NFL Player’s Vision For Energy Resiliency Survives Hurricane Ian. Template For The Future?

Status
Not open for further replies.
LowMilesLesabre

LowMilesLesabre

Joined
May 24, 2019
Messages
247
Location
Ontario Canada
Increasingly, the term resiliency is being researched and discussed in order to protect infrastructure from the increasing intensity of storm activityAnd extreme weather events.. This story is interesting because it’s from a community approximately 12 miles from Fort Myers Florida. While it is likely that solutions to reliable electricity will be multipronged, this was an early and interesting test for a community that has invested heavily in sustainable energy solutions. It is likely not perfect, but may point us toward a future where we have multiple systems and lots of back up plans so that we do not remain stuck in the dark when severe weather strikes. Ideas like this could also prove useful as the infrastructure for the electric power grid will require expansion as we shift to more electricity usage and towards a world with less combustion at the end point of energy use.

www.cnn.com

This 100% solar community endured Hurricane Ian with no loss of power and minimal damage | CNN

Climate resiliency was built into the fabric of Babcock Ranch with stronger storms in mind, and Hurricane Ian was a major test.
www.cnn.com www.cnn.com
 
Huge solar farms like that will displace agriculture and living space for humans. Why is all this impossibly expensive technology necessary? What exactly are we saving the planet from, CO2? Nobody seems to want to answer that.

Seems like the world is hurtling towards a dystopian future for the sake of chasing a ridiculous chimera.
 
What’s interesting about this is the shift in power generation from big facilities, to smaller, private facilities.

Electric power generation has always been a large cooperative endeavor. Generation took huge machines, that were very expensive, so whether public, or private, they were big operations. Hoover dam, the TVA, public utilities, etc.

But with solar, power is now scalable - you can make as much or as little as you want, in a way that doesn’t change the cost/unit of generating capacity very much. Scale up or down as needed. Storage is a separate issue, but similarly scalable.

So, it’s possible to go “off grid” into smaller communities with shared resources, or even private dwellings with sufficient resources for generation and storage.

This wasn’t possible in the past because the cost of generating capacity was so very high, and there was a threshold for affordable power that required a very large plant.

But that has changed, and the possibilities are interesting.
 
Last edited:
The solar farm is much smaller than a golf course. Look at how many golf courses are in the area.
 
The article didn't mention storage for night time energy needs (or I missed it). Battery storage would have doubled the cost of our solar project. Perhaps one day battery material research and development will make storage more doable. Interesting times ahead.
 
Passport1 said:
Huge solar farms like that will displace agriculture and living space for humans. Why is all this impossibly expensive technology necessary? What exactly are we saving the planet from, CO2? Nobody seems to want to answer that.

Seems like the world is hurtling towards a dystopian future for the sake of chasing a ridiculous chimera.
Click to expand...
Crops under panels are a thing. https://www.agritecture.com/blog/20...-to-be-a-bumper-crop-for-agrivoltaic-land-use

Solar is at least equal or less than Fossil fuels if generated by the utility company and trending down.
For homeowners and consumers, according to an October 2021 article published by Consumer Affairs, “Going solar is a money-saver in the long term, even though startup costs are higher for the consumer. Electricity from fossil fuels costs between 5 and 17 cents per kilowatt-hour. Solar energy costs average between 3 cents and 6 cents per kilowatt-hour and are trending down.” https://www.bluesel.com/2022/02/03/solar-energy-vs-fossil-fuels-the-great-debate/

It just makes sense to slow the CO2 output until we get Fusion power figured out.

""There wouldn't be any plant life without it."' Too much of anything is usually harmful.
"elevated atmospheric CO2 actually reduces plant growth when combined with other likely consequences of climate change -- namely, higher temperatures, increased precipitation or increased nitrogen deposits in the soil." https://news.stanford.edu/pr/02/jas...journal Science,nitrogen deposits in the soil.
 
Lubener said:
There wouldn't be any plant life without it.
Click to expand...
And historically speaking over the history of the planet, CO2 has never been lower than the current time. The push that’s being made is literally uncharted territory. No scientist can honestly say they know what will happen if we drive another 10-15% of CO2 out of the atmosphere. But one can imagine there will be severe growth restriction of plants, or not even growth in the first place.
 
