Remember me
▼ Content

A slightly different angle



Page 3 of 3<123
26-01-2017 00:40
Surface Detail
★★★★☆
(1673)
GasGuzzler wrote:
Oh, you want scientist liars? OK, sorry. I'll do some more legwork for you. Google can be tough to navigate.

You're obviously finding it tough, since you haven't actually come up with any yet.

I see you're also struggling to post links here. Try using the "url=" button under the message box and replacing the x and y.
26-01-2017 00:53
GasGuzzler
★★★★☆
(1314)
DAILY NEWS 1 October 2003
Global warming 'kills 160,000 a year'
By Shaoni Bhattacharya

Global warming kills about 160,000 people through its effects every year, scientists have warned. And the numbers dying from "side-effects" of climate change, such as malaria and malnutrition, could almost double by 2020, they say.

That's about 2 million dead already.

It says these were scientists, but I didn't check their credentials.

Hey, cut me some slack, I work with four hands but type with 2 fingers. It's a gift.
Edited on 26-01-2017 00:54
26-01-2017 01:16
Surface Detail
★★★★☆
(1673)
It's possible that there are fewer people alive today than there otherwise would be as a consequence of the initial effects of AGW. It's also possible that there are more, and that the initial effects of AGW have actually saved lives (through such things as milder winters and CO2 fertilisation). Either way, such claims would be very difficult to substantiate, which is why I would doubt that any scientist would make concrete claims of this kind. The media, of course, is a different kettle of fish and has been known, on occasion, to make claims that don't quite stack up. That's why it's best to stick to actual scientific sources for scientific information.

But this is all fairly irrelevant. The forecast human consequences of AGW are just that: forecasts. They pertain to the future rather than the present. While we are seeing some initial effects of AGW, such as a measurable temperature rise matching predictions and melting Arctic ice, it's still very early days. If we don't take the issue seriously, it'll be our kids and their kids that bear the consequences rather than us.
26-01-2017 01:45
GasGuzzler
★★★★☆
(1314)
May I remind you of your original claim that most of the liars were on my side?

I googled "global warming blamed on 300,000 deaths" and page after page after page.

Not one of these was a "scientist"?

All these reports of mass death, then these reporters are what? Misinformed? Stretching the truth?
Exaggerating? Blowing propaganda? Irresponsible? Lying? All of the above?

In a previous post you said that if you were dictator of the world you would heavily tax fossil fuels, and not ban them altogether. They would still be available to those willing to pay for them.

I'm sure you're a liberal, and that's fine for this discussion, I don't care. I find it interesting that a major liberal complaint is the widening income gap and class envy/warfare. With this tax plan, isn't that a good way to drive the income gap about 28 miles wide?

The wealthy would pay for and use fossil fuels for business, thereby staying in business, and pass the cost right down to the consumer, who just lost even more of his disposable income. I know without piston power and my work I would be just done. Send me the welfare check. What do you say?
26-01-2017 02:20
IBdaMann
★★★★★
(4211)
Surface Detail wrote:So no actual scientist, then?

@ GasGuzzler, please note the "consensus trap" into which Surface Detail is trying to pull you.

Science is not based on anyone's opinion. Science's power comes from its falsifiability. No one owns science. It does not matter what anyone claims, not even scientists. All that matters is what science says.

This is why Surface Detail needs to goad you into a "my daddy can beat up your daddy" fight. He needs the determinant of who is right to be who has the clergy member with the biggest, baddest credentials ... because he has no science supporting his WACKY religious dogma.

Don't fall for the trap. Keep science as the basis for discussion and you win.

There is no consensus in science.


.


Global Warming: The preferred religion of the scientifically illiterate.

Ceist - I couldn't agree with you more. But when money and religion are involved, and there are people who value them above all else, then the lies begin. - trafn

You are completely misunderstanding their use of the word "accumulation"! - Climate Scientist.

