China reflects on solar panel growth

[FBaggins]

Chinese authorities are to launch an investigation of quality standards in China’s solar panel industry, the largest in the world, underlining Beijing’s growing efforts to regulate runaway growth among clean energy manufacturers. China is also the world’s largest producer of wind turbines, and Chinese manufacturers have rapidly stolen market share from their western competitors in recent years because of their cost advantage.

However, there are signs that the Chinese government is cracking down on quality standards in certain clean energy industries. The solar panel industry lacks a domestic certification programme for panels, or photovoltaic modules. “A nationwide quality investigation will be done soon,” said Ma Xuelu, chief strategy officer for Yingli Solar and council member of the Chinese Renewable Energy Institute. “China’s photovoltaic industry is fledgling, so the survey will facilitate the standardisation of the industry and healthy development of solar firms.”

China’s solar module production capacity has tripled in the last two years to reach 17.6GW this year, or 62 per cent of global manufacturing capacity, according to data provider iSuppli. Of that capacity, roughly 22 per cent is for “tier three” producers who would be most likely to be affected by a quality crackdown. Analysts say 2010 was such a good year for solar manufacturers globally that it prompted a wave of copycat entrepreneurial activity in China as businessmen set up small solar manufacturing firms.

http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/32351256-7736-11e0-aed6-00144feabdc0.html#axzz1LbNDGM9a

[FBaggins]

1. Some b@$t@rd went and stole half of China's PV manufacturing capacity!

:sarcasm:

[kristopher]

2. Perhaps you'd like to track down what the $18B in solar mfg loan guarantees are doing...

Before you shoot off your mouth too much. You know, the ones from July 2010?

[FBaggins]

3. July 2010 is almost a year ago... right?

When was this article written?


Oh... and :rofl: at you cautioning anyone else on how long to wait before shooting their mouth off.

[kristopher]

4. Is that article intended as an up-to-the-minute mfg capacity assessment?

Or as commentary on policies related to increased regulatory control of the very rapidly expanding manufacturing base that China is creating?

Where is that $18 billion, Bags?

[FBaggins]

11. It's pretty close, yes.

Or as commentary on policies related to increased regulatory control of the very rapidly expanding manufacturing base that China is creating?

Commentary on regulatory policies sparked by too rapid expansion that's causing the Chinese government a concern.

Where is that $18 billion, Bags?

At this point I don't know that it's anywhere but in your imagination. Two weeks from now will you be citing this thread as proof that it happened?

IOW... a link to a reputable source would be nice. Heck... that link might even tell us where it is.

I do know that of the 8GW (or so) that was installed in 2010, only about 1.5GW of it was installed in the first half of the year. Roughyl 80% of it was under construction in the second half. Wouldn't be unreasonable to assume that incentives that began early in the second half went to that.

Since expectations late last year were that this year's additional capacity added would be roughly half of what was added last year... that furhter supports the assumption that some incentive may have been in place that shifted orders for new capacity back from early 2010 and up from early 2011 into 2H2010.


This article cites a low 20s figure for tier-3 producers that could be impacted negatively by tighter regulations. I've seen other estimates as high as 30-40% marginal capacity (tier 3 or worse) that could be put out of business if demand doesn't pick up enough to offset the excess capacity.

[jpak]

5. If China has the capacity to produce 17.6 GW per year and has 62% of the global market

then global PV production capacity is ~28 GW per year

and some say PV can't be scaled to produce significant quantities of electricity

looks like they are wrong

yup

[FBaggins]

6. Never heard of capacity factor?

A high percentage aren't going into the desert... They're going to Germany (with a CF of about 10-12%)

So that's basically the same as 2-3 large coal/gas/nuke plants.

And right now they have a glut of supply... Because world demand hadnt caught up to supply (pre Fukushima of course)

[jpak]

7. Why no - thanks for setting me straight! I did not know PV systems don't work at night!

:rofl:

[kristopher]

8. And who knew that Germany was installing 28GW/yr?

I have to agree...

:rofl:

ETA:
In July 2010 China gave 3 companies $18B in loan guarantees to build solar manufacturing plants. They should be online between midyear and the end of the year and are expected to bring China's manufacturing capacity to about 35GWp. See the remarks in the middle of this for the estimated annual production values in terms of nuclear plants.


