Peak Oil is You
Donate Bitcoins ;-) or Paypal :-)
Page added on February 3, 2018
Solar ERoEI Is Actually Really, Really, Really Good
Myth: solar energy has low, even counterproductive, energy return on energy investment (ERoEI)
Short answer: Actually, solar energy has superb energy return on energy investment (ERoEI) — 1 to 4 years, according to the US National Renewable Energy Lab, or 1 to 2.5 years in Europe, according to the Fraunhofer Institute in Germany.
The terms “energy payback” and “energy payback period” when used to discuss solar power might be kind of confusing at first glance, but when you dig a little deeper, you get much more clarity. Energy payback refers to the amount of energy a solar power system has to make in order to equal the energy which was used to produce it. Most solar panels are made up of solar cells which are manufactured from silicon. This non-metal element must be processed in order to be usable in solar cells. The processing consumes some energy, as does the assembly of solar cells into solar panels.
Solar Energy Return On Investment — Energy Payback Period
Some critics and skeptics incorrectly say too much energy is consumed in the production of solar panels and that the panels don’t generate enough electricity during their lifetimes to make up for it.
This criticism has been proven to be false, and may be nothing more than a deliberate form of misinformation intended to persuade people who are interested in solar power to lose that interest. Too often, the critics turn out to be people who are directly or indirectly connected to fossil fuel industries like oil and gas, nuclear, or coal. They also may be politically conservative — certain highly politicized members of that group have historically opposed renewable energy to some degree.
Let’s look at what a neutral scientifically focused source, the US National Renewable Energy Lab, says about solar power and the energy payback situation: “Energy payback estimates for rooftop PV systems are 4, 3, 2, and 1 years: 4 years for systems using current multicrystalline-silicon PV modules, 3 years for current thin-film modules, 2 years for anticipated multicrystalline modules, and 1 year for anticipated thin-film modules (see Figure 1). With energy paybacks of 1 to 4 years and assumed life expectancies of 30 years, 87% to 97% of the energy that PV systems generate won’t be plagued by pollution, greenhouse gases, and depletion of resources.”
The Fraunhofer Institute in Germany published a document containing similar figures: “The Energy Payback Time of PV systems is dependent on the geographical location: PV systems in Northern Europe need around 2.5 years to balance the input energy, while PV systems in the South equal their energy input after 1.5 years and less, depending on the technology installed.” Its report also noted there was a PV system in Sicily with a payback time of about one year.
In other words, PV solar systems today easily generate enough electricity to equal the amount of energy consumed to produce them. They then go on for many years to produce clean electricity.
Financial Solar PV Payback Period
When people talk about “energy payback” or “energy payback period,” they may also be thinking about the time a solar PV power system needs to operate in order to pay for itself financially through savings on utility bills. On average, that period is about 6–8 years in the US, according to Energy Sage.
It is only logical that a home or business owner who is considering getting such a system would want to know if it would be a sound investment. If you have a home solar power system that pays for itself in 8 years, and it produces electricity for 25, then you could say the free electricity period would be 17 years, which sounds pretty good.
Currently, no one asks, “But how long will I have free electricity?” because there is no such term “free electricity period.” However, the term “energy payback period” suggests a logic wherein one could derive this term. To be more precise, one could pose the question, “How long will I have free, clean, renewable electricity?” In the case of a 6–8 year payback period, the buyer then just needs to consider how long beyond that they will be using the solar panels. The period of free, clean electricity would be a little more than twice the payback period if they expect to use them for 25 years.
Another factor that can influence the payback time for a home solar power system is a potential increase in the home’s value. A research study found that installing a home solar system could increase the value of a home by about $15,000.
For homeowners who sold their homes after having new home solar power added, the result could be getting an extra $15,000. That money would help pay for the system, or if it had been paid off, it would be income.
A different study found that homes with solar power systems tend to sell faster, which can be more convenient depending on one’s life circumstances. (In some situations, people need to sell their homes as quickly as possible to pay for medical bills, to relocate for a new job, or for other reasons.)
54 Comments on "Solar ERoEI Is Actually Really, Really, Really Good"
Kenz300 on Sat, 3rd Feb 2018 2:09 pm
Battery storage is a game changer making wind and solar base load power.