The Stefan-Boltzman equation doesn't come up with the correct temperature if greenhouse gases are not considered - Hank

:*sigh* Not the "raw data" crap. - Leafsdude

IB STILL hasn't explained what Planck's Law means. Just more hand waving that it applies to everything and more asserting that the greenhouse effect 'violates' it.- Ceist
26-01-2017 02:39
GasGuzzler
★★★★☆
(1314)
No worries, the gun is loaded. I was actually kinda hoping he was going to play the consensus card. I was trying to walk him into it.
26-01-2017 02:51
IBdaMann
★★★★★
(4211)
GasGuzzler wrote:I googled "global warming blamed on 300,000 deaths" and page after page after page.

Not one of these was a "scientist"?

Don't you think it's about time you require Surface Detail to support his religious beliefs? After all, he who makes the claim bears full responsibility for supporting it. Such as:

Surface Detail wrote: It's possible that there are fewer people alive today than there otherwise would be as a consequence of the initial effects of AGW.

Surface Detail needs to first show that any AGWs even exists. I have never seen an AGW. It's a fairy tale, like Santa Claus until Surface Detail can show otherwise.

Surface Detail wrote: That's why it's best to stick to actual scientific sources for scientific information.

The problem here is that "scientific sources" in this case means "warmizombie propaganda sites." Don't expect Surface Detail to engage in honest discussion. He has only one objective: to be a soldier for Global Warming and to win on the political battlefield by whatever means possible.


Surface Detail wrote: But this is all fairly irrelevant. The forecast human consequences of AGW are just that: forecasts.

They're not forecasts by any stretch of the imagination. They are fear-mongering fabrications by career scary story-tellers. How do you like your fiction served?

Surface Detail wrote: While we are seeing some initial effects of AGW, such as a measurable temperature rise matching predictions and melting Arctic ice, it's still very early days.

Nope. There are no Global Warming prophecies coming true and there are no AGW "effects" to match were there any. No AGW is observed by non-believers. One must be an AGW worshiper first to convince oneself that one really "sees" all this WACKY religious dogma occurring around us.

Surface Detail wrote: If we don't take the issue seriously, it'll be our kids and their kids that bear the consequences rather than us.

Back to the fear-mongering. Oooooh, if I don't join your WACKY religious cult, Climate will come after my kids.


.


Global Warming: The preferred religion of the scientifically illiterate.

Ceist - I couldn't agree with you more. But when money and religion are involved, and there are people who value them above all else, then the lies begin. - trafn

You are completely misunderstanding their use of the word "accumulation"! - Climate Scientist.

The Stefan-Boltzman equation doesn't come up with the correct temperature if greenhouse gases are not considered - Hank

:*sigh* Not the "raw data" crap. - Leafsdude

IB STILL hasn't explained what Planck's Law means. Just more hand waving that it applies to everything and more asserting that the greenhouse effect 'violates' it.- Ceist
26-01-2017 10:39
Surface Detail
★★★★☆
(1673)
GasGuzzler wrote:
May I remind you of your original claim that most of the liars were on my side?

I googled "global warming blamed on 300,000 deaths" and page after page after page.

Not one of these was a "scientist"?

All these reports of mass death, then these reporters are what? Misinformed? Stretching the truth?
Exaggerating? Blowing propaganda? Irresponsible? Lying? All of the above?

All of the above, I presume. Where I live (the UK), it is well known that the media generally put their own spin on the news and sometimes downright lie. Is that not the case in the US? Are all your media outlets perfectly reliable and neutral?

In a previous post you said that if you were dictator of the world you would heavily tax fossil fuels, and not ban them altogether. They would still be available to those willing to pay for them.

Indeed. The most urgent goal is to substantially reduce fossil fuel consumption, and the most economically effective way to do so is through a carbon tax. This would eliminate the use of fossil fuels for frivolous purposes, still allow their use where absolutely essential, and encourage the development of alternatives. The free market should be allowed to come up with those alternatives; I don't think governments should be in the business of picking winners through subsidies.