Energy Information for Beginners to Address Myths About Wind and Solar

In this discussion what is important to know about a watt?

If you have a 100 watt light, it uses 100 watts of electricity, right? But what is the "kilowatthour" or "kwh" on your electric bill?

This is a discussion in its own right. One of the best sites I've found for a quick introduction to basic electric terms every consumer needs can be found here. If you aren't cler on the difference between a watt and a watthour, then go here first:

How much electricity costs, and how they charge you

What the heck is a kilowatt hour?

Before we see how much electricity costs, we have to understand how it's measured. When you buy gas they charge you by the gallon. When you buy electricity they charge you by the kilowatt-hour (kWh). When you use 1000 watts for 1 hour, that's a kilowatt-hour...

http://michaelbluejay.com/electricity/cost.html

When we talk about electricity at the national level, the units are larger:

1 GigaWatt (GW) = 1,000 MegaWatts (MW) = 1,000,000 KiloWatts (KW) = 1,000,000,000 Watts.

If a generator or solar array produces 1000 watts, that means at that instant there are "1000 watts" of electricity coming out of the unit (remember this "instant" term). If that rate continues for 1 hour, it has produced "1000 watt hours" or "1 kwh" of electricity, which is how the power companies sell their product. The unit on your residential bill will be the "kilowatt hour" (kwh). (see Micheal Bluejay’s site above if this isn’t clear)

A solar factory (or solar manufacturing facility) or wind turbine manufacturing plant can produce a maximum number of solar panels or wind turbines each year. Let's say one factory can produce enough turbines or panels to produce a total of 1 GW of "instant" power when they are all online, then that factory has a capacity of 1GW/year. Each GW of turbines or panels it produces is added to all previously installed generators to boost the "installed capacity" that is feeding into the grid.

A factory can produce at its capacity for as long as it makes economic sense for it to continue to operate, and each of the wind turbines or solar panels they make will, once installed, produce electricity for 20+ years for wind turbines and 30+ years for solar panels.

If a factory produces 1 GW for 20 years it will produce 20GW of installed capacity, if the factory produces for 40 years it will produce 40GW of installed capacity.

This is different than a conventional coal, nuclear or natural gas plant where it takes between 2 years (natgas) 12+ years (nuclear) to construct each facility for generating electricity. The amount of time devoted to constructing a thermal generating plant is rewarded with the ability to produce electricity any time, day or night no matter the weather. This characteristic of “dispatchability” is the core of how our electric system has developed over time, and is often referred to inappropriately as “baseload” power when critics of renewables point to the variability inherent to the most prominent renewable energy sources



Renewable energy myths promoted daily by the coal/nuclear industry

Wind Power Myths Debunked
november/december 2009 EEE Power and Energy Magazine Master Serie

http://www.ieee-pes.org/images/pdf/open-access-milligan.pdf

Questions addressed:
Can Grid Operators Deal with the Continually Changing Output of Wind Generation?
Does Wind Have Capacity Credit?
How Often Does the Wind Stop Blowing Everywhere at the Same Time?
Isn’t It Very Difficult to Predict Wind Power?
Isn’t It Very Expensive to Integrate Wind?
Doesn’t Wind Power Need New Transmission, and Won’t That Make Wind Expensive?
Doesn’t Wind Power Need Backup Generation? Isn’t More Fossil Fuel Burned with Wind Than Without, Due to Backup Requirements?
Does Wind Need Storage?
Isn’t All the Existing Flexibility Already Used Up?
Is Wind Power as Good as Coal or Nuclear Even Though the Capacity Factor of Wind Power Is So Much Less?
Isn’t There a Limit to How Much Wind Can Be Accommodated by the Grid?

Wind Power Myths Debunked
Common Questions and Misconceptions

Introduction:
THE RAPID GROWTH OF WIND POWER IN THE UNITED STATES AND worldwide has resulted in increasing media attention to — and public awareness of — wind generation technology. Several misunderstandings and myths have arisen due to the characteristics of wind generation, particularly because wind-energy generation only occurs when the wind is blowing. Wind power is therefore not dispatchable like conventional energy sources and delivers a variable level of power depending on the wind speed. Wind is primarily an energy resource and not a capacity resource. Its primary value is to offset fuel consumption and the resulting emissions, including carbon. Only a relatively small fraction of wind energy is typically delivered during peak and high-risk time periods; therefore, wind generators have limited capacity value. This leads to concerns about the impacts of wind power on maintaining reliability and the balance between load and generation.

