EEVblog #1002 - Trumps Solar Freakin Wall DEBUNKED

[EEVblog]

Will Trump's Mexican border solar powered wall pay for itself?
Dave runs the numbers to find out what the solar payback is.

[robby1995]

Watched the video, wanted to share, link was broken, video gone, what happend??

[slurry]

Damagecontrol? 

[Brumby]

Dave probably found something (or someone else did and let him know) - and he's doing an extra edit.

Making it private again stops whatever the issue was from being viewed by all and sundry.


Be patient.  I expect it will be back within the next few hours, with a possible explanation from Dave.

[robby1995]

Didn't Dave say sometime that he couldn't order something because he is at some American watchlist?

[george graves]

This seems to be happening a lot. Email notifications > click > Not available.  Video is put back up 5 hours later with no mention of why it was inaccurate/re-edited/changed/deleted.

I assume that's a ton of wasted time from people clicking on emails. 

[EEVblog]

Back up now. Minor but important technical edit.

[RGB255_0_0]

I thought only Thunderf00t loved stepping on the right's toes. This is going to turn political really quick.

[EEVblog]

I thought only Thunderf00t loved stepping on the right's toes. This is going to turn political really quick.

I'm debunking a technical claim, I don't give a crap about the politics.

[Nusa]

For Trump, the numbers making sense are irrelevant. He's just trying it out as a ploy to provide Congress a political excuse to fund the wall, since he's got no chance of getting Mexico to pay for it.

Most illegal immigrants get here by walking over on a tourist visa and simply failing to leave. Which makes building massive walls, once you get out into the boondocks where nature eliminates the casual crossing, an expensive symbol rather than an actual deterrant. By the way, a fair chunk of the existing "wall" is merely a vehicle barrier, so it doesn't really exist in the form Trump speaks of.

[Electro Detective]

Might be time for President Trump to consider dealing with suspicious or incompetent 'technical' advisers with those famous two words... 



                                                                         "YOU'RE FIRED !!!"

[RGB255_0_0]

I thought only Thunderf00t loved stepping on the right's toes. This is going to turn political really quick.

I'm debunking a technical claim.

That's moot when it comes to politics.

[Brumby]

I thought only Thunderf00t loved stepping on the right's toes. This is going to turn political really quick.

I'm debunking a technical claim.

That's moot when it comes to politics.

Depends on whether you are looking at the subject on a technical/economic basis ... or not.

[TheAmmoniacal]

I certainly agree with your calculation here, the energy from solar will not pay for the wall. But I still like the idea and would not want to discourage putting solar on it.

Many of the concepts do look pretty schmick.

[sleemanj]

Many of the concepts do look pretty schmick.

Anybody spot the mistake?

[Zom-B]

Many of the concepts do look pretty schmick.

Anybody spot the mistake?

Haha, the sun doesn't shine from the north (at the mexican border at least)

[Edit] Aha, this must be here, or one of the other places where the fractal geometry of the border turns it upside down.

[EEVblog]

I thought only Thunderf00t loved stepping on the right's toes. This is going to turn political really quick.

I'm debunking a technical claim.

That's moot when it comes to politics.

Only to people who get triggered by politics.

[EEVblog]

I certainly agree with your calculation here, the energy from solar will not pay for the wall. But I still like the idea and would not want to discourage putting solar on it.

It's technically a dumb idea.
If the goal is to get solar payback then build a normal concentrated array farm in the Texas desert.
The losses on this wall system will be large. It's not as dumb as solar roadways, but it's another example of a poor and inefficient implementation of solar technology.

[TheAmmoniacal]

The only technical difficult I see with this implementation is energy transport, there are many large stretches of border with no city or town near it. Apart from that the implementation is equivalent to a roof installation (?)

The benefit of doing it would largely be symbolic, and let's face it - the government won't be spending $1B on normal solar installations. But it can happen if it makes Trump look good.

[RGB255_0_0]

The only technical difficult I see with this implementation is energy transport

I think getting enough panels produced before his/Congress's 4 years finish will be another big issue. It may well send panel prices through the roof.

[Fungus]

I certainly agree with your calculation here, the energy from solar will not pay for the wall. But I still like the idea and would not want to discourage putting solar on it.

They'll probably put the panels on the USA's side of the fence to avoid the Mexicans stealing them.


(Is that joke too subtle?)

[GoneTomorrow]

Not completely stupid, at least the panels won't have shit on top of them like roads and carparks would. And the location is quite conducive of effective solar energy. It would probably pay for the cost of the PV system alone in a few years, but never the wall.

But yeah, you'd be better off just concentrating the panels into a square/circular array somewhere and avoid all the logistics of transmitting power from a 3000km long array, vandalism, getting proper tracking, etc etc.

Anyway, it's clearly just a political stunt to boost popularity for the wall, because now it's 'green'.

