Author Topic: EEVblog #681 - More Solar Roadways BULLSHIT!  (Read 77045 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline NANDBlog

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 4295
  • Country: nl
Re: EEVblog #681 - More Solar Roadways BULLSHIT!
« Reply #125 on: November 20, 2014, 02:03:59 am »
You keep hand waving and say "build storage". You can't build stuff when you don't know how to.
Without too much feasibility study, I still think that the best renewable energy storage is liquid hydrogen. The safety has to be addressed of course. It can be mass produced offshore, the existing tankers might be retrofitted for transportation. The losses because of the fuel cell efficiency might be comparable by the energy grid losses. A lot of development and advancement is required in this field of course.
 

Online coppice

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 4269
  • Country: gb
Re: EEVblog #681 - More Solar Roadways BULLSHIT!
« Reply #126 on: November 20, 2014, 02:31:49 am »
You keep hand waving and say "build storage". You can't build stuff when you don't know how to.
Without too much feasibility study, I still think that the best renewable energy storage is liquid hydrogen. The safety has to be addressed of course. It can be mass produced offshore, the existing tankers might be retrofitted for transportation. The losses because of the fuel cell efficiency might be comparable by the energy grid losses. A lot of development and advancement is required in this field of course.
If you are going to use energy to synthesise something which will store that energy, why not generate a liquid that is easier to store?
 

Offline miguelvp

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 5549
  • Country: us
Re: EEVblog #681 - More Solar Roadways BULLSHIT!
« Reply #127 on: November 20, 2014, 02:42:38 am »
You keep hand waving and say "build storage". You can't build stuff when you don't know how to.
Without too much feasibility study, I still think that the best renewable energy storage is liquid hydrogen. The safety has to be addressed of course. It can be mass produced offshore, the existing tankers might be retrofitted for transportation. The losses because of the fuel cell efficiency might be comparable by the energy grid losses. A lot of development and advancement is required in this field of course.
If you are going to use energy to synthesise something which will store that energy, why not generate a liquid that is easier to store?

Aluminium as storage since you can get energy out and get back to the original components and you can redo the process reusing everything and the only consumable is water since the Hydrogen is spent in water vapor.

But the DOE already refused that notion and has some professor that pushed the research pretty mad at them.
 

Offline SeanB

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 15057
  • Country: za
Re: EEVblog #681 - More Solar Roadways BULLSHIT!
« Reply #128 on: November 20, 2014, 02:46:40 am »
You keep hand waving and say "build storage". You can't build stuff when you don't know how to.
Without too much feasibility study, I still think that the best renewable energy storage is liquid hydrogen. The safety has to be addressed of course. It can be mass produced offshore, the existing tankers might be retrofitted for transportation. The losses because of the fuel cell efficiency might be comparable by the energy grid losses. A lot of development and advancement is required in this field of course.

Take the hydrogen and add a little carbon, to make methanol, ethanol and other organic acids. Advantages are that you do not need cryogenic storage, insane pressures and it does not diffuse through apparently solid metal with ease. As well you can handle it with existing infrastructure and methods, and there is not that annoying 5/95% range in which hydrogen is an explosive.

However much you want the exhaust to be H2O, the only place hydrogen use is viable in in spacecraft where you can use the water, and the cost of the platinum group catalysts are worth it for the usage.  Hydrogen fuel cells will use the entire world's platinum reserves in the first half decade of mass production, even if you use a near monatomic film on a substrate. Will a fuel cell still be viable if the platinum cost is at the $15k per troy ounce mark.
 

Offline rolycat

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 1090
  • Country: gb
Re: EEVblog #681 - More Solar Roadways BULLSHIT!
« Reply #129 on: November 20, 2014, 03:59:21 am »
Take the hydrogen and add a little carbon, to make methanol, ethanol and other organic acids.
Methanol and ethanol are alcohols, not acids.

Quote
However much you want the exhaust to be H2O, the only place hydrogen use is viable in in spacecraft where you can use the water, and the cost of the platinum group catalysts are worth it for the usage.  Hydrogen fuel cells will use the entire world's platinum reserves in the first half decade of mass production, even if you use a near monatomic film on a substrate. Will a fuel cell still be viable if the platinum cost is at the $15k per troy ounce mark.

That would be a valid argument if platinum group metals were the only possible materials.

