|
|
Post by Baron von Lotsov on Mar 12, 2023 14:58:00 GMT
Lets talk about business though since Zanny understands business. Farmers have fields right. You will notice a lot of Britain is farmland. You will notice some fields are used for crops and some are unsuitable for crops because they are on the sides of steep hills. Where a field is on a steep hill the farmers uses that for grazing sheep and cows. This farmland can not be used for building houses so it is very cheap, and the land that can't be famed with crops is cheaper for this reason. Hills are those things which have a side in every direction, including south. In Britain to attain the maximum solar radiation you need trackable solar panel which will adjust their angle to the horizontal between about 30 and 40 degrees and rotate according to the time of day. However such a mechanism is very expensive, so you would get more energy by fixed panels and more of them. If you had a south facing hill of about 30 - 40 degrees you would not even need any mountings for the panels. You could take them out of the truck, each would have a micro inverter and all you would need to do is wire them up and lay them flat on the ground, and that's it. The kind of investment returns you can achieve doing this is around 20-40% per year. Do you know why farmers are not doing this? It's because the government are stopping them. There is a long waiting list for approval and inadequate grid connections. Bit off topic, but did you see the reservoir solar panels on BBC click? Such a simple idea but brilliant. build a raft of solar panels all sitting at about 40 degrees, park it behind a dam (easy access to the power grid) but the clever thing was a little electric motor rotates the thing in the water to follow the sun. It is absolutely the wrong way to go about it. Neither was my post off-topic since the thread title is How will we meet power needs of the future without fossil fuels, and this is how. The problem with the dam also is if you look at the research, the trackable power installations are less profitable. Electric motor trackers are mechanical and unreliable. You lay these panels out on the ground, and they just daisy-chain together with waterproof plugs already fitted in the factory. construction would take a matter of days. It is also capitalism. These fuckers are communists. How many people do you know who own a dam? With capitalism they work like you do. Just some guy with a farm and some cash that loses money in a building society could turn a fat profit by ordering a container from China. It is so simple to do, except the state is blocking it in the most stupid and hypocritical way imaginable. |
|
|
|
Post by Toreador on Mar 12, 2023 15:26:46 GMT
Are you denying or confirming this? I'm denying it, but I await the evidence or clarification from Steppenwolf. So you don't see the ocean currents as changing heat in the oceans, equalising the temperature of the different oceanic areas, moving heat to the cold areas and cold to the warm areas. Sorry but Stepps doesn't need to answer my question, I didn't ask him. |
|
|
|
Post by zanygame on Mar 12, 2023 15:31:59 GMT
Indeed. There reaches a point where you have to trust the research of those dedicated to the job. At that point you make your judgements based on what you read and how many scientists support the conclusions. At this time the consensus is that while we cannot calculate every nuance of cause and effect, we can say the trend is and will be upwards. That this will change the climate and this will over all be detrimental. There are many people dedicated to the job who disagree with the ones you follow who are dedicated to the job. Trusting the research is of course the issue and therein lies the problem in that the research has, over the last few years, turned up predictions and conclusions that are at serious odds with the observations. This has resulted in a lowering of trust in that research and in those predictions issued with some alacrity but with variable accuracy. The language of the scientists who believe in AGM is what has told the tale. The terms deniers, flat earthers and charlatans are common currency to describe those who dispute the 'consensus' and whose research indicates conclusions at odds with the consensus. These terms should never be the currency between scientists researching what is purported to be an emergency. There is a very small percentage who disagree with some of the findings. You can count the number who disagree with AGW on one hand. There are a number who used earlier miscalculations and errors to claim we cannot be sure what will happen and should therefore do nothing. They have managed to convince a small number who favour conspiracy theories, but not that many. The general public seems to accept something needs to be done. |
|
|
|
Post by Toreador on Mar 12, 2023 15:42:00 GMT
There are many people dedicated to the job who disagree with the ones you follow who are dedicated to the job. Trusting the research is of course the issue and therein lies the problem in that the research has, over the last few years, turned up predictions and conclusions that are at serious odds with the observations. This has resulted in a lowering of trust in that research and in those predictions issued with some alacrity but with variable accuracy. The language of the scientists who believe in AGM is what has told the tale. The terms deniers, flat earthers and charlatans are common currency to describe those who dispute the 'consensus' and whose research indicates conclusions at odds with the consensus. These terms should never be the currency between scientists researching what is purported to be an emergency. There is a very small percentage who disagree with some of the findings. You can count the number who disagree with AGW on one hand. There are a number who used earlier miscalculations and errors to claim we cannot be sure what will happen and should therefore do nothing. They have managed to convince a small number who favour conspiracy theories, but not that many. The general public seems to accept something needs to be done. Things have been done since the 50s/60s, things like 1" thick loft insulation and polystyrene ceiling tiles, not to mention 1/8" polystyrene sheeting on walls, all worked out as energy saving measures by scientists. |
