Solar technologies have improved greatly and will continue to become cheaper and more efficient. But the era of 10-fold gains is over. The physics boundary for silicon photovoltaic (PV) cells, the Shockley-Queisser Limit, is a maximum conversion of 34% of photons into electrons; the best commercial PV technology today exceeds 26%.
Wind power technology has also improved greatly, but here, too, no 10-fold gains are left. The physics boundary for a wind turbine, the Betz Limit, is a maximum capture of 60% of kinetic energy in moving air; commercial turbines today exceed 40%.
The annual output of Tesla’s Gigafactory, the world’s largest battery factory, could store three minutes’ worth of annual U.S. electricity demand. It would require 1,000 years of production to make enough batteries for two days’ worth of U.S. electricity demand. Meanwhile, 50–100 pounds of materials are mined, moved, and processed for every pound of battery produced
in other words green energy does not work now and there are physical limits to its improvement so it will not work in the future.
To be fair, all those were “new” at some point. Ongoing development isn’t only limited to improving what we already have.
It’s hard to just assume that our energy needs will be provided by something undefined that doesn’t exist yet, but you can’t really declare the age of innovation to be over, either.
To be fair, all those were “new” at some point. Ongoing development isn’t only limited to improving what we already have.
By green energy I mean solar and wind. As the post shows there are physical limits, the Shockley Quiesser limit for solar cells and the Betz limit for wind power, that are true for any method to extract these types of energy.
So yes if some other source besides solar and wind is considered it might be possible to improve but those are the definition of green energy so far.
edit: I am referring to the use of solar and wind for general purpose electric power. There are niche applications such as spacecraft where solar power can be used. As James Hansen noted, The only viable low carbon dioxide emitting technology is nuclear but the left rejects this out of hand as we’ve seen here on this discussion. They are going to spend trillions of dollars and bankrupt the economy tilting at windmills that will not work. Pun intended
"Nio has 9,000 employees in over 40 countries, Li said.
“The company will bring Nio Power charging infrastructure into Norway, including 7 Kilowatt-hour home chargers, 180 kWh superchargers, and Nio’s unique Power Swapping Station. By the end of 2021, the company hopes to have four swap stations in and around the Oslo region. Swapping facilities will be set up in Bergen, Stavanger, Trandheim, and Kristiansand by 2022 and expanded to other regions in Norway.”
This is complete utter nonsense. Solar and wind work extremely well right now. Who do you think is building them? It’s utilities and big companies, even oil companies. Just making stuff up because you’re opposed to something doesn’t give you any credibility.
You work solely from a preconceived belief and then either find or make up stuff to validate your own belief. It doesn’t say much for critical thinking if you can’t see both sides of an issue. Or see that solar and wind are working all over the world. You seem to pay no attention to what’s actually happening.
This has nice maps of wind power installations in the US in 2020 on Page 9, total capacity page 11, and under construction page 13 (Texas leads the way by a huge margin):
@Argyll, why must you assume the worst of people with whom you disagree?
The left and the right have fundamental differences on many things - when life begins, the best way to help the poor, incarceration, how big a role gov’t should have in subsidizing technology, etc.
But there are places where we actually don’t have a difference. When conservatives turn on their air conditioner, they just want it to work. They don’t care if coal, gas, uranium, windmills, or solar panels were used to make it work. We have no issue with solar or wind power in the abstract. In fact, I pay a fee to “offset” my “dirty” power with “clean” power. But I don’t do it because I dislike fossil fuel and prefer green energy. I do it because I get more than the fee back in rebates.
The real way we differ is in how much extra we are willing to pay for power to have fewer emissions. When conservatives post about certain technologies not being viable, we aren’t doing it because we dislike those technologies. We are doing it because we don’t really care about one technology over the other and just want maximum efficiency.
The assumption that we have preconceived notions about green energy is false. We have preconceived notions about the value in more expensive energy when all you get is lower CO2 emissions. We place a different value on CO2 emissions than you. In the end, I think you care way more about proving that green energy will succeed than we care about proving it won’t. That’s because, if we’re wrong and it succeeds, and it’s efficient, we have no problem with it. On the other hand, if it fails, you don’t have any other ideas about how to lower emissions that you care so much about, and that scares the crap out of you. So you will defend it even when it is indefensible.
