say 2% part of which would be shared with the states and the government would bring in more money than they could ever imagine and the economy would go through the roof because of all the consumer spending that not having to pay all the other tax's would produce.

Governments need tax revenue to provide essential services, the problem is they tend to branch out into other services that are not essential, other than to buy votes and to do so they raise tax's which shifts capitol from the private for profit market into a never profitable government service, slowing the economy in the process, which lowers tax revenue requiring higher tax's to make up the shortfall, which furthers slows the economy and the process repeats until the economy totally fails hurting everyone except those wealthy enough to off shore their money.

----------

Swedgin (11-11-2021)

----------


## Swedgin

> As the use of solar panels expands, the technology that produces the most stable power retracts. That is the problem with solar panels, wind turbines and most other forms of power. There are many ways to produce power that are completely untapped because of "green", as in money, energy conglomerates. Small dedicated natural gas plants are one of the most stable and cost effective ways to produce electrical energy yet they are "carbon producers". There are more under patent that are not being investigated too.
> 
> The cost in aquifer pollution is not worth the amount of power produced by solar panels to me. Just like dumping used oil out of the pan when you change your cars oil is abhorrent to me. 
> The REAL pollution crisis will soon and already is in some areas of the world potable water. You see all kinds of people saying the lakes have dried up because of global climate change, BS the bottled water industry takes trillions of gallons of water out of the natural replenishment cycle and puts it on shelves all over the world.
> The idea that most humans are capable of really following a multiplanic process to the end result of all its possible, probable and actual effects on even ONE factor of a global scale environmental process is ludicrous.


VERY good points!  

I have not thought about most of that, so...YOU... are "criminally stupid!!!"

(/snicker!  I'll be an undercover Lib in no time!  But, I'm gonna stay straight!)

----------


## Swedgin

> pure solar power (and wind) is complex in that you have to use BIG batteries to store the electricity. in other words you need to have access to power when the sun doesn't shine .. or when the wind stops blowing. maintaining and watching the batteries is expensive. and manufacturing a battery requires lead or lithium which brings us back to industrial pollution.


Yes.

That is why neither Solar, nor Wind are end-all, be-alls.  But, part of a system of "redundancy."

As it is, the German power operators have all kinds of issues with their Solar and Wind generators:  One hour, they have to be powered DOWN, because they are producing too much (wasted natural energy...), and, the next hour, they may not produce enough, so...fire up the fossil fuel or nuclear plants! 

Much the same happens with Hydro-electric (Which is a VERY good system, perhaps the best, if natural environments encourage it!).  TVA has to literally turn some of their turbines off at night, because of reduced usage.   The "energy" is still flowing through those dams, we just don't have anywhere to send it.  (What I refer to as "no-waste, waste of energy...")

We need to think of a multi-layered approach to energy production.  Again:  REDUNDANCY!!!!!

----------


## Well Bonded

> pure solar power (and wind) is complex in that you have to use BIG batteries to store the electricity. in other words you need to have access to power when the sun doesn't shine .. or when the wind stops blowing. maintaining and watching the batteries is expensive. and manufacturing a battery requires lead or lithium which brings us back to industrial pollution.


Pure solar or wind will never be a solution, they are considered unreliable sources of energy, adding batteries decreases the efficiency of both to the point a break even time almost is impossible to calculate, as such private investment is hard to come by and when found carries high interest rates, more so with wind as it is very high maintenance form of generation.

There are a few use's for PV energy such as roof top systems for daytime EV charging, but that requires business by in's and a portion if it's workforce willing to drive EV's.

----------

Swedgin (11-11-2021)

----------


## UKSmartypants

> Pure solar or wind will never be a solution, they are considered unreliable sources of energy, adding batteries decreases the efficiency of both to the point a break even time almost is impossible to calculate, as such private investment is hard to come by and when found carries high interest rates, more so with wind as it is very high maintenance form of generation.
> 
> There are a few use's for PV energy such as roof top systems for daytime EV charging, but that requires business by in's and a portion if it's workforce willing to drive EV's.



