179 megawatts of solar power just switched on in Nevada

[bladeXcrasher]

The Sun energy at the Earth surface is about 635 W/m². Given there is no Sun during the night, and the energy generated depends on the Sun's height, the result @100% efficiency is just 159W/m². Given the low efficiency of the photovoltaic method, and the loss of energy in inverters and accumulators, it would result in about 32W/m². The one man consumes about 1,5kW. So it is about 100m² of panels per a household of 2.

The solar power is absolutely useless as an energy source on the Earth surface.


What? The solar irradiance in space is just 1,3 kW/m², across all the specter.

It's much higher than that in South Texas in summer. Talking about solar irradiance 'globally is useless. MPPT solar chargers are a thing, so again, talking about raw solar irradiance is useless.

[Ahhdurr]

I find this whole thing so goddam funny. I live in Finland, right now the length of the day is 5h 40min. Solar power is absolutely useless in here because of seasonsa nd the climate overall. Second thing is there isn't that much space where to build since there is forests everywhere.

Then you have America which has tons of space where to build solar farms and good environment for the sun and they keep making up excuses why its not a good option for them.

You're also like 15* north of anywhere in the continental US so that's going to have a big impact as well.

[Corroc]

You're also like 15* north of anywhere in the continental US so that's going to have a big impact as well.

Yeah I was trying to say that finns would prolly give anything to have the opportunity to build sustained energy from solar power. And then you have country who argue if its worth it.

[Cerus]

This is the kind of nonsense I see spouted all the time. People who fail to understand that the far more efficient operating consumption offsets the manufacturing impact after a certain period. If you think empty desert is 'wasted land' then I'll just let you carry on thinking that

LED bulbs and electric cars put out more pollutants to manufacture, but the operating emissions are so much lower that within less than a 2 years they've 'broken-even' so to speak. Only an idiot only looks at initial impact and not long-term. Same for LED bulbs. If I have to replace an incandescent bulb 10-20 times in the time 1 LED lasts before failure, AND the LED bulb delivers equivalent brightness at 1/6th to 1/8th the power consumption, how is that a bad thing?

LED bulbs also don't take a decade to save money. That's retarded. You completely failed to include the cost of re-lamping a new incandescent when it fails. In the UK we pay on average 12p per kwh. That's 0.72p per hour an incandescent bulb runs. Or, 0.096p per hour an LED runs. You can buy a 10 pack of 60w incandescents (but they're harder to find in the EU due to being phased out) where it works out at 50p per bulb. Or you can buy a 5 pack of LEDs of equivalent lumens which works out at £1.27 per bulb. The LEDs are rated on average approx 20x the lifespan of the incandescents at 15,000 hours as opposed to 750 hours.

So for the LEDs 15,000 hours at 0.096p per hour is £14.40, plus cost of bulb, an additional £1.27, yields a grand total of £15.67.
For incandescent, 15,000 hours at 0.72p per hour is £108, plus the cost of twenty bulbs, an additional £10, yields a grand total of £118.

You claimed they only save you money after a decade. If a light is ran 6 hours a day then these savings are achieved in 6.84 years. By your stupid maths there's still more than 3 years to go before the 'sucker who bought an LED bulb' starts saving any money.

Even if you buy a really expensive LED bulb, say £8, you're still saving £13.6 a year using the above 6 hours a day average example NOT counting re-lamping, which means in just under SEVEN MONTHS someone using an 8w LED they bought for £8 is starting to save money over someone using a 50p incandescent in the same length of time, assuming it hasn't blown and required replacement once or twice. And for that one LED, a shopping bag's worth of incandescent bulbs have blown and ended up in the rubbish pile - and whilst they're mostly glass and lack the circuitry of an LED, they still require energy to manufacture in their own right. And transport. Shelves don't magically stock themselves.

Research is hard, isn't it mate?

Obviously research is hard for you. The efficiency of LED bulbs is grossly overstated for starters. They use ultra conservative numbers like 6hrs or less. Sure - if it’s a bulb in a closet or bathroom it will happen quicker but a majority of household lighting is run for far more than that. You won’t come close those lifetime numbers. And when a $10 bulb burns out you’re even further in the hole. Those little tidbits aren’t disclosed on packaging.

