Dear Bishop Hill: read your links. Also, take a look at this graph.
Bishop Hill thinks they've caught Nicholas Stern in a contradiction, saying one thing in 2009 and another in 2015. So let's take a look, using BH's own links.
Stern 2009:
Lord Stern said that although robust expansion could be achieved until 2030 while avoiding dangerous levels of greenhouse gas emissions, rich nations may then have to consider reining in growth...."At some point we would have to think about whether we want future growth. We don't have to do that now."
(Emphasis added.) That would be the second sentence of the article BH linked to.
And Stern 2015:
...Professor Stern, the chair of the Grantham research institute on climate change and the environment, said that it was a false dichotomy to posit growth against climate action. “To portray them as in conflict is to misunderstand economic development and the opportunities that we now have to move to the low-carbon economy,” he said. “To pretend otherwise is diversionary and indeed creates an ‘artificial horse race’ which can cause real damage to the prospects for agreement.” Green parties in Europe have often argued that decarbonisation requires an end to the model of economic growth “at all costs”. But Stern said that there was now “much greater understanding of how economic growth and climate responsibility can come together and, indeed, how their complementarity can help drive both forward”.
(Emphasis added.) In both cases Stern appears to be focusing on the short to medium term, and in both cases saying there's not a conflict between economic growth and addressing climate change.
In BH's telling, Stern said in 2009 they had to stop growing (BH gave no time frame so one would assume it was immediate) but that Stern in 2015 is saying grow away. Alarmist hypocrisy!!!
As for whether there's a difference over what to do in 2030, who knows - Stern wasn't being asked recently about policies 15 years from now, but I don't see a necessary difference in his statements. Even if there was a difference, BH somehow finds it unforgivable that someone could change their mind on a peripheral issue (what policies should be in place in 2030, as opposed to policies today).
Finally, BH might want to take a look at a graph at renewable power prices. Any graph really, but here's one:
This is new information available to Stern in 2015 and not in 2009, and I could see it having an effect on someone thinking about long-term compatibility of growth with limiting carbon emissions. I remember the debate 5 years ago over whether the long-term decline in solar costs would continue. Now we have the result.
Inability of denialists to adjust opinions to new facts is matched only by their inability to accept long-established ones.
Posts
760 comments:
«Oldest ‹Older 201 – 400 of 760 Newer› Newest»"Second, I have provided data - empirical evidence in support of what I have said."
I have too
As does BPL.
If you want to see the errors you made, look upthread.
Lets not forget the link that contains leads to Mackay's publication.
MacKay didn't fabricate the data and the sources are there for you to check. What's more, I just linked to them for you.
You have lost this argument.
I have too
No you haven't. That is just absurd. You have absolutely no regard for the truth at all.
Either that or you don't know what 'empirical evidence' actually means.
"MacKay didn't fabricate the data "
Nobody said that. Just that the calculations are quite horribly wrong.
For proof, see posts earlier.
"No you haven't."
Yes I have. To claim otherwise is just absurd.
You have absolutely no regard for the truth at all. Solar constant IS NOT 1000W/m^2. And that is merely the FIRST STEP. The equator IS NOT AT THE UK's LATTITUDE.
And so on for scores of posts.
See earlier posts for all the evidence and proof of your calamitous errors and fatuous fantasy.
http://chrisvernon.co.uk/2011/10/a-lot-of-hot-air-david-mackay-fudges-the-figures-in-favour-of-nuclear-power/
http://www.justmeans.com/blogs/no-hot-air-about-renewable-energy-while-blowing-smoke-david-mackay-plays-brutus-to-the-suns
https://thisbluerock.wordpress.com/2011/05/16/david-mackays-sustainable-energy-without-the-hot-air-perhaps-a-little-hot-air-2/
I think, BTW, that I see where Mackay gets his tiny statistics for solar. He adds a "filling factor" of 14% based on total land use of a solar power station versus panel area. If anything, this is an argument that we should abandon tracking panels and just plaster the ground with wall to wall photovoltaics. That would increase his numbers by a factor of 7. I could go with that.
"What's more, I just linked to them for you. "
Yes, that is what I said was wrong with them. EVERY link you give to "prove" Mackay is right MERELY LINKS BACK TO MACKAY.
When asked where the error is in someone's calculation, YOU LINK BACK TO MACKAY.
When asked where Mackay gets his figures from, YOU LINK BACK TO MACKAY.
When you want to prove Mackay is not anti-renewable, YOU LINK BACK TO MACKAY SAYING IT.
When shown the calculations are wrong, YOU LINK BACK TO MACKAY.
When shown your assertions are incorrect, YOU LINK BACK TO MACKAY.
Are you noticing the same pattern everyone else has?
And here's a hint, it's not that you're not supplying a link to mackay.
"That would increase his numbers by a factor of 7. I could go with that."
Hmm. 10W times 7 is 70W.
What was my calculation for the UK's SPV power rating for tracking SPV?
Oh, yeah, 65-73W, depending on location furthest north to furthest south.
Which, apparently, was complete and utter bunkum as proven by Mackay not getting the same number...
BBD said: I don't care where you went wrong and it doesn't matter.
BPL: And it doesn't matter because you can't do the math?
"BPL: And it doesn't matter because you can't do the math?"
I think it much deeper than that.
It doesn't matter because you aren't getting the same answer as Mackay. The truth *does not matter* to Buddy dumdum, the ONLY thing that matters is Mackay is right. Anything that doesn't support that DOES NOT MATTER how it is wrong, IT JUST IS.
BBD: I have provided data - empirical evidence in support of what I have said.
BPL: No, you have not. You have repeatedly cited one source and one source only--Mackay. You have not demonstrated that his interpretation of the evidence is correct, or that his math is correct, or that his conclusions are free of controversy--which they are not.
Stop telling me to read his 2013 article. I read it. I even figured out where the discrepancy was coming from. That's because I'm actually capable of doing the math, which I suspect you are not. Mackay's factor-of-seven "filling factor" is the issue, and it seems to be a statement about how current power stations are configured, rather than the energy density available.
If Mackay was trying to say they ought to build solar power stations differently, great, even I'd listen. But his real agenda is to show that solar and wind are impractical and that nuclear is just great. READ his book. The man says he's more afraid of "windmills" cluttering the horizon than of Hitler invading Britain in 1940. That is not only not the statement of some who is pro-renewables, it's not even the statement of a sane man.
Blogger profile writes: "There is still a hugely suspicious lack of evidence of the outage of nuclear power, despite it being generally about the same level as planned outage for the most modern designs in wide use."
It took me about three minutes to find the daily status reports for all of the US operating nuclear reactors. NRC:Power Reactor Status Reports If someone was actually interested in the numbers they're easily accessible.
Tee hee
BPL
BPL: No, you have not. You have repeatedly cited one source and one source only--Mackay.
As I said above, MacKay did not fabricate the empirical data he simply collated it. AND he provided sources, which I have already linked to twice but will do so again..
Or are you too accusing MacKay of fabricating the data? Because if not, you are making a specious argument. The data are what they are, as I keep on telling you. Your denial of matters of fact is irritating.
If Mackay was trying to say they ought to build solar power stations differently, great, even I'd listen. But his real agenda is to show that solar and wind are impractical and that nuclear is just great.
Bloody hell.
1/ That's not an 'agenda'. That's a conclusion that arises from the data.
2/ MacKay NEVER says 'nuclear is great' - that's a misrepresentation you have lifted straight from the lunatic fringe. If you had actually read the book you would know this.
3/ I *know* the reasons why solar farm power per unit area is (generously) averaged at 10W/m2 - you are the one playing catch-up here so please don't pretend otherwise. You need to get educated about the realities of large-scale solar arrays - not me.
Which brings us back to the facts of this discussion. I told you - correctly - that 10W/m2 was the average for large scale arrays. You have disputed this ever since despite being shown a ream of evidence proving that I was correct.
The maths is *irrelevant* to this discussion which was never about the amount of energy available but about actual power output per unit area achievable by large arrays. You are simply trying to deflect attention away from the fact that you were wrong and I am not going to play your game.
I have to say that in your boots I would by now have admitted my error and conceded the point.
* * *
It is very clear that bringing an objective, quantitative and sceptical approach to the claims about renewables is simply not allowed by the very people who pride themselves on being all of the above.
You should be ashamed of yourselves. All of you.
BPL
Oh, and this is just appalling:
READ his book. The man says he's more afraid of "windmills" cluttering the horizon than of Hitler invading Britain in 1940. That is not only not the statement of some who is pro-renewables, it's not even the statement of a sane man.
An absolutely shocking misrepresentation. It's a quote by someone else FFS! RTFR instead of engaging in a smear campaign. MacKay is trying to illustrate the spectrum of feeling about large-scale deployment in the UK, not all of which is positive. The entire text features them, pro and con, eg. this one:
The best thing we can do with environmentalists is to shoot them. - Michael O' Leary, CEO of Ryanair (WOTHA p. 36)
Do you think MacKay endorses that POV too? FFS, again.
Look, I know you are bluffing. Nobody who had read the text would misrepresent it like that. So follow your own good advice and get stuck in. Read your way back to grace.
"It took me about three minutes to find the daily status reports for all of the US operating nuclear reactors"
I found the list too. And just as easily.
However, the claim that nuclear is about 90% available is made from a graph of outages from which there is no evidence of these unplanned outages having occurred. You DO agree that an unplanned outage should result in power production falling to zero, therefore be found in the graph that is used to show how much of the nameplate capacity is produced, right?
"As I said above, MacKay did not fabricate the empirical data he simply collated it."
And as we've said above, the data is a load of horseshit.
Deniers around the world have not faked the 1998 global average temperature, so their claim of a "haitus" or even cooling is proven correct?
Lomborg did not fabricate the global mean sea level therefore his claim that it has fallen is correct???
And we don't actually have any independent proof of his figures, since their source is always another Mackay. Who can reasonable be considered biased in favour of Mackay.
"An absolutely shocking misrepresentation"
Please go here where the claim is proven to be correct:
http://chrisvernon.co.uk/2011/10/a-lot-of-hot-air-david-mackay-fudges-the-figures-in-favour-of-nuclear-power/
"The best thing we can do with environmentalists is to shoot them. - Michael O' Leary, CEO of Ryanair (WOTHA p. 36)"
And just because the head of the WBC wants gays shot proves that Kent Hovind isn't homophobic because he only wants to cure them?
"It is very clear that bringing an objective, quantitative and sceptical approach to the claims about renewables is simply not allowed by the very people who pride themselves on being all of the above. "
It is very clear that you and Mackay have no objective, quantitative and skeptical approach about renewables and refuse to acknowledge any skeptical approach to your claims by the very people who INSIST that they are the paragons of being all the above.
TSI != 1000W for example.
0N != 50N
and so on.