I'm sure you're a liberal, and that's fine for this discussion, I don't care. I find it interesting that a major liberal complaint is the widening income gap and class envy/warfare. With this tax plan, isn't that a good way to drive the income gap about 28 miles wide?

I'm not a liberal, at least not in the US sense. I believe in a small, rational government that provides the basic framework for people to live their lives as they choose so long as they don't cause harm to others. A basic level of welfare support to those who are unable to support themselves is also not a bad thing. However, my political views have absolutely nothing to do with the reality or otherwise of AGW. That is a matter for science.

The wealthy would pay for and use fossil fuels for business, thereby staying in business, and pass the cost right down to the consumer, who just lost even more of his disposable income. I know without piston power and my work I would be just done. Send me the welfare check. What do you say?

A high price on fossil fuels would allow them to be used in an economically sensible fashion. Any business that continued to rely on fossil fuels when alternatives were available would quickly find its products priced out of the market and go bankrupt. Some sectors will shrink; others will grow to take their place. The world is not full of unemployed blacksmiths and farriers wandering the streets after mechanisation replaced horses. The important thing is to start now, so as to give society time to adapt to the withdrawal of cheap fossil fuels.
26-01-2017 15:21
IBdaMann
★★★★★
(4211)
@ GasGuzzler, remember that warmizombies are Marxist-driven and all agendas have, at their root, the destruction of capitalism.

Surface Detail wrote: Indeed. The most urgent goal is to substantially reduce fossil fuel consumption, and the most economically effective way to do so is through a carbon tax.

Right there. If you were a rabid Marxist and your goal were to drive a stake through the heart of capitalism, what would you wish you could make happen? Shut down energy, perhaps? That effectively shuts down the economy, it shuts down societies, it shuts down people's lives, ... and generally creates massive global misery, the actual Marxist long-term objective for the planet. They're not happy until you're not happy.

In short, they want all humans to be equally broke. That's the only way to guarantee that everything is as close to "fair" as possible.

The best part is that all of this is proposed under the urgency of saving the planet from imminent destruction!

Surface Detail wrote: This would eliminate the use of fossil fuels for frivolous purposes, still allow their use where absolutely essential, and encourage the development of alternatives.

It would shut down the lives of the poor first and anyone else who cannot afford the expense. This will injure the economy to the point that more people will fall into the category of being unable to afford energy. This will create a downward spiral that will kill the global economy.

Development of expensive alternatives can only occur in a growing economy. It cannot happen in a collapsing economy. Marxism doesn't make anything economically feasible.

Surface Detail wrote: The free market should be allowed to come up with those alternatives; I don't think governments should be in the business of picking winners through subsidies.

...and there's the rub. The free market rejects "renewables" because they are way too expensive and wholly inadequate. We need a stronger economy to make investment in renewables more feasible. That means reducing the atherosclerosis of taxation. We need to create more business-friendly environments to facilitate a better economy and to facilitate research and development.



Surface Detail wrote: I'm not a liberal, at least not in the US sense. I believe in a small, rational government that provides the basic framework for people to live their lives as they choose so long as they don't cause harm to others.

Weasel wording. The rabid Marxism lies in the words "so long as they don't cause harm to others." To Marxists, EVERYTHING causes harm to others. Everything should therefore be taxed out of existence.

Surface Detail wrote: However, my political views have absolutely nothing to do with the reality or otherwise of AGW. That is a matter for science.

Surface Detail denies all science that threaten his religion and his political views, which take priority. The above is a blatant lie.

Surface Detail wrote: A high price on fossil fuels would allow them to be used in an economically sensible fashion.

A low price on energy would allow everyone to have much greater quality of life. That would mean widespread happiness. Marxists cannot abide that. If low energy prices bring happiness then they MUST have energy prices shoot through the roof.

