Nuclear is cleanest, safest, cheapest, and renewable


Guest Mores
 Share

Recommended Posts

Guest Mores

I found a greenie who is actually answering all the questions on both sides correctly.  I absolutely agree with every conclusion he came to here.

See statements on Nuclear at 8:25 and beyond.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

"Now that we know renewables can't save the planet, are we going to keep letting them destroy it?"

Takes an awful lot of courage to maturely respond to such a question.  So many other things are so much easier - like immaturely responding, or ignoring, or dismissing, or attacking, or whatnot.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well, I am not someone as trained in technology, but he said a fallacy/lie/mistake in the first 3 minutes of speaking that I can identify.

He stated that wind or solar only provide energy 10-30% of the time.

With solar technology now, I know someone in some rather cold and snowy and cloudy places that it actually provide electricity 90% of the time.  You move someplace south of there (such as the contiguous 48 states instead) and you could provide a LOT more energy far more of the time. 

Of course, you have to be willing to wipe the snow off the panels for them to work...but they still work.  Solar technology has come a LOOONG way from the days when you couldn't power your place if it wasn't cloudy.  Now, cloudy or sunny, you can power your place.  The bigger problem is the WASTE that it produces from the batteries.

Soooo...not sure about listening to the rest of it.  If I can identify a problem with what the speaker stated within the first 3 minutes...is the rest worth listening too?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Mores
37 minutes ago, JohnsonJones said:

Well, I am not someone as trained in technology,

No, you're not.  I absolutely agree.  But I don't say that as an insult.  I merely point out that it may be profitable to get yourself educated on more technical topics.  Then you can engage in discussions more profitably.

37 minutes ago, JohnsonJones said:

but he said a fallacy/lie/mistake in the first 3 minutes of speaking that I can identify.  He stated that wind or solar only provide energy 10-30% of the time.

With solar technology now, I know someone in some rather cold and snowy and cloudy places that it actually provide electricity 90% of the time.  You move someplace south of there (such as the contiguous 48 states instead) and you could provide a LOT more energy far more of the time. 

Now, this is really unreasonable to believe that you actually believe this.  You may not be trained in technology.  But surely you can do basic math.  Surely you know of the rising and setting of the sun.

1) The sun provides light only 50% of the year's total hours.
2) The US average is only 208 sunny days per year.
3) 50% * 208 / 365 = 28.4%.  Your 90% number is mathematically, astronomically, physically, and common sensically impossible.  Be careful where you're getting your numbers from.
4) It may be true that photovoltaics will generate power in low(er) light conditions.  But it will not generate full power.  The overall total is EQUIVALENT TO about 30% in the most favorable locations in the US.
5) He was also specifically talking about solar thermal which he stated immediately prior to the comment about 10% to 30% as being more efficient than photovoltaics (rooftop solar panels).  It was the solar thermal that he was describing as going down as far as 10%.  And even at 10% the thermal farms (on a cost per kilowatt hour basis) is still more efficient than the photovoltaics.

37 minutes ago, JohnsonJones said:

Soooo...not sure about listening to the rest of it.  If I can identify a problem with what the speaker stated within the first 3 minutes...is the rest worth listening too?

If your counter-argument is based on some form of impossible math, then are you really worth listening to?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Mores said:

No, you're not.  I absolutely agree.  But I don't say that as an insult.  I merely point out that it may be profitable to get yourself educated on more technical topics.  Then you can engage in discussions more profitably.

Now, this is really unreasonable to believe that you actually believe this.  You may not be trained in technology.  But surely you can do basic math.  Surely you know of the rising and setting of the sun.

1) The sun provides light only 50% of the year's total hours.
2) The US average is only 208 sunny days per year.
3) 50% * 208 / 365 = 28.4%.  Your 90% number is mathematically, astronomically, physically, and common sensically impossible.  Be careful where you're getting your numbers from.
4) It may be true that photovoltaics will generate power in low(er) light conditions.  But it will not generate full power.  The overall total is EQUIVALENT TO about 30% in the most favorable locations in the US.
5) He was also specifically talking about solar thermal which he stated immediately prior to the comment about 10% to 30% as being more efficient than photovoltaics (rooftop solar panels).  It was the solar thermal that he was describing as going down as far as 10%.  And even at 10% the thermal farms (on a cost per kilowatt hour basis) is still more efficient than the photovoltaics.

