Dr Do2much
New Member
Are you the class bully in grade school?
Can Solar & Wind Fix Everything (e.g., Climate Change) with a battery break-through?
- Thread starter svetz
- Start date
How about I was running a temp 600watt bifacial solar array today and am only getting max of 396 watts out of it. Placed over white concrete. This array had been dropping to 0 on and off all day with clouds. Been trying top off my ~52.1 vdc 100ah battery system - again been at it all day.
It only managed add 9 % aka went from ~80% SOC to ~89% SOC.
So what Solar array do you have? Do you really think Solar is a stand alone 1 shot solution for everyone?
I’m just playing as in hobby mode right now. To see what and how things respond - today was running 3 cheap EcoWorthy 195watt bifacial Panels like some hobbyist - diy might buy. I’d hate to depend on this everyday. I’ve been playing with other solar panels in the past with my system too. Been ongoing for last year. I’ve found actual rated watt from solar panels is rarely advertised output on everyday use for rated watts. Usually lower . Again Today was trying EcoWorthy 195watt bifacial panels , past tried Canadian Solar 325 watt panels, and oldest set tried Canadian 390watt bifacial panels. The Canadian 390watt bifacial have been the best so far.
Sun going behind clouds is a major problem.
Now Bill Gates and Fiends want to seed the clouds to block the sun. Stated it will Cool off the planet. Are you even aware of that? What do you think will happen to solar production if they block the sun? State of TN made laws prevent private or Govt from testing cloud seeding over TN. The sun shine is required on the solar panels to get the watts out. ‘It puts the lotion on the skin or it gets the hose again.” Silence of the hams.
It was nice sunny other day warming up. Then they started putting lines in the sky towards dark solar was about donw… cloudy next day little no sun. Started raining… dark gray sky for 2 days. Temp dropped. No solar …. Coincidence? I think need some laws like TN.
Again what are you doing to help …. What is your solar generation system? What is your ev? I am considering buying an older leaf and modifying it with lifepo and reprogramming it. I like to play sometimes. Sometimes it is better to buy something better though. I just bought Toyota Rav4 ice that gets ~31-32mpg.
But if go EV need more solar - as in sun shine if it is going to work off grid for recharging the ev. Using the over loaded grid on ev is not going to cut it for everyone. The old over loaded grid will go down. It already goes out in summertime due to heavy air conditioner loads. Why bought my emergency system and put it together…… around year ago.
Not every where is a good place to run Solar. Whole house would be waste money due to cost. My monthly electric is only around $80-$125 a month. I’m old not going to live long enough to get a good ROI. As am noticing batteries are acting up. So …..not really sustainable.
What systems are you running? What is your part of the green pie?
My first guess would be your charge controller. I never drop to 0, except at night.
Do you have voltage at the input of the controller?
Another possibility would be lack of blocking diodes on your panels.
If one panel is shaded it could lower the output voltage of the entire array.
Since solar tech is improving so rapidly, I hacked together a 5kw system on the cheap.
Of course solar is not a 1 shot solution for everyone.
Ditto.
With proper panel wiring and blocking diodes , it’s only a minor problem for me.
Fuck bill gates!
Seeding clouds is a dumb idea.
I designed an ultra high efficiency ac system.
I’m experimenting with radiative cooling. If you could see in infrared. You’d see frequencies that penetrate the atmosphere no matter how much co2, or water vapor.
Researchers are developing materials that cool even when placed in intense sun light.
Plug in hybrid is the best solution.
svetz
Works in theory! Practice? That's something else
As mentioned in the previous reply, the hot/cold period and graphs they use refer to a small portion of the world and are not representative of global temperatures. Conspiracy videos are tricksy like that.
| But, just because I couldn't find a pre-1950 temperature map from the IPCC is only meaningful to conspiratists. There are certainly global maps from entities "in league" with the IPCC as the video put it, for example from NOAA as shown to the right. Globally, it was far colder in 1910 than it was in 1930. Why did the conspiracy video fixate on 1930? Because they can show an official looking graphs of a part of the world as proof. It's just them cherry- picking data and claiming that others are cherry-picking. |  |
Real data contains the margin of error, see the grey bars, they represent that range which is basically plus or minus .2C anywhere along the graph.
