Is This Legit?

[Harold Squared]

Is that the whole Earth surface or half of it (the half that faces the sun)?

 

-------------------

And I suppose a lot of this energy is re-emitted at night.

Edited June 7, 2015 by Harold Squared

[John Cuthber]

 

Is that the whole Earth surface or half of it (the half that faces the sun)?

 

-------------------

And I suppose a lot of this energy is re-emitted at night.

 

What?

[Harold Squared]

Quite obviously only the side of the planet facing the Sun receives the energy. Less obviously and quite correctly, this energy is reradiated by the shadow side of the planet, else said planet would quickly melt.

 

One of the alternative strategies strangely neglected by the ever solicitous IPCC is to make the radiation of excess heat to space more efficient. This could make the thermal efficiency of power generation higher as well as cool the local area directly.

 

Of course both the collection of solar energy and the radiation of surplus heat would be simpler in space unimpeded by atmospheric attenuation and disturbances such as clouds or storms. Indeed, even night could be avoided easily enough. Silly to put solar power anywhere but space actually.

[swansont]

Of course both the collection of solar energy and the radiation of surplus heat would be simpler in space unimpeded by atmospheric attenuation and disturbances such as clouds or storms. Indeed, even night could be avoided easily enough. Silly to put solar power anywhere but space actually.

Silly except for the difficulties in sending the energy to earth, and the cost-efficiency of the solution. Satellites are really, really expensive, and you gain a factor of two or so in power. Which you don't really need, because it doesn't take all that much land to generate all the solar we need. Why is it that mitigation is too expensive when it comes to wind power or CO2 reduction but you opt for a vastly more expensive way of generating electricity from solar?

[John Cuthber]

Quite obviously only the side of the planet facing the Sun receives the energy. Less obviously and quite correctly, this energy is reradiated by the shadow side of the planet, else said planet would quickly melt.

 

One of the alternative strategies strangely neglected by the ever solicitous IPCC is to make the radiation of excess heat to space more efficient. This could make the thermal efficiency of power generation higher as well as cool the local area directly.

 

Of course both the collection of solar energy and the radiation of surplus heat would be simpler in space unimpeded by atmospheric attenuation and disturbances such as clouds or storms. Indeed, even night could be avoided easily enough. Silly to put solar power anywhere but space actually.

A grain of sand or whatever on the surface of the earth doesn't know id it is night or day.

it radiates according to its temperature so the bit about ", this energy is reradiated by the shadow side of the planet," is misleading.

The sunward side of the planet also re-radiates.

 

With respect to you assertion "One of the alternative strategies strangely neglected by the ever solicitous IPCC is to make the radiation of excess heat to space more efficient. "

there are a couple of points. The first is that the IPCC has a well documented view that one way to improve the efficiency of re-radiation is not to put so much CO2 in the way.

Another issue is that, while it's perfectly simple to make the earth a better radiator- you just paint it black, there are problems with that. The first is that it isn't practical.

the second is that it also makes the world a better absorber so the effect on temperature isn't what you hoped it would be. You get bigger night vs day variation, rather than overall cooling.

 

Of course, you could in principle, have two groups of painters one of whom paints the surface white at dawn and another who paints it black at dusk. the ones near the equator would need to work particularly quickly.

Is that what you had in mind, and can you think of a reason why the IPCC wouldn't suggests it?

[Harold Squared]

Nothing like it, actually. As any child of four can easily grasp, the net gain in heat is on the sunward side and the net loss is on the opposite side, known far and wide to lay people as "dark" though in reality its albedo is virtually identical in most cases.

 

As the case of Venus illustrates, a high albedo alone can only do so much to mitigate high temperatures.

 

Finally, the IPCC will "suggest" only what suits the IPCC's agenda and goals, independent of the data.

[John Cuthber]

It may have escaped your notice, but Venus is a different planet so you are changing rather a lot of variables at the same time.

Fundamenttaly when you say

"As the case of Venus illustrates, a high albedo alone can only do so much to mitigate high temperatures." you are strawmanning again.

Nobody said that albedo was the only factor did they?

The loss form the sunward side is actually higher- it's warmer during the day.

So what?

In the meantime you berate the IPCC saying

"One of the alternative strategies strangely neglected by the ever solicitous IPCC is to make the radiation of excess heat to space more efficient. "

but you don't say what they could do to improve the rate of radiative loss.

 

What would you suggest?

[Harold Squared]

I confess, a tough but to crack. Thanks for the comment on Venus. Working on a plausible scheme.

Working further from swansont's 0.01%...