Clean energy production with solar panels / tiles and battery storage.
Clean energy consumption with electric vehicles. No emissions.
A new solar roof, battery storage, an electric car charger and an electric vehicle.
Solar panels are now being projected to have a much longer life and lower cost than just a few years ago.
Electric cars, electric trucks, electric lawn mowers, electric snow blowers, electric tools, no emissions.
Cloggie on Sat, 3rd Feb 2018 3:09 pm
https://deepresource.wordpress.com/2017/08/08/energy-problems-what-energy-problems/
https://deepresource.wordpress.com/2017/08/05/solar-eroi/
Thin film solar, miniscule active layer of a few micron on a simple plastic wrapper, with low embodied energy, hence high EROI. Tendency: getting better all the time.
I’m sure the resident doomers will not be impressed.
/shrugg
peakyeast on Sat, 3rd Feb 2018 3:14 pm
Fisker has announced a new car with a new battery type as far as i can tell.
It seems more to resemble supercapacitors than actual batteries.
https://electrek.co/2017/11/14/fisker-solid-state-battery-breakthrough-electric-cars/
If this become a cheap mainstream battery then it will be possible for many to go off-grid.
Boat on Sat, 3rd Feb 2018 3:20 pm
Clog,
Around 333 billion were spent on renewables last year. The best news is prices of renewables have dropped 25% since 2015.
The bad news. The high priced solar and wind installed 10 years ago are like a boat anchor weighing down the EU. Blame Putin for scaring you into poor financial decisions by being so dependant on nat gas for electricity.
dave thompson on Sat, 3rd Feb 2018 3:22 pm
As a resident doomer. The article above leaves out all the other stuff needed to have a viable system. The inverter, battery arrays, charging regulator, wiring, maintenance.
Who monitors the panels and climbs up on the roof twice a week or more to clean the dirt and grime or snow?
Who keeps an eagle eye on the cycling of the batteries, on a daily basis? Draining expensive batteries to low and you lose life expectancy of said batteries.
Any kind of power draw jolt from AC compressors alone is a hazard never spoken of. But you better beware.
How much dose it cost to replace your batteries, they will eventually fail.
Davy on Sat, 3rd Feb 2018 3:26 pm
I just installed 6 – 300watt Hanwha panels on a pole mount. I have a 48 volt system with a magnum inverter 240/120v with a Midnight charge controller with 8 Trojan L-16AGM batteries. I am using these along with grid power. I have a transfer switch box to be able to switch 20 circuits to grid or solar depending on the circumstance. My inverter will automatically charge my battery from grid power if needed. All this is adds up to around $16,000. As cheap as our electricity is here in central Missouri it will take more than 8 years to get a return I am calculating. Yet, for me it is about more than a return. It is also having backup incase the grid goes down or the grid goes unstable in the future. Think of all the countries where electricity is only available part of the time. I ask you to ask yourself why that could not happen in the wealthier parts of the world. I also have a wood boiler to heat the house and water. Finally I have a woodstove in the house. Eventually I want to purchase a Bergey Excel 1KW wind turbine. The wind turbine installed would be around $10,000.
dave thompson on Sat, 3rd Feb 2018 3:26 pm
My final point, year over year humans are burning more FF then ever. The “transition” to clean green tech has made no difference.
Harquebus on Sat, 3rd Feb 2018 3:39 pm
Unless ‘all’ the energy used, from sandpit to rooftop and every piece of machinery used and infrastructure needed is factored, one can dismiss these fudged EROEI calculations as fantasy.
Many other inputs such as maintaining and educating both the direct and indirect workforces also needs to be factored.
There are also externalities such as pollution and environmental destruction that, as is also the case of conventional energy production, are almost never factored.
This is just more biased hopium from one who does not want to give up their unsustainable energy intensive lifestyle.
Cloggie on Sat, 3rd Feb 2018 3:45 pm
“The bad news. The high priced solar and wind installed 10 years ago are like a boat anchor weighing down the EU.”
10 years ago there was not much solar and wind, so there is no “boat anchor” weighing down on us.
“Blame Putin for scaring you into poor financial decisions by being so dependant on nat gas for electricity.”
