Risk. Hydro versus nuclear.

What does make the world turn?
bobbo_the_Pragmatist
Has No Life
Posts: 14856
Joined: Wed Sep 09, 2015 9:39 am
Custom Title: bobbo da existential pragmatist

Re: Risk. Hydro versus nuclear.

Post by bobbo_the_Pragmatist » Thu Aug 23, 2018 7:07 am

Lance Kennedy wrote:What I said had two possible meanings. As is normal, you chose the wrong one, in spite of the fact that context would have given you the correct interpretation. Sigh !
name the two possible meaning.

I'll wait.....………………….
Real Name: bobbo the existential pragmatic evangelical anti-theist and Class Warrior.
Asking: What is the most good for the most people?
Sample Issue: Should the Feds provide all babies with free diapers?

User avatar
Lance Kennedy
Has No Life
Posts: 11699
Joined: Tue Mar 29, 2005 10:20 pm
Custom Title: Super Skeptic
Location: Paradise, New Zealand

Re: Risk. Hydro versus nuclear.

Post by Lance Kennedy » Thu Aug 23, 2018 8:23 am

1. That there is no multivariable analysis, which was the incorrect interpretation.

2. That landrew's graph was not causally linked with nuclear power, which was my meaning, and which I thought was obvious.

bobbo_the_Pragmatist
Has No Life
Posts: 14856
Joined: Wed Sep 09, 2015 9:39 am
Custom Title: bobbo da existential pragmatist

Re: Risk. Hydro versus nuclear.

Post by bobbo_the_Pragmatist » Thu Aug 23, 2018 2:51 pm

I think both of those statements are correct...…...its not what you first said. And what you first said AS WRITTEN is not fairly subject to contradictory interpretations.

Words have meaning. Post what you mean.
Real Name: bobbo the existential pragmatic evangelical anti-theist and Class Warrior.
Asking: What is the most good for the most people?
Sample Issue: Should the Feds provide all babies with free diapers?

User avatar
Lance Kennedy
Has No Life
Posts: 11699
Joined: Tue Mar 29, 2005 10:20 pm
Custom Title: Super Skeptic
Location: Paradise, New Zealand

Re: Risk. Hydro versus nuclear.

Post by Lance Kennedy » Thu Aug 23, 2018 8:02 pm

So speaks the guy with the most ambiguous turn of phrase on this forum.

bobbo_the_Pragmatist
Has No Life
Posts: 14856
Joined: Wed Sep 09, 2015 9:39 am
Custom Title: bobbo da existential pragmatist

Re: Risk. Hydro versus nuclear.

Post by bobbo_the_Pragmatist » Fri Aug 24, 2018 12:44 am

Lance Kennedy wrote:So speaks the guy with the most ambiguous turn of phrase on this forum.
Thank you. Goes to several issues unless you can only juggle one ball at a time. Context: explains all. Being consistent with what you have previously posted "everywhere" positions most of the rest. The remainder: too argumentative????
Real Name: bobbo the existential pragmatic evangelical anti-theist and Class Warrior.
Asking: What is the most good for the most people?
Sample Issue: Should the Feds provide all babies with free diapers?

User avatar
Lance Kennedy
Has No Life
Posts: 11699
Joined: Tue Mar 29, 2005 10:20 pm
Custom Title: Super Skeptic
Location: Paradise, New Zealand

Re: Risk. Hydro versus nuclear.

Post by Lance Kennedy » Fri Aug 24, 2018 2:49 am

That post illustrates my point about ambiguity.

bobbo_the_Pragmatist
Has No Life
Posts: 14856
Joined: Wed Sep 09, 2015 9:39 am
Custom Title: bobbo da existential pragmatist

Re: Risk. Hydro versus nuclear.

Post by bobbo_the_Pragmatist » Fri Aug 24, 2018 4:13 am

Mine too....……...
Real Name: bobbo the existential pragmatic evangelical anti-theist and Class Warrior.
Asking: What is the most good for the most people?
Sample Issue: Should the Feds provide all babies with free diapers?

User avatar
ElectricMonk
Perpetual Poster
Posts: 4362
Joined: Thu Mar 26, 2015 6:21 pm
Custom Title: The Baby-eating Bishop

Experts voice safety concerns about new pebble-bed nuclear reactors

Post by ElectricMonk » Fri Aug 24, 2018 5:19 am

https://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases ... 081618.php

Basically, because they are using a technique that makes it impossible for the reactor to ever suffer a meltdown, the design lacks many even basic safety features that traditional reactors have.
Expect to learn from unpleasant accidents.

