I'm not the one playing games with numbers. I'm simply explaining why the figure of 1600 tonnes of steel per MW is obvious bullshit just considering raw material prices. I hoped the argument would be universally intelligible but it seems I'd have to dumb it down even further for you.
It reads "unless they are illegal or straight up trolling". Of course, that means that your comment would be removed too, but that a sacrifice I'm willing to make.
Of course it is. In the glorious past, people didn't need no science to believe in stuff, no matter how crazy it was. Conservatives would like to conserve it.
No. Holy hell, no. How much does half a tonne of steel per panel cost? How much cost would it add to the rest of the hardware in the plant? If you need four panels per kW and hence two tonnes of steel per kW and just even scrap steel costs around $200/tonne, how do you build a PV plant at the current international prices of ~$1000/kW if you'd have to pay over $400/kW just in the worst raw steel? You can't! Come on, your ideas don't even pass a fifteen second sanity test! Surely you can do better than that?
Also, the vast majority of PV installations is fixed. Ever since the panel price came down, there's been very little reason to introduce extra mechanical things that can break. And there are those "concrete bases" of yours. No, not really half a tonne per panel.
You don't need ion thrusters, solar thermal is a thing, too. But it's useless for this anyway, classic hydrolox engines or even hydrolox PDREs are way better for these hops from the perspective of practicality.
Interestingly, if you threw water at the Moon, I wonder if the wonders of photochemistry wouldn't create oxygen for you for free. The water is going to be photodissociated by Sun's UV light, right? The hydrogen is more likely to escape due to its mean velocity, meaning that the oxygen remains for longer. (The question is if the 2400 m/s of lunar escape velocity is good enough for the oxygen to last meaningfully longer if its mean velocity is around 400 m/s or so.)
Moon colonization shout be the goal along with asteroid mining. That is the best way to build a sustaining space travel infrastructure. Mars can wait.
Holy contradiction, Batman! So you want people to fly to a place that's more difficult to brake down near and refuel on than Mars with its atmosphere and water (namely the Moon) and also to a place for which (due to the length of the trips) you need the same long-lived ECLSS as for Mars (namely the asteroids), with both places having more severe lack of gravity than Mars (and we already know how bad it is for humans), but for some reason, you really want to avoid Mars? Why?
I don't know about Australia. Here in Europe, lots of people are working on stuff to make sure it doesn't need to happen. Obviously it's a race between the two, but on the demand side, there's always Norway, and Germans seem really keen to roll out P2G as soon as possible. So it's all a matter of whether the supply side or the demand side increases faster.
Solar panels used to use scraps of IC-quality silicon not quite that long ago. Since then, it's been replaced by much cheaper material. And the Siemens process phase of manufacturing of said material is in turn being replaced by FBR - curiously with great difficulty since even the older process has apparently still some life in it thanks to continuous improvements. It's still a race to the bottom, no matter how you look at it. And since a major input into this process, especially in the Siemens process, is electricity itself, there's apparently every chance that the inevitably coming cheap renewable electricity of tomorrow will keep reducing its own prices in a virtuous cycle.
Ceteris paribus that would be true, but since the potential for future curtailment of renewable resources is tied strongly to their increasing penetration which is again tied strongly to their decreasing price, it's far from obvious that in a multivariate problem like this, your univariate observation would be relevant. Especially if opportunistic consumers have their say. It's very likely that almost all producers will decide that it's better to have at least some small money from the occasional excess production than to have no money at all from it by stopping producing.
Wind and solar plants are NOT at the point when they'd need to be curtailed, and won't be for a significant time. The only one passing gas distraction around here is you.
ANY suggestion that any user's data was compromised during the events of February is entirely false and therefore libelous
Screenshots were produced by an employee of the company depicting the compromised accounts of an individual. Not only makes this the claim not a libel but someone at the company is apparently guilty of CFAA violation.
The only place in the world where gas is meaningfully cheap for large scale electricity production is the US - the same US that for some weird reasons has absurdly high prices of renewable generation installations. The remaining 95% of the world does not enjoy such unusual circumstances, so it is in fact the US experience that is completely irrelevant.
The metaphore was about material stability. That has been already proven as correct. And availability is also hardly a problem, silicon is one of the most abundant elements in Earth's crust.
Wrong again. Natural gas is curtailed quite a bit so that it can serve to make up for wind/solar intermittance.
We were talking about renewables. My country has hardly any gas plant anyway, gas is expensive AS FUCK around here. Only a total idiot would burn gas in a power plant at these prices.
As penetration of wind and solar grow, curtailment will increase.
You're delusional. Norwegians, electric car owners and other opportunistic consumers will slurp it like there's no tomorrow.
Slashdot Mirror
I'm not the one playing games with numbers. I'm simply explaining why the figure of 1600 tonnes of steel per MW is obvious bullshit just considering raw material prices. I hoped the argument would be universally intelligible but it seems I'd have to dumb it down even further for you.
Pretty sure that that argument of saturated gas was shown wrong over a century ago. The effect is logarithmic.
...uh..that's what "saturation" mean.
It reads "unless they are illegal or straight up trolling". Of course, that means that your comment would be removed too, but that a sacrifice I'm willing to make.
I'm pretty sure that saturation plays a role in this. 100x of concentration does not give you 100x the effect.