BP
And as we've said above, the data is a load of horseshit.|
Denialism.
*Exactly* the same as claiming the temperature record is faked.
Data sources.
Show us why these data are horseshit. Go on. Next comment. Facts only. No more denialist ranting. Get on with it.
BP
TSI != 1000W for example.
NO!
TOA is not SURFACE.
"And as we've said above, the data is a load of horseshit.|
Denialism. "
Nope, reality: go look, we have definitely said the data is a load of horseshit. I've even said it again.
"Show us why these data are horseshit."
See the previous comments on this thread and the links contained therein.
"TOA is not SURFACE. "
Then why is an additional change made for obscuration by the atmosphere if the 1000W is supposed to have accounted for it????
What about the equator not being at 50N latitudes?
1/ where is the demonstration that the data linked above are horseshit?
- Either provide it or admit error.
2/ Where is your acknowledgement that you don't know the difference between TSI at TOA and at SURFACE and you have parlayed your ignorance into a claim that MacKay is faking his results?
- Admit your error
We are going nowhere until we resolve this.
I want some answers now.
"1/ where is the demonstration that the data linked above are horseshit?"
In this thread. Go back and look at it. Our calculations that show it is incorrect is completely and utterly available for you without limit on viewing count. Reread them as many times as you need. They are still there.
"2/ Where is your acknowledgement that you don't know the difference between TSI at TOA and at SURFACE "
Nowhere.
Was that a trick question? Or begging it?
Much like asking "Where did you leave Jesus when you gave him a lift to his dad's place in heaven". It never happened.
Just like I don't "don't know the difference between TSI at TOA and at SURFACE". I know entirely the difference between them.
YOU appear to know what it is but not know how to calculate them. You don't take "TSI at the SURFACE" and then reduce it by 40% because of clouds and rayleigh scattering with N2/O2 and dust, etc. when those are already taken into account by the "TSI at the SURFACE". You apply those corrections to *TSI at TOA*.
And still nothing on how the equator is supposed to be where the UK is...?
Stop trying to gallop away from your problem. From now on, no matter how far or fast you go, it will remain in front of you. You know me.
1/ where is the demonstration that the data linked above are horseshit?
- You made the claim. You will either substantiate it or withdraw it.
The more you wriggle, the worse it looks.
2/ Where is your acknowledgement that you don't know the difference between TOA and SURFACE and that you have parlayed your ignorance into a claim that MacKay is dishonest?
- Admit your error
The more you wriggle, the worse it looks.
We are going nowhere until we resolve this.
Admitting your errors will be much less damaging than continuing to wriggle. You know how this works. You know me.
"1/ where is the demonstration that the data linked above are horseshit?"
Supplied in this very thread and in the basic mathematics that ~35 >> ~10.
On this very thread these calculations, which have never once been shown wrong, show that Mackay's figures are horse puckey.
"2/ Where is your acknowledgement that....."
Has already been answered. Where is your acknowledgement that you don't know the difference between TSI at TOA and TSI at the surface? Hmm? WHERE IS THAT ACKNOWLEDGEMENT!
"- You made the claim. You will either substantiate it or withdraw it."
From a petulant idiot who went incandescent in rage and screamed in vitriolic rage "YOU CANNOT TELL ME WHAT TO DO! HULK! SMAAASHHHH!!!!!".
LOL.
You are forcing my hand, BP.
Just like I don't "don't know the difference between TSI at TOA and at SURFACE". I know entirely the difference between them.
You are lying. There is no way out of this.
You said:
And why 100W/m^2? Solar constant is 1.4kW/m^2.
All because 100 makes his [MacKay's] case. Loverley cherries! Get them while they're picked!
And then:
[BBD:] "Those of us who bothered to RTFR know that:
The power of raw sunshine at midday on a cloudless day is 1000W per square metre."
[You:] Those who understood what it said know that the TSI is nearly 1400W per square meter. You know, PHYSICS. So even if all the rest were right, that 10W is now 14W.
You did not know the difference between TOA and surface. Far worse, you accused MacKay of dishonesty when the problem was your own ignorance.
This is classic denialism.
Now, admit your error before this gets any worse. Because it will.
See tables 1 - 3 in MacKay (2013), and sources.
These are the data that prove that MacKay was correct to use 10W/m2 as typical for SPV farms.
You stated that these data were horse shit and that MacKay's 10W/m2 estimate was wrong.
Now you need to show why the data are horse shit, or admit that *you* were wrong.
Since the data show very clearly that you *were* wrong, you are in the horse shit up to your neck. The more you wriggle, the deeper you will sink and the fouler the smell will get.
You know me. You know this is just going to get worse. So admit your error.
"And why 100W/m^2? Solar constant is 1.4kW/m^2.
All because 100 makes his [MacKay's] case. Loverley cherries! Get them while they're picked!"
Yup. Correct. How does this relate to:
"Just like I don't "don't know the difference between TSI at TOA and at SURFACE". I know entirely the difference between them.
You are lying. There is no way out of this. "
Hmm?
"[BBD:] "Those of us who bothered to RTFR know that:
The power of raw sunshine at midday on a cloudless day is 1000W per square metre.""
Yes, it is wrong, it is no 1000W per square meter because it is 1400W per square meter. From which you then reduce for extinction, latitude and season, and so on. You know the "three things" you then deduct to change 1000W to 100W.
Via calculations that are incorrect.
As demonstrated several times not merely by myself and BPL but by another link you handed out that insisted it would be 15W for CSP.
How on earth do you concoct anything you can reasonable present to someone else as proof of your claim I am lying?
Yes, I do know you. But you can't stab me when the voices in your head won't shut up and you need to stop the screaming, so I'm not worried or frightened into silence.
" See tables 1 - 3 in MacKay (2013), and sources."
Yes, Mackay's figures show Mackay's figures. See post above from me showing that it's 65-73W/m^2. Since that is not 10, proof that Mackay's figures are fantasy not fact.
And STILL noting about an admission that neither you nor Mackay know that the earth is spherical.
"[You:] Those who understood what it said know that the TSI is nearly 1400W per square meter. You know, PHYSICS. So even if all the rest were right, that 10W is now 14W."
Yes, this is called *maths*.
You see if you take a number that is reduced by a factor of 100, then if the number that you start off with is actually 1.4 times that, the result of the same subsequent identical mathematical process will be 1.4 times the value recieved from the previous answer.
So 1.4 times ten is 14.
Maths.
Try some one day.
Another thing about this:
"Well, if we covered 5% of the UK with 10%-efficient panels, we’d have
10% × 100 W/m2 × 200 m2 per person"
is that it ends up with every person using 2kW continuously.
I don't know many people who would use as much as 200W continuously. I don't use anywhere near that.
Yes, it is wrong, it is no 1000W per square meter because it is 1400W per square meter.
Not at the SURFACE which is what this entire discussion has been about.
I have shown that you got this wrong. You then lied about it. You are lying still.
Yes, Mackay's figures show Mackay's figures.
No they do not.
The figures are independent and were simply collated by MacKay as I have said over and over again.
You are lying.
That is among the most shameless examples of intellectual dishonesty I have ever seen, BP.
* * *
Your behaviour is appalling. You would never get away with this on a moderated thread and you know it.
" Yes, it is wrong, it is no 1000W per square meter because it is 1400W per square meter.
Not at the SURFACE which is what this entire discussion has been about. "
Nope, the entire discussion is about how he gets 100W and he starts with 1000W and then reduces it to get to the surface and proclaims 100W is right. Except that it isn't. BPL showed one calculation, I've shown two different ones, and Nigel IIRC showed yet another. All of them get roughly the same value, all well above 100W.
ONE reason for it (and not the only one) is that he should be starting off with 1400, not 1000.
You're just crazy screaming that he DID use 1000 and it was the right one and that it is not 1400.
If the TSI at the surface is that 1000W figure, then the solar constant at the UK should be 640W/m^2. Half the time it is day, half the night, so reduce it to 320W/m^2. 10% efficient solar panels make that 32W/m^2. If you tipped it up 50degrees from horizontal, it would be back up to 50W/m^2. If it was flat on the ground and never tracked, it would be about 25W/m^2.
Not 10. ANY of them.
But nobody places solar panes flat. They tip up quite nicely. And then we're back to about 30W/m^2.
The issue isn't that 1000W is the surface TSI. It's that you insist it is because Mackay claims it is BUT DOES NOT USE IT THAT WAY.
The way he uses 1000W is if it were TSI at TOA. WHICH IS 1400W.
ALL you do is point to his use and his claim of what it is as if it were true.
Is BPL right and you absolutely CANNOT do the maths?
"The figures are independent and were simply collated by MacKay as I have said over and over again. "
And the figures are wrong and are simply parroted by you and abused by MAckay as I and several others have said over and over again.
If the mere fact of saying things over and over again (proof by repetition) worked, then this would convince you. If it doesn't why do you think it would work on anyone else?
And still no admission that you and Mackay are flat earthers (if ones that believe the earth is tilted 50 degrees, which is rather a new one for flat earthers).
QUOTE:
"In “Sustainable Energy Without the Hot Air”, Professor MacKay compares an energy demand of 490 GW with his calculated British renewable resource of 450 GW, and comes to the conclusion that Britain cannot power itself from renewables. But in reality, British energy demand is 205 GW. That’s the confirmed 2008 number, from the official Digest of UK Energy Statistics. (see Table 1.1, Final Consumption minus Non-energy use). That’s less than half the demand figure used in the book, when looking at whether his calculated renewable resource is enough. When we compare the renewable resource with the current demand figure, we see that the resource is more than double current energy demand: and that’s before any energy efficiency measures. And that makes a huge difference: by using the real figure for demand, we see that the UK renewable resource is much higher than current energy demand, so Britain could comfortably power itself from its own renewables."
ENDQUOTE
For someone demanding everyone reads the links, did you read the ones BPL supplied, buddy?
Still flatly refusing to admit error and desperately trying to change the subject I see.
The quote you provide is confused and confusing. WOTHA gives the energy consumption of an *affluent* UK citizen as 195 kWh/d and an *average* UK citizen as 125 kWh/d.
It then goes on to make extremely generous estimate of total renewables capacity (180 kWh/d/person) which is far larger than those of IEA, Tyndall IAG etc.
It is also larger than the average UK per capita energy consumption.
This feels like McKintyre-style obfuscation, an impression deepened by the fact that nobody else seems to have developed this critique.
* * *
ONE reason for it (and not the only one) is that he should be starting off with 1400, not 1000.
Rubbish! Every time you do this you reveal just how clueless you are. Not to mention dishonest. MacKay started with the SURFACE value and he was correct. You are just bullshitting, in the formal sense of saying stuff without the slightest regard for the truth.
"Still flatly refusing to admit error and desperately trying to change the subject I see."
By supplying the calculation that shows that if 1000W was surface TSI that we'd get between 25 and 50 watts per square meter, not 10?
