Paint for solar cell reflectors

[Carl]

In another thread John Larkin wrote:

Away from the trees, at that altitude at night, there's serious
radiation cooling. The Stevenson box is probably painted with latex
paint, basically black at thermal wavelengths.

If you use reflectors to direct more sunlight onto silicon solar cells you
quickly run into a "wall" because the efficiency (and lifetime) falls as the
temperature goes up. One YouTube video that used aluminum foil reflectors
the same size as the solar panel (I think, may have been stainless steel)
and 100 watt monocrystalline panels saw the output increase about 20% at
first but after the panels fully warmed up the output was down to only maybe
10% over the same cell with no reflectors and the cells were about 20-30 deg
F hotter. So, if white latex paint is really almost black in the
mid-infrared thermal wavelengths how would it work as a reflective surface?
I know it will give diffuse reflectance so not as much gain as a nice flat
mirror, but will it absorb some large fraction of the thermal wavelengths
and thus keep the cells cooler for a net win? Mostly wondering out loud on
a lazy Saturday, but what do y'all say? Not electronics but electron
production so it's even almost on topic .

--
Regards,
Carl Ijames

 

[Rick C]

On Saturday, August 3, 2019 at 4:24:12 PM UTC-4, Carl wrote:

In another thread John Larkin wrote:
Away from the trees, at that altitude at night, there's serious
radiation cooling. The Stevenson box is probably painted with latex
paint, basically black at thermal wavelengths.

If you use reflectors to direct more sunlight onto silicon solar cells you
quickly run into a "wall" because the efficiency (and lifetime) falls as the
temperature goes up. One YouTube video that used aluminum foil reflectors
the same size as the solar panel (I think, may have been stainless steel)
and 100 watt monocrystalline panels saw the output increase about 20% at
first but after the panels fully warmed up the output was down to only maybe
10% over the same cell with no reflectors and the cells were about 20-30 deg
F hotter. So, if white latex paint is really almost black in the
mid-infrared thermal wavelengths how would it work as a reflective surface?
I know it will give diffuse reflectance so not as much gain as a nice flat
mirror, but will it absorb some large fraction of the thermal wavelengths
and thus keep the cells cooler for a net win? Mostly wondering out loud on
a lazy Saturday, but what do y'all say? Not electronics but electron
production so it's even almost on topic .

Interesting idea, but the price of the solar cells is dropping, so it is becoming less and less cost effective to use augmentation methods. Remember, the cost of installation and materials is also a factor. Still, the cost of some white boards around the solar cell might not be too much.

--

Rick C.

- Get 1,000 miles of free Supercharging
- Tesla referral code - https://ts.la/richard11209

 

[John Larkin]

On Sat, 3 Aug 2019 16:22:40 -0400, "Carl"
<carl.ijamesXYZ@ZYXverizon.net> wrote:

In another thread John Larkin wrote:
Away from the trees, at that altitude at night, there's serious
radiation cooling. The Stevenson box is probably painted with latex
paint, basically black at thermal wavelengths.

If you use reflectors to direct more sunlight onto silicon solar cells you
quickly run into a "wall" because the efficiency (and lifetime) falls as the
temperature goes up. One YouTube video that used aluminum foil reflectors
the same size as the solar panel (I think, may have been stainless steel)
and 100 watt monocrystalline panels saw the output increase about 20% at
first but after the panels fully warmed up the output was down to only maybe
10% over the same cell with no reflectors and the cells were about 20-30 deg
F hotter. So, if white latex paint is really almost black in the
mid-infrared thermal wavelengths how would it work as a reflective surface?
I know it will give diffuse reflectance so not as much gain as a nice flat
mirror, but will it absorb some large fraction of the thermal wavelengths
and thus keep the cells cooler for a net win? Mostly wondering out loud on
a lazy Saturday, but what do y'all say? Not electronics but electron
production so it's even almost on topic .

Sunlight peaks in the visible, so most of the heating of the solar
cell is there. Chopping out the longwave stuff would be (I'm guessing)
a very small win.