Once again, Marxists aren't happy until you're not happy.

Surface Detail wrote: The important thing is to start now, so as to give society time to adapt to the withdrawal of cheap fossil fuels.

Act NOW! Destroy capitalism NOW!

Why? Well, of course, the destruction of the planet is imminent.

Has Surface Detail afforded you a falsifiable model of "greenhouse effect" that doesn't violate physics?


.


Global Warming: The preferred religion of the scientifically illiterate.

Ceist - I couldn't agree with you more. But when money and religion are involved, and there are people who value them above all else, then the lies begin. - trafn

You are completely misunderstanding their use of the word "accumulation"! - Climate Scientist.

The Stefan-Boltzman equation doesn't come up with the correct temperature if greenhouse gases are not considered - Hank

:*sigh* Not the "raw data" crap. - Leafsdude

IB STILL hasn't explained what Planck's Law means. Just more hand waving that it applies to everything and more asserting that the greenhouse effect 'violates' it.- Ceist
26-01-2017 18:53
GasGuzzler
★★★★☆
(1314)
Perfect assessment IBdaMann.

Surface detail needs to take a closer look at what the world looks like without oil and without equal alternatives. IBdaMann is correct. A strong global economic engine will "fuel" and create the right "climate" for the research and development of alternative fuels. That is why Trump is also D Mann.
Like it or not, oil is the lifeblood of all economic achievement. I have nothing against alternative fuels, as long as the numbers make sense. I just spent $200 dollars on LED bulbs a relighted my entire home. Why? I did it because they are now price comp to other bulbs, (got 4 pack of bulbs on sale at the evil WalMart for $2.77) they look like regular bulbs, they use far less electricity, and they last 20 times longer. In other words, this is an attractive product because it performs and and saves money. It had nothing to do with the pending global catastrophe.
.
It's been fun but I've got to go for a few a days...I'll be back. I am a bank contractor and I service delinquent mortgage homes. Just got a flurry of new homes to go break into, change locks and repair damages.

Every time I'm drilling a lock I think, "Damn it, another liberal tried to go green but instead went broke."

Edited on 26-01-2017 18:55
27-01-2017 03:33
litesong
★★★★★
(2297)
"old sick silly sleepy sleazy slimy steenkin' filthy vile reprobate rooting (& rotting) racist pukey proud pig AGW denier liar whiner gasguzlr & gazmuflr" gushed: .... cut me some slack, I work with four hands but type with 2 fingers.

Correction: ".... cut me some slack, I work with four paws but type with 2 claws."
It's more accurate..... & poetic, too!
27-01-2017 06:22
GasGuzzler
★★★★☆
(1314)
THJANXS YUOU?


I think people screw me over because they don't want to see someone willing to put out the effort that they won't.~James~
02-02-2017 01:44
Wake
★★★★★
(4026)
spot wrote:
I think that we are late to stop any bad effects but already renewable energy is showing to be a credible way to make energy.

We are already over 400 ppm so that ship have sailed, it wont go under that in our lifetimes there is no mechanism to make that happen.

I'm trying to think but can't see how being more energy efficient will detrimentally effect my life. Minor inconveniences like the plastic bag tax that some were outraged about but everyone got used to in a week maybe.

What about the bad effects of climate change? rising sea levels, increased food prices and people being forced to move causing tension, that sort of thing, your not concerned by that?


I continue to wonder where you get your ideas from. Pacific Gas and Electric has the largest wind and solar farms in the US. If they were all working to full capacity they would be able to deliver 19% of the peak power required in their service area.

The problem is that they do not work very often or very hard. So instead of some sort of remarkable "renewable" energy the best they have EVER accomplished was delivering 3% of their yearly average and that was in a drought year with little cloud cover and moderate winds.

Solar farms require MORE energy to manufacture, install and maintain than they return. The ONLY reason that PG&E uses these devices is for the 3x tax deduction.

