War is not my choice but it is the default choice of humanity for as long as we have recorded history.What nonsense.
Tell me, what percentage of your life have you spent engaged in warfare? And what percentage not? I'll be very surprised if the 'not' isn't the larger value... as it is and always has been for most of the human race.
There is a lot of war, but it is not remotely the 'default choice' and it has been in ongoing decline by any plausible metric (e.g. percentage of deaths, percentage of population employed, percentage of spending, et cetera).
See, this is why I told thejeff that posting on these forums for real is really just a waste of time.
But to answer your question. Just this one question, as an example.
I specifically said, "War is not my choice...", yet you go off asking me a two-part non sequitur question about how much warfare I've personally engaged in.
Note also the rest of my statement, "...but it is the default choice of humanity for as long as we have recorded history", and you can see I was speaking of .
Not individuals. Let alone individual me.
I'll also add that your definition of warfare seems a bit narrow. If we are starving people and subjecting them to toxic environs (say in Africa but it could be elsewhere) to get cheaper raw materials for all our stuff, is that warfare?
[sarcasm] We're not killing them with a bullet to the head but we're totally unconcerned with the life they are trying to live to feed the machine that makes "stuff we need". Gotta replace my Samsung Galaxy Note 7 after all. I just gotta. You wouldn't make me go back to using my old-and-uncool Apple iPhone 5S would you? #### no! This is the 21st Century and we live in the 'western' world. Hipsters gotta be hip and all that. [/sarcasm]
We wouldn't want you to be forced into Apple's Walled Hell. Then again their phones are made at Foxcon, not exactly a worker's paradise, either.
[What company do you work for?
I don't work for the company, I'm an investor. I am probably one of the six biggest investors of it's stocks (actually, I'm almost positive I'm in the top six, maybe the top 5).
I'm not even one of the science guys or scientists, or anything other than someone who is invested in it. I don't work there at all, and though I have rundowns on their technical stuff, I can't say I actually understand most of it other than to think it looks good. I get a bi-annual brief about the stuff, other than that, I'm not involved with their day to day operations.
I perfer to avoid the specific connection here (first and foremost, because PR can have lots of consequences when one does that...either positive or negative...and that's something I'm not going to get into).
It's enough for you guys to know that in order to regard my opinions with whatever weight you wish in that light. I'm not trying to pull one over one anyone. It could be due to my bias that you discount my opinion completely. I'd rather that than if sometime at a future date it becomes public knowledge of my involvement with the solar industry people than think I tried to decieve them and mislead them about how good solar energy can be.
My normal work...well...I used to do be involved with administrative law...but nowdays...it's more do volunteer work, browse forums, and hope my money holds out till my dying day (and if it doesn't I suppose it's back to the rat race).
[What company do you work for?I don't work for the company, I'm an investor. I am probably one of the six biggest investors of it's stocks (actually, I'm almost positive I'm in the top six, maybe the top 5).
I'm not even one of the science guys or scientists, or anything other than someone who is invested in it. I don't work there at all, and though I have rundowns on their technical stuff, I can't say I actually understand most of it other than to think it looks good. I get a bi-annual brief about the stuff, other than that, I'm not involved with their day to day operations.
I perfer to avoid the specific connection here (first and foremost, because PR can have lots of consequences when one does that...either positive or negative...and that's something I'm not going to get into).
It's enough for you guys to know that in order to regard my opinions with whatever weight you wish in that light. I'm not trying to pull one over one anyone. It could be due to my bias that you discount my opinion completely. I'd rather that than if sometime at a future date it becomes public knowledge of my involvement with the solar industry people than think I tried to decieve them and mislead them about how good solar energy can be.
My normal work...well...I used to do be involved with administrative law...but nowdays...it's more do volunteer work, browse forums, and hope my money holds out till my dying day (and if it doesn't I suppose it's back to the rat race).
I'm sorry but with claims on that level with nothing to back them up, I have enough familliarity with solar technology and research to have to file them in the Cold Fusion category of pseudoscience. I would prefer to be proven wrong on this.
|
I specifically said, "War is not my choice...", yet you go off asking me a two-part non sequitur question about how much warfare I've personally engaged in.
According to you, "given a choice we [humans] invariably say I will have war!".
You are, I am assuming, human. Thus, if your statement about invariable choice were true, you would have chosen war your entire life. You haven't. You disprove your own claim. I thought your own existence might be evidence you could accept. Apparently not.
Note also the rest of my statement, "...but it is the default choice of humanity for as long as we have recorded history", and you can see I was speaking of .
As was I;
Tell me, what percentage of your life have you spent engaged in warfare? And what percentage not? I'll be very surprised if the 'not' isn't the larger value... as it is and always has been for most of the human race.
Neither individual humans, nor the race as a whole chooses war by default. Rather, it is a minority position. We (individually and collectively) choose peace FAR more often than war.
War is common (though much less so than in the past)... but not the 'default' or 'invariable' choice.
I'll also add that your definition of warfare seems a bit narrow.
As I did not state a definition, only your imaginary version is narrow.
[What company do you work for?I don't work for the company, I'm an investor. I am probably one of the six biggest investors of it's stocks (actually, I'm almost positive I'm in the top six, maybe the top 5
Then you are a sucker. And you wrote about me being wrong on everything?
