Best energy alternatives to stop global warming

[EdFred]

"Guess what happens when the sun beats down on something dark? You'd be better off just painting the surface white." - an acquaintance at MIT in regards to solar panels reducing Global Warming. The solar panels generate more atmospheric heat than they save on CO2 emissions from the coal that *may* (it's not even a given) be saved.

You want to reduce global warming? Turn off your computers, shut off the power to your house, stop using the internet, stop using everything that requires some sort of energy, and go out and plant 50 trees a day. I'm sure everyone who's worried about global warming is going to run right out and do just that.

[Dodgey]

I agree we should be implementing solar arrays and other renewable resources, however you still need a base supply for when the sun doesn't shine, wind doesn't blow ect ect. That's my point.

[78stonewobble]

It reminds me the Space Shuttle accidents more than anything, the people in charge ignoring the engineers and scientists.

With regards to the cars being used as batteries, I think that the better question is how much power will be generated by solar. Because you still have the problem with weather and the efficiency of dropping off outside a certain range of the equator. I don't know enough about power consumption over the day to comment on what would happen during the afternoons, when solar becomes less effective and people are still at work, which I think would be a problem.

Hmm...

Presumably you will need the following:

Solar energy, enough capacity to power the country completely and put energy into storage as backup.

Wind energy, enough capacity to power the country completely (minus whatever solar energy can produce on the worst days for that) and put energy into storage as backup.

Backup = enough to keep the country running for atleast the amount of time the longest period of worst possible conditions of wind and solar power.

In Denmarks case (5,2 mio. people), and only for electrical usage (80 percent of the population also has district heating here):

Over 1000 5 mw. windmills (one of our largest offshore park has 72 2,3 mw windmills).

Over 50 square kilometers of solar power panels alone.

Extrapolated to around 733 million people in europe, that yields over 141.000 5 mw. windmills across maybe 35.250 square kilometers (around 14,5 percent of the UK) and over 7048 square kilometers of solar panels (around 2,9 percent of the UK).

God, knows how many car batteries, hydrogen storage and/or artificial dams we'd need as backup.

Pie in the sky, if you ask me.

[EdFred]

Hmm...

Extrapolated to around 733 million people in europe, that yields over 141.000 5 mw. windmills across maybe 35.250 square kilometers (around 14,5 percent of the UK) and over 7048 square kilometers of solar panels (around 2,9 percent of the UK).

Now, you've taken care of 10% of the world. And imagine the temperature spike above 70,480 sqkm of solar panels. You thought cities were temperature hot spots. Pie in the sky is right on. But solar proponents don't think that far ahead. They play chess like it's a game of tic tac toe.

[Seret]

Not necessarily. A small number of large, well maintained power plants is usually more efficient than dozens of smaller ones, for the same energy source (there are exceptions). Not only that, having more power plants means more machinery to repair, and it would strain the logistics.

There's a place for both. Decentralised production avoids transmission losses, which can be substantial in some countries. Decentralisation is also a good idea if you've got high heat demands and want to locate CHP sources close to domestic areas. Large thermal plants may have good electrical efficiency, but they still blow between half and two thirds of the fuel's energy into the atmosphere as waste heat.

The solar panels generate more atmospheric heat than they save on CO2 emissions from the coal that *may* (it's not even a given) be saved.

Rubbish. Is your friend actually suggesting that we might at some point cover enough of the planet's surface with solar panels to significantly affect the albedo? I hope (since they're at MIT) that they've got some reliable studies to back that claim up with.

What we should be doing albedo-wise is painting every roof in the world white. The overall effect would be slight, but it's so cheap it'd actually be quite cost-effective.

[Dodgey]

"Guess what happens when the sun beats down on something dark? You'd be better off just painting the surface white." - an acquaintance at MIT in regards to solar panels reducing Global Warming. The solar panels generate more atmospheric heat than they save on CO2 emissions from the coal that *may* (it's not even a given) be saved.

You want to reduce global warming? Turn off your computers, shut off the power to your house, stop using the internet, stop using everything that requires some sort of energy, and go out and plant 50 trees a day. I'm sure everyone who's worried about global warming is going to run right out and do just that.

I'm sorry, what? Lighter surfaces reflect more energy than darker surfaces. Dark surfaces absorb the energy, in any case how much every do you think that is being reflected back into space that is not being absorbed by our atmosphere. It doesn't matter if the material absorbs the energy or not.

