top 100 comments

sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] 44 points 3 months ago* (11 children)

Incidentally, this is why I'm heavily invested in battery technology.

  • source
  • hideshow 11 child comments
  • [–] 4 points 3 months ago (2 children)

    Wow California has a lot of renewable energy. Even if all of it's imports are fossil fuels that's still pretty good.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 3 points 3 months ago

    I was surprised to learn the US actually is 43% renewable+nuclear. Plus almost all new generation is renewable.

    China gets a lot of attention because they're still building out their grid, but the US hasn't been doing bad at transitioning. Our biggest issue is slow adoption of electric cars, but I largely blame Trump for that.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 2 points 3 months ago (6 children)
  • [–] 3 points 3 months ago (5 children)

    Generac is the big one. They've got a mix of retail units and industrial grade.

    I've also got some money in Dragonfly, which has primarily focused on truck battery alternatives, but it's moving into larger scale products.

    Then there's a big lithium mine being constructed in Thacker Pass, Nevada, which trades under LAC.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 5 child comments
  • [–] 2 points 3 months ago (4 children)

    Right on. Ill take a look at these. Thanks!

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] 2 points 3 months ago (3 children)

    They're currently all in the god's damned toilet. But... hope springs eternal.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 2 points 3 months ago (2 children)
  • [–] 36 points 3 months ago* (last edited 3 months ago) (1 child)

    Solar

    Sunset

    If those kids could read meme

    Sometimes I wonder if my whole worldview is incorrect. Perhaps I am in an insulated leftist echo chamber. Maybe these people who I have vilified have reasonable positions that I cannot comprehend.

    Then I see the Department of Energy lamenting how solar panels failed because they don't work at night.

  • source
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 32 points 3 months ago

    Sun Sets

    Republicans: Huddle nervously in the darkness uncertain if the magic sky fire will ever return.

  • source
  • [–] 60 points 3 months ago (15 children)

    Please tell me this isn't a real thing someone published. It really needs to be a joke. My opinion of humanity is so very low, and I don't think I can handle lowering it any further.

  • source
  • hideshow 15 child comments
  • [–] 54 points 3 months ago (8 children)
  • [–] 55 points 3 months ago (5 children)

    By sunset, despite still high temps, 99% of solar power also failed.

    They think high temps is what generates the electricity.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 5 child comments
  • [–] 22 points 3 months ago (3 children)

    For some of them it actually is, not all are photoelectric.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solar_power_tower

    They have trade offs, like every power solution. One perk is that they generally cleaner to produce, since shiny metal is simpler than modern complex solar panels.

    That being said, I have little faith in any report issued under the current administration.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 14 points 3 months ago (2 children)

    That still requires sunlight to work…

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 27 points 3 months ago (1 child)

    It requires sunlight to charge, not to produce electricity. Because liquid salt doesn't cool the moment it goes dark the plant can continue to use it to boil water to spin a turbine for a fair bit of time without sunlight. I believe one implementation only produces power at night, and spends the day collecting heat.
    But yes, solar power does require sunlight at some point.

    It's kinda moot however, because having now read the original post I was correct to assume they (the doe) was being disingenuous. The heat they seemed to be referring to was "the weather". As in "despite the high temperature, the sun still went down causing solar generation to ebb in a predictable fashion that grid operators were unsurprised by. This is why it's good we forced them to keep 150 year old coal plants burning".

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 2 points 3 months ago

    Oh jeez, that somehow feels even dumber than what I thought it meant which is "it got so hot that solar panels stopped working after dark". Like they were blaming the "extreme heat"... So by their understanding, Solar should work all summer long day or night because it's hot, but not work at all in winter because it's cold?

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 2 points 3 months ago (2 children)

    This does not appear to be real I cannot find any other references to this graphic nor can I find the graphic itself anywhere else

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 19 points 3 months ago (17 children)

    I'm wondering how that 1% remained operating?

  • source
  • hideshow 17 child comments
  • [–] 10 points 3 months ago

    Best guess, sunset is being defined as a specific time. Sunset isn't necessarily the point at which all sunlight is gone, and even then, the time the sun goes down varies depending on where you are within a given time zone. If they just used an arbitrary time or an almanac listing for twilight for each day, they could easily end up including slivers of daylight in their post sunset data.

    Which is really pointless since this is just the same old "BuT sOlAr DoEsN't WoRk At NiGhT" argument that idiots have been making for decades. But I suppose you gotta at least pretend to use real world data to make it look sciencey.