[Cliff Matthews]

Dave, you could have stated maintenance costs would be a magnitude higher... due to many factors (almost reason enough to build a railway line just to do the job). I would think easy vandalism from irritated dwellers on the other side would be reason enough to NOT build anything so delicate. But maybe his family is already buying into solar tech to plan for endless returns?
Recall the damaged panel on your own roof. Imagine a Mexican night-flight ejecting scrap-metal towards the panels! FAIL!!

[max_torque]

I suspect three additional factors will make it even less likely to payback:

1) The $12B cost for the wall didn't include any infrastructure support for a solar array.  Chances are, if you want to stick 1x2m panels on top, then the wall itself will have to change to support that loading (panels are light, but not when the wind blows!!)

2) The cost of large scale solar arrays, at the quoted $1.50/W is not valid for a distributed array.  Costs for cabling, junction boxes, interconnects etc on a linear array will be far higher than for a typical concentrated array (which is what is normally built, ie, lots of panels in a broadly square layout). And of course, the transmission losses will be significantly larger too, as the source of your power is spread out over a huge distance.

3) What are you going to do with 580MW in the middle of the southern desert?   Las Vegas2 anyone??  ;-)  Otherwise you've got to get that power to someone who needs it, and that isn't going to be cheap!

[Gyro]

3) What are you going to do with 580MW in the middle of the southern desert?   Las Vegas2 anyone??  ;-)  Otherwise you've got to get that power to someone who needs it, and that isn't going to be cheap!

Sell it to Mexico, then he could claim that they are paying for the wall! 

[Fungus]

3) What are you going to do with 580MW in the middle of the southern desert?   Las Vegas2 anyone??  ;-)  Otherwise you've got to get that power to someone who needs it, and that isn't going to be cheap!

Sell it to Mexico, obviously.

That way there's a tiny number on the budget that says "Electricity sales to Mexico" and the politicians can spin it into a huge win for the USA: "Look, Mexico is paying for this!"

[Cliff Matthews]

OK, selling electricity to Mexico makes more sense then. Vandalizing it from the other side is against their own interests.
So why not build a strong wall north, and some meters south a weaker wall with panels and motion detection between?I still think anything like this is prone to fail, since borders can become hostile, wrecking infra$tructure.

[Kjelt]

So solarpanels are busted. 
Here in holland and probably else in the world there is this alternative, rooftiles that transfer the solar heat to water that runs in small heat pipes in the rooftiles. The water is heated and can be used to run a turbine. No idea what the efficiency is.
How about a ten meter high four meter thick stone wall with these things? 

[nctnico]

So solarpanels are busted. 
Here in holland and probably else in the world there is this alternative, rooftiles that transfer the solar heat to water that runs in small heat pipes in the rooftiles. The water is heated and can be used to run a turbine. No idea what the efficiency is.
How about a ten meter high four meter thick stone wall with these things? 

I doubt they need heat in the desert!

[djacobow]

First, let the record show that I loathe Trump, think he's a lying snake, and "the wall" is a particularly stupid idea.

However, Dave's analysis does show something interesting: that, GIVEN that you are building the wall, adding solar could be in the ballpark of being able to defray the costs slightly.

I spotted two issues with Dave's analysis. First, and less important, he used TMY data from a coastal location, so I suspect that will show lower insolation overall and probably lower peak temps than a more inland reference. Since those impacts confound each other, it'd be hard to say which dominates without digging into am or detailed analysis, but I'd wager a real system would be a bit better.

Much more serious, The $1.50/W is for utility scale systems which are almost ALWAYS ground-mounted and generally layed out "compactly" to reduce the amount of wiring and the distance to inverters. Of course, a wall-based system would be spread out over 2000 km, which means inverters every 1/2 km or so, and appropriate DC wiring AND AC wiring to  what would likely have to be multiple transmission interconnections. Oh, and those would be interconnections to transmission that does not exist yet. The NREL numbers for a commercial (not utility) system are probably more realistic for this type of installation, plus the cost of transmission, which is generally not part of a commercial system's price.  I would not be surprised if such a system was 3-4 times as expensive as a state-of-the-art ground-based utility system.

That, I think, blows the PV economics out of the water. It is not viable in its own right, even if the wall were not counted.

So:

Wall: stupid
Wall + PV: even more stupid

Sad.

[Fungus]

However, Dave's analysis does show something interesting: that, GIVEN that you are building the wall, adding solar could be in the ballpark of being able to defray the costs slightly.

Solar panel installations have a known payback time, eg. 10 years. That figure is true no matter how many panels you install. They also have a lifetime before they need replacement, eg. 20 years.

Trump's plan has extra costs:
a) Building a very long thin solar farm needs an awful lot of extra cabling and stuff than a square/round one. This could double the cost.
b) It's in a place a long way from where the electricity might be needed, it will cost a lot to transport.