One could try to cool the cells from below, somehow, but that's
probably not worth the effort.

I buy my electricity from experts who know how to make it. Ditto my
cars and my food.

Almost on topic is a lot better than the average post here.





--

John Larkin Highland Technology, Inc

lunatic fringe electronics

 

[Rick C]

On Saturday, August 3, 2019 at 4:45:32 PM UTC-4, John Larkin wrote:

On Sat, 3 Aug 2019 16:22:40 -0400, "Carl"
carl.ijamesXYZ@ZYXverizon.net> wrote:

In another thread John Larkin wrote:
Away from the trees, at that altitude at night, there's serious
radiation cooling. The Stevenson box is probably painted with latex
paint, basically black at thermal wavelengths.

If you use reflectors to direct more sunlight onto silicon solar cells you
quickly run into a "wall" because the efficiency (and lifetime) falls as the
temperature goes up. One YouTube video that used aluminum foil reflectors
the same size as the solar panel (I think, may have been stainless steel)
and 100 watt monocrystalline panels saw the output increase about 20% at
first but after the panels fully warmed up the output was down to only maybe
10% over the same cell with no reflectors and the cells were about 20-30 deg
F hotter. So, if white latex paint is really almost black in the
mid-infrared thermal wavelengths how would it work as a reflective surface?
I know it will give diffuse reflectance so not as much gain as a nice flat
mirror, but will it absorb some large fraction of the thermal wavelengths
and thus keep the cells cooler for a net win? Mostly wondering out loud on
a lazy Saturday, but what do y'all say? Not electronics but electron
production so it's even almost on topic .

Sunlight peaks in the visible, so most of the heating of the solar
cell is there. Chopping out the longwave stuff would be (I'm guessing)
a very small win.

One could try to cool the cells from below, somehow, but that's
probably not worth the effort.

I buy my electricity from experts who know how to make it. Ditto my
cars and my food.

Almost on topic is a lot better than the average post here.

Sunlight at the Earth's surface may peak in the visible range, but infrared makes up some 50% or more. Don't dismiss the advantage of removing the infrared light on heating effects.

If it is practical for you, making your own electricity is one of the best things you can do for the environment. Also, you can schedule your power consumption to suit the availability of the power. Cars can be charged during the peak time, clothes washed and dried, etc.

--

Rick C.

+ Get 1,000 miles of free Supercharging
+ Tesla referral code - https://ts.la/richard11209

 

[Carl]

"Rick C" wrote in message
news:1226a6f7-dfc0-471e-9c96-0ca44afc462c@googlegroups.com...

On Saturday, August 3, 2019 at 4:24:12 PM UTC-4, Carl wrote:
In another thread John Larkin wrote:
Away from the trees, at that altitude at night, there's serious
radiation cooling. The Stevenson box is probably painted with latex
paint, basically black at thermal wavelengths.

If you use reflectors to direct more sunlight onto silicon solar cells
you
quickly run into a "wall" because the efficiency (and lifetime) falls as
the
temperature goes up. One YouTube video that used aluminum foil
reflectors
the same size as the solar panel (I think, may have been stainless steel)
and 100 watt monocrystalline panels saw the output increase about 20% at
first but after the panels fully warmed up the output was down to only
maybe
10% over the same cell with no reflectors and the cells were about 20-30
deg
F hotter. So, if white latex paint is really almost black in the
mid-infrared thermal wavelengths how would it work as a reflective
surface?
I know it will give diffuse reflectance so not as much gain as a nice
flat
mirror, but will it absorb some large fraction of the thermal wavelengths
and thus keep the cells cooler for a net win? Mostly wondering out loud
on
a lazy Saturday, but what do y'all say? Not electronics but electron
production so it's even almost on topic .

Interesting idea, but the price of the solar cells is dropping, so it is
becoming less and less cost effective to use augmentation methods.
Remember, the cost of installation and materials is also a factor. Still,
the cost of some white boards around the solar cell might not be too much.