  • source
  • parent
  • [+] -15 points 3 months ago* (last edited 3 months ago) (11 children)

    Had to rely on Google AI for this (downvote all you want but good luck trying to find this without it), but it says dusk/dawn can produce 0.1% to 0.01% capacity. But inverters for DC to AC have a minimum threshold so it's nothing. So not that.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 11 child comments
  • [–] 26 points 3 months ago* (5 children)

    Firstly: I'm not the downvoter.

    Secondly: you didn't have to - you chose to.

    And as most chatbots list sources, you can always check them out yourself and cut out the middle man. Most of academia - some 45% do that. Another 45% don't even bother. A lone 10% still do things the old fashioned way. In any case, you're not alone in relying on AI to find obscure information.

    With search engines becoming increasingly infested with low-quality and obvious-slop sites, relying on the same methods as the slopmasters isn't even a big stain on your morality. Because of it was, the slopmasters would be drowning in the ink required, and billionaires would already have caused another biblical flood of it.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 5 child comments
  • [–] 12 points 3 months ago (4 children)

    Did you know that 87% of all statistics are made up on the spot?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] 6 points 3 months ago (4 children)

    Thank God we had you here to tell us what the slop machine sharted out.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] 0 points 3 months ago (3 children)
  • [–] 1 point 3 months ago (2 children)

    It was sarcasm. Next time keep that shit to yourself.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 38 points 3 months ago (22 children)

    The 1% of solar producing power at night scares me

  • source
  • hideshow 22 child comments
  • [–] 28 points 3 months ago (20 children)

    Moonlight and starlight is indirect and distant solar power, respectively.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 20 child comments
  • [–] 7 points 3 months ago* (last edited 3 months ago)

    That light has way less than 1% of the intensity of sunlight.

    Edit: from here you get that the brightness of moonlight is 0.05 - 0.3 lux whilst that of direct sunlight is 32,000–100,000 lux

    Our eyes deceive us (our pupils dilate or contract and we have different more sensitive cells in our retina for seeing in low light conditions) and make it seem brighter than it actually is whilst making sunshine during the day seem less bright than it actually is.

    You can use any light of the right frequencies on a solar panel to produce electricity, but the amount of current you can get on a solar panel from moonlight and starlight is minuscule.

    My bet is that the 1% comes from things like molten salt solar power plants which during the day use sunlight to heat up some kind of salt (which is used to produce steam that powers a steam turbine), some of which will only be used to actually generate power during the night.

  • source
  • parent
  • [+] -25 points 3 months ago (17 children)

    If it's not from the sun, it's not sunlight. Moonlight doesnt have heat, so it cant produce electricity

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 17 child comments
  • [–] 29 points 3 months ago (15 children)

    Moonlight is from the sun, and "has heat" in as much of a sense as sunlight does. Do you think solar panels can tell whether light is coming from the sun, moon, a distant star, or a flashlight? They just turn the photons into electricity, it doesn't care where they're from.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 15 child comments
  • [+] -24 points 3 months ago (14 children)

    Have you ever been warmed by moonlight? It doesn't give energy.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 14 child comments
  • [–] 24 points 3 months ago (12 children)

    Yes, I have. It's less energy than comes straight from the sun, but it still carries energy, because it's all just photons. The photons from the sun aren't hotter than the ones reflected from the moon, there's just more of them.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 12 child comments
  • [+] -12 points 3 months ago* (last edited 3 months ago) (11 children)

    Some photons are hotter than others. Its the wavelengths and frequencies. No UV from moonlight

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 11 child comments
  • [–] 20 points 3 months ago (9 children)

    You are fascinating. I mean yes, individual photons carry different amounts of energy and that's reflected in their wavelength, but how do you know that and not how reflection works? Moonlight contains a similar proportion of UV to sunlight, there's just less total light.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 9 child comments
  • [–] 5 points 3 months ago

    At best, somewhere around one quarter of a percent as much light. It seems to crazy to think something that looks as bright as it does is such a tiny fraction of what the sun puts out. It seems obvious that you aren't going to notice the heating of moonlight on your face the same way you notice the heating of sunlight on your face when you realize how much different the scale is.

