|
View previous topic :: View next topic
|
| Author |
Message |
SDR
Joined: 02 Oct 2004
Posts: 1544
Location: San Francisco
|
 Posted: Sun Mar 13, 2005 8:46 pm Post subject: |
    |
|
This I can tell you: Sometime in the late 70s, I was privileged to here scientist-author Isaac Asimov, on a radio program, tell his host that the PV industry was only waiting for the Federal Govt to step up to the plate and do something no smaller entity might accomplish: buy enough PV "cells" -- for use in remote stations and military bases, etc -- that the price could be lowered to a much more attractive level.
Anybody know if he was wrong? It's never happened, obviously.
SDR |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
Kevin
Site Admin
Joined: 13 Apr 2004
Posts: 1048
Location: Eugene, Oregon
|
| Posted: Sun Mar 13, 2005 10:08 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Look, I don't want to keep being hard on you. But you're not getting it.
First you assert yourself as a superior authority to the National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL):
| Architorture wrote: | | i'll start by saying i don't agree with those numbers in that it appears that they have taken just the flat production of a high end PV and then divided US electricity production [not all US energy] by that number and come up with the figure 10 million acres... which doesn't take into account that you aren't going to have sunny days everyday and you aren't going to have the same amount of sun everywhere...especially in cities where you are plagued by smog which would interfere with the solar energy ever reaching the PVs.. and of course the number of acres the batteries would take up in order to have energy at night or off peak sun hours... |
While again overlooking the fact previously repeated, that the figures quoted are already for photovoltaic systems, so many of the alleged additional factors you're throwing up are probably already accounted for. And smog may or may not be in there. But until you check it out concretely, you're just playing with word salad.
If you want to seriously discuss this, read the references, and quote us the errors, if you find some. That would be great. Nobody and nothing is perfect, and we all learn by getting down to the real stuff. Which this kind of fluffy armchair criticism isn't.
Second, there are enormous falacies and disparities in your energy calculation. Just for starters, embodied energy is a useful tool for comparative estimation of sustainability. It is not meaningful in the kind of air-sketch you're trying to put over.
Do a Google search, and read two or three serious work-ups on interpretation of embodied energy. You'll find it is not meant to be used as an absolute measure of energy costs, and that for a host of reasons it is not valid to use it that way. And in this case you're comparing it to nothing, so your air-numbers are conveniently prone to show whatever you want to think you're showing.
But I'm not going to take my time to feed you more authoritative sources, just so you can sit back and blow them off in the perfection of your own mind. Just keep in mind, without accountable definitions, accurate reading, and solid references to anchor them, that kind of word-fluff is just lightweight dross, floating away on the breeze.
You want to learn to be an architect? You want to earn the responsibility for the design of real buildings, life safety, neighbohood impacts, significant budgets, etc? You've got to learn the difference between spinning up a bunch of cotton-candy studio BS, and doing quick, accurate, hard-nosed and accountable research and estimating.
(Unless you can draw like an angel, in which case they might let you just keep on spinning the bull until either you choke on it, drown in it, or learn to serve it spiced and reheated as a professor.)
You've probably got plenty of time. Take it.
Get real.
Last edited by Kevin on Sun Mar 13, 2005 10:44 pm; edited 2 times in total |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Architorture
Joined: 31 Jul 2004
Posts: 1334
|
| Posted: Sun Mar 13, 2005 10:19 pm Post subject: |
|
|
so the only thing you have a problem with after my previous post is my dislike of the number 10 million acres???
i guess you missed the part where i said the issue wasn't even about that, that it was about the ability to CREATE the PVs in the first place... that was the part that you deleted from the quote and chose instead to take on the opening paragraph... which i said in the end didn't even matter, b/c it was a fine vehicle to demonstrate my real point... which you haven't addressed |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Architorture
Joined: 31 Jul 2004
Posts: 1334
|
| Posted: Sun Mar 13, 2005 10:21 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| even if 10 million acres is right and it considered every single possible factor without a doubt... the way the scenario plays out certainly doesn't seem that great |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Kevin
Site Admin
Joined: 13 Apr 2004
Posts: 1048
Location: Eugene, Oregon
|
| Posted: Sun Mar 13, 2005 10:41 pm Post subject: |
|
|
My problem is that your "senario" is just a yarn. It's all BS, an out-of-scale straw man, totally unrelated to what could, would, or can't happen in the real world.
Arbitrary selection of "facts" and non-facts, broken assumptions, incompatible units, false equations, no basis of comparison, etc. You've given nothing to address except the product of your own imagination.
On that, you are indeed the ultimate authority.
