Climate continues to change.

[phrodeau]

Just curious, than what? What does energy production look like?

Chinese solar panels on Chinese satellites, which China ignores because they refuse to stop using fossil fuels?

 

[icanhelp1]

The solar energy collected in orbit would get converted to microwaves (likely) and beamed down to a receiving station at the surface. I get that folks start to worry once you talk about beaming microwaves to Earth, but it's not as hazardous as it sounds. The energy density wouldn't be that much greater than ordinary sunlight. Wrong frequency range, too.

Why not masers?

 

[von_Bismarck]

Why not masers?

Don't know all the deets, but there are probably good reasons for not concentrating all that energy. If we start talking about masers, there might be a legitimate weaponization concern. There might be engineering concerns, too, that I'm not aware of.

Edit: The are proposals for orbital mirrors for concentrating and directing sunlight, with no conversion to microwaves. Without looking more into it, I don't really know how all the proposals compare to each other, in terms of relative costs and benefits.

 

[gunthernehmen]

Mining for solar panel materials will devastate our environment, but mining for nuclear fuels is totally fine?

So do an ROI on both if you want.

Regardless, solar energy cannot deliver the energy needed to sustain our civilization. Perhaps that technology will mature enough in a few decades or centuries (but I doubt it). Right now, it can't.

We (the USA anyway) use about half the electricity generated in the world. In November 2014 (random month reported by USEIA) that was around 317,000,000 megawatt hours. A single solar panel generates about 30 kilowatt hours in a month. So we'd only need a mere 10 billion solar panels to provide the electrical needs of the USA. And another 10 billion panels for the rest of the world.

That's a lot of mining...

 

[icanhelp1]

Don't know all the deets, but there are probably good reasons for not concentrating all that energy. If we start talking about masers, there might be a legitimate weaponization concern. There might be engineering concerns, too, that I'm not aware of.

The concept of a weapon system already exist.

 

[icanhelp1]

So do an ROI on both if you want.

Regardless, solar energy cannot deliver the energy needed to sustain our civilization. Perhaps that technology will mature enough in a few decades or centuries (but I doubt it). Right now, it can't.

We (the USA anyway) use about half the electricity generated in the world. In November 2014 (random month reported by USEIA) that was around 317,000,000 megawatt hours. A single solar panel generates about 30 kilowatt hours in a month. So we'd only need a mere 10 billion solar panels to provide the electrical needs of the USA. And another 10 billion panels for the rest of the world.

That's a lot of mining...

Contemplating a Dyson sphere type of approach.

 

[gunthernehmen]

Ffs. Never thought I'd quote myself but seriously I've never come across such rigid thinking before and I have an Aspie for a son.
Volcanoes? Solar space panels? Wtf. There are other forms of renewable energy, ya know.

The various alternative energy sources SHOULD be developed and leveraged.

But I'm beyond doubtful that any of them can supply the energy density required to sustain our civilization. At least not without their own devastating ecological impact.

Tidal generators, for instance. Great for us but how does it work out for fish and other marine life? I can't imagine there'd be no impact.

 

[gunthernehmen]

Contemplating a Dyson sphere type of approach.

You're not helping LOL

 

[von_Bismarck]

Nobody serious would claim we can power our civilization with no negative environmental impacts. But that isn't the question. The question is, can we do better, can we power our civilization in a way that is more sustainable.

 

[RocketLauncher]

The various alternative energy sources SHOULD be developed and leveraged.

But I'm beyond doubtful that any of them can supply the energy density required to sustain our civilization. At least not without their own devastating ecological impact.

Tidal generators, for instance. Great for us but how does it work out for fish and other marine life? I can't imagine there'd be no impact.

And hydro electric dams and the toxic run off from oil production doesn't? Geothermal, magnetic, wind...all kinds of viable solutions.
Did I mention I like your fatalistic ideology? Never thought I'd meet a more pessimistic person than myself. Damn, you make Ann and I Iook like baby ducklings in bonnets. Respect.

 

[gunthernehmen]

Nobody serious would claim we can power our civilization with no negative environmental impacts. But that isn't the question. The question is, can we do better, can we power our civilization in a way that is more sustainable.

Of course. Some great ideas have been floated in this discussion.

It's just that none of them can answer the whole problem and some of them come with baggage that may or may not be possible to overcome. (that includes nuclear power - a lot of people are not fans of that)

 

[gunthernehmen]

And hydro electric dams and the toxic run off from oil production doesn't? Geothermal, magnetic, wind...all kinds of viable solutions.
Did I mention I like your fatalistic ideology? Never thought I'd meet a more pessimistic person than myself. Damn, you make Ann and I Iook like baby ducklings in bonnets. Respect.

The reason we don't have more hydro is environmentalists block them due to the damage to wildlife and the environment. Oil, gas, coal all impact the environment. But they're easily accessible and CAN support our usage.

If I had my way, a comet would hit us (I think we're expect a doozy in 2029 or so?) and knock us back to the middle ages

I'll get to ride around on my horse wearing stainless steel rat armor.

 

[icanhelp1]

You're not helping LOL

Not trying to be a wise ass LOL. Well, we have to work within our technologies. Our approach to a viable solution is like treating cancer. It's a multitude of things that can be employed in the near future as we develop newer, more potent and effective technologies. We have the ability and technologies right now but the will to do it does not exist. Nuclear, geothermal, solar, hydrogen and wind technologies strategically placed are the only solutions that can produce the volume of energy needed with the least impact on the environment and which could greatly reduce our need for fossil fuels. Fighting big oil is only one of the great obstacles along with environmentalist's negative outlook on nuclear. Going to be hard to convince countries whose sole domestic product is the export of fossil fuel. We need to evolve and develop the will. Not going to happen anytime soon.

