OT: More bad news for harry...

[Tim+]

Ah, Bob Shaw. Other Days, Other Eyes. At least that was one of the titles used. Very good at taking an idea and developing it.

Tim

[Vir Campestris]

The sunlight has been cut off here even as I type.

It's past sunset.

Andy

[Tim Watts]

Yes - it's referred to as the "mean solar insolation" and it's not a lot in the UK.

[tabbypurr]

IIRC there's more than enough of it falling on a domestic roof to run a house. The trouble is all the equipment needed to make use of a small fraction of it.

NT

[tabbypurr]

There's most likely plenty more to be had, using different technologies of course. One day in the distant future solar power will probably be a big win - it's just too far away to gain anything by subsidising the unsuccessful technologies of today.

It's not like cars where subsidising cars in 1914 might have brought today's cars a little sooner, solar power requires discontinuous development rather than incremental.

another area that would need huge technological advances to be practical for widespread use.

NT

[T i m]

They do that with 'solar slates / tile / shingles' where they do become part of the roof.

However, I think straight panels over an existing or even new / replacement roof might be cheaper. ;-(

If I had the cash to just potentially stuff down the drain and got paid ONLY for any electricity I EXPORTED (and at the current supplier rate) , I could go for a whole roof of solar slates, mainly for the S&G's.

Cheers, T i m

[Mike Tomlinson]

En el artículo , Dan S. MacAbre escribió:

If D i m can't spot a missing space due to a line break in a long URL, little wonder he's unable to make Linux work.

[harry]

d be a pv generator, and that's a lot of photons. But I don't see what payi ng for existing technology really gets us nearer that point. If things were close it would, but it's far far away.

Already available. Google:- integrated solar roof(ing).

[harry]

Why obviously?

[tabbypurr]

uld be a pv generator, and that's a lot of photons. But I don't see what pa ying for existing technology really gets us nearer that point. If things we re close it would, but it's far far away.

nowhere remotely near cheap enough to be much use. I don't expect to see go od solar to electric capture any year soon.

NT

[harry]

Not before the store has disintegrated. If they knew how to permanently dispose of it, they would be doing it. And they aren't.

Drivel. Compared with fossil fuels.

[Mike Tomlinson]

En el artículo , Tim Streater escribió:

+1.

Interesting article here exploring how 100% nuclear build could supply the UK's baseline energy needs and satisfy the low carbon requirement.

Considers sites for new nukes, access to the grid, redundancy by using different reactor makes and models, etc. with pumped storage available used to 'top-up' in times of heavy demand.

or

[Dave Liquorice]

Not at night. Not when the E7 is pulling 7 KW as it is ATM (time switch is a couple of hours slow), and probably not on a dull day like today when the E7 has gone off and the base load is around 1 KW.

How about the 3 KW kettle? Or the 2 kW, cold fill only, washing machine? The 3 kW tumble dryer? Or cooking the evening meal that peaks at 5 or 6 kW and averages something over 2 kW.

Lets ignore the E7 and assume a base load of 1 kW. So that's 24 kWHr/day, which is ball park for here and it keeps the maths simple. If a 4 kW peak can produce that for 6 hours a day and we ignore the storeage problem, yes, in theory yes a domestic roof can "run a house".

Reality is that you ain't going to get 4 kW for 6 hours/day, every day. Long term is going to be closer to 1 kW for 6 hours/day (including overall storeage losses) so you are looking at a 16 kW array or 4 domestic roofs to run a single house, maybe. And a fairly hefty battery and invertor.

[Brian Gaff]

I cannot say this surprises me much, but it is still one way to get power in a place where it might not be easy in another way. I think with much of this technology, one hopes that in time costs will come down making it a better choice, but if nobody ever used it to start with, development would not happen at all. Carbon footprints etc, are notoriously hard to work out as there are so many things one needs to take into account. Brian

[Nightjar]

That depends upon how it is stored.

The only reason that it is not being recycled is that storing it is significantly cheaper.

You made an absolute statement, not a comparative one.

[The Natural Philosopher]

well yes, that was the justification. Subsidise industries that will one day actually work, .

Unfortunately so far they have picked ones that never will.

[The Natural Philosopher]

Amen to that

[The Natural Philosopher]

On 05/05/16 20:22, Nightjar That is the great thing about nuclear waste, if you store it, it will,

The planets are all nuclear waste dumps left over after someone used the light matter up in a supernova explosion.

Human beings are supposed to decommission it all by building nuclear power stations and burning it all up.

IN the same way that the plants decided to build animal life to deal with plant waste, but unfortunately it got buried, so they had to design an animal capable of mining and burning it to put the CO2 plant food back where it came from.

Hug any tree and it will tell you all this.

[The Natural Philosopher]

Not even true of the sunlight.

[The Natural Philosopher]

Actually, in winter there isn't, and of course that belies the fact that houses are net energy sinks and its other peoples energy you are buying everytime you hit the supermarket or the sheds.