What's the full life-cycle embodied energy of a fueled and functioning conventional U.S. safety standards fission-based nuclear power plant? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Architorture
Joined: 31 Jul 2004
Posts: 1334
|
| Posted: Sun Mar 13, 2005 10:44 pm Post subject: |
|
|
i took your advice and checked out the reference work as well...
turning the corner: ernergy solution for a 21st century by dohn riley, mark mclaughlin...
turns out they talk about zero-point energy and tesla coils in that text as future energy options... i'm pretty sure you had this to say about such things when i suggested them...
| Kevin wrote: |
Sorry, my friend, that is fantasy, pure fanstasy.
Not something to build energy plans around... |
then further reading into the NCPV [national center for photovoltaics] which is a devision of dept. of energy, shows that even though they have thrown out this 10 million acre number...they are only aiming at getting 50 square miles of PV modules up and running by 2050....
a quick refresher... there are 640 acres in a square mile, so 10 million acres equals 15625 square miles... so 50 square miles is less than 1/3 of 1% of this 10 million acres needed to supply US energy...
and on top of that all, the NCPV feels the need to answer questions of whether or not there will be enough materials just to create this very small portion of what would be needed...
these are the problems with PV...and it isn't an issue of design, you aren't going to design out 1.8 trillion kWh of power spent...
PVs are great for small applications on homes and on rooftops and such to help out... maybe dull the intensity of peak hour electricity demand, but PVs are not going to be able to be a stand alone system to handle any reasonably sized load... |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Architorture
Joined: 31 Jul 2004
Posts: 1334
|
| Posted: Sun Mar 13, 2005 10:49 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Kevin wrote: | My problem is that your "senario" is just a yarn. It's all BS, an out-of-scale straw man, totally unrelated to what could, would, or can't happen in the real world.
Arbitrary selection of "facts" and non-facts, broken assumptions, incompatible units, false equations, no basis of comparison, etc. You've given nothing to address except the product of your own imagination.
On that, you are indeed the ultimate authority.
What's the full life-cycle embodied energy of a fueled and functioning conventional U.S. safety standards fission-based nuclear power plant? |
what is BS?
i have taken the numbers you have provided...
10 million acres, 8-11 year payback time, and then i took the US electricity usage number off the CIA factbook.... the rest is all very simple math...
maybe my 20 years as a time frame is a bit extreme, but it demonstrates the point.... how long are you going to stretch out this process???
looking at the NCPV numbers on how much they expect the PV industry to expand over the next 45 years, it would take several thousand years to get to 10 million acres, that doesn't seem very promising |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Kevin
Site Admin
Joined: 13 Apr 2004
Posts: 1048
Location: Eugene, Oregon
|
| Posted: Sun Mar 13, 2005 11:03 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Thanks for that recollection, SDR. We're now at at a point where the big oil companies are finally investing in the PV production capacity, while the single-party conglomeration in Washington D.C. just fiddles.
Architorture, now you've mixing engineering and politics. The point is not that this solution or that solution is a snap-your-fingers all in one fix.
If you want to help figure out how to get from where we are, to a sustainable planetary habitation, you've got to think in systems.
Of course we're not going to be running everything with photovoltaics - ever, let alone overnight. But big buildings, for instance, in a wide variety of places and circumstances, are running mostly on their own energy TODAY.
Meanwhile, there are huge opportunities that the mainstream is letting pass us by, too busy with business-as-usual, putting one foot in front of another without falling. Let's size our opportunities up responsibly, and try to help them happen.
Photovoltaics are not THE answer. But it's pretty clear they can be a contributing part of a realistically complex and operational answer.
Or maybe we can get by with just sitting back and throwing darts at any real drawing someone has the guts to put up on the wall.
Put up a fairy tale, and I'll be the first to puncture it. But put up a real drawing, and then we've got something to talk about. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Architorture
Joined: 31 Jul 2004
Posts: 1334
|
| Posted: Sun Mar 13, 2005 11:06 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Kevin wrote: | ...snip....
Second, there are enormous falacies and disparities in your energy calculation. Just for starters, embodied energy is a useful tool for comparative estimation of sustainability. It is not meaningful in the kind of air-sketch you're trying to put over.
....
You want to learn to be an architect? You want to earn the responsibility for the design of real buildings, life safety, neighbohood impacts, significant budgets, etc? You've got to learn the difference between spinning up a bunch of cotton-candy studio BS, and doing quick, accurate, hard-nosed and accountable research and estimating.
