Test My favourite solar power article of the day Test

Commodity Marketing

Tools

My favourite solar power article of the day

Test
Oct 21, 2020 | 07:39 1 Looking through my favourite web sites this morning And found this one on the financial post: financial post.com/opinion/peter-foster-the-iea’s-solar-spin-cycle. The highlight of the article for me was that if all of the IEA’s projections of growth in solar happen by 2030 solar will only be supplying 8% of our primary electricity needs and therefore 2% of our overall energy needs. Coal will still be supplying 28% of our electricity in this scenario by 2030. Hydro will still by a wide margin be our largest source of renewable energy and fossil fuels will still be providing 76% of our total energy needs. Interesting read.
Last edited by Hamloc; Oct 22, 2020 at 07:34.
Reply With Quote

  • Oct 22, 2020 | 10:58 2 So does this mean you are not going to have to freeze in dark Like you feared? That’s good news Hamloc! Reply With Quote
    Oct 23, 2020 | 07:31 3
    Quote Originally Posted by chuckChuck View Post
    So does this mean you are not going to have to freeze in dark Like you feared? That’s good news Hamloc!
    Chuck2 you had a post recently about how COVID-19 is going to reshape the future of energy. This article puts some context to the numbers. I believe you stated that 80% of new electrical generation will come from solar. What I found eye opening is that all this promotion and bluster will only amount to solar producing 8% of the worlds electricity up from roughly 2% now by 2030. Yup definitely reshaping our future. Reply With Quote
  • 1 Like


  • Oct 23, 2020 | 07:42 4 How could renewable energy get to 8% if you say it doesn't work? LOL

    8% is very significant considering the scale of energy systems on the planet.

    So how long did it take for coal to spread around the world and power the industrial revolution?

    How long did it take for coal to be replaced by other fossil fuels and electricity?

    Did it happen in 2 years, 10 years, 50 years or longer? Reply With Quote
    Oct 23, 2020 | 07:49 5
    Quote Originally Posted by chuckChuck View Post
    How could renewable energy get to 8% if you say it doesn't work? LOL

    8% is very significant considering the scale of energy systems on the planet.

    So how long did it take for coal to spread around the world and power the industrial revolution?

    How long did it take for coal to be replaced by other fossil fuels and electricity?

    Did it happen in 2 years, 10 years, 50 years or longer?
    Chuck2 I was referring to solar energy not renewable energy, we already have a tremendous amount of renewable energy in Canada in the form of hydroelectric power.

    As for coal, as the article points out(which as usual you didn’t read) by 2030 28% of the worlds electricity will still come from coal, so to answer your question coal still hasn’t been replaced. Reply With Quote
  • 1 Like


  • Oct 23, 2020 | 08:00 6 Yes Canada is well ahead on renewable hydro. Its a great advantage for us.

    As I thought, you don't know much about the history of technological change and how long it takes or will take. And neither do I. LOL

    And for the record a large percentage of the worlds poor are still using wood to cook and to heat their homes. They are still waiting for any technology to improve their lives. Reply With Quote
    Oct 23, 2020 | 08:28 7
    Quote Originally Posted by chuckChuck View Post
    Yes Canada is well ahead on renewable hydro. Its a great advantage for us.

    As I thought, you don't know much about the history of technological change and how long it takes or will take. And neither do I. LOL

    And for the record a large percentage of the worlds poor are still using wood to cook and to heat their homes. They are still waiting for any technology to improve their lives.
    Chuck2 in most countries coal fired electrical generation was shut down by either government legislation or government taxation. As for using wood for heat I have many friends and relatives that use wood for heat, I guess a lot of the people I know are poor, wasn’t aware of that lol! Reply With Quote
    Oct 23, 2020 | 09:00 8
    Quote Originally Posted by Hamloc View Post
    Chuck2 in most countries coal fired electrical generation was shut down by either government legislation or government taxation. As for using wood for heat I have many friends and relatives that use wood for heat, I guess a lot of the people I know are poor, wasn’t aware of that lol!
    Turns out Germany is too poor to afford coal power too. So poor they need to import wood from Africa to replace the coal:
    https://notrickszone.com/2020/10/20/...er-plant-fuel/

    And Britain:
    https://theecologist.org/2018/apr/16...patches-claims

    And many others in Europe:
    https://www.nybooks.com/daily/2019/1...ss-boondoggle/ Reply With Quote
    Oct 23, 2020 | 09:12 9
    Quote Originally Posted by chuckChuck View Post
    Yes Canada is well ahead on renewable hydro. Its a great advantage for us.