You claimed a solar installation so efficient it would power a home for two weeks off one day's sunlight. That is patent nonsense.
The most efficient panels that exist are from SunPower which hit just over 24% efficiency. In lab testing, which means ideal conditions, one of these panels produced 272.5 watts from a total panel area of just over 1130 cm^2. The average US residential consumer uses 911 kWh per month. So for 2 weeks of power you need 455 kWh. I'll be generous and assume 8 hours of full efficiency sunlight. That means the installation needs to produce 56.875 kW, assuming 100% efficiency batteries and no other losses (because I feel generous), which means it needs 209 panels of the 1130 cm^2 size to achieve that result. That is 236,170 cm^2 of panels, assuming no frames or other lost area). Which is a just less than 5 m^2 of panels.
Of course the reality is you'll never get that 24% efficiency in a real installation, panels will not operate at full efficiency for the whole day and there will be other losses in any such system. And that completely ignores latitude.
5 square meters of solar tracking panels on a residential roof is marginally doable but a 10 square meter array?
Solar is certainly making large strides in efficiency but do not make claims that cannot be supported.
There are solar panels that can produce energy off moonlight. Assuming you only get 8 hours of energy and nothing the rest of the day is a false assumption. 8 hours at full efficiency means these would produce only 2.1kWH/day.
A normal system of static south facing solar panels angled for your latitude will produce at least 4kWH/day (using the shitty values for New England, much of the country can get 6), so a 15m^2 will hit your values in some of the worst area for solar in the country, with significantly cheaper and less efficient solar panels. The roof on my house, south facing, is 100m^2, and could fit 6 of these systems. Admittedly, the house is an unusually long raised ranch with a south facing entryway, but it is only an average size middle class home overall. Trees are the only reason for not having a system on it.Source
There are solar panels that can produce energy off moonlight. Assuming you only get 8 hours of energy and nothing the rest of the day is a false assumption. 8 hours at full efficiency means these would produce only 2.1kWH/day.
A normal system of static south facing solar panels angled for your latitude will produce at least 4kWH/day (using the s~!*ty values for New England, much of the country can get 6), so a 15m^2 will hit your values in some of the worst area for solar in the country, with significantly cheaper and less efficient solar panels. The roof on my house, south facing, is 100m^2, and could fit 6 of these systems. Admittedly, the house is an unusually long raised ranch with a south facing entryway, but it is only an average size middle class home overall. Trees are the only reason for not having a system on it.
Moonlight doesn't deliver anywhere near the energy to ground that sunlight does... and that's assuming a full moon which is generally only three nights of the month. And there's the half of the month when there is no moonlight at all at night. So right off the bat, you're not going to get a usable amount of energy from lunar light alone.
Now, now. The claim was "produce energy," not "produce usable amounts of energy." :P
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Moonlight doesn't deliver anywhere near the energy to ground that sunlight does... and that's assuming a full moon which is generally only three nights of the month. And there's the half of the month when there is no moonlight at all at night. So right off the bat, you're not going to get a usable amount of energy from lunar light alone.There are solar panels that can produce energy off moonlight. Assuming you only get 8 hours of energy and nothing the rest of the day is a false assumption. 8 hours at full efficiency means these would produce only 2.1kWH/day.
A normal system of static south facing solar panels angled for your latitude will produce at least 4kWH/day (using the s~!*ty values for New England, much of the country can get 6), so a 15m^2 will hit your values in some of the worst area for solar in the country, with significantly cheaper and less efficient solar panels. The roof on my house, south facing, is 100m^2, and could fit 6 of these systems. Admittedly, the house is an unusually long raised ranch with a south facing entryway, but it is only an average size middle class home overall. Trees are the only reason for not having a system on it.
Right, but my point isn't based off that, so I have no idea why you are picking that apart and implying my argument is somehow false.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
...
Right, but my point isn't based off that, so I have no idea why you are picking that apart and implying my argument is somehow false.
I can think of two ideas right off the bat.
1. So people don't walk away from this thread thinking "moonlight solar power" is a magical solution to some of the problems with solar energy.
2. Because there is a correlation between a person being wrong about one thing on a topic (or at best saying highly misleading things), and being wrong about another thing on the same topic.
With regards to solar power and moonlight, according to google the sun produces about 1000 watts per square meter. The moon produces about 1.5 milliwatts per square meter during a full moon, or about a million times less. If you want a very rough idea of what that means, if we assume an ideal solar panel that scales for any energy input (i.e. its magical) then the moon light from an entire year would produce about as much energy as a fraction of a second of sunlight.
If you have a tripod and the patience to do so... it's an interesting experiment to try doing long exposures on nights with a full moon.. ussing the normal aperture you would use in daylight with about 18 minutes of exposure.
...
Right, but my point isn't based off that, so I have no idea why you are picking that apart and implying my argument is somehow false.I can think of two ideas right off the bat.
1. So people don't walk away from this thread thinking "moonlight solar power" is a magical solution to some of the problems with solar energy.
2. Because there is a correlation between a person being wrong about one thing on a topic (or at best saying highly misleading things), and being wrong about another thing on the same topic.