You flatly refused to acknowledge that, never mind "correct" it, and decided to return to the stale old vomitous mass of "YOU REFUUUUUS!!!!"
"WOTHA gives the energy consumption of an *affluent* UK citizen as 195 kWh/d and an *average* UK citizen as 125 kWh/d."
And it's entirely and utterly wrong. 2kW x 24 hours is 48kwh/day or 8760 kwh/yr, when the current amount is around 4800kwh/yr average in the UK. Two problems
1) 48 << 125, never mind 195.
2) 4800 << 8760. Never mind the 45,650 or 71,175 those two figures you supply would make.
DID YOU EVEN BOTHER TO DO THE MATHS????
"ONE reason for it (and not the only one) is that he should be starting off with 1400, not 1000.
Rubbish!"
Yes, refusal to bother to think and retrying the "RUBBISH! I TOL YOU BEFOR!!!" hasn't worked yet, never could work and never will. Don't repeat the unsupported claims, try supporting them with actual effort and work and intellect on your behalf.
Not genuflection to a godlike authority figure who is perfect and never to be questioned.
"MacKay started with the SURFACE value and he was correct. "
No, he was utterly wrong.
BBD pretends he knew the source of the discrepancy all the time: 3/ I *know* the reasons why solar farm power per unit area is (generously) averaged at 10W/m2 - you are the one playing catch-up here so please don't pretend otherwise. You need to get educated about the realities of large-scale solar arrays - not me. . . . Which brings us back to the facts of this discussion. I told you - correctly - that 10W/m2 was the average for large scale arrays. You have disputed this ever since despite being shown a ream of evidence proving that I was correct. . . . The maths is *irrelevant* to this discussion which was never about the amount of energy available but about actual power output per unit area achievable by large arrays. You are simply trying to deflect attention away from the fact that you were wrong and I am not going to play your game.
BPL: You certainly aren't going to play the "show your work" game. Again, I doubt you can. And if the discussion is about the actual power output... achievable then you can achieve it by simply plastering the ground with wall-to-wall solar cells instead of using the complicated tracking apparatus. The energy is there, and so is the efficiency.
No, he was utterly wrong.
Why?
You have to show why. Just saying na-na-na isn't nearly enough.
Go and google this topic. Then post a link to a reputable source that contradicts the following two statements:
1/ At TOA, the solar constant is approximately 1366W/m2. At the surface this is attenuated to approximately 1000W/m2
2/ Calculations about surface energy available to eg. solar panels use the surface energy estimate, not TOA.
Now, if you cannot do this, you are going to have to admit that you are wrong and MacKay was right.
If you bullshit and gish and wriggle, you are demonstrating both that you were wrong and that you are too dishonest to admit it.
BPL
And if the discussion is about the actual power output... achievable then you can achieve it by simply plastering the ground with wall-to-wall solar cells instead of using the complicated tracking apparatus. The energy is there, and so is the efficiency.
What, you mean just like brand-new Kagoshima with its 8.6W/m2 power per unit area?
[BPL earlier:] That would increase his [MacKay's] numbers by a factor of 7.
The reason this won't happen is because you have to provide maintenance access and - crucially - a shadow gap. So you end up with something like this. There are practial constraints, as I have been trying to point out for some time now.
Nobody seems willing to admit error around here.
" No, he was utterly wrong.
Why?"
Because it isn't 125kwh/day.
How else would you describe it other than "wrong"???
"Go and google this topic. Then post a link to a reputable source that contradicts the following two statements:
..."
I've put my calculations right there on the thread. You can see every calculation.
BPL has done EXACTLY THE SAME THING.
Feel free to show us where we have it wrong and how.
"What, you mean just like brand-new Kagoshima with its 8.6W/m2 power per unit area?"
So says Mackay...
However, we already KNOW he uses crap numbers.
UK usage per person IS NOT 125 average kwh/day.
"The reason this won't happen is because you have to provide maintenance access"
Not 6x as much space as the actual operating system uses. And not if it's stuck flat down on the ground and doesn't move. You can just WALK ON THE DAMN THING. Or use a Roomba if your fat ass can't deal with it.
But what, exactly, is needed here? You can SPRAY WATER on a SPV panel and clean it.
You can have it suspended so you can WALK UNDERNEATH.
Moreover, we ONLY HAVE Mackay's word for it that this is the right factor or output.
A man who has definitely pulled some wrong numbers from somewhere and pretended they were something they were not.
"1/ At TOA, the solar constant is approximately 1366W/m2. At the surface this is attenuated to approximately 1000W/m2"
If the TSI at the surface is that 1000W figure, then the solar constant at the UK should be 640W/m^2. Half the time it is day, half the night, so reduce it to 320W/m^2. 10% efficient solar panels make that 32W/m^2. If you tipped it up 50degrees from horizontal, it would be back up to 50W/m^2. If it was flat on the ground and never tracked, it would be about 25W/m^2.
Not 10.
Well, BP, you have proved that you are a fool and a liar.
That is enough for one night.
Also note that the attenuation is through rayleigh scattering, half of which goes out to space, half back to earth, hence the appearance of a bright blue sky rather than the inky blackness of nighttime.
Solar panels don't care if it's refracted blue light and the homogeneity of this removes (most of) the time of day and latitude based reductions of static solar PV during daylight hours.
See Also BPL's calculation based on the results of several referred science papers with calculation done and never once found error with which ALSO comes to a figure much higher than 10W/m^2.
"Well, BP, you have proved that you are a fool and a liar."
HOW?
Its not 125kwh/day.
Just because Mackay says it is doesn't mean it is. All YOU are doing is proving MAckay is a liar (by your standard of proof), whereas all we're saying is that he's using the wrong numbers the wrong way which may be deliberate or incompetence.
It's not 125kwh/day!
Even his "illustration" of how much space renewables would "eat up" shows 48kwh/day. When reality is around half that.
"Nobody seems willing to admit error around here."
Flat earthers trying to prove the earth is flat by linking to the claims of a PhD who believes the earth is flat ALSO find that nobody seems to be willing to admit error in the discussion.
The education board trying to get pi=3 passed as law had the same problem of none of the mathematicians being willing to admit error on their part.
The problem isn't the willingness of admitting error on the part of others, buddy dumdum.
"The reason this won't happen is because you have to provide maintenance access and - crucially - a shadow gap."
When they're lying flat on the ground WHERE IS THEIR SHADOW????
If they cast a shadow, they must be tilted. But in that case, the latitude of the ground DOES NOT MATTER AT ALL. Why? Because it isn't at the same angle as the ground.
HOWEVER, by applying the latitude correction once to the *ground* irradiance, then applying it again (as a "shadow gap"), they get double the reduction, one of which is inapplicable.
There is also the question: why is the unused horizontal area that you are reserving for "maintenance" nowhere where the shadow falls??? Move maintenance around where you left unused space for the "shadow gap" and you don't need a shadow gap plus maintenance room.
Again, double dipping on the deductables.
You might want to consider giving it a rest every now and again BBD in lieu of your continued hole digging and making even more of a fool of yourself. It's not as if there is not absolute data driven presentations of local average solar insolation immediately available at your fingertips. produced by commercial solar professionals working day in and day out in the field, installing solar panels for legitimate commercial and residential customers.
http://www.greenrhinoenergy.com/solar/radiation/empiricalevidence.php
Ah, I think I understand your problem with my TL:DR. It seems that you perceived it as a criticism. Very perceptive of you. Sorry if you can't handle it. You seem pretty adept at handing it out, so it's rather unfortunate that you're so sensitive.
I actually agree in general with criticisms of Hot Air, however IMO your style is a bit offputing. I've seen BBD's input elsewhere and generally find his comments wellfounded and note that he can take a robust stance against deniers.
Neither of you in my opinion are deniers, so why the long argument about details of policy? We've haven't won the fight against the deniers, COP21 is coming up soon and we should not be wasting our time on fighting each other.
Now for the substantive party of my post. I have no ideological opposition to nukes, but IMO they are not a practical solution to AGW. We need emissions reductions now: not in ten of fifteen years time. And nukes regrettably take too long to build and have a history of going over budget. They can have issues with cooling water being too hot. Apparently there is a shortage of people training as nuclear technicians, so even if the plant are built, there may not be enough qualified staff to run them.
YMMV
"Ah, I think I understand your problem with my TL:DR. It seems that you perceived it as a criticism."
It was either that or it was pointless.
Did you not read the bits where I kept asking the semi-rhetorical "What is anyone supposed to do with that????"?
If it's criticism, then it has purpose.
If it isn't criticism, the it has NO PURPOSE and adds to the problem that made you decide "DR", in which case, bad because you just made the thing worse.
See now?
Apparently the 10^10 energy imbalance between the energy conversion reaction center (heavily ionizing nuclear reactions) and the desired energy conversion result (boiling water) is not enough to sway you.
To say nothing of the source and byproducts of the reactants.
Entropy production has consequences.
"I actually agree in general with criticisms of Hot Air, however IMO your style is a bit offputing"
How would you know if you didn't read? (a rhetorical question)
If you did read, why did you not do it yourself and not care about "my style" or your sense of comfort?
And how am I to know what you find offputting?
And why should that matter?
The complaint is ad hominem, dealing solely with elements tangential to the evidence and related only to the perception of the person you are targeting, or to attempt to change their behaviour to suit your personal preference, therefore irrelevant to the argument supposedly being discussed.
And making a "TL" even "L"er.
"Neither of you in my opinion are deniers, so why the long argument about details of policy?"
WHUT????
"Oh, I agree with you on something important, so lets agree on everything, or at least not try to find out the truth here".
Do you know what "hivemind" is and why it's not a good thing to see happen in a discussion about rationally derived facts and discussion of factual elements? There's right and there's wrong. And although there's a shade of grey in it, the shade doesn't change based on whether you agree on something else.
"I have no ideological opposition to nukes, but IMO they are not a practical solution to AGW."
However, in a discussion, especially about policy, CAN YOU SUPPORT YOUR CLAIM?
If you can, then they're not a practical solution to AGW (unless the problems making them impractical can be addressed). If you can't, OR DO NOT WANT TO, then those who claim that they can will have policy that implements them.
If you let them make a claim about their suitability based on FAKE DATA, then the results will be other than claimed (IOW bad) and something you could have done, but did not BECAUSE YOU BOTH AGREE AGW IS HAPPENING.
If someone can make a case for how nuclear can be used as the majority input for a carbon-free (or just suitably reduced carbon) NOT based on errors and fake claims, then I will change my opposition to them.
But that won't happen if fake claims are going to be accepted "for the greater good" (decided by..?). And if it isn't happening because it ISN'T going to work, we're stuffed. If it isn't happening because we didn't address the concerns that ACTUALLY applied, but if we had addressed them, it would have worked, guess what? We're still stuffed.