The windmills have 3 times the service life. However the ground under them is littered with dead birds including thousands of Bald Eagles and Redtail Hawks. They too appear to be generating but under most conditions they are not generating power since the winds are below critical speeds. Although my brother who once was a maintenance electrician on these windmills tells me that they work a lot I have spent the last 5 years keeping track of them when around the area and have seldom seen them generating. I do know that when they are generating that the herds of cattle on surrounding land do NOT like the sound and you can see those penned close to the windmills huddling together.

Another problem is that you have to use the power AS it is generated. Trying to store it would cut the power they do generate in half.
02-02-2017 01:50
Wake
★★★★★
(4026)
spot wrote:
Lets be honest there is a lot you don't know Tim. it never stops you weighing in on a subject with your idiotic opinions though.



Notice how much is grown in the tropics? right not a lot. its a temperate crop.

Interesting theory on how increasing temperatures is always good for crops. did you dream that up yourself? I suppose you will be starting a farm on the planet Venus then.


Imagine not having your daily oatmeal porridge. Don't look now but oats are not a very important crop and many other grains have far greater heat and cold tolerance and many grains that aren't being grown in large commercial quantities could easily take the place of oats.
02-02-2017 02:04
Wake
★★★★★
(4026)
GasGuzzler wrote:
In the short time I've been on/reading this forum, it's been fun reading the back and forth on the subject of GW....although Ms Litebeer may want to lay off the copy and paste.


If I could, I would like to start a discussion from a slightly different view. I would especially like to hear from the left, the libs, the socialists and the communists.

Imagine for a moment you woke up tomorrow morning as supreme leader of planet Earth, with no congress, no parliament, no one standing in your way as you are now the absolute dictator of the world.

What immediate measures will you take to avoid the impending catastrophe?

What long term step will you take?

Do you slow increasing CO2 PPM rate?

Do you think it can be stopped at 400PPM?

Can we reduce CO2 back to 300?

How long will it take?

What sacrifices must be made by households and business alike?

I'm guessing my life will change drastically...how?


I am rather shocked at how many replies you got in such a short period.

Did you notice how the Global Warmies evaded your questions?

We ALL know what they would do given ultimate power - they would take the heat and light away from we mere mortals while they themselves lived like kings. There is absolutely no hypocrite quite like the Warmists.

While they type into this group about the evil billionaires warming up the Earth they are still driving their SUV's around, setting their thermometers at 85 degrees and leaving every light in and out of the house on. They are still flying around the world on commercial airlines that provide something like 40% of the CO2 generated by transportation.

Go to college lectures on global warming and you hear about how this is all happening because of the "oil billionaires wanting more profits". Oil companies are ALL public companies these days. The stockholders are on record and mostly they are investment funds that are held almost entirely by retirement savings groups or individuals so these kids leave these lectures cursing what turns out to be their own parents who are barely making ends meet while putting these ungrateful wretches through college.
02-02-2017 02:09
Surface Detail
★★★★☆
(1673)
Wake wrote:
Solar farms require MORE energy to manufacture, install and maintain than they return. The ONLY reason that PG&E uses these devices is for the 3x tax deduction.

You are, of course, lying. Look at this paper, for example:

Energy payback time (EPBT) and energy return on energy invested (EROI) of solar photovoltaic systems: A systematic review and meta-analysis

The authors found that solar photovoltaic systems have an EROI of between 8.7 to 34.2. This means that they return between 8.7 and 34.2 times more energy than is required to manufacture, install and maintain them.
02-02-2017 03:47
Wake
★★★★★
(4026)
Surface Detail wrote:
Wake wrote:
Solar farms require MORE energy to manufacture, install and maintain than they return. The ONLY reason that PG&E uses these devices is for the 3x tax deduction.