The extra cost of (a) and (b) means the payback time approaches the "tear it out an put a new on in" time, ie. it may never pay for itself.

[kd4ttc]

It wouldn't pay for construction costs but it would be enough for operational costs, A/C for the security staff, nighttime lighting, and other uses. Having power on the wall would also mitigate the costs of getting power to the wall, otherwise.

[ErikTheNorwegian]

Standing a stone trow away the boarder on the mexican side... and i bet the mexicans will just do that!

[Brumby]

... nighttime lighting ...

Hmmm.... that sparks a thought ....

Methinks you might find Elon Musk stepping up to this challenge - the ultimate Tesla Power Wall!!   

[ziggyfish]

Will Trump's Mexican border solar powered wall pay for itself?
Dave runs the numbers to find out what the solar payback is.

Considering the system will cost $870M, and the ROI is around $90M. So it would take 10 years to pay for the costs of the system itself (let's ignore the cost of the wall for the time being). We haven't even looked at the energy transportation infrastructure here yet.

This begs the question then, isn't this the sums that should be valid for any solar installation?

If so considering the US consumes 3,913,000,000,000 kWh a year (2014 figures), or

(3.913*10¹⁵ Wh)/8760 hours in a year = 446,689,497,716.894977169 Wh.
446,689,497,716.894977169 * $1.5 = $670,034,246,575.34 or $670B.

446,689,497,716kW * 0.11 (price energy companies charge) = $49,135,844,748.85.

It would take 670/50 = 13.4 years to see any return on investment. Just to meet the demand of 2014. As you know batteries would increase the costs per watt and increase the number of solar panels needed as batteries are not 100% efficient.

So the question I have to ask is solar a viable energy source currently, or is it more feasible to build coal and nuclear power up until the price per watt of a solar panel goes down?

[cpuerror]

I have an engineering degree from Trump University so let me chime in. For those of you worrying about cables and transmission, Trump was talking about putting in wireless solar panels, using ubeam technology to move the power around. The ubeams could also be redirected to power self filling water bottles for thirsty border travelers, powering a 5000km hyperloop etc. The possibilities are endless.

[Bud]

Did your brain just experienced one of those events represented in your nickname? 

[EEVblog]

Watching a man from another nation insult the president of my country makes me feel unwelcome here, and I guess I am. I thought EEVblog was about electronics, not politics.

Irony overload

[Kjelt]

Do I get this right, are you now blaming Dave just to point out that that someone else (who happens to be your president but that is not relevant or to the point at all) is talking nonsense ?
I thought the USA was the land of free speech, and that discussion would always be possible esp. to debunk scientific nonsense.

[b_force]

Ones again, this subject is purely about facts, science and engineering. If it wasn't Trump, but someone else, Dave would also have posted something similar. So if people see this as a political rant, maybe you should think twice (and learn how to divide what is important to the useless little details).

On top of that, I personally don't understand why people get so sensitive about it (in general). I think it's totally wrong to walk away from the truth. So if my "favourite" political party is selling BS, I would also debunk their stupid ideas as much as I can.
The point is that people, groups or parties with to much power are even allowed to sell this kind of BS.
In my opinion they should be fined with every idea they sell that's proven incorrect or something.

Anyway, can we now go back ontopic pls?
(on the other hand, there is not much to add to Daves video)

[Roy Batty]

So long, and thanks for all the fish.

[Brumby]

Watching a man from another nation insult the president of my country makes me feel unwelcome here, and I guess I am. I thought EEVblog was about electronics, not politics.

Irony overload

Perhaps you could explain that, since it looks like you don't care if people like me leave your forum. Have I pushed my negative views of Australian politicians here? I don't even know who they are, but maybe I have forgotten something I wrote in the past.

We'll happily leave the insulting of your president to you and your countrymen - but this video is about assessing the idea and calling it out for what it is.

In simple engineering terms - it's a bad idea ... and that is all that is being said.

If you then want to take a moral "high ground" and use that to mount an attack on the credibility of Dave, based on your interpretation of it being a personal insult upon your president, then you are missing the point entirely.  It also shows that you have no grounds to challenge Dave's conclusions on any engineering principles.  (We would welcome anybody offering engineering that supports the idea.)

As such, if you want to wave the Trump banner, then go right ahead.  We won't stop you.  But understand that the Mexican border solar wall idea is technically questionable and certainly not good economics.....

...... no matter who suggested it.

Let me suggest that it is possible and preferable to debunk bad ideas without the obvious hostility toward a world leader. The explanation of the ins and outs of solar energy is interesting, but do I really have to be exposed to Dave's rancor toward Trump in order to get it?

Take out Trump's name if you want - but the idea deserves the incredulity that Dave expresses.