If your counter-argument is based on some form of impossible math, then are you really worth listening to?

I would not want to live down wind from a nuclear plant during a super massive solar flair comparable to the Carrington Flare of 1859 - just saying.

 

The Traveler

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Mores
7 hours ago, Traveler said:

I would not want to live down wind from a nuclear plant during a super massive solar flair comparable to the Carrington Flare of 1859 - just saying.

Why not?  We've discussed the benefits of the molten salt reactors.  With that in mind, there wouldn't be much of a danger.  So, what's the problem?

If I can say this without sounding too judgmental, I'm surprised that a person who specializes in mechanical and electrical engineering designs would not be better educated on the topic.

Would you rather be downstream of a coal burning power plant?

Edited by Mores
Link to comment
Share on other sites

So there are a couple things that he really isn’t keeping in mind. 

1) one of his first statements is that solar is cheaper to generate on solar farms than on roof tops.

I believe this, but the transmission fee power companies charge makes it immensely more expensive for the residents in CA and NV. And as those states turn more toward solar, roof top solar will slowly become the better financial option.

2) wind turbines are terrible for the environment.

Simple solution, let’s build a new design for it https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.wired.com/2015/05/future-wind-turbines-no-blades/amp

3) Getting rid of unusable solar panels is terrible for the environment.

ya, but we are probably about 50 years away from being able to fully recycle them. Additionally, I imagine disposing of 15 solar panels is safer than burning 50-100 tons of coal into the air.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Mores
33 minutes ago, Fether said:

So there are a couple things that he really isn’t keeping in mind. 

1) one of his first statements is that solar is cheaper to generate on solar farms than on roof tops.

I believe this, but the transmission fee power companies charge makes it immensely more expensive for the residents in CA and NV. And as those states turn more toward solar, roof top solar will slowly become the better financial option.

I believe the overall statement.  I'd have to see the actual numbers to verify that this is a valid argument.  Even so, does this take into account that a stand alone system would require batteries?  A proper battery bank (average for the 48 contiguous states) can double the cost of the actual PV system.  My last power bill showed the transmission costs to be less than 50% of my bill.

Quote

2) wind turbines are terrible for the environment.

Simple solution, let’s build a new design for it https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.wired.com/2015/05/future-wind-turbines-no-blades/amp

Sound interesting.  But it's new technology.  We'll see how it spins out.  <----- See what I did there?

Quote

3) Getting rid of unusable solar panels is terrible for the environment.

ya, but we are probably about 50 years away from being able to fully recycle them. Additionally, I imagine disposing of 15 solar panels is safer than burning 50-100 tons of coal into the air.

He was comparing solar and wind to nuclear. Not coal.  Nuclear wins.

And, truth be told, the solar panels can have a worse environmental effect than the tons of coal into the air.  The speaker even went over why that is.

Edited by Mores
Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 hours ago, Traveler said:

I would not want to live down wind from a nuclear plant during a super massive solar flair comparable to the Carrington Flare of 1859 - just saying.

NIMBY.  We all want energy, nobody wants to live next to the power plant "in case something bad happens".  

Not sure how this sort of notion applies more to a nuclear power plant than coal/natural gas/petroleum refinery/etc...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 minutes ago, NeuroTypical said:

NIMBY.  We all want energy, nobody wants to live next to the power plant "in case something bad happens".  

Not sure how this sort of notion applies more to a nuclear power plant than coal/natural gas/petroleum refinery/etc...

It is about potential.  As safe as hydro-electrical is and has been - I would not live downstream from a major hydroelectric dam either.   I may go for a day, white water rafting.  I was once offered a job automating nuclear waste but turned it down because I do not want to be responsible for that.  I did work for a while with designing nuclear weapon systems for our defense department.  Hopefully, I will not regret that.

Perhaps someday we will use nuclear fusion for power - but with all our looking into the universe for intelligent life - there is no sign anywhere that anyone other than us here on earth are using controlled nuclear reactions for power.  If there was there is a unique electromagnetic signature that would be broadcast like a beacon - and as yet there is no sign of any such method anywhere else in our universe.

 

The Traveler

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Mores said:

I'd have to see the actual numbers to verify that this is a valid argument.  Even so, does this take into account that a stand alone system would require batteries?  A proper battery bank (average for the 48 contiguous states) can double the cost of the actual PV system.  My last power bill showed the transmission costs to be less than 50% of my bill.