User avatar
Lance Kennedy
Has No Life
Posts: 11699
Joined: Tue Mar 29, 2005 10:20 pm
Custom Title: Super Skeptic
Location: Paradise, New Zealand

Re: Risk. Hydro versus nuclear.

Post by Lance Kennedy » Fri Aug 24, 2018 5:33 am

EM

As I have said before, nothing is 100% 'safe'. The pebble bed reactor design is a system used to prevent nuclear melt down WITHOUT active safeguards. Hopefully it will work as designed. I understand why your article suggests that may not be sufficient, but hopefully the design concept will work as planned. If so, it will herald in a new generation of reactors that are not 100% 'safe', but get closer to that ideal than any other system, including Bobbo's much loved roof top solar cells (which kill ten times as many people per unit electricity than the old traditional 'unsafe' nuclear reactors ever did.).

User avatar
ElectricMonk
Perpetual Poster
Posts: 4362
Joined: Thu Mar 26, 2015 6:21 pm
Custom Title: The Baby-eating Bishop

Re: Risk. Hydro versus nuclear.

Post by ElectricMonk » Fri Aug 24, 2018 5:44 am

Missing the point again, Lance...

OF COURSE it won't work as designed: only someone with no experience of engineering expects something new to work exactly as expected. Accidents will happen, radioactivity will leak.
This is normal.
The point is that the next generation reactors will have to go through the same stages of "learning by accident" that traditional reactors have gone through. True, their worst case is far less catastrophic, but that doesn't make them truly safe.
Bottom line: even new nuclear power systems aren't worth investing in commercially - yet.

And, of course, Pebble Bed types create a lot of radioactive waste - given China's environmental track record I'm not hopeful that it will be stored safely.
Spoiler:
PS: stuff your Solar Panel Death statistic were the sun doesn't shine: it makes you sound like a total idiot.

User avatar
Lance Kennedy
Has No Life
Posts: 11699
Joined: Tue Mar 29, 2005 10:20 pm
Custom Title: Super Skeptic
Location: Paradise, New Zealand

Re: Risk. Hydro versus nuclear.

Post by Lance Kennedy » Fri Aug 24, 2018 8:37 am

Why do you think that matters ?
A coal burning power station produces 100 times as much radioactive waste as an equivalent nuclear power plant, and sprays that waste far and wide in the form of coal smoke and coal ash. A nuclear power plant produces 100 times less, but keeps it concentrated so that it can be disposed of neatly.

https://www.scientificamerican.com/arti ... ear-waste/

User avatar
ElectricMonk
Perpetual Poster
Posts: 4362
Joined: Thu Mar 26, 2015 6:21 pm
Custom Title: The Baby-eating Bishop

Re: Risk. Hydro versus nuclear.

Post by ElectricMonk » Fri Aug 24, 2018 9:20 am

Strawman.
If nuclear power wants to get back into the future energy mix, it has to be safer, cheaper and more flexible compared to previous nuclear power, not compared to other forms of energy. If nuclear can't compete with coal, then it doesn't matter how less harmful it is.
Geothermal energy is safer than Nuclear. But in most places it would be too costly to dig deep enough.
It's the economy, st&$#*.

bobbo_the_Pragmatist
Has No Life
Posts: 14856
Joined: Wed Sep 09, 2015 9:39 am
Custom Title: bobbo da existential pragmatist

Re: Risk. Hydro versus nuclear.

Post by bobbo_the_Pragmatist » Fri Aug 24, 2018 8:17 pm

IIRC....Lances inclusion of construction/installation/maintenance deaths in all energy production activities is entirely appropriate as relevant. Now, falling off a roof is not "inherent" in producing solar energy....but it is a risk that must be recognized and included in any death tally. Just like bird deaths from wind. Just like thyroid cancer from Nuke. None "inherent" but all unavoidable, even with great attention given to them.

I remember the issue, but not the stats. EM: are you disagreeing with the concept, or the numbers? I find it odd that many people fall off roofs. Or maybe it was mining the raw materials? Again...neither inherent and more attention needs to be given to safety standards on those related issues.
Real Name: bobbo the existential pragmatic evangelical anti-theist and Class Warrior.
Asking: What is the most good for the most people?
Sample Issue: Should the Feds provide all babies with free diapers?