We’re not going to blame Putin for anything. Russia and the USSR were always reliable suppliers. The push for development of wind and solar had ABSOLUTELY NOTHING to do with non-existing fear for Russia but everything with “Club of Rome” sentiment. Russia is the great hope for survival of European civilization, where the US empire aka the West represents its death.
MASTERMIND on Sat, 3rd Feb 2018 4:00 pm
UC Davis Study: It Will Take 131 Years to Replace Oil with Alternatives (Malyshkina, 2010)
http://pubs.acs.org/doi/abs/10.1021/es100730q
University of Chicago Study: predicts world economy unlikely to stop relying on fossil fuels (Covert, 2016)
https://www.aeaweb.org/articles?id=10.1257/jep.30.1.117
Solar and Wind produced less than one percent of total world energy in 2016 – IEA WEO 2017
https://www.iea.org/publications/freepublications/publication/KeyWorld2017.pdf
Fossil Fuel Share of Global Energy since 1990 – BP 2017
https://imgur.com/k7VecMq
MASTERMIND on Sat, 3rd Feb 2018 4:04 pm
As Dr Joseph Tainter put it “Our collapse will be a catastrophe almost to terrifying to imagine”…
MASTERMIND on Sat, 3rd Feb 2018 4:10 pm
Pentagon acknowledges Russia is developing a ‘doomsday’ weapon
http://www.nydailynews.com/news/world/pentagon-acknowledges-russia-developing-doomsday-weapon-article-1.3796575
Vlad the bad must be stopped! I hope Matthis hits Putin with a nuclear first strike!
MASTERMIND on Sat, 3rd Feb 2018 4:22 pm
Clogg
Putin’s days are numbered! Vlad the bad is going down! Nuclear first strike on Moscow and Putin’s luxury palace! Then Drillerson can take over from there and we can take their oil and gas reserves!
Cloggie on Sat, 3rd Feb 2018 4:28 pm
“Clogg
Putin’s days are numbered! Vlad the bad is going down! Nuclear first strike on Moscow and Putin’s luxury palace! Then Drillerson can take over from there and we can take their oil and gas reserves!”
https://goo.gl/images/YKAZRC
https://www.reuters.com/article/us-mideast-crisis-syria-russia/russian-military-mission-accomplished-islamic-state-defeated-in-syria-idUSKBN1E11R3
(IS is US-initiated, like the Taliban in Aghanistan. Both back-fired)
MASTERMIND on Sat, 3rd Feb 2018 4:31 pm
Trump using kind of ‘racist language and terrifying expressions of popular nationalism’ that helped start First World War, historian Dan Snow warns
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/us-politics/donald-trump-brexit-racist-populist-nationalism-start-war-wwi-dan-snow-historian-poem-to-remember-a8192036.html
MASTERMIND on Sat, 3rd Feb 2018 4:45 pm
Politically speaking, tribal nationalism always insists that its own people is surrounded by “a world of enemies”, “one against all”, that a fundamental difference exists between this people and all others. It claims its people to be unique, individual, incompatible with all others, and denies theoretically the very possibility of a common mankind long before it is used to destroy the humanity of man.
-Hannah Arendt – The Origins Of Totalitarianism p.227
Boat on Sat, 3rd Feb 2018 4:49 pm
Clog,
Why would the EU need Russia for survival.
Mad Kat on Sat, 3rd Feb 2018 5:24 pm
“Unless ‘all’ the energy used, from sandpit to rooftop and every piece of machinery used and infrastructure needed is factored, one can dismiss these fudged EROEI calculations as fantasy.”
You are spot on. Harquebus. These EROEI bullshit articles are just techie dreamers ignoring the rest of the equation.
Anyone who disputes this FACT should read this article by Sun web:
http://sunweber.blogspot.com/2011/12/machines-making-machines-making.html.
More than ever, it takes serious thought to sort out the truth these days. Everyone is selling something and lies are rampant. Electric “renewables” can never be independent of FF energy.
onlooker on Sat, 3rd Feb 2018 5:26 pm
Many of you guys are very well apprised of technical feasibilities of energy systems. What I find interesting is nobody is convincingly demonstrating that society can and is full scale billing the high upfront costs of transition or able to adequately address the inherent weaknesses of Renewables like intermittency and ability to scale up sufficient to offset FF depletions and phasing out.
