Show Posts
This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.
And it would break even in a few years at the absolute most.answer is Yes.To produce enough solar panels to generate the electricity for the uks current usage would require somewhere in the region of 1 billion tonnes of co2, for all our usage that figure is at 10 billion .
Ref: https://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/index.php?topic=84600.0
That bothered me for quite a while, but I think there's a snow plow effect. As the event horizon tries to form in the first place any matter inside gets expelled.Quote from: wolfekeeper...the 'Firewall model' of black holes where all the mass of a black hole is concentrated at the event horizonLet's take the scenario where a neutron star draws more and more material from an orbiting star onto its surface - until it collapses into a black hole perhaps 10miles across.
Within that 5 mile radius of the event horizon, there would already have been a considerable amount of matter while it was still a neutron star. So that can't really still be stuck on the event horizon.
If it were possible to observe the formation of the black hole (eg with a neutrino telescope), the core of the neutron star might be creeping inwards, just a micrometer from the event horizon - but the event horizon would be bounding outwards by yards and miles. So that material would no longer be stuck on the event horizon (from the viewpoint of a distant observer).
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neutron_star#X-ray_binaries
Which does raise the question: What, exactly, has the "nuclear deterrent" deterred? The Soviet Union was an ally of the western powers until they acquired nuclear weapons, since when there have been wars all over the world, mostly with little point and no desirable outcome.I know what it didn't deter. It didn't deter Russia from invading Ukraine. There was no deterrent, after Ukraine agreed to give up the nuclear weapons they actually had to Russia, shortly after the USSR fell.
Linda asks: Can the spinning of the Earth be used as a source of electricity, similar to the spinning of wind turbines?The spinning of the Earth itself can't be the source of electricity, since the Earth has to conform with conservation of angular momentum. Unless something left the Earth or joined the Earth or another external body changed speed, or the Earth radically changed shape, no closed cycle can result in the Earth simply slowing down and electricity being generated, as it will always have the same angular momentum.
At this point I'm assuming you're just here to troll all of us.Exponential,I'm afraid money rules, if renewable where economically superior we would have converted to them already.It will in a few years, and the progress is exponential.
No.Solar panels aren't scrapped after 25 years, they have about 0.5% loss of output per year, so they're still outputting nearly 90% of their original output after that. That's just the suggested lifespan, but they're clearly going to go a lot longer.Whilst this is somewhat true of current panels, many older panels are significantly worse, plus there is the lifespan of associated equipment/faults/ servicing.
https://news.energysage.com/how-long-do-solar-panels-last/#:~:text=The%20industry%20standard%20for%20a,below%20what%20the%20manufacturer%20projected.
But given this degradation that is reported widely at 1% a year and the lack of cloudy sky generation, I have to think this is being rushed into. When cloudy sky generation is improved most solar in the uk will be replaced.
Problem with solar is that all the sources go off line at the same time, and windmills may not work at all for several days at a time - the primary sources are not independent.But you know it's doing that before it happens, because of something called a 'weather forecast'.
This wouldn't be a problem if renewable generators were backed up with adequate storage, but that would not be profitable, so grid integrity relies on fossil fuels to maintain the profitability of renewables.Thing is, backup generators are relatively cheap, and the grid already has them anyway. It costs fuel, but hydrogen and perhaps other things like ammonia is looking promising for that.
The retail cost of electricity is the renewables subsidy. The retailer gets a profitable 27p per unit whether the wind is blowing or not, so there is no incentive for the wholesaler to build the storage system needed for a fully renewable supply.If the retailer is getting 27p/kWh then it's still in their interest to get the electricity for the lowest possible average cost. Note that wind power is usually sold on Contract For Difference, which is essentially a fixed price of 7p/kWh or whatever.
coe
hi again. other people on different fora have been debating the question. member "uatu" on the german allmystery.de forum has provided what I consider the definitive solution with a graph illustrating the key parameters. my primitive derivation indicated an initial parabolic rise in ke, followed by an asymptote at around 3/4 fuel consumption. the rigorous expression provided by "uatu" does the same followed by a sharp downturn. this derivation seems to be rock-solid, in my limited mathematical abilities. bottom line: the coe is safe and emmy noether can rest peacefully.FWIW this is somewhat subtle stuff. There was actually some disagreement about the relationships between rockets and energy but it was laid to rest by Hermann Oberth.
The retail cost of electricity has very little to do with physics and a great deal to do with profits, taxes and subsidies.There are not really any solar subsidies anymore in the UK. They pay you what is basically cost (or more accurately, they pay the electricity supplier, most of them just pocket this, but Bulb gives you the money.)
Having lived through many, I understand a good deal about UK summers. Yes, the sun is above the horizon for over 16 hours in June, but the solar angle never exceeds 62 degrees in London, 59 in Inverness, which is why it is generally colder in Scotland than in England and the north pole (24 hour sunlight) stays frozen.Gee, if only someone could work out a magic way to deal with that issue, such as tilting the panels at ~30 degrees. But apparently you can't think of any way. Must be impossible.
And we do have a lot of cloud over these Atlantic islands.Yeah, except not so much in summer. Solar is quite predictable in summer, and isn't permanently hidden by clouds in the UK.
The value of mains electricity and gas is 24/7/365 availability at any level from zero to the supply rating. Until the cost of renewables includes that of maintaining an adequate overnight and strategic (say 10 day) reserve, you are not comparing apples with apples.Wrong. Dispatchable electricity is certainly useful to have, but you want to use it as little as possible because: it's always £££ and high CO2 emissions. But a lot of our electricity is predictable and highly correlated with the daytime.