World’s Largest Floating Solar Hybrid Power Plant Will Begin Operating in Thailand in October

[xtrnuno41]

On 8/24/2021 at 3:47 AM, Scott Tracy said:

I am in favour of renewable energy, as such. We have...when I say we, I mean the wife, has nearly 2 rai of land out the back of the house currently not in use, as rice farming is a loss making exercise. I would love to plant a field of of panels and a battery house for storage. Problem is, cost benefit exercise shows it is beyond my means. No one in the village is able to help fund such a project either, so the land remains unused. But the wife refuses to part with it. Same as the 3 rai nearer the local town. Can't sell this as it has papers on it. No one wants rice land with papers. Nothing generates an income. Land is derelict, deserted. What is the point?

I dont know which way to walk in Thailand, but there could be a way. In south Thailand they had a rubber factory for making rubber pillows. It was subsidized by Thai government, my misses told me. It provided work.

So maybe you (i mean the wife) could interest the government in investing for power?!

You could also start planting kratom trees back again, it can generate an income. And if you eat less then 5 grams, you will get a boost in power, they say. 

 

 

[RubbaJohnny]

On reflection the panel voted for a Showboat to China.

[siamike]

On 8/24/2021 at 5:37 PM, Artisi said:

Of course you have carefully analysed the costs in manufacture along with the costs of disposal at end of life along with the environmental impact of producing and disposal. 

Of course you have, the manufacturers can be trusted 100% in their presentation. 

NREL (a national laboratory of the U.S. Department of Energy) analyzed over 400 Life Cycle Assessment (LCA) studies and concluding that Solar Panels do in fact pay for themselves in a relatively short period of time, both in carbon reductions, embodied energy and electricity, all redeemed well within their operational lifecycle.   I seriously doubt any independent study I might perform would reach a different conclusion.  

 

You don't need to trust or distrust what manufacturers are telling you, but you might want to have a little faith in what independent researchers have found, and also by doing a little digging yourself.  

[Artisi]

1 hour ago, siamike said:

NREL (a national laboratory of the U.S. Department of Energy) analyzed over 400 Life Cycle Assessment (LCA) studies and concluding that Solar Panels do in fact pay for themselves in a relatively short period of time, both in carbon reductions, embodied energy and electricity, all redeemed well within their operational lifecycle.   I seriously doubt any independent study I might perform would reach a different conclusion.  

 

You don't need to trust or distrust what manufacturers are telling you, but you might want to have a little faith in what independent researchers have found, and also by doing a little digging yourself.  

Irrelevant comment, you didn't answer nor did the sighted study address manufacturing and disposal costs and environmental impacts. 

Edited September 11, 2021 by Artisi

[djayz]

How is it pointless to produce clean, energy from renewable resources? 

[Artisi]

2 minutes ago, djayz said:

How is it pointless to produce clean, energy from renewable resources? 

Did anyone say it's pointless? 

[johng]

On 8/24/2021 at 8:41 AM, siamike said:

putting more CO2 into the atmosphere. 

What to do about  the 8 billion humans +  other animals breathing out 24/7 ?

[placeholder]

22 minutes ago, johng said:

What to do about  the 8 billion humans +  other animals breathing out 24/7 ?

The difference is that CO2 exhalations from animals is part of a natural cycle by which that exhaled CO2, ultimately derived from plant sources, gets recycled back into plants. But the CO generated by burning fossil fuels that had been locked up for millions of years, is a net contributor to climate change.

[djayz]

59 minutes ago, Artisi said:

Did anyone say it's pointless? 

see post no. 2

[johng]

22 minutes ago, placeholder said:

But the CO generated by burning fossil fuels that had been locked up for millions of years, is a net contributor to climate change.

So all that C02  was originally in the atmosphere ..how did life survive those high levels ? (Dinosaurs)

also as the human population is the highest it has ever been and deforestation is at the highest level its ever been, shouldn't there be a big attempt to re-green the deforested areas  and perhaps even convert desert areas back into  forest and arable/usable land...yes of course renewable energy is better than burning fossil fuels   but it has to be available and affordable to the 8 billion earthlings

who will use it.

[placeholder]

56 minutes ago, Artisi said:

Irrelevant comment, you didn't answer nor did the sighted study address manufacturing and disposal costs and environmental impacts. 

The IMF did a study that showed that fossil fuels are subsidized to the tune of 6.4% of global gross domestic product. Most of that subsidy comes from the fact that the waste generated by fossil fuels causes various harms. On top of that there is the fact that lots of military expenditure is required to secure global fossil fuel supplies. Would there even have been grounds for war in the mideast if not for the dependence of the world economy on fossil fuels?

https://www.vox.com/2019/5/17/18624740/fossil-fuel-subsidies-climate-imf

It seems extremely unlikely that the cost of mining, manufacturing, and disposing of solar panels could ever approach 6.4% of global gdp.

Also, a new, far less energy and environmentally intense form of solar cell has now begun making its way to the market. They're based on perovskites, which can be sprayed onto surfaces to generate electricity.

 

And there is a metric called EPBT (Energy Payback Time) which does include the cost of manufacturing solar cells.

https://idw-online.de/de/news773460

[placeholder]

7 minutes ago, johng said:

So all that C02  was originally in the atmosphere ..how did life survive those high levels ? (Dinosaurs)

also as the human population is the highest it has ever been and deforestation is at the highest level its ever been, shouldn't there be a big attempt to re-green the deforested areas  and perhaps even convert desert areas back into  forest and arable/usable land...yes of course renewable energy is better than burning fossil fuels   but it has to be available and affordable to the 8 billion earthlings

who will use it.

All that CO2 wasn't originally in the atmosphere at the same time. If that were the case then CO2 would have to be consistently decling since the days when life was created. Geological evidence clearly shows that this is not the case at all.

Deforestation sounds like a great idea, and in areas of the world where there is sufficient rainfall and soil to support new forests it's a great idea. But in some areas, once a forest is destroyed, particularly rainforests, those forests aren't coming back. 

Renewable energy is already sounding the death knell of coal powered plants and it's closing in on gas powered ones.

https://www.lazard.com/media/451419/lazards-levelized-cost-of-energy-version-140.pdf

. There has been huge progress in battery storage, both for vehicles and power plants.

[2old4fixies]

The Thai government should've purchased those ASIC mining rigs that the Malaysian government steamrolled last month.  Couple that with a vertical geothermal cooling system and they could create a steady wealth stream for years.

[siamike]

17 hours ago, Artisi said:

Irrelevant comment, you didn't answer nor did the sighted study address manufacturing and disposal costs and environmental impacts. 

You state that the study I sighted did not address various issues, However, I did not sight a specific study, so I'm curious which NREL study you believe I am referring to.  

 

The NREL study I am referring to does indeed address manufacturing and disposal costs and environmental impacts;  here's an excerpt from that study:

[ramrod711]

On 8/24/2021 at 8:47 AM, Scott Tracy said:

I am in favour of renewable energy, as such. We have...when I say we, I mean the wife, has nearly 2 rai of land out the back of the house currently not in use, as rice farming is a loss making exercise. I would love to plant a field of of panels and a battery house for storage. Problem is, cost benefit exercise shows it is beyond my means. No one in the village is able to help fund such a project either, so the land remains unused. But the wife refuses to part with it. Same as the 3 rai nearer the local town. Can't sell this as it has papers on it. No one wants rice land with papers. Nothing generates an income. Land is derelict, deserted. What is the point?

If your wife is anything like my wife, it is all about security. Land is better than money in the bank.