This article presents answers to commonly asked questions concerning wind power.
It begins by addressing the variability of wind and then discusses whether wind has capacity credit. The article addresses whether wind can stop blowing everywhere at once, the uncertainty of predicting wind generation, whether it is expensive to integrate wind power, the need for new transmission, and whether wind generation requires backup generation or dedicated energy storage. Finally, we discuss whether there is sufficient system flexibility to incorporate wind generation, whether coal is better than wind because coal has greater capacity factors, and whether there is a limit to how much wind power can be incorporated into the grid...

Summary
The natural variability of wind power makes it different from other generating technologies, which can give rise to questions about how wind power can be integrated into the grid successfully. This article aims to answer several important questions that can be raised with regard to wind power. Although wind is a variable resource, grid operators have experience with managing variability that comes from handling the variability of load. As a result, in many instances the power system is equipped to handle variability. Wind power is not expensive to integrate, nor does it require dedicated backup generation or storage. Developments in tools such as wind forecasting also aid in integrating wind power. Integrating wind can be aided by enlarging balancing areas and moving to subhourly sched- uling, which enable grid operators to access a deeper stack of generating resources and take advantage of the smooth- ing of wind output due to geographic diversity. Continued improvements in new conventional-generation technolo- gies and the emergence of demand response, smart grids, and new technologies such as plug-in hybrids will also help with wind integration.

Download this open access article free (normally this journal's articles are priced at $26 each) : http://www.ieee-pes.org/images/pdf/open-access-milligan.pdf

This source of information is as credible as can be found on these frequently misrepresented issues related to wind power.

List of authors:
Michael Milligan is a principal analyst with NREL, in Golden, Colorado.
Kevin Porter is a senior analyst with Exeter Associates Inc., in Columbia, Maryland.
Edgar DeMeo is president of Renewable Energy Consulting Services, in Palo Alto, California.
Paul Denholm is a senior energy analyst with NREL, in Golden, Colorado. Hannele Holttinen is a senior research scientist with VTT Technical Research Centre of Finland.
Brendan Kirby is a consultant for NREL, in Golden, Colorado.
Nicholas Miller is a director at General Electric, in Schenectady, New York.
Andrew Mills is a senior research associate with Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory, in Berkeley, California.
Mark O’Malley is a professor, School of Electrical, Electronic and Mechanical Engineering of University College Dublin, in Ireland.
Matthew Schuerger is a principal consultant with Energy Systems Consulting Services LLC, in St. Paul, Minnesota.
Lennart Soder is a professor of electric power systems at the Royal Institute of Technology, in Stockholm, Sweden.

Again, you can download the entire open access report here: http://www.ieee-pes.org/images/pdf/open-access-milligan.pdf





What about solar?

**In 2003, when the DOE solar pamphlet below was written, the US was the leader in PV - now we are 5th. Myth #2 identifies a target of 3.2 GWp of US manufacturing capacity as being needed to meet a US goal of 10% of electricity from solar by 2030. The /p/ in GWp refers to manufacturing production capacity.

However since the Republicans have successfully obstructed every policy that would have helped the industry grow here, global solar manufacturing capacity is now the number to look at. Global mfg capacity will reach about 45GWp this year with China's manufacturing capacity alone expected to hit 35GWp, even though they didn't start building solar panel factories until 2007.

To put that in perspective, if China's factories manufacture 35GWp of solar panels each year those panels will produce the equivalent electricity of about 7 or 8 large nuclear power plants. So in 12 years, the amount of now existing factory capacity (in China alone) will manufacture enough panels to equal the output of between 84 - 96 nuclear power plants. And the buildup of manufacturing is just getting started. Within ten years it is hoped/expected/thought that global solar manufacturing capacity will hit 1000GWp/year

(see the slideshow at this solar company website for a graph showing how increased manufacturing directly impacts the price of the electricity produced http://www.1366tech.com/

And before you say it can't be done, consider that in 2007, China wasn't involved in solar manufacturing and now, 4 years later they have 35GWp. After Fukushima, what do you think they are going to do?

Dept of Energy presents "Myths about Solar Electricity" Jan 2003

Myths about Solar Electricity

The area required for PV systems to supply the United States with its electricity is available now from parking lots, rooftops, and vacant land.