It's a stupendously crazy idea - and just because it came from your president, we have to bow down and sing its praises???

I have seen that happen between staff and upper management with teams out of the USA, but that does not happen with Aussies.  Here, we call dumb ideas dumb - no matter who it comes from.

People who don't live in America do not understand the wave of anti-Trump hysteria we are going through. Conservatives and people who simply look like they might have voted for Trump are being beaten in public places. Their property is being vandalized. Entertainers joke about murdering the president; look up Johnny Depp and Kathy Griffin. We just had a nutcase try to kill a group of conservative congressmen with a rifle at a baseball field, and he succeeded in blowing one congressman's pelvis apart. It would be nice to be able to escape the rage on forums unrelated to politics.

We get to see what happens on the news ... and I know that is not like living it by any stretch of the imagination.

However, the point still remains ... this is NOT an attack on Trump.  It's an attack on the dumb idea - which he just happened to utter.

This is a big differentiation.  However, I do accept that there is a LOT of tension surrounding the Trump administration and this sort of differentiation gets lost in the frenzy.


It is important for you to understand - that this differentiation is VERY MUCH necessary for an objective discussion... as difficult as it may well be.

Edit: Broke up second quote into two parts.

[b_force]

Nobody has the rights to use violence for political reasons (or any reason for that matter). But you can't expect that other people aren't allowed to vent their feelings and opinions.
That's simply the right they have (luckily).

And to be very honest. The fundamentals of science and engineering are completely based on critisism and critique but only if you can prove them with valid arguments. Over the years I know Dave good enough that he thinks the same about this.

This subject is about the fact that a person x in a certain position is letting people believe something that's extremely doubtful from a scientific point of view (understatement). You can't simply ignore that.
And with all the respect and no hard felings, but if people can't handle this scientific approach to these subjects, I don't think this forum is the place to be for them.

[b_force]

Ones again. Dave has been debunking things all the time.
The fact that this involves a political leader is irrilevant. Absolutely un important for the discussion. Otherwise, where do you draw the wall, ehm line?
Or you have to say that he has to completely stop debunking stuff (gear and tools included).

Anyhow it doesn't matter, it's Daves youtube channel and Daves forum. As I said before, if that's not you thing, this is clearly not the place to be.

[EEVblog]

Watching a man from another nation insult the president of my country makes me feel unwelcome here, and I guess I am. I thought EEVblog was about electronics, not politics.

Irony overload

Perhaps you could explain that

It seems that I must, because you clearly don't get it.
I make a technical video about debunking a solar wall idea.
You get triggered because I "insulted" the person who made the claim, which happens to be your president.
Personally I don't give a rats arse who made the claim, but it seems you do.
Ergo, you complain my video was about politics instead of technical, and you ironically bring politics into the forum, the very same politics you are complaining about.

, since it looks like you don't care if people like me leave your forum.

I don't care who comes or goes, as long as you talk technical, but if you want to bring politics into the forum then you will not be welcome here.

Have I pushed my negative views of Australian politicians here?

You are the one who bought up politics here, not me.

[EEVblog]

Ones again, this subject is purely about facts, science and engineering. If it wasn't Trump, but someone else, Dave would also have posted something similar.

This.
The claim was a very public one and made all the news, and many people ask me to take a look at the numbers. It seemed topical, and because I had done similar ones before, seemed relevant. I took a look at the numbers without any agenda.
In fact, I didn't even know what the numbers would turn out to be until I started doing the video and did the calcs as I went along.
It turned out to be not as bad as people thought it would, at least the best case ballpark number.
I could have completely spun the video to demolish Trump or his policies or whatever if I really had an "agenda", but I simply presented the ballpark result and had a laugh in a quick video done without any thought or hidden intention whatsoever.

On top of that, I personally don't understand why people get so sensitive about it (in general).

BTW I noticed a similar "triggered" reaction when I "dared" to run the numbers on Musk's solar rooftop. Some Musk supporters made similar claims that I was attacking and insulting their idol or something like that. Some Trump supporters have taken it to a new level, but it's eerily similar.

[EEVblog]

Let me suggest that it is possible and preferable to debunk bad ideas without the obvious hostility toward a world leader. The explanation of the ins and outs of solar energy is interesting, but do I really have to be exposed to Dave's rancor toward Trump in order to get it?
People who don't live in America do not understand the wave of anti-Trump hysteria we are going through.

No one cares.
The politics ends here, got it?

[EEVblog]

Solar panel installations have a known payback time, eg. 10 years. That figure is true no matter how many panels you install. They also have a lifetime before they need replacement, eg. 20 years.