Living organisms have been achieving the same end for billions of years using hydrogenase enzymes, and ongoing research into biomimetic catalysts has shown that a similar process can be carried out on an industrial scale. The metals in such catalysts are nickel and iron, neither of which are exactly scarce.
« Last Edit: November 20, 2014, 07:21:42 pm by rolycat »
 

Online coppice

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 4269
  • Country: gb
Re: EEVblog #681 - More Solar Roadways BULLSHIT!
« Reply #130 on: November 20, 2014, 08:44:11 pm »
I said that if you really solve the storage problem, then getting to 100% renewable energy is very much possible. I did not say that renewables only make sense if you can have 100% renewable energy. That was your invention.

You said that renewables were a stupid idea, and then went on to talk about the need for storage. If these two points are unrelated you need to learn to communicate better.
You are still making stuff up.
 

Online coppice

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 4269
  • Country: gb
Re: EEVblog #681 - More Solar Roadways BULLSHIT!
« Reply #131 on: November 21, 2014, 10:16:40 pm »
I think that in general wind power is a stupid idea, unless you come up with some seriously effective storage scheme
It's on the previous page, and I took a screenshot so don't bother editing it.
You are not just a troll. You are a pathetically bad troll. My statement above is perfectly valid. Why would I want to change it?

Without effective storage wind power is stupid. I referred to the car charging scenario where the cars could provide the storage, and I think that could work well. I referred to places with large hydro-electric capacity that have the potential to offer storage, and that can certainly work well. Installing half a solution is just pouring money down the drain.
 

Offline m100

  • Regular Contributor
  • *
  • Posts: 143
  • Country: gb
Re: EEVblog #681 - More Solar Roadways BULLSHIT!
« Reply #132 on: November 22, 2014, 01:51:18 am »
In Denmark, they have avoided the need for storage schemes.  4855MW of wind turbines installed, currently outputting just 25MW.

Just as well they don't drive Tesla's or the Lego factory would have to shut  ;)
« Last Edit: November 22, 2014, 01:53:31 am by m100 »
 

Online coppice

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 4269
  • Country: gb
Re: EEVblog #681 - More Solar Roadways BULLSHIT!
« Reply #133 on: November 22, 2014, 03:04:12 am »
In Denmark, they have avoided the need for storage schemes.  4855MW of wind turbines installed, currently outputting just 25MW.

Just as well they don't drive Tesla's or the Lego factory would have to shut  ;)
What is the actual deal? I know their lack of storage facilities mean they have to export most of what they produce by wind. Is 25MW the little bit they can keep for themselves?

I tried reading up, and the whole thing seems a mess, but I didn't see a figure for just how much of their output they are able to keep. They have the typical pattern of lots of wind at night and little during the day. It looks like charging Teslas might work well for them.
 

Offline m100

  • Regular Contributor
  • *
  • Posts: 143
  • Country: gb
Re: EEVblog #681 - More Solar Roadways BULLSHIT!
« Reply #134 on: November 22, 2014, 03:29:44 am »
25MW is all they are producing from 4855MW of installed wind turbine capacity, their grid is currently being propped up by reliable means of generation located in other european countries, the kind where fossil fuels are burnt with a big flame and neutrons fly about in a concrete bunker, the kind of generation that ensures the lego factory carries on working.  If they had been relying on wind and a country full of Tesla's parked in garages then the lights would have gone out for good many hours ago.





 

Online coppice

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 4269
  • Country: gb
Re: EEVblog #681 - More Solar Roadways BULLSHIT!
« Reply #135 on: November 22, 2014, 04:19:14 am »
25MW is all they are producing from 4855MW of installed wind turbine capacity, their grid is currently being propped up by reliable means of generation located in other european countries, the kind where fossil fuels are burnt with a big flame and neutrons fly about in a concrete bunker, the kind of generation that ensures the lego factory carries on working.  If they had been relying on wind and a country full of Tesla's parked in garages then the lights would have gone out for good many hours ago.
So, are they (a) faulty or (b) calmed? Sorry, couldn't resist.  ;)
« Last Edit: November 22, 2014, 06:32:55 am by coppice »
 

Offline m100

  • Regular Contributor
  • *
  • Posts: 143
  • Country: gb
Re: EEVblog #681 - More Solar Roadways BULLSHIT!
« Reply #136 on: November 22, 2014, 06:07:55 am »
6mph winds gusting to 16mph at Copenhagen Airport,  wind turbine output up to about 80MW, so that is about 14W contribution to a total current demand of 750W per head of population.

  |O  :palm:   :--
 

Offline SeanB

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 15057
  • Country: za
Re: EEVblog #681 - More Solar Roadways BULLSHIT!
« Reply #137 on: November 22, 2014, 06:17:13 am »
6mph winds gusting to 16mph at Copenhagen Airport,  wind turbine output up to about 80MW, so that is about 14W contribution to a total current demand of 750W per head of population.

  |O  :palm:   :--

So, normal output ratio them. Any other power producer would be ashamed at the tiny utilisation of the plant, given the cost of building it and operating it. Oops, sorry, forgot they are subsidised and the taxpayer has all the costs and risks, and none of the profits.
 