|
|
|
Post by zanygame on Mar 12, 2023 16:25:05 GMT
Bit off topic, but did you see the reservoir solar panels on BBC click? Such a simple idea but brilliant. build a raft of solar panels all sitting at about 40 degrees, park it behind a dam (easy access to the power grid) but the clever thing was a little electric motor rotates the thing in the water to follow the sun. It is absolutely the wrong way to go about it. Neither was my post off-topic since the thread title is How will we meet power needs of the future without fossil fuels, and this is how. The problem with the dam also is if you look at the research, the trackable power installations are less profitable. Electric motor trackers are mechanical and unreliable. You lay these panels out on the ground, and they just daisy-chain together with waterproof plugs already fitted in the factory. construction would take a matter of days. It is also capitalism. These fuckers are communists. How many people do you know who own a dam? With capitalism they work like you do. Just some guy with a farm and some cash that loses money in a building society could turn a fat profit by ordering a container from China. It is so simple to do, except the state is blocking it in the most stupid and hypocritical way imaginable. I meant my post was a bit off topic, not yours. The amount of energy required to turn the whole circle on water is minute and electric motors are incredibly reliable. Further these easily turned discs face the sun directly all day, unlike your ones built on south facing slopes. South facing slopes which are also likely to produce the highest crop yield as plants like sunshine too. |
|
|
|
Post by zanygame on Mar 12, 2023 16:27:19 GMT
There is a very small percentage who disagree with some of the findings. You can count the number who disagree with AGW on one hand. There are a number who used earlier miscalculations and errors to claim we cannot be sure what will happen and should therefore do nothing. They have managed to convince a small number who favour conspiracy theories, but not that many. The general public seems to accept something needs to be done. Things have been done since the 50s/60s, things like 1" thick loft insulation and polystyrene ceiling tiles, not to mention 1/8" polystyrene sheeting on walls, all worked out as energy saving measures by scientists. Which ofcourse they are, just not as good as 1ft insulation. But you seem to be confusing scientists with dodgy salesmen. |
|
|
|
Post by Toreador on Mar 12, 2023 17:30:23 GMT
Things have been done since the 50s/60s, things like 1" thick loft insulation and polystyrene ceiling tiles, not to mention 1/8" polystyrene sheeting on walls, all worked out as energy saving measures by scientists. Which ofcourse they are, just not as good as 1ft insulation. But you seem to be confusing scientists with dodgy salesmen. Not so, back in those days these were sold as energy saving applications and it was years later that we started using cavity insulation at the building stage. Commercial and industrial buildings generally used the same insulation values as housing because science and lobbying deemed it a worthwhile insulation level when it was far from it and could and should have been considerably higher. The committee on British Standards Institute used to have building industry members whose interest, either for themselves or their clients, paid lip service to insulation because the thicker it was, the smaller the rentable space; where were the green people when that was going on.....nowhere to be seen because they never had a clue. |
|
|
|
Post by Baron von Lotsov on Mar 12, 2023 17:32:04 GMT
It is absolutely the wrong way to go about it. Neither was my post off-topic since the thread title is How will we meet power needs of the future without fossil fuels, and this is how. The problem with the dam also is if you look at the research, the trackable power installations are less profitable. Electric motor trackers are mechanical and unreliable. You lay these panels out on the ground, and they just daisy-chain together with waterproof plugs already fitted in the factory. construction would take a matter of days. It is also capitalism. These fuckers are communists. How many people do you know who own a dam? With capitalism they work like you do. Just some guy with a farm and some cash that loses money in a building society could turn a fat profit by ordering a container from China. It is so simple to do, except the state is blocking it in the most stupid and hypocritical way imaginable. I meant my post was a bit off topic, not yours. The amount of energy required to turn the whole circle on water is minute and electric motors are incredibly reliable. Further these easily turned discs face the sun directly all day, unlike your ones built on south facing slopes. South facing slopes which are also likely to produce the highest crop yield as plants like sunshine too. I've done the calculations. Not only that but I see this is one way China does it anyway. What you have essentially is a 1m x 2m standard panel, 500w @16p/Watt plus delivery. That's about £100 per panel or £50/m^2. Now think how much it will cost to have a two axis servo control system and frame, plus servicing costs for 20 years. That's compared to this plug and play arrangement. How much steel will you waste for one thing? It's CO2 intensive manufacture anyway. For stationary panels a good very approx rule is in British climate you will generate 1 kWh/year for every rated Watt, where the rated Watt is a lab standard. It's actually about 1.2 depending on latitude, but 1 is your worst case. Your problem is that the apparatus to align these panels and track the sun is more than the additional power you get, so it is simply wrong. Your worst angular errors are in the spring and autumn and at the beginning and the end of the day, but these light levels are low anyway, so tweaking the output in these regions has little effect.