With regards to solar power and moonlight, according to google the sun produces about 1000 watts per square meter. The moon produces about 1.5 milliwatts per square meter during a full moon, or about a million times less. If you want a very rough idea of what that means, if we assume an ideal solar panel that scales for any energy input (i.e. its magical) then the moon light from an entire year would produce about as much energy as a fraction of a second of sunlight.
Except I'm not wrong on the topic. They produce energy in measurable quantities on clear nights, granted only a fraction of a percent of peak. It is countering the idea put forth in the previous example that only peak energy is relevant.
Except I'm not wrong on the topic. They produce energy in measurable quantities on clear nights, granted only a fraction of a percent of peak. It is countering the idea put forth in the previous example that only peak energy is relevant....
Right, but my point isn't based off that, so I have no idea why you are picking that apart and implying my argument is somehow false.I can think of two ideas right off the bat.
1. So people don't walk away from this thread thinking "moonlight solar power" is a magical solution to some of the problems with solar energy.
2. Because there is a correlation between a person being wrong about one thing on a topic (or at best saying highly misleading things), and being wrong about another thing on the same topic.
With regards to solar power and moonlight, according to google the sun produces about 1000 watts per square meter. The moon produces about 1.5 milliwatts per square meter during a full moon, or about a million times less. If you want a very rough idea of what that means, if we assume an ideal solar panel that scales for any energy input (i.e. its magical) then the moon light from an entire year would produce about as much energy as a fraction of a second of sunlight.
Except that it's not a relevant amount. It's not enough to add justification for the expense of layout out solar power if daylight accumulation by itself isn't enough. It's not even enough to MEASURE outside of a margin of error.
When it comes to the kind of rough back of the envelope calculations we're talking about here, "a fraction of a percent of peak" is irrelevant.Except I'm not wrong on the topic. They produce energy in measurable quantities on clear nights, granted only a fraction of a percent of peak. It is countering the idea put forth in the previous example that only peak energy is relevant....
Right, but my point isn't based off that, so I have no idea why you are picking that apart and implying my argument is somehow false.I can think of two ideas right off the bat.
1. So people don't walk away from this thread thinking "moonlight solar power" is a magical solution to some of the problems with solar energy.
2. Because there is a correlation between a person being wrong about one thing on a topic (or at best saying highly misleading things), and being wrong about another thing on the same topic.
With regards to solar power and moonlight, according to google the sun produces about 1000 watts per square meter. The moon produces about 1.5 milliwatts per square meter during a full moon, or about a million times less. If you want a very rough idea of what that means, if we assume an ideal solar panel that scales for any energy input (i.e. its magical) then the moon light from an entire year would produce about as much energy as a fraction of a second of sunlight.
Perhaps that is a reason I didn't base any of my actual argument over it.
There are solar panels that can produce energy off moonlight. Assuming you only get 8 hours of energy and nothing the rest of the day is a false assumption. 8 hours at full efficiency means these would produce only 2.1kWH/day.
A normal system of static south facing solar panels angled for your latitude will produce at least 4kWH/day...
4 kwh/day is not 455 kWh/day which was the claim I was debunking. 6 of those is 24 kWh/day not 455.
I used the most efficient panels in existence because those are the only ones with a remote chance of hitting that kind of goal. The sorts of commercial units you are referencing simply cannot. You already provided the math to prove that.
I'm unsure why you thought you were disagreeing with me when you actually stated that I was correct.
Jessex, I will absolutely say, you do not know what the HECK you are discussing.
You have NO IDEA what how our solar engine works or how it gathers or stores energy. I can only say, once again, you are wrong on just about everything you've stated.
It's your right, but I'm not going to be baited by personal attacks...if that's what you are trying to do.
Maybe I'm a sucker...maybe I'm not. Overall, it doesn't really matter. I've made it known that I am biased because I have personal investments and interests in this area.
You took it a slightly different way of disbelief than I thought one would, but that's okay. To be honest, I'd rather have people disbelieve me and be skeptical and think for themselves on the matters rather than simply accept things at face value.
My opinions stand though, and based on what I know, I'll still say, we could supply the entire US with solar energy utilizing our engine. It's possible right now, with our current technology, but as I also stated, I think this thread is a good example concerning the uphill battle we have to go through.
PS: Addressing the moonlight thing...Our Solar Cells may be able to collect solar in cloud cover, and do their job at most areas below the artic circle...but I don't think they can actually utilize moonlight. Actually, I'm pretty positive they don't. I've tried using the solar without our engine at night and it doesn't work. You need the stored up energy to run through the engine in order to get electricity in that instance.
Doesn't mean someone else hasn't figured out a way to use cells at night for energy, but that is a limitation I don't think our solar panels get around. That's one major reason why we have the engine in the first place, so you can have electricity when the conditions aren't right for the solar panels to simply collect it. Ours engine is obviously more effective than batteries (though they keep getting better as well...used to be 5 hour batteries, I think they have those that can last a LOT longer now), but I think moonlight is a limitation in gathering that energy.
In addition, people mentioned snow. Yeah...it won't gather energy through snow either. You'd have to clear the snow off. On the otherhand, if you DO get the snow off, we actually have a way for you to utilize it as well! But that's an entirely DIFFERENT topic for a DIFFERENT Thread (if one ever comes up on that).
