When you click on links to various merchants on this site and make a purchase, this can result in this site earning a commission. Affiliate programs and affiliations include, but are not limited to, the eBay Partner Network.
Even if we could get a gigawatt per km sq, those numbers don't work because of the transmission losses that would have to be dealt with in running transmission lines all across the country from a single point, which I presume would have to be in the southwest. Anyone care to hazard a guess on the loss of energy from that cute red box to northern Minnesota or Maine? What about Alaska? Don't they deserve free power?
Even if we could get a gigawatt per km sq, those numbers don't work because of the transmission losses that would have to be dealt with in running transmission lines all across the country from a single point, which I presume would have to be in the southwest. Anyone care to hazard a guess on the loss of energy from that cute red box to northern Minnesota or Maine? What about Alaska? Don't they deserve free power?
Read the link, its accounted for. Even so, the idea is just to give an idea for the area needed. If everyone throws it on their roof, no space is taken up, and the transmission losses end up less than with current utilities
I don't really get the current hate for solar, its like printing free money while saving the environment at the same time. I just don't get it
Yes, the area shown is reasonable, as a visualisation of the surface area of panels required to generate electricity equal to total US electricity consumption, on a multi-year average: that area of panels would generate about 500 GW, which is above the current US annual average electricity consumption of 425 GW, with enough spare to account for resistance losses. And do bear in mind that the claim wasn’t about whether demand could meet demand second-by-second, but whether the total amount over time could be met. The whole point of the presentation that the claim occurs in was to sell storage, which is there to bridge gaps between generation and demand.
How many false promises does it take to realize a new technology is fully dependent on a hope and a prayer. Figure it out first before asserting an application (EVs).
the EV movement is dependent on a future opportunity. Prove the opportunity before mandating the dependent application.
In my view if an all out initiative to promote an alternate, realistic energy paradigm is pursued, then EVs may make sense. Until then, No. At a minimum it will take 30 years , but I doubt that because alternate energy politics are very screwed up.
Please don’t force an inferior technology before its time.
Solar is not even close to a new technology, its proven itself at this point and has even reached the point where its cheap enough at a low enough scale to throw on your roof
So many uninformed people, that only see what is in front of them.
For example, my podunk state provides us with 30% renewable power, and their goal is 100%
Maybe that is why they only charge $.05 cents per kwh for charging BEV's.
NV Energy’s renewable portfolio includes 56 geothermal, solar, solar plus storage, hydro, wind, and biomass projects both in service and under development. This includes 12 solar plus storage projects we’ve brought forward since 2018 that, when complete, will provide enough energy to power 566,000 Nevada homes at once. These projects will help meet our long-term goal to serve customers with 100 percent renewable energy.
In 2019, NV Energy achieved an overall 27.5 percent Renewable Portfolio Standard -- exceeding its 20 percent requirement for the 10th straight year.
But solar has become the straw man for renewables, because you need sunlight for it to work.
Luckily, there are many parts of the country where wind blows 24/7. I bet you will be surprised by this chart. Notice how much wind energy contributes to total electrical usage in those states. When Kansas, Iowa, North Dakota, and Oklahoma can get 1/2 of their power from wind, you know it can be done.
China boasts the world's largest capacity for wind energy, totalling just over 288 GW at the end of 2020 – having added 52 GW of new power during that year, far more than any other country. Just over 278 GW of China's fleet is onshore wind, with the remaining 10GW based offshore.Mar 30, 2021
Are we really going to let China beat us in producing renewal energy? We better not.
Meanwhile, please drop your obsession to advance a counterproductive paradigm long before its time. Promoting EVs before there are alternative power sources is an environmental step backwards with significant, unwarranted cost and inconvenience to society.
LOL, by that logic (?) we should not have started building ICE vehicles before there was a gas station on every corner, and paved roads connecting them.
No, if BEV's create a demand for more electricity, good old capitalism will provide it, one way or another. Or we will go down the tubes.
If you build it, they will come. And my post above shows exactly how it can be done in an environmental way.
LOL by your logic, Existing power demand would be supplied by renewables. Not even close. You keep spewing misinformation and unrealistic optimism and you never quit misleading.
Nice try, but, no.
You want logic? Then refute this with logic, if you can.
If Kansas can provide over 50% of its electrical energy sold just by wind generation, then logically, they can provide 100% by investing in more wind turbines. Or is there a limited amount of wind available in Kansas, LOL? And right now, today, Kansas gets more electricity from wind than from coal and natural gas combined.
Facts can be troublesome things, can't they? So Kansas is in the forefront of wind energy production, as are Iowa, North Dakota, Kansas. What do they have in common? Lots of wind and lots of land. Indisputable.
My state gets 30% of its electricity from renewables, on its way to their intention of going to 100%. If we can do it, so can others. Maybe that is why I pay $.103 per kwh.
Is that logical enough for you, my friend? Sorry that the facts are not on your side. (Not really)
The Power generated from solar is really a pile of miss info,,, The proponents assume a perfect Power conversion no cloud cover no dirt on cells ect, the best life cycle is 25 years with 20% degrade . Then with all of those factors going against it { wind is worse } making it dynamic power supply instead of a static which Grids need.. The Fix will be when industry can get off of the Lithium Battery. Toxic, dangerous and does not have the energy density needed for longer trips, also has temp issues both in discharge and charging..
The Really good news is the next step is looking like the solid state battery,, Grapheen is even better but alas thats vapor wear where as the solid state Battery is not..BTW Kansas will start to have power issues because wind is one of the worst. Unless they can store the massive power on the cheep..https://fordauthority.com/2021/05/fo...-manufacturer/......Also a good read for all is https://www.lomborg.com/skeptical-environmentalist
EnjoyIts an eye opener .. No Talking points,, Just Facts and Logic
Lomborg was an undergraduate at the University of Georgia, earned an M.A. degree in political science at the University of Aarhus in 1991, and a PhD degree in political science at the University of Copenhagen in 1994.
Oh, great, we have come to the point that we are discussing energy sources based on a book written in 2001. By a guy with a PhD in Political Science.
I'll pass on that.
Political science is the study of politics and power from domestic, international, and comparative perspectives. It entails understanding political ideas, ideologies, institutions, policies, processes, and behavior, as well as groups, classes, government, diplomacy, law, strategy, and war.
05-06-2021, 10:31 PM