Besides fixed installations I was thinking about the small fold up cells
that hikers and campers can carry. Adding a sheet or two of something like
thin white poster board wouldn't add much weight or volume at all and if it
gave an extra 20% or more with no downside might be worth it. Those users
are already used to having to manually track the sun for max output, so
fiddling with a couple of reflectors wouldn't be much of an additional
burden.

--
Regards,
Carl Ijames

 

On Sat, 3 Aug 2019 16:22:40 -0400, "Carl"
<carl.ijamesXYZ@ZYXverizon.net> wrote:

In another thread John Larkin wrote:
Away from the trees, at that altitude at night, there's serious
radiation cooling. The Stevenson box is probably painted with latex
paint, basically black at thermal wavelengths.

If you use reflectors to direct more sunlight onto silicon solar cells you
quickly run into a "wall" because the efficiency (and lifetime) falls as the
temperature goes up.

The problem with reflectors or lenses is that you sooner or later need
a sun tracker with all kinds of issues during storms.

As the solar cell cost drops, it is much easier to use sturdy mounted
fixed panels. A fixed mounted panel will have a significant output for
6.to 8 hours each day.

 

[Jan Panteltje]

On a sunny day (Sat, 3 Aug 2019 17:52:08 -0400) it happened "Carl"
<carl.ijamesXYZ@ZYXverizon.net> wrote in <qi4vmv0fmr@news3.newsguy.com>:

Besides fixed installations I was thinking about the small fold up cells
that hikers and campers can carry. Adding a sheet or two of something like
thin white poster board wouldn't add much weight or volume at all and if it
gave an extra 20% or more with no downside might be worth it. Those users
are already used to having to manually track the sun for max output, so
fiddling with a couple of reflectors wouldn't be much of an additional
burden.

If you talk 'hikers' or even fixed setup
it all depends on what you want to do with the electricity.
If it is cooking, then maybe the most efficient way is to use a Fresnel lens,
google 'Fresnel lens cooking'
I have some small ones... foldable.
Use the heat
Could one power a small sterling engine + generator with the Fresnel lens heat?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stirling_engine.
Also a simple sun tracker is not that complicated to make,
I have seen projects on the web.
Your reflectors take space, better use it for real panels.

 

[Martin Brown]

On 03/08/2019 22:52, Carl wrote:

"Rick C"  wrote in message
news:1226a6f7-dfc0-471e-9c96-0ca44afc462c@googlegroups.com...

On Saturday, August 3, 2019 at 4:24:12 PM UTC-4, Carl wrote:
In another thread John Larkin wrote:
Away from the trees, at that altitude at night, there's serious
radiation cooling. The Stevenson box is probably painted with latex
paint, basically black at thermal wavelengths.

If you use reflectors to direct more sunlight onto silicon solar
cells you
quickly run into a "wall" because the efficiency (and lifetime) falls
as the
temperature goes up.  One YouTube video that used aluminum foil
reflectors
the same size as the solar panel (I think, may have been stainless
steel)
and 100 watt monocrystalline panels saw the output increase about 20% at
first but after the panels fully warmed up the output was down to
only maybe
10% over the same cell with no reflectors and the cells were about
20-30 deg
F hotter.  So, if white latex paint is really almost black in the
mid-infrared thermal wavelengths how would it work as a reflective
surface?
I know it will give diffuse reflectance so not as much gain as a nice
flat
mirror, but will it absorb some large fraction of the thermal
wavelengths
and thus keep the cells cooler for a net win?  Mostly wondering out
loud on
a lazy Saturday, but what do y'all say?  Not electronics but electron
production so it's even almost on topic .

Interesting idea, but the price of the solar cells is dropping, so it
is becoming less and less cost effective to use augmentation methods.
Remember, the cost of installation and materials is also a factor.
Still, the cost of some white boards around the solar cell might not
be too much.

Besides fixed installations I was thinking about the small fold up cells
that hikers and campers can carry.  Adding a sheet or two of something
like thin white poster board wouldn't add much weight or volume at all
and if it gave an extra 20% or more with no downside might be worth it.
Those users are already used to having to manually track the sun for max
output, so fiddling with a couple of reflectors wouldn't be much of an
additional burden.

