If I remember correctly Efficiency = Work(out)/Heat(in) It will always be less than one because you never use a 100% of the heat (for the power plant to work you always need to lose some heat in the process)
Everything is incorrect -this is one of those make-believe acts, with an specific agenda (green). Unfortunate (or fortunately depending how your view it), fossil fuels are cheaper and can be improved to more environmentally responsible (check this video to see the impact of solar and wind on the environment ua-cam.com/video/N-yALPEpV4w/v-deo.html)
While efficiency is certainly great, I think power density is going to matter more in the long run. It's great to have something that is efficient at converting one energy to another, but the amount of space we can devote to power plants is also a finite resource. This also has profound impacts on both ecology and commercial development.
We just decided to pick the top 5 for this video. If you want to learn more about it though, we covered it a few months ago here: ua-cam.com/video/aygNHYdv3dk/v-deo.html
+TJ B Geothermal uses turbines too. Efficiency is a function of how hot steam enter the turbine. Geothermal typically captures heat deep underground. So total efficiency (considering heat at the capture point vs electricity produced) is likely in the 20-40% range. The other important aspect is usage of low pressure turbines. Those can increase efficiency by a third, but they cost a bundle and prevent the plant from doing load following. So it might make more sense to do geothermal without low pressure turbines as the fuel is free, just capture more heat and add another turbine if more power is needed. The other aspect not discussed is electrical losses. Nuclear and fossil plants usually are built fairly close to their intended consumers, to minimize electrical losses, while hydro plants (and geothermal) must be built where they can build the damn dam (or they have the high temperature vulcanic heat available). So while hydroelectric can convert up to 95% of mechanical energy into electricity, after 1000 miles of electrical lines that could loose another 20% or more of energy. My Brazil has the 2nd largest hydro electric dam in the world (Itaipu), with the biggest consumer of its energy 1000Km away. Other dams in Brazil have their primary consumer markets as far as 2500km away. But with the fuel being free and no CO2 emissions, hydro is still a good deal almost every time you can use it in large scales. Itaipu generates as much electricity as a half a dozen large nuclear reactors, and hydro can do load following, which allows solar and wind to be added to the grid without needing extra energy storage solutions. That is the biggest problem with solar and wind. Storage. With enough storage Hawaii and all other sunny islands could run 100% on a combination of solar+wind, but without storage that wouldn't work. I suggest looking into Tesla PowerPack and PowerWall.
+TJ B energy.gov/energysaver/geothermal-heat-pumps These geothermal pumps have some crazy 300% efficiency, which doesn't even make sense to me. How could it be that efficient but it's not a common thing to homeowners?
Sim Lash Isn't that a heat pump ? That's not an energy source, but a electrical equipment (that consumes energy). Although it can pump 300% of the energy it consumes, its not "generating" energy.
Okay so can you now describe to us the production costs of 1 MW of solar, taking into consideration the cost of panels and the weekly and costs of cleaning them so they can work efficiently. I think it would change a lot of opinions.
Also solar, like wind turbines output is dependent on the weather conditions and light output from the sun. Taking all of that into consideration I declare nuclear power the true champion, the only thing is it needs to be reimagined and developed.
I am all for solar/wind energy. But if our energy bill goes from $200/month to $1000/month, we wouldnt be able to make that work. If someone is able to make solar/wind energy worth the cost, then you wont have to convince us of anything. We would gladly use it.
Solar power is already reaching cost parody with fossil fuels, particularly as the more easily accessed fossil fuels are getting harder to dig up, the fossil fuel infrastructure is aging and the price and efficiency of Solar continues to drop. Many large scale electronics companies have in the last few years discovered that much of their assembly lines can be easily refitted to mass produce solar panels. This, combined with constant technological improvements mean that if it keeps to the current trend the only thing that will make fossil fuels competitive with solar cost wise in a few years time will be tax breaks and government regulation.
Solar and Wind related Energy is too intermittent & unreliable to be factored in as base load ; it's too inefficient on the Grid. Power Factor Correction and Sine Wave Stability are problems that "renewable energy supporters" tend to ignore...
@@AndyLowe-net I dont think you understand what hes talking about. Its the nature of electricity and how it has to be transmitted. Its like saying "since we know how to split an atom, we should be able to make up the new down!"
There is something fishy in your efficiency formula at 1:23 in the video. Efficiency = Pout / Pin = Pout / (Pout + losses) = (Pin - losses) / Pin where Losses are heat and noise.
I don't pay a lot for sunshine, so I don't really care how efficient my panels are. I just care if I can get all the energy I need from the space on my roof and how much it costs per energy generated. So, efficiency is secondary.