Theres also the point that to create all these solar panels and electric cars is goign to require a gigantic increase in the mining of all sorts of metals, and m,ost of them are in unfriendly places

 

Theres a massive article her behind a paywall, i cant really summarise of copypasta it, but the gist of the article is the mining of the specific meat minerals to get to net zero is going to be massive costly to the environment and costly in money.  Research suggests in fact the necessary resource swill become scarcer and more expensive as tiem goe son, and may make net zero impossible

Will a scramble to mine metals undermine the clean energy revolution? | New Scientist

----------

Swedgin (11-11-2021)

----------


## UKSmartypants

> The Chinese must be pretty stupid.  The whole reason that AC won out over DC in the first place was because AC was easier to transmit.



well no, your grasp of this subject is limited.  Most of these interconnectors use DC transmission because it makes converting from one country's voltage and frequency to another countries easier

Also, theres break even point in the long term transmission of power where DC becomes a better , more efficient bet, its around 2500 kilometres, at high voltages. The chinese use 1.2 million volt at 100 amp power transmission in places.  HVDC transmission losses are quoted as less than 3% per 1,000 km, which  are 30 to 40% less than with AC lines, at the same voltage levels.  DC  transmission in the US is still not common it is very limited in scope,  and is not generally used for voltages below 500kV. But in Europe it is  decidedly more common. The asynchronous nature, as well as the particular areas, make DC connections a more suitable choice there than  in the US.


Its more efficient to _transmit_ DC using about the same infrastructure.  This is because of several effects:
Skin effect experienced with AC.  There is no skin effect with DC.Higher voltage allowed with DC for the same transmission   lines.  The lines have to withstand the peak voltage.  With AC, that is 1.4 times higher than the RMS.  With DC, the RMS and peak voltages are the same.  However, the power transmitted is the current times the RMS, not peak, voltage.No radiation loss with DC.  Long transmission lines act as antennas and do radiate some power.  That can only happen with AC.No induction losses.  The changing magnetic field around a wire carrying AC current causes induced voltage and current in nearby conductors.  In effect, the transmission line is the primary of a transformer, and conductors near it are secondaries.  With DC current, the magnetic field doesn't change and therefore doesn't transfer power. 
 Another advantage of DC is that it doesn't require synchronization between grids.  Two AC grids need to be phase-synced to be connected together.  This gets tricky when the distances are large enough to be significant fractions of a cycle.




If you are going to debate here kid, you need to do your research, your throwaway one line answers will simply get crushed her by better thought out better researched replies.  There are sound technical and economic  reasons to use DC for long distance, which you are clearly unaware of, which means you should go and do some research before trying to debate this subject.  Many of the people on this forum are retired technical and scientific  staff with extensive knowledge of stuff like this.

----------


## Oceander

> well no, your grasp of this subject is limited.  Most of these interconnectors use DC transmission because it makes converting from one country's voltage and frequency to another countries easier
> 
> Also, theres break even point in the long term transmission of power where DC becomes a better , more efficient bet, its around 2500 kilometres, at high voltages. The chinese use 1.2 million volt at 100 amp power transmission in places.  HVDC transmission losses are quoted as less than 3% per 1,000 km, which  are 30 to 40% less than with AC lines, at the same voltage levels.  DC  transmission in the US is still not common it is very limited in scope,  and is not generally used for voltages below 500kV. But in Europe it is  decidedly more common. The asynchronous nature, as well as the particular areas, make DC connections a more suitable choice there than  in the US.
> 
> 
> is more efficient to _transmit_ DC using about the same infrastructure.  This is because of several effects:
> Skin effect experienced with AC.  There is no skin effect with DC.Higher voltage allowed with DC for the same transmission   lines.  The lines have to withstand the peak voltage.  With AC, that is 1.4 times higher than the RMS.  With DC, the RMS and peak voltages are the same.  However, the power transmitted is the current times the RMS, not peak, voltage.No radiation loss with DC.  Long transmission lines act as antennas and do radiate some power.  That can only happen with AC.No induction losses.  The changing magnetic field around a wire carrying AC current causes induced voltage and current in nearby conductors.  In effect, the transmission line is the primary of a transformer, and conductors near it are secondaries.  With DC current, the magnetic field doesn't change and therefore doesn't transfer power.
>  Another advantage of DC is that it doesn't require synchronization between grids.  Two AC grids need to be phase-synced to be connected together.  This gets tricky when the distances are large enough to be significant fractions of a cycle.
> 
> ...


High-voltage direct current - Wikipedia

----------


## Well Bonded

> Skin effect experienced with AC.  There is no skin effect with DC.


There is no skin effect at 60Hz or lower.




> No radiation loss with DC.  Long transmission lines act as antennas and do radiate some power.  That can only happen with AC.




This is true and the term in transmission is charging current. 




> No induction losses.  The changing magnetic field around a wire carrying AC current causes induced voltage and current in nearby conductors.  In effect, the transmission line is the primary of a transformer, and conductors near it are secondaries.  With DC current, the magnetic field doesn't change and therefore doesn't transfer power.




With 3 phase transmission, this is negated as each phase absorbs the induction from the other phases.

----------


## UKSmartypants

> There is no skin effect at 60Hz or lower.


wikipedia and most of the worlds electricity generation companies disagree

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



that formula is used to calculate it, its doesn't  "cut off' at 60 hz. Why do you think they invented stranded wire?

then there is


https://www.aesa-cortaillod.com/file...he%20conductor.