Trump's plan has extra costs:
a) Building a very long thin solar farm needs an awful lot of extra cabling and stuff than a square/round one. This could double the cost.
b) It's in a place a long way from where the electricity might be needed, it will cost a lot to transport.
The extra cost of (a) and (b) means the payback time approaches the "tear it out an put a new on in" time, ie. it may never pay for itself.

c) The maintenance will be much higher.
d) The efficiency will be lower because tracking is much harder if not possible in many cases.

The whole thing is a technically stupid idea. Not nearly as bad as solar roadways, but starting to have a similar set of issues that are being added for no real gain. They are just trying to do it that way because it's cool or meets some agenda etc.
We already have well established solar solutions that provide the best efficiency, lowest cost, and have the shortest payback. Trying to do it any other way better have a damn good and compelling reason to do so.

[djacobow]

However, Dave's analysis does show something interesting: that, GIVEN that you are building the wall, adding solar could be in the ballpark of being able to defray the costs slightly.

Solar panel installations have a known payback time, eg. 10 years. That figure is true no matter how many panels you install. They also have a lifetime before they need replacement, eg. 20 years.

Though I will agree that for a given situation there is probably one optimal system configuration, it is not the same configuration in every situation. In utility-scale installations, there are important considerations that affect the orientation of the panels, the ratio of inverter capacity to panel capacity, etc. For example, typical utility tariffs have a time-varying component, and that component varies depending on the correlation between the solar output curve and the utility's load curve. Depending on how you get paid you may want to be able to generate more during hour X even if that means dumping power during Y because energy during X earns you more $$. The time-of-use periods can very substantially, so this is a strong consideration. Similarly, if there is limited transmission capacity at a location, you might install more panels than the link can carry at peak times, but you will get better utilization of the link at off peak times.

Panels are typically warrantied for 20 years, but they do tend to last longer, with some degradation. On the other hand, the cost-of-capital models used by solar project developers tend to heavily discount the out years, so the production in years 20-50 or whatever doesn't matter all that much anyway. Inverters, by the way, do not last nearly as long.

Trump's plan has extra costs:
a) Building a very long thin solar farm needs an awful lot of extra cabling and stuff than a square/round one. This could double the cost.
b) It's in a place a long way from where the electricity might be needed, it will cost a lot to transport.

The extra cost of (a) and (b) means the payback time approaches the "tear it out an put a new on in" time, ie. it may never pay for itself.

Which is exactly what the latter part of my post said.

Another nit Dave used an average of $0.11/kWh for tariff. That's very generous for a utility scale project in North America today. People are bidding in projects on the order of $0.06-$0.08/kWh these days.

I think we can all agree that Dave is right, he is right more than he thought he was right. My point about "ballpark" was only that this was not a orders-of-magnitude type of situation, but less than one order of magnitude.


I've been in the utility scale solar business for about 10 years.

[Roy Batty]

No one cares.
The politics ends here, got it?

My participation in your forum ends here, got it?

[EEVblog]

No one cares.
The politics ends here, got it?

My participation in your forum ends here, got it?

Bye.
Would you like me to ban your account too so you can't accidentally happen upon all the politics here again?
We offer a full personal service here at the EEVblog forum.

[joeqsmith]

No one cares.
The politics ends here, got it?

My participation in your forum ends here, got it?

Bye.
Would you like me to ban your account too so you can't accidentally happen upon all the politics here again?
We offer a full personal service here at the EEVblog forum.

[SeanB]

I love Trump, he shows there is more than idiot in charge around the planet, it makes for good comedy, and a great distraction. 

The rug on top also is great, a triumph of glue and spray over polyester, perhaps even a few strands of actual hair there as well the CFC's did not dissolve, along with the odd neurons inside that did not melt in the solvent wash.

[Kjelt]

Oh no a user with 12 (twelve) whole posts left the forum   

[Bud]

There are bunch of users on this forum with big post count, who do not bring value to the forum. because they post crap, they typically know all about everything.

[f4eru]

Good debunking.
Yeah, some people can be irritated by the truth.
We don't care.

[ErikTheNorwegian]

Let me suggest that it is possible and preferable to debunk bad ideas without the obvious hostility toward a world leader. The explanation of the ins and outs of solar energy is interesting, but do I really have to be exposed to Dave's rancor toward Trump in order to get it?
People who don't live in America do not understand the wave of anti-Trump hysteria we are going through.

No one cares.
The politics ends here, got it?

"world leader"?

World looser so far..

[MT]

Shouldn't a mild wind not even in the size of a EF3 passing trough this wall twice a year + some sand blaster storms make Trumps idea even a bigger economical failure.

[f4eru]

It seems this is a problem only in extreme cases :
http://www.nrel.gov/docs/legosti/old/4787.pdf
http://www.isites.info/PastConferences/ISITES2013/ISITES2013/papers/A1-ISITES13089.pdf

[Fungus]

Trump's plan has extra costs:
a) Building a very long thin solar farm needs an awful lot of extra cabling and stuff than a square/round one. This could double the cost.
b) It's in a place a long way from where the electricity might be needed, it will cost a lot to transport.
The extra cost of (a) and (b) means the payback time approaches the "tear it out an put a new on in" time, ie. it may never pay for itself.

c) The maintenance will be much higher.
d) The efficiency will be lower because tracking is much harder if not possible in many cases.