If the case against renewables are made based on FALSE CLAIMS, then they will not be used if those false claims are allowed to stand. If there are VALID CLAIMS that renewables won't work, then if they are stated they can be addressed, mitigated or cause the option to be taken out of discussion. AND BE THE RIGHT CHOICE.
But if we give up trying to get renewables implemented because of the fear of disagreeing about AGW in acrimony, when they should have worked, we might as well have disagreed to do anything about AGW.
And if arguing about the facts or calculations of renewable energy supply scenarios will cause someone to decide to stymie efforts to avoid further AGW, MERELY OUT OF SPITE, then, frankly,
a) They are an even worse type of toxic monster than the most rabid denier who at least is deluded in their belief, but "think" (for want of a better word) they are doing it for the good of everyone.
b) They were agreeing that AGW is real FOR THE WRONG REASONS.
Even a denier who knows AGW is wrong and doesn't CARE about anyone else being harmed is not as abhorrent as someone who is willing to see others harmed merely because they couldn't get their own way in an argument.
"Apparently there is a shortage of people training as nuclear technicians, so even if the plant are built, there may not be enough qualified staff to run them."
How many firms can build a nuclear reactor, especially one of the new "ones that are totally safe, unlike the older versions that have failed badly (please ignore that our parents said the same thing about those reactors when they were new)" generators.
To ramp up production rates would require new production lines for all the bits that are needed especially. And that would require investment in new foundries and new factories to produce all of this stuff. And that investment would have to pay off *at a profit* (otherwise no private industry would do it) meaning a minimum run of numbers guaranteed.
And the quicker we want them, the more of that we'd need (and since we have a nearly set power requirement, each foundry would be involved in a smaller run, hence lower profit, more loss of investment and a bigger subsidy to make it worth private industry's while).
"Very perceptive of you. Sorry if you can't handle it."
????
I can and did.
Or is the only acceptable method of "handling it" to accept it without comment or question?
In which case you failed to handle my criticism of you. Or you were unperceptive.
Or (most likely) that claim was a load of hogwash.
BBD: The reason this won't happen is because you have to provide maintenance access and - crucially - a shadow gap. So you end up with something like this. There are practial [sic] constraints, as I have been trying to point out for some time now.
Nobody seems willing to admit error around here.
BPL: You least of all. And how much maintenance access do you need? Put glass strips every so often and run a little robot over them--or a guy with a crowbar and some specialist tools--to pluck out bad panels and replace them with good ones. Problem solved.
In any case, you're very much ignoring the most important part of the debate--that EVEN IF YOUR FIGURE IS RIGHT, you can still power the whole world that way. Did you miss that calculation? I'll go through it again for you, step by step. I'll use calculator notation instead of scientific, to make it shorter.
1. Assume power density from solar is 10 W/m^2.
2. Human total power use is 1.8e13 W.
3. TPU/PD = 1.8e13 / 10 = 1.8e12 m^2.
4. Earth surface area is 5.10066e14 m^2.
5. Land surface is 29.2% of this = 1.489e14 m^2.
6. Therefore we need 1.8e12 / 1.489e14 = 1.2% of Earth's land surface.
Bing! I made a mistake earlier. I admit it. Forget to correct for the land fraction of Earth's surface area.
Comparable areas: Urban: 1.0% of Earth's land surface. Highways: 2%.
Now, does this mean we have to have a single gigantic panel farm 1342 km on a side? No, you can have a lot of smaller ones. Or, better yet, you can have some of the power from solar, some from wind, more still from tidal, wave, ocean thermal, and biomass. Meanwhile, you reduce the demand by stabilizing population and mandating cogeneration, insulation, demand management.
So renewables can do it all. Which is exactly the opposite of what Mackay is preaching. Mackay likes nukes. Blogger Profile hates nukes. I mostly hate nukes, but I'd accept some advanced nukes that are safer than the old disasters. What I can't stand is the pro-nuke propagandists who tell us we CANNOT do it without nukes--because that's a lie simpliciter.
Deal with it.
"Blogger Profile hates nukes. I mostly hate nukes, but I'd accept some advanced nukes that are safer than the old disasters"
How do you come to that conclusion?
1) Are you making up a definition of "hates nukes" that refers to what I've said as the definition of it, in which case it is not really a definition and more a tautology that ought to be "What Blogger profile says about nukes", which is hardly useful.
2) How do you know that the advanced nukes are safer? We haven't built one yet, so all we have are "they aren't the old designs". Each of which were proffered with "these new designs are safe, unlike the old disasterous designs".
It does really go back to #1 there. I've said this:
If someone can make a case for how nuclear can be used as the majority input for a carbon-free (or just suitably reduced carbon) NOT based on errors and fake claims, then I will change my opposition to them.
Which I have not arbitrarily decided can automatically exclude most designs (all designs currently used?). All you've really said there is that you hate nukes (most/many/all current) but will accept on faith "advanced" designs as automatically safe and free from any potential problem.
You DO know that is exactly how some of those "disasterous older designs" got their disaster, right? Chernobyl didn't go boom because the design was faulty. It went boom because costs were cut and people with power but insufficient knowledge made stupid demands to be obeyed. That is still a design flaw with current humans.
BPL
So renewables can do it all. Which is exactly the opposite of what Mackay is preaching. Mackay likes nukes.
That is a misrepresentation of MacKay.
Why not read the book? In your own time, of course; it is dense. But down the line, we can talk about this again. Perhaps less heatedly. I would welcome that.
"That is a misrepresentation of MacKay."
No.
EVERY mistake is such as to disincentivise and diminish the attractiveness of renewables so that it is not taken.
Like telling someone "You can eat it, I suppose, but it probably has rat droppings in it" is not telling you you CAN'T eat it, but it is TRYING to make sure you don't.
Read up on "Leading question" and "poisoning the well" as well as the vernacular "weasel words".
Oh, and he has read it. Hence his conclusions.
He didn't read it with gullibility turned to max.
Hell, look at your OWN rhetoric where you claim, based on Mackay's hack job, that renewables will be far more costly and will use a "staggeringly" huge amount of land that will be useless for anything else.
They aren't true.
Because the figures to make them *appear* true do not apply.
If the energy production is 50W/m^2 then your "staggeringly huge" amount of land used for it is now 20% of what you thought. That's a staggeringly huge drop. So it is workable and not a valid objection, yes? It's definitely not staggeringly huge any more, and if it were acceptable before (you claim to not be against it, remember), then if it uses 1/5th the land (your objection), then it should be welcome, right?
If it doesn't require any more backup than a grid this size needs anyway, with smart meters able to match demand to supply within acceptable limits, then the cost isn't massively underrepresented in the accounts. And since it is basically cheaper than nuclear per MW produced, it is cheaper overall (unless you have proof otherwise, else we can only assume approximate parity). Since you claim renewables fine with this "huge backup cost", if smart grids can reduce it significantly, you should be happy to accept it now.
If not, then your claims of being pro renewables at the moment are proven false claims.
BP
Hell, look at your OWN rhetoric where you claim, based on Mackay's hack job, that renewables will be far more costly and will use a "staggeringly" huge amount of land that will be useless for anything else.
Please link to the comment you are referring to.
"Please link to the comment you are referring to. "
Read your own posts ever? Go on, try. For the novelty value if nothing else.
Oh, and as another example of your false equivocation that you use to hide your bias against renewables and for nuclear, "renewables" != "nuclear" when you're complaining about generating with only $TYPE of generation.
"only nuclear" is like "only wind".
"only nuclear" is like "only solar".
"only nuclear" is like "only tidal".
etc
"only nuclear" is NOT like "only renewables".
Please link to the comment you are referring to.
Start from your first comment. It won't take long to find it.
BP, you apparently don't understand that at least one meaning of TL:DR,
https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/TLDR (Internet) too long; didn't read. Used to indicate that one didn't read the whole text.
Your abrasive style is not conducive to learning: you dismissed the 90% capacity factor of US nukes mentioned by Sam by saying "Sorry you're demonstrating your complete lack of knowledge of power production. 90% of the power WHEN OPERATING. " However Sam showed that the actual output divided by the stated rated output over a full year was in the 90%. You ignored this and just maintained your position, a) so you missed an opportunity to learn b) you came across as someone who ignores inconvenient evidence.
"BP, you apparently don't understand that at least one meaning of TL:DR,"
I do.
So all you've told me is that you are stating your opinion without having informed your opinion from anything said.
You know, like your post was TL;DR by the time I got to that point. So, yes, I DO understand it.
...the TSI at the surface is that 1000W figure, then the solar constant at the UK should be 640W/m^2. Half the time it is day, half the night, so reduce it to 320W/m^2. 10% efficient solar panels make that 32W/m^2. If you tipped it up 50degrees from horizontal, it would be back up to 50W/m^2.
I don't think so. You've ignored the fact that the Earth is a sphere. At noon, the Sun hits your tilted panel straight on, but earlier and later than that it hits from the sides. When the Sun is on the horizon at sunrise, it is slanting across your South facing panel at a very shallow angle. The angle increases until noon and then decreases again until sunset.
BTW are you sure about that 50 degrees for the UK, because the Earth is tilted 23 degrees on its axis...
So all you've told me is that you are stating your opinion without having informed your opinion from anything said.
No what I said in the TL:DR post were statements of facts that stand alone, so independent of what was said before.
The definition that I gave above actually allows for the case that some of what was said was read.
"I don't think so. You've ignored the fact that the Earth is a sphere"
Nope.
1000 becomes 640 because we are at 50N.
"At noon, the Sun hits your tilted panel straight on, but earlier and later than that it hits from the sides"
Nope.
This is a tracking solar panel. You didn't read the post. It said so explicitly. It also calculates the reduction of a flat panel and it's lower because of this effect.
1000W at noon also becomes 1000W at 50N if you tilt your panel up 50 degrees from horizontal.
"No what I said in the TL:DR"
I got to TL;DR and DR'd. I know what TL;DR means, thanks.
"Here's some confirmation on Mackay's numbers:"
However, Mackay's numbers are wrong. They are no more correct than using a linear relation of CO2 to temperature to attempt to test the theory of AGW.
Show where the calculation is worng done by myself or BPL. All you're doing is going "Look he used numbers! And they were from somewhere else, so he didn't make them up!".
Just like Lomborg didn't make up the sea level rise figures that proved it was going down for two years.
The problem isn't that he made up the sea level numbers.
Mackay has the same problem and he's doing it for the same reason.
Other problems with Mackay's hack job of mucked up mathematics, and one Buddy dumdum keeps avoiding, likely because he knows it's bunk.
In "proving" desertek won't work, he uses 15 w/m^2, derived from where? Well, BBD insists that this is because he has to reduce the TSI for the UK latitudes.
BUT DESERTEK IS NOT IN THE UK.