User avatar
Lance Kennedy
Has No Life
Posts: 11699
Joined: Tue Mar 29, 2005 10:20 pm
Custom Title: Super Skeptic
Location: Paradise, New Zealand

Re: Risk. Hydro versus nuclear.

Post by Lance Kennedy » Fri Aug 24, 2018 9:15 pm

Bobbo

It is not that lots of people fall off roofs. It is more that solar power per roof is not a lot. So a small number of people falling off roofs still adds up to a significant number of deaths per terawatt hour of electricity produced. Because one terawatt hour is a lot of roofs.

EM

The biggest problem with nuclear, as I have said before, is political. It is already the safest method of generating power, by a long way, (yes, possibly geothermal might be safer, but I do not have the figures to compare), compared to all the other major generating methods. The political problem comes from the fact that numerous idiots (like Greenliars and Fiends of the Earth) have spread misinformation and lies about nuclear power and it's supposed risk. So there is widespread and ill informed opposition.

The second major problem is the capital cost of building nuclear plants. This is less of a problem if we spread that cost over the life of the plant, and the cost per kilowatt hour is similar to other major generating methods. Some people quote the cost of decommissioning, but that is typically only one tenth of the cost of commissioning a new plant. The cost of fuel is miniscule. So the actual running costs are lower than any other method.

The major advantages include reliable and unvarying generation (solar and wind are all over the joint), plus lack of greenhouse gas generation, plus minimal need for land space per unit electricity generated (both wind and solar are hungry for land space), safety (fewer lives lost), plus potentially almost unlimited fuel and thus unlimited energy (the new travelling wave reactor can burn uranium 238, and the American government already has 700,000 tonnes of this in storage, which it cannot use). Nuclear power can be set up almost anywhere, such as in the high Arctic, on the moon or Mars or even in space (the probe to Saturn relied safety on nuclear power). There are now available mini reactors, like the Toshiba system, which are safe, and small and able to supply electricity economically to small communities.

The major problem preventing nuclear power being able to make a massive contribution to energy generation is idiocy, due to morons promulgating lies.

bobbo_the_Pragmatist
Has No Life
Posts: 14856
Joined: Wed Sep 09, 2015 9:39 am
Custom Title: bobbo da existential pragmatist

Re: Risk. Hydro versus nuclear.

Post by bobbo_the_Pragmatist » Fri Aug 24, 2018 10:12 pm

Lance Kennedy wrote: The biggest problem with nuclear, as I have said before, is political.
So, I'll say again its the concentration of production to very few high capital cost locations making the loss of each one for whatever reasons (accidents, melt downs, terrorists) just too expensive. DISTRIBUTED power production (both for locational safety, capital concentration, and control by the people rather than selected elites) is the only long term production "of everything" that should be supported. Again: Nuke only for the necessary (for real!) transition period.
Real Name: bobbo the existential pragmatic evangelical anti-theist and Class Warrior.
Asking: What is the most good for the most people?
Sample Issue: Should the Feds provide all babies with free diapers?

User avatar
Lance Kennedy
Has No Life
Posts: 11699
Joined: Tue Mar 29, 2005 10:20 pm
Custom Title: Super Skeptic
Location: Paradise, New Zealand

Re: Risk. Hydro versus nuclear.

Post by Lance Kennedy » Fri Aug 24, 2018 11:11 pm

Bobbo

That also applies to hydroelectricity, which is massively capital intensive. There have been over ten dams burst, with subsequent loss of money and life. Why do people continue to build hydroelectric dams with that terrible risk ? Answer, hydroelectricity has not been attacked by the millions of morons.

bobbo_the_Pragmatist
Has No Life
Posts: 14856
Joined: Wed Sep 09, 2015 9:39 am
Custom Title: bobbo da existential pragmatist

Re: Risk. Hydro versus nuclear.

Post by bobbo_the_Pragmatist » Fri Aug 24, 2018 11:40 pm

No...…….as you have been told repeatedly.....Dams were built to control flooding, provide water. Electrical production came much later. If dams were only for electricity....they wouldn't be built at all...…….Think fish and flooding of the landscape.