That's my point 78stonewobble (interesting name by the way), have one bad day where the wind doesn't blow with some cloud cover and say hello blackout.

[78stonewobble]

Uhm... Well... As far as I understand it...

White surfaces reflect the most energy (heat) some of which will be trapped in the atmosphere no matter what, but some will escape.

Black surfaces will absorb much more energy (heat) locally and thus "keep" it in the atmosphere, even though a proportion (though less than a white surface) will still be reflected and some of that reflected out of the atmosphere.

The math and modelling of that is way beyond me though... And I wouldn't venture a guess on how significant it would be.

But I didn't start that one up.

PS: Uhm, if we suppose that we wanted enough solar panels to allow for Danish levels of electricity usage for 7 billion people... We're talking about 67.000 square kilometers. Between the size of west virginia and south carolina. Whether that's enough I don't know.

Edited June 17, 2014 by 78stonewobble

[rtxoff]

I'm sorry, what? Lighter surfaces reflect more energy than darker surfaces. Dark surfaces absorb the energy, in any case how much every do you think that is being reflected back into space that is not being absorbed by our atmosphere. It doesn't matter if the material absorbs the energy or not.

That's my point 78stonewobble (interesting name by the way), have one bad day where the wind doesn't blow with some cloud cover and say hello blackout.

Luckily there is Germany south of them and norway and sweden north of them to help them out in that case and support their grid.

It's not going to work if not the whole world is going to do it. Some countries also rely heavily on water power which does not depend on the weather.

That we have do lower our consuptions is also true. A great thing everyone of us can already do is to remove all the tiny loading plugs from the sockets while not actually loading a phone/other device.

Also remove the plugs from all devices that are in standby. Many devices consume ~30W only beeing at standby.

Only this measure could already decrease our power consumption by 20% and more.

[78stonewobble]

Luckily there is Germany south of them and norway and sweden north of them to help them out in that case and support their grid.

It's not going to work if not the whole world is going to do it. Some countries also rely heavily on water power which does not depend on the weather.

That we have do lower our consuptions is also true. A great thing everyone of us can already do is to remove all the tiny loading plugs from the sockets while not actually loading a phone/other device.

Also remove the plugs from all devices that are in standby. Many devices consume ~30W only beeing at stand by.

Only this measure could already decrease our power consumption by 20% and more.

Yeah, because when it's winter and we need extra energy for heating, then magically the waterpower plants in sweden and norway (also having winter) will provide extra energy to not only their own increased need, but also ie. germany (also having winter).

I am as uninterested in lowering my energy usage as I am in stopping to breathe to save on the co2. I rarely buy new things, eat meat once a week, don't buy fruit imported from far away, don't drive, won't have kids, exceedingly rarely fly and I'd vote yes to nuclear power relatively nearby... That put's me in the top of people actually sacrificing things against global warming (though that's not why I do it).

[rtxoff]

Yeah, because when it's winter and we need extra energy for heating, then magically the waterpower plants in sweden and norway (also having winter) will provide extra energy to not only their own increased need, but also ie. germany (also having winter).

I am as uninterested in lowering my energy usage as I am in stopping to breathe to save on the co2. I rarely buy new things, eat meat once a week, don't buy fruit imported from far away, don't drive, won't have kids, exceedingly rarely fly and I'd vote yes to nuclear power relatively nearby... That put's me in the top of people actually sacrificing things against global warming (though that's not why I do it).

Seriously man, do your homework before you post something like that. Actually in Europe almost nobody heats with electricity. That is the most expensive form of heating in Europe.

Also some other continents are really spoiled by the price they pay for electric energy/other energy forms. In Europe we can only dream about such low prices.

[PakledHostage]

Yeah, because when it's winter and we need extra energy for heating, then magically the waterpower plants in sweden and norway (also having winter) will provide extra energy to not only their own increased need, but also ie. germany (also having winter).

I live in a part of Canada where power is generated almost exclusively from hydroelectric sites. I have electric heating in my home. Now, my igloo is a newer energy efficient model, but I still freeze every winter. Stupid hippies and their renewable energy! And while we're on the topic of renewables, wind power isn't any better. In Idaho, it has been linked to prostitution:

[78stonewobble]

Seriously man, do your homework before you post something like that. Actually in Europe almost nobody heats with electricity. That is the most expensive form of heating in Europe.

Also some other continents are really spoiled by the price they pay for electric energy/other energy forms. In Europe we can only dream about such low prices.