So here is the thing, A lot of states have this thing called “net metering”. The easiest way to put it is that the local power grid stores the excess energy you use and gives it to you when you need it “like at night”. I work in the industry full time and have not once  sold (or even seen a co-worker sell)a single battery. I have met a few people that have batteries, but the only benefit to having one in these states is that you get to keep your power on when the grid is shut off.

(now this net metering has its own issues, but technology will eventually catch up and those problems will go away).

 

1 hour ago, Mores said:

Sound interesting.  But it's new technology.  We'll see how it spins out.  <----- See what I did there?

...

He was comparing solar and wind to nuclear. Not coal.  Nuclear wins.

And, truth be told, the solar panels can have a worse environmental effect than the tons of coal into the air.  The speaker even went over why that is.

First off, I agree that nuclear is the cleanest of them all.

As for the other point, technological growth can fix the issues with disposing of solar panels.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Mores
1 minute ago, Fether said:

So here is the thing, A lot of states have this thing called “net metering”. The easiest way to put it is that the local power grid stores the excess energy you use and gives it to you when you need it “like at night”. I work in the industry full time and have not once  sold (or even seen a co-worker sell)a single battery. I have met a few people that have batteries, but the only benefit to having one in these states is that you get to keep your power on when the grid is shut off.

(now this net metering has its own issues, but technology will eventually catch up and those problems will go away).

I'm not sure where you're going with this.  It sounds like you're agreeing with me while trying to point out I'm wrong.  What you just said actually supports my position.  What am I missing?

1 minute ago, Fether said:

First off, I agree that nuclear is the cleanest of them all.

As for the other point, technological growth can fix the issues with disposing of solar panels.

Perhaps.  But not today.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

25 minutes ago, Fether said:

So here is the thing, A lot of states have this thing called “net metering”. The easiest way to put it is that the local power grid stores the excess energy you use and gives it to you when you need it “like at night”. I work in the industry full time and have not once  sold (or even seen a co-worker sell)a single battery. I have met a few people that have batteries, but the only benefit to having one in these states is that you get to keep your power on when the grid is shut off.

(now this net metering has its own issues, but technology will eventually catch up and those problems will go away).

 

22 minutes ago, Mores said:

I'm not sure where you're going with this.  It sounds like you're agreeing with me while trying to point out I'm wrong.  What you just said actually supports my position.  What am I missing?

Yeah, I think Fether went on a different tangent there.  But he kinda has a point that has not been addressed (I saw that video a long time ago, so I can't remember if this was addressed on it).  Most, if not all, States requires all households to be on grid - even those who are capable of completely going off grid still has to have on grid capability (they can't get out of an electric bill).  And this is specifically so the cost of the grid, including transmission costs, are spread across all households.  This is probably why Fether has never installed a battery bank before.  Net-metering, at least, gives you the option of a negative transmission charge when you transmit from your energy source to the grid which can possibly offset the transmission charges when you suck energy from the grid.

Edited by anatess2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Mores
8 minutes ago, anatess2 said:

Yeah, I think Fether went on a different tangent there.  But he kinda has a point that has not been addressed (I saw that video a long time ago, so I can't remember if this was addressed on it).  Most, if not all, States requires all households to be on grid - even those who are capable of completely going off grid still has to have on grid capability (they can't get out of an electric bill).  And this is specifically so the cost of the grid, including transmission costs, are spread across all households.  This is probably why Fether has never installed a battery bank before.  Net-metering, at least, gives you the option of a negative transmission charge when you transmit from your energy source to the grid which can possibly offset the transmission charges when you suck energy from the grid.

I... guess... that might be what he's saying.  But that again reinforces my point.  Maybe he didn't understand my point.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

57 minutes ago, Traveler said:

If there was there is a unique electromagnetic signature that would be broadcast like a beacon - and as yet there is no sign of any such method anywhere else in our universe.

Well, the stuff reaching us from other stars tends to be thousands to several billion years old, right?  We don't really know what's currently happening anywhere.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, anatess2 said:

 Net-metering, at least, gives you the option of a negative transmission charge when you transmit from your energy source to the grid which can possibly offset the transmission charges when you suck energy from the grid.

Exactly..

We also need to remember that Net-metering is a money saving option... Not a 0 pollution option.  Solar panels help offset the peak load during peak demand (ACs on hot Sunny days) This is good.