Offline zapta

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 6004
  • Country: us
Re: EEVblog #681 - More Solar Roadways BULLSHIT!
« Reply #138 on: November 22, 2014, 07:46:57 am »
Drain the swamp.
 

Online Bud

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 3235
  • Country: ca
 

Offline miguelvp

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 5549
  • Country: us
Re: EEVblog #681 - More Solar Roadways BULLSHIT!
« Reply #140 on: November 22, 2014, 02:29:52 pm »
I guess we have to see what Musk has to say with his gigafactory.
 

Online coppice

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 4269
  • Country: gb
Re: EEVblog #681 - More Solar Roadways BULLSHIT!
« Reply #141 on: November 22, 2014, 08:41:10 pm »
Now Google says it

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2014/11/21/renewable_energy_simply_wont_work_google_renewables_engineers/
That article seems to be useless. Its starts with a reasonable description of how badly renewables have failed to deliver up to this point. Then it goes in to the fallacious "it can't be done, because I can't see how to do it" argument against renewables. This is supported by the old and bogus "this must be true. Just look at the impractical amount of space and materials it would take to do anything I can think of" ruse. Then it goes into a rant about how wonderful nuclear looks if you are sufficiently dismissive of all the problems it has had to date.
 

Offline eV1Te

  • Regular Contributor
  • *
  • Posts: 181
  • Country: se
  • Your trusted friend in science!
    • richardandersson.net
Re: EEVblog #681 - More Solar Roadways BULLSHIT!
« Reply #142 on: November 23, 2014, 12:15:40 am »
Now Google says it

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2014/11/21/renewable_energy_simply_wont_work_google_renewables_engineers/
That article seems to be useless. Its starts with a reasonable description of how badly renewables have failed to deliver up to this point. Then it goes in to the fallacious "it can't be done, because I can't see how to do it" argument against renewables. This is supported by the old and bogus "this must be true. Just look at the impractical amount of space and materials it would take to do anything I can think of" ruse. Then it goes into a rant about how wonderful nuclear looks if you are sufficiently dismissive of all the problems it has had to date.

I agree that the article is useless, that's usually the case when a reporter has limited space and want the most amount of readers to see it.  :P

But if Google now had a 4 year long project regarding renewable energy which came to the conclusion that we can not solely live on renewable energy, and that nuclear is the most plausible solution we have at this time. Then maybe we should start criticizing the propaganda from the oil companies that nuclear is dangerous, and the propaganda from the renewable energy company that they actually can replace fossil fuels.

It is hard to argue when 1 gram of Uranium has the same effective energy-content in a reactor as ca. 500 m^2 of solar panels receive in one year in Australia (ca. 2000 solar hours). I handle Uranium compounds at work in smaller quantities on a daily basis, and 1 gram does not kill you even if you eat it.

« Last Edit: November 23, 2014, 12:20:01 am by eV1Te »
 

Offline m100

  • Regular Contributor
  • *
  • Posts: 143
  • Country: gb
Re: EEVblog #681 - More Solar Roadways BULLSHIT!
« Reply #143 on: November 25, 2014, 12:13:26 am »
... And their electric price is higher than almost any other country in Europe. Nothing to brag about.

Cheaper than the UK though, and our renewable energy is crap. In other words, they are getting value for money and building an awesome system that will keep prices down in the future, plus give their economy a massive boost and set Germany up as the biggest supplier of renewable energy engineering in the world.

We missed the boat.


No idea where you get the idea that energy prices in Germany are cheaper than the UK, electricity prices there are the second highest in the EU after Denmark.  The German approach to renewables is continuing to have a huge impact on their grid infrastructure.  With France having a heating demand that is significantly electrical, it only takes a few days of cold weather and a static high pressure system over Europe for their own demand to rise to that of their available generation, leaving nothing for export to prop up Germany and it then starts to rapidly fall apart.  Lose a bit of gas import into Germany say with a few political issues in Russia and its game over.

