T. A. Gardner
Thread Killer
Don't need a link. I already did the math. You know, that thing engineers and scientists use to prove stuff-- that you can't do...
More conservative epic self owns
- Thread starter AProudLefty
- Start date
Don't need a link. I already did the math. You know, that thing engineers and scientists use to prove stuff-- that you can't do...
evince
Truthmatters
https://climate.nasa.gov/scientific-consensus.amp
Scientific Consensus: Earth's Climate Is Warming
Temperature data from four international science institutions. All show rapid warming in the past few decades and that the last decade has been the hottest on record.
Temperature data showing rapid warming in the past few decades, the latest data going up to 2022. According to NASA, 2016 and 2020 are tied for the warmest year since 1880, continuing a long-term trend of rising global temperatures. On top of that, the nine most recent years have been the hottest. Credit: NASA's Goddard Institute for Space Studies
It’s important to remember that scientists always focus on the evidence, not on opinions. Scientific evidence continues to show that human activities (primarily the human burning of fossil fuels) have warmed Earth’s surface and its ocean basins, which in turn have continued to impact Earth’s climate. This is based on over a century of scientific evidence forming the structural backbone of today's civilization.
Scientific Consensus: Earth's Climate Is Warming
Temperature data from four international science institutions. All show rapid warming in the past few decades and that the last decade has been the hottest on record.
Temperature data showing rapid warming in the past few decades, the latest data going up to 2022. According to NASA, 2016 and 2020 are tied for the warmest year since 1880, continuing a long-term trend of rising global temperatures. On top of that, the nine most recent years have been the hottest. Credit: NASA's Goddard Institute for Space Studies
It’s important to remember that scientists always focus on the evidence, not on opinions. Scientific evidence continues to show that human activities (primarily the human burning of fossil fuels) have warmed Earth’s surface and its ocean basins, which in turn have continued to impact Earth’s climate. This is based on over a century of scientific evidence forming the structural backbone of today's civilization.
evince
Truthmatters
evince
Truthmatters
evince
Truthmatters
Everyone agrees it’s real now
Even all the corporations
You and Putin are the only shit faced hold Outs
Thanks for trying to feed us your diet of bullshit.
You don't seem to understand some simple basics about how electricity is used.
We don't use the same kw every hour of every day. Electricity usage goes up during the daytime. Solar produced electricity is cheaper than any other form in cost per kwh. The cost to install and use solar is actually cheaper than the fuel needed for coal or natural gas plants. Running a gas plant with solar picking up the increase in demand during the day is cheaper than running a gas plant to meet that demand.
https://www.eia.gov/outlooks/aeo/pdf/electricity_generation.pdf
Nuclear has its own costs. The biggest being the cost to build the power plant. Current costs per kwh to build a nuclear plant can't begin to compete with gas, solar or wind.
Gas, solar and wind cost from $33 to $41 per mwh to build and run. Nuclear is over $80 per mwh.
But then you seem to not understand that science is always moving forward. An interesting science article just came out about using the energy in humidity to produce electricity. Battery technology is moving forward and will get cheaper over time. But live in your 1950s mindset. It seems to work well for you.
Care to show you work? Because the people that do the math and get paid for it seem to disagree with your amateur hour bullshit.
It's so funny when you argue that solar panels don't work on a cloudy day. I am always amazed how dark it is on those cloudy days. Its like I can't see the road without turning on my headlights. [/sarcasm]
T. A. Gardner
Thread Killer
Now, I'm going to do the math for you to prove what a total, drug addled, stupid fuck you really are.
Solar Star I and II is the largest commercial solar energy array in the US today. Its characteristics are:
(Note: I'm spelling things out for you and adding commentary on the numbers because I know you otherwise are too stupid and ill-educated to figure them out for yourself)
579 Megawatts nameplate capacity (That's the rated amount of power it can produce 'on paper')
Currently this array produces and average of 1663 Gigawatts per year. That's based on actual output not an estimate.
The capacity factor is rated at 32.8%. That is, that's the percentage per day, week, etc., of nameplate it produces on average over those periods.
It sits on 3,200 acres of land
The cost to build it in 2023 dollars was $3.125 billion.
Vogtle Nuclear in Georga is the nation's latest nuclear plant to go on line now.
It's nameplate output is 3450 Megawatts
It's capacity factor is 95%
The annual output is 19,786 Gigawatts.
It cost $30.34 billion in 2023 dollars to construct.
To replace Vogtle with solar power, based on the latest and largest solar array, Solar Star, would require 12 plants of that size to be built at a cost of $37.15 billion dollars.
And, it gets worse. Because of the low capacity factor, we'd have to build storage for power when the array isn't producing energy. Let's assume just a mere 20 hours of storage capacity to get us to tomorrow when the sun is really, fully up and the plant is running.
Battery storage costs, right now, about $225 per kilowatt hour. We need to store about 75,000 MW of power to meet our 20 hour demand rate. That would cost us just a measly $1.7 trillion dollars. But hey, it's just money after all and the government can always print more, right?
So, our replacement of a nuclear plant with solar and battery storage (note: It still might well run out of power sometimes) is only going to cost about $2 trillion dollars or about 50 times what the nuclear power plant would cost .