But we still use power when the panels do not work or are at reduced effectiveness and while the Power Company might be crediting the Net-metered user the cost... the power itself is coming from a Coal or whatever generator the company is using.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 hours ago, JohnsonJones said:

With solar technology now, I know someone in some rather cold and snowy and cloudy places that it actually provide electricity 90% of the time. 

 

15 hours ago, Mores said:

Now, this is really unreasonable to believe that you actually believe this. 

Yeah, I was kinda taken aback by JJ's statement too.  I've been planning a Tiny House for over 2 years now and I'm still having to figure out a proper off-grid solar system that can power a proper A/C Unit for a 200 sq foot house 24/7 the size of which is not twice bigger and thrice more expensive than the house.... One the size of the house might be able to power the refrigerator and the water pump with the LED lights.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

@Mores When it comes to clean energy, nuclear is the way to go.

My statements were just to fight back the idea that solar is not a good alternative energy source. Large scale farms are awful and in some states more expensive for consumers than roof top. Solar is cheaper for virtually everyone in some states and has less of a footprint than coal. And that footprint is only going to get smaller.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Fether said:

@Mores When it comes to clean energy, nuclear is the way to go.

My statements were just to fight back the idea that solar is not a good alternative energy source. Large scale farms are awful and in some states more expensive for consumers than roof top. Solar is cheaper for virtually everyone in some states and has less of a footprint than coal. And that footprint is only going to get smaller.

Solar has issues scaling up...  But I can't carry a nuclear reactor around in my pocket like I can a solar panel.... so you have trade offs

Link to comment
Share on other sites

21 hours ago, Mores said:

No, you're not.  I absolutely agree.  But I don't say that as an insult.  I merely point out that it may be profitable to get yourself educated on more technical topics.  Then you can engage in discussions more profitably.

Now, this is really unreasonable to believe that you actually believe this.  You may not be trained in technology.  But surely you can do basic math.  Surely you know of the rising and setting of the sun.

1) The sun provides light only 50% of the year's total hours.
2) The US average is only 208 sunny days per year.
3) 50% * 208 / 365 = 28.4%.  Your 90% number is mathematically, astronomically, physically, and common sensically impossible.  Be careful where you're getting your numbers from.
4) It may be true that photovoltaics will generate power in low(er) light conditions.  But it will not generate full power.  The overall total is EQUIVALENT TO about 30% in the most favorable locations in the US.
5) He was also specifically talking about solar thermal which he stated immediately prior to the comment about 10% to 30% as being more efficient than photovoltaics (rooftop solar panels).  It was the solar thermal that he was describing as going down as far as 10%.  And even at 10% the thermal farms (on a cost per kilowatt hour basis) is still more efficient than the photovoltaics.

If your counter-argument is based on some form of impossible math, then are you really worth listening to?

And yet, that family gets 90% of their electricity (and get paid money back even from the grid) each year.

Perhaps it is NOT MY math that is mistaken.

The amount of energy from solar is NOT calculated on how much of the day the sun shines (and in fact, in the winter it has more dark hours where they are at then sunny days).  The energy is stored in batteries, and apparently, even on cloudy days they still get electricity stored up.

I'm pretty sure the math for solar energy isn't really reliant on some fallacy that if the sun only provide 50% of light for the years total hours it can only provide 50% of the energy.  That's like saying...that since you aren't eating 100% of the time, you can't get enough energy from eating food...and that since you only eat food around at a maximum of around 1/8 of the day, or 12.5% (and that is if you take a LOOONG time eating, most are far less than that), you cannot possibly get 100% of your calories from food.

That entire thinking that because the sun is only up during the day that is the only time that you can use the energy gained from it seems rubbish...and I'm only a historian and not a mathematician. 

Edited by JohnsonJones
clarification
Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, anatess2 said:

 

Yeah, I was kinda taken aback by JJ's statement too.  I've been planning a Tiny House for over 2 years now and I'm still having to figure out a proper off-grid solar system that can power a proper A/C Unit for a 200 sq foot house 24/7 the size of which is not twice bigger and thrice more expensive than the house.... One the size of the house might be able to power the refrigerator and the water pump with the LED lights.

 

Admittance...I actually have a son-in-law that works in the solar business.   This is a biased comment I am about to make in favor of the types of things he puts in.

