Japan's solar boom has turned into a solar bust

[Roboramma]

I meant that the sunlight itself doesn't cost anything. Transmission loss is more significant when you're expending resources to initially generate the energy, compared to utilizing ambient energy from the environment.
I referenced the cost of the infrastructure in one of my earlier posts.

How does space-based solar power differ from ground based solar power in that sense? In neither case does the sunlight cost anything.

Further I don't think it's particularly meaningful point: yes it's true that you don't have to pay for the sunlight, but there are still continuing costs to your energy production such that you get a cost/kWh. And that seems to me to be the meaningful metric from an economic standpoint.

 

[McHrozni]

I think the bigger issue is that the only way we have of making anti-matter can only make it in pretty insignificant quantities. No one is going to be making anti-matter drives or weapons any time soon, unless they find a more efficient way of producing the stuff. I'm not convinced that any efficient way of producing it is even theoretically possible though.

I think both issues are terminal for antimatter as energy storage

McHrozni

 

[Ziggurat]

I think the bigger issue is that the only way we have of making anti-matter can only make it in pretty insignificant quantities. No one is going to be making anti-matter drives or weapons any time soon, unless they find a more efficient way of producing the stuff. I'm not convinced that any efficient way of producing it is even theoretically possible though.

I'm convinced that it's NOT possible. The thermodynamics of it guarantee crazy inefficiency.

 

[jimbob]

I'm convinced that it's NOT possible. The thermodynamics of it guarantee crazy inefficiency.

Yes. And again, "crazy" doesn't really do justice to it.

 

[Roboramma]

I'm convinced that it's NOT possible. The thermodynamics of it guarantee crazy inefficiency.

To be honest that's pretty much what I assumed, but can you go into the thermodynamics a little? I'd find it interesting to know.

 

[Aepervius]

Zilch?

30% renewable energy is zilch? The one Sunday last summer where the whole overday energy consumption was covered by wind and solar?

I wouldn't say we're there, far from it. But zilch is not right.

There's a reservoir complex near where I'm sitting right now that could be employed easily. Multiple reservoir lakes on different levels, with generators already there. The problem is that one of the lakes is also used for recreation, and the handful of businesses depending on that hold up the process, because they fear loss of business. It doesn't help that the engineers did not (or could not) communicate the effects to them except in broad strokes, which essentially arrives at their understanding as "the lake is either full or mostly empty".

Yes ziilch not only electrivity is twice the price but switching off nuclear plant means turning to black, brown coal be it in germany and other country, also do dot confuse energy usage and electricity usage. 30 percent oft touted is only electricity and as far as i can tell only residential part which itself is only a very small percentage of the total , industrial and most commercial consumotion count for 80 plus of the total electricity. And if you look at energy it is even worst

 

[MRC_Hans]

The contrarian in me says that solar is totally viable, and that our vaunted human ingenuity will soon develop power grids designed for variable-supply energy sources.

I'm conflicted because this is at odds with the conservative in me, that opposes any hint of idealistic and necessarily totalitarian social "improvements". Solar will work, therefore everyone must be made to adopt solar, etc. Bleurgh.

Oh, it can be done with price regulations, if preferred. Plenty of sun = Cheap power = Folks will invent ways to store it for a rainy day.

... Just takes some time.

Hans

 

[deaman]

What the hell is wrong with the "several squirrels and hamsters on a big treadmill" idea?

 

[jimbob]

What the hell is wrong with the "several squirrels and hamsters on a big treadmill" idea?

It's a better idea than antimatter

 

[Ziggurat]

To be honest that's pretty much what I assumed, but can you go into the thermodynamics a little? I'd find it interesting to know.

An electron or positron's rest mass energy is about 511,000 eV. A typical room-temperature thermal photon has an energy of about 0.026 eV. So one electron or positron has the energy of about 20,000,000 room-temp thermal photons. The entropy difference here is gigantic. You can arrange your ~20,000,000 photons in so many more ways than you can arrange your one electron or positron (yes, I know they come in pairs). The task of converting energy from a high-entropy state to a low-entropy state is inefficient (you've got to expend energy to increase entropy elsewhere), and the larger the disparity in entropy, the more inefficient the process is. Energy concentrated into a particle is very low entropy. It gets much worse if you want to make a proton-antiproton pair, which you would probably need to do since storing large amounts of just positrons isn't likely to work.

 

[McHrozni]

What the hell is wrong with the "several squirrels and hamsters on a big treadmill" idea?

It would cause massive problems with PETA and ALF. Not worth it, IMHO.