    As I thought, you don't know much about the history of technological change and how long it takes or will take. And neither do I. LOL

    And for the record a large percentage of the worlds poor are still using wood to cook and to heat their homes. They are still waiting for any technology to improve their lives.
    Canada was maybe at one time ahead in hydro , but under the current environmental restrictions and First Nations issues I highly doubt hydro will progress anywhere in Canada in the foreseeable future. Reply With Quote
  • 1 Like


  • Oct 23, 2020 | 09:31 10 We need small nuclear plants, not solar. Till then, we need to burn organic fuels,,, organic fuels that come from decaying plants and animals from thousands of years ago.

    Lingering Legacy: Millions of Toxic Solar Panels That Can’t Be Recycled Destined for Landfills
    https://stopthesethings.com/2020/10/10/lingering-legacy-millions-of-toxic-solar-panels-that-cant-be-recycled-destined-for-landfills/amp
    Last edited by beaverdam; Oct 23, 2020 at 18:41.
    Reply With Quote
  • 1 Like


  • Oct 23, 2020 | 16:12 11 https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tan...e-to-drilling/ Reply With Quote
    Oct 23, 2020 | 22:58 12
    Quote Originally Posted by beaverdam View Post
    We need small nuclear plants, not solar. Till then, we need to burn organic fuels,,, organic fuels that come from decaying plants and animals from thousands of years ago.

    Lingering Legacy: Millions of Toxic Solar Panels That Can’t Be Recycled Destined for Landfills
    https://stopthesethings.com/2020/10/10/lingering-legacy-millions-of-toxic-solar-panels-that-cant-be-recycled-destined-for-landfills/amp
    Fairly quiet about this post 🤨
    Again not totally ditchin solar but this ☝🏾 is exactly the bad side no one will talk about . Or those landfills full of turbine blades ... must be fake news .
    There is good and bad in everything.... it’s not all “sunshine and lollipops” but the green movement stays silent on this but bashes oil at every move .... it kinda ironic is all Reply With Quote
    Oct 24, 2020 | 07:12 13 Federal government invests in small nuclear reactors to help it meet net-zero 2050 target

    https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/bai...zero-1.5763762 Reply With Quote
    Oct 24, 2020 | 07:22 14
    Quote Originally Posted by chuckChuck View Post
    Federal government invests in small nuclear reactors to help it meet net-zero 2050 target

    https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/bai...zero-1.5763762
    This actually makes some sense at least .
    Too bad Trudeau wasted $200 million on a modi’s casino and another $200 million recently, that’s $400 million just thrown away ... could have set up small nuke plants all over the country. Then just used solar can be used for small pet projects like yours and others .
    Cause be honest , solar will never be a mainstay in 90% of Canada year around big scale , wind neither . It’s will always be a supplement in this climate at best . Reply With Quote
    Oct 24, 2020 | 07:30 15
    Quote Originally Posted by chuckChuck View Post
    Federal government invests in small nuclear reactors to help it meet net-zero 2050 target

    https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/bai...zero-1.5763762
    The one modular nuclear plant in the article will produce up to 195 megawatts. For shits and giggles I looked up how many acres of solar panels tp produce a megawatt of electricity. The one research article I read said 8 acres, so 195 megawatts would take 1560 acres. So I wonder is the molten salt reactor or a bunch of solar panels better for the environment? As for our Prime Minister let’s see $295 million to Ford to build electric cars, $20 million for nuclear power hmmmm. Reply With Quote
    Oct 24, 2020 | 07:31 16 They aren't anywhere near ready for deployment and the costs could be so high that renewables like hydro, geothermal, tidal, wind and solar with storage will be much cheaper. We are decades away from small nuclear. Reply With Quote
    Oct 24, 2020 | 07:36 17
    Quote Originally Posted by Hamloc View Post
    The one modular nuclear plant in the article will produce up to 195 megawatts. For shits and giggles I looked up how many acres of solar panels tp produce a megawatt of electricity. The one research article I read said 8 acres, so 195 megawatts would take 1560 acres. So I wonder is the molten salt reactor or a bunch of solar panels better for the environment? As for our Prime Minister let’s see $295 million to Ford to build electric cars, $20 million for nuclear power hmmmm.
    You do realize there are many acres of house and commercial buildings with roofs that can have solar on them.