They have several systems.  For a basic system it will depend on HOW MUCH electricity you spend, and how many panels you require or want.  For a tiny house you may have to have the roof basically be composed of solar panels if you are a high energy user.  You also will want the battery so that you have energy at night.  The biggest difficulty probably will not be a refridgerator (unless you are going for one that really is oversized for a tiny home...in which case it can be an energy hog), but the AC.  An A/C unit can take a LOT of electricity.  A system where the windows are put strategically could help a great deal with keeping the house naturally cool, but it would also depend on the size of the A/C and when you are wanting to run it.

If it was not a mobile Tiny House (which is not normal, most create tiny homes with the entire idea of a tiny home on wheels rather than a more permanent structure) there are better options that could deliver power much more efficiently and regularly. 

One of the newest innovations has been in how to store the excess energy produced from solar energy (saying you actually create a system where you have excess energy) has been with the introduction of hydrogen storage.  It's a new area of energy storage (basically use the solar to convert water to oxygen and hydrogen, the hydrogen is then stored in a tank and later used to actually produce the energy).

Currently though, the more space you can allocate for panels and the better storage you have will make it easier to live off of solar energy.  A tiny home is probably a harder problem to solve than a more normal installation, but they probably could get one that could give a LOT of the required energy you need, or, if you are willing to go smaller and use less electricity...almost all if not all of your electrical needs.

There are several companies in Utah that have the ability to take a look at your electrical wants, the area that you could install solar panels, and tailor a plan specific for your needs. 

If you are not in Utah or do not want to use one of the companies in Utah...I'm not as clear on what is out there.  My SiL is currently in Utah.

A great majority of the solar companies in Utah that I'm aware of are willing to work with customers to find the best installation that suits the customers needs as well as wants.

 

PS: Also want to add for ironies sake...

When I visit Utah and we go on the family campouts and stuff, I don't bother with solar or any of that.  I get an RV and that has an entirely different way of getting electricity and powering the fridge.  In that way I suppose I am completely the opposite of preserving the environment while on vacation there.

Edited by JohnsonJones
being more tonally PC
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Nope. No way. Solar is a non-starter, at least at this point in time.

Mathematics:

The US consumes roughly 100 million terajoules of energy per year. That works out to be an average of three trillion watts of power, 24 hours per day, 365 days per year.

Three trillion watts.

That's 3,000,000,000,000 watts.

Now, at the distance of the earth from the sun and passing through the atmosphere, the sun provides a maximum power of right around one kilowatt per square meter. That's a clear, hot day with no clouds, at local noon so the sun is shining directly on the solar panel through a minimum amount of atmosphere. Since solar cells are in effect heat engines, they don't produce anywhere near 100% conversion of solar radiation to electrical power. A best-case estimate for all conditions would be a sustained conversion of around 30%. Since it is daytime only 50% of the time throughout the year, with mornings and evenings consisting of less usable radiation and cloudy days inevitable, an absolute best-case scenario for how much effective sunlight you have throughout the year is about 30%. So the actual solar conversion to electricity is less than 10% of the theoretical solar output (1 kW/m2). So on average, we're getting a best-case scenario of around 100 watts per square meter of solar cell.

So to get three trillion watts of power, we will need 30 billion square meters of solar cells. That's 30,000 square kilometers

Hey! That's fewer than 12,000 square miles! No problem! That's not much more than 1/10th the size of the state of Arizona! So we'll just cover a tenth of Arizona with solar cells, and our problems are over!

Well...no. Not at all.

For one thing, I imagine that the population of Arizona doesn't particularly want a tenth of their state taken out of commission with solar production facilities. Even if the citizenry agreed to that, there is no possible way such an idea would pass an EPA review; can you even imagine the environmental impact of permanent shade on the Sonoran desert regions? And of course, our above analysis has been almost Pollyanna-ishly  naive. You will not get 30% efficiency in an ongoing way from solar cells. You will not have 100% of your solar cells operating at full efficiency. When you convert energy produced at noon to battery storage to release later on, you have very large losses, on the order of 50%. And, of course, the power grid has very high losses. Tripling our initial estimate above might be a good first rough approximation of what we need. So now instead of 1/10th of Arizona, we need 1/3rd. The EPA will love that.