On a totally different note and more in line with what this thread was about originally...
This weekend I was back out doing my volunteer stuff taking measurements again (and even was online for a little bit...in a snowy and rainy environment so satellite was a little splotchy...and according to some people in this thread impossible because I obviously couldn't have had power in those conditions...actually DID cause more problems with satellite...lost the connection a few times to be honest])
Just got back today. Previously it's been colder this year, but this month it seems everything is just about average...maybe a little warmer even??
I also got to try out a new vehicle traveling out there. It's a 4WD, but I actually got nervous at a point. It's higher from the ground and I was told it will tip easier on curves...so when the wind picked up and the snow started coming down in the mountains...yeah...I admit...I'm a novice at driving. I was a tad worried...right up until the director zoomed past me laughing at me as if I were an old lady...
Some people.
So, slight change up for the year now.
There are solar panels that can produce energy off moonlight. Assuming you only get 8 hours of energy and nothing the rest of the day is a false assumption. 8 hours at full efficiency means these would produce only 2.1kWH/day.
A normal system of static south facing solar panels angled for your latitude will produce at least 4kWH/day...
4 kwh/day is not 455 kWh/day which was the claim I was debunking. 6 of those is 24 kWh/day not 455.
I used the most efficient panels in existence because those are the only ones with a remote chance of hitting that kind of goal. The sorts of commercial units you are referencing simply cannot. You already provided the math to prove that.
I'm unsure why you thought you were disagreeing with me when you actually stated that I was correct.
Jessex, I will absolutely say, you do not know what the HECK you are discussing.
You have NO IDEA what how our solar engine works or how it gathers or stores energy. I can only say, once again, you are wrong on just about everything you've stated.
It's your right, but I'm not going to be baited by personal attacks...if that's what you are trying to do.
Maybe I'm a sucker...maybe I'm not. Overall, it doesn't really matter. I've made it known that I am biased because I have personal investments and interests in this area.
You took it a slightly different way of disbelief than I thought one would, but that's okay.
I'll still say, we could supply the entire US with solar energy utilizing our engine, but it takes either money, or a LOT of commitment in order for us to lower the costs.
You're right. He doesn't know how it works. He can't, since you can't tell him.
You may have some kind of magic tech beyond anything anyone else has seen, but if you're going to claim that and want anyone to believe you, you've got to show evidence. Otherwise everyone's going to assume it's like the cold fusion guys or the gasoline pill. You've got...
Yes, actually, we do. If I didn't think it would be bad PR, I might be tempted to toss you some information...but right now, with the responses I've gotten here, the PR folks probably would kill me. I'm too open on my opinions and that combined with Paizo's already notorious reputation (I hear you guys sunk a judgeship...yeah...that's the type of PR people can do without) towards this type of thing...better to keep my money rather than try to prove things.
Fact of the matter is, even without our stuff, you could still run a majority of the US off solar cells right now off OLD technology from a decade ago. The solar cells collect energy during the day (and you can run them in ALL the contiguous 48 states at least, and lower Alaska...I know...because I've DONE IT) and you then run off battery power (the solar charges the batteries...it's older tech, but it's the most common overall) at night. Unless someone is a complete night owl, the batteries should last them for everything they need at night. The batteries themselves have a life of around 5 years.
That's the OLD tech, and for most of the US, it should actually work still. Even a decade ago, the solar cells I was using still could collect power on cloudy days (still no luck with snow though, or in moonlight...). A prime example of our some lower energy solar tech would be the weather stations we have in some locations. It's all powered by solar energy and very rarely does it run out. It's old tech, but it is reliable enough to run them and get measurements! You can see it on other smaller items as well, at least in the Northern US where I've seen it utilized. I imagine if it works this well in the North, it probably is bazookas good in the South US.
You throw in improved hydro power, and even with the old tech you probably could have moved the US completely to Solar, Wind, and hydro a decade ago.
Today...the stuff is actually far more impressive. The key is, it isn't simply solar energy straight up, most of the new stuff is what I would call solar engines. That means that the solar energy is collected, but it's collected and then saved in various other forms which are more viable for long term storage and use. These are different than the Solar batteries that are commonly seen, as they are far more effective in how they utilize energy and how that energy is controlled.
The solar engines are FAR MORE EXPENSIVE right now than a Simple Solar panel and battery system though...which is probably what is hindering it from taking off.
With the initial investment we probably could get someone's usage to be around 13 cents per kilowatt right now on a 2gig engine...it would be lower the bigger the engine (so lower with a 5gig engine).
Solar engines themselves are nothing new (I believe various types have been around since 1987) and most of them work off a hydro/solar principle. However, advances in solar engines have been gaining ground rapidly over the past 3 years. We aren't the only show on the road...so a little research into it probably could show you at least what was up around 5 years ago in the field.
In the end it doesn't matter all that much whether people believe me or not, I've said my disclaimer so that people KNOW I'm biased (so they can choose to treat me like they should have treated Big Tobacco 50 years ago, or treat me like they should have treated Solar today), in the end, I'm just sharing my opinions. It shouldn't change what business we are doing or how we are doing it, and it's not going to change the laws of physics...sooo...I'm just being part of the discussion.