The theoretical profits here are 10x any other investment you could make at the moment, so you have to ask why every farmer does not want to do it, being a no-brainer. Well it is the communist government corporatist sytem that says one day we may decide to put a load on one of our dams, compared the capitalist who would place that order and get going straight away. Never underestimate the power and speed of adaptability of the free market. Tell these fuckwits to stop interfering and for them to focus on upgrading the grid, and our solar problems are solved.
Next problem will be all the energy comes when the sun shines. A capitalist solution is needed here as well. It's a bit tricker, but the best way I have found is storing energy as heat at very high temperatures, like 1700C and in super insulated containers. Heat is a very dense and a very cheap way to store electricity, at least an order of magnitude cheaper than batteries.You get about 85% efficiency doing this where batteries give you about 90%, so hardly worth the extra cost. The higher the temperature the denser the storage and the higher the efficiency.
|
|
|
|
Post by sandypine on Mar 12, 2023 17:48:29 GMT
There are many people dedicated to the job who disagree with the ones you follow who are dedicated to the job. Trusting the research is of course the issue and therein lies the problem in that the research has, over the last few years, turned up predictions and conclusions that are at serious odds with the observations. This has resulted in a lowering of trust in that research and in those predictions issued with some alacrity but with variable accuracy. The language of the scientists who believe in AGM is what has told the tale. The terms deniers, flat earthers and charlatans are common currency to describe those who dispute the 'consensus' and whose research indicates conclusions at odds with the consensus. These terms should never be the currency between scientists researching what is purported to be an emergency. There is a very small percentage who disagree with some of the findings. You can count the number who disagree with AGW on one hand. There are a number who used earlier miscalculations and errors to claim we cannot be sure what will happen and should therefore do nothing. They have managed to convince a small number who favour conspiracy theories, but not that many. The general public seems to accept something needs to be done. There is a percentage, the size of which is always in dispute. However what you are saying is that their opinion is of no consequence and should be ignored. They produced an open letter "A global network of more than 500 knowledgeable and experienced scientists and professionals in climate and related fields have the honor to address to Your Excellencies the attached European Climate Declaration, for which the signatories to this letter are the national ambassadors. The general-circulation models of climate on which international policy is at present founded are unfit for their purpose. Therefore, it is cruel as well as imprudent to advocate the squandering of trillions of dollars on the basis of results from such immature models. Current climate policies pointlessly and grievously undermine the economic system, putting lives at risk in countries denied access to affordable, reliable electrical energy. We urge you to follow a climate policy based on sound science, realistic economics and genuine concern for those harmed by costly but unnecessary attempts at mitigation." www.aei.org/carpe-diem/there-is-no-climate-emergency-say-500-experts-in-letter-to-the-united-nations/Remember the 'concensus' is declaring it is an emergency and radical steps must be taken. |
|
|
|
Post by zanygame on Mar 12, 2023 17:53:26 GMT
I meant my post was a bit off topic, not yours. The amount of energy required to turn the whole circle on water is minute and electric motors are incredibly reliable. Further these easily turned discs face the sun directly all day, unlike your ones built on south facing slopes. South facing slopes which are also likely to produce the highest crop yield as plants like sunshine too. I've done the calculations. Not only that but I see this is one way China does it anyway. What you have essentially is a 1m x 2m standard panel, 500w @16p/Watt plus delivery. That's about £100 per panel or £50/m^2. Now think how much it will cost to have a two axis servo control system and frame, plus servicing costs for 20 years. That's compared to this plug and play arrangement. How much steel will you waste for one thing? It's CO2 intensive manufacture anyway. For stationary panels a good very approx rule is in British climate you will generate 1 kWh/year for every rated Watt, where the rated Watt is a lab standard. It's actually about 1.2 depending on latitude, but 1 is your worst case. Your problem is that the apparatus to align these panels and track the sun is more than the additional power you get, so it is simply wrong. Your worst angular errors are in the spring and autumn and at the beginning and the end of the day, but these light levels are low anyway, so tweaking the output in these regions has little effect.