Solar electric systems are an important part of the whole-building approach to constructing a better home or commercial building. Although these systems have delivered clean, reliable power for more than a decade, several myths have evolved that confuse the real issues of using solar electricity effectively.

Myth #1
Solar electricity cannot contribute a significant fraction of the nation’s electricity needs.

Solar electric panels can meet electricity demand on any scale, from a single home to a large city. There is plenty of energy in the sunlight shining on all parts of our nation to generate the electricity we need. For example, with today’s commercial systems, the solar energy resource in a 100-by-100-mile area of Nevada could supply the United States with all of its electricity. If these systems were distributed to the 50 states, the land required from each state would be an area of about 17 by 17 miles. This area is available now from parking lots, rooftops, and vacant land. In fact, 90% of America’s current electricity needs could be supplied with solar electric systems built on the estimated 5 million acres of abandoned industrial sites in our nation’s cities.

Myth #2 ** (see prequel note above added by K)
Solar electricity can do everything—right now!

Solar electricity will eventually contribute a significant part of our electricity supply, but the industry required to produce these systems must grow more than tenfold over the next 10 years. In 2001, about 400 megawatts of solar electric modules were produced worldwide. According to an industry-planning document, in order to supply just 10% of U.S. generation capacity by 2030, the U.S. solar electricity industry must supply more than 3,200 megawatts per year (3.2GWp). Most experts agree that with continued research, solar electric systems will become more efficient, even more reliable, and less expensive.

Myth #3
Producing solar electric systems creates pollution and uses more energy than the system can produce over its lifetime.
Producing solar electric systems uses energy and produces some unwanted byproducts. However, most solar electric systems pay back the energy used to produce them in about one year. Because the systems generally last 30 years, during the 30 years of a system's life, it is producing free and clean electricity for 29 of those years.

Production of solar electric systems is regulated by rigorous safety and pollution control standards. In addition, during the lifetime of a solar electric system, pollution that would have been emitted by conventional generation of electricity is avoided. For each kilowatt of solar electric generating capacity, the pollution avoided by not using fossil fuels to produce electricity amounts to 9 kilograms of sulfuric oxide, 16 kilograms of nitrous oxide, and between 600 and 2,300 kilograms of carbon dioxide per year. The annual amount of carbon dioxide offset by a 2.5-kW rooftop residential solar electric system is equal to that emitted by a typical family car during that same year.

Myth #4
Solar electric systems make sense in only a few applications.

Solar electric systems make sense nearly anywhere electricity is needed. Homes and businesses that are already using electricity from the utility, such as homes, businesses, and electric-vehicle charging stations, represent nearly 60% of the market for solar electric systems. The number of these grid-connected applications is growing because they make sense economically, environmentally, and aesthetically. Solar electric systems make economic sense because they use free fuel from the sun and require little upkeep because they have no moving parts. Every bit of electricity produced is used in the home or sold back to the electric utility for use by other customers. Solar electric systems also make sense for the environment and can blend seamlessly into the design of a building.


Myth #5
Solar electric systems are unreliable and produce substandard electricity.

Solar electric systems are some of the most reliable products available today. They are silent, have no moving parts, and have been tested to rigorous standards by public and private organizations. Many solar electric products have been tested and listed by Underwriters Laboratories, just as electrical appliances are. Warranties of 20-25 years are standard for most modules.

Solar electric systems connected to the utility grid generate the same kind of power as that from the power line. Today’s systems must meet the requirements of the National Electrical Code, the local utility, and local building codes. Once these systems are installed according to these requirements, the owner of a solar-electric-powered home has electricity of the same quality as any other utility customer.


Myth #6
It is difficult to make solar electric systems aesthetically pleasing and functional for homes and businesses.

The buildings shown here include solar electric systems serving dual functions: building structure and generation of electricity. These photos represent only a small sample of the beautiful, functional, and energy-efficient buildings being designed with solar electric components. (download for photos- link below)

In the future, people will reflect on our current solar electric technology much as we reflect on the technology of the Model T Ford: with admiration for the pioneering visionaries of the day and perhaps amusement at the technology that seems so primitive compared to what we now enjoy. Researchers believe that in the future, new physics and technologies will be developed that will greatly improve solar energy technology. As for the present day, clean, reliable solar electricity is increasingly popular with home and business owners, which helps to dispel the myths surrounding this technology.

