Comments on: MIT Energy Storage Discovery Could Lead to ‘Unlimited’ Solar Power

By: Bob_Wallace

Bob_Wallace — Sun, 28 Sep 2014 19:55:00 +0000

I lied. I’m going to give you one additional chance to follow site rules.

No shouting. No name-calling.

I’m glad you recognize the immense energy source we have with the Sun. But you need to work on how much land it would take to harvest that energy.

By: Bob_Wallace

Bob_Wallace — Sun, 28 Sep 2014 19:53:00 +0000

Grow up, Joanna.

Your math is badly flawed. There are many different ways solar has been calculated and your numbers aren’t even in the same universe.

Go back. Work on your numbers and see if you can locate your error.

By: Joanna Thomson

Joanna Thomson — Sun, 28 Sep 2014 19:48:00 +0000

Secondly, One Fusion reactor can power this entire planet, IT IS THE SUN DUMBASS

By: Joanna Thomson

Joanna Thomson — Sun, 28 Sep 2014 19:47:00 +0000

LOL that assuming your inside the sun/

By: Bob_Wallace

Bob_Wallace — Sun, 28 Sep 2014 19:11:00 +0000

And here’s some more math for you – the amount of land it would take to generate 100% of the US’s electricity with nothing but solar panels.

2013 Total US Demand = 4,045,855 million kWh

Average Daily Demand = 11,084,534,247 kwh

Add 20% for Storage and Transmission Loss = 13,301,441,096 kWh

Total Number 1 kW Panels (64 sq.ft. each) = 2,955,875,799 (Assuming 4.5 avg solar hours per day)

Total Area for Panels = 189,176,051,142 Sq. Ft.

Total Area for Panels = 4,342,884.5 Acres

Total Area for Panels (Square Miles) = 6,786 Sq. Miles

Add 20% Area between rows of Panels = 8,143 Sq. Miles

Square Miles in Lower 48 States = 2,959,064

Percentage of Lower 48 to Gen 100% for all 50 States = 0.3%

By: Bob_Wallace

Bob_Wallace — Sun, 28 Sep 2014 18:46:00 +0000

You wish.

But no, I’m going to give you some accurate data. Your math is highly flawed.

The US EIA projects global energy maximum in 2030 (electricity, transportation and heating) to be 16.9 TW.

That’s high because it assumes we will still be using very inefficient internal combustion engines rather than electric motors for most of our transportation.

The Sun produces 6.400 TW of power.

http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/a-path-to-sustainable-energy-by-2030/

By: Joanna Thomson

Joanna Thomson — Sun, 28 Sep 2014 18:38:00 +0000

Oh noes are you gonna spank me for math disagreeing with you?

By: Bob_Wallace

Bob_Wallace — Sun, 28 Sep 2014 18:29:00 +0000

And you made a massive error.

You get zero more warnings about violating site rules.

By: Joanna Thomson

Joanna Thomson — Sun, 28 Sep 2014 18:26:00 +0000

Asshole I calculated the facts.

By: Bob_Wallace

Bob_Wallace — Sun, 28 Sep 2014 18:21:00 +0000

Joanna – what you are posting is dumb as a stump.

Try learning some facts.

And don’t spam this site with garbage. Read the comment rules.

By: Joanna Thomson

Joanna Thomson — Sun, 28 Sep 2014 18:17:00 +0000

Do you want to know why this is impossible? The Surface area of the earth is too small at 510.1 million km² The sun only rains 1367 joules per second of photons per m^2…….. do the math people. You would literally have to cover the entire planet including the ocean with solar panels to do this and it still wouldn’t be enough. 697,306,700,000,000 joules per second if the entire planet was covered versus a world consumption rate of 280,821,917,808,219 joules per second which will only grow.

By: Bob_Wallace

Bob_Wallace — Sun, 28 Sep 2014 18:15:00 +0000

Making an extremely dumb statement once in a thread is adequate. I’ll take this down so that you’re not doubly embarrassed.

By: Bob_Wallace

Bob_Wallace — Sun, 28 Sep 2014 18:12:00 +0000

“You would literally have to cover the entire planet including the ocean with solar panels to do this and it still wouldn’t be enough”

Congratulations! You win today’s Dumb Bunny Award!!!

Look at the world map below.

See those little green rectangles?

That’s the area needed to power the world with only solar panels.

(And the black boarders around the green don’t count, just the tiny green part.)

BTW, nuclear is too expensive to consider.

BTW2, no all caps shouting. Doubly so when making stupid statements.

BTW3, no name-calling. Triply so when part of a stupid statement and in all caps.

By: Joanna Thomson

Joanna Thomson — Sun, 28 Sep 2014 17:48:00 +0000

By: Joanna Thomson

Joanna Thomson — Sun, 28 Sep 2014 17:34:00 +0000

By: Bob_Wallace

Bob_Wallace — Wed, 14 May 2014 14:52:00 +0000

Fuel cell cars would cost 2x or more as much per mile to operate.

Batteries don’t “go dead” on a cold day. Range decreases some. That can be avoided by leaving the car plugged in and pre-warming the car before driving.

By: Sargonarhes

Sargonarhes — Tue, 13 May 2014 22:24:00 +0000

Would it not be more efficient just to make cars powered by fuel cells rather than electricity if this system is as good as they think? Why use a battery that can go dead after sitting out on a cold day in January?

By: Zachary Shahan

Zachary Shahan — Fri, 04 Jan 2013 00:28:00 +0000

Not much in a long while.

By: Maggie

Maggie — Sun, 30 Dec 2012 21:39:00 +0000

Any updates on this???

By: pat

pat — Fri, 31 Aug 2012 18:16:00 +0000

So what is new about what they are doing, I built a fuel cell charged by a solar panel ages ago, the problem was hydrogen storage seemed like an engineering problem to build a sealed system more than anything.