The theoretical profits here are 10x any other investment you could make at the moment, so you have to ask why every farmer does not want to do it, being a no-brainer. Well it is the communist government corporatist sytem that says one day we may decide to put a load on one of our dams, compared the capitalist who would place that order and get going straight away. Never underestimate the power and speed of adaptability of the free market. Tell these fuckwits to stop interfering and for them to focus on upgrading the grid, and our solar problems are solved.
Next problem will be all the energy comes when the sun shines. A capitalist solution is needed here as well. It's a bit tricker, but the best way I have found is storing energy as heat at very high temperatures, like 1700C and in super insulated containers. Heat is a very dense and a very cheap way to store electricity, at least an order of magnitude cheaper than batteries.You get about 85% efficiency doing this where batteries give you about 90%, so hardly worth the extra cost. The higher the temperature the denser the storage and the higher the efficiency.
Your calculations are full of holes. 1, China has a lot more spare land than the Uk and its cost per acre is tiny (Where is that cost in your calcs?) 2, How are connecting these random south facing fields to the energy grid (Where is that cost in your calcs?) 3, Your south facing panels only face the sun for 5-6 hours a day 4, The water based system does not require a two axis servo system for each panel, so know servicing required. Yet still face the sun all day. 5, Your hillside panels only face the sun for 5 or 6 hours per day. On storage, they are looking at super heated salt at the moment. But one other advantage my reservoir dam based system has is that the solar panels can be used to pump water back up the dam when they are not required for energy, thus storing power as well. |
|
|
|
Post by Baron von Lotsov on Mar 12, 2023 18:22:17 GMT
I've done the calculations. Not only that but I see this is one way China does it anyway. What you have essentially is a 1m x 2m standard panel, 500w @16p/Watt plus delivery. That's about £100 per panel or £50/m^2. Now think how much it will cost to have a two axis servo control system and frame, plus servicing costs for 20 years. That's compared to this plug and play arrangement. How much steel will you waste for one thing? It's CO2 intensive manufacture anyway. For stationary panels a good very approx rule is in British climate you will generate 1 kWh/year for every rated Watt, where the rated Watt is a lab standard. It's actually about 1.2 depending on latitude, but 1 is your worst case. Your problem is that the apparatus to align these panels and track the sun is more than the additional power you get, so it is simply wrong. Your worst angular errors are in the spring and autumn and at the beginning and the end of the day, but these light levels are low anyway, so tweaking the output in these regions has little effect.
The theoretical profits here are 10x any other investment you could make at the moment, so you have to ask why every farmer does not want to do it, being a no-brainer. Well it is the communist government corporatist sytem that says one day we may decide to put a load on one of our dams, compared the capitalist who would place that order and get going straight away. Never underestimate the power and speed of adaptability of the free market. Tell these fuckwits to stop interfering and for them to focus on upgrading the grid, and our solar problems are solved.
Next problem will be all the energy comes when the sun shines. A capitalist solution is needed here as well. It's a bit tricker, but the best way I have found is storing energy as heat at very high temperatures, like 1700C and in super insulated containers. Heat is a very dense and a very cheap way to store electricity, at least an order of magnitude cheaper than batteries.You get about 85% efficiency doing this where batteries give you about 90%, so hardly worth the extra cost. The higher the temperature the denser the storage and the higher the efficiency.
Your calculations are full of holes. 1, China has a lot more spare land than the Uk and its cost per acre is tiny (Where is that cost in your calcs?) 2, How are connecting these random south facing fields to the energy grid (Where is that cost in your calcs?) 3, Your south facing panels only face the sun for 5-6 hours a day 4, The water based system does not require a two axis servo system for each panel, so know servicing required. Yet still face the sun all day. 5, Your hillside panels only face the sun for 5 or 6 hours per day. On storage, they are looking at super heated salt at the moment. But one other advantage my reservoir dam based system has is that the solar panels can be used to pump water back up the dam when they are not required for energy, thus storing power as well. I accept my calculations as presented here are full of holes. It was a crude back of an envelope job, and purposefully so as my investment in time to give you the full case would be negative as people simply skip complicated stuff. Now we have a ballpark idea we can talk about refinements in the calculations.