 

[RocketLauncher]

The US is probly the biggest obstacle. 2nd largest producer of co2 after China. The US beat India, which came in third.
China's pollution is caused by coal, the US by coal and oil. The US is also the second largest country in coal production and use.
Might want to start at home before pointing the finger at other countries.

 

[phrodeau]

So do an ROI on both if you want.

Regardless, solar energy cannot deliver the energy needed to sustain our civilization. Perhaps that technology will mature enough in a few decades or centuries (but I doubt it). Right now, it can't.

We (the USA anyway) use about half the electricity generated in the world. In November 2014 (random month reported by USEIA) that was around 317,000,000 megawatt hours. A single solar panel generates about 30 kilowatt hours in a month. So we'd only need a mere 10 billion solar panels to provide the electrical needs of the USA. And another 10 billion panels for the rest of the world.

That's a lot of mining...

Once the panels are made, mining would be greatly reduced, as opposed to nuclear fuel mining.

 

[gunthernehmen]

Once the panels are made, mining would be greatly reduced, as opposed to nuclear fuel mining.

Forgetting that solar panels have a limited lifespan, and have to be replaced periodically? Also, unless you plan to fetch them back down for recycling, they will eventually fall back to earth and burn up on reentry. Or even if they don't, those resources are forever lost.

Solar and wind are WONDERFUL niche solutions, especially for off grid locations where it's difficult or expensive to run power lines. I just don't believe it's practical for the general energy needs of a planet.

If it makes you feel any better, fossil fuels are "really" solar energy, just having been in really long term storage.

 

[gunthernehmen]

The US is probly the biggest obstacle. 2nd largest producer of co2 after China. The US beat India, which came in third.
China's pollution is caused by coal, the US by coal and oil. The US is also the second largest country in coal production and use.
Might want to start at home before pointing the finger at other countries.

Sure. China coughed up around 9k metric tons and we came in a distant second at a little less than 5k metric tons.

Interestingly, they use around 1.6 times the electricity that we do, but generate 1.8 times the co2. So we're doing significantly BETTER that they are at cleaning up the act.

If the USA were still acting as we did in the 50's and 60's then yes, you'd have a point. But we aren't (and they are following in our dirty little footsteps).

 

[icanhelp1]

Forgetting that solar panels have a limited lifespan, and have to be replaced periodically? Also, unless you plan to fetch them back down for recycling, they will eventually fall back to earth and burn up on reentry. Or even if they don't, those resources are forever lost.

Solar and wind are WONDERFUL niche solutions, especially for off grid locations where it's difficult or expensive to run power lines. I just don't believe it's practical for the general energy needs of a planet.

If it makes you feel any better, fossil fuels are "really" solar energy, just having been in really long term storage.

Wel well; look who's being difficult now! If I'm not mistaken isn't all matter a form of stored energy! E=MC² LOL

 

[thør]

Once the panels are made, mining would be greatly reduced, as opposed to nuclear fuel mining.

The miners will still be busy providing rare earths, etc for smart phones and electric cars.

 

[gunthernehmen]

Wel well; look who's being difficult now! If I'm not mistaken isn't all matter a form of stored energy! E=MC² LOL

Yeah, sometimes I can't resist that extra little dig. I should apologize, shouldn't I? Hey, what do you think of the chances for Red Sox taking the Series again this year?

 

[icanhelp1]

Yeah, sometimes I can't resist that extra little dig. I should apologize, shouldn't I? Hey, what do you think of the chances for Red Sox taking the Series again this year?

I love me my sox 50/50 The talent's there, but so is the attitude ( overconfidence )

 

[trysail]

The damage done to science by those who hijacked and politicized climatology in an attempt to achieve political aims is incalculable.


Why the scientific community did not intervene to rein in the excesses, exaggerations, abuses and unfounded claims that have marked climatology for more than two decades is a mystery to me.


The credibility and reputation of climatology has been severely damaged and will take many decades to be restored— it may, in fact, be unrecoverable.


​

 

[von_Bismarck]

The damage done to science by those who hijacked and politicized climatology in an attempt to achieve political aims is incalculable.


Why the scientific community did not intervene to rein in the excesses, exaggerations, abuses and unfounded claims that have marked climatology for more than two decades is a mystery to me.


The credibility and reputation of climatology has been severely damaged and will take many decades to be restored— it may, in fact, be unrecoverable.


​

That's all true. But it isn't too late for you to reform, bigot.

 

[phrodeau]

Forgetting that solar panels have a limited lifespan, and have to be replaced periodically? Also, unless you plan to fetch them back down for recycling, they will eventually fall back to earth and burn up on reentry. Or even if they don't, those resources are forever lost.

Solar and wind are WONDERFUL niche solutions, especially for off grid locations where it's difficult or expensive to run power lines. I just don't believe it's practical for the general energy needs of a planet.

If it makes you feel any better, fossil fuels are "really" solar energy, just having been in really long term storage.

Solar panel lifespans have been improved in recent years, and most panels made before 2000 are still going strong.

A solar panel can pay for itself inside of five years, so if you use one for thirty years, that’s twenty-five years for free.

 

[Klinkster]

A solar panel can pay for itself inside of five years, so if you use one for thirty years, that’s twenty-five years for free.

Very subjective.
For instance, think that they will in Fairbanks? How about Portland OR?
Think they will, if you have an independent, off grid system, where the majority of the cost is not the panels, but the batteries?

Mine are warranted for 80% performance @ 25 years.
The system, will not pay for itself in 25 years. Batteries are good for 10 years if I’m lucky.