Produced for the U.S. Department of Energy by the National Renewable Energy Laboratory, a DOE national laboratory
DOE/GO-102003-1671 January 2003

http://www1.eere.energy.gov/solar/pdfs/32529.pdf

[FBaggins]

9. Still can't deal with anything but strawmen, eh?

What's the world's single largest market for solar PV?

What country makes up a tad over 1% of the world population but close to 40% of the world's installed solar (by peak capacity of course)?

Can you compare the 2010 installations in Germany (and/or expectations for 2011) to the next five largest installing countries?

It's hardly unreasonable to use them as an example. Really, a comparatively small portion of PV installations are in the places where they are most effective (where peak demand closely matches their peak production).

In July 2010 China gave 3 companies $18B in loan guarantees to build solar manufacturing plants. They should be online between midyear and the end of the year and are expected to bring China's manufacturing capacity to about 35GWp.

Expected by you and... who?

See the remarks in the middle of this for the estimated annual production

Again... estimated by who? You keep spamming your own prior comments, but have yet to back it up from any reputable source.

Hint - repeating false statements doesn't make them any less false.

[kristopher]

13. You win. Since you are willing to accept a "reputable source" I'll provide it.

Just as soon as you show that reputable sources do, in fact, mean something to you; because over the past several years you've demonstrated that the mean absolutely nothing.

This is a very reputable source for information comparing the relative, non-monetized benefits and costs of various low carbon energy alternatives.

As originally published:
Abstract

This paper reviews and ranks major proposed energy-related solutions to global warming, air pollution mortality, and energy security while considering other impacts of the proposed solutions, such as on water supply, land use, wildlife, resource availability, thermal pollution, water chemical pollution, nuclear proliferation, and undernutrition. Nine electric power sources and two liquid fuel options are considered. The electricity sources include solar-photovoltaics (PV), concentrated solar power (CSP), wind, geothermal, hydroelectric, wave, tidal, nuclear, and coal with carbon capture and storage (CCS) technology. The liquid fuel options include corn-ethanol (E85) and cellulosic-E85. To place the electric and liquid fuel sources on an equal footing, we examine their comparative abilities to address the problems mentioned by powering new-technology vehicles, including battery-electric vehicles (BEVs), hydrogen fuel cell vehicles (HFCVs), and flex-fuel vehicles run on E85. Twelve combinations of energy source-vehicle type are considered. Upon ranking and weighting each combination with respect to each of 11 impact categories, four clear divisions of ranking, or tiers, emerge. Tier 1 (highest-ranked) includes wind-BEVs and wind-HFCVs. Tier 2 includes CSP-BEVs, geothermal-BEVs, PV-BEVs, tidal-BEVs, and wave-BEVs. Tier 3 includes hydro-BEVs, nuclear-BEVs, and CCS-BEVs. Tier 4 includes corn- and cellulosic-E85. Wind-BEVs ranked first in seven out of 11 categories, including the two most important, mortality and climate damage reduction. Although HFCVs are much less efficient than BEVs, wind-HFCVs are still very clean and were ranked second among all combinations. Tier 2 options provide significant benefits and are recommended. Tier 3 options are less desirable. However, hydroelectricity, which was ranked ahead of coal-CCS and nuclear with respect to climate and health, is an excellent load balancer, thus recommended. The Tier 4 combinations (cellulosic- and corn-E85) were ranked lowest overall and with respect to climate, air pollution, land use, wildlife damage, and chemical waste. Cellulosic-E85 ranked lower than corn-E85 overall, primarily due to its potentially larger land footprint based on new data and its higher upstream air pollution emissions than corn-E85. Whereas cellulosic-E85 may cause the greatest average human mortality, nuclear-BEVs cause the greatest upper-limit mortality risk due to the expansion of plutonium separation and uranium enrichment in nuclear energy facilities worldwide. Wind-BEVs and CSP-BEVs cause the least mortality. The footprint area of wind-BEVs is 2–6 orders of magnitude less than that of any other option. Because of their low footprint and pollution, wind-BEVs cause the least wildlife loss. The largest consumer of water is corn-E85. The smallest are wind-, tidal-, and wave-BEVs. The US could theoretically replace all 2007 onroad vehicles with BEVs powered by 73 000–144 000 5 MW wind turbines, less than the 300 000 airplanes the US produced during World War II, reducing US CO2 by 32.5–32.7% and nearly eliminating 15 000/yr vehicle-related air pollution deaths in 2020. In sum, use of wind, CSP, geothermal, tidal, PV, wave, and hydro to provide electricity for BEVs and HFCVs and, by extension, electricity for the residential, industrial, and commercial sectors, will result in the most benefit among the options considered. The combination of these technologies should be advanced as a solution to global warming, air pollution, and energy security. Coal-CCS and nuclear offer less benefit thus represent an opportunity cost loss, and the biofuel options provide no certain benefit and the greatest negative impacts.