Kenz300 on Sat, 3rd Feb 2018 5:46 pm
Two-thirds of world’s new energy capacity in 2016 was renewable: IEA
http://www.greencarreports.com/news/1113115_two-thirds-of-worlds-new-energy-capacity-in-2016-was-renewable-iea
Mad Kat on Sat, 3rd Feb 2018 6:02 pm
onlooker, I do not see society even trying to build out an energy system that can survive the end of FF. It would require a sharp decline in energy consumed and that would take the 1st world to almost 3rd world levels, what I call The Great Leveling. Not going to happen voluntarily. (But is currently being forced in the US for other reasons.)
Not to mention that to do so would require a significant percentage of current FF energy to be reallocated for the process. Again, not going to happen voluntarily. It will be Business-As-Usual until we go over the cliff.
onlooker on Sat, 3rd Feb 2018 6:09 pm
Yes Makati, all signs are pointing to that is the only thing really occurring and the only option left. Token gestures just like with climate change. We are a rapidly falling species.
Davy on Sat, 3rd Feb 2018 6:31 pm
“what I call The Great Leveling.”
What you call??? What you plagiarize. You are so unoriginal and conceited.
MASTERMIND on Sat, 3rd Feb 2018 9:45 pm
Davy
Just ignore Madkat “Great Leveling Hypothesis”..He can’t submit any evidence that just the US is going to collapse and the rest of the world will be fine..And he is in for a rude awakening for denying our collapse will be global..
MASTERMIND on Sat, 3rd Feb 2018 10:30 pm
Tesla Model 3 motor fails after 270 miles
http://teslaweekly.com/first-model-3-motor-failure-reported-tesla-engineers-on-their-way-to-investigate/
MASTERMIND on Sat, 3rd Feb 2018 10:49 pm
As a society, we ignored every warning sign, blew past every point of no return. So fuck it, I don’t give a fuck.
MASTERMIND on Sat, 3rd Feb 2018 11:11 pm
Australian Government (Leaked) 450 pages Study: concludes world peak oil around 2020
https://web.archive.org/web/20170415190328/https://www.aspo-australia.org.au/References/Bruce/BITRE-Report-117-Oil_supply_trends-2009.pdf
https://imgur.com/a/Xp9uQ
Page 395:
There are really three options:
1. Oil is replaced with other (equally rich and abundant) energy sources (opening the whole debate about alternative energy sources).
2. Improved energy efficiency results in energy use per unit of GDP declining markedly to match the shortfall.
3. GDP declines to match the shortfall.
Last Paragraph:
In conclusion, this report has demonstrated that although the oil production prospects of different countries and regions vary immensely, the prospects for the potential supply of world conventional petroleum liquids can be summarised as ‘flattish to slightly up for another eight years or longer (depending on the duration of the global economic slowdown) and then down’. Such a finding poses challenges for global transport and more generally, given the magnitude of the downturn foreseen for the rest of the century, and given the inertias inherent in our energy systems and transport vehicle fleets.
Cloggie on Sun, 4th Feb 2018 1:03 am
Haha, 2009 report, even older than that flawed 2010 German army report, millimind=apneaman keeps peddling.
“Oil is replaced with other (equally rich and abundant) energy sources (opening the whole debate about alternative energy sources).”
That’s exactly what happened. Shale, to be followed up by UCG and most important renewables.
https://cleantechnica.com/2018/01/06/44-wind-denmark-smashed-already-huge-wind-energy-records-2017/
MASTERMIND on Sun, 4th Feb 2018 1:29 am
Clogg
2009 is less than ten years old. Hubberts original paper on US oil production came out in 1956 and wasn’t proven accurate until 1970. You don’t usually wait until the final year before the world peaks to do a study about it. Duh! And Shale makes up a tiny percent of total world supplies. It can’t make up for the entire worlds declining legacy conventional fields.