 

If we only cover 10% of Earth area (supposing that more would make deep scars over natural world), then our current consumption is more like 0.1% of what we can obtain from solar in a "green" way.

 

In 100 years, it will be 1% (no change in consumption increase rate)

in 200 years, it will be 10%

in 300 years, it will be 100%

 

Now, 300 years is a looong time, but not that long that one would not be interested to ask - and what then? My guess is that it is simply not possible to continue our current growth rate for more than few hundred years. If we want to stay green, we will either have to stop advancing (either by loosing interest or by war) or we will have to miniaturize ourselves.

Outside of "Fantastic Voyage" and similar fictional exploits I confess I have not seen much as far as "miniaturizing ourselves", is there any such technology in development at present?

 

Returning to the topic, according to the cited reference in the original post, the abundance of the Sun is most impressive. It is also not limited to this planet, i.e. a similar amount of power pours through an area with our planet's cross section continuously.

Silly except for the difficulties in sending the energy to earth, and the cost-efficiency of the solution. Satellites are really, really expensive, and you gain a factor of two or so in power. Which you don't really need, because it doesn't take all that much land to generate all the solar we need. Why is it that mitigation is too expensive when it comes to wind power or CO2 reduction but you opt for a vastly more expensive way of generating electricity from solar?

Just taking the long view. Expanding into space is inevitable considering ever expanding demand. Out there there is a lot of room for expansion. Edited June 16, 2015 by Harold Squared

[Harold Squared]

Again, thanks to all for their comments.

 

With regard to earthquake prone areas, we can agree that the entire nation of Japan fits the description, I would surmise. There are numerous nuclear reactors situated there, all of which shut down as designed at the onset of the unfortunate Fukushima incident.

 

Said incident was the direct cause of water from the tsunami caused by the earthquake drowning the auxiliary diesel engines driving the cooling pumps.

 

Had the reactors been submerged or otherwise engineered to circumvent this design flaw, considerable damage could have been prevented.

 

Returning to the topic, specifically "Mirrors" I have been contemplating building better icebergs, since there had been some concern in the community about polar ice deficiencies.

 

Natural icebergs suck because they are prone to buckle under thermal and mechanical stresses. We must therefore improve upon nature.

 

Instead of pure ice we will make the damned things out of Pykrete, 14% wood pulp and 85% ice, have an active refrigeration system running around the waterline where the warmest water is. As for the interior of the beast we'll plant a forest of thermosyphons to dissipate heat to the atmosphere and keep our vessel cold and strong. These devices have been preserving Alaskan permafrost on the TAP for decades now and Pykrete supposedly has twice the compression strength and four times the tensile strength of plain ice.

 

And the mirror bit? We will put reflective umbrellas on those thermosyphons for shade on sunny days, reflective mylar ones similar to those sold commercially as sportsmen's blankets. Actually they would be more parasols, since they could be furled during storms to minimize damage.

 

John, perhaps this will serve to improve the percieved radiated heat deficiency mentioned above.

 

Build the damned things as big as you like, moor them in a convenient location and voilà, we could build a sort of iceberg corral or channel to protect shipping from natural hazards. Should be unsinkable with just a little TLC...

 

While we are at it, they would be dandy places to mount rectenna arrays vs building those latter in the Antarctic interior, no roads there, ice creeping hither and yon, etc.

Silly except for the difficulties in sending the energy to earth, and the cost-efficiency of the solution. Satellites are really, really expensive, and you gain a factor of two or so in power. Which you don't really need, because it doesn't take all that much land to generate all the solar we need. Why is it that mitigation is too expensive when it comes to wind power or CO2 reduction but you opt for a vastly more expensive way of generating electricity from solar?

I don't get it, you have me talked around into what is basically a CO2 mitigation scheme on "smoke and mirrors" and you still aren't happy. Terrestrial solar is crap because it is unreliable and will forever be so. Space power is only expensive if dependent upon chemical rockets for access and this will not be the case for much longer for numerous reasons. Can your proposal protect the planet from asteroid strikes? Can it give us access to the vast wealth of the solar system? Can it be applied to other planets to make them more habitable?

 

It is a dead end proposition, which alone rules it out, inferior capacity is just the icing on the cake.

Edited June 29, 2015 by Harold Squared

[swansont]

Terrestrial solar is crap because it is unreliable and will forever be so.

 

Lots of people seem to have fallen for the ruse

http://www.usatoday.com/story/money/markets/2015/07/05/motley-fool-solar-energy/29583021/

 

"bids for solar projects are now in the $0.04-to-$0.05-per-kWh range, which is less than you can build a fossil fuel plant for, no matter the source of energy."