Real world tests show that a typical household buying quality LED bulbs will not see an overall reduction in $$ until 8-10 years later. Most only look at their monthly electric bill when that’s only one piece of the pie. Investment costs matter as do manufacturing costs. Just because your monthly bill dropped $5 a month doesn’t mean you’re suddenly green when manufacturing those bulbs requires more energy and causes more pollution. All it’s doing is shifting the costs elsewhere.

It’s not even a net gain. Green energy is a feel good buzz word for a society that isn’t advanced enough to actually produce it. That’s how liberals operate though. If they can’t see it it doesn’t exist.

[Darsithis]

They had to level it, fence it, and put structures on it. Which made it inhabitable for animals and plants. Do you really think they'll allow for any life to be there to obstruct the sun or damage the panels?

If they put a wal-mart there, would you still think it wasn't "destroyed"?

In response, they spent $6.9 in a restoration project for desert tortoise habitats nearby.

Yeah, I know it's obviously not improving the land but it also doesn't destroy it; if the site was removed, life would return and take over. Same for a Walmart.

[ArguesWithStrangers]

Few problems with that. First of all, that is 179 MW of NOMINAL power. I do not know the exact figure coefficients for Nevada Dessert and the exact efficiency of the panels used. However, for Kuwait desert, a typical solar panel has an output of around 16% of it's nominal power output over an average day. So basically, I would be surprised if it got any higher in Nevada Dessert. Under ideal circumstances, that means (assuming stellar 20% efficiency) 850MW/h of power from this installation per day. That is an average hourly generation of a run-off-the-mill VVER 1000 reactor running below maximum capacity and connected to 3 old K-300-240 turbines.
Also, energy storage problems that are absent (almost) in nuclear power plants that is tied to uneven power production cycle. You would need a shit load of batteries in order to store 80%+ of your generated power output. Basically, for this particular plant to be effective stand alone installation, you need 680MW/h of battery capacity even if we assume perfect energy storage coefficients. Speaking realistically, multiply it by x10 to provide for a couple of days of bad weather and charge losses during energy transfer to and from accumulators. Add another x2 for each additional bad weather reserve day you would want to insure yourself from.
Solar power is very expensive if you count in all the variables. Much more expansive then most realize. It is also very far from being green. It just shifts these problems to other areas. It might seem like a perfect solution, but solar cells and accumulators still have to come from somewhere. And their production is a very dirty business. For example an electric car produces about 60% of pollution over its lifecycle compared to a diesel car. Now imagine that you have diesel generators with 179MW of combined power chugging non stop. That is what you will roughly get in total pollution if you want to have 179MW solar power plant connected to a 5 day storage.
Basically, with current tech not only solar power is extremely expensive, it is almost as dirty as using diesel engines to generate electricity. It simply is not viable at the moment on it's own. It requires nuclear or fossil fuel burners with redundant capacity to compensate cycles, again, shifting problems to other places.

You're arguing against a religion with facts. These people ascribe to a faith because of how it makes them feel personally. They'll go through endless mental gymnastics, cherry picking, and just outright ignore your criticisms in order to avoid having to deal with them.

[Osmeric]

I'm looking forward to the forum noise when the Vogtle 3 & 4 reactors are cancelled in a few days. These are the last two new nuclear powerplants still under construction in the US.

[Will]

Obviously research is hard for you. The efficiency of LED bulbs is grossly overstated for starters. They use ultra conservative numbers like 6hrs or less. Sure - if it’s a bulb in a closet or bathroom it will happen quicker but a majority of household lighting is run for far more than that. You won’t come close those lifetime numbers. And when a $10 bulb burns out you’re even further in the hole. Those little tidbits aren’t disclosed on packaging.

Real world tests show that a typical household buying quality LED bulbs will not see an overall reduction in $$ until 8-10 years later. Most only look at their monthly electric bill when that’s only one piece of the pie. Investment costs matter as do manufacturing costs. Just because your monthly bill dropped $5 a month doesn’t mean you’re suddenly green when manufacturing those bulbs requires more energy and causes more pollution. All it’s doing is shifting the costs elsewhere.

It’s not even a net gain. Green energy is a feel good buzz word for a society that isn’t advanced enough to actually produce it. That’s how liberals operate though. If they can’t see it it doesn’t exist.