    I am surprised / impressed that the solar panels are apparently collecting 3 times that much at night (and that is assuming it even was a full moon whenever this infographic was referring to). I wonder how much of that is stars or if it is basically just re-collecting a bit of light pollution from nearby population centers.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] -5 points 3 months ago* (7 children)

    Emission spectrum from the sun peaks at under 500nm corresponding to >5800K. Emission spectrum from the moon peaks at 600nm, corresponding to <4100K. Moonlight is objectively colder and therefore gives less energy. Reflection does not necessarily preserve spectral characteristics.

    https://nvlpubs.nist.gov/nistpubs/jres/118/jres.118.020.pdf

    https://earth.gsfc.nasa.gov/climate/projects/solar-irradiance/science

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 7 child comments
  • [–] 4 points 3 months ago (3 children)

    So what I'm hearing is that moonlight does have energy and UV radiation and can generate electricity. Thanks for agreeing with me.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 3 points 3 months ago

    Emission spectra are Schwartzkopf radiation, thats hardly relevant for the moon, whose main source of radiation is reflection. For visible light its easy, else the moon would always be full. Infrared is lower frequency and thus lower energy. UV reflection should be the only consideration.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 5 points 3 months ago* (last edited 3 months ago)

    It's a subset of the wavelengths of sunlight, specifically just those which add up to the color of the moon.

    The problem is not the "quality" of the light, it's the quantity: moonlight has way less brightness than sunlight, specifically from here you get that the brightness of moonlight is 0.05 - 0.3 lux whilst that of direct sunlight is 32,000–100,000 lux.

    Less brightness pretty much directly translates to less power produced by a solar panel.

    So you can actually generate power in a solar panel from moonlight (photons of the same color have the same wavelength hence the same amount of energy, so are equally capable of inducing electron release independently of how those photons got there), it's just a ridiculously small amount compared to how much you can generate under its optimal operating conditions (under direct sunlight) because moonlight is made up of far fewer photons than direct sunlight.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 1 point 3 months ago

    Huh? Everything that moves has or can create heat. Heat from light is the energy it has being transformed when it hits an atom. So all light, even a single photon, creates heat when absorbed. Just a matter of how much.

    Light that can't produce heat doesn't exist, and matter without heat would be at absolute zero, and that is impossible in our current physics model.

    Even the heat death of the universe has a static temperature above 0.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 4 points 3 months ago

    Well, there are solar condensator setups which will focus sunlight on a central tower to melt some kind of salt which is then used to generate power in the more traditional way (heating water into steam that then goes through a steam turbine).

    These will keep generating during the night as long as there's enough heat left in the reservoir of molten salt which was filled during the day.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 29 points 3 months ago* (last edited 3 months ago) (3 children)

    As a point of comparison, here's a press release from PRC's government on the same day: https://english.www.gov.cn/news/202607/23/content_WS6a617ed3c6d00ca5f9a0c5e8.html

    China is building yet another 300 GW of renewables by 2030, meanwhile the US is struggling to understand the word "solar" in "solar panel".

  • source
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] [S] 17 points 3 months ago (2 children)

    China is basically the only major economy that invested into making a transition off fossil fuels actually possible.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [+] 14 points 3 months ago (1 child)
  • [–] [S] 11 points 3 months ago

    For sure, I expect once the process will accelerate now with Gulf energy exports collapsing making it a necessity for a lot of countries. And Pakistan is a great example where people took initiative themselves to start importing the panels, and now there's large scale solar available. This kind of stuff does make me cautiously optimistic.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 26 points 3 months ago (1 child)

    Growing up in the American education system I met a number of intelligent and decent people. None of them that stayed in this country are doing particularly well professionally. I also met a number of trust fund brats and amoral monsters. They are doing quite well for themselves. This is America.

  • source
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 10 points 3 months ago

    Anything can be true when words have no meaning.

  • source
  • [–] 10 points 3 months ago (1 child)
  • [–] 8 points 3 months ago (2 children)

    Is this real? Is this really as dumb as it seems?

  • source
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 8 points 3 months ago (5 children)

    Maybe that’s why they’re allowing that company to build space mirrors; so they can point the sun at the solar panels 24/7.

    /s in case it’s not obvious.

  • source
  • hideshow 5 child comments
  • [–] 7 points 3 months ago* (last edited 3 months ago) (4 children)

    I know you aren't serious, but I am now curious how much night time solar relaying it would take to pay off launching one of those satellites. I need to find numbers...

    Edit- Here it is- with updated math

    Looking around I first needed to see how much energy generation nets. This is time and location dependant. I am in Texas. Out grid is run by ERCOT and they have their wholesale grid prices listed.