This is the paragraph above broken apart for ease of reading:

You can download the full article at his webpage here: http://www.stanford.edu/group/efmh/jacobson/Articles/I/revsolglobwarmairpol.htm

Or use this direct download link: http://www.stanford.edu/group/efmh/jacobson/Articles/I/ReviewSolGW09.pdf

You can view the html abstract here: http://www.rsc.org/publishing/journals/EE/article.asp?doi=b809990c

Download slide presentation here: http://www.stanford.edu/group/efmh/jacobson/Articles/I/0902UIllinois.pdf

Results graphed here: http://pubs.rsc.org/services/images/RSCpubs.ePlatform.Service.FreeContent.ImageService.svc/ImageService/image/GA?id=B809990C

Energy Environ. Sci., 2009, 2, 148 - 173, DOI: 10.1039/b809990c

Review of solutions to global warming, air pollution, and energy security

Mark Z. Jacobson

Abstract
This paper reviews and ranks major proposed energy-related solutions to global warming, air pollution mortality, and energy security while considering other impacts of the proposed solutions, such as on water supply, land use, wildlife, resource availability, thermal pollution, water chemical pollution, nuclear proliferation, and undernutrition.

Nine electric power sources and two liquid fuel options are considered. The electricity sources include solar-photovoltaics (PV), concentrated solar power (CSP), wind, geothermal, hydroelectric, wave, tidal, nuclear, and coal with carbon capture and storage (CCS) technology. The liquid fuel options include corn-ethanol (E85) and cellulosic-E85. To place the electric and liquid fuel sources on an equal footing, we examine their comparative abilities to address the problems mentioned by powering new-technology vehicles, including battery-electric vehicles (BEVs), hydrogen fuel cell vehicles (HFCVs), and flex-fuel vehicles run on E85.

Twelve combinations of energy source-vehicle type are considered. Upon ranking and weighting each combination with respect to each of 11 impact categories, four clear divisions of ranking, or tiers, emerge.

Tier 1 (highest-ranked) includes wind-BEVs and wind-HFCVs.
Tier 2 includes CSP-BEVs, geothermal-BEVs, PV-BEVs, tidal-BEVs, and wave-BEVs.
Tier 3 includes hydro-BEVs, nuclear-BEVs, and CCS-BEVs.
Tier 4 includes corn- and cellulosic-E85.

Wind-BEVs ranked first in seven out of 11 categories, including the two most important, mortality and climate damage reduction. Although HFCVs are much less efficient than BEVs, wind-HFCVs are still very clean and were ranked second among all combinations.

Tier 2 options provide significant benefits and are recommended.

Tier 3 options are less desirable. However, hydroelectricity, which was ranked ahead of coal-CCS and nuclear with respect to climate and health, is an excellent load balancer, thus recommended.

The Tier 4 combinations (cellulosic- and corn-E85) were ranked lowest overall and with respect to climate, air pollution, land use, wildlife damage, and chemical waste. Cellulosic-E85 ranked lower than corn-E85 overall, primarily due to its potentially larger land footprint based on new data and its higher upstream air pollution emissions than corn-E85.

Whereas cellulosic-E85 may cause the greatest average human mortality, nuclear-BEVs cause the greatest upper-limit mortality risk due to the expansion of plutonium separation and uranium enrichment in nuclear energy facilities worldwide. Wind-BEVs and CSP-BEVs cause the least mortality.

The footprint area of wind-BEVs is 2–6 orders of magnitude less than that of any other option. Because of their low footprint and pollution, wind-BEVs cause the least wildlife loss.