PS: I am not connected to this site, but this page dispels some interesting myths...
Particularly this one is my favorite...which according to some on this thread is IMPOSSIBLE!!!!
Solar won't work for me, its too cloudy where I live.Germany has five times as much solar power as the US - despite having the amount of sunshine of Alaska, the lowest in the U.S.
You really don't have a clue and you dare say I don't understand something?
Calling it a solar engine or anything you like does not change a thing about the efficiency of the panels or how much power the panels can produce. Just changing the batteries in the system for a flywheel or steam or molten silica doesn't change a thing about how much power the panels can collect.
I've demonstrated that your claim was bogus without ever involving the storage medium. Since the storage device cannot be 100% efficient and I didn't include any storage losses at all in my calculations. It is immaterial whether your storage is 85% efficient or 78% or 50%.
BTW if you don't like being insulted and having your foolishness pointed out you shouldn't issue personal insults when responding to others.
Did you just say you are personally insulting and attacking me?
Why would you do something like that?
I have not tried to insult you and have tried to be polite, but I find a LOT of your stuff very misleading and inaccurate, as well as completely inaccurate in regards to the current situation in the solar market.
I am only pointing out that you don't know what you are talking about in regards, not only to me in your personal assuasions that I was trying to sell something, but also in regards to the current solar industry and who is using it currently.
For instance, you are talking solely about solar panels in cells and and ignoring the percentages of collection via solar engines...and not solar engines now, but solar engines 10 years ago (which even then had a higher percentage simply due to how they are designed to capture and utilize sunlight).
However, I gather that is NOT what you are actually wanting to express at all.
What it really boils down to is that I expressed my thoughts that we can have EVERYONE on solar energy now if we expended the resources to do so.
You obviously disagree with that, for whatever reasons you have.
Because of this, you originally tried to attack me by accusing me of some absolutely ridiculous notion of begging for sales (ON AN RPG OFF TOPIC FORUM OF ALL PLACES...seriously...that's what I was accused of).
I believe I at least completely and totally debunked that accusations which you leveled at me. I stated that this was a WRONG accusation and wrong statement. After that, you went on other tangents.
You have tried to express certain thoughts in regards to limitations of solar cells (whose...I don't know...but you feel strongly about it) to try to "prove" how impossible it is for certain people who are using solar in certain nations to be using that power, and tried to prove that it would be impossible for people who are currently utilizing solar energy in many northern locations (including, interestingly, probably, myself in some instances) cannot possibly be using it.
You utilized a bogus number in regards to solar engines to try to "prove" your point, and then doubled down on that.
I find it very hard to swallow that someone would push that idea...BUT you are entitled to your opinion, and I've tried responding to you as politely as possible. I am glad that you've stopped dropping the attacks that I'm trying to sell you or anyone else something on this forum.
That's what drew me in the first place to respond to you, because you were trying to insinuate something that was absolute untrue about me personally.
To be honest, I don't really care that you think most of the people in the northern hemisphere who are presently using solar power could not possibly be doing that. That's your prerogative.
However, I don't think you've demonstrated anything to anyone who could do their own research or own thinking (google itself will show that many in your northern climes utilize solar energy in some way or fashion, despite you stating that solar cells could not possibly be effective), unless you consider economical as being some price point so low that the investment some nations and people have made into solar as being foolish on a national scale.
In reality, what we discuss on this forum doesn't really matter. The laws of physics are not going to change because of something we say here, and the way solar energy works is not going to suddenly deviate from how it works or is utilized.
If you have been offended, I apologize. It was never my intent to offend you at all. As you request, I will stop responding to your posts.
I expect you will keep your opinion that solar energy is not a viable solution, but will also inform you that I am absolutely and completely convinced of the exact opposite.
I have seen our solar stuff work. I have seen it in action. I know solar can be applied in the US and the more modern our technology gets, the more viable it is. I believe solar is at the point right now that it could be used to replace ALL of our energy needs.
I even think older solar systems (which I think is what you've been trying to utilize, even if your information on them is a little off) are viable to replace most of the US's energy needs.
I understand that you disagree. That is okay.
However, if you really think it's a wasted effort and want to save money, perhaps you should try to stop companies like this
renewable energy systems Alaska from installations rather than trying to say they can't exist on some off topic forum.
PS: Just to clear this up before someone leaps to some unfounded conclusion...I am NOT part of the company renewablealaska solar options and I am absolutely NOT trying to sell their stuff. I used it as an example because they are a company that installs solar in the US's most northern clime.
Question, is it possible to use solar cells to gather energy from light other than sunlight? Such as indoor lights? Or are the frequencies wrong?
Question, is it possible to use solar cells to gather energy from light other than sunlight? Such as indoor lights? Or are the frequencies wrong?
Depends on their purpose. There are solar cells that use indoor lights on smaller electronic items. A prime example of that would be solar calculators, many of which can utilize the light from indoor lighting to power themselves.
However, the areas which I invested in don't focus on that, so I don't know a lot about it.
Ummm, why would you be trying to harness electrical energy from a light.....being run by electrical energy?
That would represent a net loss of energy from the system if my physics serves me right.