(Not even mentioning yet that solar cells don't last forever. Thirty years would be a very optimistic approximation of how long they will last, and then we'll need to replace the whole thing. Of course, the truth is more like we'll need to be replacing them all along. 36,000 square miles replaced every 30 years means we'll be replacing about 1200 square miles of solar paneling every year. Let that sink in.)

And how much would 36,000 square miles of solar paneling cost. Rather than try to figure this out from first principles, I did a Google search and picked one random site. According to this site, a consumer installation of a 21-square-meter site will run you about £5000, or around $300 US per square meter.

So let's pretend that, using the economies of scale and the incorruptible efficiency of the US government :), we can manage to do the installation for a third of this cost. Our cost for the US taxpayer is a bargain-basement $100 per square meter, which is $100,000,000 per square kilometer.

So our 36,000-square-mile patch of Arizona can be set up to produce the energy needs of the entire US for a mere nine trillion dollars. Amortized over its 30-year lifespan, that works out to a minuscule $300 billion per year, all of which will be run by those champions of freedom and efficiency, the US federal government.

I just can't see any possible drawbacks or causes of concern in this plan.

This does not include any cost of maintaining infrastructure or anything of the sort. It does not include any load-balancing or power storage and retrieval. It basically ignores all the costs of actually, you know, getting the power to the consumers in usable form. This is merely the cost of producing the power in Arizona, ready to be piped around the nation.

And of course, this also doesn't include the fact that the "rare earths" needed to make solar cells will surely be used up early in this project. The main sources for such rare earth materials are our dear friends, the Chinese. But don't worry. I'm sure the good Chinese government officials will be only too happy to help the US achieve energy independence so that we can remain a strong country.

Besides, what options do we have? Does anyone have some magical solution involving, I don't know, burning rocks to produce power? Hey, I know! Maybe we can melt them into salt solutions and use them to produce renewable, pollution-free power for the next 300,000 years! Sure! Like any such molten salt solution actually exists in the real world.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Mores
13 hours ago, JohnsonJones said:

And yet, that family gets 90% of their electricity (and get paid money back even from the grid) each year.

Perhaps it is NOT MY math that is mistaken.

Let me quote exactly what he said.  From around 2:34 of the video.

Quote

One of the big challenges was ... the intermittency of solar and wind.  They only generate electricity about 10 to 30% of the time

(emphasis added)

You said

Quote

 that family gets 90% of their electricity...

If you cannot understand this fundamental difference between the two, then I'll pray for your education.

This family might just have a low demand household.  Their solar array may be HUGE.  That is quite different than the AMOUNT OF TIME that the solar array produces electricity.

13 hours ago, JohnsonJones said:

Perhaps it is NOT MY math that is mistaken.

Yes, it was.

Quote

The amount of energy from solar is NOT calculated on how much of the day the sun shines

Yes, it is.

Quote

The energy is stored in batteries, and apparently, even on cloudy days they still get electricity stored up.

Do you even know what you're saying?

Quote

I'm pretty sure the math for solar energy isn't really reliant on some fallacy that if the sun only provide 50% of light for the years total hours it can only provide 50% of the energy.

That's no fallacy.  It's merely a complete lack of comprehension on your part.

Quote

That's like saying...that since you aren't eating 100% of the time, you can't get enough energy from eating food...and that since you only eat food around at a maximum of around 1/8 of the day, or 12.5% (and that is if you take a LOOONG time eating, most are far less than that), you cannot possibly get 100% of your calories from food.

No, that's like saying that your garden can only produce so much food at a given rate.  And you can use that food however you want and eat it however frequently you want or store unused food.  But if you eat it faster than the garden produces, you're going to run out of food until it grows more -- which takes time.

Quote

That entire thinking that because the sun is only up during the day that is the only time that you can use the energy gained from it seems rubbish

Good thing no one said that but you.

What we all said was that it is only while the sun is up that the panels generate power.   All the rest of the time, you're either getting it from the grid or batteries, or you're doing without.

Quote

...and I'm only a historian and not a mathematician. 

Then please take care to keep your opinions and interpretations in your area of expertise.

Edited by Mores
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Mores said:

Then please take care to keep your opinions and interpretations in your area of expertise.

It does get confusing when people say they install solar panels and cut there power bill to zero... ( I know I am wanting to)  That make it sound like all the power is coming from Solar.

But the simple fact is with Solar with a grid tie... the power you pay for does not always indicate the source of the power you get

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
 Share