Similar fakery in maths is applied with wind turbines, and one buddy dumdum does not want to address.
Wind turbines, for some reason, are posited only to be acceptable if it uses up no more than 5% of the landmass.
However, a 40m wind turbine only occupies 8% of its 40m^2 rotor area that is used to "calculate" the energy production density of a generator by Mackay.
That means to use up 5% of the land with wind turbines, you could get away with putting one 40m diameter wind turbine every (approximately) 45m apart.
Placing them at Mackay's claimed maximum density of one per 200m square area would mean occupancy of 1/3% of the land even if placed all over the country at maximum density.
That would mean we could fit in 1.25million 1.5-2MW wind turbines in the UK and use only 1/3% of the land area for it. That's a generation capacity of 2-2.5TW of power.
The amount of space used by a wind turbine is irrelevant. It's where we want to put them that matters.
Of course, Mackay and buddy both ingenuously proclaim that the area of the wind farm can be used for other things, but the only way to get 5% usage of land is to presume that the entire area unavailable for another wind turbine is used up by that turbine.
"BTW are you sure about that 50 degrees for the UK, because the Earth is tilted 23 degrees on its axis..."
Yes. You can read about the latitude of the UK on any atlas. It is a fact.
Yes BP, but because the reference plane of the equator is tilted 23 degrees then placing your solar panel at 50 degrees is a sub optimal solution. Ideally the tilt should vary from about 16 to 62 degrees from summer to winter. If your going to have a fixed angle then to get maximum annual output you should used the summer angle to take advantage of the longer daylight hours.
BP, you're arguing with McKay's figure of 10W/m2 but your argument depends on using a tracking array.AFAIK McKay used a fixed array for his calculation.
And doesn't a tracking array have twice the footprint of a fixed array as it turns through 180°?
"Yes BP, but because the reference plane of the equator is tilted 23 degrees then placing your solar panel at 50 degrees is a sub optimal solution."
So what fixed tilt should we use?
And how suboptimal is +50 compared to +0, flat on the ground?
"Ideally the tilt should vary from about 16 to 62 degrees from summer to winter."
But during summer a 50 degree tilt is BETTER than an equinoxial 50 degree tilt. And the variation is sinusoidal around 50 degrees.
What is the mathematical average of a sinusoid full wave period around 50 with a peak magnitude of + or - 23 degrees?
Is it 50?
"If your going to have a fixed angle then to get maximum annual output you should used the summer angle to take advantage of the longer daylight hours."
Yes, this is a design choice that will change your output levels. However, you could decide to maximise the winter amount so that your variation through the year is less and, though this reduces the summer output, you already sized for production to cover that, and the benefit of increasing winter output is that you don't have as much of a shortfall.
Whether to do this, and what amount to change by is decided by looking at how to make it work best for the situation you build up to solve.
"BP, you're arguing with McKay's figure of 10W/m2 "
Yes.
"but your argument depends on using a tracking array."
But the farms he uses require maintenance and have a shadow effect BECAUSE THEY NEED TO TRACK.
"AFAIK McKay used a fixed array for his calculation."
See above about his double-dipping. He wants to calculate the ground-flat insolation (which is the calculation for a fixed array), apply that to the solar array face, then apply the latitude offset in his shadow effect (which is a tracking array).
He even wants to apply the lattitude correction for the UK northern lattitude for Desertek, which is far south of the UK.
And he does specifically state in several places, such as with CSP, that he uses a tracking system, but calculates the "flat ground UK latitude" correction to reduce it without it being necessary.
It's called "lying by omission". It also involves "begging the question" and as said earlier, double-dipping.
And you fall for it because you don't think skeptically, because it "feels" like it's honest and nonpartisan.
"And doesn't a tracking array have twice the footprint of a fixed array as it turns through 180°?"
No, since tilting up reduces the ground shadow footprint.
The least contentious argued option is the area difference between a square array and the circle that circumscribes that square. Which is Pi/2, or around 60% a bigger footprint. And that can be cut to nothing by using a smaller number of (possibly larger) collectors in a farm. A 3x3 array would have 60% for one of the 9, 4 would be affected by 30% wasted space and 4 would be 15%.
This may be Mackay's genuine blindness problem here. He can ONLY concieve of multi-gw farms of huge industrial scale.
Nothing says you can't use a 10-m dish in a school ground or small park to power the local area. Or on a roundabout, where the space isn't usable anyway.
But he considers it only large industrial scale products, therefore owned by the company and not for use by anything else (except possibly by another power generation type). But definitely not housing or factories or farms or pathways or ....
Because a business doesn't open up their private land the factory they work off open to the public!!!
Oh, the array could interlock as well, the interlocking would use one panel's "wasted space" to also be another panel's "wasted space". The precise tesselation and the subsequent packing percentage would be dependent on your power production design.
Theoretically, it could be entirely eradicated.
(and note for the small generation: that is what BPL's calculation was. That 1% urbanisation and 2% highway/road build? Free land. But comes with free separation from the next solar panel because it's on someone's roof. No land area used at all. And as long as we need less than 1.5% of the land surface of the entire planet used, we don't even have to worry about shadow or anything.)
But, hey, let's suppose that it's 50% as effective per land square meter, half of the land being wasted by it being tracking.
That takes the tracking output from the 63-75W/m^2 down to 31-38W/m^2.
Still above 10.
And pretty close to the ~35 that I put down for a flat non-tracking panel.
You see, tracking is done to minimise the amount of solar panel you use up and saves the cost of that but adds the cost of a gimballed tracking mount.
It can also be used to shape the power curve with time of day and season so as to match a particular demand curve.
You can't do that with a nuclear power station without either throttling it (making it less efficient and reducing the lifetime) or cutting it out (making it effectively the same as overcapacity and redundant cost).
But if the panels are cheap, just lay them flat on the ground or where it slopes toward the sun and leave it be. With the massive drop of solar panel cost, a contingency that may not have been worth considering is now eminently practical.
"RE: Wind Farms"
See all the above, blowhard. Wind turbines occupy space ABOVE everyone's heads, not much of the ground. 1/3% of the land used in the UK = over a million wind turbines.
I bet you wonder how they manage to fit so many thousands of square feet in a single city block with those so-called "high rise" buildings.
Or is your idiocy only contingent on whether you want to get it or not?
"NOTE: Stuff people make up in their own heads does not count. Sorry."
So you'd be fine with this, right?
====
Blogger Barton Paul Levenson said...
Let's go over the Trenberth et al. (2009) figure for Solar power absorbed at the ground, 161.2 W/m^2, which would be 187.4 without the 14% reflected by mean global surface albedo. Start at space.
The Solar constant is around 1,360 watts per square meter at Earth's orbital distance, pace Kopp and Lean 2011. Trenberth et al. probably used earlier figures which averaged 1366 or so. The Earth is a sphere, so between Lambert's cosine law and the dark hemisphere, we have to cut the S figure by a factor of 4 (an easier way to derive it is simply dividing the cross-sectional area of a sphere, π r^2, by its surface area, 4 π r^2). This gives 340 W/m^2.
Earth's albedo, mostly from clouds and ice but also from other surfaces, is around 30%. The flux density absorbed by the climate system, then, is 238 W/m^2, corresponding to Earth's radiative equilibrium temperature of 255 K. The visual optical depth of Earth's atmosphere averages about 0.24, which by the Beer-Lambert-Bouguer law (I know, it's not always strictly applicable) gives a transmissivity of 0.79. Thus 187 W/m^2 at the ground, on mean global annual average.
Not 10.
Allow 20% efficiency of conversion. We get 37.4 W/m^2.
Not 10.
Make it the 10% efficiency available around 1980. We get 18.7 W/m^2.
Not 10.
10 is right out.
3/9/15 5:22 AM
" NOTE: Stuff people make up in their own heads does not count. Sorry."
Yeah, i didn't make up the shape of a wind turbine, "Serge".
See also the calculations above that source referenced papers such as trenberth2009.
Please stop shoving your fingers in your ears and going "LALALALALALA! CAN'T HEAR!".
TIA
PS if you can't do the maths yourself, how do you know what you reference has it right?
You don't want to be *gullible* and *nonscientific*, now, do you, "Serge"?
Skepticism is the watchword.
Not "LALALA! CAN'T HEAR YOU!".
"Combining climate datasets with these observed trends of greater-rated capacities and capacity factors, several academic and government research studies estimate large-scale wind power electricity generation rates of up to 7 We·m−2 (3–7)."
So that is the observations. Problematically:
"However, a growing body of research suggests that as larger wind farms cover more of the Earth’s surface, the limits of atmospheric kinetic energy generation, downward transport, and extraction by wind turbines limits large-scale electricity generation rates in windy regions to about 1.0 We·m−2 (8–14).""
They appear to have pulled a factor of seven out of nowhere but guesswork and posthoc rationalisation. I thought you didn't want "something people made up in their heads".
It also insists that the windfarm includes the space reserved for the wind farm, not the land it actually occupies. Just like Mackay.
Care to explain why larger windfarms covering more of the earth surface makes it less efficient despite earlier claiming that the size increase has increased efficiency by 70%? Or how siting them five times as far apart as their diameter means they still reduce the wind speed by the third root of 7 and must be moved further apart (which means that the land occupied didn't change, just the separation between the land occupied by each turbine)?
In "proving" desertek won't work
Where does MacKay do this? I've read the text several times and I cannot any suggestion that MacKay believes DESERTEC won't work.
You need to stop making shit up and do some reading.
* * *
And you are *still* raving counterfactually that the 10W/m2 figure for NH mid-latitude SPV is wrong despite being shown over and over again actual figures from actual SPV farms proving that it is a reasonable if not even generous estimate.
Now that's denial on stilts, that is.
* * *
Just in case Everett didn't see the link (there's an awful lot of crap to wade through, after all) I'll post it again. see tables 1 - 3 in MacKay (2013), which of course also provides sources.
EFS - you'll find that BP keeps referring to these as 'MacKay's figures' and accusing him of fraudulating or some such nonsense. But as you can see from the sources, they are original data supplied by the installations concerned.
This has become one of the silliest and maddest exchanges I can recall.
BP
Make it the 10% efficiency available around 1980. We get 18.7 W/m^2.
Not 10.
10 is right out.
Where BPL went wrong was in not understanding the way large scale SPV farms work. They don't use 20% efficiency panels because they are too expensive. There are spacing constraints because of the shadow gaps.
So you get between 5 - 10W/m2 power per unit area.
That's really all there is to it.
Goodness only knows why you are fighting an endless, hopeless battle against well established matters of fact. #
Go to the pub FFS.
" In "proving" desertek won't work
Where does MacKay do this"
Chapter 25, moron.
Did you read it or are you just fed what to type?
"Where BPL went wrong was in not understanding the way large scale SPV farms work."
Neither do you. You haven't the foggiest.