I know that... Have you decided whether you want to replace the burning of fossil fuels (for electricity AND warming) with distributable renewable energy or not?

Ie. If I heat my house in denmark with a local solar heat panel... And it isn't up to the job in the winter, no amount of overproduction in sweden, norway, germany is gonna help me out, nor is any installed windpower capacity.

Unless:

A: We have a contineltal sized district heating grid, that I'm connected to.

B: My heating is electrical, which is somewhat easier to export, meaning we will allmost all of us have to use electrical heating.

Or put in another way...

We can't remove the need for coal for electrical production and we don't want to replace the need for coal for heat production. So what exactly are we doing to cut down on coal? ... The stuff that directly kills around 24.000 people in just the US every year and perhaps upto a million globally annually, not to mention it's indirect effects via global warming.

Edited June 17, 2014 by 78stonewobble

[Dodgey]

Gpisic, I'm still wondering what your plan is for a base load. What happens when the sun doesn't shine and the wind doesn't blow. Or are you just planning to import from other countries when that happens

[Seret]

A great thing everyone of us can already do is to remove all the tiny loading plugs from the sockets while not actually loading a phone/other device.

Also remove the plugs from all devices that are in standby. Many devices consume ~30W only beeing at standby.

Only this measure could already decrease our power consumption by 20% and more.

I'd suggest actually doing a proper home energy audit. Get a plug-in meter and record what everything is actually using. Some things like refrigeration you'll want to leave plugged in for at least 24 hours and get an average reading, as they cycle. This will show you where the quick wins are.

Things like phone chargers are actually pretty small fry, by all means unplug them when they're not in use, but it won't make a big difference. Anything using over about 5W on standby will show a net reduction is you switch it off for several hours a day, even if you're using a watt or two to automate the switching. For example things like this will switch off attached disk players/soundbars/hifis/whatever when you turn your TV off, this will turn off printers, speakers and monitors when you switch off your computer, and at the most basic segment timers can switch of batches of things overnight.

When I did an audit I found my toaster (wtf?) was consuming about 15W continuously, meaning it used more power in a year of standby than it did making toast. There's really no good reason not to reduce your consumption IMO. I think the 20% figure mentioned above is easily achievable for anybody, but you need to get the data first to inform your decisions.

Edited June 17, 2014 by Seret

[rkman]

What happens when the sun doesn't shine and the wind doesn't blow.

How to Use Solar Energy at Night

Molten salts can store the sun's heat during the day and provide power at night

http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/how-to-use-solar-energy-at-night/

Molten Salt Technology Allows US Solar Plant to Generate Electricity at Night

http://oilprice.com/Latest-Energy-News/World-News/Molten-Salt-Technology-Allows-US-Solar-Plant-to-Generate-Electricity-at-Night.html

Torresol Energy - Gemasolar thermosolar plant

http://www.torresolenergy.com/TORRESOL/gemasolar-plant/en

The world's first molten salt concentrating solar power plant

http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2010/jul/22/first-molten-salt-solar-power

[shynung]

How to Use Solar Energy at Night

Molten salts can store the sun's heat during the day and provide power at night

http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/how-to-use-solar-energy-at-night/

Molten Salt Technology Allows US Solar Plant to Generate Electricity at Night

http://oilprice.com/Latest-Energy-News/World-News/Molten-Salt-Technology-Allows-US-Solar-Plant-to-Generate-Electricity-at-Night.html

Torresol Energy - Gemasolar thermosolar plant

http://www.torresolenergy.com/TORRESOL/gemasolar-plant/en

The world's first molten salt concentrating solar power plant

http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2010/jul/22/first-molten-salt-solar-power

That's still a stored-energy solution. Given enough rainy days, the molten salt could still run out of heat. This problem can be avoided by proper placement, but not every country or continent have an area where the sun constantly shines (the regions near the poles, for instance).

Again, we'd still need base load generators. Or, at the very least, backup generators, ideally one that can be powered up or down in only a moment.

Edited June 17, 2014 by shynung

[SargeRho]

True, but there are things like Deserts where it hardly ever rains. Energy sources should be used where they fit best. Solar in deserts and places where it doesn't rain much, geothermal where you have easy access to geothermal energy, hydroelectric where it fits, etc. And once it becomes available, Nuclear Fusion where there is enormous energy demand, such as heavily industrialized areas.

Also solar panels and perhaps wind generators for houses, as well as solar power collecting windows on skyscrapers.

