We're going to need a lot of solar panels

Post by ben_w » Fri, Jul 22, 2022, 10:24 PM UTC

dangerlibrary wrote: post #41

walrus01 wrote: post #23

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I read the article, I disagree with the concept of using PV to generate artificial hydrocarbon fuels in general, as not a great business plan. It's not the best use of the technology when we should be bypassing that entirely. Go use excess PV to pump water uphill back into a reservoir or something if you need energy storage, not drive a complicated process to make artificial hydrocarbons to store in a tank and burn i…

Until energy density of batteries improves by a couple orders of magnitude, we're at least going to need hydrocarbons to fly planes, no?

Post by walrus01 » Fri, Jul 22, 2022, 10:26 PM UTC

jjk166 wrote: post #50

oceanplexian wrote: post #13

Earlier quoted context omitted.

On one hand it’s an interesting engineering challenge, but I am always perplexed how covering hundreds of square km of an ecosystem with glass is “good for the environment”. It sounds like something future generations will shake their heads at while trying to dispose of all the toxic waste.

Hundreds of square km is not a lot, and the ecosystems where these systems would be installed are typically not rich havens of life. The US's power consumption would require about 6000-9000 sq km of solar panels (assuming ~15% efficiency) For comparison in the US there are about 13000-33000 sq km of parking lots, 93000 sq km of alfalfa cultivation, 69000 sq km of fallow agricultural land, and the mojave desert is abo…

Post by ku-man » Fri, Jul 22, 2022, 10:27 PM UTC

walrus01 wrote: post #34

bequanna wrote: post #26

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> The technology now exists to theoretically cover many hundreds of square km of Libya in photovoltaics and take the electricty to Europe through a sub-sea cable Climate benefits aside, how in the heck is this an improvement over the current situation? Long-term I really don't think it is prudent for Europe to rely on potentially unfriendly nations to provide them with energy.

realpolitik would tell me that a scenario where europe was highly dependent on libya (or morocco, or other north african countries) for electricity would be vastly preferable to a scenario being dependent upon russia for gas pipeline supplies. if sufficiently threatened europe could summon enough political will to require libya to do its bidding through threat of sanctions and adverse action against it, worst case, m…

Post by walrus01 » Fri, Jul 22, 2022, 10:28 PM UTC

silvestrov wrote: post #52

walrus01 wrote: post #34

Earlier quoted context omitted.

realpolitik would tell me that a scenario where europe was highly dependent on libya (or morocco, or other north african countries) for electricity would be vastly preferable to a scenario being dependent upon russia for gas pipeline supplies. if sufficiently threatened europe could summon enough political will to require libya to do its bidding through threat of sanctions and adverse action against it, worst case, m…

There is sun enough in Spain and Italy (and even France and south Germany) that we don't need Morocco/Libya. Also: heat and dusty environments are really bad for efficiency. Better with a place where it rains once in a while. Today at 13:00 more than 38% of electricy in Germany was produced by solar panels! https://app.electricitymaps.com/zone/DE

Post by jshen » Fri, Jul 22, 2022, 10:29 PM UTC

KennyBlanken wrote: post #49

gregschlom wrote: post #46

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It sounds like you didn't read the article. They aren't talking about putting solar panels everywhere, they're talking about using massive amounts of solar panel in a specific location and use the energy to convert the CO2 in the air into methane.

That and nobody has ever suggested that we rely solely on solar for energy needs. Wind, for example, is cheaper than solar (though solar is catching up.)