American manufacturing of solar panels -- worth protecting?

[Sunking]

I brought up the question for jglorey2 because I can't understand why his fear of fossil fuel is so much higher that no power at all..

It is real easy to figure out Jflorey out when you know who he is and what he does for a living. He is as biased as they come, because if RE fails, or I should say a particular EV manufacture, his career is lost. He is completely vested in RE. Why do you think is defends and worships Musk?

[DanKegel]

While that report says Crescent Dune provides power 24/7 they don't mention that it hasn't done it day in and day out for any extended time frame.

Indeed, they just came back from an 8 month outage! I hope they learned something from the outage & can prevent similar problems in future.

power-eng.com/articles/2017/07/crescent-dunes-solar-back-online-after-eight-month-outage.html

[ButchDeal]

I have researched the hot salt concentrated solar plants in both the US, Spain and Dubai. While that report says Crescent Dune provides power 24/7 they don't mention that it hasn't done it day in and day out for any extended time frame.

That technology does have the potential to provide power late into the night but as of yet doing it for 24/7/365 has not been accomplished yet. To be able to do that will require much more real estate and a better way to store the molten salt heat storage system.

Oh one of the biggest issues for molten salt is that if it drops even a little below it "flow point" it turns the salt into something as hard as concrete and it can't be heated to go back to a fluid. Seems like a high probability for failure unless they come up with a way to keep the stuff flowing.

Also unless the country finds a way to cut their electric usage at night by a lot it will be almost impossible to provide power from storage systems if they are battery, thermal, water or kinetic. We just use too much power at night.

Another good example is the ivanpah hybrid type system using 5% gas at night and cloudy weather.

https://cleantechnica.com/2016/04/25/newly-released-data-indicates-ivanpah-gas-5-percent/

[J.P.M.]

So someone is able to generate power using solar cheaper than using fossil fuel. Being cheaper does not make it any more dependable.

What I do not see in the equation is that people forget that fossil fuel will provide the power needed 24/7 but solar CAN'T provide power for even 50% of the time and on some days 0%. Cheaper is not always better.

Aside from dependability issues (which BTW will increase costs in a way that most R.E. advocates usually do not consider or often conveniently ignore), having been at this for awhile, I've noticed how the cost to generate via any fuel source usually depends on how that costing is done. Not all calculation methods produce equal outcomes at the bottom line. Assumptions, just like opinions vary.

[J.P.M.]

I have researched the hot salt concentrated solar plants in both the US, Spain and Dubai. While that report says Crescent Dune provides power 24/7 they don't mention that it hasn't done it day in and day out for any extended time frame.

That technology does have the potential to provide power late into the night but as of yet doing it for 24/7/365 has not been accomplished yet. To be able to do that will require much more real estate and a better way to store the molten salt heat storage system.

Oh one of the biggest issues for molten salt is that if it drops even a little below it "flow point" it turns the salt into something as hard as concrete and it can't be heated to go back to a fluid. Seems like a high probability for failure unless they come up with a way to keep the stuff flowing.

Also unless the country finds a way to cut their electric usage at night by a lot it will be almost impossible to provide power from storage systems if they are battery, thermal, water or kinetic. We just use too much power at night.

Molten or eutectic salt tech. has been around, as you know probably better than most here since the Telkes days at U. of Delaware. Tower tower tech. has been with us since the Daggett, CA days or before. I'd suggest 50+ yrs. or so is enough to be well along the proof of concept stage.

What looks like has happened, from my eyeball anyway, is that newer methods of storage via electrical energy has sort of leapfrogged thermal storage as the energy storage method of choice for the future. Electrical storage doesn't lose it's energy nearly as quickly as thermal, with that smaller loss being mitigated more easily and for less $$/effort.

Hate to say this as a self identified heat chasing heat exchanger slug by profession, but thermal storage lost out, or is losing out to batteries. Energy storage via electrons is better, cheaper, faster, more reliable. Thermal storage will be around, but more for nitch applications.

[DanKegel]

I suspect that not all of the people who advocate for increasing the percent contribution of RE are the caricatures you make them out to be, all pie-in-the-sky and no appreciation for the real risks and challenges to implementation.

Indeed. For instance, LADWP is doing a serious study now on how to achieve 100% carbon-free electricity... including how much it'll cost to hit 80%, 90%, and 100%. You can bet your bippy that both reliability and cost will be considered, and the city will choose a practical middle course that will make activists on both sides unhappy but will reduce risks affordably.

