Re: [Discuss] Eclipses Re: Great talks last night, however...

On Mon, Jul 24, 2017 at 12:10 AM, grg wrote: > On Sun, Jul 23, 2017 at 04:59:08PM -0400, Richard Pieri wrote: >> On 7/23/2017 3:42 PM, grg wrote: >> The ground can hold a lot of heat energy but it doesn't conduct it much. >> That's why a GHP spreads its ground loop

Re: [Discuss] Eclipses Re: Great talks last night, however...

On Sun, Jul 23, 2017 at 04:59:08PM -0400, Richard Pieri wrote: > On 7/23/2017 3:42 PM, grg wrote: > > In the paper they show that a conventional li-ion battery holds 90% of the > > original charge after 3000 cycles (~9 years of daily cycling); and after > > BS. > >

Re: [Discuss] Eclipses Re: Great talks last night, however...

On 7/23/2017 6:48 PM, Bill Ricker wrote: > Experience on Mars with Rover was exactly the opposite, a gustanado > cleared accumulated dust OFF panels and restored system efficiency. The Mars rovers' panels are constructed with electrostatic layers. Run a charge through the ES layers and they

Re: [Discuss] Eclipses Re: Great talks last night, however...

Even a small tornado won't simply "take out one part of a solar power station". It's going throw dust and debris all over the place. Experience on Mars with Rover was exactly the opposite, a gustanado cleared accumulated dust OFF panels and restored system efficiency. (N=1 is anecdote not

Re: [Discuss] Eclipses Re: Great talks last night, however...

On 7/23/2017 5:01 PM, Robert Krawitz wrote: > If a tornado takes out one part of a solar power station, the rest is > still usable. Even a small tornado won't simply "take out one part of a solar power station". It's going throw dust and debris all over the place. Here's hoping your contract with

Re: [Discuss] Eclipses Re: Great talks last night, however...

On Sun, 23 Jul 2017 16:59:08 -0400, Richard Pieri wrote: > On 7/23/2017 3:42 PM, grg wrote: >> Nor do those characteristics describe millions of homes and buildings. How >> many buildings do you think are destroyed in Kansas by tornados each year? >> Hundreds, for a survival rate of 99.99%. So

Re: [Discuss] Eclipses Re: Great talks last night, however...

On 7/23/2017 3:42 PM, grg wrote: > In the paper they show that a conventional li-ion battery holds 90% of the > original charge after 3000 cycles (~9 years of daily cycling); and after BS. http://batteryuniversity.com/learn/article/how_to_prolong_lithium_based_batteries > Nor do those

Re: [Discuss] Eclipses Re: Great talks last night, however...

On Sun, Jul 23, 2017 at 01:20:05PM -0400, Richard Pieri wrote: > On 7/23/2017 12:29 PM, grg wrote: > > OK, so you're saying that instead of single-digit percentages, there are > > real-world battery installations which get 75%-80% charge/discharge > > efficiency; meaning that if using them we'd

Re: [Discuss] Eclipses Re: Great talks last night, however...

On 7/23/2017 12:29 PM, grg wrote: > OK, so you're saying that instead of single-digit percentages, there are > real-world battery installations which get 75%-80% charge/discharge > efficiency; meaning that if using them we'd only need to make 20%-25% more > solar power, not 1000% more, to

Re: [Discuss] Eclipses Re: Great talks last night, however...

On 7/23/2017 9:58 AM, Robert Krawitz wrote: > "As low as" 50% is a whole lot more than 10%. As low as 50% when new. Efficiency drops off as batteries age. If you've ever replaced a phone or notebook battery because the battery was worn out then you've experienced this first hand. > Supercaps

Re: [Discuss] Eclipses Re: Great talks last night, however...

On Sun, 23 Jul 2017 00:46:22 -0400, Richard Pieri wrote: >> OK, so here you're saying that instead of a <10% charge/discharge >> efficiency, batteries actually have a 75%-80% charge/discharge efficiency? > > No. I'm saying that chemical batteries have *at best* a charge > efficiency of around

Re: [Discuss] Eclipses Re: Great talks last night, however...

On Sun, 23 Jul 2017 00:23:26 -0400, Richard Pieri wrote: > On 7/22/2017 8:56 PM, Robert Krawitz wrote: >> But it's considerably more than 10% in practice, right? > > It depends. It's as much an ideal as Musk's asserted 90% efficiency for > Tesla and Powerwall when in reality Tesla and other EV

Re: [Discuss] Eclipses Re: Great talks last night, however...