| There's even data going farther back, but again be aware of the "gray" which gets larger as you go back in time. (graphs are links to sources). What disturbs people is the unprecedented rate of change as shown by the rapid rise. |  |
| Why did the IPCC pick the zero temperature where they did? No, it's not a grand conspiracy. They picked the average temperature between deindustrialization, at 1850 as I recall. That is it is based on the temperature from before we started burning fossil fuels. Also of interest, note that during human-kind's time on the planet, we've typically been cooler. Worth mentioning is charts like the one to the right frequently use variable x-axis times which confuse people. For example, the rightmost block represents 250 years. The next block is 18,000 years. Then 120,000 years, and so on with the leftmost block being 500 million years. |  |
You look at that chart and say "what hockey stick?" But, if you eliminate the data from before homosapiens (say > 1M years) and keep the timeframe consistent it really stands out. Not a conspiracy, it's just what the data shows.
Even with google scholar I'd suggest a modicum of caution. At least for an average person like me.
Last edited:
svetz
Works in theory! Practice? That's something else
Natural Hydrogen
For all those with faith who knew god would save us, they might be right. Natural Hydrogen (a fuel you drill for like oil) just looks too good to be true. Cheaper, easy to get to, plentiful, self-renewing, large reservoirs in the U.S. and no GHGs. It can even be blended with natural gas to reduce GHGs.Why? To answer that, let's talk about infrastructure. Naysayers to electrification point out how difficult, expensive, and time-consuming it would be to shift energy sources to renewables. (Snarky aside: That totally ignores how many coal-fired power plants were shut down and replaced within a decade when fracking brought natural gas prices down.) But existing combined cycle natural gas plants can be retrofitted to use Hydrogen (ref). Seems like stuff we could do by 2050.
There's also a boost! Gas combined cycle power plants are probably a maximum of 40% efficient (limited by Carnot). While hydrogen can be burned in a gas turbine, it can also be used in fuel cells which have no moving parts (far less maintenance reducing costs) and while I'm not aware any maximal limits, there have been hydrogen fuel cells as high as 60% efficient. Ultimately, making it a far cheaper fuel for consumers.
It's not perfect. For example, hydrogen makes metals brittle, so it's not as easy as turning a valve. But we've been safely using hydrogen since before the Hindenburg! ; -) Another drawback, as with any underground gas, it typically contains some methane.
Headlines are all excited by it:
Natural Hydrogen Has Been Underestimated
Natural hydrogen: the new frontier
A new gold rush? The search for the natural hydrogen motherlode
A global gold rush for buried hydrogen is underway
The white gold rush and the pursuit of natural hydrogen
Is natural hydrogen the next energy game-changer?
How might hydrogen help heat our homes?
MIT Technology Review - Future Of Hydrogen Energy
Natural Hydrogen Could Change the World
Hydrogen through gas pipelines: safe and sustainable
Opinion: Take them all with a grain (or two) of salt.
If the Republicans are smart they'd seize on this as the solution and talk about all the prosperity it will bring. Some CRS reports on hydrogen:
- IF12163|Department of Energy Funding for Hydrogen and Fuel Cell Technology Programs FY2022
- IF12514|DOE Appropriations for Its Hydrogen Program: FY2024
- R46700|Pipeline Transportation of Hydrogen: Regulation, Research, and Policy
- R47487|The Hydrogen Economy: Putting the Pieces Together
- R47289|Hydrogen Hubs and Demonstrating the Hydrogen Energy Value Chain
- IF12602|The Clean Hydrogen Production Credit: How the Incentives are Structured
Last edited:
Sanwizard
Solar Wizard
- Joined
- Feb 2, 2021
- Messages
- 2,718
Nah, I used to get my ass kicked by the local bully in 1st and 2nd grade. Thats why I became a Tae Kwon Do instructer in the Army.
Sanwizard
Solar Wizard
- Joined
- Feb 2, 2021
- Messages
- 2,718
Isn't Toyota already producing a Hydrogen car? Their problem is with the fueling process. Extreme cold is needed.
It will make sense when simple sea water can be used, like they do in subs.
Still too vague. Do you think that ALL scientific.....things.....are on the up and up.
This is a perfect example of everything that is wrong whit your statement. Now I am not going to try to bust your chops but....
This entire deal is so very cut and dried. IF you can find the emails, and you will not find them in normal searches as that data is suppressed, but you can find them on "social media". The actual "stolen" emails. In those emails (IIRC) you see back and forth emails between people discussing on how much to pad the numbers so the money keeps rolling in.