LenZee said:
Crops under panels are a thing. https://www.agritecture.com/blog/20...-to-be-a-bumper-crop-for-agrivoltaic-land-use

Solar is at least equal or less than Fossil fuels if generated by the utility company and trending down.
For homeowners and consumers, according to an October 2021 article published by Consumer Affairs, “Going solar is a money-saver in the long term, even though startup costs are higher for the consumer. Electricity from fossil fuels costs between 5 and 17 cents per kilowatt-hour. Solar energy costs average between 3 cents and 6 cents per kilowatt-hour and are trending down.” https://www.bluesel.com/2022/02/03/solar-energy-vs-fossil-fuels-the-great-debate/

It just makes sense to slow the CO2 output until we get Fusion power figured out.

""There wouldn't be any plant life without it."' Too much of anything is usually harmful.
"elevated atmospheric CO2 actually reduces plant growth when combined with other likely consequences of climate change -- namely, higher temperatures, increased precipitation or increased nitrogen deposits in the soil." https://news.stanford.edu/pr/02/jasperplots124.html#:~:text=Writing in the journal Science,nitrogen deposits in the soil.
Click to expand...
If solar electricity is truly 3-6 cents per kWh, why is the cost of electricity on grids with growing solar sources skyrocketing? Oh yeah, because of shading, and panel damage, and not using the actual cost of maintaining a fragile technology. Overkill had a nice article on this. Just because one can find an article from theoreticians in academia does not mean the ideas are even remotely realistic nor commercially possible.

Again, I’m not against solar or wind, nor hydro or any other technology. I’m against governments eliminating sustainable, viable, longstanding sources of energy BEFORE the market has proven the viability AND driven private investment in these technologies have made them a sustainable industry.
 
SubieRubyRoo said:
If solar electricity is truly 3-6 cents per kWh, why is the cost of electricity on grids with growing solar sources skyrocketing? Oh yeah, because of shading, and panel damage, and not using the actual cost of maintaining a fragile technology. Overkill had a nice article on this. Just because one can find an article from theoreticians in academia does not mean the ideas are even remotely realistic nor commercially possible.

Again, I’m not against solar or wind, nor hydro or any other technology. I’m against governments eliminating sustainable, viable, longstanding sources of energy BEFORE the market has proven the viability AND driven private investment in these technologies have made them a sustainable industry.
Click to expand...
Solar is only a small of your average utility, most cost increases are tied directly to fossil fuel price increases. Since solar is still a small part of power generation it is a small part of the price increases due to supply chain problems. Fossil fuel plants get damage also, I grew up with pipe fitters and construction people that have full time careers servicing/building fossil fuel plants. They have never been without work. Even the co-gen plant Ii used to work next to had lots of maintenance problems. Embrace the future before the past catches up with you.
 

Attachments

  • Greenhouse-effect.jpg
    Greenhouse-effect.jpg
    39.4 KB · Views: 16
Passport1 said:
Why?
Click to expand...
To sell more solar panels and push green things.

arstechnica.com

China’s carbon pollution now surpasses all developed countries combined

As China's coal-reliant economy has boomed, so, too, have its emissions.
arstechnica.com arstechnica.com

gman2304 said:
At first glance, I thought this post was going to be about Gatorade ….. :oops:
Click to expand...
I thought it was going to be about concussion related hallucinations.

I'm looking forward to solar panels when they reach maximum efficiency, but that probably won't be for another 10 years. Not sure if it's still worth it in northern latitudes though.

Just make sure to pay your solar panel installers:

 
Last edited:
as long as BIG $$$$ is not diverted things can good things can happen, BUT in the USA BIG $$$$ controls EVERYTHING + its prolly getting WORSE IMO!!!
 
Koainn said:
Is it?....tell me why Venus a planet further away from the sun than mercury is hotter?
Click to expand...
Moisture content of the atmosphere. Water vapor is 95% responsible for “hotter” weather. CO2 is only about 3% responsible for the temperature. And that’s actual scientific fact, not propaganda masquerading as “green” science.
 
Koainn said:
Is it?....tell me why Venus a planet further away from the sun than mercury is hotter?
Click to expand...
I think most of us are far more concerned about this rock we're on and not the others in this solar system, or are you just interested in starting an argument for the sake of the challenge? Let's agree to constrain the conversation to this planet's atmosphere. The balance of CO2 needs to be maintained here on earth. Just like Goldilocks and her porridge, this has to be "just right", as too much or too little will alter our lives to a point we cannot acclimate to. Also, CO2 at ground level is a good thing for plants, but at higher levels, it's a contributor to altered atmospheric patterns. So it needs to be managed, but not micro-managed.

Also, as has been pointed out and discussed before on BITOG ...
Solar and wind are short term solutions to long term problems. And they are short-sighted solutions as well, as the "waste" from used solar panels and used wind turbin blades is a BIG, BIG problem looming in the very near future.
Google it; it's a thing,
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top