The efficiency of LED bulbs has been pretty accurate from my experience. I've tested them too using energy meters. In the UK 6 hours is a pretty reasonable 'annual average' of daily bulb on-time. We're talking 4 or so in summer, 8 or so in winter.

The original maths you quoted were actually off as I made a large error, which I've now fixed. At 6 hours a day average, in less than a year, an £8 LED bulb has 'broken even' in TCO with a £0.50 incandescent (at average Uk rates). As you say, many bulbs are ran longer! That works even better in the LED's favour, it will break even sooner! And you do realise I'm feeding you a seriously biased example here, because £8 for an LED in 2017 is actually quite expensive, I already told you I can buy a pack of 5 where a bulb works out at £1.30 each, only £0.80 more than an incandescent! It REALLY doesn't take long to make up 80 pence worth of difference. 160 hours should do it, based on our average price per kwh! This is hard maths and it seems to be going in one of your ears and right out the other, figuratively speaking.

In terms of reliability, well, I don't know? Two years so far and they're still going strong. Had 3 failures all from cheap no-name brands I got off Amazon. all the good branded ones like OSRAM and Philips are still fine. The failures stem from bad design to poor heat tolerance. All the good branded ones are coping just fine, even the ones I've situated in enclosed spaces such as down-lights or capsules.

Not sure what real world tests you're looking at but I'd like some sources if I'm to believe what BS sources you're using for research.

I mean I literally quoted you examples to demonstrate savings - it's really basic maths and here in the EU it's a legal requirement for bulbs to not exceed the advertised power consumption by more than a small, small amount. Maybe the US has a mixture of slack standards and an overwhelming influx of crap bulbs on the market?

Green energy is definitely more than a buzz word. You've demonstrated that you completely ignored all the points I made in my original post. Sounds to me like you're not opening your mind to opposing views; you've closed it and blinded yourself to any opposing reasoning. Okay wait, fine, you're right, green energy is just a buzz word. All those other perfectly intelligent human beings and scientists and councils who are finding it works for them, or are concluding/researching it has real benefits to society, they're all wrong. Scientists are wrong. Real life experience is wrong. The lighting industry magazines, businesses who buy these things, they're all wrong and they should have had a quick chat with you instead!

I mean, I'm literally sitting here telling you that I've actually ran these bulbs for years and I've noticed the difference. And you're responding with claims that I'm wrong based on studies you're... not linking? So freaking what? Heck, you can't even BUY incandescent GLS bulbs anymore, they got outlawed in the EU -- shops aren't allowed to sell them. There's just a loophole where you can still buy them for 'industrial' use, where the ban is not applicable.

I mean, wtf, even if the LED achieves 1/10th of its packet-rated life (1,500 hours) that's still twice the packet-life of the incandescent. You so arrogantly and smarmily tell me research must be hard for me? I bought the damn things, they work fine, they've worked fine for years, the multimeter says they're accurate. We even have a European testing body that HAS to test these products to make sure they are accurate within their packaging claims. The testing obviously can't test lifespan but it does have to test consumption and safety. A renowned magazine here, Which?, also does independent tests and I have yet to see them publish a case of an LED bulb failing to meet stated power consumption by more than 1 watt. Some were a tad over, but ironically in the last test I read, the majority were on-point, and a few were LOWER than stated.

I know what I'm talking about. I have an interest in this technology and I've followed lots of case studies in addition to my own experiences. Maybe the LED offerings in the US are shit and don't meet packaging claims, I don't know. I've seen literally every bulb on test from a branded manufacturer fall sensibly within stated claims and here you are telling me they 'grossly' overstated the efficiency? Utter BS.

[Fyersing]

I've often wonder about the logistics of creating an enormous, nation-sized flotilla in the ocean (somewhere tropical). It could be interesting.

That said, I live immediately adjacent to a nuclear power plant (Palo Verde, which is the largest in the U.S.) and it's honestly marvelous to see when it's in operation. The areal space required for Palo Verde is about twice as much as the solar plant in the article (~1,600 hectares for Palo Verde vs. 727 in Nevada), but it's output it is almost 20 times higher.

TL;DR -- Clean, nuclear energy is absolutely the future. Followed by hydroelectric generating stations (i.e. dams).

[Will]

So an acre of solar will supply 133 Nevada households.