Uh, no, nothing scares the crap out of me. It’s you that’s taking the political view on everything, not me. My view is not political.
I was referring to one note actually making things up as he goes along. It’s like saying EVs will never work. Or airplanes will never fly. Or the Keystone XL pipeline is about American oil independence when it’s a Canadian company building it to transport Canadian oil. Truth is not a political view.
You have your beliefs but then pretend whatever you don’t like doesn’t work. Did you know that when coal was being introduced in the early nineteenth century there were a lot of people skeptical and opposed to it? Firewood had been just fine for them their whole lives. They didn’t care if someone said coal could provide more power and heat.
Incontrovertibly, solar and wind do work. They are widely used and they are getting more and more efficient and powerful, improving technologically along with supplemental technologies and getting cheaper in a way that fossil fuel engines and nuclear are not. These are facts.
Just saying, OooooH, it doesn’t work, and it can’t work because I don’t like it is nonsensical. Like saying cars don’t run, airplanes don’t fly, ships don’t float.
In any case, the newer technologies are more efficient, cheaper, cleaner and have more future improvement. Just like laptops and cars and planes.
What does your intuition tell you is going to happen? Are we going back to the typewriter?
They work because there are now fossil fuel systems to provide back up power during the night and when the wind does not blow. But you cannot use them as a replacement for fossil fuel or nuclear or Hydro power unless you have some way to provide power in the dark and no wind. Please provide a link to a grid level back up storage unit that is practical and installed now.
They do not require 100% backup. Look it up. Did you know nuclear plants require 100% back-up?
Nuclear plants always have backup plants. They used to be mostly coal.
Oh, yes, and fossil fuel plants also have backup.
So you might be able to convince people with no knowledge that this is important but it’s a completely false argument. AGAIN!
It’s like saying EV cars require wheels, therefore they have a weakness. Oh, wait, all cars require wheels.
Again you’re making up phony arguments that you probably get from highly partisan sites that don’t care about facts.
I have not yet heard a single actual fact from you about why old power systems are superior to clean, renewable, cheaper technologies.
My motivation in replying here is that you are deliberately posting misinformation. Post something honest or at least acknowledge that wind and solar are widely used and actually work.
Or just about EVs, which is what this thread is about.
What are the back up systems for fossil fuel or nuclear or hydropower systems? They are more of the same type. And they are only used for very short periods of time for maintenance on the main systems. Solar and wind require back up on a daily basis. and their intermittent nature destabilizes the grid. As we have seen here in California this can lead to blackouts.
Again, please provide a link to a grid level back up system for solar and wind if fossil fuel and nuclear are abolished. there are not enough locations for Hydro power to provide this backup.
You are claiming that for every operating power plant, there is a second fully functional plant sitting idle just in case the primary plant goes offline?
I invested in NIO late last year. It doubled and I sold half of it. I also Like XPEV. I wouldn’t invest at this moment because the stock is on a downswing, but they are probably good investments for the future.
Other investments in this area are lidar and charging companies like Chargepoint (SBE) and Blink Charging (BLNK).
Define 100%. they require much higher level of back up than fossil fuel. look up the experience of Germany with their energywendte. They have experienced periods of a week or more with no sun or wind. they are building coal fired plants as back up for their wind and solar
Again, completely false information you are making up. Solar and wind do not require backup on a daily basis. You are lying. Stop posting here if you are just going to lie.
You didn’t even know that all other power plants have back-up plants.
I’m pretty certain the sun sets every night. And people keep using electricity thru the night. So I’m not sure what you are considering a lie, because that power has to come from somewhere other than those solar panels.
Hell, half the argument about the viability of today’s EVs is based on overnight charging, which only adds to the demand at the time solar generation goes off-line…
The solar panels have added to the available power. No new power was required.
Be that as it may, there are plenty of back-up systems, batteries and such, but they may not be needed as other renewables like wind, geothermal, hydro can run all night.
So your entire argument is based on solar power being supplimental? Why is it so hard for you to understand the comment was about replacing fossile fuel power, not supplimenting it?
And yes, that was just an example to disprove your accusations about lying.
“It is the first company to offer free lifetime charging services for its customers and has built a comprehensive charging network, now including 19,019 free charging and supercharging piles in 1,140 charging stations.”
The Chinese are way ahead of the US in EVs. They will probably be coming to the US within a year or two.