Prices in Germany, particularly those that consumers have to pay are soaring, the Eurostat figures only go to the end of 2013 but they getting worse, much worse and the CO2 emissions are also increasing.  The CO2 figures of Denmark, aka wind turbine central are truly shocking.  I suggest you have a strong drink and position yourself on the floor surrounded by a cushion of beanbags before googling them.   :-DD

http://epp.eurostat.ec.europa.eu/statistics_explained/index.php/electricity_and_natural_gas_price_statistics

Or to save you dragging out the data and doing a sort.  In ascending order 2013 Domestic Prices Electricity in Euros / kWh

Bulgaria   0.0882
Romania   0.1279
Hungary   0.1326
Croatia   0.135
Latvia   0.1358
Estonia   0.1367
Lithuania   0.1391
Poland   0.1437
Czech Republic   0.1493
Finland   0.1559
France   0.1589
Luxembourg   0.1646
Slovenia   0.1657
Slovakia   0.1678
Greece   0.1697
Malta   0.17
United Kingdom   0.1797
Netherlands   0.1915
EU-28   0.2009
EU-27   0.2014
Austria   0.2018
Sweden   0.2046
Spain   0.2075
Portugal   0.2131
Euro area   0.2134
Belgium   0.2215
Italy   0.2323
Ireland   0.2405
Cyprus   0.2481
Germany   0.2921
Denmark   0.2936

 

Offline bookaboo

  • Frequent Contributor
  • **
  • Posts: 603
  • Country: ie
Re: EEVblog #681 - More Solar Roadways BULLSHIT!
« Reply #144 on: November 25, 2014, 12:53:44 am »
It's not about price it's about the carbon emissions. If it were not for the carbon issue then yeah renewables would make very little sense. $/kWh is not the bottom line here.
It's true to say "lol if we just burn coal we have cheaper electric", it would also be true to say manufactured goods would be cheaper if we could just pump what we like into the air and water or housing would be cheaper if there were no planning regulations.

Without factoring the cost of carbon all figures quoted are moot.
 

Offline m100

  • Regular Contributor
  • *
  • Posts: 143
  • Country: gb
Re: EEVblog #681 - More Solar Roadways BULLSHIT!
« Reply #145 on: November 25, 2014, 02:26:05 am »
If it is about the carbon emissions then France, a country with over 75% of electricty supplied by nuclear wins by a very long long way and both Germany and Denmark lose. 

« Last Edit: November 25, 2014, 02:32:10 am by m100 »
 

Online coppice

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 4269
  • Country: gb
Re: EEVblog #681 - More Solar Roadways BULLSHIT!
« Reply #146 on: November 25, 2014, 03:15:00 am »
If it is about the carbon emissions then France, a country with over 75% of electricty supplied by nuclear wins by a very long long way and both Germany and Denmark lose.
75% nuclear + another 10% from hydro. They have a good safety record for nuclear, and popular support. They still haven't worked out what to do with the waste, though.
 

Offline bookaboo

  • Frequent Contributor
  • **
  • Posts: 603
  • Country: ie
Re: EEVblog #681 - More Solar Roadways BULLSHIT!
« Reply #147 on: November 25, 2014, 08:34:09 am »
It certainly looks like nuclear has a part to play, it's the only viable alternative in the short term.

As for the carbon debate, that's a whole other can of worms. Set aside that debate for a moment and assume that there's a 50/50 chance that high CO2 levels are harmless/disastrous.
The cost of switching to low carbon energy (and being wrong about the need to do so) is high, very high.
The cost of not switching to low carbon energy (and being wrong about the need to do so) is infinitely higher.
 

Offline Howardlong

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 4575
  • Country: gb
Re: EEVblog #681 - More Solar Roadways BULLSHIT!
« Reply #148 on: November 25, 2014, 08:50:30 am »
This is quite a good read, it's a quantitative analysis of energy footprints and solutions.

http://www.inference.phy.cam.ac.uk/sustainable/book/tex/cft.pdf

Of interest are things like telling your friends how eco you are by unplugging your phone charger when you don't use it, compared to the energy footprint of driving to their house to tell them about it.

For example, one day of phone charging is equivalent to one second of car driving.
 

Offline rollatorwieltje

  • Supporter
  • ****
  • Posts: 571
  • Country: nl
  • I brick your boards.
Re: EEVblog #681 - More Solar Roadways BULLSHIT!
« Reply #149 on: December 28, 2014, 05:24:20 am »
Small update on the SolaRoad bicycle lane, apparently the surface coating was damaged due to the weather. Currently there's a blizzard going on with arctic temp it's about -2C with a few cm of wet snow.
They say it was a manufacturing defect and there are several other bad spots.

http://www.nu.nl/binnenland/3962503/fietspad-van-zonnepanelen-krommenie-kapot-kou.html
 


Share me

Digg  Facebook  SlashDot  Delicious  Technorati  Twitter  Google  Yahoo
Smf