Chevron CEO warns US shale oil alone cannot meet the world’s growing demand for crude
https://www.cnbc.com/2017/05/01/us-shae-cannot-meet-the-worlds-growing-oil-demand-chevron-ceo-warns.html
MASTERMIND on Sun, 4th Feb 2018 1:32 am
Clogg
How was that German study flawed? It actually correctly predicted the rise of Trump and nationalism.
http://www.energybulletin.net/sites/default/files/Peak%20Oil_Study%20EN.pdf
MASTERMIND on Sun, 4th Feb 2018 2:09 am
Study: Limits to Growth was Right. Research Shows We’re Nearing Global Collapse (Turner, 2014)
Pg 14,
The close alignment between the LTG BAU scenario and observed developments over the last four decades, as well as the correspondence in the underlying dynamics described above, portend of potential global collapse. Although the general commentary on the LTG describes collapse occurring sometime mid-century (and the LTG authors stressed not interpreting the time scale too precisely), the BAU scenario implies that a relatively rapid fall in economic conditions and the population could be imminent. Indeed, other aspects of oil supply constraints explored in the following, indicate that the ongoing economic downturn of the GFC may be representative of an imminent BAU style collapse.
http://sustainable.unimelb.edu.au/sites/default/files/docs/MSSI-ResearchPaper-4_Turner_2014.pdf
MASTERMIND on Sun, 4th Feb 2018 2:49 am
Who’s ready for Spring?
https://imgur.com/a/xRcGl
MASTERMIND on Sun, 4th Feb 2018 3:03 am
The U.S. government is set to borrow nearly $1 trillion this year, an 84 percent jump from last year
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2018/02/03/the-u-s-government-is-set-to-borrow-nearly-1-trillion-this-year/?utm_term=.0b6e58ddf4da
Antius on Sun, 4th Feb 2018 3:59 am
That depends on your definition of really really really good, I guess. An energy payback time of 3-3.5 years equates to an EROI of 7-8. And that is before you consider energy losses and energy investment associated with storage. It is really really good if you set your standards really really low.
Antius on Sun, 4th Feb 2018 4:09 am
Put those same solar panels in high Earth orbit, where they are in sunlight for 99% of the time at an intensity of 1350W/m2 and the EROI goes from 8 to 80. And no need for storage.
That really is really really really good.
Davy on Sun, 4th Feb 2018 5:38 am
I made my solar investment with little care for the EROI. Home solar is my way of having lights in case the power goes intermittent. We don’t know what is coming as far as the collapse process. If it is a sudden deep collapse I don’t think my system is going to help much. There is so much more to survival than a solar system. Even though I also have food for many months that too will run out. There is then the issue of security. Where it will shine is in a long emergency of declining reliability of the grid and or very high electric prices. I will have lights and power when others don’t. If it is high prices my solar system will shelter me from those high prices. I still have the $16,000 to amortize down but it will amortize down quicker until my electricity is very low cost.
If you have ever had the power go down it is a pain and the pain starts with the refrigerator. You then get to night time and the lights are the issue too. In the mean time in the surreal normalcy of the status quo I will be practicing demand management to lower my electric bill. I have to if I am going to recoup my investment. I chose to remain on the grid. Why not utilize a great energy source with cheap electricity. I am hoping the grid gets more renewable over time. I then will really have a “greener” system. Being on the grid I can still run an electric oven and other energy hog devises my wife likes to use. I still have electric heat backup if my wood boiler fails. Wood is wonderful renewable resource but I want back up to it and the grid is there for that. I highly respect people like ghung that are completely off the grid. I just chose a different approach with some advantages.
The problem with my set up is cost. $16,000 is too much for most people. I am just putting my money where my mouth is. This is a way of life for me. I am a real doomer and prepper not one of these fake ones that talk about it. My farm is geared up for it. I am not better than other I am just lucky I can do this. I am trying to be an example for others. If we could just get the cost down more people could do what I am doing. I am a firm believer all homes should have at least a small amount of solar with battery backup for a grid down or unreliable grid situation. A side benefit of a home solar system is it forces you to practice demand management. In my mind if society is going to avoid the worst we must have demand management.