> OK, so here you're saying that instead of a <10% charge/discharge > efficiency, batteries actually have a 75%-80% charge/discharge efficiency? No. I'm saying that chemical batteries have *at best* a charge efficiency of around 75-80% in the real world. > Agreed! And Utah, and Arizona, and

Re: [Discuss] Eclipses Re: Great talks last night, however...

On 7/22/2017 8:56 PM, Robert Krawitz wrote: > But it's considerably more than 10% in practice, right? It depends. It's as much an ideal as Musk's asserted 90% efficiency for Tesla and Powerwall when in reality Tesla and other EV owners see as low as 50% with new cells. And as noted previously,

Re: [Discuss] Eclipses Re: Great talks last night, however...

On Sat, Jul 22, 2017 at 12:31:08PM -0400, Richard Pieri wrote: > On 7/22/2017 1:14 AM, Gregory Galperin wrote: > > You seem to be claiming here that the lithium ion batteries Musk is selling > > have less than a 10% charge/discharge efficiency. But when I look for a > > number on charge/discharge

Re: [Discuss] Eclipses Re: Great talks last night, however...

On 7/22/2017 12:22 PM, Robert Krawitz wrote: > 10x? Battery charging isn't that inefficient -- 85% for lead-acid > batteries, for example > (http://www.solar-facts.com/batteries/battery-charging.php). "Overall, an efficiency level of 85% is often *assumed*." Emphasis mine. The rest of that

Re: [Discuss] Eclipses Re: Great talks last night, however...

On 7/22/2017 1:14 AM, Gregory Galperin wrote: > You seem to be claiming here that the lithium ion batteries Musk is selling > have less than a 10% charge/discharge efficiency. But when I look for a > number on charge/discharge efficiency of lithium ion batteries I find > numbers in the range

Re: [Discuss] Eclipses Re: Great talks last night, however...

On 7/21/2017 4:57 PM, Robert Krawitz wrote: > I question your claim that there isn't enough surface area with > sufficient solar exposure to power the world. Your calculations, > please? http://blogs.ucl.ac.uk/energy/2015/05/21/fact-checking-elon-musks-blue-square-how-much-solar-to-power-the-us/

Re: [Discuss] Eclipses Re: Great talks last night, however...

On Fri, 21 Jul 2017 11:50:27 -0400, Richard Pieri wrote: > On 7/21/2017 9:25 AM, Bill Bogstad wrote: >> From an economic perspective, it is beginning to look like >> residential solar + batteries might be preferable in the near future >> to current fossil fuel based grid power. Or at least that

Re: [Discuss] Eclipses Re: Great talks last night, however...

On 7/21/2017 9:25 AM, Bill Bogstad wrote: > So lets say that I accept everything you say about both the > inefficiency and unclean characteristics of solar PV + battery > storage. Are the current incumbent solutions (Oil, Coal, Natural > Gas) any better on either characteristic? When doing

Re: [Discuss] Eclipses Re: Great talks last night, however...

Bill Bogstad writes: > So lets say that I accept everything you say about both the > inefficiency and unclean > characteristics of solar PV + battery storage. Are the current > incumbent solutions (Oil, Coal, Natural > Gas) any better on either characteristic? When doing

Re: [Discuss] Eclipses Re: Great talks last night, however...

On Thu, 20 Jul 2017 20:14:15 -0400, Richard Pieri wrote: > On 7/20/2017 7:36 PM, A. Richard Miller wrote: >> How else might we store solar energy? As an environmentalist, I rather >> like the Northfield Mountain pumped-storage project >> . It's been

Re: [Discuss] Eclipses Re: Great talks last night, however...

On Thu, Jul 20, 2017 at 6:22 PM, Richard Pieri wrote: > On 7/20/2017 4:03 PM, Bill Ricker wrote: >> I wouldn't worry about solar power lost to the coming eclipses. Over the >> next 10 or 100 years, you'll lose far more to thunderstorms blotting out >> the sky; they cast

Re: [Discuss] Eclipses Re: Great talks last night, however...

On 7/20/2017 7:36 PM, A. Richard Miller wrote: > environmental pollution issues, 90% thermal loss, on that scale, and > except for where it can provide NEEDED heating, becomes DIRECT Climate > Warming all on its own. IS it that extreme with electrical storage No. You can't get more waste heat

Re: [Discuss] Eclipses Re: Great talks last night, however...

On 7/20/2017 4:03 PM, Bill Ricker wrote: > ​I wouldn't worry about solar power lost to the coming eclipses. Over the > next 10 or 100 years, you'll lose far more to thunderstorms blotting out > the sky; they cast bigger shadows more frequently. Yeah. And I'm even more concerned with the 10-14