Get real. |
first off.... editing a post 2 times after a few other posts have already been made one of which was your own... .hardly what i would call proper forum ediquette
what are the disparities? i have 3 types of units in all of my calculations, acres, kilo watt hours, and years... the math seems pretty clear and simple to me.... so much so it is the same methodology used by the NCPV to do their calculations
| NCPV Website wrote: | Note on Methodology
Most of the energy that goes into manufacturing a PV module is in the form of electricity (kWh). Payback calculations are based on paying back this electricity with PV electricity produced by installed modules. Thus, the equation energy payback is simply:
Energy used to make the PV module, (in kWh/unit area)
÷
Energy produced by the PV module per period of time, (in kWh/unit area/time).
This is the equation that is used to calculate the numbers quoted in this FAQ and in the referenced studies. The electricity from installed PV offsets the electricity that made the PV in the first place; it doesn't matter how that electricity was made or what fuel source was used. |
finally, this is the 'fireside forum' not the 'architecture forum' so i'd appreciate it if you didn't try to throw architecture in my face as a way of proving your point... it comes off as petty and defensive |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Kevin
Site Admin
Joined: 13 Apr 2004
Posts: 1048
Location: Eugene, Oregon
|
| Posted: Sun Mar 13, 2005 11:07 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Architorture wrote: | | 10 million acres, 8-11 year payback time, and then i took the US electricity usage number off the CIA factbook.... the rest is all very simple math... |
The most basic problem is that the payback time is an embodied energy calculation, not a real physical quantity. It's not valid to use it the way you're trying to. Google it. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Architorture
Joined: 31 Jul 2004
Posts: 1334
|
| Posted: Sun Mar 13, 2005 11:10 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Kevin wrote: |
Architorture, now you've mixing engineering and politics. The point is not that this solution or that solution is a snap-your-fingers all in one fix.
If you want to help figure out how to get from where we are, to a sustainable planetary habitation, you've got to think in systems.
Of course we're not going to be running everything with photovoltaics - ever, let alone overnight. But big buildings, for instance, in a wide variety of places and circumstances, are running mostly on their own energy TODAY.
Meanwhile, there are huge opportunities that the mainstream is letting pass us by, too busy with business-as-usual, putting one foot in front of another without falling. Let's size our opportunities up responsibly, and try to help them happen.
Photovoltaics are not THE answer. But it's pretty clear they can be a contributing part of a realistically complex and operational answer.
Or maybe we can get by with just sitting back and throwing darts at any real drawing someone has the guts to put up on the wall.
Put up a fairy tale, and I'll be the first to puncture it. But put up a real drawing, and then we've got something to talk about. |
well then don't tell me that something i post is
"pure fantasy"
if you don't want me to post that PV's providing all or even a significant amount of our energy is
"pure fantasy" |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Kevin
Site Admin
Joined: 13 Apr 2004
Posts: 1048
Location: Eugene, Oregon
|
| Posted: Sun Mar 13, 2005 11:23 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Are you losing it? Slow down, buddy! |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Architorture
Joined: 31 Jul 2004
Posts: 1334
|
| Posted: Sun Mar 13, 2005 11:25 pm Post subject: |
|
|
what?
i posted something you decided to call it pure fantasy.... you posted that 10 million acres could provide our energy needs... i have returned the favor, i don't see what the big problem is |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Kevin
Site Admin
Joined: 13 Apr 2004
Posts: 1048
Location: Eugene, Oregon
|
| Posted: Sun Mar 13, 2005 11:36 pm Post subject: |
|
|
If you insist...
Let's recall how we got started on the question of what area of solar panels would theoretically be needed to meet "our energy needs":
| Architorture wrote: | | as for solar panels, they can never replace our energy needs, it isn't possible unless we actually significantly reduce those needs... although a massive amount of solar energy hits the planet every second... that amount is entirely fixed for a certain area... i can't remember the exact number at the moment...eitherway a better part of the US would have to be covered in solar panels to meet our current energy needs... and that is using the THEORETICAL conversion rates... which are far from the actual rates seen in panels today... |
And their embodied energy:
| Architorture wrote: | | then of course...it takes more energy to produce one solar panel than that solar panel will produce in its lifetime... so according to eMergy...it just isn't going to work... |
(Note to future readers: Not. ) |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Architorture
Joined: 31 Jul 2004
Posts: 1334
|
| Posted: Sun Mar 13, 2005 11:43 pm Post subject: |
|
|
okay i was wrong about the area needed... but as it has played out through the thread 10 million acres of PVs is no more reasonable or realistic than half the united states...when we consider all the contributing factors
okay one solar panel can produce another...in 8-11 years
where did my signature go? there was nothing offensive about it... it is just my silent protest of those who choose to edit posts 30 minutes after they are made and after themselves and others have responded... NOT good etiquette at all |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
blogger
del.icio.us
digg
slashdot