You are, of course, lying. Look at this paper, for example:

Energy payback time (EPBT) and energy return on energy invested (EROI) of solar photovoltaic systems: A systematic review and meta-analysis

The authors found that solar photovoltaic systems have an EROI of between 8.7 to 34.2. This means that they return between 8.7 and 34.2 times more energy than is required to manufacture, install and maintain them.


This paper is somewhat questionable. Silicon photovoltaics are extremely efficient and very long lived. This why they are used for satellite power. But you cannot mass produce them and they are EXTREMELY expensive and very fragile.

Thin film PV's on the other hand are NOT and even the manufacturers admit that; if you go to the shows and talk to the manufacturers themselves.

While they will quote 10 years and 24%-26% efficiency their own engineers in private conversations will say that they have a 5 year life of over 80% and that efficiency in place with covers and dust never exceeds 15-20%.

Reality keeps sneaking up and biting you on the butt when you aren't looking.

And maintenance is a MAJOR problem. All areas where they use solar farms have a great deal of airborne detritus mostly dust but heavy leaves in some areas. A week without cleaning puts these cells almost entirely out of order.

10% cloud cover makes them virtually worthless if this occurs in the hours of 10 am to 2 pm.

And as I've said - you CANNOT store this power so you need to CONVERT it to AC and put it on the power lines and this is neither easy or cheap and loses even more efficiency. Plus you can't trust a line-frequency clock anymore. Inverters do not maintain very accurate frequency control for the amount of money that they can put into them. So these jerks and slips end up on the power lines which are now no longer nearly perfectly on 60 hz. So you can't use the old instruments that used the 60 hz as a frequency standard.

Wouldn't life be wonderful if the world was a university professor's idea of it?

A PAPER on something is completely different from the actual experience of these things.
02-02-2017 11:04
Surface Detail
★★★★☆
(1673)
Wake wrote:
Surface Detail wrote:
Wake wrote:
Solar farms require MORE energy to manufacture, install and maintain than they return. The ONLY reason that PG&E uses these devices is for the 3x tax deduction.

You are, of course, lying. Look at this paper, for example:

Energy payback time (EPBT) and energy return on energy invested (EROI) of solar photovoltaic systems: A systematic review and meta-analysis

The authors found that solar photovoltaic systems have an EROI of between 8.7 to 34.2. This means that they return between 8.7 and 34.2 times more energy than is required to manufacture, install and maintain them.


This paper is somewhat questionable. Silicon photovoltaics are extremely efficient and very long lived. This why they are used for satellite power. But you cannot mass produce them and they are EXTREMELY expensive and very fragile.

Thin film PV's on the other hand are NOT and even the manufacturers admit that; if you go to the shows and talk to the manufacturers themselves.

While they will quote 10 years and 24%-26% efficiency their own engineers in private conversations will say that they have a 5 year life of over 80% and that efficiency in place with covers and dust never exceeds 15-20%.

Reality keeps sneaking up and biting you on the butt when you aren't looking.

And maintenance is a MAJOR problem. All areas where they use solar farms have a great deal of airborne detritus mostly dust but heavy leaves in some areas. A week without cleaning puts these cells almost entirely out of order.

10% cloud cover makes them virtually worthless if this occurs in the hours of 10 am to 2 pm.

And as I've said - you CANNOT store this power so you need to CONVERT it to AC and put it on the power lines and this is neither easy or cheap and loses even more efficiency. Plus you can't trust a line-frequency clock anymore. Inverters do not maintain very accurate frequency control for the amount of money that they can put into them. So these jerks and slips end up on the power lines which are now no longer nearly perfectly on 60 hz. So you can't use the old instruments that used the 60 hz as a frequency standard.

Wouldn't life be wonderful if the world was a university professor's idea of it?

A PAPER on something is completely different from the actual experience of these things.