@@mikefranklin70 , they are not cheap, but either is remodeling a bathroom. Yet, a nice new bathroom does not save me any money, but in California a solar energy system typically pays for itself in ~ 5 years. The more a heavy energy user the better for the return on investment. In the link below, it says that in California a typical savings over the life of the system is $73,000 www.solar-estimate.org/solar-panels/california?aff=4713&cam=45&gclid=CjwKCAjwp-X0BRAFEiwAheRui4pDyOGWXj9gHuRrrkURleTkZg_7064awjkpgPNpVIxQRs_43DtByhoC_u8QAvD_BwE
spacedoohicky But if something cost millions of dollars, how many years will it take to make back that 1 million dollars? Will it last before it gets paid off? Those are the questions I want to know also
Candi Soda For a personal installation in 2009 it averages 15 years for a return on investment. Solar panels are cheaper now. So maybe 15 years would be a conservative estimate for paying back the entire cost of a solar plant. So basically solar panels cost less than zero dollars after ~15 years of usage. There's quite a few sites that have info about this. You should look at it yourself. I'm probably a bit off on my numbers because I haven't researched it myself in years. I'd think with this new tech the returns could be much greater. Personal installations are probably better than a plant because of resistance, but a plant is probably more easily maintained. As far as lifespan here's this www.engineering.com/ElectronicsDesign/ElectronicsDesignArticles/ArticleID/7475/What-Is-the-Lifespan-of-a-Solar-Panel.aspx I think that beats millions of dollars spent on coal that has maybe around 20% returns on investment because of mining, transportation of materials, heat loss, and more up down price fluctuation over time. In contrast to solar panels which cost about ~15-30% of what they did in the 1990s at initial cost.
Candi Soda Sure. Like I said I'm probably off on some of my numbers because my info is from around 2009. The link is relevant though. Solar tech is an interesting thing. Being that in some cases it has a more that 100% return on investment which is unlike other energy tech. Wind is close, but it requires far more maintenance, and is more prohibitive for personal installations.
RGplayer101 Thorium reactors are way more efficient and safer than currently used reactors. In fact the US invented them years ago, but since it was during the cold war it was dumped because it couldn't be used to make nuclear weapons. But today that con is now a plus with all the paranoia surrounding nuclear weapons. Also Thorium MSR reactors can't melt down or explode, and they can even run off of nuclear waste, reducing the amount and lifespan of the leftovers.
I highly encourage everyone to google space based solar. Without the atmosphere to filter it, the sun is much more intense in space, and it always shines. The technology to convert and beam the energy back to earth is safe and viable. Japan is investing 30 billion dollars into this and the rest of the world should too. Spread the word!
Solar ranks with nuclear in terms of pollution. For each ton of heavy metal toxins produced as by-products from manufacturing, you can thousands of computers; Or 10 homes worth of solar panels. Thousands of computers is not a bad deal. But solar panels? Ouch.
Not sure what you are saying is 100% accurate. Also that is assuming photovoltaics. There are also technologies that use mirrors to concentrate light at one receptor, which can either use a smaller photovoltaic cell, or heat a fluid to generate power.
its an awesome idea, its perfect for when we manage to build a space elevator. but now, the maintenance cost is just too high. and most of the energy beamed to the earth is lost in the atmosphere, so even though its way better than harvesting on earth, in the end its inefficient because of the energy lost when trying to send it back to us. and there is some people that says that beaming the atmosphere with microwave is not that smart. in the 80's the USA and URSS made some experiments with climate control with huge antennas beaming radiation in the atmosphere... if it worked or not is conspiracy theory
you couldn't compare solar panels to nuclear power plants even if solar had 90% effi and the nuclear had 20% ... the amount of energy easily obtainable from nuclear reactions is simply overwhelming
When you're talking about percentages, the efficiency of nuclear plants is greatly misleading. Get enough solar panels, and you can produce just as much energy as a nuclear plant, and at a much lower risk.
Yes, nuclear and hydro are the only way you are every going to accommodate a growing population that is becoming increasingly dependent on electricity.
Millions Of Gallons Of Toxic and Radioactive WASTE....Not an Option....billions of gallons of freshwater to produce...NOT AN OPTION!!!...Only Sustainable Energy...Geothermal in the USA would be Awesome, It has Very Good results so far!
You forgot gas turbine-steam power-plants which run about 61% efficient. A gas turbine runs at approx 33%. then the exhaust heat is used to make steam for a steam turbine.