You have trouble juggling more than one ball at a time. ..... or is it just a memory issue?
Real Name: bobbo the existential pragmatic evangelical anti-theist and Class Warrior.
Asking: What is the most good for the most people?
Sample Issue: Should the Feds provide all babies with free diapers?

User avatar
Lance Kennedy
Has No Life
Posts: 11699
Joined: Tue Mar 29, 2005 10:20 pm
Custom Title: Super Skeptic
Location: Paradise, New Zealand

Re: Risk. Hydro versus nuclear.

Post by Lance Kennedy » Sat Aug 25, 2018 1:13 am

Except that is wrong. In my country, for example, hydroelectricity is about 80% of all power produced, and all those rather big dams were built ONLY for power generation. I suspect that most of the big hydro dams world wide were built primarily for the same reason.

bobbo_the_Pragmatist
Has No Life
Posts: 14856
Joined: Wed Sep 09, 2015 9:39 am
Custom Title: bobbo da existential pragmatist

Re: Risk. Hydro versus nuclear.

Post by bobbo_the_Pragmatist » Sat Aug 25, 2018 1:26 am

Lance...…..…………………….Observe: Yes, on second thought.....thats true. "So easy to get caught up...………."
Real Name: bobbo the existential pragmatic evangelical anti-theist and Class Warrior.
Asking: What is the most good for the most people?
Sample Issue: Should the Feds provide all babies with free diapers?

User avatar
Austin Harper
Has More Than 5K Posts
Posts: 5184
Joined: Wed Sep 21, 2011 2:22 pm
Custom Title: Rock Chalk Astrohawk
Location: Detroit

Re: Risk. Hydro versus nuclear.

Post by Austin Harper » Thu Sep 06, 2018 1:25 pm

NPR wrote:
For the first time since a devastating earthquake and tsunami triggered meltdowns at Japan's Fukushima nuclear power plant in 2011, the Japanese government says a former plant worker has died as a result of radiation exposure.
...
It's not clear precisely when the man died. He was in his 50s, NHK said, and his duties included "measuring radiation levels at the plant immediately after the severe nuclear accident." He left his job there in 2015, and was diagnosed with lung cancer before his death.

The ministry said that he "developed cancer due to total radiation exposure of around 195 millisieverts," NHK reported. According to Reuters, exposure to 100 millisieverts of radiation in a year "is the lowest level at which any increase in cancer risk is clearly evident."

The earthquake and tsunami killed approximately 19,000 people, as NPR's Elise Hu reported, and "most drowned within minutes." The radiation plumes caused by Fukushima's meltdowns spread up to 25 miles away, she added.

And while this is the first fatality that was attributed to radiation, NHK says four workers who have cancer have been deemed eligible for compensation.
Dum ratio nos ducet, valebimus et multa bene geremus.

User avatar
Austin Harper
Has More Than 5K Posts
Posts: 5184
Joined: Wed Sep 21, 2011 2:22 pm
Custom Title: Rock Chalk Astrohawk
Location: Detroit

Re: Risk. Hydro versus nuclear.

Post by Austin Harper » Mon Nov 05, 2018 11:28 pm

BBC News wrote:
A new study says that many large scale hydropower projects in Europe and the US have been disastrous for the environment. Dozens of these dams are being removed every year, with many considered dangerous and uneconomic. But the authors fear that the unsustainable nature of these projects has not been recognised in the developing world. Thousands of new dams are now being planned for rivers in Africa and Asia.
...
More than 90% of dams built since the 1930s were more expensive than anticipated. They have damaged river ecology, displaced millions of people and have contributed to climate change by releasing greenhouse gases from the decomposition of flooded lands and forests.
...
The report points our that the large installations on these great rivers will destroy food sources, with 60 million people who live off the fisheries along the Mekong likely to be impacted with potential loss of livelihoods greater than $2bn. The authors also believe that dams will destroy thousands of species in these biodiversity hotspots. ...
Dum ratio nos ducet, valebimus et multa bene geremus.

User avatar
landrew
Has More Than 8K Posts
Posts: 8427
Joined: Sat Jul 14, 2007 5:51 am

Re: Risk. Hydro versus nuclear.

Post by landrew » Tue Nov 06, 2018 12:06 am

Pick your favorite; they each have a downside.
Personally, I like solar, coupled with some form of power storage, but the costs put it out of reach for large scale adoption for the foreseeable future.
My favorite beyond that foreseeable future is Helium-3, but nearly all of it's on the moon, which presents a bit of a problem at present.
The job of a skeptic is to investigate the unexplained; not to explain the uninvestigated.