The largest consumer of water is corn-E85. The smallest are wind-, tidal-, and wave-BEVs.

The US could theoretically replace all 2007 onroad vehicles with BEVs powered by 73000–144000 5 MW wind turbines, less than the 300000 airplanes the US produced during World War II, reducing US CO2 by 32.5–32.7% and nearly eliminating 15000/yr vehicle-related air pollution deaths in 2020.

In sum, use of wind, CSP, geothermal, tidal, PV, wave, and hydro to provide electricity for BEVs and HFCVs and, by extension, electricity for the residential, industrial, and commercial sectors, will result in the most benefit among the options considered. The combination of these technologies should be advanced as a solution to global warming, air pollution, and energy security. Coal-CCS and nuclear offer less benefit thus represent an opportunity cost loss, and the biofuel options provide no certain benefit and the greatest negative impacts.

[FBaggins]

14. Lol! You think that was an excuse to post your spamblings?

No... Jacobsen is not a "repubtable source"... but that's irrelevant to this conversation because you obviously don't understand what is being asked for here.

Jacobsen's BS is nothing but a theory re: what he thinks is possible in the future. It isn't a statement of what is. It doesn't matter whether or not I agree with his theory (or consider him reputable) because it's still a theory.

You made a statement of fact and you've been asked to back it up. I've provided a number of sources that demonstrate that you were flat wrong and you've been trying desperately to spin away from owning the error.

It hasn't worked.

[kristopher]

15. Jacobson is as much of a reputable source as you can find.

That paper is an unchallenged, peer-reviewed work of analysis that you simply pretend doesn't exist. You don't want "reputable sources"; you want targets to snipe at.

[FBaggins]

16. And you're looking for an excuse to avoid the truth.

There is no internet cure I can provide for you. You'll just have to wait to grow up.

Could take some time.

You might start by learning the difference between sources for facts and sources for opinions. You could get six economists into a room and ask them where the S&P will be in a year and you'll get six answers. None of them is a "reputable source" for that guess... because it's merely opinion.

You've been asked to provide a source for what the S&P did last year. All six will agree.

And they would all agree that you were wrong.

[kristopher]

17. Your agenda is to promote nuclear fission by any means possible- facts and truth are irrelevant

Jacobson's paper if full of facts that go together to produce a conclusion that is not arguable based on FACTS. Your ongoing attempts to malign the work it represents is a pathetic example of how your presence here is nothing more than an agenda driven marketing effort on behalf of the fission industry. Why the hell would you think anyone would cooperate with you in your manipulative attempts to disrupt discussion of the progressive agenda in favor of pushing the "traditional" agenda?

[kristopher]

21. Again, why do you think cooperation is something you are entitled to, Baggins?

As documented by your reaction to Jacobson above you have no respect for the validity of sources as an avenue for establishing a best known state of being informed; to you, the only value they possess is rooted in how they serve your purpose in furthering your preset agenda of promoting nuclear fission.

It is the difference between legalistic wrangling and the academic pursuit of knowledge.

[FBaggins]

10. Is it night 80+ percent of the time where you live?

Nighttime isn't the only time when solar panels put out less than their rated capacity.

The cited production capacity is a truly impressive ramp-up over the last several years, but it's still a tiny drop in the bucket when you realize that we're talking about worldwide production. If the world keeps up that pace for several years... it'll add up to one three-gorges dam. There are three coal plants in China that each produce almost twice that much each year.


There are, in fact, about seventy coal plants around the world that produce more power in an average year than all of those solar cells produced worldwide combined.

Then we can start talking about natural gas (at least a dozen)... nuclear (40-45)... hydro (30 or so).

Forgive us if we don't immediately jump on the "solar will save us by next week" bandwagon.

[Systematic Chaos]

12. Facts suck, dude.

Don't kill the buzz with all your cruft!

God damn but I love that new word....

[jpak]

18. Solar will save us

Solar will save us
Solar will save us
Solar will save us
Solar will save us
Solar will save us

yup

:D

[jpak]

19. The solar-is-tiny argument is sooooooo 2002 - it's growing faster than nuclear

yup

[NickB79]

20. Ah, the "solar is beating nuclear" argument

Sort of like the tortoise-is-beating-the-snail racing argument.

Of course, the fossil fuel cheetah is lapping them but no one seems to be paying him much attention these days.