 

$1 per watt is ~two years away. So compare your space solar to that benchmark. If any of the litany of future tech your idea rests on will be ready by then, of course. (Tech that doesn't exist has a functionally infinite cost, i.e. there's no amount of money can make it appear)

[Harold Squared]

 

Lots of people seem to have fallen for the ruse

http://www.usatoday.com/story/money/markets/2015/07/05/motley-fool-solar-energy/29583021/

 

"bids for solar projects are now in the $0.04-to-$0.05-per-kWh range, which is less than you can build a fossil fuel plant for, no matter the source of energy."

 

$1 per watt is ~two years away. So compare your space solar to that benchmark. If any of the litany of future tech your idea rests on will be ready by then, of course. (Tech that doesn't exist has a functionally infinite cost, i.e. there's no amount of money can make it appear)

CORPORATE SHILL ALERT!

 

Is this the same swansont who was grumbling about "bias" only yesterday?

 

Okay, make your fortune in solar PV, buy all the shares you want. Just remember to save for a rainy day, or a week's worth of them...

[swansont]

CORPORATE SHILL ALERT!

 

Is this the same swansont who was grumbling about "bias" only yesterday?

Seriously? This isn't someone grumbling about people buying nuclear instead of solar, and appealing to emotion (which would be the analogue of the other post). This is someone citing bid prices in their industry.

[overtone]

 

 

Okay, make your fortune in solar PV, buy all the shares you want

It's been a universal tactic for a while now, among the advocates of nuclear power resurgence, to ignore thermal solar and associated storage tech, and attempt to confine the public discussion to photovoltaic solar.

 

That's because PV solar has been and will probably continue to be the most expensive and least efficient kind, and it used to be so expensive and inefficient it made nuclear power seem almost a reasonable choice.

 

The problem they have been facing recently is that PV solar has been getting cheaper, and now significantly undersells nuclear power. So even their rigged comparison doesn't work any more.

[MigL]

Maybe that's because thermal solar is nothing more than uncontrolled nuclear fusion, 93 million miles away.

I hope to see, in my lifetime, controlled nuclear fusion technology become available.

[LaurieAG]

While the solar panel areas shown on the graphics may be equivalent to current energy consumption there is no allowance made for the (massive) energy loss during its transmission to Germany, Europe or the rest of the world.

[iNow]

While the solar panel areas shown on the graphics may be equivalent to current energy consumption there is no allowance made for the (massive) energy loss during its transmission to Germany, Europe or the rest of the world.

Fair enough, but the larger point is that it's a relatively minuscule total area that's required to generate enough energy to meet the demands of the entire planet. Further, that tiny bit of land can be anywhere and everywhere and can easily be scaled up, dispersed, and distributed. I don't believe anyone involved with those graphics was arguing that all energy should be generated only in one spot then distributed outward from there, which is what your point ultimately requires to become a valid criticism.

[swansont]

Fair enough, but the larger point is that it's a relatively minuscule total area that's required to generate enough energy to meet the demands of the entire planet. Further, that tiny bit of land can be anywhere and everywhere and can easily be scaled up, dispersed, and distributed. I don't believe anyone involved with those graphics was arguing that all energy should be generated only in one spot then distributed outward from there, which is what your point ultimately requires to become a valid criticism.

 

And some fraction of the energy can be (and is) generated right where it's needed, so there is no transmission loss to speak of for that, and it reduces the load on the grid, which is a good thing.

[LaurieAG]

Fair enough, but the larger point is that it's a relatively minuscule total area that's required to generate enough energy to meet the demands of the entire planet. Further, that tiny bit of land can be anywhere and everywhere and can easily be scaled up, dispersed, and distributed. I don't believe anyone involved with those graphics was arguing that all energy should be generated only in one spot then distributed outward from there, which is what your point ultimately requires to become a valid criticism.

 

Hi iNow,

 

Centralised energy generation and distribution systems have the same massive losses during transmission. That's why rooftop/local solar is the best option as there is no transmission from generation to use.

[imatfaal]

!

Moderator Note

 

The most recent rash of posts on political issues have been hidden - please try to stick to the science

 

[overtone]

The most recent rash of posts on political issues have been hidden - please try to stick to the science

 

 

You forgot to hide posts 31 through 39 or so.

 

 

 

What I mean is that eventually if one removes enough energy from the atmosphere and oceans then there will be great effects on the weather.

In addition to the small area involved, much of it already affected, there is the point that use by humans does not "remove" the energy from the oceans and atmosphere. It's still there, captured on the planet's surface, being transferred around. Edited July 20, 2015 by overtone