The problem is, and "educated" people have come to learn this, is what you are told in the main stream is less then accurate. There are dozens of examples from the last few years alone. So you look to these "alt" news services, and sadly there you see where the tin foil hat types are right again and again. So this has become a fool me once shame on you, fool me twice shame on me. You lied about a laptop being disinformation done by russia, what else are you telling me lies about. Climate, well this little thing ended the use of the term "global warming" and now we use Climate change. Go back to old articles and you will see when the terms changed. Global warming was removed because of this one "breach" of the real data.
Now you expect me to buy into everything else they are saying, electric cars are great to eat bugs. All of it things those "deplorables" said is going to happen.
Your right perhaps one day people will learn the truth. They are starting to see, even in the inner cities, it has taken an illegal invasion to show them just where they stand.
And now it has gotten so loud we see the screams to silence "social media" and "alt news". Why is that, simple it is not controlled. Just think how much farther alone the "plan" would be if not for that pesky internet, darn you Al Gore for inventing that, just look at all the trouble you caused. Now that is the single most dangerous thing on the planet, not polution, not climate, not anything......"misinformation". That is what is going to derail the entire plan, or at least make it much more difficult to get the non sheeple to do what you want them to do.
You can do a great deal if you have basically an "endless" supply of power. Hmm, might be on something there.
Here is a good article in "normal" english that is pretty good.
How Do Submarines Get Oxygen?
Submarines have their means of producing oxygen continuously to help their crew stay underwater for days at a stretch. Let's find out how submarines generate oxygen.
www.marineinsight.com
And you think google scholar is going to give you the straight dope on anything and everything?
That is a baseline error in your thinking.
svetz
Works in theory! Practice? That's something else
Go Army!
There was a post a bit ago on the different available hydrogen fuel cell cars, there are a few models. Don't know of any that burn hydrogen in a V6, but there's a lot of conversion for LP so should be possible.
Their problem is the lack of fueling stations. ; -)
"Cold" isn't technically needed. Most, if not all, fuel cell cars store the hydrogen at high pressure in gaseous form rather than liquid and they aren't refrigerated. You can store a kg of hydrogen at any temperature. Using the "ideal gas law" PV = nRT, for a given volume and mass you can see that lowering the temperature changes the pressure. So, storing them cryogenically can reduce the required strength of the tank holding it. Not a good technique in my opinion because stuff happens and you don't want the tank to explode.
Sanwizard
Solar Wizard
- Joined
- Feb 2, 2021
- Messages
- 2,718
Funny thing. I just called to wish my kid a happy birthday. He bought himself a cyber beast. 0-60 in 2 seconds. Those things are insane!
svetz
Works in theory! Practice? That's something else
IMO, Social media isn't inherently good or bad, it's like guns... it's what people do with it. It has done both incredibly good things, and incredibly bad things. Same for the internet. We don't want to stifle free speech. I suspect a lot conspiracy theorists really believe what they post - mostly because they can discount anything that disagrees with facts as government propaganda. But real science doesn't wave away inconvenient data by cherry-picking it.
ClimateGate is a great example of misinformation that shot out from social media. It raised such waves there were multiple investigations and what did they find:
The reference has a lot more on it, interesting read.
ROFL... it's only the really low-end EVs that don't have oversized motors. My EV's pickup is insane too.
Like I keep saying, some of those things won't happen and Climate Change is happening. We're adults, we have to juggle multiple problems simultaneously everyday and our politicians can too. ; -)
I wonder if this could be a reason some here are so worried about "climate change"
www.independent.co.uk
How climate change is hitting vulnerable Indonesian trans sex workers
Nearly 93% of respondents saw decreased income during the rainy season
www.independent.co.uk
Bob B
Emperor Of Solar
- Joined
- Sep 21, 2019
- Messages
- 8,797
20 years ago, I was 100% convinced that hydrogen and fuel cells were going to be the future.
I was looking forward to the day I could have a refrigerator sized fuel cell behind the house providing all my power ..... but, it never happened.
Maybe this new discovery of hydrogen reserves will change that?
Musk has been VERY negative about hydrogen, but that was prior to this discovery. It is interesting that Toyota has hung in there with hydrogen vehicles.
Whether it's electric or hydrogen, a large amount of infrastructure changes will be necessary.
Next time I have lunch with Trump I'll talk to him about it.
Climate Alarmists' Bad Science
I debunked research by the Federal Reserve and top academic economists on the economics of climate change. An author of a paper I debunked then said that three professors from Stanford and Berkeley had done a much better analysis of temperature and growth in an article they published in Nature. I took up the challenge and scrutinized their article. My critique appears in the latest issue of Econ Journal Watch.