I suppose it could be a way to reduce wastage. A hell of a lot of artificially generated light just turns into light pollution. I can't imagine gathering it up with solar cells being a significant improvement, but it's better than just peeing the photons away into space.
There are solar panels that can produce energy off moonlight. Assuming you only get 8 hours of energy and nothing the rest of the day is a false assumption. 8 hours at full efficiency means these would produce only 2.1kWH/day.
A normal system of static south facing solar panels angled for your latitude will produce at least 4kWH/day...
4 kwh/day is not 455 kWh/day which was the claim I was debunking. 6 of those is 24 kWh/day not 455.
I used the most efficient panels in existence because those are the only ones with a remote chance of hitting that kind of goal. The sorts of commercial units you are referencing simply cannot. You already provided the math to prove that.
I'm unsure why you thought you were disagreeing with me when you actually stated that I was correct.
I misread your initial assessment and that changes my numbers, but it is still close to doable on my house. 455kWh/day / 4kWh/day/m^2 = 114 m^2, so only slightly larger than my 100m^2 of south facing exposure. I can probably do it since I am using footprint instead of linear feet for the roof, since I'm not sure of the pitch. Each of the 6 systems I was referring to was 54, no 4 kWh/day (I had misread your kWh target as a kwh/day target).
I suppose it could be a way to reduce wastage. A hell of a lot of artificially generated light just turns into light pollution. I can't imagine gathering it up with solar cells being a significant improvement, but it's better than just peeing the photons away into space.Ummm, why would you be trying to harness electrical energy from a light.....being run by electrical energy?
That would represent a net loss of energy from the system if my physics serves me right.
Exactly.
Solar engines themselves are nothing new (I believe various types have been around since 1987) and most of them work off a hydro/solar principle. However, advances in solar engines have been gaining ground rapidly over the past 3 years. We aren't the only show on the road...so a little research into it probably could show you at least what was up around 5 years ago in the field.
There's an island called Modesta, I believe they use peak wind and solar power to pump water into huge cisterns that have been carved inside of the local mountains. At night, they generate electricity, by dropping that pumped up water through hydroelectric plants.
Wait....Wait....The Paizo forums sunk a judgeship? When the heck did this happen?
Contributor, RPG Superstar 2010 Top 8
|
I believe he's talking about Clark Peterson (he of Necromancy Games and Legendary Games)
I believe he's actually still a judge, he just took some flak over his use of the message board back in 2013.
It was mostly a matter of people unhappy with rulings he made trying to dig up dirt about him, with a little bit of satanic panic thrown in for good measure.
That said, appealing to that incident as a reason not to post about this solar business on the Paizo boards is a little dodgy. The Paizo boards are not that notorious, and merely mentioning the name of a company on them is not going to tarnish that company's reputation--if for no other reason than hardly any one will notice.
I believe he's talking about Clark Peterson (he of Necromancy Games and Legendary Games)
I believe he's actually still a judge, he just took some flak over his use of the message board back in 2013.
It was mostly a matter of people unhappy with rulings he made trying to dig up dirt about him, with a little bit of satanic panic thrown in for good measure.
That said, appealing to that incident as a reason not to post about this solar business on the Paizo boards is a little dodgy. The Paizo boards are not that notorious, and merely mentioning the name of a company on them is not going to tarnish that company's reputation--if for no other reason than hardly any one will notice.
The Paizo boards themselves had nothing to do with his judgeship. It was a matter of claims of some who where unhappy about his court rulings that he was distracted by his involvement with roleplaying games AND his marital problems at the time. He'd also been dealing with bankruptcy proceedings, the large part of his debt being student loans.
Ah okay that sounds better.
You're claiming to get 4kWh/day per m^2 of panel? You previously said you got 4kWh/day from a system that was 15m^2. One is in line with reasonable efficiency panels, the other is a massive increase of efficiency over any panels presently known to exist.I misread your initial assessment and that changes my numbers, but it is still close to doable on my house. 455kWh/day / 4kWh/day/m^2 = 114 m^2, so only slightly larger than my 100m^2 of south facing exposure. I can probably do it since I am using footprint instead of linear feet for the roof, since I'm not sure of the pitch. Each of the 6 systems I was referring to was 54, no 4 kWh/day (I had misread your kWh target as a kwh/day target).There are solar panels that can produce energy off moonlight. Assuming you only get 8 hours of energy and nothing the rest of the day is a false assumption. 8 hours at full efficiency means these would produce only 2.1kWH/day.
A normal system of static south facing solar panels angled for your latitude will produce at least 4kWH/day...
4 kwh/day is not 455 kWh/day which was the claim I was debunking. 6 of those is 24 kWh/day not 455.
I used the most efficient panels in existence because those are the only ones with a remote chance of hitting that kind of goal. The sorts of commercial units you are referencing simply cannot. You already provided the math to prove that.
I'm unsure why you thought you were disagreeing with me when you actually stated that I was correct.
No, my claim has always been 4kWh/day/m^2 from panels. If you look at the website I linked as the source of my data, you would see that that is what they assume as a baseline for New York and New England using static south-facing solar panels angled optimally for altitude, as an annual average. Most of the country will get 5 or better. Looking at it further, I see that their graph is in fact from 2004, so at this point it is probably measurably higher from better panels. But the fact of the matter is this system is massive overkill, most people will only need systems 6-10m^2 to meet daily needs, which is what tons of people are installing.