Davy on Sun, 4th Feb 2018 6:10 am
“The Market System Is Tight In All Directions The Four Pillars Holding Markets Up Are Strained, All At The Same Time”
https://tinyurl.com/yagomntr
“What happens when the system is tight in its key possible directions of expansion? That it expands no more. Stochastically, on one of the components a tipping point is reached, which jumpstarts the autolytic effect, spreading back through the vectors of the complex system, and snapping the unstable equilibrium into an alternative stable state”
“bond yields have just broken multi-decades downtrend lines. Dividend yields are now below bond yields. The rally in equities compressed dividend yields, all the while as bond yields rose to recent highs, resulting in the two crossing over for the first time in 10 years. In the chart below, current dividend yields are compared to near term yields obtainable on Treasuries. CAPE-projected Earning Yields are now also close to bond yields. The reverse of Shiller P/E, or CAPE, can be seen as a prospective Earning Yield for stocks. This yield is currently approaching bond yields of a comparable tenor.”
“CASH BALANCES / POSITIONING: stretched. – CASH LEFT TO RETAIL “Equity investors are already near maximal allocations.‘’ There is only so much the market can rally if equity investors are already near maximal allocations. The table summarizes equity positioning of various types of institutional, as well as retail investors. These allocations are near historical highs, not leaving much room for further increases.”
“DEBT/LEVERAGE: stretched, especially within pockets of the system. The falling productivity of new credit lending (decreasing marginal effectiveness of lending) is visibly at play. Extreme indebtedness and proximity to BIS’ debt saturation point / Rogoff’s debt tolerance limits / Minsky Moment for several subsets within the system, despite the record-low interest rates available to service such debt: China, Turkey, Japan, Italy.”
“QE FLOWS/ PFL: stretched, and reversing. QE tide is receding What fuelled positive feedback loops in the last years is going to go in reverse in the next years. Asset purchases by major Central Banks (excluding China) are forecast to shrink by more than 70% this year, setting up a large mismatch between supply and demand in global debt markets”
“CONCLUDING REMARKS: What happens when the system is tight at the same time across VALUATIONS, DEBT/LEVERAGE, CASH BALANCES, FLOWS? The system is tight in all directions, across all modules, which are also tightly intertwined. The probability of a critical transitioning is high when no modules within the system can pick up the slack and stabilise the equilibrium after perturbations. Analysed through the lenses of Complex Theory, this may qualify as a phase transition zone, where a dramatic regime shift is impending.”
Boat on Mon, 5th Feb 2018 4:47 pm
Davy,
If you live in or around a large city like Houston you are more reliant on wind farms and utility sized solar. Houston is at 89% the last I read but information is hard to find on the outlying areas. You will see as prices for renewables keep dropping more wide spread expansion.
Cloggie on Wed, 7th Feb 2018 11:36 am
Will solar outshine wind?
https://cleantechnica.com/2018/02/05/solar-may-storm-past-wind-sooner-expected-even-denmark/
The price of solar electricity has come down even faster than wind.
Denmark, share electricity:
3% solar, 46% wind
This balance could change, even for a Nordic country like Denmark.
http://fortune.com/2016/04/16/ray-kurzweil-solar-will-dominate-energy-within-12-years/
Ray Kurzweil: Here’s Why Solar Will Dominate Energy Within 12 Years
Cloggie on Thu, 8th Feb 2018 12:14 am
“That depends on your definition of really really really good, I guess. An energy payback time of 3-3.5 years equates to an EROI of 7-8. And that is before you consider energy losses and energy investment associated with storage. It is really really good if you set your standards really really low.”
That might apply to rainy and windy countries like yours and mine, but Italy, not to mention KSA, is a total different story:
https://deepresource.wordpress.com/2017/08/05/solar-eroi/
Fortunately, rainy windy countries have different options.
“Put those same solar panels in high Earth orbit, where they are in sunlight for 99% of the time at an intensity of 1350W/m2 and the EROI goes from 8 to 80. And no need for storage. That really is really really really good.”
Only if you bring sufficient cash to place the stuff in orbit.
https://deepresource.wordpress.com/2012/04/03/solar-energy-from-space/
Antius on Thu, 8th Feb 2018 3:00 am
Cloggie, what’s your take on this?
About as far off topic as its possible to get. Here is our ancestor:
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-5364983/Retired-history-teacher-believes-looks-like-Cheddar-Man.html
His bone structure and blue eyes resemble a modern North European, except…oh.