It has already been done. They tend to break with rough handling though.

Aluminised thin mirrors that fold out and lock in a hexagon. It gets you
about a factor of two improvement if you keep it roughly pointed at the
sun. It isn't that hard to DIY a suitable folding mirror arrangement.

--
Regards,
Martin Brown

 

[Martin Brown]

On 03/08/2019 21:45, John Larkin wrote:

On Sat, 3 Aug 2019 16:22:40 -0400, "Carl"
carl.ijamesXYZ@ZYXverizon.net> wrote:

In another thread John Larkin wrote:
Away from the trees, at that altitude at night, there's serious
radiation cooling. The Stevenson box is probably painted with latex
paint, basically black at thermal wavelengths.

There is certainly some but the cooler air on the outside of the slats
falls away from the box creating some turbulence. The same happened with
observatory domes in the passive cooling days when they were painted
with the brightest possible white known to man. At night the dome skin
would supercool and cold air would drop in through the come slit.

Today we use active cooling and a paint that is still highly reflective
but a semi grey looking mix of aluminium and white pigments. It is more
or less neutral after dark so that the dome skin doesn't supercool.

If you use reflectors to direct more sunlight onto silicon solar cells you
quickly run into a "wall" because the efficiency (and lifetime) falls as the
temperature goes up. One YouTube video that used aluminum foil reflectors
the same size as the solar panel (I think, may have been stainless steel)
and 100 watt monocrystalline panels saw the output increase about 20% at
first but after the panels fully warmed up the output was down to only maybe
10% over the same cell with no reflectors and the cells were about 20-30 deg
F hotter. So, if white latex paint is really almost black in the
mid-infrared thermal wavelengths how would it work as a reflective surface?

This is nonsense. I have done this with solar cells and at the ambient
temperatures prevailing in the UK ~10-20C you can pretty much double the
output of a solar cell by placing it at the base of a hexagon of mirrors
pointed at the sun ie. \_/. Such devices have been sold in the past for
solar battery chargers since a factor of 2 improvement is worth having.

It is easy enough to do the experiment on a small or larger scale. The
only snag is wind loading of the contraption and the need to point it at
the sun more accurately for the mirrors to have maximum benefit.

I know it will give diffuse reflectance so not as much gain as a nice flat
mirror, but will it absorb some large fraction of the thermal wavelengths
and thus keep the cells cooler for a net win? Mostly wondering out loud on
a lazy Saturday, but what do y'all say? Not electronics but electron
production so it's even almost on topic .

Sunlight peaks in the visible, so most of the heating of the solar
cell is there. Chopping out the longwave stuff would be (I'm guessing)
a very small win.

One could try to cool the cells from below, somehow, but that's
probably not worth the effort.

Active cooling is essential if you try to push it any further than that
even in the UK. I did once push a small calculator PV device with a 10x
flux concentrator made out of two parabolic cylindrical mirrors with the
focus of one at the base of the other. This excerpt is free access:

https://www.sciencedirect.com/sdfe/pdf/download/eid/1-s2.0-0038092X77900615/first-page-pdf

I buy my electricity from experts who know how to make it. Ditto my
cars and my food.

So you don't grow any of your own fruit or vegetables?

> Almost on topic is a lot better than the average post here.

--
Regards,
Martin Brown

 

[Martin Brown]

On 04/08/2019 06:19, Jan Panteltje wrote:

On a sunny day (Sat, 3 Aug 2019 17:52:08 -0400) it happened "Carl"
carl.ijamesXYZ@ZYXverizon.net> wrote in <qi4vmv0fmr@news3.newsguy.com>:

Besides fixed installations I was thinking about the small fold up cells
that hikers and campers can carry. Adding a sheet or two of something like
thin white poster board wouldn't add much weight or volume at all and if it
gave an extra 20% or more with no downside might be worth it. Those users
are already used to having to manually track the sun for max output, so
fiddling with a couple of reflectors wouldn't be much of an additional
burden.

