Until Your River Runs Dry
Sometimes, when discussing the availability of energy resources, especially with the British, though it could anyone, the response to the notion of supplying all the energy needs with solar power is often: "do you want us to live in huts" or "we would all have to live big round houses, (like a kiva)" or something to that effect.
This response is quite irrational and emotional because it is NOT true that we would all have to live in huts or structures like kivas, all that would change would be the energy source, solar or renewable power instead of fossil fuel power. Order of magnitude calculations have already been made if we look at the following video at the time 18 minutes 16 seconds:
https://upload.cat/88c540674dbe828d
We see that only about half the surface area of New Mexico or Arizona would need to be covered with solar panels to provide all the energy needs for the U.S.
We wouldn't have to live in huts, become peasant farmers, or live in Kiva like structures, so that statement was wrong.
Though, I believe what "they" meant to say is that it is not possible for the British Isles to supply all it's energy needs through solar power. There may not be enough land nor enough sunlight to supply all their energy needs. Furthermore, even if cloud cover could be controlled, the latitude of the British isles is higher. Sunlight strikes the ground at a shallower angle, spreading the sun power over a larger area, thereby lowering the areal power density.
I believe this is the problem, this is why some of the British respond in such an irrational way to solar power, because they don't have much of it.
This is a problem for the British and Northern Europeans in general, there may not be enough land, nor enough sunlight, nor enough power density to make it worthwhile.
The post-oil/fossil fuel energy resource economy is going to be a major problem for certain countries, like Great Britain, other Northern European countries, and island countries like Japan. These countries will have to rely on the resources of other countries to continue their way of life as it is. IF the rest of the world, especially the U.S. DOES NOT use those same resources, then these aforementioned countries will have to deal with possibly volitile political/economic situations in those countries ON THEIR OWN, they may have to send their militaries into those countries, manipulate, etc, etc.
I believe this is part of the reason why the widespread use of oil as a transportation fuel is protected politically, and militarily even though it no longer needs to be of geopolitical importance for the U.S. (Of course there is the issue of protecting certain middle eastern countries like Israel).
On another note, there is an important point about solar panels brought up by a British guy, namely that the amount of energy that a typical solar panel produces throughout it's usable life it less than the energy it took to create it.
I can't verify whether or not the statement is true, but I can say that it depends on:
1. The usable life of the solar panel
2. How solar panels are made
1. If the usable life of a solar panel was indefinite then, sometimes in the far future it would have made enough energy to offset the energy it took to make it. Since most solar panels don't have indefinite lives, one way to overcome this energy deficit would be to extend the usable life of solar panels.
2. Most solar panels aren't made one at a time, meaning solar panel manufacturers don't just mine, process, and refine enough semiconductor material to make just one solar panel. This is an industrial process, tons of material may be used to make many solar panels. So, people attempt to identify all the energy inputs to make a batch of solar panels, then divide the total energy used by the total number of solar panels produced. This provides the energy per solar panel which is then used to compare to the energy produced by the solar panel.
We see that the energy needed to make a solar panel depends on many inputs, manufacturing efficiencies, chemical efficiencies, transportation, etc. These are not physical limitations, there much room for improvement and there may be a time in the future where the amount of energy need to make one solar panel is far less than the energy produced by the solar panel throughout it's lifetime.
Now, there is are methods of producing solar power that CAN produce more energy throughout it's life than it took to construct and that is solar steam and solar Stirling engines.
The reason why is because when the solar steam system or solar Stirling engines reach the point where they break down or do not produce sufficient energy due to mechanical wear, we don't need to replace every single part. More specifically, we don't have to replace the all the mirrors, structural components, pipes, or the concrete to hold them in place.
Most importantly, most older, worn out or broken solar steam systems and Stirling engines can be reconditioned to perform LIKE NEW by replacing only those parts that wear out, like bearings, seals, gaskets, etc. These parts take FAR LESS energy to create, ship, and install than creating an entirely new solar steam system (steam turbines most likely) or Stirling engine.
Also, if the solar steam or solar Stirling engines are well designed/engineered then break downs and life expectancy can be greatly increased.