Of course it is. In the glorious past, people didn't need no science to believe in stuff, no matter how crazy it was. Conservatives would like to conserve it.
That's a welcome sudden breakout of common sense. Let's see how long it lasts!
No. Holy hell, no. How much does half a tonne of steel per panel cost? How much cost would it add to the rest of the hardware in the plant? If you need four panels per kW and hence two tonnes of steel per kW and just even scrap steel costs around $200/tonne, how do you build a PV plant at the current international prices of ~$1000/kW if you'd have to pay over $400/kW just in the worst raw steel? You can't! Come on, your ideas don't even pass a fifteen second sanity test! Surely you can do better than that?
Also, the vast majority of PV installations is fixed. Ever since the panel price came down, there's been very little reason to introduce extra mechanical things that can break. And there are those "concrete bases" of yours. No, not really half a tonne per panel.
You don't need ion thrusters, solar thermal is a thing, too. But it's useless for this anyway, classic hydrolox engines or even hydrolox PDREs are way better for these hops from the perspective of practicality.
Implying that China has no "prison society" of its own...
Interestingly, if you threw water at the Moon, I wonder if the wonders of photochemistry wouldn't create oxygen for you for free. The water is going to be photodissociated by Sun's UV light, right? The hydrogen is more likely to escape due to its mean velocity, meaning that the oxygen remains for longer. (The question is if the 2400 m/s of lunar escape velocity is good enough for the oxygen to last meaningfully longer if its mean velocity is around 400 m/s or so.)
Moon colonization shout be the goal along with asteroid mining. That is the best way to build a sustaining space travel infrastructure. Mars can wait.
Holy contradiction, Batman! So you want people to fly to a place that's more difficult to brake down near and refuel on than Mars with its atmosphere and water (namely the Moon) and also to a place for which (due to the length of the trips) you need the same long-lived ECLSS as for Mars (namely the asteroids), with both places having more severe lack of gravity than Mars (and we already know how bad it is for humans), but for some reason, you really want to avoid Mars? Why?
So according to you, mounting one 20 kg panel to the ground or to the roof requires 460 kg of structural mass?
I didn't notice any increase over previous year. (But then again, our country is not at trade war with China, so...)
$0.15/kWh delivered would be a disruptive technology.
What? $0.15/kWh of what? Surely not straight solar, that's around $0.025/kWh in Chile and Saudi Arabia right now.
I don't know about Australia. Here in Europe, lots of people are working on stuff to make sure it doesn't need to happen. Obviously it's a race between the two, but on the demand side, there's always Norway, and Germans seem really keen to roll out P2G as soon as possible. So it's all a matter of whether the supply side or the demand side increases faster.
I think I've seen someone mention that they're incorporated in Delaware, but I might be wrong.
Unless you live in a Moebius solar system. ;)
Solar panels used to use scraps of IC-quality silicon not quite that long ago. Since then, it's been replaced by much cheaper material. And the Siemens process phase of manufacturing of said material is in turn being replaced by FBR - curiously with great difficulty since even the older process has apparently still some life in it thanks to continuous improvements. It's still a race to the bottom, no matter how you look at it. And since a major input into this process, especially in the Siemens process, is electricity itself, there's apparently every chance that the inevitably coming cheap renewable electricity of tomorrow will keep reducing its own prices in a virtuous cycle.
Ceteris paribus that would be true, but since the potential for future curtailment of renewable resources is tied strongly to their increasing penetration which is again tied strongly to their decreasing price, it's far from obvious that in a multivariate problem like this, your univariate observation would be relevant. Especially if opportunistic consumers have their say. It's very likely that almost all producers will decide that it's better to have at least some small money from the occasional excess production than to have no money at all from it by stopping producing.
Wind and solar plants are NOT at the point when they'd need to be curtailed, and won't be for a significant time. The only one passing gas distraction around here is you.
ANY suggestion that any user's data was compromised during the events of February is entirely false and therefore libelous
Screenshots were produced by an employee of the company depicting the compromised accounts of an individual. Not only makes this the claim not a libel but someone at the company is apparently guilty of CFAA violation.
The only place in the world where gas is meaningfully cheap for large scale electricity production is the US - the same US that for some weird reasons has absurdly high prices of renewable generation installations. The remaining 95% of the world does not enjoy such unusual circumstances, so it is in fact the US experience that is completely irrelevant.
The metaphore was about material stability. That has been already proven as correct. And availability is also hardly a problem, silicon is one of the most abundant elements in Earth's crust.
I know a lot of solar scientists and engineers, and I don't know any of them predicting 1 cent per kilowatt-hour price in ten years.
Thierry Lepercq, head of research, technology and innovation at the French energy company Engie SA, said in an interview at Bloomberg that he sees a potential for the cost of solar electricity to fall below $10-megawatt hour (1/kWh) in the sunniest climates by 2025.
Wrong again. Natural gas is curtailed quite a bit so that it can serve to make up for wind/solar intermittance.
We were talking about renewables. My country has hardly any gas plant anyway, gas is expensive AS FUCK around here. Only a total idiot would burn gas in a power plant at these prices.
As penetration of wind and solar grow, curtailment will increase.
You're delusional. Norwegians, electric car owners and other opportunistic consumers will slurp it like there's no tomorrow.