If you talk 'hikers' or even fixed setup
it all depends on what you want to do with the electricity.
If it is cooking, then maybe the most efficient way is to use a Fresnel lens,
google 'Fresnel lens cooking'
I have some small ones... foldable.
Use the heat
Could one power a small sterling engine + generator with the Fresnel lens heat?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stirling_engine.

Almost certainly since you can power some of them off a cup of coffee.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F5lKPvPC0Qo

This is a particularly nice example with the large cylinder made of
acrylic so you can see the large piston going up and down too.

Mine was made out of a piece of offcut mains gas pipe. They are cute but
a bit tetchy to get working for the first time. Ice cubes on the top and
fresh boiling water underneath is my choice of heat differential. It
would work on a smaller difference if I gave it a good clean and
relubricated it.

Also a simple sun tracker is not that complicated to make,
I have seen projects on the web.
Your reflectors take space, better use it for real panels.

Tracking doesn't often pay back the additional complexity. Being able
to adjust elevation to allow for the sun moving along the ecliptic in
steps of 20 degrees is usually worthwhile if not mounting them on a roof.

And in the UK pointing them slightly East of due South is advantageous
since fair weather clouds appear frequently on summer afternoons.

--
Regards,
Martin Brown

 

On Sun, 4 Aug 2019 09:35:47 +0100, Martin Brown
<'''newspam'''@nezumi.demon.co.uk> wrote:

On 04/08/2019 06:19, Jan Panteltje wrote:

Also a simple sun tracker is not that complicated to make,
I have seen projects on the web.
Your reflectors take space, better use it for real panels.
Tracking doesn't often pay back the additional complexity. Being able
to adjust elevation to allow for the sun moving along the ecliptic in
steps of 20 degrees is usually worthwhile if not mounting them on a roof.

The ability to change the tilt is especially helpful if there is a
possibility of snowing. When the panel is in a more upright position
to better follow the winter sun,, snow will also easily slide down
from the panel. Having snow on the panel would reduce electricity
output and in several tens kilograms of snow on the panel would be
hard on the panel and support structures.

If a lot of snow can fall during the winter, mount the panels that the
low end of the panel is sufficiently high from the ground so that the
snow sliding down from the panel doesn¨t going to shade the low part
of the panel.

 

On Saturday, 3 August 2019 22:42:36 UTC+1, Rick C wrote:

> If it is practical for you, making your own electricity is one of the best things you can do for the environment.

Power stations occupy a tiny percentage of our environment. If everyone diyed power they'd take up far more total area. If you want to improve the environment, plant some food producing plants or build a house.

> Also, you can schedule your power consumption to suit the availability of the power. Cars can be charged during the peak time, clothes washed and dried, etc.

We ¢an anyway. But since professionally run power systems are quite well designed there is not much point for home users. More suited to massive loads like aluminium processing.

 

[Rick C]

On Sunday, August 4, 2019 at 7:34:26 AM UTC-4, tabb...@gmail.com wrote:

On Saturday, 3 August 2019 22:42:36 UTC+1, Rick C wrote:

If it is practical for you, making your own electricity is one of the best things you can do for the environment.

Power stations occupy a tiny percentage of our environment. If everyone diyed power they'd take up far more total area. If you want to improve the environment, plant some food producing plants or build a house.

What does that mean, "build a house"? How does that help?

Also, you can schedule your power consumption to suit the availability of the power. Cars can be charged during the peak time, clothes washed and dried, etc.

We ¢an anyway. But since professionally run power systems are quite well designed there is not much point for home users. More suited to massive loads like aluminium processing.

Again, what do you mean about "professionally run power systems"? The point is solar power eliminates the carbon released by fossil fuel based power generation. The problem is finding ways to replace the fossil fuel when the sun isn't shining. Not really a hard problem to solve. It's actually more an economic issue, getting the cost down... or accepting a higher cost to accomplish a goal.

Some seem to think releasing carbon into the atmosphere is a good thing.