[max2k]

I think science is exactly about that: building up an increasingly accurate picture of the natural world, one that makes accurate predictions.
For a quick overview of the latest mainstream science related to the consequences of the co2 emissions from burning fossil fuel, see the draft "U.S. Global Change Research Program Climate Science Special Report" that's been in the news lately; archive.org/details/CSSRTODALL has the public draft from January 2017

I understand that many red-leaning folk, including the management of this forum, currently disagree with what science says on this topic. I wouldn't have brought it up, but SolarEagle asked what was motivating California, and that question deserved an answer. Let's not debate whether science is accurate on this score here please; if you want to open up a new thread for that, I'd be happy to discuss it there.

Listen to yourself- I just said science became political tool, you rejected that statement just to come with political spin in the very next message. If it was true science it would be kept in peer reviewed scope, not in the news. Politics is done through the news, not science.

[max2k]

Indeed. For instance, LADWP is doing a serious study now on how to achieve 100% carbon-free electricity... including how much it'll cost to hit 80%, 90%, and 100%. You can bet your bippy that both reliability and cost will be considered, and the city will choose a practical middle course that will make activists on both sides unhappy but will reduce risks affordably.

you're kidding again? Since when public servants cared about saving public money? Does tax surplus happen often? The problem you mentioned will be solved politically regardless of the money factor as long as solution passes some minimal safety threshold so none of it ends up their responsibility. Your naivety taken at face value is stunning.

[J.P.M.]

Indeed. For instance, LADWP is doing a serious study now on how to achieve 100% carbon-free electricity... including how much it'll cost to hit 80%, 90%, and 100%. You can bet your bippy that both reliability and cost will be considered, and the city will choose a practical middle course that will make activists on both sides unhappy but will reduce risks affordably.

Unless such a study is serious in name only, or done for politically expediency. The study will prove what whoever is paying for it wants it to prove. Don't be na

[SunEagle]

Agreed. But people like cheap - and they will do the work to get it, so they can sell their products for less than their competitors. That's why utilities are purchasing future solar generation even without government incentives.

And with coal you have pollution problems, and with nuclear you have safety and disposal problems. No form of energy is perfect - which is why most utilities are aiming for a mix of power rather than sole reliance on any one.

A mix is good. But you need to have a base generation that will not stop due to the weather. Find a way to burn coal cleaner or find ways to neutralize & dispose of your nuclear waste. Totally walking away from those power sources is not a good idea so find ways to use them as best as you can.

[SunEagle]

You've made your opinion clear. I suspect that not all of the people who advocate for increasing the percent contribution of RE are the caricatures you make them out to be, all pie-in-the-sky and no appreciation for the real risks and challenges to implementation. *Some* might very well be, and make great poster children for those who want to attack, but underneath of that, there are still people who take very seriously the responsibility to provide a reliable grid, and even those folks are not universally saying that more RE means the endtimes are near. There is plenty of room for debate in whether the costs of adapting the grid to support more RE are balanced by the benefits in the long run, but putting up this strawman of 100% RE = no power doesn't advance the discussion in any meaningful way, and just serves to create an oppositional caricature, as equally ignorant and counter-productive to meaningful conversation about costs and benefits as the "green mafia."

Maybe you are right. I sometimes want to make those that have no idea about power generation understand how important it is to keep the lights on and wheels turning. It gets frustrating.

There is a place for RE and some places can go with a higher %. But lets be realistic when someone says they are going 100% RE they are just really just boasting about something that is not true. Sure they may have made contracts to purchase all of their power from RE generation but is that really going 100%? The way the grid is set up there is no definite way of knowing where the electrons are coming from. You can't unless you live on an island and can control the power sources. And when RE is not available where is their power really coming from?

[DanKegel]

I just said science became political tool, you rejected that statement just to come with political spin in the very next message. If it was true science it would be kept in peer reviewed scope, not in the news. Politics is done through the news, not science.

The report in question was written by published climate scientists as part of the federal US Global Change Research Program, and the National Academy of Sciences's comments on the draft report (also written by scientists) are at nap.edu/catalog/24712/review-of-the-draft-climate-science-special-report . This is a straight-up summary of the peer-reviewed science, by scientists involved in the topic, linking carefully to their sources.

Political interference in science would be a serious problem. For instance, if the government fired or reassigned climate scientists, cut back heavily on scientific advisory boards, or pressured agencies to avoid talking about climate change, that'd be politics trying to influence climate science, and anyone interested in objective science should oppose such interference.

[DanKegel]

But lets be realistic when someone says they are going 100% RE they are just really just boasting about something that is not true.

Or setting a high goal. An organization that sets a goal of 100% RE and then studies how to get to there may well decide that 80% is as high as they can get affordably for the next X years, and yet keep the 100% goal to guide further decisions.

[jflorey2]

It is real easy to figure out Jflorey out when you know who he is and what he does for a living.

What do I do? I have a feeling you are talking through your ass again.

[DanKegel]

What do I do? I have a feeling you are talking through your ass again.

I've found it's best to just ignore SK's threats and taunts. He's simply not worth the trouble.