Explain why 6 parts out of 7 of an SPV is taken up with "not the panel". Not "Mackay said", YOU show how it is the case and why.
Explain how you know that these SPV or wind farms are at full density. Remember, buying land is cheap, but putting up generators is expensive, so you won't put up a generator you can't sell the power from. But you won't want to let someone else buy up the land or notice how you need the land for expansion and jack up the price.
And, as I asked "Serge" here, how do they get this mystical 1W/m^2 from the currently observed 7W/m^2 with all that sucking out of the wind with the turbines "so close together" as five times apart.
Your gullibility is unlimited. You swallow whatever BS Mackay has calculated without the simplest understanding of whether he's correct.
"So you get between 5 - 10W/m2 power per unit area. "
No you don't. ONLY if you don't use 86% of the land.And land you're not using isn't being used.
Mackay CLAIMS that this is the case and is the best absolute that can be found. Except Lomborg ALSO found that the sea levels dropped. And was surprised that this hadn't been accepted. If he'd told you about it, he would have had a shill posting on every website on the internet about how it's all true, sea levels are falling.
"They don't use 20% efficiency panels because they are too expensive."
No, they don't use them because most of the farms were built up before they were available, dumbass.
And the ONLY way it is 10% IS BECAUSE MACKAY SAYS THEY WILL USE IT.
It's in his damn calculation where he goes "100W^m2 is available and with 10% efficiency solar panels, that comes to 10W/m^2". HE SUPPOSES that they will be used.
Here you're trying to say they ARE used. And the only ones. Why the hell would they produce 20% (and the highest is over 40%) efficiency panels if nobody is going to use them????
Chapter 25, moron.
Where in chapter 25?
I want to see the exact quote. The whole thing is online, so link, please.
And keep a civil tongue in your head.
Here you're trying to say they ARE used.
That I am. And I have shown you a ream of evidence to back it up.
What about Kagoshima? Completed in 2013. 8.6W/m2.
You are literally denying reality.
"Goodness only knows why you are fighting an endless, hopeless battle against well established matters of fact."
Yes, why are you doing that?
The well established matter of fact is that Mackay uses crap set of numbers all demonising renewables.
Power production: faked values.
Power consumption: faked values.
Location of power generators: faked values.
Why do you insist that, despite the actual figures being dramatically lower UK average power consumption is about 36kwh/day AND NOT 125 kwh/day?
Solar panels will extract around 35 or more watts per square meter, even if stuck facing south, NOT 10 or less.
Vertical wind turbines ARE VERTICAL, NOT HORIZONTAL. Their rotor occupies space VERTICALLY, hence the name.
"That I am. And I have shown you a ream of evidence to back it up. "
No you haven't you've shown Mackay. And then Mackay. And then MAckay again. And again. You have NOT shown a ream of evidence, you've shown ONE scores of times.
"I want to see the exact quote. The whole thing is online, so link, please."
YOU ALREADY HAVE THE LINK YOU RETARD.
Chapter 25.
There are literally dozens of installations in tables 1 - 3. Dozens.
Where's the quote from ch. 25?
Why haven't you posted it yet?
"And you are *still* raving counterfactually that the 10W/m2 figure for NH mid-latitude SPV is wrong"
Then WHERE IS THE ERROR????
Solar panels will extract around 35 or more watts per square meter, even if stuck facing south, NOT 10 or less.
Okay, show me some hard data from large-scale installations to back up your claim.
"There are literally dozens of installations in tables 1 - 3. Dozens."
Chapter 25, retard. Look in it. You DO want to read it, don't you? You claim to have.
"Okay, show me some hard data from large-scale installations to back up your claim."
You have already been shown the calculation.
The ERROR is that you don't know anything about large scale SPV installations.
That's the big problem here.
The second problem is that you will not learn.
Chapter 25, retard. Look in it.
I have. No mention of DESERTEC not working.
Where is the quote, BP?
Or were you making shit up again?
"But as you can see from the sources, they are original data supplied by the installations concerned."
And the deniers claims of a hiatus comes from the GISS temperature graphs, supplied by the climatologists, not the deniers themselves.
Ergo, they are right, there IS a hiatus?
NO, you don't prove a claim that is CONTRARY TO ANY CALCULATION to be right because you can find someone claiming it.
Where is the quote, BP?
I want to see exactly where MacKay says (as you claim) that DESERTEC won't work.
Where is the quote?
I want to see the quote now, BP.
"I have. No mention of DESERTEC not working."
You;re looking for the words "desertek is not working", aren't you.
Chapter 25. It's complete bunk trying to pretend that the UK latitude is where it's being built, therefore the land use would be enormous.
Complete BS because of it's faked rubbish calculation.
And next, show me some hard data from large-scale installations to back up your claim that large scale SPV can have a power per unit area of 35W/m2.
Show me the data. I want to see hard data.
Now.
Defend your claims.
The reason you cannot post a quote from MacKay is because your claim is completely false. You are misrepresenting MacKay and have been all the way down this very long thread.
You are lying, BP and once again, I have caught you in a lie.
"I want to see exactly where MacKay says (as you claim) that DESERTEC won't work."
For fucks sake you retarded little shitstain. WHEN did you ever read the damn thing?????
"“All the world’s power could be provided by a square 100 km by 100 km
in the Sahara.” Is this true? Concentrating solar power in deserts delivers
an average power per unit land area of roughly 15 W/m2."
To which YOU replied:
To drop to 15, there has to be some 93% loss in the system...
Those of us who bothered to RTFR know that:
The power of raw sunshine at midday on a cloudless day is 1000W per square metre. That’s 1000 W per m2 of area oriented towards the sun, not per m2 of land area. To get the power per m2 of land area in Britain, we must make several corrections. We need to compensate for the tilt between the sun and the land, which reduces the intensity of midday sun to about 60% of its value at the equator (figure 6.1). We also lose out because it is not midday all the time. On a cloud-free day in March or September, the ratio of the average intensity to the midday intensity is about 32%. Finally, we lose power because of cloud cover. In a typical UK location the sun shines during just 34% of daylight hours.
My bolded.
Retard.
For fucks sake you retarded little shitstain. WHEN did you ever read the damn thing?????
Where does it say that DESERTEC will not work, BP?
That is the quote you are supposed to be supplying.
Where is it?
" And next, show me some hard data from large-scale installations to back up your claim that large scale SPV can have a power per unit area of 35W/m2"
ALREADY DONE YOU ANNOYING LITTLE TOERAG.
A 1kW system will take up 6-6.7 sq m and in the UK in Devon/Cornwall produce 1.05kW peak, averaged over the year at that latitude. Shetland about 750W peak.
Tracking means you get about 10 hours sunlight (reduction from 12 being due to extinction at low altitude angles) a day, so tracking you get about 1050*10/24 average watts from the Devon site per 6-6.7sq m panel.
65-73W per square meter. Call it 70W.
Not tracking but tilted: 70% of that, 49W.
Not tracking, flat on the ground, 70% of THAT. 35W
3/9/15 10:25 AM
Why are you muddling up the Middle East and N Africa with the UK?
Why are you muddling up SPV at ~52N latitude with CSP in N Africa?
How confused are you?
Where's the quote saying that DESERTEC will not work?
Why is this taking so long?
What's wrong, BP?
Is there a problem?
Is it getting worse, as I warned you it would?
"“All the world’s power could be provided by a square 100 km by 100 km
in the Sahara.” Is this true? Concentrating solar power in deserts delivers
an average power per unit land area of roughly 15 W/m2."
To which YOU replied:
To drop to 15, there has to be some 93% loss in the system...
Those of us who bothered to RTFR know that:
The power of raw sunshine at midday on a cloudless day is 1000W per square metre. That’s 1000 W per m2 of area oriented towards the sun, not per m2 of land area. To get the power per m2 of land area in Britain, we must make several corrections. We need to compensate for the tilt between the sun and the land, which reduces the intensity of midday sun to about 60% of its value at the equator (figure 6.1). We also lose out because it is not midday all the time. On a cloud-free day in March or September, the ratio of the average intensity to the midday intensity is about 32%. Finally, we lose power because of cloud cover. In a typical UK location the sun shines during just 34% of daylight hours.
ALREADY DONE YOU ANNOYING LITTLE TOERAG.
I asked for hard data from a large scale SPV installation
That is not what I asked for.
You sound stressed BP.
BBD: Where BPL went wrong was in not understanding the way large scale SPV farms work. They don't use 20% efficiency panels because they are too expensive.
BPL: And always will be, eh?
I don't care for large-scale solar farms myself. Just put them on every roof and forget about tracking and shadow space.
Why are you muddling up the Middle East and N Africa with the UK?
Why are you repeating completely irrelevant material BP?
Why are you muddling up SPV at ~52N latitude with CSP in N Africa?
Where's the quote saying that DESERTEC will not work?
Why is this taking so long?
What's wrong, BP?
Is there a problem?
Delete
Blogger BBD said...
Why are you muddling up the Middle East and N Africa with the UK?
...
Is it getting worse, as I warned you it would?
====
So you're DELIBERATELY trolling.
You KNOW you're talking BS but you're just WILFULLY being a twat.
*You and Mackay* are the ones getting the UK mixed up with the middle east. It's in the quote. Black and white. YOUR statement quoting HIM getting UK factors to "justify" a 15w/m^2 claim for DESERTEC. IN THE SAHARA.
Can your pea brain get the message?
" ALREADY DONE YOU ANNOYING LITTLE TOERAG.
I asked for hard data from a large scale SPV installation"
Yes, and I gave you your answer.
A 1kW system will take up 6-6.7 sq m and in the UK in Devon/Cornwall produce 1.05kW peak, averaged over the year at that latitude. Shetland about 750W peak.
Tracking means you get about 10 hours sunlight (reduction from 12 being due to extinction at low altitude angles) a day, so tracking you get about 1050*10/24 average watts from the Devon site per 6-6.7sq m panel.
65-73W per square meter. Call it 70W.
Not tracking but tilted: 70% of that, 49W.
Not tracking, flat on the ground, 70% of THAT. 35W
BPL
That might make a dent in personal electricity consumption but MacKay is writing about total energy consumption and how much renewables might realistically be able to provide.
WOTHA p. 39:
Photovoltaic (PV) panels convert sunlight into electricity. Typical solar panels have an efficiency of about 10%; expensive ones perform at 20%. (Fundamental physical laws limit the efficiency of photovoltaic systems to at best 60% with perfect concentrating mirrors or lenses, and 45% without concentration. A mass-produced device with efficiency greater than 30% would be quite remarkable.) The average power delivered by south-facing 20%-efficient photovoltaic panels in Britain would be
20%× 110 W/m2 = 22 W/m2.
Figure 6.5 shows data to back up this number. Let’s give every person
10 m2 of expensive (20%-efficient) solar panels and cover all south-facing roofs. These will deliver
5 kWh per day per person.