Sorry, but you are simply lying. Silicon photovoltaic are neither extremely expensive nor fragile, and they are being mass produced in millions, primarily by the Chinese. And modern inverters, for example, have efficiencies of over 98%. If you want to read some actual facts about photovoltaic power, here would be a good place to start:

FRAUNHOFER INSTITUTE FOR SOLAR ENERGY SYSTEMS Photovoltaics Report
02-02-2017 19:01
Wake
★★★★★
(4026)

Sorry, but you are simply lying. Silicon photovoltaic are neither extremely expensive nor fragile, and they are being mass produced in millions, primarily by the Chinese. And modern inverters, for example, have efficiencies of over 98%. If you want to read some actual facts about photovoltaic power, here would be a good place to start:

FRAUNHOFER INSTITUTE FOR SOLAR ENERGY SYSTEMS Photovoltaics Report


I'm an EE. And you're ...... what was that again? A transformer ALL BY ITSELF under ideal circumstances (a 1:1 conversion for isolation) is about 98% efficient. Under the conditions of an inverter where they have to raise a small voltage up to 240 VAC they run more in the area of 95%.

For applications such as solar you use very large germanium transistors which have a smaller forward bias and hence loss. But this loss at the normal 4 volt solar cell output is still 7%. As you pump more current through these transistors the more power losses you encounter.

We could put these solar cells in series to raise their voltage but then you encounter losses in the solar cells themselves.

So go right ahead and believe this sort of thing because you heard it on the grapevine. The only thing I can make of that article is that they are talking theoretical efficiency after the normal losses.


As for your dream of non-fragile and cheap silicon solar cells - go buy them and then tell me all about it. Monocrystalline solar cells are everything that I've said they are. And multicrystalline are no more efficient than thin film and are much more expensive to manufacture and are still fragile. Where do you get the idea that silicon crystals are not sensitive to temperature variations?
02-02-2017 19:11
Surface Detail
★★★★☆
(1673)
Wake wrote:

Sorry, but you are simply lying. Silicon photovoltaic are neither extremely expensive nor fragile, and they are being mass produced in millions, primarily by the Chinese. And modern inverters, for example, have efficiencies of over 98%. If you want to read some actual facts about photovoltaic power, here would be a good place to start:

FRAUNHOFER INSTITUTE FOR SOLAR ENERGY SYSTEMS Photovoltaics Report


I'm an EE. And you're ...... what was that again? A transformer ALL BY ITSELF under ideal circumstances (a 1:1 conversion for isolation) is about 98% efficient. Under the conditions of an inverter where they have to raise a small voltage up to 240 VAC they run more in the area of 95%.

For applications such as solar you use very large germanium transistors which have a smaller forward bias and hence loss. But this loss at the normal 4 volt solar cell output is still 7%. As you pump more current through these transistors the more power losses you encounter.

We could put these solar cells in series to raise their voltage but then you encounter losses in the solar cells themselves.

So go right ahead and believe this sort of thing because you heard it on the grapevine. The only thing I can make of that article is that they are talking theoretical efficiency after the normal losses.


As for your dream of non-fragile and cheap silicon solar cells - go buy them and then tell me all about it. Monocrystalline solar cells are everything that I've said they are. And multicrystalline are no more efficient than thin film and are much more expensive to manufacture and are still fragile. Where do you get the idea that silicon crystals are not sensitive to temperature variations?

Forgive me if I pay more heed to papers written by actual scientists working in the field than I do to unsubstantiated horseshit written by some idiot who seems to believe that the Earth is expanding. Not to mention the evidence of my own eyes, through which I can see plenty of solar panels on roofs in my neighbourhood that are robust enough to survive whatever the weather throws at them.
Page 3 of 3<123





Join the debate A slightly different angle:

Remember me

▲ Top of page
Public Poll
Who is leading the renewable energy race?

US

EU

China

Japan

India

Brazil

Other

Don't know


Thanks for supporting Climate-Debate.com.
Copyright © 2009-2019 Climate-Debate.com | About | Contact