Based on assertions I didn't make? Why would my clients judge me based on claims I never made? Unless of course they are delusional enough to assume that "there is an abundance of natural energy" immediately translates to an absurd claim such as a single solar cell being a source of infinite power. If you are going to adress your own fantasies as to what arguments I am making then please stop attributing your fantaswies to me.
In fact since I have already stated the exact opposite of what you claimed my position was - namely that any single source of power is inherantly finite, and then further explained my position from there, your responsr is not simply a misunderatanding or mild misrepresentation, but a libelous attack on my professional reputation. If I were inclined to pursue the matter and could discover your name penalties could include jail time.
I *would* ask for a public apology and retraction, or failing that ask that you be removed from this group for litterally ctiminal behavior.

You can ask, silveroak; but the fact that it's my opinion and not a statement of fact renders me immune to libel charges.  You're free to follow up on it, if you like; I'm sure the RPOL admins would help you if you actually had a case.

But honestly, because I've got a slander case going right now: Libel, Slander, et al are not criminal behavior.  They're civil charges.  And because I'm not attacking your reputation directly, proving any damages is going to be difficult.  All you can say is that you got upset when someone called you on some mistaken facts on an anonymous internet forum.  And in my opinion, if you can't handle a little heat, you need to stay out of the kitchen.

If you want to prove me wrong, then demonstrate it with facts.  Try some links about current power consumption rises vs the time we can bring new sources to bear.  You're not going to get an apology until you can disprove my position.

GMC stated previously

Now 1:
Whereas my previosu comment on this was to *acknowledge* that the power output of a single cell is limited, as it is for any power supply. As a point of fact you have claimed I have a lack of understanding of something relevent to my professional career where you statement of my position is in direct opposition to my stated professional opinion.
You then follow this with a statement that mu clients should be woried about my abilities based upon my supposed assertion which is, again, the opposite of what I stated. This is a factual; position you have taken, regarding claims you assert that I have made, which impunes upon my proffessional reputation, and which is based on lies.

As additional note:http://www.dmsolar.com/6mosoce.html
interesting, it indicates an output of .6V open circuit. Now what was that about an absolute .5V maximum output?
This message was last edited by the player at 15:12, Fri 19 Aug 2011.

Saying "I am worried" is not libel, it is opinion.  Opinions, regardless of what damage they cause to your professional reputation, cannot be considered libel.  Libel also cannot be a joke, even if it isn't stated as opinion; saying you got your degree off of a crackerjack box is clearly meant as humor, not as a statement of fact.

If you want to take the fact that I called you on a bad fact personally, that's your right.  If you want to go to the mods and complain, that's your right as well.  But don't think for a moment you can threaten my right to free speech in this forum when I'm not even coming close to attacking you.


0.55V, actually.  I think we're looking at a rounding difference instead of a practical one.

No I'm not.  In fact, I'm pretty confident that the demand for power will grow for the foreseeable future.  What I'm assuming is that the supply of renewable resources won't decrease (that's sort of what it means to be renewable).  That we're eventually going to reach a point where we can't supply enough to meet demand is something I agree with.  But enforcing that situation now doesn't seem like a preferable alternative to me.  By intentionally adding less power than we could while demand rises, that seems like it's only going to make the problem worse, no?  (assuming here that "the problem" is the shortfall, rather than some other side effect like climate change).  From what I'm gather of your position, your solution to the problem of supply not meeting demand in the future is to make supply not meet demand now instead.  I feel like I must be missing something, but that's all I'm coming up with.  What is the benefit we're getting by creating an artificial energy crises now?  It seems like adding renewable power will mean that when we reach "the limit" we won't have to cut back as far as we will if we're using mostly non-renewable power.  Stopping growth is far easier than going backwards, no?


But this statement has been true at pretty much every moment since the industrial revolution, right?  Should we have given up after the first steam engine started running and just said "ya know what, we're not going to be able to do this forever, so why even start?"  Is your argument that if we can't do something forever, we shouldn't do it at all?

You seemed to not want to put a number on how much power is available from solar.  Is that because you don't really have an idea, or because you don't like the number that comes out, or some other reason?  Don't worry, I'm not looking for anything too precise, I think it'd just be useful to get an idea of just what you think we could do.  Do you think we're going to reach the limit next year?  Ten years from now?  A hundred?  What level of power consumption do you think we will be able live with, or should live with?  Are we talking amish levels?  Victorian levels?  Hunter-gather levels?  Do we get to have lights on at night?  Just no trans-atlantic flights?  What level are you suggesting we limit our selves to, so that we don't have to limit ourselves to it later?


Not sure I follow this.  Are you saying raising supply to meet demand is "supply-side economics?"  If so, I disagree.  Or are you saying that your reasoning for not doing so is supply-side economics?  In either case, what's should we take away from the fact that it's supply-side economics?