    "The study utilized light detection and ranging (LiDAR)–based scans of buildings as well as statistical techniques to estimate rooftop solar PV potential. The study found that of the 116.9 million residential buildings in the U.S., there are 67.2 million buildings (57% of the total) suitable for solar PV. Total generation potential was nearly 1,000 terawatt-hour (TWh), which is about 75% of residential consumption (although not necessarily without economical power storage options)."

    https://www.forbes.com/sites/rrapier.../#7860d9915109 Reply With Quote
    Oct 24, 2020 | 07:43 18 Some day all those solar panels will be recycled into car windshields and we will be buying a tiny nuclear fist that plugs into our pole in the yard, lasts forever and powers minute power packs for our cars, trucks, planes. But until then the US will blow 12 trillion dollars destroying the oil industry. “ The brainiaks”. Reply With Quote
  • 1 Like


  • Oct 24, 2020 | 08:08 19
    Quote Originally Posted by chuckChuck View Post
    They aren't anywhere near ready for deployment and the costs could be so high that renewables like hydro, geothermal, tidal, wind and solar with storage will be much cheaper. We are decades away from small nuclear.
    Did you read the article you posted? The company in the article said it would have the molten salt reactor ready for production by the end of the decade, while that is a few years away that is not “decades”! Reply With Quote
    Oct 24, 2020 | 08:22 20 Yup 1 decade until the company says they will be ready. Add another decade to their plans just to be safe. And then there is the approval, regulatory and deployment which will probably be another decade or 2. So decades is proabably accurate.

    I am assuming you want one in your back yard? Reply With Quote
    Oct 24, 2020 | 08:26 21
    Quote Originally Posted by chuckChuck View Post
    You do realize there are many acres of house and commercial buildings with roofs that can have solar on them.

    "The study utilized light detection and ranging (LiDAR)–based scans of buildings as well as statistical techniques to estimate rooftop solar PV potential. The study found that of the 116.9 million residential buildings in the U.S., there are 67.2 million buildings (57% of the total) suitable for solar PV. Total generation potential was nearly 1,000 terawatt-hour (TWh), which is about 75% of residential consumption (although not necessarily without economical power storage options)."

    https://www.forbes.com/sites/rrapier.../#7860d9915109
    What the numbers in Canada ? Or Sweden , Finland , Russia ?

    Try to keep it realistic to here
    Maybe Klause can give realistic numbers again Reply With Quote
    Oct 24, 2020 | 08:29 22
    Quote Originally Posted by chuckChuck View Post
    Yup 1 decade until the company says they will be ready. Add another decade to their plans just to be safe. And then there is the approval, regulatory and deployment which will probably be another decade or 2. So decades is proabably accurate.

    I am assuming you want one in your back yard?
    If I had a choice between a grid scale solar field and a molten salt reactor in my backyard, I would take the molten salt reactor. Reply With Quote
  • 1 Like


  • Oct 24, 2020 | 08:45 23 Its not going to be only solar its going to be hydro, geothermal, tidal, wind and solar with storage, hydrogen and maybe some nuclear that will replace fossil fuels and who knows what other energy sources are developed.

    Fossil fuels will be saved and available for feedstock for materials and chemicals.

    Its going to be a long transition that will be dependent on many factors in every different location.

    Don't worry you are not going to freeze in the dark unless an asteroid hits! Reply With Quote
    Oct 24, 2020 | 08:55 24
    Quote Originally Posted by chuckChuck View Post
    Its not going to be only solar its going to be hydro, geothermal, tidal, wind and solar with storage, hydrogen and maybe some nuclear that will replace fossil fuels and who knows what other energy sources are developed.

    Fossil fuels will be saved and available for feedstock for materials and chemicals.

    Its going to be a long transition that will be dependent on many factors in every different location.

