Advertisement

Drudge Retort: The Other Side of the News
Monday, May 03, 2021

Finally They Admit Renewables Are Terrible For The Environment

More

Comments

Admin's note: Participants in this discussion must follow the site's moderation policy. Profanity will be filtered. Abusive conduct is not allowed.

We graze cattle between the wind turbines.

#1 | Posted by Zed at 2021-05-03 06:57 PM | Reply

Cow farts make the windmills go faster. FACT!

:)

#2 | Posted by snoofy at 2021-05-03 07:13 PM | Reply | Funny: 1

Not sure about these numbers....
14 square meters of solar panels to keep a 100-watt television operating year-round?

#3 | Posted by snoofy at 2021-05-03 07:19 PM | Reply

I wonder how many acres is covered by American home owners roofs?

You know, that roof you have on your house for those on the DR who don't live with mommy

No additional land necessary to make this work, unless of course you want to pay a monopoly

#4 | Posted by ChiefTutMoses at 2021-05-03 07:58 PM | Reply

Not sure about these numbers....
14 square meters of solar panels to keep a 100-watt television operating year-round?

#3 | POSTED BY SNOOFY AT 2021-05-03 07:19 PM | FLAG:

It's accurate. 150 square feet per 100 watts you need. The panel doesn't produce much of anything for 10 hours a day.

#5 | Posted by sitzkrieg at 2021-05-04 10:16 AM | Reply

"150 square feet per 100 watts you need."

Still feels like tremendous overkill. Even in the northeast. That's enough space for ten solar panels to power one TV...

#6 | Posted by snoofy at 2021-05-04 02:19 PM | Reply

Not at all. A 100 watt panel alone won't keep the TV on. A 150 foot array is about right. Current consumer trends are most people have a 50" TV which as an LED model takes 100 watts. You need a multi-panel array just for daily use of the TV, excess capacity to charge your storage for night time use, and even excess capacity to make up the difference on overcast days.

#7 | Posted by sitzkrieg at 2021-05-04 05:23 PM | Reply

LEE_THE_AGENT,

"Renewables Are Terrible For The Environment"

PRINCETON didn't say this. You are arguing the Author said this.

The author ALSO didn't say this. The author only argues it would take a lot of land and to get rid of fossil fuels would take nuclear energy plants too.

LEARN TO READ YOUR OWN DAMN ARTICLES

#8 | Posted by Sycophant at 2021-05-04 05:43 PM | Reply

Achieving Biden's goal will require aggressively building more wind and solar farms, in many cases combined with giant batteries. To fulfill his vision of an emission-free grid by 2035, the U.S. needs to increase its carbon-free capacity by at least 150%. Expanding wind and solar by 10% annually until 2030 would require a chunk of land equal to the state of South Dakota, according to Bloomberg and Princeton University estimates. By 2050, when Biden wants the entire economy to be carbon free, the U.S. will need up to four additional South Dakotas to develop enough clean power to run all the electric vehicles, factories and more.

To be clear, Biden's plan doesn't need to entirely rest on wind and solar. Nuclear energy, which requires far less space, is also emission free. Same for hydroelectric power. Plus, wind farms can be installed at sea. Solar panels work wonderfully on rooftops. And plenty of companies are placing bets that fossil-fuel plants can be retrofitted to burn hydrogen or equipped with systems to capture their carbon dioxide emissions.

Estimates vary widely on how much land the U.S. will need to satisfy Biden's clean-energy ambitions. A recent study by the U.K. think tank Carbon Tracker concluded that renewables actually require less space than fossil fuel. But no matter how you slice it, the U.S. will need to rethink land use for an emissions-free future.


Build the wind farms off the coasts. More solar on rooftops and in windows (new tech). Continue rethinking how nuclear can be safe enough to convince the public it's actually safe.

#9 | Posted by rstybeach11 at 2021-05-04 05:56 PM | Reply

It's accurate. 150 square feet per 100 watts you need. The panel doesn't produce much of anything for 10 hours a day.

#5 | POSTED BY SITZKRIEG

It's not even close to accurate.

A single home solar panel on a roof produces 300-400 watts these days or 1,800 to 2,400 watt-hours per day. That's a 16 square foot panel for most manufacturers. That average big screen uses 100 watts. That 1 panel would run a big screen tv for 18-24 hours per sunny day.

Now obviously not every day is sunny. So you can only expect about 450 kWh per solar panel per year in most of the country. That's 450,000 watt hours or enough to run that TV for 4,500 hours per year (12.5 hours per day every single day).

The average home uses about 7,000-14,000 kWhs per year. The average 3-4 bedroom home needs about 15-30 panels to power the entire damn house.