Davy on Thu, 8th Feb 2018 5:09 am
Antius, early human migrations fascinate me. That was a great article. It was news to me that skin color got paler with the advent of agriculture and the reduction of sunlight all related to the need for vitamin D. I just assumed we became white from less sun over thousands of years from being wrapped in animal hides.
Antius on Thu, 8th Feb 2018 6:47 am
Davy, it came as a surprise to me also. Maybe as hunter gatherers they got enough vitamin D from offal meats? The article suggests, also that they were recent arrivals having spent time in the middle east. I wonder if they were genetically related to Sumerians?
I find it interesting that he looks like no human being now alive.
Antius on Thu, 8th Feb 2018 6:48 am
Cloggie wrote: “The difference in gain between space and a sun tracking solar panel in the Californian desert is merely 2.6 on a yearly bases.”
True, but a solar power plant in the California desert is of no use to us here in Europe is it? And the factor 2.6 gain ignores the problem of intermittency, the energy losses and infrastructure costs associated with dealing with it. I have shown in previous posts that this hugely increases the cost of renewable electricity.
Cloggie wrote: “Furthermore, the receiver of the electromagnetic ‘beam’ would be rather large, in fact merely a factor of 4 if the same space had been used for conventional photovoltaics. Hmmm.”
The rectenna would indeed need to be extremely large. But this is a wire mesh, not amorphous silicon and is therefore much cheaper and easier to build than the equivalent area of PV panels.
Cloggie wrote: “Then there are the (appropiately) astronomical launch costs of $20,000/kg, based of current fuel prices, which will only go up. NASA calculated in 1999 that launch costs would need to come down to 100-200$/kg for solar energy from space to be economical.”
Launch costs are declining, not increasing. Musk’s new heavy lift vehicle has reduced costs by a factor of 10 (now ~$1500/kg), which could decline even further with scale economy. But the idea was never to try and launch solar power satellites from Earth. Rather, ship the factory into space and use materials mined from the moon or asteroids to construct them. This is the only way the concept will ever be economical.
Cloggie wrote: “And remember that the space cowboys from NASA have a motive to portray all things space better than they really are. And then there is maintenance.”
NASA is unlikely to have anything to do with this, as it would be a commercial venture. They are a science based organisation.
Davy on Thu, 8th Feb 2018 8:07 am
“Cloggie wrote: “And remember that the space cowboys from NASA have a motive to portray all things space better than they really are. And then there is maintenance.”
Man, if that isn’t someone telling on himself….perfect!
MASTERMIND on Thu, 8th Feb 2018 10:38 am
Clogg
Is sharing Ray Kurzweasel’s nonsense about solar..Its had 40 years to evolve and last year it made up less than one percent of total energy! LOL
MASTERMIND on Thu, 8th Feb 2018 10:40 am
Hey clogg
Why dont you allow any comments on your blog? You big fat pussy!
MASTERMIND on Thu, 8th Feb 2018 10:42 am
UC Davis Study: It Will Take 131 Years to Replace Oil with Alternatives (Malyshkina, 2010)
http://pubs.acs.org/doi/abs/10.1021/es100730q
University of Chicago Study: predicts world economy unlikely to stop relying on fossil fuels (Covert, 2016)
https://www.aeaweb.org/articles?id=10.1257/jep.30.1.117
Solar and Wind produced less than one percent of total world energy in 2016 – IEA WEO 2017
https://www.iea.org/publications/freepublications/publication/KeyWorld2017.pdf
Fossil Fuel Share of Global Energy since 1990 – BP 2017
https://imgur.com/k7VecMq
Boat on Thu, 8th Feb 2018 11:15 am
Solar and wind are growing to slow for some doomers. 2/3 of new growth in electricity went to renewables. In areas, those renewables replaced some nuclear and coal plants. Renewables attracted 333 bilion in investment while cost dropped 25%. While these amazing achievements are not good enough for doomers they make a multi decade fan happy happy happy. This trend will keep growing while coal drops market share. Even nat gas and oil will eventually wither like coal over the decades.
MASTERMIND on Thu, 8th Feb 2018 1:12 pm
Boat
Solar and wind made us less than one percent of total energy last year..And they have been around for forty years…The cost could drop to zero and they still would be worthless. Not enough sunlight and windy days…DUH