[AdamB]

That gives 184 years before failure, on average.

Where do you get 2 years?

I am not a huge fan of wind or solar as a replacement for fossil fuels, but I want to know the real facts.

I explained all the math, I don't see how that is inconsistent with it.

You don't understand how 2 years blade life is inconsistent with 184 years blade life? Seriously?

[vtsnowedin]

I suspect that a two year blade life is about as factual as Trump winning California by a landslide.

[Peak_Yeast]

Solar panels do work.

1. The glass and frames can easily be reused by replacing the degraded film behind them or the degraded silicon wafers. These are the most energy consuming in production. Basically the frame will never break if treated nicely.
2. The solarpanels are not destroyed after 25years - they are at 80% and could easily be there for another 25 years or even 75 years altogether. After 75 years they will produce about 50% of original. With the energy efficiency gains in lighting, electronics and other equipment are experiencing that level may just be fine.
3. They do not interfere with wildlife, pollute, make noise. They can be integrated as a functioning part of roof or windows in the house and thus replace other materials that would have been consumed.
4. When the broken glass need to be recycled - hopefully - in large scale it is fairly easy to use solarheating to melt it. - It is just about wanting to do it.
5. We do not need huge amounts of storage to make a functioning society on solar power - but we do need to adjust our frantic and stupidly built society and production.
6. Storage is quickly becoming much cheaper and feasible for many.

Right now is a good time here in Denmark - solarpanels can be purchased at 0.2$/W... I am buying about 30KWp (I have about 16KWp now) which my calculations shows will bring me through most of the year in combination with a 30KWh battery and a Diesel generator for the remaining few % of the year. This means I can go off grid for the next 20-30 years since the batteries has about 10K cycles at the predicted consumption. After about 10 years I am in plus on the budget at current electricity pricing.

[mustang19]

Solar panels do work.

1. The glass and frames can easily be reused by replacing the degraded film behind them or the degraded silicon wafers. These are the most energy consuming in production. Basically the frame will never break if treated nicely.
2. The solarpanels are not destroyed after 25years - they are at 80% and could easily be there for another 25 years or even 75 years altogether. After 75 years they will produce about 50% of original. With the energy efficiency gains in lighting, electronics and other equipment are experiencing that level may just be fine.
3. They do not interfere with wildlife, pollute, make noise. They can be integrated as a functioning part of roof or windows in the house and thus replace other materials that would have been consumed.
4. When the broken glass need to be recycled - hopefully - in large scale it is fairly easy to use solarheating to melt it. - It is just about wanting to do it.
5. We do not need huge amounts of storage to make a functioning society on solar power - but we do need to adjust our frantic and stupidly built society and production.
6. Storage is quickly becoming much cheaper and feasible for many.

Right now is a good time here in Denmark - solarpanels can be purchased at 0.2$/W... I am buying about 30KWp (I have about 16KWp now) which my calculations shows will bring me through most of the year in combination with a 30KWh battery and a Diesel generator for the remaining few % of the year. This means I can go off grid for the next 20-30 years since the batteries has about 10K cycles at the predicted consumption. After about 10 years I am in plus on the budget at current electricity pricing.

Solar- by definition- is just crowding out photosynthesis or whatever is there.

Even in desert settings where it makes sense, there are alternate uses. Theres passive solar- you can just take whatever solar you're using, heat water and use that for work. The reason this isnt done is because deserts are remote and nobody wants power there. Solar panels are only 25% efficient and waste a lot of sun.

[Peak_Yeast]

I use a combination of solarcells and solarheaters.

I have vacuum solarheaters for the water and some heating 60 tubes (6m2) + 5 m2 normal coppertubing and rockwool insulation- and a large storage tank.
I have air solarheaters built on the outside of the southern wall - about 12 m2..

The solarcells are, of course, to run the computers, the cooker, the lights, the electric car and so forth.

Solarcells has been produced with efficiencies upto about 45% they may become the norm in the future. Just like we started with A-Si or Mono-Si with 10%. Besides a low efficiency is NO PROBLEM unless of course, you live in a very space restricted area. Roof tops are almost always clear space... On the hourse, the garage or outhouse.

Crowding out photosynthesis? I can promise you - the grass on the lawn does not provide much heating nor electricity.

Whatever space is down on the ground is to be used for vegetables or recreational purposes.