These are residential solar panels. Industrial solar panels used in solar farms are more efficient.

#10 | Posted by Sycophant at 2021-05-04 06:36 PM | Reply

Molten Salt Reactor EATS Nuclear Waste
www.youtube.com

There should be proof of concept reactors built by 2028. Could be a game changer.

#11 | Posted by rstybeach11 at 2021-05-04 06:53 PM | Reply

#10 | POSTED BY SYCOPHANT AT 2021-05-04 06:36 PM | FLAG:

Okay in your world the sun apparently shines 18-24 hours a day. Found the Alaskan.

#12 | Posted by sitzkrieg at 2021-05-04 07:00 PM | Reply

But I just priced an install. A complement to propane backups in case of man-made disaster again. 2000 sq ft. Realistic average from neighbors with similar systems and similar alignment is averaging them around 1333/watts in most conditions which is in line with the 150sq ft to run that 50" LED in most conditions. That's without counting the horrible degradation of trash China panels. Shame our industry ---- the bed on that one.

#13 | Posted by sitzkrieg at 2021-05-04 07:02 PM | Reply

Here's how stupid this article is:

The article is using solar panel output calculations from a 2013 study that used figures from existing farms using panels from 2000-2010 generally.

Today, the efficiency of solar panels has increased. In 2010, panels usually get 12% conversion of light energy. Today it's closer to 17-19%. And the study was including solar farms using panels that were 10-15 years old.

Worse, the number it cited for acres per meagwatt includes lower efficiency method plants.

The study literally says not to use these numbers now and especially in the future to predict acreage needed for solar farms for these reasons and this idiot STILL cited it.

#14 | Posted by Sycophant at 2021-05-04 07:16 PM | Reply

#10 | POSTED BY SYCOPHANT AT 2021-05-04 06:36 PM | FLAG:
Okay in your world the sun apparently shines 18-24 hours a day. Found the Alaskan.

#12 | POSTED BY SITZKRIEG

IF you could read, I took into account the sun shining on average 6 hours per day directly for 2/3s of the year.

#15 | Posted by Sycophant at 2021-05-04 07:17 PM | Reply

"A 100 watt panel alone won't keep the TV on."

No doubt. But you can get 8-9 solar panels into 150 sq.ft. Which is like 2-3KW worth of panels.

#16 | Posted by snoofy at 2021-05-04 07:34 PM | Reply

But I just priced an install. A complement to propane backups in case of man-made disaster again. 2000 sq ft. Realistic average from neighbors with similar systems and similar alignment is averaging them around 1333/watts in most conditions which is in line with the 150sq ft to run that 50" LED in most conditions. That's without counting the horrible degradation of trash China panels. Shame our industry ---- the bed on that one.

#13 | POSTED BY SITZKRIEG

Do the math on what you just said for a second... 2,000 square feet is averaging 1,333 watts. That's .66 watts per square foot. A 16 square foot panel should produce at peak sunlight 300-400 watts. That's 18.75 watts per square foot. Even assuming 6 hours of peak sunlight per day, it should average 4.7 watts per square foot. Even assuming that and only half the days are sunny in the slightest, it should be 2.35 watts per square foot. To get the number you just gave, you have to have only 6 hours of direct sun per week OR the world's worst solar panels.

#17 | Posted by Sycophant at 2021-05-04 07:39 PM | Reply

Mmm perfect condition miracle math. That'd be awesome.

#18 | Posted by sitzkrieg at 2021-05-04 07:51 PM | Reply

No doubt. But you can get 8-9 solar panels into 150 sq.ft. Which is like 2-3KW worth of panels.

#16 | POSTED BY SNOOFY AT 2021-05-04 07:34 PM | FLAG:

100 watts @ 12v = 5.5 sq ft. The TV is 100 watts @ 110v. So lets round up and call it 55 sq ft. Go ahead and triple it for battery charging, overcast, etc, to keep everything going with a small safety margin. Very close to 150sq ft, as the article was apparently saying.

#19 | Posted by sitzkrieg at 2021-05-04 07:59 PM | Reply

"OR the world's worst solar panels."

Seems to be the option Sitzkrieg recommends.

#20 | Posted by snoofy at 2021-05-04 09:15 PM | Reply

I have a Goal Zero portable system. It's okay for keeping a phone charged.

#21 | Posted by sitzkrieg at 2021-05-05 07:55 AM | Reply

Comments are closed for this entry.

Home | Breaking News | Comments | User Blogs | Stats | Back Page | RSS Feed | RSS Spec | DMCA Compliance | Privacy | Copyright 2021 World Readable

Drudge Retort