Steve b, lol scott was right. Scott was describing "combined cycle". Steam and gas turbine are not the same dude. And when you combined both, efficiency of the plant increase. Haha calling people dumbass when you were ignorant in the first place😂
its not like they made those Specifically to create solar panels and seeing as they already exist obviously they will be used as they are the most common, SO OBVIOUSLY once there starts to be more solar plants produced you can move away from fossil fuels etc and eventually wipe them out and operate more on solar than others which in turn will produce more energy to make more solar Cleanly with solar energy so, NOT A GOOD POINT AT ALL!!!
Now i'm just spitballing ideas here, commercial buildings are great candidates for solar. How much energy does it take to create a gallon of tight oil? Or to extract coal? day after day with no change in end results?
I am a 2nd year chemistry student. At school I once made a polymer film with an Europium complex. I placed that on top of a solar cell and the efficiency went about 2-4% up. It's very fun to do and easy as well. Sadly Europium is very rare and costs a lot of money.
goverments reacting to nuclear fuel: *fwhauisghewaiurhvuiseufghseyuigyseghyuhdf* goverments reacting to fossil fuels: *STONKS* nuclear fuel is the most cleanest way to produce energy so its kinda funny
Talking about efficiency between radically different forms of production is ridiculous. Wind efficiency vs solar efficiency is not comparable in the slightest... you might as well talk about return on investment rather than literal efficiency, because there is no basis to compare a quantity of fossil fuels to a quantity of solar light.
wrong. efficiency is thermodynamic efficiency = (energy output) / (available energy at input), and you can work it out for any kind of energy transforming process, even your muscles, your body, you. Coal has a certain amount of energy per ton (unit weight) locked up in it - burn a ton, boil water, put the steam through a turbine and turn a generator to produce electricity, run the electric through a heating element - how much heat did you get? And sunlight has a certain amount of energy per unit collection area, and you can do the same kind of calculation. The result is a dimensionless number > 0, but < 1 in both cases, and directly comparable.
That is only technically true though, it doesn't actually address the economic viability of solar. There are mountains of costs associated with converting any energy, and these costs are not equal across methods, so speaking of efficiency is a moot point.
look Jacob - the title of the video... We're not talking about cost, or cost-efficiency or whether a thing is affordable or "economically-viable" or economic. That's another subject entirely. You want to talk about those, fine, but that's not the topic here. The efficiency of basic Si solar cells has hardly changed in the last 30 years - the cheapest cells have improved from 12 to 15% overall conversion efficiency. But the cost has reduced by hundreds of times. Utility solar electricity is now cheaper than generation from coal per MWh, or around 3.8c/kWh, and getting cheaper.
This video has a political angle, people are going to take from this that solar is more efficient and people will come up with conspiracy theories about why we're this magical technology isn't widespread
nonsense, Jacob. There's no politics here. Words have meanings, not just what you want them to mean. 'Efficient' has a very definite meaning. It's completely quantitative - not some qualitative hand-waving. Solar is potentially much more efficient as a means of generation of electricity, AND more cost-efficient - Trace tells you what's lost in turning heat from burning coal into electricity. None of that long chain happens with solar. The laws of thermodynamics tell you that coalfire->steam->alternator just cannot be made to be very efficient - it has too many steps. And, capping it all, with solar, the source energy falls on you out of the sky - you don't have to dig it out of the ground, or transport it to the point where you will convert it into electric - these two are the primary cost of coal, and they _don't happen at all_ with solar - the energy comes to you, wherever you are. This 'magical technology' is becoming more widespread with every day that passes - it's been held up by vested interests far too long - there's your only 'conspiracy', if you insist on finding one. And it's attracting much of the available investment, along with windpower, which at present is the cheapest source of bulk electricity ever - nobody is going to be building new coal-fired power plants, in fact they are shutting them down as fast as they can bring alternatives on-stream. E.G. the chinese have decided not to build dozens of plants they planned for 10 years ago.
Schwarzer Ritter yeah 6-8 weeks for outages. However assuming everything goes to plan it will run for 18 months. Multiple nuclear reactors are the best because a nuclear power plant is constantly providing energy. Also, nuclear doesn't have the limitations of solar or wind with the fact that wind stops and it is not always day, because you can't stop radioactive decay.
I heard Co-gens were 80% efficient. I would be interested if you did a comparison of $/KW-hr over say 5, 10, 20 years of the project. To make it fair all costs would have to be included.
