Imagine Buenos Aires In 2030

[scotttswan]

I am sorry, but I fail to see the point of your argument. Yes, of course energy generation efficiency cannot be the main criteria for every case. Batteries (like AA batteries) are a very inefficient power source, but extremely practical and useful for specific scenarios. I'd prefer to use AAA batteries to power my digital camera than a small bottle of more efficient gasoline. But when you are talking about a main energy source for broad day-to-day use (homes, industry, mass transit, water purification) for an entire society, comparing energy efficiency across multiple proposed energy sources is a critical factor.

No one is talking about using it as the main energy source, but in combination with many many other forms of energy that do not cause global warming.

Solar can also be used in different ways such as heating water for use later. Saving the energy needed for showers etc.

Finally not all Solar panels are equal and new ones are being invented all the time, in the meantime anything that can help move the earth towards more sustainable practices is a good thing.

 

[camberiu]

No one is talking about using it as the main energy source, but in combination with many many other forms of energy that do not cause global warming.

Actually lots of people are talking about it, including the folks that made that graph suggesting covering half a million kilometers of the Earth with solar panels. I have no issues with solar being a solution for niche and very specific cases. But solar will not become a main energy source.

 

[PhilipDT]

So for you the value of that $100 bill does not affect the calculation of the efficiency of the energy output when burning it? I'd argue that you are not getting 50% efficiency when you compute in the value of the dollar bill. You are actually getting a much shittier output (cost per watt) than the dog shit. I think we are arguing over semantics here.

I think you're confused about your own semantics.

You talk about how efficiently electricity is produced from energy sources.

Photovoltic cells you mention are 16%
Hydroelectric generators are over 90%
Coal around 42%
Nuclear 0.3%

However that is not useful for making any descions if you don't look at complementary data such as.

Solar energy is free yet but doesn't contain that much energy and capturing that energy requires expensive installations
Hydroelectric generators efficiently capture the potential energy generated by the rain cycle on the rivers that they're placed on, yet cannot be easily constructed and there it is difficult to control the amount of "fuel" availible
Nuclear power plants are very inefficient in converting the specific energy of uranium into electric energy but the specific energy of uranium is roughly 3.5 million times greater than that of coal. The mining transport and disposal of uranium have high costs when compared to other fuels.

And so on and so forth.

 

[LeoNubarron]

There's a quick way of solving this, who here thinks "renewable" energy is a good idea AND has invested his own money in it?

 

[camberiu]

Solar energy is free yet but doesn't contain that much energy and capturing that energy requires expensive installations

How does the above contradicts this:

"[background=rgb(252, 252, 252)] It takes energy (lots of it) to concentrate solar power into something that we can actually use. Fossil fuels are cheap and efficient because nature and the Earth already did that work for us though millions years. Now, with solar, we have to do that. We have take pure solar energy and concentrate it and convert it to something that we can use. And that takes lots of power in itself. That is why solar can never be efficient. That is why solar can never be cheap."[/background]


[background=rgb(252, 252, 252)]You can claim that the graph alone is not enough to make a point. Fine. But I fail to see where in terms of fundamental argument, we disagree. [/background]

 

[camberiu]

There's a quick way of solving this, who here thinks "renewable" energy is a good idea AND has invested his own money in it?

Google, Elon Musk and many others have invested in alternative energy. I think the more important questions is: Would they without government subsidies?

 

[thorsten]

How many people who believe in nuclear energy or any other form have invested in it - hmmm, maybe not the smartest question... And for the subsidies: do you think that railways would have been build, the telephone network, etc. w/o subsidies?

 

[camberiu]

And for the subsidies: do you think that railways would have been build, the telephone network, etc. w/o subsidies?

Who subsidized the Wright Brothers again? or Thomas Edison? Most of the rail roads build in the US during the 19th century where 100% private and with no subsidies. Brazil's first phone company ([font=open_sansregular] Companhia Telephonica Brasileira) was founded in 1890, was 100% private and had no subsidies[/font]


[font=open_sansregular]You think companies happen because of the government subsidies. It is actually the other way around, governments exist and are able to give subsidies because they can tax companies and individuals who actually build stuff and deliver services. [/font]

 

[thorsten]

You probably never heard about federal land grants and state regulated monopolies...

 

[ajoknoblauch]

Meanwhile, back in the Atacama... http://tinyurl.com/npb54rr