Note the paragraph that starts

"INFLUENCE ON AC RESISTANCE 
*At  50  Hz  for  example,  due  mostly  to  the  skin effect*  ......"


At 60 Hz the skin depth where it takes effect is approx  8.5mm so the effect is pretty much negligible except in very large diameter wires and in long distances. 


[/QUOTE]

----------


## Well Bonded

> At 60 Hz the skin depth where it takes effect is approx  8.5mm so the effect is pretty much negligible except in very large diameter wires and in long distances.


The effect is not just negligible it is irrelevant at transmission voltage levels, in transmission a few microohm's per meter it not even relevant when transporting a million volts. 

So as I correctly stated, at 60Hz the skin effect doesn't exist, except in the minds of a few engineers, who don't design or understand power transmission.    




> Why do you think they invented stranded wire?


For flexibility, have you ever tried reeling up 1.5" aluminum bar or pulling a 4/0 solid copper conductor through conduit with a few 90's in it? 

Get real your being an ass-hat now. 

And if skin effect was a real issue at 60 Hz, which it is not, why are these buss bars made of solid aluminum versus hollow rectangular tubing which would be both lighter and cost the utility a whole lot less money, answer, I'll give you a clue, it's because the power flows through the entire bar, not just near the skin.   

bb.jpg 
Skin effect matters in RF not in 60 HZ T&D.

----------


## East of the Beast

Nothing like watching 2 know-it-alls duke it out

----------


## Catfucious

> If you are one of those human caused global warming deniers, this thread won't interest you.  But for those of you with some intelligence, you may find it interesting.  Just think of it.  The U.S. could become the new Saudi Arabia of electricity.  Though transmitting that electricity around the world could be a bit of a challenge.  I will show you two pictures.  The first shows the total area of the U.S. covered in solar panels it would take to power the WORLD!  Keep in mind that those solar panels wouldn't have to be all in one spot or where they are shown to be.  We have more than enough useless desert area in the U.S. to do it.
> 
>   The second picture I will show you shows the entire area compared to the U.S. it would take to power just the U.S.  It shows a square area that is about 140 miles per side.  Though Elon Musk thinks it could be done with a total area that is only 100 miles per side.  And Elon Musk's engineering skills have made him a multi billionaire.  So don't be so quick to discount what he says.  What is the major problem with this approach?  The energy to be gotten from the sun is FREE!!!  And there isn't a lot of money to be made from free.
> 
> Attachment 63281 
> 
> 
> Attachment 63282


If there isn't a lot of money to be made then who gives a shit. ? What do you think motivates your superiors ( of which I am one btw) putting lights in mud huts ?

----------


## UKSmartypants

> The effect is not just negligible it is irrelevant at transmission voltage levels, in transmission a few microohm's per meter it not even relevant when transporting a million volts. 
> 
> So as I correctly stated, at 60Hz the skin effect doesn't exist, except in the minds of a few engineers, who don't design or understand power transmission.    
> 
> 
> 
> For flexibility, have you ever tried reeling up 1.5" aluminum bar or pulling a 4/0 solid copper conductor through conduit with a few 90's in it? 
> 
> Get real your being an ass-hat now. 
> ...



if it makes you happy,  long since got bored with arguing with people whos ego hangs on a trivial 'fact'.....

----------


## Well Bonded

> if it makes you happy,  long since got bored with arguing with people whos ego hangs on a trivial 'fact'.....


The only trivial part is what you have claimed.

----------


## donttread

> If you are one of those human caused global warming deniers, this thread won't interest you.  But for those of you with some intelligence, you may find it interesting.  Just think of it.  The U.S. could become the new Saudi Arabia of electricity.  Though transmitting that electricity around the world could be a bit of a challenge.  I will show you two pictures.  The first shows the total area of the U.S. covered in solar panels it would take to power the WORLD!  Keep in mind that those solar panels wouldn't have to be all in one spot or where they are shown to be.  We have more than enough useless desert area in the U.S. to do it.
> 
>   The second picture I will show you shows the entire area compared to the U.S. it would take to power just the U.S.  It shows a square area that is about 140 miles per side.  Though Elon Musk thinks it could be done with a total area that is only 100 miles per side.  And Elon Musk's engineering skills have made him a multi billionaire.  So don't be so quick to discount what he says.  What is the major problem with this approach?  The energy to be gotten from the sun is FREE!!!  And there isn't a lot of money to be made from free.
> 
> Attachment 63281 
> 
> 
> Attachment 63282



What do you think the power loss transporting power through the oceons might be?

----------