When the weather is right we use solar power to heat our hot water. For heating the house we use a log burner to burn the prunings from the olive groves which have to be burnt to stop the spread of pests and diseases. They used to be burnt in situ on the hillsides resulting in a lot of smoke particulates (low temperature burn) but by burning them in the logburner, we achieve much higher temperatures ensuring that the smoke particulates are burnt giving very little smoke at all.
in Germany heat from power plants is used for heating private houses. the Audi facilities in Ingolstadt are heated using 'waste' heat from a nearby power plant... which is a trash burning power plant
which is good for the Environment... it makes People think twice before wasting energy and oil. and actually Prices are quite ok. everyone complains about them but that's everywhere the same. and People who can't afford it get help from the state.
Stefan Sierraoneoneseven true I just feel spoiled from living in America after bring being in Germany for 2 years now some centralized air wouldn't kill anyone.
Nuclear power is best. We just need to figure out more advanced methods as well as figure out how to dispose of the waste properly, then it's all up to good regulation to keep it safe. Wind and solar just aren't that good, but they should definitely replace coal burning factories.
"We just need to figure out more advanced methods as well as figure out how to dispose of the waste properly(...)". Well, you just said why many people think that nuclear isn't the best. At least, right now. If those problems are solved, *then*, yeah, it would be the best by far. Maybe if the nuclear fusion reactor becomes a reality. Until then... Not really. Nuclear waste is a really, really, reaaly big problem.
Yeah, but the research into nuclear seems to be making headway. More research is surely needed but with large projects like HIPER and the NIF, as well as lockheed's project to make a 100mw reactor in a few years, and material advances that may make molten salt reactors (thorium/uranium) a reality, they dwarf the energy you can make from a chemical process. orders of magnitude. you can call something 90% efficient, but if its from molecular sources, or the force carrier photons of the EM spectrum you're still way off from the strong nuclear force's raw dominance. molten salt looked like a stop gap until fusion, and to many still does, but if lockheed follows its schedule even approximately it may not be the case
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liquid_fluoride_thorium_reactor there are others as well, Loads of people just Freak at any mention of Reactors. don't take my word for it! ted talks Feature many Brilliant Folks in the field talking about them, and many other Great solutions.
nuclear fission and nuclear fusion are two different things. nuclear fusion only produces energy and helium. there is no uranium involved and therefore no nuclear waste.
Yeah, I'm already envious enough of Norwegians, no need to rub that in as well. Fucking number 1 HDI in the world for years..... it's not fair, why should only norwegians be happy :(
So instead of tapping 210 W/m^2 (15% efficiency) at peak hours, they can tap 616 W/m^2 (44% efficiency); so we've gone from powering 9% of an electric oven per square meter to being able to power 26% of an electric per square meter at peak hours in the day (given the standard electric oven consumes 2300 Wh/h). I am deeply impressed...
All forms of clean energy have strengths and weaknesses, and the efficiency of any single method isn't relevant. The only factor that’s relevant, is what method is most practical in the environment it will be used in. I.E. how much wind, sun, hydro, thermal geographic access is there. Nuclear plants need reasonably isolated stable land in close proximity to a metropolitan area. And wind and solar work best if you put little bits of it everywhere and connect it to storage facilities as part of a smart grid. Window treatment, photoelectric paint, rooftop arrays, it all adds up. Corporations don't want to put money in the decentralized approach, because you can't easily bottle it up to sell. Here’s an idea, put together these new PV cells with Airlight Energy’s Dsolar dish, that uses a water cooling technology developed by IBM to use sea water to cool CPV’s. Put these dishes on coastal deserts to use the heated sea water from cooling the cells to start the desalination process and run pumps to flood large areas of desert with the brackish water. Then use aquatic plants and microorganisms to further clean the water so they can support tasty fish. Terraforming that produces energy neutral food, is good no?
Sounds like it would pretty much destroy the desert ecosystem where it is located. We have a tendency to think there is nothing going on in the desert, but I bet there actually is.
It's great that hydroelectric is efficient, but it also has ecological impacts in the rivers that it's in. This also didn't factor in any pollution created in making any of these. There are a lot more factors to think about than just efficiency when deciding upon one.
What's the efficiency of a solar panel at 2 am? I'm taking a look here around... There is no wind. The wind turbines aren't moving. What's its efficiency at this point of time ?
This video is misleading in that the raw efficiency of a source of power isn't the most important thing. While increasing efficiency does increase the usefulness of a technology, if you are investing in solar power, for example, the % efficiency is less important than the amount of power per dollar invested and the amount of watts per aggregate ton of emitted CO2. The highest efficiency solar panels are always extremely expensive and are almost never worth actually using. This advance should be taken as more of a benchmark for how the technology is progressing. One day we'll have 48% efficient panels everywhere, just not anytime soon, For example, if solar panels were super cheap to make (which has changed a lot recently), it wouldn't matter that they are 15% efficient, since we're only using a tiny portion of incoming solar energy. The fact that hydro is really efficient is due to the dynamics of a power station. The potential energy of a water column can't really be lost, and a turbine is a simple enough and well-understood enough mechanism that we can get a lot of efficiency out of it. The trouble with hydro is that there aren't that many viable places where we can build dams, and the dams themselves are really expensive.