I referenced a 15m^2 system because I mistook your 56kWh as 56kWh/day, and that is how much you would need to hit that target.
edit addition:
I would also like to point out that you calculated 90kWh/m^2/day with your ideal solar panels.
|
Contributor, RPG Superstar 2010 Top 8
|
The Paizo boards themselves had nothing to do with his judgeship. It was a matter of claims of some who where unhappy about his court rulings that he was distracted by his involvement with roleplaying games AND his marital problems at the time. He'd also been dealing with bankruptcy proceedings, the large part of his debt being student loans.I believe he's talking about Clark Peterson (he of Necromancy Games and Legendary Games)
I believe he's actually still a judge, he just took some flak over his use of the message board back in 2013.
It was mostly a matter of people unhappy with rulings he made trying to dig up dirt about him, with a little bit of satanic panic thrown in for good measure.
That said, appealing to that incident as a reason not to post about this solar business on the Paizo boards is a little dodgy. The Paizo boards are not that notorious, and merely mentioning the name of a company on them is not going to tarnish that company's reputation--if for no other reason than hardly any one will notice.
Like I said, people unhappy with his rulings trying to dig up dirt on him. Aside from complaining that he was posting during business hours (even though he was posting during his breaks), they also made a big deal about him posting under the name Orcus--a demon lord.
To be clear, I think the complaints are bullshit, and Clark is by all accounts a great judge who didn't deserve the negative attention.
Never heard of and cannot find anything about such an island but pumped storage hydroelectric is not that uncommon. Using solar to power the pumps is being done in a number of places. There is one such in the high desert of Chile which takes advantage of the Atacama Desert's extreme aridity and altitude.Solar engines themselves are nothing new (I believe various types have been around since 1987) and most of them work off a hydro/solar principle. However, advances in solar engines have been gaining ground rapidly over the past 3 years. We aren't the only show on the road...so a little research into it probably could show you at least what was up around 5 years ago in the field.There's an island called Modesta, I believe they use peak wind and solar power to pump water into huge cisterns that have been carved inside of the local mountains. At night, they generate electricity, by dropping that pumped up water through hydroelectric plants.
The island's name is Madeira in Portugal, I was misremembering a NatGeo documentary i had watched a couple of month's ago.
I always wanted to visit Portugal. Mostly to see the art.
I don't think storage technique is what solar engine is referring to. Near as I can tell, solar engines are usually something like mirrors concentrating sunlight onto water to boil it and run a turbine.
Did you just say you are personally insulting and attacking me?Why would you do something like that?
Because you have started off every post in response to me by insulting me?
You are still pretending like you have some special secret knowledge when you don't even understand the most basic ideas of what you're talking about.
No matter what you call your system it still must gather sunlight and turn it into usable energy. The most efficient such systems in the world cannot hit the numbers you claimed and no matter what the storage technique, which is what you're babbling about when you call something a solar engine, is irrelevant to that.
The storage technique could be related to the "solar engine" design, because some designs might be easily ameanable to adding in specialized storage elements. The obvious way to integrate a storage system into a solar engine is by pumping hot working fluid into a very well insulated reservoir and then slowly bleeding it off into the generator at night. That should completely negate the need for batteries. Whether this is actually superior to batteries or not is something I am not going to take a guess at without further research, and frankly I CBF right now.
I believe he's talking about Clark Peterson (he of Necromancy Games and Legendary Games)
I believe he's actually still a judge, he just took some flak over his use of the message board back in 2013.
It was mostly a matter of people unhappy with rulings he made trying to dig up dirt about him, with a little bit of satanic panic thrown in for good measure.
That said, appealing to that incident as a reason not to post about this solar business on the Paizo boards is a little dodgy. The Paizo boards are not that notorious, and merely mentioning the name of a company on them is not going to tarnish that company's reputation--if for no other reason than hardly any one will notice.
Didn't know he was still a judge. Glad to hear that.
Yes, that is what I was posting about. It has bad publicity all over it.
I'm not a spokesman (just an investor) and as I'm very much likely to post my opinions on political subjects that some may consider volatile at times, it's best if I stay out of anything that may involve PR/sales, or anything of the like.
I'm pretty positive some here probably hate my guts, or worse. I don't have the most popular of opinions at times.
That said, I still try to treat others politely. If/when the specs finally become far more common and public, I'd be glad to share how everything works. I know when some physicists at the Labs saw it, at first they were pretty shocked at it. It's very effective. IT's a solar engine that has outside of the box thinking.
However, I would also say with modern solar, even without that engine, we should be able to supply most of our energy needs (and in fact, from my biased view, I'd say all of our energy needs...Alaska itself has a renewable energy push and even without any further things like cleaning up the panels and extra items for storage can use solar engines and other solar equipment 9 months out of the year presently from what I understand) for the US.
If you have questions, most of those who actually sale the equipment and are the front for the various solar companies have a way for you to contact them and get REAL information on how effective their solar equipment that they install or sell is in whatever region of the US or world you live in.