    Don't worry you are not going to freeze in the dark unless an asteroid hits!
    Not worried at all , just sick of see solar comparisons from southern latitudes that are nearly meaningless here .
    And never a mention from the solar advocates of the bad side . There will be and is a massive landfill issue Reply With Quote
    Oct 24, 2020 | 09:03 25
    Quote Originally Posted by Hamloc View Post
    The one modular nuclear plant in the article will produce up to 195 megawatts. For shits and giggles I looked up how many acres of solar panels tp produce a megawatt of electricity. The one research article I read said 8 acres, so 195 megawatts would take 1560 acres. So I wonder is the molten salt reactor or a bunch of solar panels better for the environment? As for our Prime Minister let’s see $295 million to Ford to build electric cars, $20 million for nuclear power hmmmm.
    Wow that really puts things into perspective.

    1560 acres of solar panels = 1 modular nuclear plant Reply With Quote
    Oct 24, 2020 | 09:10 26
    Quote Originally Posted by beaverdam View Post
    We need small nuclear plants, not solar. Till then, we need to burn organic fuels,,, organic fuels that come from decaying plants and animals from thousands of years ago.

    Lingering Legacy: Millions of Toxic Solar Panels That Can’t Be Recycled Destined for Landfills
    https://stopthesethings.com/2020/10/10/lingering-legacy-millions-of-toxic-solar-panels-that-cant-be-recycled-destined-for-landfills/amp
    Just like chuck to skip over the truth, to further his agenda.... Reply With Quote
    Oct 24, 2020 | 10:02 27 And the oil industry doesn't have an agenda?

    Why would you want to buy electricity when you can make a lot of your own with solar that will be cheaper and cleaner in the long run?

    CNH just put up a solar system in Saskatoon to cover 8% of their electricity for manufacturing! Say Whaaat?

    I guess they did this because it doesn't work in dark and cold Saskatoon!

    Its the black and white, all or nothing crowd who can't understand the word transition as we add some cleaner renewables like wind, solar where appropriate and still keep using some fossil fuels for awhile yet. Just like Sask Power is doing.

    Still using your dial up party lines yet? Or do you have a smart phone? LOL
    Last edited by chuckChuck; Oct 24, 2020 at 10:07.
    Reply With Quote
    Oct 24, 2020 | 11:00 28 So we are willing to carbon tax ourselves to oblivion for 8% ? And still have a changing climate Reply With Quote
  • 1 Like


  • LEP
    Oct 24, 2020 | 11:15 29
    Quote Originally Posted by chuckChuck View Post
    And the oil industry doesn't have an agenda?

    Why would you want to buy electricity when you can make a lot of your own with solar that will be cheaper and cleaner in the long run?

    CNH just put up a solar system in Saskatoon to cover 8% of their electricity for manufacturing! Say Whaaat?

    I guess they did this because it doesn't work in dark and cold Saskatoon!

    Its the black and white, all or nothing crowd who can't understand the word transition as we add some cleaner renewables like wind, solar where appropriate and still keep using some fossil fuels for awhile yet. Just like Sask Power is doing.

    Still using your dial up party lines yet? Or do you have a smart phone? LOL
    This is a place that might make sense. A facility that uses massive amounts of energy at on demand rates.

    But on my farm with a shop, house a few yardlights and 15 areation fans my power bill is just over $3000 annually. It probably makes less sense. Reply With Quote
    Oct 24, 2020 | 11:47 30
    Quote Originally Posted by chuckChuck View Post
    And the oil industry doesn't have an agenda?

    Why would you want to buy electricity when you can make a lot of your own with solar that will be cheaper and cleaner in the long run?

    CNH just put up a solar system in Saskatoon to cover 8% of their electricity for manufacturing! Say Whaaat?

    I guess they did this because it doesn't work in dark and cold Saskatoon!

    Its the black and white, all or nothing crowd who can't understand the word transition as we add some cleaner renewables like wind, solar where appropriate and still keep using some fossil fuels for awhile yet. Just like Sask Power is doing.

    Still using your dial up party lines yet? Or do you have a smart phone? LOL
    First off covering 8% of their electrical demand, let’s be honest really just virtue signalling and public relations, look how green I am. Justin Trudeau net zero by 2050, Joe Biden says net zero by 2025 replacing 8% of our electricity with solar isn’t going to get us to net zero, what?!?! LOL Reply With Quote