--

Rick C.

-- Get 1,000 miles of free Supercharging
-- Tesla referral code - https://ts.la/richard11209

 

On Saturday, August 3, 2019 at 4:24:12 PM UTC-4, Carl wrote:

In another thread John Larkin wrote:
Away from the trees, at that altitude at night, there's serious
radiation cooling. The Stevenson box is probably painted with latex
paint, basically black at thermal wavelengths.

If you use reflectors to direct more sunlight onto silicon solar cells you
quickly run into a "wall" because the efficiency (and lifetime) falls as the
temperature goes up. One YouTube video that used aluminum foil reflectors
the same size as the solar panel (I think, may have been stainless steel)
and 100 watt monocrystalline panels saw the output increase about 20% at
first but after the panels fully warmed up the output was down to only maybe
10% over the same cell with no reflectors and the cells were about 20-30 deg
F hotter. So, if white latex paint is really almost black in the
mid-infrared thermal wavelengths how would it work as a reflective surface?
I know it will give diffuse reflectance so not as much gain as a nice flat
mirror, but will it absorb some large fraction of the thermal wavelengths
and thus keep the cells cooler for a net win? Mostly wondering out loud on
a lazy Saturday, but what do y'all say? Not electronics but electron
production so it's even almost on topic .

--
Regards,
Carl Ijames

Added heating seems like a bad idea. An off-grid buddy of mine had
~50% of his 11kWs of BP Solar panels fail after ~7 years' service.
They fail 'open' because the top-side metalization delaminates, which
I've also seen in two panels personally. I suspect thermal cycling is
the cause, but haven't any proof.

Cheers,
James Arthur

 

[John Larkin]

On Sun, 4 Aug 2019 08:08:35 -0700 (PDT), dagmargoodboat@yahoo.com
wrote:

On Saturday, August 3, 2019 at 4:24:12 PM UTC-4, Carl wrote:
In another thread John Larkin wrote:
Away from the trees, at that altitude at night, there's serious
radiation cooling. The Stevenson box is probably painted with latex
paint, basically black at thermal wavelengths.

If you use reflectors to direct more sunlight onto silicon solar cells you
quickly run into a "wall" because the efficiency (and lifetime) falls as the
temperature goes up. One YouTube video that used aluminum foil reflectors
the same size as the solar panel (I think, may have been stainless steel)
and 100 watt monocrystalline panels saw the output increase about 20% at
first but after the panels fully warmed up the output was down to only maybe
10% over the same cell with no reflectors and the cells were about 20-30 deg
F hotter. So, if white latex paint is really almost black in the
mid-infrared thermal wavelengths how would it work as a reflective surface?
I know it will give diffuse reflectance so not as much gain as a nice flat
mirror, but will it absorb some large fraction of the thermal wavelengths
and thus keep the cells cooler for a net win? Mostly wondering out loud on
a lazy Saturday, but what do y'all say? Not electronics but electron
production so it's even almost on topic .

--
Regards,
Carl Ijames

Added heating seems like a bad idea. An off-grid buddy of mine had
~50% of his 11kWs of BP Solar panels fail after ~7 years' service.
They fail 'open' because the top-side metalization delaminates, which
I've also seen in two panels personally. I suspect thermal cycling is
the cause, but haven't any proof.

Cheers,
James Arthur

Solar and wind economics depend on projected lifetimes. They are
dominated by capital and maintenance costs. If the lifetimes don't
meet expectations, the economics goes to heck.

Offshore wind will be especially interesting. The sea is brutal and
maintenance will be very expensive.



--

John Larkin Highland Technology, Inc

lunatic fringe electronics

 

[John S]

On 8/4/2019 3:15 PM, tabbypurr@gmail.com wrote:

On Sunday, 4 August 2019 14:33:55 UTC+1, Rick C wrote:
On Sunday, August 4, 2019 at 7:34:26 AM UTC-4, tabby wrote:
On Saturday, 3 August 2019 22:42:36 UTC+1, Rick C wrote:

If it is practical for you, making your own electricity is one of the best things you can do for the environment.