[...]
The conclusion so far: covering your south-facing roof at home with
photovoltaics may provide enough juice to cover quite a big chunk of your personal average electricity consumption; but roofs are not big enough to make a huge dent in our total energy consumption. To do more with PV, we need to step down to terra firma.
You KEPT not knowing that the Sahara wasn't at UK latitudes here too:
-----------------------
Blogger Blogger profile said...
"We need to compensate for the tilt between the sun and the land, which reduces the intensity of midday sun to about 60% of its value at the equator (figure 6.1)."
If you bothered to read what you quoted off me, you would have seen:
Equatorial tracking parabolic CSP gets about 1/2 that sunlight averaged per day. 700W/m^2
3/9/15 11:57 AM
"That might make a dent in personal electricity consumption but MacKay is writing about total energy consumption and how much renewables might realistically be able to provide."
Nope, he made that COMPLETELY up.
Te ACTUAL total energy consumption is 36kwh/day/person.
NOT 125.
And you keep insisting that he thinks renewables CAN realistically be able to provide far more than even his 125kWh/day/person figure.
"20%× 110 W/m2 = 22 W/m2."
It isn't 110W/m^2.
You KNOW you're talking BS but you're just WILFULLY being a twat.
Ah no, that would be you, BP.
Where's the quote from chapter 25?
Where is it?
Yes, and I gave you your answer.
No, you did not. I want hard data from a large scale SPV installation (and a link to the source, of course).
Not some random, unattributed, unlinked claims (from where?) about a 1kw system.
So please provide what I asked you for in defence of your claims.
Or they will be discounted as clearly false.
"Figure 6.5 shows data to back up this number. Let’s give every person
10 m2 of expensive (20%-efficient) solar panels and cover all south-facing roofs. These will deliver
5 kWh per day per person."
The data is not accurate. The 20% isn't expensive (see the damn graphs ATL).
"
No, you did not. I want hard data from a large scale SPV installation "
I DID.
A 1kW system will take up 6-6.7 sq m and in the UK in Devon/Cornwall produce 1.05kW peak, averaged over the year at that latitude. Shetland about 750W peak.
Tracking means you get about 10 hours sunlight (reduction from 12 being due to extinction at low altitude angles) a day, so tracking you get about 1050*10/24 average watts from the Devon site per 6-6.7sq m panel.
65-73W per square meter. Call it 70W.
Not tracking but tilted: 70% of that, 49W.
Not tracking, flat on the ground, 70% of THAT. 35W
Where is your proof that these companies are fully using the land.
PROOF. Not assumption.
I can't believe you are this stupid, BP.
You should have stopped a long time ago.
Thanks for trashing your reputation here some more.
Now, go to the pub.
Barton Paul Leverson
There's a very interesting series of posts at Science of Doom about renewables which I've only just come across. Highly recommended.
" I can't believe you are this stupid, BP."
Not a very convincing argument, buddy dumdum.
Do you want to try another one, or is your alcoholism giving you gyp?
And you use the same definition of "interesting" as the standard WTFUWT denier troll does, right?
You know, the ones that drop in and then say "Hey, this is interesting!" then link to a news story about how there's snow in Washington.
Now that I know you're delierately trolling, buddy dumdum, I know why you're not admitting error in citing UK location and weather in defending a Saharan project.
You're trolling. You KNOW you're talking BS, but you're not honestly believing it.
So when you whine and demand proof and that proof shows you up for getting it wrong, your best bet is to go "Oh, why did you get the location of the UK and Sahara wrong!", as if you REALLY WERE confused and thought that it wasn't a quote from you labeled with "And you replied".
Because you KNOW you're talking out your arse, but you DON'T CARE.
I see why Tom Fullerthanadunnywagon was chuckling: you're a pal trolling and getting away with it.
Only until it became obvious you weren't REALLY deluded. Just pretending.
And you use the same definition of "interesting" as the standard WTFUWT denier troll does, right?
Nope, interesting as in interesting. Why not go and have a read?
I hope BPL does, but then I suspect he is a little more rigorous and open to new information that you are.
You're trolling.
Actually, I'm standing up to an unhinged and vicious bully who hasn't got a fucking clue what he is talking about. There is a big difference.
BBD: That might make a dent in personal electricity consumption but MacKay is writing about total energy consumption and how much renewables might realistically be able to provide.
BPL: So am I. I never thought the mix should be 100% photovoltaics. I'm just saying there's nothing physically preventing us from doing it that way. We'd have to electrify everything, of course, but I understand electric vehicles and electric furnaces for manufacturing are possible.
Renewables can realistically provide 100% of the energy mix the world needs. This is the fundamental point Mackay is opposed to, and you are apparently opposed to.
" And you use the same definition of "interesting" as the standard WTFUWT denier troll does, right?
Nope, interesting as in interesting. Why not go and have a read?"
Yup, exactly the same reply as a Wutter would give trying to get you to read a piece by Morano, or some claim that one glacier was growing bigger.
Sorry, before I knew you were trolling, it would have worked.
Unfortunately you overplayed your hand when you pretended, in reply to a post showing your error in claiming UK features in a discussion about Destertek, that I was the one getting it wrong.
And nailed the troll banner with the "I told you it would get worse" flick.
Sorry, when someone is trolling and hella proud of it, there's a hell of a lot of work saved in trying to assess the utility of a link they provide.
I KNOW it isn't worth my time because YOU want me to waste my time there. And you're a troll. Hence it must be a trolling thread.
Your pretence that a hundred links to Mackay was a thousand links supporting Mackay's claims was *theoretically* possibly from someone just unable to get out of a mindset.
"BPL: So am I. I never thought the mix should be 100% photovoltaics"
It's another rhetorical device to insist that it's impartial when not: it claims it's no more for it being solved by "only nuclear" than it is by "only renewables".
Yet
a) Only *Nuclear* is NOT equal to Only *PV, CSP, Wind, Tidal, Geothermal, Hydropower, Tide, Bio, ...*
b) Arguments against renewables are ALWAYS about the problem of PV. OR the problems if Wind. But the insistence this is an argument against RENEWABLES.
The moderately reasonable claim of how PV can't solve problems on its own is used to "prove" *RENEWBALES* can't solve the problem. So we need nuclear.
And as pointed out before, Mackay and buddy dumdum here say that they're not against it, but they complain that if we increase it or replace fossil fuels with it, or any new build up would be DISASTEROUS or HUGELY COSTLY. So what's THERE in renewables is "OK", but DON'T YOU DARE build any more!
THAT is supposed to be "I'm pro renewables" and "I'm NOT pro nuclear!".
But it only works on those who believe the same way and already pretend not to know the difference.
"Actually, I'm standing up to an unhinged and vicious bully who hasn't got a fucking clue what he is talking about."
No, you're TROLLING.
"“All the world’s power could be provided by a square 100 km by 100 km
in the Sahara.” Is this true? Concentrating solar power in deserts delivers
an average power per unit land area of roughly 15 W/m2."
To which YOU replied:
Those of us who bothered to RTFR know that:
The power of raw sunshine at midday on a cloudless day is 1000W per square metre. That’s 1000 W per m2 of area oriented towards the sun, not per m2 of land area. To get the power per m2 of ***land area in Britain***
And then when pointed out queried like an asshat:
Why are you muddling up the Middle East and N Africa with the UK?
But *I* am the bully *you're* standing up to??!?!?
Hells you're a brazen troll.
BPL
Renewables can realistically provide 100% of the energy mix the world needs. This is the fundamental point Mackay is opposed to, and you are apparently opposed to.
There's no doubt that there's enough energy available to renewables for them in theory to meet the world's energy needs but there is a great deal of work to be done before this could happen.
MacKay is simply trying to show that it won't happen tomorrow and that energy policy over coming decades needs to be based on realistic assumptions.
As I have already said on this thread, I am not anti-renewables. My position is that the most rapid path to decarbonisation will require a holistic energy policy maximising *all* available low-carbon technologies. Given the inexorable physics of warming, we need to throw everything we have into the mix and even then, it will probably be too little, too late.
Oh, and that solar figures, working through the percentages he gives:
1300W/m^2 radiation
85% reflection
25% collector efficiency (presumable because it doesn't track at all)
32% cell efficiency
10% shading
1300*.85*.25*.32*.9=90W/m^2
Somehow he thinks this is 18.
The moron is clueless.
"There's no doubt that there's enough energy available to renewables for them in theory"
Until generation is built, of COURSE it is THEORY. It can be done. No need to scare people off the idea by going "in theory".
"MacKay is simply trying to show that it won't happen tomorrow "
Right, and nuclear power will build up tomorrow? No. Therefore what's the "in theory" reason for claiming this????
"and that energy policy over coming decades needs to be based on realistic assumptions."
But you and he keep insisting that you're not anti renewable because you already accept that renewables can do it. Therefore the realistic assumption is that renewables can do it.
So energy policy: do it with renewables.
"Given the inexorable physics of warming, we need to throw everything we have into the mix"
Which is why renwewables are the only feasible source. We don't have TIME for nuclear.
Renewables build out faster, run cheaper and don't demand a 40 year operation lifetime to be only slightly the most expensive power generation system. And they're easier to move than nuclear power stations if their current location becomes untenable.
BP
Please look at fig. 6.2 and read the caption.
"Please look at fig. 6.2 and read the caption."
Why? Ch6 is the one where it gets confused between the Sahel and the UK.
And look at Ch25. That's where his numbers come from. Ones that add up when you yourself do the maths to 90, but he claims is 18.
Buddy dumdum, STOP getting the UK confused with everywhere in the world.
Not that even that would make 90 turn into 18, though.
Why? Ch6 is the one where it gets confused between the Sahel and the UK.
More misrepresentation of MacKay!
You should try reading the text before commenting on it. Although it would be much less amusing ;-)
And look at Ch25. That's where his numbers come from.
Which numbers?
You mean the energy plans where he assumes a working DESERETEC-type resource?
You know, the one you maintain he said would *not* work in ch. 25?
Except neither of us can find the bit in ch. 25 where he said it would not work.
Who's confused, BP?
" Why? Ch6 is the one where it gets confused between the Sahel and the UK.
More misrepresentation of MacKay!"
Nope. You used Ch6 to claim why 15W was right in the Sahara. If his claims there were NOT why it's 15 and it was YOU who made the mistake, then YOU are misrepresenting him.
Naughty boy!
"You should try reading the text before commenting on it"
I did.
What do YOU think it says in response to my post you wanted me to read it for? Because you're saying it is getting the UK mixed up with the rest of the world.
Again.
"Except neither of us can find the bit in ch. 25 where he said it would not work. "
Here's what I said, moron:
Other problems with Mackay's hack job of mucked up mathematics, and one Buddy dumdum keeps avoiding, likely because he knows it's bunk.