But who's pushing the idea that energy is cheap and easy on the side that's trying to prevent climate change?  I'm not sure how adding more solar or wind power to the system leads to more problems down the road (and I can see how not doing so DOES lead to more problems down the road).  Is your argument that if we don't add extra capacity, then demand will stop increasing?  Because if so, I disagree with that pretty strongly.

Ok, we're talking circles around one another.  Let me try and restate.

No matter what happens, the demand for power will only increase.  At current rates, at least as far as I can tell, demand will outstrip supply to the point where we'll suffer dramatically (remember the mandatory rolling blackouts in California, anyone?)

Now, to fix this will involve more than just raising capacity.  In fact, that in a small way exacerbates the problem, because people will continue to assume that we can just add capacity and everything will be fine.  Conservation of energy is the key: rather than focus on increasing the supply of energy, we should focus a lot more heavily on reducing the demand for it.

Granted, *both* are needed.  However, even the eco-movement doesn't focus heavily on energy conservation as much as shifting to non-polluting energy.  Pushes to do things like reduce the number of cars on the roads are much less frequent (and less popular) than simply reducing emissions.

How do you feel increasing our public transportation infrastructure might affect the number of cars on the road?

Carpooling is the non-government equivalent, but without the organization there probably wouldn't be enough cooperation to make a big enough impact.

If we look at areas where road space is more important than locomotive-independence, like New York, it is a lot more difficult to get a Driver's license and keep a vehicle, so most people don't even bother.

I think that's one key component, yes.  One big change is that buses will have to become heavily subsidized, even more so than now.  City buses don't make a profit, and we're going to have to accept that.  The job of a bus isn't to make money, it's to keep people off the road: and as long as bus service is roughly as convenient and somewhat cheaper than driving, people will take the bus.

.625 Voc being bigger than .55V is *not* a rounding issue, it is a you being wrong issue. And you claiming that I had a position of claiming that a single solar cell could produce infinite power when I had already stated that all power sources are finite. That is an issue of fact, where you stated my position to be other than what it was. you lied in order to besmirch my reputation.

In my opinion, I don't have to lie.  Besides which, unless I've forgotten my rounding skills from third grade, .625 rounds down to .6, and .55 rounds up to 6.  So, for an electrical engineer to forget third grade math is, again in my opinion, something to be concerned over.

Given that those are significant figures, I'd highly doubt they'd round them up or down, given that it's electrical engineering and not elementary school math classes.

If we could tone down the name-calling and accusations, that would be most helpful to the discussion.

again, given that I have already posted:

and
I am still awaiting a retraction and appology for the claim that I believe a single solar cell can produce infinite power given by GMC here:

I'll consider it, the day I get an apology for attacking me on a mistaken belief about libel.

The issue is one of fact- I stated that teh pwoer source is finite, you stated I believed it was infinite, and then used that mis-statement as a basis to malign my professional skills.
from http://www.bing.com/Dictionary...n%5c&FORM=DTPDIA


which part of this do you believe you did not do?

Back on topic: It's also the equivalent of wikipedia entries.  Given that we're still talking less than 0.075 of a volt difference, it's also not significant.  The point is, solar cells can only produce a sharply limited amount of power, something that's been glossed over.

We can't expect that we can continue to increase our energy use, and rely on solar to fill in the gaps for us.  That's simply not going to happen.  The same holds true for any other alternative energy source, or all of them put together.

For the foreseeable future, yeah, I'd agree.


Yes, eventually.  The question is when, though?  Saying it'll happen 100 years from now leads to a very different set of options than saying it will happen in six months.  Just saying it will happen "someday" doesn't really give us enough information to make a rational decision.


I'm largely okay with this, and I'd suggest that pretty much everyone who's trying to stop/slow-down climate change would agree.  Part of the problem, though, is that changing demand means changing everyone's behavior (or, rather, their desired behavior).  Changing supply doesn't require everyone to be on board.  It's something we can do without yet having everyone think that climate change (or a future power shortage) is a problem.  I think the focus on alternative energy is due to the fact that 1) it's more feasible to implement, and 2) replacing non-renewables with renewables means not having to change behaviors so much (which is the downside of the power shortage at the end of the day, so something we shouldn't overlook).


I can agree with this largely, though the "eco-movement" certainly does push energy conservation more than just about any other "movement" I'd argue.  If you think they don't do so enough, that's fine.  But I'd say the main reason they're focusing emissions is because that's what they consider the real problem to be.  You don't think emissions are a problem, so you think they're barking up the wrong tree, but if one accepts that reducing emissions will slow climate change and reduce its impact, then I'd say the focus makes sense, no?