The Nature article is in the top 0.1% of academic economics publications by citations, and it has received glowing press coverage. I downloaded their data and found that, as with the other articles I debunked, the results don’t hold up under scrutiny.
The authors claim that there is an optimal average temperature of 55.5 degrees Fahrenheit for economic growth. Countries colder or warmer than that grow more slowly. The authors then use one of the most extreme Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change estimates of warming up to the year 2100 and calculate for each country how much more or less growth that warming would cause. They then calculate the difference in world gross domestic product with warming and without.
Greenland, with an average temperature of 25 degrees, would benefit from warming. The U.S., average temperature 56, would be relatively unaffected. Niger, average temperature 83, would see lower growth from warming. Adding up all countries, the authors say warming would reduce world GDP per capita by 23%.
Every country, from St. Vincent in the Caribbean to China has the same influence on their result. Weighting by population nearly eliminates that result, and adjusting for correlated observations and dropping one or two unusual observations eliminates it completely. The observations aren’t independent, because countries clustered in regions and observations close in time have similar patterns of growth and temperature. An example of an unusual observation is Greenland in 1990. A large mine that generated 12% of Greenland’s GDP closed that year, and not because it happened to be 2 degrees cooler than normal.
Rather than uncovering a consistent relationship between growth and temperature around the world, their results are driven by relatively few countries. Dropping Greenland and a group of contiguous northern and central African countries, for example, eliminates the practical and statistical significance of their results.
The authors claim that there is no tendency for their results to diminish over time, because they find that the results for 1961-89 and 1990-2010 are similar. But changing the cutoff year to 1990 instead of 1989 changes this conclusion, because the data from 1991-2010 show no statistically significant relationship between growth and temperature. Because some countries are missing data from early years, a cutoff of 1990 would do a better job of matching the number of observations between the two periods. There is also evidence that if a result is present at all, it is completely reversed the following year.
I also produce simulated data with random numbers representing temperature and growth that are correlated by region, but with no relationship between temperature and growth. I find that the authors’ method is likely to indicate a statistically significant relationship even though the data are constructed to have no such relationship.
The authors have been invited to reply to my critique. On my previous three critiques, the commented-on authors didn’t reply.
Why do such qualified and clever economists write such bad papers, and why do top journals publish them? Economic growth, compounding year after year, can far outstrip the effects of climate. But to inflict their agenda, climate alarmists need to show that warming will reduce economic growth. They need to show that GDP growth itself is significantly reduced by higher temperatures to press for gigantic government subsidies and controls.
The law of supply and demand applies to tomatoes and also to ideas. Demand for research that bolsters arguments for bad policy leads to supply of research. Truth provides some constraints but doesn’t always prevail.
Fortunately, such publications as Econ Journal Watch give a platform to researchers who challenge reigning propaganda. More academics and independent researchers are uncovering bias, fraud and plagiarism, bringing a bit of discipline to a field greatly in need of it.
Massive Retrospective Adjustments Made to Temperature Databases Used to Promote Net Zero – The Daily Sceptic
Massive retrospective alterations have been made to surface air temperatures by GISS, one of the main global databases run by NASA, greatly increasing recent warming, according to Professor Ole Humlum.
dailysceptic.org
Demand for Electric Cars Slows Sharply Amid Surge in Petrol Vehicle Sales – The Daily Sceptic
Electric car demand has slowed sharply in a sign that drivers are turning back to petrol. The raw material demand to produce EV batteries is "unsustainable", the head of Vauxhall and Peugeot has said.
dailysceptic.org
UN Climate Advisor & Time Mag’s ‘Women Of The Year’ declares ‘the climate crisis’ is ‘not just manmade, it’s white manmade’ – ‘A result of capitalism, years of colonialism, years of racial oppression’
UN climate advisor Ayisha Siddiqa (also Time Mag’s 2023 Woman of the Year): “The climate crisis is manmade. And it’s not just manmade, it’s white manmade.
wattsupwiththat.com
Continuing:
I would be remiss not to note that Guyana likely has the lowest deforestation rate in the world not because of a commitment to environmental conservation but rather historical underdevelopment. Nonetheless, the validity of the point remains.
Continuing:
FLAWLESS VICTORY.
Remarkably, this is hardly the first time in recent history that a BBC hack has gotten totally annihilated by the elected leader of a Latin American country.
Similar threads