[mustang19]

I use a combination of solarcells and solarheaters.

I have vacuum solarheaters for the water and some heating - and a large storage tank.
I have air solarheaters built on the outside of the southern wall.

The solarcells are, of course, to run the computers, the cooker, the lights, the electric car and so forth.

Solarcells has been produced with efficiencies upto about 45% they may become the norm in the future. Just like we started with A-Si or Mono-Si with 10%. Besides a low efficiency is NO PROBLEM unless of course, you live in a very space restricted area. Roof tops are almost always clear space... On the hourse, the garage or outhouse.

For that same area you could grow plants, or whatever. Its just more effort.

Humans consume 10mwh per year just to survive. The Sahara produces 4mwh per square meter, which should allow a density of 400,000 people per mile.

However, after various losses that's really 4,000, and plants usually have 100 kwh energy after sitting on a square meter for a year. That's 99% loss. Even if you powered the Sahara on solar it would only support 40 people per square mile. And considering shelter it would come down to a few people per square mile, which it already has.

So placing solar in farmland will obviously just reduce the crop yield of whatever is growing there, and even in barren desert it produces little to no food vs what's already there.

Covering 10% the entire Sahara in panels would produce 1e18 watthours, or roughly the entire global energy supply. However, there are 2 billion trees in the sahara containing 1e16 wh of energy. These are just rough numbers but it's still a lot of waste to put panels.

[AdamB]

I suspect that a two year blade life is about as factual as Trump winning California by a landslide.

Sure seems like it to me.

[Peak_Yeast]

Well. I dont know why you think it is an argument that Sahara has so much sun. It lacks a lot of other necessary things for people and plants to survive and thrive there. - Water, security, infrastructure - other materials than rubble and dust - just to mention a few. ... Besides I dont live there and my skin colour would be against me.

No arable land on my property is taken by solar panels nor needs to be used if put up at residences. That is my argument. I need a place to live and a roof over my head. I believe most people would like that.

I will use as much of my property as possible on food production, but there also needs to be other things. I have just brought home 60 large old windows for free. So now they are going to be used in a greenhouse instead of being smashed and thrown out. As with the first 100 windows before I came along and saw the insanity. Im somewhat experienced in hydroponics and aeroponics so I expect to be able to get a rather good production per m2.

[AdamB]

Solar- by definition- is just crowding out photosynthesis or whatever is there.

Really? So the solar panels on the roof of my garage are crowding out...grass growing? Trees? Sweet corn and potatoes?

THINK before writing something this silly Mustang. Please?

Once you get one of THOSE reputations around here, it is difficult to shake off.

Solar panels are only 25% efficient and waste a lot of sun.

Good thing sunlight is free then!!!!

[Peak_Yeast]

But actually - Covering large areas of a desert with rows of solarpanels could just change the desert to something useful.

With shade and the conversion of heat to electricity plants may have a better time there and the humidity may be able to rise. Of course it has to be done on gigantic areas. By having all that cheap electric energy you could produce all sorts of items to sell.

You can even make solarpanels that are semi-transparent so you could adjust the amount of sunlight reaching the ground to the perfect level for whatever crops that are best suited for the arid place.

You could use the electricity to pump in water from far away or from far down...

But Sahara is still not the place to go... Security is non-existent. You would be robbed, murdered and looted twice a day in a place like that. ... Those are the real problems we face now, actually. Overpopulation and poverty combined with a lot of weapons that scrupulous countries produce and sell.

[mustang19]

But actually - Covering large areas of a desert with rows of solarpanels could just change the desert to something useful.

With shade and the conversion of heat to electricity plants may have a better time there and the humidity may be able to rise. Of course it has to be done on gigantic areas. By having all that cheap electric energy you could produce all sorts of items to sell.

You can even make solarpanels that are semi-transparent so you could adjust the amount of sunlight reaching the ground to the perfect level for whatever crops that are best suited for the arid place.

You could use the electricity to pump in water from far away or from far down...

But Sahara is still not the place to go... Security is non-existent. You would be robbed, murdered and looted twice a day in a place like that. ... Those are the real problems we face now, actually. Overpopulation and poverty combined with a lot of weapons that scrupulous countries produce and sell.

Here is an example...

Using the solar power of the Sahara would cool the desert and raise precipitation there, which would not be usable because of panels.