Power stations occupy a tiny percentage of our environment. If everyone diyed power they'd take up far more total area. If you want to improve the environment, plant some food producing plants or build a house.

What does that mean, "build a house"? How does that help?

it improves the environment. A house on land is more useful than unused land.
Your ideas of what improves the environment are so disconnected from reality that you propose things that would in reality harm it.


Also, you can schedule your power consumption to suit the availability of the power. Cars can be charged during the peak time, clothes washed and dried, etc.

We ¢an anyway. But since professionally run power systems are quite well designed there is not much point for home users. More suited to massive loads like aluminium processing.

Again, what do you mean about "professionally run power systems"?

The large system that supplies most domestic mains sockets

The point is solar power eliminates the carbon released by fossil fuel based power generation.

it's more complex than that

The problem is finding ways to replace the fossil fuel when the sun isn't shining.

how is that a problem? In reality I mean

Not really a hard problem to solve. It's actually more an economic issue, getting the cost down... or accepting a higher cost to accomplish a goal.

Some seem to think releasing carbon into the atmosphere is a good thing.

Well it has been so far. It's saved vast numbers of lives. Billions.


NT

Land is never unused. Unless there is no wildlife there at all.

 

On Sunday, 4 August 2019 14:33:55 UTC+1, Rick C wrote:

On Sunday, August 4, 2019 at 7:34:26 AM UTC-4, tabby wrote:
On Saturday, 3 August 2019 22:42:36 UTC+1, Rick C wrote:

If it is practical for you, making your own electricity is one of the best things you can do for the environment.

Power stations occupy a tiny percentage of our environment. If everyone diyed power they'd take up far more total area. If you want to improve the environment, plant some food producing plants or build a house.

What does that mean, "build a house"? How does that help?

it improves the environment. A house on land is more useful than unused land.
Your ideas of what improves the environment are so disconnected from reality that you propose things that would in reality harm it.

Also, you can schedule your power consumption to suit the availability of the power. Cars can be charged during the peak time, clothes washed and dried, etc.

We ¢an anyway. But since professionally run power systems are quite well designed there is not much point for home users. More suited to massive loads like aluminium processing.

Again, what do you mean about "professionally run power systems"?

The large system that supplies most domestic mains sockets

> The point is solar power eliminates the carbon released by fossil fuel based power generation.

it's more complex than that

> The problem is finding ways to replace the fossil fuel when the sun isn't shining.

how is that a problem? In reality I mean

Not really a hard problem to solve. It's actually more an economic issue, getting the cost down... or accepting a higher cost to accomplish a goal.

Some seem to think releasing carbon into the atmosphere is a good thing.

Well it has been so far. It's saved vast numbers of lives. Billions.


NT

 

[Bill Sloman]

On Monday, August 5, 2019 at 6:15:04 AM UTC+10, tabb...@gmail.com wrote:

On Sunday, 4 August 2019 14:33:55 UTC+1, Rick C wrote:
On Sunday, August 4, 2019 at 7:34:26 AM UTC-4, tabby wrote:
On Saturday, 3 August 2019 22:42:36 UTC+1, Rick C wrote:

<snip>

Not really a hard problem to solve. It's actually more an economic issue, getting the cost down... or accepting a higher cost to accomplish a goal.

Some seem to think releasing carbon into the atmosphere is a good thing.

Well it has been so far. It's saved vast numbers of lives. Billions.

It's an incidental feature of the move to a more energy intensive economy.

We've worked out how to get that energy with burning fossil carbon and dumping coarbon dioxide into the atmosphere.

As long as we weren't dumping much carbon dioxide into the atmosphere it didn't matter, but the CO2 level is now up to 410ppm, from the inter-glacial norm of about 270ppm, and it is making a difference to climate all over the planet.

It isn't showing any signs of starting a population crash yet - more droughts and occasional poor wheat crops haven't yet been unmanageable - but it certainly has the potential to kill billions.

--
Bill Sloman, Sydney