User avatar
Io
Poster
Posts: 239
Joined: Sat Jul 15, 2017 3:56 am

Re: Risk. Hydro versus nuclear.

Post by Io » Tue Nov 06, 2018 1:04 am

Has there been any research done on the effect of renewable energy production systems changing the ecosystem by virtue of simply being there?

To clarify: If you have a natural ecological sub-system operating stably for hundreds or thousands of years without much interference and then human energy harvesting significantly reduces the energy available to that sub-system, wouldn't it suffer?  The solar/tidal/hydrothermal/whatever energy available in an area no longer goes to doing whatever work it previously did.  On a small scale it won't make much difference but at industrial levels it might start to make an impact.

I don't have access to lots of journals and am clearly not searching for the right stuff 'cos I can't find anything that looks like it answers this question.

User avatar
ElectricMonk
Perpetual Poster
Posts: 4362
Joined: Thu Mar 26, 2015 6:21 pm
Custom Title: The Baby-eating Bishop

Re: Risk. Hydro versus nuclear.

Post by ElectricMonk » Tue Nov 06, 2018 5:12 am

Solar power is promoted specifically because it reduces the amount of sunlight reaching the ground to warm the earth.

User avatar
landrew
Has More Than 8K Posts
Posts: 8427
Joined: Sat Jul 14, 2007 5:51 am

Re: Risk. Hydro versus nuclear.

Post by landrew » Tue Nov 06, 2018 11:43 pm

ElectricMonk wrote:
Tue Nov 06, 2018 5:12 am
Solar power is promoted specifically because it reduces the amount of sunlight reaching the ground to warm the earth.
So would a sheet of foil, a reflective metal roof or a white bedsheet spread on the ground.
Besides, most electrical energy generated as a solar panel is expressed as heat.
The job of a skeptic is to investigate the unexplained; not to explain the uninvestigated.

User avatar
landrew
Has More Than 8K Posts
Posts: 8427
Joined: Sat Jul 14, 2007 5:51 am

Re: Risk. Hydro versus nuclear.

Post by landrew » Tue Nov 06, 2018 11:47 pm

Io wrote:
Tue Nov 06, 2018 1:04 am
Has there been any research done on the effect of renewable energy production systems changing the ecosystem by virtue of simply being there?

To clarify: If you have a natural ecological sub-system operating stably for hundreds or thousands of years without much interference and then human energy harvesting significantly reduces the energy available to that sub-system, wouldn't it suffer?  The solar/tidal/hydrothermal/whatever energy available in an area no longer goes to doing whatever work it previously did.  On a small scale it won't make much difference but at industrial levels it might start to make an impact.

I don't have access to lots of journals and am clearly not searching for the right stuff 'cos I can't find anything that looks like it answers this question.
Everything affects everything, but most people don't account for the orders of magnitude involved.
e.g. Taking a leak in the ocean is technically pollution, but the dilution factor makes it virtually meaningless.
But by the same token, I know that some hydro dams have created large bodies of water which have altered the local climate.
The job of a skeptic is to investigate the unexplained; not to explain the uninvestigated.

User avatar
ElectricMonk
Perpetual Poster
Posts: 4362
Joined: Thu Mar 26, 2015 6:21 pm
Custom Title: The Baby-eating Bishop

Re: Risk. Hydro versus nuclear.

Post by ElectricMonk » Wed Nov 07, 2018 12:20 am

landrew wrote:
Tue Nov 06, 2018 11:43 pm
ElectricMonk wrote:
Tue Nov 06, 2018 5:12 am
Solar power is promoted specifically because it reduces the amount of sunlight reaching the ground to warm the earth.
So would a sheet of foil, a reflective metal roof or a white bedsheet spread on the ground.
Besides, most electrical energy generated as a solar panel is expressed as heat.
It doesn't matter what the expression is: most of the power generated by solar is turned into work instead of heat.

User avatar
Io
Poster
Posts: 239
Joined: Sat Jul 15, 2017 3:56 am

Re: Risk. Hydro versus nuclear.