If the 3.5m sq m sahara was rained on in proportion to the other 3.25m sq m of the earth that is arable, this would virtually destroy global agriculture.

Is solar power actually sustainable if used in the sahara or will it just massively divert rainfall?

[Peak_Yeast]

Nobody can know that. Even the computer simulations dont do predictions precise.

We are in a special warm period that may just stretch out to be 20-30-40k year longer than usual - partly due to human influence, but most because of natural cycles of the planet this may cause increased humidity and increased rainfall.

Sahara was a thriving rainforest, grassland not too long ago. - So it may not be bad that it rains over sahara. And certainly not for the people and animals living there. If I remember correctly the winds mainly blow humidity into the african continent from the indian ocean - so Sahara will be about the last place they pass before the winds blow out to sea again.

[mustang19]

Nobody can know that. Even the computer simulations dont do predictions precise.

We are in a special warm period that may just stretch out to be 20-30-40k year longer than usual - partly due to human influence, but most because of natural cycles of the planet this may cause increased humidity and increased rainfall.

Sahara was a thriving rainforest, grassland not too long ago. - So it may not be bad that it rains over sahara. And certainly not for the people and animals living there. If I remember correctly the winds mainly blow humidity into the african continent from the indian ocean - so Sahara will be about the last place they pass before the winds blow out to sea again.

Eh I'm not ready to take risks with technology that could destroy the world.

[Newfie]

Solar panels do work.

1. The glass and frames can easily be reused by replacing the degraded film behind them or the degraded silicon wafers. These are the most energy consuming in production. Basically the frame will never break if treated nicely.
2. The solarpanels are not destroyed after 25years - they are at 80% and could easily be there for another 25 years or even 75 years altogether. After 75 years they will produce about 50% of original. With the energy efficiency gains in lighting, electronics and other equipment are experiencing that level may just be fine.
3. They do not interfere with wildlife, pollute, make noise. They can be integrated as a functioning part of roof or windows in the house and thus replace other materials that would have been consumed.
4. When the broken glass need to be recycled - hopefully - in large scale it is fairly easy to use solarheating to melt it. - It is just about wanting to do it.
5. We do not need huge amounts of storage to make a functioning society on solar power - but we do need to adjust our frantic and stupidly built society and production.
6. Storage is quickly becoming much cheaper and feasible for many.

Right now is a good time here in Denmark - solarpanels can be purchased at 0.2$/W... I am buying about 30KWp (I have about 16KWp now) which my calculations shows will bring me through most of the year in combination with a 30KWh battery and a Diesel generator for the remaining few % of the year. This means I can go off grid for the next 20-30 years since the batteries has about 10K cycles at the predicted consumption. After about 10 years I am in plus on the budget at current electricity pricing.

Solar- by definition- is just crowding out photosynthesis or whatever is there.

Even in desert settings where it makes sense, there are alternate uses. Theres passive solar- you can just take whatever solar you're using, heat water and use that for work. The reason this isnt done is because deserts are remote and nobody wants power there. Solar panels are only 25% efficient and waste a lot of sun.

I get annoyed when I see a field converted to solar. I would encourage solar installations on commercial building roofs and in parking lots, areas that are not growing stuff. We need more growing stuff to remove CO2.

My principal beef with wind and solar is the way it is marketed, as a replacement for big fossil plants. That perpetrates the myth that our current high energy society could he made sustainable.

I can see wind and solar (photovoltaic or hot water) as sources once we have drastically reduced our usage. We must learn conservation of energy first. That is the hard and missing lesson.

[mustang19]

Solar panels do work.

1. The glass and frames can easily be reused by replacing the degraded film behind them or the degraded silicon wafers. These are the most energy consuming in production. Basically the frame will never break if treated nicely.
2. The solarpanels are not destroyed after 25years - they are at 80% and could easily be there for another 25 years or even 75 years altogether. After 75 years they will produce about 50% of original. With the energy efficiency gains in lighting, electronics and other equipment are experiencing that level may just be fine.
3. They do not interfere with wildlife, pollute, make noise. They can be integrated as a functioning part of roof or windows in the house and thus replace other materials that would have been consumed.
4. When the broken glass need to be recycled - hopefully - in large scale it is fairly easy to use solarheating to melt it. - It is just about wanting to do it.
5. We do not need huge amounts of storage to make a functioning society on solar power - but we do need to adjust our frantic and stupidly built society and production.
6. Storage is quickly becoming much cheaper and feasible for many.