That's not bad considering:

1. American homes are notorious for their power consumption - more than twice most EU homes - and in the desert you need a LOT of air con. (Though funnily enough even other hot places like Australia have way more efficient homes on average)
2. The technology is still improving.
3. Roof space is an ideal candidate for homes, going forward.

The MGM Grand has a huge solar array on its roof, and the casino claims to be 100% powered by its own panels now, using batteries to store for night-time use what is generated during the day.

[Osmeric]

Installing PV on roofs is actually much more expensive than installing it out in large arrays on the ground. Most PV in the US is going up in such utility-scale fields now.

- - - Updated - - -

TL;DR -- Clean, nuclear energy is absolutely the future.

It's not, at least in the US. New construction is basically dead.

[Will]

It’s not even a net gain.

Then I urge you to re-read my original post with updated maths, and my edited second post to you, because I fail to see how what is quite clearly a net gain is... somehow... not? a net gain. I'm honestly speechless with your logic.

- - - Updated - - -

TL;DR -- Clean, nuclear energy is absolutely the future.

It's A future but what options are available vary wildly depending on locale. Personally to me the benefit of solar panels is that my house becomes a microcosm of a power plant. What excess I generate can be stored in a battery for later use. and beyond that, returned to the grid. Power plants still have the disadvantage where they cannot rapidly react to demand changes, something nuclear is very bad at. We have to bring extra reactors online in the UK at a specific time in the day when the majority of the population puts their kettles on during a specific Eastenders commercial break. it's a phenomenon unique to the UK known as a 'TV pickup' and renewables COMBINED with batteries are SO, SO useful here for smoothing load on the grid. Smoothing load on the grid is amazing -- the grid engineers are practically begging for it for efficiency reasons!

[Bryntrollian]

This concerns me, I'm all for renewable and "clean" energy but to see so much land destroyed for so little is depressing.

Oh look, there seems to be plenty more land ready to be " destroyed "

[Spiffums]

Well, it's in the middle of the desert, so that land wasn't going to be used for anything else.

I wonder what it pays to clean the sand off the panels every other day.

[Will]

I wonder what it pays to clean the sand off the panels every other day.

Do they need sand cleaned off them every other day?

[Machismo]

I wonder what it pays to clean the sand off the panels every other day.

I highly doubt they do it.

[Fyersing]

It's not, at least in the US. New construction is basically dead.

In the context of this discussion, which was "wasted space", nuclear is hands-down the best option -- so if space is the primary concern, nuclear is the future.

That said, in a purely hypothetical sense, there are probably tons of alternatives. A solar station in space, comes to mind.

[Osmeric]

In the context of this discussion, which was "wasted space", nuclear is hands-down the best option -- so if space is the primary concern, nuclear is the future.

That said, in a purely hypothetical sense, there are probably tons of alternatives. A solar station in space, comes to mind.

Space is not the primary concern. The cost of land for PV is down in the noise, especially in low population density countries like the US.

[Endus]

Also, energy storage problems that are absent (almost) in nuclear power plants that is tied to uneven power production cycle. You would need a shit load of batteries in order to store 80%+ of your generated power output. Basically, for this particular plant to be effective stand alone installation, you need 680MW/h of battery capacity even if we assume perfect energy storage coefficients. Speaking realistically, multiply it by x10 to provide for a couple of days of bad weather and charge losses during energy transfer to and from accumulators. Add another x2 for each additional bad weather reserve day you would want to insure yourself from.

I'm not sure you understand how solar is generally implemented. It's not implemented as the sole generation system for a power grid. It's implemented as a secondary system. The main goal is to use solar generation to offset peak power demands, which occur during the daytime (particularly in southern desert regions, what with air conditioning). The generation by solar varies with sunlight, but so do power demands, on almost the same cycle. Implementing sufficient solar lets you even out the "spikiness" of the shift in power load, which eases the adjustments necessary to other systems.

[Masark]

TL;DR -- Clean, nuclear energy is absolutely the future. Followed by hydroelectric generating stations (i.e. dams).

Fission nuclear is going nowhere. It costs to damn much. It is THE most expensive source of generation available, both in capital and O&M.

Solar costs less than half as much, wind even less, and combined cycle natural gas half as much as wind.

The future is wind and solar, with natural gas and grid storage (batteries, pumped hydro, compressed air, whatever) for peaking.

https://www.eia.gov/analysis/studies...s/capitalcost/