In "proving" desertek won't work, he uses 15 w/m^2, derived from where? Well, BBD insists that this is because he has to reduce the TSI for the UK latitudes.
BUT DESERTEK IS NOT IN THE UK.
Where do I say he says it won't work? I say he "proves" it won't work.
English is not something you bother with if it gets in the way of your trolling lies.
Explain how your claim that MacKay said DESERTEC would not work reconciles with the energy plans I just linked.
I'm curious about that.
* * *
Nope. You used Ch6 to claim why 15W was right in the Sahara.
Please link to the comment you are referring to.
"Explain how your claim that MacKay said DESERTEC would not work reconciles with the energy plans I just linked"
Why? I made no such claim. Do you want me to PRETEND????
BP You said, "But the farms he uses require maintenance and have a shadow effect BECAUSE THEY NEED TO TRACK."
Where does he specifically say that they are tracking arrays? IMO you're making that up, just so that you can say that he's wrong.
You're also trying to deflect from your average 320W/m2 during daylight hours which is wrong. Not only do you need to track, but you also need to tilt for when the Sun is at a lower angle in the sky. You have also neglected the extra attenuation because of the greater thickness of atmosphere that the light has to travel through when the Sun is not directly overhead.
"Nope. You used Ch6 to claim why 15W was right in the Sahara.
Please link to the comment you are referring to."
Already done. Twice. Maybe three times now. And every time I've linked to it you ignored it and pretended it never happened.
5/9/15 12:36 PM was the last one I quoted you.
" BP You said, "But the farms he uses require maintenance and have a shadow effect BECAUSE THEY NEED TO TRACK."
Where does he specifically say that they are tracking arrays?"
Because otherwise you don't need to have shadow space.
Duh.
And even when it's a nontracking horizontal panel, it's STILL higher than 10W.
Or maybe you can tell me why only 1/7th of the area is not used if it's stuck and nontracking.
Feel free.
"You're also trying to deflect from your average 320W/m2 during daylight hours which is wrong."
No it isn't.
"Not only do you need to track, but you also need to tilt for when the Sun is at a lower angle in the sky."
Nope, you are thinking of your head which rotates a different way. The single axis track will keep the panel at 50 degrees angle to the sun as it tracks across the sky. The HORIZON doesn't track along that axis, it tracks an axis that is our polar axis and on average, that is 90 degrees angle from the sun. 50!=90 is why the sun goes to the horizon at evening.
"You have also neglected the extra attenuation because of the greater thickness of atmosphere that the light has to travel through when the Sun is not directly overhead."
You have neglected that the attenuation is through rayleigh scattering (which is why the sky is blue) and half of that radiation is redirected down to the earth, therefore the panel is lit by half the attenuated sunlight from the full hemisphere of the sky.
This increases the illumination and removes some of the disadvantages of a fixed panel,it has less effect on one that will track.
That attenuated light isn't just deleted, you know. It still goes somewhere.
The single axis track will keep the panel at 50 degrees angle to the sun as it tracks across the sky. You're kidding right?
The single axis is rotating from East to West. If you're tilting to keep the panel at 90 degrees to the sun that's a second axis of rotation.
" And look at Ch25. That's where his numbers come from.
Which numbers?"
These ones, buddy dumdum.
85% reflection
25% collector efficiency (presumable because it doesn't track at all)
32% cell efficiency
10% shading
Plugging in 1300 gives 90. He claims 18.
The same ones you wanted me to check Ch6 for. If you didn't know where they were, why did you "know" that Ch6 was the proof of my error?
Because otherwise you don't need to have shadow space.
Duh.
Only if they're flat on the ground, if they're tilted you need separation between the panels, unless you have a single row, or stack them at ever increasing heights.
"The single axis is rotating from East to West."
Yes.
"If you're tilting to keep the panel at 90 degrees to the sun that's a second axis of rotation."
Good job I'm not. I only change one axis.
A fully tracking one doesn't need the reduction from 1000 to 640, it works with the 1000, which is halved because 12 hours in a day on average, 12 hours in a night average, rather than 640 halved. The smaller number is the one axis one. The one axis one is the one that gets most of the 12 hours of daytime 640Watts and 12 hours of nighttime 0Watts. Average can be done by using Effective hours/24, which is quite common.
"Only if they're flat on the ground,"
If they're just tilted, their shadow IS ALREADY TAKEN CARE OF by reducing it for the UK's 50N latitude. There IS NO SHADOW if they're on the ground.
If this is the level of competence of people who accept Without Hot Air as well researched and level headed, I know exactly why it's been swallowed hook line and sinker.
Or maybe you can tell me why only 1/7th of the area is not used if it's stuck and nontracking.
IIUC you get the 1/7th figure from your calculations based on an all singing all dancing array that is constantly tilting and turning to present the maximum surface area to the sun. You ignore the extra attenuation of the light intensity at the surface because of the greater thickness of atmosphere that it has to travel through at 50 degrees North and at all other times than noon.
"IIUC you get the 1/7th figure from your calculations based on an all singing all dancing array that is constantly tilting"
That is post hoc rationalisation.
You're calculating that it's 1/7th because what's used is 1/7th. You haven't worked out if it's 1/7th BECAUSE YOU NEED THAT MUCH SPACE.
You can get a steerable satellite dish and it takes up a circle as big as the swept area. To clean it or maintain it, you put it vertical and stand in the half of the circle it sweeps out (the area of the collector dish) when it arbitrarily moves but doesn't use when it's held up straight.
If you have a huge array of them, you can make enough space for this maintenance by having them ALL reserve a circle as big as the area of the collector dish and when you need to maintain them, you stop one line, point them all vertically, and then do the same thing you did for the standalone one.
You don't need 7x the area of the dish.
And why must solar PV be placed in solar farms out in specially reserved areas? Are there no roofs? Are there no parking lots? Are there no roads? Build on them. For the roads you have ready-made access routes.
Vertical wind turbines ARE VERTICAL, NOT HORIZONTAL. Their rotor occupies space VERTICALLY, hence the name.
Actually the accepted terminology is vertical axis and horizontal axis: so those big ones with the propeller type blades are known as horizontal axis wind turbines.
Hold on a mo, IIUC the 1/7 comes from you not McKay, whereby you take his 10w/m2 and say that as you claim it's 70w/m2, then he's only using 1/7 of the area.
You can get a steerable satellite dish and it takes up a circle as big as the swept area.
Circles don't tessellate, so there would be wasted space.
And you still haven't acknowledged the errors in your 320W even for your turn and tilt array.
"Hold on a mo, IIUC the 1/7 comes from you not McKay"
So you think it came from me???
What the hell did you think you were discussing? Maybe you should read the flaming thread.
OK, so ignore that.
How do you know that the reason for the discrepancy between what you can get with genuine calculation from insolation and the ability of a panel to convert it to electricity and the claims of Mackay, then.
...is that you need to take care of the shadow effect and maintenance.
"Circles don't tessellate, so there would be wasted space."
Close packed spherical. Check up on materials science before being a smartass.
And given you don't know where the hell the 7x comes from, I don't care.
"Actually the accepted terminology is vertical axis and horizontal axis: so those big ones with the propeller type blades are known as horizontal axis wind turbines."
Fair enough.
So, those rotor ones that look like windmills a bit? They don't occupy the ground very much.
Correct?
Also as to the complaint:
"but your argument depends on using a tracking array."
Well if that increases the power density of solar PV, then surely this is right to make solar PV EVEN MORE acceptable.
Here's what McKay says about solar insolation:
"The combined effect of these three factors and the additional compli-
cation of the wobble of the seasons is that the average raw power of sunshine
per square metre of south-facing roof in Britain is roughly 110 W/m2,
and the average raw power of sunshine per square metre of flat ground is
roughly 100 W/m2."
So contrary to your assumption, it's pretty fing clear that he is not talking about a turning and tilting array.
Close packed spherical. Check up on materials science before being a smartass.
Well if you're going to start putting them at different heights, how do you get rid of the shadows?
"The combined effect of these three factors"
Three factors where he's double dipping on several, the source of his false answers.
"and the additional complication of the wobble of the seasons"
Negligible.
"the average raw power of sunshine per square metre of south-facing roof in Britain is roughly 110 W/m2"
It isn't. Because one of the three factors was to account for the fact the GROUND is 50 degrees off parallel to the sun. The roofs are either 35 or 60 degrees tilted, so they'd be getting the same insolation as the equatorial regions at that time. Which isn't affected by the northern lattitude of the UK.
"and the average raw power of sunshine per square metre of flat ground is
roughly 100 W/m2."
It isn't.BPL calculated it earlier. I supplied another. Read the thread.
Do the calculation yourself.
"So contrary to your assumption, it's pretty fing clear that he is not talking about a turning and tilting array."
Yet he ALSO claims that there is wasted space because of a shadow effect and the need for maintenance access. Yet those DO NOT EXIST for a non turning and tilting array, and that is why he gets 10W/m^2 as a GENEROUS estimate of SPV capacity. See Buddy Dumdum's explanations of why BPL and my calculations are incorrect.
Or are you tag teaming for buddy?
"Well if you're going to start putting them at different heights"
Who said I was doing that? A layer of marbles still pack CSP.
If you're going to whine, maybe you need to get some cheese.
Well if that increases the power density of solar PV, then surely this is right to make solar PV EVEN MORE acceptable.
Well if you can make it cheaper than just sticking up more panels. In the real world, solar PV panels are so cheap compared to the complication of a tracking and tilting array that it's not worth the bother.
"Well if you can make it cheaper than just sticking up more panels."
Is there an echo in here?
"In the real world, solar PV panels are so cheap compared to the complication of a tracking and tilting array that it's not worth the bother."
Yet the one whining about how Mackay is right is whinging about how it would take a huge footprint of the country to put enough solar to overproduce enough to manage the demand curve.
The higher energy density is just what you need to stop that whine being a problem.
Remember: you hot air blowhards say you're all for renewables, but you want SENSIBLE policy informed by facts. And if the "problem" is how much land it uses, packing higher energy densities is the solution.
You know, here in the real world, we care about many things, normal humans can manage more than one thought at a time.
YMMV, though.
In the future when you ask a question or make a statement that has been developed or discussed earlier, I will just tell you that this has already been discussed and you need to read the thread.
After all, we don't want to make the thread even longer with redundant repetitions, do we now?
"So contrary to your assumption, it's pretty fing clear that he is not talking about a turning and tilting array."
Yet he ALSO claims that there is wasted space because of a shadow effect and the need for maintenance access. Yet those DO NOT EXIST for a non turning and tilting array
This is another exampleof the double dipping and shell game Mackay is playing and why his conclusions are broken. They are broken, moreover, that make the renewables option less attractive than it really is, and this is proof that he's anti-renewables and pro nuclear (since he never seems to bother with the problems of nuclear).
Post a Comment