So in the case of solar steam and solar Stirling engines, it is very possible that it can make more energy than it took to construct.
This response is quite irrational and emotional because it is NOT true that we would all have to live in huts or structures like kivas, all that would change would be the energy source, solar or renewable power instead of fossil fuel power. Order of magnitude calculations have already been made if we look at the following video at the time 18 minutes 16 seconds:
https://upload.cat/88c540674dbe828d
We see that only about half the surface area of New Mexico or Arizona would need to be covered with solar panels to provide all the energy needs for the U.S.
We wouldn't have to live in huts, become peasant farmers, or live in Kiva like structures, so that statement was wrong.
Though, I believe what "they" meant to say is that it is not possible for the British Isles to supply all it's energy needs through solar power. There may not be enough land nor enough sunlight to supply all their energy needs. Furthermore, even if cloud cover could be controlled, the latitude of the British isles is higher. Sunlight strikes the ground at a shallower angle, spreading the sun power over a larger area, thereby lowering the areal power density.
I believe this is the problem, this is why some of the British respond in such an irrational way to solar power, because they don't have much of it.
This is a problem for the British and Northern Europeans in general, there may not be enough land, nor enough sunlight, nor enough power density to make it worthwhile.
The post-oil/fossil fuel energy resource economy is going to be a major problem for certain countries, like Great Britain, other Northern European countries, and island countries like Japan. These countries will have to rely on the resources of other countries to continue their way of life as it is. IF the rest of the world, especially the U.S. DOES NOT use those same resources, then these aforementioned countries will have to deal with possibly volitile political/economic situations in those countries ON THEIR OWN, they may have to send their militaries into those countries, manipulate, etc, etc.
I believe this is part of the reason why the widespread use of oil as a transportation fuel is protected politically, and militarily even though it no longer needs to be of geopolitical importance for the U.S. (Of course there is the issue of protecting certain middle eastern countries like Israel).
On another note, there is an important point about solar panels brought up by a British guy, namely that the amount of energy that a typical solar panel produces throughout it's usable life it less than the energy it took to create it.
I can't verify whether or not the statement is true, but I can say that it depends on:
1. The usable life of the solar panel
2. How solar panels are made
1. If the usable life of a solar panel was indefinite then, sometimes in the far future it would have made enough energy to offset the energy it took to make it. Since most solar panels don't have indefinite lives, one way to overcome this energy deficit would be to extend the usable life of solar panels.
2. Most solar panels aren't made one at a time, meaning solar panel manufacturers don't just mine, process, and refine enough semiconductor material to make just one solar panel. This is an industrial process, tons of material may be used to make many solar panels. So, people attempt to identify all the energy inputs to make a batch of solar panels, then divide the total energy used by the total number of solar panels produced. This provides the energy per solar panel which is then used to compare to the energy produced by the solar panel.
We see that the energy needed to make a solar panel depends on many inputs, manufacturing efficiencies, chemical efficiencies, transportation, etc. These are not physical limitations, there much room for improvement and there may be a time in the future where the amount of energy need to make one solar panel is far less than the energy produced by the solar panel throughout it's lifetime.
Now, there is are methods of producing solar power that CAN produce more energy throughout it's life than it took to construct and that is solar steam and solar Stirling engines.
The reason why is because when the solar steam system or solar Stirling engines reach the point where they break down or do not produce sufficient energy due to mechanical wear, we don't need to replace every single part. More specifically, we don't have to replace the all the mirrors, structural components, pipes, or the concrete to hold them in place.
Most importantly, most older, worn out or broken solar steam systems and Stirling engines can be reconditioned to perform LIKE NEW by replacing only those parts that wear out, like bearings, seals, gaskets, etc. These parts take FAR LESS energy to create, ship, and install than creating an entirely new solar steam system (steam turbines most likely) or Stirling engine.
Also, if the solar steam or solar Stirling engines are well designed/engineered then break downs and life expectancy can be greatly increased.
So in the case of solar steam and solar Stirling engines, it is very possible that it can make more energy than it took to construct.
Comments
Post a Comment