Post by Io » Wed Nov 07, 2018 12:53 am

Just to clarify further, I'm not arguing that renewables are a problem or that I disagree with their use. Far from it.
I'm saying that if you take out a lot of energy from a stable system, the work it previously did maintaining the subtleties and complexities of that system is no longer happening, and I'd like to know if there are any studies that have looked (or are looking) at that factor.
I'm trying to find out if it's a problem, and why not if it's not, or how it is if it is.
Ta.

User avatar
Lance Kennedy
Has No Life
Posts: 11699
Joined: Tue Mar 29, 2005 10:20 pm
Custom Title: Super Skeptic
Location: Paradise, New Zealand

Re: Risk. Hydro versus nuclear.

Post by Lance Kennedy » Wed Nov 07, 2018 4:21 am

Every form of electricity generation, Io, has its problems.
The term 'renewables ' is a bit broad, and you need to be more specific, because each has its own special advantages and disadvantages. I do not like the term, anyway, because it is not helpful. For example, when deuterium based nuclear fusion is developed, it will not be "renewable " because it relies on a resource that is consumed. But that resource is so abundant that, if the current electricity demand continued it would last a billion years. After all, there is about 50 quadrillion tonnes of deuterium in the oceans of the world.

Perhaps the term "non-fossil fuel based " might be better.

User avatar
Io
Poster
Posts: 239
Joined: Sat Jul 15, 2017 3:56 am

Re: Risk. Hydro versus nuclear.

Post by Io » Wed Nov 07, 2018 8:20 am

I don't know, maybe I'm still not being clear enough. I don't really care what you call it. I'd like to think I was getting the gist of my question across without having to be excessively pedantic about terminology. I'm talking about taking significant energy out of a natural (sub)system. Whatever form that energy takes. So this is wind, solar, hydro and hydrothermal, predominantly; nuclear probably doesn't fit within the bounds of this concern and is probably an argument in favour of nuclear.
*sigh*

User avatar
TJrandom
Has More Than 9K Posts
Posts: 9837
Joined: Sat Aug 23, 2014 10:55 am
Location: Pacific coast outside of Tokyo bay.

Re: Risk. Hydro versus nuclear.

Post by TJrandom » Wed Nov 07, 2018 8:56 am

If I understand your question correctly... an example might be... If you massively implement wave action eletricity generation, does the energy that moves 'the pedals' and thus no longer erodes the beach (or some other impact), become a problem? I don't believe I have ever seen this sort of impact analysis included in studies of 'alternative energies'. With wind, wave, and solar – these energies are typically seen as untapped and unlimited. Maybe hydro has been studied more – erosion, river cleaning, etc. For a term - I might call it 'unintended consequences'.

User avatar
Io
Poster
Posts: 239
Joined: Sat Jul 15, 2017 3:56 am

Re: Risk. Hydro versus nuclear.

Post by Io » Wed Nov 07, 2018 9:42 am

That's precisely the sort of thing I was thinking of TJ. Good example. It's probably going to be most readily apparent in effect with wave-generated power, but given enough of an industrial scale-up it might have subtle effects with other types too.

User avatar
ElectricMonk
Perpetual Poster
Posts: 4362
Joined: Thu Mar 26, 2015 6:21 pm
Custom Title: The Baby-eating Bishop

Re: Risk. Hydro versus nuclear.

Post by ElectricMonk » Wed Nov 07, 2018 10:02 am

The environment is in constant evolution - the only question is whether the change happens at a pace that allows for adaption of the ecosystem or not.
So any technological intervention that slows change is beneficial for said environment.

User avatar
landrew
Has More Than 8K Posts
Posts: 8427
Joined: Sat Jul 14, 2007 5:51 am

Re: Risk. Hydro versus nuclear.

Post by landrew » Wed Nov 07, 2018 2:15 pm

ElectricMonk wrote:
Wed Nov 07, 2018 12:20 am
landrew wrote:
Tue Nov 06, 2018 11:43 pm
ElectricMonk wrote:
Tue Nov 06, 2018 5:12 am
Solar power is promoted specifically because it reduces the amount of sunlight reaching the ground to warm the earth.
So would a sheet of foil, a reflective metal roof or a white bedsheet spread on the ground.
Besides, most electrical energy generated as a solar panel is expressed as heat.
It doesn't matter what the expression is: most of the power generated by solar is turned into work instead of heat.
Nearly all work results in an increase of heat.
The job of a skeptic is to investigate the unexplained; not to explain the uninvestigated.