McHrozni

 

[a_unique_person]

It's unfortunate, but maybe there are some lessons here:

Japan's overbuilt solar market waiting for new dawn





That continues to be the Achilles heel with solar. It's not predictable and controllable, like traditional power supplies. The sun shines when it shines, not necessarily when you need the power.

According to the article, it was an emotional response to the nuclear event at Fukushima. If all they did was install panels then that doesn't really make sense. Panels have their place but they are not a stand alone solution.

 

[macdoc]

It is mostly economic as other areas have found - offering too favourable contracts with long a period and not anticipating the steep fall in panel costs.

The grid bit is ******** as Germany shows.

 

[Roboramma]

An electron or positron's rest mass energy is about 511,000 eV. A typical room-temperature thermal photon has an energy of about 0.026 eV. So one electron or positron has the energy of about 20,000,000 room-temp thermal photons. The entropy difference here is gigantic. You can arrange your ~20,000,000 photons in so many more ways than you can arrange your one electron or positron (yes, I know they come in pairs). The task of converting energy from a high-entropy state to a low-entropy state is inefficient (you've got to expend energy to increase entropy elsewhere), and the larger the disparity in entropy, the more inefficient the process is. Energy concentrated into a particle is very low entropy. It gets much worse if you want to make a proton-antiproton pair, which you would probably need to do since storing large amounts of just positrons isn't likely to work.

Yeah, that makes sense, cool, thanks for the explanation.

 

[Belz...]

Mmmm... space-microwave-toasted people-eggs.

The best kind.

 

[SashatheMagnificent]

How does space-based solar power differ from ground based solar power in that sense? In neither case does the sunlight cost anything.

Further I don't think it's particularly meaningful point: yes it's true that you don't have to pay for the sunlight, but there are still continuing costs to your energy production such that you get a cost/kWh. And that seems to me to be the meaningful metric from an economic standpoint.

Energy is much lower on the ground as light is filtered by the atmosphere

 

[Roboramma]

Energy is much lower on the ground as light is filtered by the atmosphere

I think it's about 50%, yeah. I guess that if you go high enough the earth won't be in the way as much of the time so you can get that number higher too.

Note that where you quoted me, though, I said "in that sense", that sense specifically being that the sunlight itself is free. The (less intense) sunlight on the ground is free too.

 

[SashatheMagnificent]

I think it's about 50%, yeah. I guess that if you go high enough the earth won't be in the way as much of the time so you can get that number higher too.

Note that where you quoted me, though, I said "in that sense", that sense specifically being that the sunlight itself is free. The (less intense) sunlight on the ground is free too.

Space solar energy has other advantages too: there is no land cost, no clouds, etc.

 

[Roboramma]

Space solar energy has other advantages too: there is no land cost, no clouds, etc.

Sure. I'm actually a big proponent of it. But let's be clear: there is a huge investment in getting your solar panels into orbit. There's a major issue about getting that power to wherever it is that you want it. There are some small benefits.

I think that there will come a day when space based solar makes sense. It's probably a couple of hundred years in the future when, either, the Sahara, etc. is already covered in solar panels, or we've found a more economical use for those places such that the land cost for solar down here is high enough to justify doing it up there.

 

[Puppycow]

Zilch?

30% renewable energy is zilch? The one Sunday last summer where the whole overday energy consumption was covered by wind and solar?

I wouldn't say we're there, far from it. But zilch is not right.

There's a reservoir complex near where I'm sitting right now that could be employed easily. Multiple reservoir lakes on different levels, with generators already there. The problem is that one of the lakes is also used for recreation, and the handful of businesses depending on that hold up the process, because they fear loss of business. It doesn't help that the engineers did not (or could not) communicate the effects to them except in broad strokes, which essentially arrives at their understanding as "the lake is either full or mostly empty".

Pretty much zilch from the perspective of reducing CO2 emissions.

German CO2 emissions rise 1% in 2015 (the most recent full year)

Not only just one year, the lowest year (for CO2 emissions) so far was 2009, so 6 years later there has been no net reduction. (See chart in above link)

The reason is because they are getting rid of nuclear and replacing it not with solar or wind, but with brown coal.

Stories about "that one Sunday last summer" are misleading.

Since traditional power plants use boilers, and it takes a boiler time to boil water to be able to produce power, you have to keep the boilers boiling all the time anyway if you want them to be ready to produce power when the renewables randomly fluctuate down. So even when you have the good days when renewables produce lots of excess energy like "that one Sunday last summer" most of that excess energy is redundant (i.e., wasted) because the boilers are boiling anyway.