1) The cost of land is an insignificant factor. The next biggest cost on the list is the inverters. I recall that works out to be about 10p/Watt. Well that was the price I calculated for my own requirements, but bulk orders can give significant discounts.
2) The general way it works is you have one micro inverter for each four panels. You place it in the corner and simply plug four panels in. they are completely weatherproof too. These units are controlled wirelessly on the web so you set it up in software as a wireless network. Each micro inverter will step the voltage up and sync the 250v AC mains. this is very handy because the higher the voltage the thinner the wires you need and the less loss in cables. Now all you need is a very heavy duty cable to connect each of these up to the grid. You do not need the thickest cable if you arrange the wiring topology intelligently, as per you can connect in a hierarchy to save on ultra heavy duty power cable. The other end is the business of the electricity board.
3) I already covered that. You arrange it for the mid position, i.e the time of day with max radiation. The reduction is cos theta. The figure of 1 kWh/Watt rated is the worst case, which is to lie then flat. The hill just gives you extra profit for two reasons: sloping land is cheaper and on a slope you will get a fair bit more.
4) You need two axes to properly track it, but there are some single axis installations I have seen, but as I have said, industrial figures show significantly less return on investment. The BBC are very stupid people and not expected to pick up on problems. 5) see 3)
|
|
|
|
Post by sandypine on Mar 12, 2023 18:34:00 GMT
Things have been done since the 50s/60s, things like 1" thick loft insulation and polystyrene ceiling tiles, not to mention 1/8" polystyrene sheeting on walls, all worked out as energy saving measures by scientists. Which ofcourse they are, just not as good as 1ft insulation. But you seem to be confusing scientists with dodgy salesmen. 1 ft of insulation is not as good as ten ft of insulation. So we compromise |
|
|
|
Post by Baron von Lotsov on Mar 12, 2023 18:40:18 GMT
I've just calculated the cost of land it for Wilshire. It is 1p/watt, i.e. only about 4% of the total.
|
|
|
|
Post by zanygame on Mar 12, 2023 19:29:12 GMT
Your calculations are full of holes. 1, China has a lot more spare land than the Uk and its cost per acre is tiny (Where is that cost in your calcs?) 2, How are connecting these random south facing fields to the energy grid (Where is that cost in your calcs?) 3, Your south facing panels only face the sun for 5-6 hours a day 4, The water based system does not require a two axis servo system for each panel, so know servicing required. Yet still face the sun all day. 5, Your hillside panels only face the sun for 5 or 6 hours per day. On storage, they are looking at super heated salt at the moment. But one other advantage my reservoir dam based system has is that the solar panels can be used to pump water back up the dam when they are not required for energy, thus storing power as well. As you say, I'm a business man.  Can't let you get away with that, the cost of land and its potential other earnings are a huge cost.
If you were suggesting these on shed roofs I would agree 100%, but out in a field you cannot just lay a cable to the nearest pylon.
But as a cheap way of adding solar to your home of business, YES! How far are they off the flexible ones that don't need professional installers?
Agreed, but still not as efficient as my water version.  They are already angled at 30° upwards so its just the rotation. Still much better alignment than fixed panels.
|
|
|
|
Post by Baron von Lotsov on Mar 12, 2023 20:31:04 GMT
As you say, I'm a business man. Can't let you get away with that, the cost of land and its potential other earnings are a huge cost.
If you were suggesting these on shed roofs I would agree 100%, but out in a field you cannot just lay a cable to the nearest pylon.
But as a cheap way of adding solar to your home of business, YES! How far are they off the flexible ones that don't need professional installers?
Agreed, but still not as efficient as my water version. They are already angled at 30° upwards so its just the rotation. Still much better alignment than fixed panels.
I think you missed my subsequent post. Land = 4% of total investment (Wiltshire).
You don't want flexible ones for this job. they are 50p/W so about 3x the price and lower life expectancy. The cheap ones are about 20kg each, so you can see for a servo system and a frame you are not talking cheap. Yes you can lay them on the ground, indeed its advantageous because the ground could work as a heatsink. It's been done on a commercial scale in China where panels stretch for about as far as the eye can see. This is Chinese thinking. Don't spend more than you need to. Only an idiot would do that. You would probably do well to peg them into the ground in case of high winds, but simple stuff.
Regarding alignment it varies in angle of rotation and tilt. The single axis ones I've seen were tilt only, using a mechanism that did a bank at a time.
|
|
