"Energy can't be the enemy," Mike Rowe

Alternatives are the future - not just of energy, but of the domestic economy.

We're missing a great opportunity. Alternatives could be the equivalent of a dot.com boom w/ focused R&D. There is so much potential.
 
T. A. Gardner said:
Way more than you, that's for sure. How many kilowatts of installed solar panels and storage are required to obtain one kilowatt-day of power from a solar array on average? What is the most energy efficient means to heat a home? Which is the least efficient?
Click to expand...

wow, you really showed me!! questions so hard it might take 10 seconds to find out on google. you really are a stupid asshole, aren't you?

A General Solar Equation
There are various equations for calculating how many solar panels and the amount of power needed for a household. Here’s a general example:

The average energy needs of a U.S. household is a 6.62-kW solar system to match the 9,000 kWh of average energy usage by U.S. households each year. And, the typical solar panel makes 320 watts of electricity in ideal sunny conditions. Here's how many solar panels that equals.3

Divide 6.62 kW (the system size) by .320 kW (the wattage per panel) = 20.69—rounded up that’s 21 panels. While your home is far from average, this is how you can calculate your own rough estimate.

https://www.sunrun.com/go-solar-cen...eeds of,electricity in ideal sunny conditions.

As far as most energy efficient or least systems to heat a home depends on where you live and other factors and how big your house is and if you want the whole house heated or just a few rooms.
 
Hoosier Daddy said:
wow, you really showed me!! questions so hard it might take 10 seconds to find out on google. you really are a stupid asshole, aren't you?

A General Solar Equation
There are various equations for calculating how many solar panels and the amount of power needed for a household. Here’s a general example:

The average energy needs of a U.S. household is a 6.62-kW solar system to match the 9,000 kWh of average energy usage by U.S. households each year. And, the typical solar panel makes 320 watts of electricity in ideal sunny conditions. Here's how many solar panels that equals.3

Divide 6.62 kW (the system size) by .320 kW (the wattage per panel) = 20.69—rounded up that’s 21 panels. While your home is far from average, this is how you can calculate your own rough estimate.

https://www.sunrun.com/go-solar-cen...eeds of,electricity in ideal sunny conditions.

As far as most energy efficient or least systems to heat a home depends on where you live and other factors and how big your house is and if you want the whole house heated or just a few rooms.
Click to expand...

Wrong! You get a F. For a kilowatt day you have to produce 24 kW hours of electricity. Since solar panels only work when the sun is up we can estimate that at most they're producing for about 12 hours per day average. But since the average home solar array is only about 15 to 20% efficient due to it being fixed in both tracking and elevation for latitude, we need to first factor that in. Then we need to factor in that the average over the period the panels produce is somewhat lower due to the sun not being aligned with them so let's use the 15% value.
This means to get one kilowatt day of power out of these panels you need to produce a minimum of 48 kW at full efficiency but the panels are only 15% efficient so you now need 320 kW of installed panels-- at your values for these = about 100 panels not 21 (and this is for 1 kW so for 6 kW for 24 hours this means about 600 panels) and you need a minimum of about 15 kW hours of battery storage as well. All of that makes using solar 24/7 as your energy source ridiculously expensive.

Oh, you only want to use it when the sun is shining? Well, where does your power come from when it isn't? Natural gas? Nuclear? Coal? This means you need to duplicate your energy supply sources because solar is intermittent and unreliable in output. So, it makes more sense to just build the reliable alternatives and forget about wasting time with solar.

As for heating your home... Electricity is the worst and least cost effective means to do it.

Rc1a2babd295de491e1617ff06e18cba6


So, again trying to use solar or wind to heat your home is one of the least efficient means you can choose. Solar and wind are failures.
 
dukkha said:
thats stupid.
we are still USING OIL PRODUCTS - drilling does NOT PRECLUDE transitioning. It just means we have to import more
and we are never going to have enough by renewables - but we should scale in Green where it's sustainable.

Again market forces do all this by themselves - putting union workers out of jobs to import instead is moronic
Click to expand...

Why do you even bother with that prick?
 
I don't understand* why Republicans don't want to fund research that develops alternative energy. The sun puts out more energy in one second than all of the US can use in a century. The potential is endless.