User avatar
ElectricMonk
Perpetual Poster
Posts: 4362
Joined: Thu Mar 26, 2015 6:21 pm
Custom Title: The Baby-eating Bishop

Re: Risk. Hydro versus nuclear.

Post by ElectricMonk » Wed Nov 07, 2018 2:33 pm

landrew wrote:
Wed Nov 07, 2018 2:15 pm
Nearly all work results in an increase of heat.

yes, but where the energy is consumed, not where the energy is generated.

That is why solar panels can indeed cause local cooling.

This isn't rocket science.

User avatar
landrew
Has More Than 8K Posts
Posts: 8427
Joined: Sat Jul 14, 2007 5:51 am

Re: Risk. Hydro versus nuclear.

Post by landrew » Wed Nov 07, 2018 2:39 pm

ElectricMonk wrote:
Wed Nov 07, 2018 2:33 pm
landrew wrote:
Wed Nov 07, 2018 2:15 pm
Nearly all work results in an increase of heat.

yes, but where the energy is consumed, not where the energy is generated.

That is why solar panels can indeed cause local cooling.

This isn't rocket science.
I'm sorry, but the number of solar panels cooling the planet are far too insignificant to be mentionable at present. I doubt they will ever shade the planet to such an extent that they would have any cooling effect on the atmosphere.
Don't lose your sense of proportion.
The job of a skeptic is to investigate the unexplained; not to explain the uninvestigated.

User avatar
ElectricMonk
Perpetual Poster
Posts: 4362
Joined: Thu Mar 26, 2015 6:21 pm
Custom Title: The Baby-eating Bishop

Re: Risk. Hydro versus nuclear.

Post by ElectricMonk » Wed Nov 07, 2018 3:20 pm

Landrew, you are (possibly unintentionally) totally strawmanning here: no one argued that solar power could be used to cool the planet effectively, just by converting light into electricity. The question was what effect green energy has on the local climate - and, for example, floating solar panels has a measurable, beneficial effect of keeping water cool in times of high solar intensity, thereby slowing evaporation.

This is a significant effect ON TOP of creating energy.
The world currently has ~500GW of solar power generation, which is energy that isn't warming the ground. The effect is small, but it is there, and will only grow.

User avatar
landrew
Has More Than 8K Posts
Posts: 8427
Joined: Sat Jul 14, 2007 5:51 am

Re: Risk. Hydro versus nuclear.

Post by landrew » Wed Nov 07, 2018 3:32 pm

ElectricMonk wrote:
Wed Nov 07, 2018 3:20 pm
Landrew, you are (possibly unintentionally) totally strawmanning here: no one argued that solar power could be used to cool the planet effectively, just by converting light into electricity. The question was what effect green energy has on the local climate - and, for example, floating solar panels has a measurable, beneficial effect of keeping water cool in times of high solar intensity, thereby slowing evaporation.

This is a significant effect ON TOP of creating energy.
The world currently has ~500GW of solar power generation, which is energy that isn't warming the ground. The effect is small, but it is there, and will only grow.
If this is about microclimates as you say, converting dark roofs to reflective colors would accomplish a lot more for the dollar.
The job of a skeptic is to investigate the unexplained; not to explain the uninvestigated.

User avatar
landrew
Has More Than 8K Posts
Posts: 8427
Joined: Sat Jul 14, 2007 5:51 am

Re: Risk. Hydro versus nuclear.

Post by landrew » Wed Nov 07, 2018 3:35 pm

ElectricMonk wrote:
Wed Nov 07, 2018 3:20 pm

This is a significant effect ON TOP of creating energy.
The world currently has ~500GW of solar power generation, which is energy that isn't warming the ground. The effect is small, but it is there, and will only grow.
Small and insignificant, and most likely to always be insignificant.
It's so easy to lose your sense of proportion in these discussions.
The job of a skeptic is to investigate the unexplained; not to explain the uninvestigated.

User avatar
ElectricMonk
Perpetual Poster
Posts: 4362
Joined: Thu Mar 26, 2015 6:21 pm
Custom Title: The Baby-eating Bishop

Re: Risk. Hydro versus nuclear.

Post by ElectricMonk » Wed Nov 07, 2018 3:45 pm

why are you being so hostile?

The primary job of solar is to generate energy - reducing heat is a welcome side effect; no one claimed anymore than that.
Consider your strawman knocked down, and return to a less confrontational mode of discussion.

Thanks