Right now is a good time here in Denmark - solarpanels can be purchased at 0.2$/W... I am buying about 30KWp (I have about 16KWp now) which my calculations shows will bring me through most of the year in combination with a 30KWh battery and a Diesel generator for the remaining few % of the year. This means I can go off grid for the next 20-30 years since the batteries has about 10K cycles at the predicted consumption. After about 10 years I am in plus on the budget at current electricity pricing.

Solar- by definition- is just crowding out photosynthesis or whatever is there.

Even in desert settings where it makes sense, there are alternate uses. Theres passive solar- you can just take whatever solar you're using, heat water and use that for work. The reason this isnt done is because deserts are remote and nobody wants power there. Solar panels are only 25% efficient and waste a lot of sun.

I get annoyed when I see a field converted to solar. I would encourage solar installations on commercial building roofs and in parking lots, areas that are not growing stuff. We need more growing stuff to remove CO2.

My principal beef with wind and solar is the way it is marketed, as a replacement for big fossil plants. That perpetrates the myth that our current high energy society could he made sustainable.

I can see wind and solar (photovoltaic or hot water) as sources once we have drastically reduced our usage. We must learn conservation of energy first. That is the hard and missing lesson.

There was a lot of both in the middle ages, just not their current bloated forms.

Wind has a theoretical limit of 40% efficiency. 60% of energy goes into deforming the blade.

Wood is a possible blade material because it doesnt matter if its deformed- it's still useful.

The nonrecylable (or not easily), fiberglass, complex wind turbines are not a good idea.

[vtsnowedin]

Wind has a theoretical limit of 40% efficiency. 60% of energy goes into deforming the blade.

Wood is a possible blade material because it doesnt matter if its deformed- it's still useful.

The nonrecylable (or not easily), fiberglass, complex wind turbines are not a good idea.

There is a strength limit to wood that limits the practical length of a blade. Even steel blades were found to be impracticable back during WW2. It took the advent of carbon fiber technology (not mere fiberglass) to make the 300 foot diameter swept circle of modern windmills possible and profitable. Even if there is no way to recycle the blade material ,which I very much doubt, we will build out wind power to it's potential.

[vtsnowedin]

How Long do Wind Turbines Last?

A good quality, modern wind turbine will generally last for 20 years, although this can be extended to 25 years or longer depending on environmental factors and the correct maintenance procedures being followed. However, the maintenance costs will increase as the structure ages.

Wind turbines are unlikely to last much longer than this because of the extreme loads they are subjected to throughout their lives. This is partly due to the structure of the turbines themselves, since the turbine blades and the tower are only fixed at one end of the structure and therefore face the full force of the wind. Of course, as the wind speed increases, so do the loads that turbines are subjected to. This can reach levels almost 100 times greater than the design loads at rated wind speed, which is why many turbines are designed to shut down to protect themselves at higher wind speeds.

https://www.twi-global.com/technical-kn ... bines-last

[vtsnowedin]

Currently, the most common recycling process used to recover carbon fiber from composite waste is pyrolysis, where high heat basically burns off the resin. Solvolysis, which uses a solvent to dissolve the resin, has long been claimed to offer superior properties. So far, commercialization of both pyrolysis and solvolysis has been through batch processes. But inline processing is finally in the works.

https://www.compositesworld.com/article ... rbon-fiber

[mustang19]

Wind has a theoretical limit of 40% efficiency. 60% of energy goes into deforming the blade.

Wood is a possible blade material because it doesnt matter if its deformed- it's still useful.

The nonrecylable (or not easily), fiberglass, complex wind turbines are not a good idea.

There is a strength limit to wood that limits the practical length of a blade. Even steel blades were found to be impracticable back during WW2. It took the advent of carbon fiber technology (not mere fiberglass) to make the 300 foot diameter swept circle of modern windmills possible and profitable. Even if there is no way to recycle the blade material ,which I very much doubt, we will build out wind power to it's potential.

Actually, at the moment, the wind industry is under layoffs. If it dies within, maybe, 2 years well see.

[vtsnowedin]

Actually, at the moment, the wind industry is under layoffs. If it dies within, maybe, 2 years well see.

You obviously have not been paying attention to what Biden and Harris have promised to do about green energy and moving away from fossil fuels.