    If I were to be buying reflected solar, it would obviously be at night, during the unfortunately lower priced off peak times. Looking at the grid avg we get about $40 per MWh.

    But we now have the question of how big is the solar farm? And this size is now limited to the reflected beam size. According to reflect orbital their first satellite, Eärendil-1, has a beam diameter of approximately 5 square Km. But we have to factor in some beam dissipation near the edges, so let's be safe and call it a circle with a diameter of 4 square Km of usable reflected solar. This number also easily convers to about 1000 acres of land.

    Utility Scale solar farms output 1 MW per 5-10 acres. Of we took the middle (7.5 acres per MW) our hypothetical reflected beam sized solar farm would output 150 MW.

    At $40 per MW and 150 MW we are generating $6000 per hour. And with our twilight window of 6 hours we can generate $36,000 per night.

    But how much does the satellite cost? The rented cost is one thing, but only peasants rent the sun. We are talking about owning it. The satellite is Reported to cost $2 million. But the mass produced they are claiming will cost closer to $300k. Let's pretend this becomes a viable buisness strategy to own these satellites and beam them to a reflected solar farm and use the $300k.

    So our cheap satellite should take about 8.3 nights to pay off. The expensive one should take about 55.5 nights to pay off.

    This also does not factor in lower luminosity, night time clouds, solar build cost, or launch cost. This is also factoring in today's energy prices that continue to trend downward with the adoption of more renewables. This also ignores the giant issue of their orbital height only giving 4 minutes of sun per pass per satellite. I don't even want to know how many centuries it would then take to pay off a $2 million satellite in 4 minute increments...

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] 2 points 3 months ago

    Eärendil-1

    Will these people ever stop taking their product names from The Lord of The Rings? J.R.R. Tolkien's corpse could probably be set up to generate power from all the spinning he's presumably doing in his grave at this point.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 1 point 3 months ago

    The 4 minute window is also a fun one. With the LEO altitude listed as between 600 and 650 Km, and if we call it 625 km, that gives it a period of about 96 minutes. This gives it 3.75 passes during out twilight window. But we don't know when those windows will start or or end. As in, the first window might happen .5 hours onto twilight or the last window might be 1.5 hours before twilight ends, both scenarios wasting the remaining time, but we have a guaranteed 3 passes, and at least half the nights a bonus 4th pass either at the start or the end.

    If each pass is 4 minutes, we get a total 'illumination' time of 14 minutes per night.

    At $40/MW/hr we can also call it $0.6666/MW/min. Or, with out 150 MW farm this comes out to a clean $100/minute. And at 14 minutes per night we are making $1400.

    To pay off the OG solar sat it will take about 1428.5 nights, or just under 4 years. To pay off the cheap sat it will take about 214.25 nights

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 1 point 3 months ago*

    looking at it more plainly the satellite only has 18 m^2 reflective surface are so if it hypothetically could perfectly reflect it to earth it could at most add equalient of that in solar energy as harvested electricity that would mean at best added 3.6kW meaning at $40/MWH it would generate about $3.5/day so it would take 235 years to pay itself back, almost a millenia if it only helps 6h/day

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 6 points 3 months ago

    Usually before I write something stupid I go back and proof read it. Apparently the DOE doesn't do that.

  • source
  • [–] 17 points 3 months ago* (4 children)

    US education

    4th Grade School Textbook

  • source
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] 12 points 3 months ago (1 child)

    That's from a private religious education textbook. It is not representative of the U.S. education system.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 10 points 3 months ago*

    Yes, but a big part of the population in the US are in school with this and similar. I remember an interview with a passerby in Alabama, I think, asking him about climate change caused by pollution. Answer: It Is a big lie that man can change anything in God's Creation.

    The US Bubble

    Autoritarian govs only can work with ignorant citizens, religion is always usefull for it. Search: List of Banned Books in US Schools.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 1 point 3 months ago

    To be fair, as a physics grad, I don't think I understand electricity either. It's much more tangible than quantum, so you can feign expertise more easily, but to actually comprehend it...

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 5 points 3 months ago (2 children)

    Wait until they hear about my car when it has no gas.

  • source
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 4 points 3 months ago

    Holy shit.

    At this point I feel ashamed admitting I find this astonishing. Everyone come point and laugh because I'm somehow still not jaded enough.

  • source
  • load more comments
    view more: next ›