I believe he's talking about Clark Peterson (he of Necromancy Games and Legendary Games)
I believe he's actually still a judge, he just took some flak over his use of the message board back in 2013.
It was mostly a matter of people unhappy with rulings he made trying to dig up dirt about him, with a little bit of satanic panic thrown in for good measure.
That said, appealing to that incident as a reason not to post about this solar business on the Paizo boards is a little dodgy. The Paizo boards are not that notorious, and merely mentioning the name of a company on them is not going to tarnish that company's reputation--if for no other reason than hardly any one will notice.
Didn't know he was still a judge. Glad to hear that.
Yes, that is what I was posting about. It has bad publicity all over it.
I'm not a spokesman (just an investor) and as I'm very much likely to post my opinions on political subjects that some may consider volatile at times, it's best if I stay out of anything that may involve PR/sales, or anything of the like.
I'm pretty positive some here probably hate my guts, or worse. I don't have the most popular of opinions at times.
You could have simply said that you were bound by a Non-Disclosure Agreement, and it could have been left at that. You simply have to accept that without anything that we can reference, your solar background can be at best taken as anecdotal, not qualitative evidence.
You could have simply said that you were bound by a Non-Disclosure Agreement, and it could have been left at that. You simply have to accept that without anything that we can reference, your solar background can be at best taken as anecdotal, not qualitative evidence.I believe he's talking about Clark Peterson (he of Necromancy Games and Legendary Games)
I believe he's actually still a judge, he just took some flak over his use of the message board back in 2013.
It was mostly a matter of people unhappy with rulings he made trying to dig up dirt about him, with a little bit of satanic panic thrown in for good measure.
That said, appealing to that incident as a reason not to post about this solar business on the Paizo boards is a little dodgy. The Paizo boards are not that notorious, and merely mentioning the name of a company on them is not going to tarnish that company's reputation--if for no other reason than hardly any one will notice.
Didn't know he was still a judge. Glad to hear that.
Yes, that is what I was posting about. It has bad publicity all over it.
I'm not a spokesman (just an investor) and as I'm very much likely to post my opinions on political subjects that some may consider volatile at times, it's best if I stay out of anything that may involve PR/sales, or anything of the like.
I'm pretty positive some here probably hate my guts, or worse. I don't have the most popular of opinions at times.
I do have an NDA, but it doesn't stop me from talking on the company itself. That's a personal choice. I'd rather not have an "incident" similar to what he did simply due to the particulars of these forums or due my own expression of my opinions that people may or may not like.
Is that wise...who knows. This is an instance where, ironically, I'm far more concerned with my wallet than with whether people believe me or not.
Afterall, it really is JUST MY OPINION...just like any other persons opinion, and I could be just as much wrong as anyone else with it. I might try to back up my opinion with what I know, but at the end of the day, I'm expressing my opinion like anyone else. That's not worth having any "incidents" or anything else back in my life at home.
You could have simply said that you were bound by a Non-Disclosure Agreement, and it could have been left at that. You simply have to accept that without anything that we can reference, your solar background can be at best taken as anecdotal, not qualitative evidence.I believe he's talking about Clark Peterson (he of Necromancy Games and Legendary Games)
I believe he's actually still a judge, he just took some flak over his use of the message board back in 2013.
It was mostly a matter of people unhappy with rulings he made trying to dig up dirt about him, with a little bit of satanic panic thrown in for good measure.
That said, appealing to that incident as a reason not to post about this solar business on the Paizo boards is a little dodgy. The Paizo boards are not that notorious, and merely mentioning the name of a company on them is not going to tarnish that company's reputation--if for no other reason than hardly any one will notice.
Didn't know he was still a judge. Glad to hear that.
Yes, that is what I was posting about. It has bad publicity all over it.
I'm not a spokesman (just an investor) and as I'm very much likely to post my opinions on political subjects that some may consider volatile at times, it's best if I stay out of anything that may involve PR/sales, or anything of the like.
I'm pretty positive some here probably hate my guts, or worse. I don't have the most popular of opinions at times.
I do have an NDA, but it doesn't stop me from talking on the company itself. That's a personal choice. I'd rather not have an "incident" similar to what he did simply due to the particulars of these forums or due my own expression of my opinions that people may or may not like.
Is that wise...who knows. This is an instance where, ironically, I'm far more concerned with my wallet than with whether people believe me or not.
Afterall, it really is JUST...
You extremely overexaggerate the importance that this venue plays... even on the internet scale of things. But there was once a conductor who was so hypocondriatic that he kept one hand under his chin because he was afraid of his head falling off during performances. So there are worse things, relatively speaking.
|
|
This talk reminds me of a friend that still thinks the solar roadway thing is possible.
Solar roadways exist. They are, therefore, clearly 'possible'... and indeed, proven reality.
I have to laugh and point out what has been happening, the science behind it, etc.. and show it is a total crock.
If you were to "point out what has been happening" you would presumably note that solar road projects are increasing in frequency and scope around the world.
He refuses to listen though when I point out that they spent thousands just to learn that solar panels get more energy when they are tilted.
Given that it has long been common knowledge that solar panels produce more energy when tilted towards the Sun this just seems like more empty hyperbole (e.g. like saying things that already exist are not possible).