4y, 17w
20 replies
¬
đ§ Justin
I wonder how we'll affect the earth when we have the surface covered in enough solar panels, wind turbines, and so on. The sun only pumps so much energy into the earth per day, and any more than that being consumed will have us running at a deficit. What does that look like? I've never crunched the numbers, so maybe this is unrealistic, but it seems our power demands are only increasing with population.
4y, 17w
2 replies
Mhmm
the land surface area on earth, subtracted off that used for farm land is about ~47,435,995,896 m2, if the CSP setups it all it would produce about ~94870 times the daily consumption for the US...not considering advances to CSP moleten salt storage and concentrators from todays tech... i think we'll be fine for a couple of life times at least.
4y, 17w
1 reply
Mhmm
32 CSP sites producing 5GWh/day in the US along the sunbelt with towers about 887 meters high and 1.02MM meters2 of heliostat surface area each, can produce about double the current US energy consumption today. Dubai just completed on for about 950 MW (with about 700 MW of CSP) on June 16th at a cost of around $4.3 billion. if its similar in costs to the Chile plant in 2017 the can profit from $0.05kwh. This also uses the typical nan03+ kno3 salt and not higher delta k salts
4y, 17w
2 replies
â David Antoine
That would be a site to behold... What would that cost? 15 to 20 billions? Honestly it should maybe already have started. When you can use solar on a big scale you should do it. Provided you get political support I guess. Which in turn suppose those politicians not to be lobbied by big energy corporations. Also, as far as I know, no need for supraconducting cable for long distances. If you transport current in continuous form, losses are very low. It is more costly though..
4y, 17w
1 reply
đ Nlggers
I suspect solar will be the path forward in the immediate future as the lithography of photovoltaic cells is shrinking exponentially year over year on a similar price/performance curve seen with microprocessor lithographic shrinkage. I suppose we'll see how far that trend continues and how inexpensive and high quality the panels become as a result.
4y, 17w
reply
đ LÊo
Oh cool! But I actually disagree. We will eventually figure out fusion (hopefully within the next decade or so) but it is not necessary for the future of human civilization. The sun will be emiting plenty of energy for at least the next million of years. Fusion will become more important when we start getting ready to leave the solar system. So, what's your opinion?
4y, 17w
12 replies
đ¤Ŧ Foobar
+1 on solar!
4y, 17w
reply
đ Bill
Valid points. I think with the run rate of our global economy and our (current?) dependence on constant expansion in both population and consumption, fusion is the only way to sustainably power that over the next 20+ years. I'm not convinced we can meet our energy/environmental needs with just solar/renewables. Maybe increased interest in fission can fill the gap.
4y, 17w
9 replies
â David Antoine
For the next 5+ billion ys actually but oceans will start to boil in about 1 to 1.5 billion ys. So... Fusion surely will be used for fast travel. Optimized it can probably get us to 5 to 10% the speed of light. And for the solar, to an extent it can help us. Problem is moving energy from prod site to cities. If long distances you should use continuous current for transport so to avoid Joule loss effect (Canada does that)... 480 char are not enough for this subject. ;)
4y, 17w
reply