What's the chances of a good hurricane along the Mexican border in, say, any given 20 year period? 

[Cliff Matthews]

I believe the missing sections are more inland? (hurricane's peter-out, so shouldn't be a problem). They crisscross Florida with ease because the whole peninsula averages just a few ft. above sea-level. Other than beach life and orange groves, it's one of life's mysteries why so many choose to live in precarious tidal wash zones.

[tszaboo]

So to sum it up:
Trump wants to install solar panels: Excelent
Trump wants to install solar panels on the wall: Inefficient way of installing panels, requires more maintenance, not a good idea
Trump want the solar panels to pay for the wall: Maybe in a 100 year. It is misleading, just to gain popularity. Its like saying: I'm gonna build a house, but I place solar panels on the top, so the house is going to pay for itself. No it doesn't.

[Fungus]

People who don't live in America do not understand the wave of anti-Trump hysteria we are going through.

That has to be a contender for the quote of the month. It's almost meme-worthy.

[Groucho2005]

People who don't live in America do not understand the wave of anti-Trump hysteria we are going through.

That has to be a contender for the quote of the month. It's almost meme-worthy.

Agreed.
People who don't live in America (and many who do live there) understand perfectly well - Thanks to a fucked up electoral system and a large bunch of morons who inexplicably found their way to a voting booth, a narcissistic egomaniac with the educational level of a high school dropout, a vocabulary of 200 words and dyslexia is now president.

Why wouldn't there be anti-Trump hysteria?

[nixfu]

> the energy from solar will not pay for the wall

No one really is arguing it will as far as I know.  But the question is, is it a good idea anyway?

The question is will it generate useful energy and make a profit, no so much profit that it has to pay for the construction of the entire wall.  That is a straw man.   If the wall is going to be built anyway, does it make sense to put some solar panels on it given the static location to put them, and the very sunny climate they will most likely be placed? 

Maybe the power will be enough to pay for something else, like say the power to run some lights on the wall, or supply the wall with electrical power for laser beams or force fields or something!?  This is sort of like putting solar panels on top of a fountain to power the water?  It may never pay for the cost of the artist designed pretty marble park fountain feature itself but it might more than make financial sense to use it for powering the water flow.

You are setting up a false argument and shooting it down.

[Nusa]

... If the wall is going to be built anyway...

That's where your point goes wrong. Trump is trying to use solar power as an excuse to build the wall, not trying to add solar to a wall that's going to be built.

[nixfu]

>That's where your point goes wrong. Trump is trying to use solar power as an excuse to build the wall, not trying to add solar to a wall that's going to be built.

Except that is not the entire reason given for building the wall.

It is just being used as a "selling point", and an added feature to make the wall more appealing, just like when it was talked about selling advertising on it.

[Nusa]

>That's where your point goes wrong. Trump is trying to use solar power as an excuse to build the wall, not trying to add solar to a wall that's going to be built.

Except that is not the entire reason given for building the wall.

It is just being used as a "selling point", and an added feature to make the wall more appealing, just like when it was talked about selling advertising on it.

You're just proving my point. The wall is clearly not in the "going to be built anyway" category. It may have been a campaign promise, but Trump hasn't sold Congress on more than token funding.

[MT]

Alright! Now we had an engineer (Dave) debunking Dumpf's solar panels, so lets a standup comedian...eh..Dumpf debunk it as well! It starts at 2:33..

[james_s]

Most illegal immigrants get here by walking over on a tourist visa and simply failing to leave. Which makes building massive walls, once you get out into the boondocks where nature eliminates the casual crossing, an expensive symbol rather than an actual deterrant. By the way, a fair chunk of the existing "wall" is merely a vehicle barrier, so it doesn't really exist in the form Trump speaks of.

That was my first thought on the matter. Regardless of one's position on the issue of illegal immigration, a wall is pointless. It's a huge expenditure that will keep out or delay a very small portion of the people coming in. For somebody who claims to be a great businessman this plan has an extremely low ROI.

[djacobow]

I'm a political junky, but I usually keep my politics and electronics separate.

However, seeing where this thread has gone, I'm making an exception to pitch this browser extension that replaces Trump mentions with rather entertaining insults:

For Chrome: https://chrome.google.com/webstore/detail/detrumpify/hfhaalldkgmfbjjehkiddheghljjdjln?hl=en-US

For Firefox: https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/detrumpify

For those that don't trust strange plugins, the code is on github here: https://github.com/djacobow/detrumpify and you can run that exact code if you clone from there and enable developer mode in your browser.