*Well, maybe I do understand. Big Oil has many tendrils latched into Washington's underside.
 
TexanManWithPlans said:
I don't understand* why Republicans don't want to fund research that develops alternative energy. The sun puts out more energy in one second than all of the US can use in a century. The potential is endless.

*Well, maybe I do understand. Big Oil has many tendrils latched into Washington's underside.
Click to expand...

While not a Republican, I want what works. Solar and wind power generation have been around for over a century now. You can't get around physics and chemistry. There is only so much sunlight striking the ground per unit area (about 1.2 to 1.4 kW per m^2). So, you can never, ever, produce more electricity than that from solar panels per meter squared. But since there will be some inefficiency, you will always produce less. You cannot change the watt density of sunlight. How much energy the sun puts out is totally irrelevant here. It's how much energy reaches the point of collection that matters.

Likewise you can't change the energy in wind. There is an upper limit to the size of wind turbines based on propeller speed if nothing else. Wind turbines only work between a lower and upper limit on wind speed too. The wind isn't blowing hard enough, it can't generate electricity. The wind is blowing too hard the propeller spins too fast and destroys the turbine, so you end up feathering and locking the propeller to keep the generator from being damaged.

In both cases, the watt density of the energy is so low that vast arrays of solar panels or turbines are necessary to produce the same power as one nuclear power plant on a tiny footprint by comparison.

This makes nuclear the way to go for base loading. It can produce massive amounts of power 24/7 reliably. You use natural gas to produce the variable load portion of the usage bringing plants on or off line quickly and efficiently to meet demand. Solar and wind are worthless and should be abandoned for the most part if not entirely.
 
dukkha said:
thats stupid.
we are still USING OIL PRODUCTS - drilling does NOT PRECLUDE transitioning. It just means we have to import more
and we are never going to have enough by renewables - but we should scale in Green where it's sustainable.

Again market forces do all this by themselves - putting union workers out of jobs to import instead is moronic
Click to expand...

I wonder where they think lubricants, pharmaceuticals, helium, plastics, paraffin wax, asphalt, petrochemicals, fabrics, fertilisers, pesticides, synthetic rubber and many other products come from.
 
BartenderElite said:
Alternatives are the future - not just of energy, but of the domestic economy.

We're missing a great opportunity. Alternatives could be the equivalent of a dot.com boom w/ focused R&D. There is so much potential.
Click to expand...

Been trying it since the 70s and still not viable.
 
Nordberg said:
Why not. Buy an electric car and solar panel your garage. Electricity comes from the sun.
Click to expand...

but bill gates wants to block solar energy by putting more particles in the air. what's up with that? I think he may be psychotic.

https://politicofire.com/2020/12/28...n-to-dim-the-suns-rays-moves-forward-quietly/


A bizarre-sounding plan to save Earth funded by tech guru Bill Gates is “quietly” moving forward.

The plan — to dim the sun’s rays and their impact on the earth — is reportedly all in the name of helping to revitalize the environment and thus save the human race.

What are the details?
The billionaire philanthropist is set on saving the Earth no matter the cost.

THE SECOND WAVE
“While you may have been paying attention to [Gates’] efforts on vaccination and lockdowns, you may not have noticed that one of Gates’ most controversial causes just got a go-ahead: A project that would help block out the sun,” the Western Journal’s Douglas Golden wrote.

Reuters reported that the geo-engineering plan — a Harvard University project funded largely by Gates— “plans to test out a controversial theory that global warming can be stopped by spraying particles into the atmosphere that would reflect the sun’s rays.”
 
no worries said:
"IOW, it’s no different than any other industry. This is something our more ‘enlightened’ lefties and technocrats fail to understand about doing things like sending jobs out of the country. Or as is often the case simply ‘canceling them’.

Really?

Like Dotard 'saved" all those coal mining jobs?

What countries did they relocate to?

"The down stream effect can be crippling to an economy. You can’t just snap your fingers and make them appear or say something ‘well, we can just train them to do something else’ as if that can happen in two weeks".

Why not?

Not in two weeks but energy is transitioning, so must the workforce, companies already have people working for them, why can't they make a switch, just like learning how to run the plants newest "toy".
Click to expand...

you're an imbecile.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top