That solar array, and the batteries would sit on about 20 times more land than the nuclear plant too. How many square miles of pristine desert, forest, or farmland are you willing to destroy to put that solar array up? Then you better hope that adverse weather like wind storms, hail, etc., don't come along and destroy your array. The nuclear plant and it's buildings and containment system are built to withstand those unlike a solar plant.
Solar is utterly and completely stupid like you.
AProudLefty
Black Kitty Ain't Happy
Did he really try to argue that? My goodness.
T. A. Gardner
Thread Killer
I did. Have fun. The EIA numbers are just for building the array. The problem there is that doesn't account for actual operational issues like solar being an intermittent source.
T. A. Gardner
Thread Killer
They don't produce anything close to full power. All solar arrays are currently capacity factor rated between about 20 and 35%. Compare that to natural gas at about 60 to 75%, and nuclear at about 95%.
evince
Truthmatters
Link you fucking slimy Putin fluffer
T. A. Gardner
Thread Killer
The solar capacity factor is the ratio of the actual power produced by a solar system in a particular period of time to the maximum possible power that can be produced by the system. As it is a ratio of the same quantities, it is unitless and expressed in percentages. The typical values of the solar capacity factor are between 10% and 25%. For the solar utility power plant, solar capacity is around 24.5%.
https://solarsena.com/solar-capacit... of,capacity factor are between 10% and 25%.
https://www.eia.gov/todayinenergy/detail.php?id=39832
https://www.statista.com/statistics...factors-by-selected-energy-source-since-1998/
Debating you is like beating a helpless baby, only meaner. You are truly so fucking incompetent and stupid you couldn't spend the less than sixty seconds to look it up for yourself and see I'm 100% correct could you? I guess you were too busy packing you bond with some weed to keep your brain addled to bother with such an easy thing to do.
The levelized cost is NOT just for building the array. Strike one for you.
https://www.eia.gov/outlooks/aeo/pdf/electricity_generation.pdf
I don't see your math yet. Strike two for you.
All power generation must be intermittent to some degree because the power demands are not the same for every hour of every day. Strike 3 for you. (The EIA numbers take into account the actual production, not the name plate production.)
But still waiting for your math so we can see how else you strike out.
Look at you being all stupid and proving you didn't do the math correctly.
If 100% of electricity is being produce by nuclear it would be impossible for it to be working at 95% of capacity.
The average day in July sees a 30% drop in demand from late afternoon to middle of the night.
The peak demand in July to the low demand in October is about a 50% drop in demand.
https://www.eia.gov/todayinenergy/detail.php?id=42915
Any source of electricity would be working at less than 60% of rated factor over a year based on demand alone if they were the only source.
T. A. Gardner
Thread Killer
None of that changes the figures I gave. When a solar array isn't producing power because it's nighttime, heavily overcast, snowing, or whatever, you have to still have power. Where do you get it? The FACT that solar arrays have between a 20 and 30% capacity factor is their doom.
You understand NOTHING.
T. A. Gardner
Thread Killer
Look at you being all stupid and proving you didn't do the math correctly.
If 100% of electricity is being produce by nuclear it would be impossible for it to be working at 95% of capacity.
The average day in July sees a 30% drop in demand from late afternoon to middle of the night.
The peak demand in July to the low demand in October is about a 50% drop in demand.
https://www.eia.gov/todayinenergy/detail.php?id=42915
Any source of electricity would be working at less than 60% of rated factor over a year based on demand alone if they were the only source.
Are you retarded? Seriously?
The FACT that a nuclear power plant can produce its generating capacity 95% of the time means that it rarely is offline and not producing. Of course, any power plant has down time. With conventional generation like nuclear, natural gas, coal, etc., that downtime is normally scheduled and expected. The power is made up by other sources also scheduled to do that.
With solar and wind, you cannot predict with certainty when the plant will produce and when it won't, unless you somehow can predict the weather unlike no other human in history. So, what you need is another source of power to make up for that, or massive amounts of storage capacity to get you through the roughly 70 to 80% of the time when the plant is down and not producing.
That means you build say a natural gas plant that runs that 70 to 80% of the time when solar isn't available and sits the 20 to 30% of the time when solar is available. It makes more sense to just ditch the solar and build a slightly bigger natural gas plant and cover the needed capacity with reliable predictability 100% of the time rather than rely on solar.
OMG. It's like you are a child as you argue that they don't include what they include.
LCOE takes into account the actual production, it doesn't use the rated capacity. Do you have any other stupid statements you want to make? When the EIA says it costs $33 per MWH for solar that is based on projected production at that 20-25% of rated capacity. (It varies by area, expected length of day and cloud cover. They actually do the math.)
T. A. Gardner
Thread Killer
And, what do you do when solar isn't producing? What's the cost of the alternative to solar generation? That includes batteries, pumped hydro, or another power plant that has the capacity to cover the solar plant being down.
Everywhere solar (and wind) is being heavily used, they're running up against that problem. In Germany, they have resorted to building new "clean" coal generating plants to cover the downtime for solar. Then there's times when solar makes too much electricity so the companies making it have to sell it at a loss to other countries, if they can.
The result is Germany has seen electricity costs skyrocket to some of the highest per KWH prices anywhere.