Solar power is shit

[bobofthenorth]

Moe is talking about nuclear. I would like to see the cost of nuclear vs other options including just importing more hydro from Manitoba. Wind and solar are getting cheaper and cheaper. Nuclear is likely one of the most expensive. But when Moe starts talking nuclear for carbon reductions you know coal is on the way out for sure.

If you claim to be concerned about CO2 and you are NOT talking about nuclear then you are at best a hypocrite and likely a hypocritical idiot. If CO2 really is a problem then nuclear is the only solution.

[Klause]

Moe is talking about nuclear. I would like to see the cost of nuclear vs other options including just importing more hydro from Manitoba. Wind and solar are getting cheaper and cheaper. Nuclear is likely one of the most expensive. But when Moe starts talking nuclear for carbon reductions you know coal is on the way out for sure.

You need a 24hr a day always there always on backstop

What the hell is Scotcurlyjoe talking about with R&D.

Just build these already ffks. They are modular, ready to go, and intrinsically safe.
https://www.terrestrialenergy.com/about-us/ https://www.terrestrialenergy.com/about-us/


Probably be further ahead if we bought one of those with the CCS money.

We are half a century away from nuclear fusion power - artificial suns

[blackpowder]

feeding cattle off the stone boat with my dad

I haven't heard a stoneboat referenced in speech in a very long while. Thanks
Good to know I'm not the only one. We used ours to haul shit.

Sorry, but I tuned out this other earpiss long ago.

[Blaithin]

I always find it curious that, as farmers, we seem to be more aware of monopolies than the run of the mill urban folk. We don't want monopolies in the grain co's, we don't want monopolies in the slaughter houses, we realize this impacts the price we get for our commodities.

Conversely we aren't very appreciative of monopolies in chemical companies, cell companies, etc. where we'd be at the mercy of the price when we purchase the products for our use.

Yet for some reason.... we're absolutely ok with the slim pickings of our energy sources?

What could the potential be for our costs of energy if all of a sudden there was more competition. Not every location or set up will work for solar. Or wind. Or geothermal. Or hydro. But if they were all more common options then they would not only support each other through high demands and low production moments but it could easily make them more competitive and prices more friendly for us.

Recently I heard the term Energy Ecosystem which I really liked.

Not a huge fan of the batteries needed in off grid systems but they aren't required for grid tie in. If someone has a good set up for solar or wind and feeds back into the grid during high production and pulls from the grid during low, then if there's things like coal or nuclear there as a back up, they're still there and reliable, but their gross production is lower. Which would lower emissions concerns with them. They all support each other, like a functioning ecosystem.

Variety is the spice of life, after all!

[jimmy]

You think there’s greater temperature fluctuations on earth than in space?

The whole reason earth supports life is because the atmosphere helps keep things more stable. On the moon, which has next to no atmosphere, the temperatures can fluctuate between +127C and -173C. And yes, there are things in space that can hit an object. Usually flying rocks at great speeds so not hail and rain granted...

Another interesting fact at the workshop I was at was that modules actually get more efficient when it’s colder. 0.4% for each degree lower than 10C or something like that. Who knew!

And they’re tested against hail so quite strong. It would take an exceptional hail storm to wipe out modules. Snow cover will lower production when it’s on the modules, yes, but that’s taken into consideration when sizing a set up and building it with tilt. Newer systems can be made to tilt and follow the sun and also have the option to dump snow off themselves and to tuck in flat if it’s really windy.

No idea never been up there that’s why I was asking. Their panels must be better built than the Siemens panels I bought years ago for watering cattle they are pretty much ornaments now.

[Mjolnir]

I conveniently was just at a solar workshop...

Good modules decline by 80-85% after 20 years. They aren’t done at that point.

They’re capable of paying off their carbon footprint in 4-6 years.

Here’s a fact I found particularly interesting...

NASA is the original driver behind solar power and particularly PV modules. They use it to power satellites as, obviously, there’s no other power source out in space. The satellites they launched in the 60s right at the beginning still have functioning modules. Which puts paid to the idea they’re done after 20 years. Although it would be interesting to know how often people have landed on the satellites to perform maintenance and repairs but considering the cost and time required to do that I’m going to assume not that much. If baby solar technology from the 60s can still be going 50 years later then the more advanced modules available now can definitely manage that. No matter what solar hating article you might read saying solar has a poor lifespan, functioning 50 year old satellites say otherwise.

Also the solar pioneer in Alberta (maybe even Canada?) put his panels up in 1995 and they’re still going strong.

Not that that means solar doesn’t have its negative aspects, but what doesn’t.

Which satellites specifically, I can only find one that is still up and it isn’t functional.

[Oliver88]

On CKRM they were talking about the Medicine Hat solar project was to test if solar was feasible and a possibility in that region.
Unfortunately the conclusion was Medicine Hat is too far north and too cold. This lead to a very unreliable and expensive source of power.

If it doesn’t work in Medicine Hat.....the rest of the prairies are likely out of the question too.

[Blaithin]

Which satellites specifically, I can only find one that is still up and it isn’t functional.

Here's a few although the last they were heard was early 2000's for the most part.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prospero_%28satellite%29#Current_status

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pioneer_6,_7,_8,_and_9

However I'm not sure if any of those would be deemed "functional". For the most part their battery systems are done for so they only contact if they're in sunlight. Which at least proves the solar panels are functioning LOL

Oscar 7 was apparently being heard daily as recently as 2017.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AMSAT-OSCAR_7

Didn't really look up any other, younger ones, as I'm not an astronomy whiz and wading through all the launches to get through the ones that survived launching, lasted more than a week AND use solar as a power source is more than my Googling skills are up for right now. But even the Hubble is pushing 30 years and going strong.

[Klause]

Those are a couple good factors
I always wondered why they cant make surface warm to melt snow and also to make them turn to follow the sun

They do. You can get arrays that track the sun.

And go vertical and lay back down to drop snow.

There's a lot of fud on here about solar...


I used to be a skeptic but not anymore.

[sumdumguy]

On CKRM they were talking about the Medicine Hat solar project was to test if solar was feasible and a possibility in that region.
Unfortunately the conclusion was Medicine Hat is too far north and too cold. This lead to a very unreliable and expensive source of power.

If it doesn’t work in Medicine Hat.....the rest of the prairies are likely out of the question too.

Now that they learned that the AB government has just signed a contract to buy all its energy from a new solarproject. Can you believe it?

[Blaithin]

Now that they learned that the AB government has just signed a contract to buy all its energy from a new solarproject. Can you believe it?

Really? Last I heard they were pulling the programs that support the rebate because of Kenneywenneys election promises. But I’m far from a follower of politics and government ideas so my info could be half assed. And I guess just because they pull rebates to help everyday people doesn’t mean they can’t sign contracts themselves, they just don’t seem very pro renewable.

I know some company has been calling farmers in the area to see if they’d be interested in leasing land for a solar farm...

[chuckChuck]

On CKRM they were talking about the Medicine Hat solar project was to test if solar was feasible and a possibility in that region.
Unfortunately the conclusion was Medicine Hat is too far north and too cold. This lead to a very unreliable and expensive source of power.

If it doesn’t work in Medicine Hat.....the rest of the prairies are likely out of the question too.

For solar thermal that is likely true but for solar pv that produces electricity directly the southern prairies are a good place and the best place in canada because we have lots of sun even in winter.

Panels are cheap and rather than going for an expensive tracking system just add more fixed panels.

Aside from cutting wood there are very few affordable and practical options for producing your own energy. Solar pv is the best option that will pay for itself and deliver low cost electricity for many years.