There is a lot of unharnessed energy on this planet.

[Elthy]

In Idaho, it has been linked to prostitution

WTF? Both involve red lights and blowing but whats the link?

That's still a stored-energy solution. Given enough rainy days, the molten salt could still run out of heat.

Thats why i would recommend Power-to-Gas. The gasgrid in germany can hold the energy for several months. Also biogas plants can provide power when nothing else works. They store the gas over the sunny/windy days and burn it when there is demand.

[lajoswinkler]

True, but there are things like Deserts where it hardly ever rains. Energy sources should be used where they fit best. Solar in deserts and places where it doesn't rain much, geothermal where you have easy access to geothermal energy, hydroelectric where it fits, etc. And once it becomes available, Nuclear Fusion where there is enormous energy demand, such as heavily industrialized areas.

Also solar panels and perhaps wind generators for houses, as well as solar power collecting windows on skyscrapers.

There is a lot of unharnessed energy on this planet.

And how are you going to deliver all that energy into the urban areas in the tempered zone without total dissipation over the distance? Just don't say high temperature superconductors.

Just because there's energy doesn't mean it's viable to use. These things are difficult. You can't solve them like in Sim City.

[Elthy]

Two Ways:

-Power to Gas (Pipeline are well understood). It can be a problem to get enough water in the desert, though...

-Direct current instead of alternating current (not sure if thats the right translation) is more efficient on long distances. Since solarpanels produce direct current anyway thats not such a big problem.

[rtxoff]

Gpisic, I'm still wondering what your plan is for a base load. What happens when the sun doesn't shine and the wind doesn't blow. Or are you just planning to import from other countries when that happens

First of all it is not my plan and i personally have no plans regarding this matter. For the future could people please refrain from pulling my name into the discussion? We are not discussing me or my motives, this thread is about discussing best alternatives to stop global warming.

As i already mentioned before, sun is always shining in some part of the world. This cannont be an excuse not to harness it. If you build continental wide grids they will be stable. And it's not alone solar that could be used.

As we learned already there are plenty other renewable energy forms. The only constant thing i hear in this thread is sun won't shine always, you guys are all damn right with this sentence. It will turn into a white dwarf in billions of years until then our best bet is to harness it's power. And i really don't care of the method how to do it as long as it will be done. You don't like solar panels? Fine then invent some other method.

Because the hard facts:

Sun's energy is free

it's power is mighty

no life on earth could have existed without it

and no life on earth will continue to exist without it

This thread should be a discussion of science people working on how to do this harnessing at best not an discussion of stupid excuses not to do it because sun is not shining always and we have nuclear power.

You all are also forgetting the Kardashev_scale .

Becoming a type 2 civilization requires of utilizing all the energy of a star why not begin to do that even if we can't reach the goal yet?

[SargeRho]

And how are you going to deliver all that energy into the urban areas in the tempered zone without total dissipation over the distance? Just don't say high temperature superconductors.

Just because there's energy doesn't mean it's viable to use. These things are difficult. You can't solve them like in Sim City.

You must have missed the "Energy sources should be used where they fit best." part.

[EdFred]

There's a place for both. Decentralised production avoids transmission losses, which can be substantial in some countries. Decentralisation is also a good idea if you've got high heat demands and want to locate CHP sources close to domestic areas. Large thermal plants may have good electrical efficiency, but they still blow between half and two thirds of the fuel's energy into the atmosphere as waste heat.

Rubbish. Is your friend actually suggesting that we might at some point cover enough of the planet's surface with solar panels to significantly affect the albedo? I hope (since they're at MIT) that they've got some reliable studies to back that claim up with.

What we should be doing albedo-wise is painting every roof in the world white. The overall effect would be slight, but it's so cheap it'd actually be quite cost-effective.

No. What he was saying is that because solar panels really suck as far as efficiency goes, you are heating the atmosphere more with solar panels than the CO2 emissions that may be generated IF your electrical supply is from fossil fuels. If your electrical supply is from hydro or wind already, you are contributing more to GW than if you didn't use solar panels at all. You *might* be able to save money by going solar, but you aren't saving the planet from GW by going solar. I really didn't think the concept was that hard to grasp.

[Elthy]

Do you have sources for that claim? I never heard of that and im 99,9% sure that this is not true.

[SargeRho]

Solar panels don't contribute to global warming. If anything, LESS energy is put into the atmosphere thanks to them.