solarz
Brigadier
They like to talk big, but they aren't even willing to shoot down a civilian drone.
Miscellaneous News
- Thread starter bd popeye
- Start date
They like to talk big, but they aren't even willing to shoot down a civilian drone.
@9dashline
And something else just occurred to me. The EROEI analysis for oil only goes to the point where Petrol is delivered to the pump.
But ICE vehicle engines are at most, 40% efficient at converting petrol into motion.
In comparison, electric vehicles are over 80% efficient at converting electricity from the socket into motion.
So you have the following EROEI modifiers
Petrol: 30->12
P-Type Solar: 18->14
N-Type Solar: 27->21
So for cars, solar electricity has a higher EROEI than oil today.
EROEI omits this stage which is a fatal flaw.
---
As I've said before, your argument that we are doomed due to declining hydrocarbon EROEI is just nonsense. Let there be no more talk of EROEI.
The correct measure to use is "Aggregate Energy Efficiency" which takes into account from when energy is generated to when it is finally consumed into useful work.
EROEI diagram below.
What's the efficiency of the power plant? Petrol is an energy source but the wall socket is not. It's just an energy transmission medium. The energy source is the power plant.
Average coal fired plant in the US is 33% efficiency.
It depends on the power plant, but the power plant I'm specifically looking at is local solar panels.
---
My point is that we are entering an age where [solar electricity + electric cars] is better than [oil + petrol engine cars].
This is from the perspective of both end-cost and aggregate energy efficiency. And we will not face a shortage of sunlight, like with oil.
That alone means solar should be deployed on every new building as its more efficient in the long-run compared to petrol cars.
In Europe for example, the proposal for mandatory solar is 2027 for new commercial buildings and 2029 for new residential buildings.
Electrity is a carrier of energy not a source of energy.
By weight, oil burned optimally contain more energy than TNT explosives, no battery can ever match that.
Oil is both a source of energy and a storage thereof...therefore, "infinite solar" is useless without the storage requirement, batteries are heavy, and they dont get lighter as the fuel is used up, this is why you wont ever see Boeing 747s as EV, or even 18 wheeler semis for that matter, and you can forget about tanks, rockets, fighter jets, tankers, and so on and so forth. Oil doesnt have a storage or conversion issue to solve.
Oil has a positive net return of energy from day 1. You can immediately use it to generate net energy. Solar and wind takes years to have a positive energy return. This is important to note because energy trumps finance, money is useless without energy. You cannot borrow on credit from mother nature to build out the energy infrastructure that you magically assume to already exists when scaling out in mass. This is known as the Energy Trap, read it and understand the implications. Look no further than Europe and its current reaction to energy crunch to see real life example that politics and human nature will not be able to bootstrap to climb out of the Energy Trap hole to make the energy infrastructure transition... No one in society will want to make that sacrifice, thats why we find outselves at crossroads today.
And Renewables are really just replaceables...Just like the recycling hoax, renewables are not sustainable either... there arent enough raw materials, rare earths, to scale out the outlays needed to power global civilization at its current size, scale, and energy requirements much less to allow for the perpetual growth need to maintain current living standards.
Both Texas and California have told its citizens to refrain from charging EVs as its too taxing on existing infrastructure...
Diminishing EROEI means all the bubbles will start popping in an inverse cascading scale invariant fashion... this is a thermodynamic certainty.
There are only 2 renewables with all 3 requirements of ideal electricity source: high EROEI, near immediate energy payoff, continuous on demand generation
Hydroelectricity
Nuclear
What a coincidence that these were also the first renewables put in use and don't require subsidies.
Irrelevant
We will have huge fleets of car batteries which can be used to store solar electricity during the day - which can be released in the evenings. The vast majority of civilian transport will go electric due to lower costs.
No. It doesn't take years for solar to have a net positive energy return.
Look at the example from Fujian.
If you actually bothered to think and to run the numbers, you get a figure of 9.8 months for a solar panel to have a positive energy return. That is good enough.
You have to start thinking properly.
As I've said before, this is a temporary disruption due to insufficient investment in wind and solar.
It looks like Chinese companies plan to double solar production this year, then double again in the following year.
Note that Hydro and Nuclear have a typical 5-year construction period, so they don't really have an immediate energy payoff.
But the other advantages are very true.
In comparison, a solar farm can be put into operation within a year. Then it takes about 10 months for the energy payoff.
I concur, and of these two only nuclear is scalable. There are limited locations condusive to hydro with most of the low hanging fruit already tapped...
Andrew's fallacy is relying on and assuming the current predominantly high EROEI fossil fuel powered infrastructure will always be there to assists in the transforming away from fossil fuels even as he is doing the energy calculations under current status quo. Once wind and solar start hitting anywhere close to a sizeable fraction of current primary energy source it will become exponentially more expensive to continue further transitioning...
Say it takes a barrel of oil to create a unit of sonar panels.. but it would take 100 units of solar panels to create one/first/additional unit of a solar panel. But it would need 10000 panels to create the first 100 units. Getting the picture?? Without fossil fuels the so called transition simply doesnt happen, its entropically impossible. Yet its precisely global hydrocarbons that have now peaked and is trending towards terminal and permanent decline.