[innkeeper]

hold the Phone... i don't think this is debunked....and Maybe someone else pointed this out but....i think "solar wall" might be take a bit to literal ...
They would NOT put solar panels on the Mexican side of the wall or anyplace they could be damaged from mexico..so I wouldn't think panels on the actual wall is an option.

the wall includes government controlled land next to it for patrolling the wall.  one would assume that they would put a solar farm on the US side next to the wall which would massively increase the total number of solar panels they could place .. this could easily be larger by a factor of 10.

so instead of revenue of ~100m per year your talking revenue of ~1billion per year. 

and frankly there building this from the ground up.. there no saying they even have to limit themselves to the size, they could go larger!

This is similar to what we are seeing a lot more of in my area which is solar farms on the side of interstates and sometimes in the median when the distances between the opposing traffic lanes make it feasible

[Fungus]

so instead of revenue of ~100m per year your talking revenue of ~1billion per year. 

ROI is per-panel.

If you generate 10x more income it's because you paid 10x more for the installation, have 10x more maintenance and need 10x more infrastructure to transport it (or more, because you'll have to transport it further if the locals can't use it all).

Building a long, narrow farm a far from where it's needed is uneconomical no matter how you look at it.

[sleemanj]

hold the Phone... i don't think this is debunked....and Maybe someone else pointed this out but....i think "solar wall" might be take a bit to literal ...

Just one of Trump's statements:  "Think about it, the higher it goes, the more valuable it is. Pretty good imagination, right, good?"

I think it is 100% clear that at least in Trumpys head the panels are on the side of the wall, higher wall, more panel.

[digsys]

Not sure if it's been mentioned - and depending on whose figures you base this on - between 40 - 60% of all "illegal" / "over-stayed" mexicans came in legally !!
Usually on temporary visas etc, then simply forgot to go back :-)  With a wall, I'm sure that number will increase. The fact that NO-ONE will provide (or are able to) proof or
accuracy of the numbers, suggest that "better off not knowing" :-) ... sure, it would be a damn difficult exercise, but 40-60% is not hard to work out. Visa expiries etc

[Fungus]

Not sure if it's been mentioned - and depending on whose figures you base this on - between 40 - 60% of all "illegal" / "over-stayed" mexicans came in legally !!

The drug dealers dig tunnels underneath the wall.

Most of the places with no wall at the moment are just hellhole deserts with no roads where you'll die of thirst before you reach a town.

(and if Trump thinks he can install solar cheaply in those areas he's mistaken - no transport, no water, nowhere to sleep... is he going to fly a billion yards of concrete + steel + solar panels in there with helicopters?)

[jh15]

the higher the wall, it will be closer to the sun.

[innkeeper]

ROI is still going to be ~9 years? someplace around there on the panels

but its GREEN

 

[Fungus]

ROI is still going to be ~9 years? someplace around there on the panels

Not even close. That's the ROI for installing them sensibly in a big flat place that's suited for it.

[oldway]

If it is prooven that the project of the solar wall is wrong (as Dave did), this is not an insult against the President of USA.
Even the President of USA can make errors, everyone can make errors, we are humans. 

USA is the country of freedom of speech and of protection of human rights.
We cann't use the same principles of the North Corea where the President is like a god.

Debunking a technical and scientific project has nothing to do with politics in a free country.

[EEVblog]

Well the Youtube comments on that video just got so out of control that any discussion of the actual topic of a solar wall or solar energy got completely swapped by politics and vitriol.
I deleted most political comments that did not add any value.
Not often I have to do delete comments on that scale (almost never), but it happens. Meh, Youtube.

[Kjelt]

Perhaps if you left the T name out, so just called it "Solar Wall debunked" it would not have attracked so much attention.
On the other hand the purpose of youtube videos is to attrack as much attention as possible.
Next time weigh the pros and cons, many views vs who is viewing 

[EEVblog]

Perhaps if you left the T name out, so just called it "Solar Wall debunked" it would not have attracked so much attention.

Nope, wouldn't have mattered. It's not like it went viral and is being viewed by Joe Public.
Except for a few who got personally upset about me "insulting" their president, the politics would have remained.

[RGB255_0_0]

Well the Youtube comments on that video just got so out of control that any discussion of the actual topic of a solar wall or solar energy got completely swapped by politics and vitriol.
I deleted most political comments that did not add any value.
Not often I have to do delete comments on that scale (almost never), but it happens. Meh, Youtube.

This is why I made my initial comment. If I was you I would have asked Thunderf00t to do it 

[CJay]

Perhaps if you left the T name out, so just called it "Solar Wall debunked" it would not have attracked so much attention.

Nope, wouldn't have mattered. It's not like it went viral and is being viewed by Joe Public.
Except for a few who got personally upset about me "insulting" their president, the politics would have remained.