I think part of the resistance you're running into here, is that you're working at a somewhat abstract level.  "We can't keep increasing demand forever," well, no, we can't.  But how long can we do it?  As I said before, we've increased the supply of energy steady for a century and a half now.  On the first day of the industrial revolution, someone could have made the same argument you're making now.  Should they have just given up at that point, and said "let's stick to horses, because we won't be able to keep increasing the supply of energy forever?"  If you could put some estimate on how much power you think we can supply, or when we'll no longer be able to meet demand, you'd have more luck getting people on board with you.  Also, if you could give some ideas of the type of lifestyle you think we should be aiming for, that would be helpful.  Are we talking hunter-gather level of power-use?  Subsistence farming?  Victorian era levels?  50's levels?  What we've got now, but no more?  More than we use now?  What kind of living are you saying we need to adapt to?

384 yottawatts I think is where we will run out of power when, in 2210, we complete our Dyson Sphere. Our energy consumption will lag at least a few decades behind that, so I think we have plenty of time.

the energy production of a single solar cell is sharply limited. The sun itself emits 4*10^26 Watts in luminosity, by the time that reaches earth that comes to 132.57 Watts/sq ft. Current solar cells have an effeciency of under 18%, which sounds horrible but compared to an IC engine which has an effeciency under 25% it really isn't that bad. Now obviously the 132.57 Watts/sq ft is also effected by relative angel to teh sun (season and latitude) and obstruction (cloud cover, for example), as well as some atmospheric losses.
Ultimately however the majority of the power we use comes from the sun, whether in fuel (and plants utelize sunlight far more effeciently- up to blue green algae which utelizes sunlight with over 60% effeciency and is being considered as an alternative fuel source), it is usefull to consider as an upper limit of what we can consume, and the fact is that we are ussing well under .1% of teh power that reaches earth every year, so there is no shortage of energy, perhaps a shortage of usable energy.
Then of course there are 2 non-solar based forms of power- geothermal and nuclear.

I'm afraid I don't have any hard numbers for you, just history.  Back in the 80's, all Washington states students were taught that they exported energy to California, and expected to do so for the next century, without adding capacity.  During the 90's to today?  During the summer in California, there's planned rolling blackouts as emergency conservation methods, while Washington state struggles to keep up with its own energy needs.  And that's hydro, a renewable/nonpolluting source of energy.

As for how far we should go?  Forcing people to go even a little Luddite would be like trying to pull a mule's teeth with chopsticks, so on a practical level we'd need to stop right where we're at.  Computers need to have energy limits, just like cars have emissions limits.  New appliances need to ho to higher energy-saving standards.  Florescent bulbs need to replace incandescent, and so on.

Because one study missed it's projections on future energy consumption of Washington state that means there is a gobal problem? Incidentally hydro-electric is indirect solar power (sunlight is absorbed by the ocean, evaporates water, which recondenses at a higher altitude)
Computers have, in general been decreasing in their enegy use per unit over time, though realistically LED bulbs are a better choice than flourescent (lower energy consumption and they last longer, though they are more expensive). Switching cars to anything fuel cell based (over 80% effeciency, depending on type instead of under 30%) and preferably hybrid would be a step in the right direction. Personally I think using regenerative hydrogen fuel cells (hydrogen to generate electricity, store electricity by cracking water into hydrogen) would be ideal... and much cheaper to run than modern internal combustion engines.

Actually, the general problem involves going to the local gas station, and comparing the prices to ten years ago.  I was paying four and a half times less then as opposed to now.  Even if you adjust for inflation, that's a huge leap.

My power bill (in the Pacific NW, no less) has gone up by more than double from this time last year.

Here in kansas it remains at about 8 cents a KWH and apparently that is signifigantly above the regional average. Not suprising considering our state power generation still relies heavilly on coal based steam power while surrounding states use hydro-electric.

As far as hydrogen goes: While hydrogen is nice and non-polluting, it's also inefficient in that it takes more energy to liberate hydrogen from water than we gain from using it.  We can get more efficient at it, but basic thermodynamics say that 100% efficiency, or anything close to it, will never happen.

yes. then again, batteries are not 100% effecient, gas engines are not 100% effecient, nothing is 100% effecient. Hydrogen fuel cells, however, *are* over 99% effecient- teh real engineering problem is storing the hydrogen. It is also why I refer to this as a power *storage* option rather than a power generation option.
And FYI, while nothing is 100% effecient there is in fact nothing within teh laws of thermodynamics which precludes it, and especially not acheiving anything close to 100% effeciency, especially for non-thermic energy exchange, which is not governed specically by thermodynamics. After all, the need for Q/T to increase doesn't matter when your energy source isn't based on either Q or T. (Q is thermal energy, T is temperature, and entropy, which must always stay teh same or increase, is equal to Q/T)