We live in interesting times, elections, policies and public opinion are being manipulated on a grand scale by state operators, some within, some outside, 'experts' are being ridiculed and marginalised (for instance, 'Britain has had enough of experts' https://www.ft.com/content/3be49734-29cb-11e6-83e4-abc22d5d108c?mhq5j=e3) for political gain.

Regardless of where my political allegiances lie, there is a widening and ever more vicious rift between the political sides of the debate and those who want to believe the rhetoric over the facts will do in ever more rabid fashion, defending their bubble beyond reason.

Keep on with the debunking and keep throwing the fish, you never know, one of them might knock some sense into a viewer and strike the spark of intellectual curiosity strongly enough that it not only debunks but makes them question more.

[djacobow]

so instead of revenue of ~100m per year your talking revenue of ~1billion per year. 

ROI is per-panel.

If you generate 10x more income it's because you paid 10x more for the installation, have 10x more maintenance and need 10x more infrastructure to transport it (or more, because you'll have to transport it further if the locals can't use it all).

Building a long, narrow farm a far from where it's needed is uneconomical no matter how you look at it.

I've tried to say this several times already, but the ROI for a solar wall cannot be very good. The installed cost for utility scale solar that Dave quoted was for systems in suitable locations and built in a cost-efficient manner. 1) remote parts of the desert between the US and Mexico that do not have nearby transmission lines are not suitable. 2) particularly hot places are also not suitable (it cuts down on output) 3) roof-mounted systems are much more expensive than ground-mounted 4) making a linear array of panels is ridiculous and will multiply the "balance of system" costs several times over a compact array.

These factors are not small, and they will kill the 10 year payback or whatever that Dave calculated.

Now, assuming that the wall is built, I could imagine that some very small systems with battery to power lighting and security could be more more cost effective than running distribution lines to the middle of nowhere. This is no different than powering a crosswalk signal with a solar panel + battery because cutting a trench across the sidewalk to access power 20 feet away costs more.

[rsjsouza]

Perhaps if you left the T name out, so just called it "Solar Wall debunked" it would not have attracked so much attention.

Nope, wouldn't have mattered. It's not like it went viral and is being viewed by Joe Public.
Except for a few who got personally upset about me "insulting" their president, the politics would have remained.

Regardless of where my political allegiances lie, there is a widening and ever more vicious rift between the political sides of the debate and those who want to believe the rhetoric over the facts will do in ever more rabid fashion, defending their bubble beyond reason.

I watched the video and I really think Roy's reaction (and maybe others on YT) was exaggerated, especially on a discussion about the technical viability of an idea. Yeah, there were some jabs here and there but the vitriolic response confirms what I have seen recently: some of the right wing folks that correctly criticized the exaggeration of extreme leftists and SJWs are starting to use the exact same childish techniques and "reasoning by screaming". Gosh, I really wish there were a lot less "yes men" around the former two presidents of my country (Brazil) when they were leading the country to the dumpster with populist and idiotic ideas while lining theirs and their friends' pockets with massive amounts of cash! 

[RGB255_0_0]

[SL4P]

If it is prooven that the project of the solar wall is wrong (as Dave did), this is not an insult against the President of USA.
Even the President of USA can make errors, everyone can make errors, we are humans. 

USA is the country of freedom of speech and of protection of human rights.
We cann't use the same principles of the North Corea where the President is like a god.

Debunking a technical and scientific project has nothing to do with politics in a free country.

There is an underlying problem.
You can make all the feelgood platitudes you like, but protecting stupidity after it has been proven is a greater problem.

[oldway]

If it is prooven that the project of the solar wall is wrong (as Dave did), this is not an insult against the President of USA.
Even the President of USA can make errors, everyone can make errors, we are humans. 

USA is the country of freedom of speech and of protection of human rights.
We cann't use the same principles of the North Corea where the President is like a god.

Debunking a technical and scientific project has nothing to do with politics in a free country.

There is an underlying problem.
You can make all the feelgood platitudes you like, but protecting stupidity after it has been proven is a greater problem.

I am not protecting stupidity, I am only trying to let to the americans the responsability of "debunking" their political problems....They have elected Trump as their President, they have to assume their choice....
Stupidity ? What do you know about politics ? To seem stupid but not be , It may be a political strategy that seems to works ....

The subject of this forum and of Dave's videos is only geared towards technical and scientific problems ..... There are other forums to discuss politics.

[SL4P]

I am not protecting stupidity, I am only trying to let to the Americans the responsibility of "debunking" their political problems....They have elected Trump as their President, they have to assume their choice....
Stupidity ? What do you know about politics ? To seem stupid but not be , It may be a political strategy that seems to works ....

Don't take it personally.
My comment was to stupidity in general! - not your added comment.