One thing I have yet to see addressed in any sort of video like this is the fact that the power grid is under a constant need for energy, solar doesnt produce at night, wind doesnt produce when the wind isnt blowing. And batteries dont hold enough power to power a city.
It's not about energy efficiency. It's about impact (footprint) on the environment and resource. Efficiency can lower that impact but it's not the end game. Efficacy or effectiveness is the goal. Solar PV efficiency of 46% is wonderful but if it costs a lot in terms of implementation it's a problem. Hydro is great but there are short and medium term environmental impacts (localized flooding and redistribution of organics in the soil) that vary widely by location. Nuclear is also very effective but seems to have very scary long term impact (radioactive waste). A low solar PV energy efficiency is not a problem if its cheap enough. Any electrical power generation also requires a battery or storage system of some sort and that also cuts into efficiency. All energy generation/fuel conversion/capture systems then require a transmission grid and it's attendant losses and implementation and maintenance costs.
The efficiency of solar cells is not that much of a big deal, because the sun is shining anyway. If 2/3 of the sunlight is wasted, then that is still better than not having a solar cell because that would waste 100% of the sunlight on a given surface. Powerplants that use fuel are different to that. If you have a fixed amount of fuel, that you even have to pay for and that polutes the planet, you should really worry about every % of the energy inside that fuel, that could be used. Even if solar cells would have less than 10% efficiency, you would only waste solar rays, that you get for free, if you want to have them or not.
The problem with the low efficiency of solar is that it would be extremely expensive and would require very large quantities of land in order to meet the enegery demands of today. Putting solar panels on individual houses or buildings is a great idea to help reduce our energy needs, but we will still need another source capable of putting out the energy we need, unfortunately solar as it stands would be far too expensive and take up far to much room to act on its own
+Transhumanist Space Exploration That's a good thing. I think solar panels are a good option to be placed on rooftops but they couldn't realistically meet all of o it power needs. Solar panels should be more of a cost controller for people instead of a full on source of power.
+Transhumanist Space Exploration It's hot fusion they are investing in. But that date is relatively correct for when the ITER will go online. Cold fusion is has never been replicated. I never said that Solar and wind couldn't meet the global energy demand it's just that it would be much more costly (several times) and would take up vast amount of land. Though this could be minimized if hydroelectric power was brought in as that is highly productive and is the only source that can have power stations that produce more than current nuclear reactors.
Yes. Germany and France have the Wendelstein 7-x stellarator and the ITER tokomak respectively. Both are huge milestones in the path towards fusion power
+Transhumanist Space Exploration The purposes of fusion power is to produce the stable fusion of our Sun's core. Well the energy production of the Sun's core is less than 300 watts per cubic meter ( look it up ), who is less than that of a hot compost pile. Yes, higher energy production rates us possible with less stability such as in a fusion bomb but Fusion power is an oversold concept to get funding for research. Don't get me wrong, the research is valuable in itself but for civilian energy production it's not.
Another thing concerning the energy efficiency: you should also add the (energy) cost of producing of the equipment to the equation, as well as the maintenance requirements.
A bit of a clarification: the thermodynamic power cycle efficiency is defined as "usable power or energy output/power or energy input" or "1-(final cold temp/initial combusted hot temp)". You may have the concept right, but your terms are misleading. The power output (energy produced per unit of time) - say 500MW - is divided by the power input of the coal, natural gas, geothermal source, or nuclear material (for turbine related power production). For example, natural gas and oxygen (i.e. air) are fed into the combustor at a particular mass flow rate, whose chemical bonds have energy. On combustion with oxygen, the (ideal) products formed are water and CO2, whose bonds also have an energy associated with them. The difference in energy between the reactant and product bonds represents the MAXIMUM energy one can obtain from a chemical reaction. In reality, we cannot capture all - or even most - of that energy in coal and nuclear plants (combined cycle natural gas plants are the exception in that CCNG plants approach 60% efficiency). To use the 33% coal plant efficiency example used in the video, this means that coal and oxygen are fed to the combustor at a rate of 1500MW (worth of bond energy in the reactants and products): 33%=500MW/1500MW. With regard to comparing efficiencies across different power sources, one has to be careful: electricity produced via photovoltaic power is a completely different process than that of a thermal power plant, the latter which uses a power cycle. Solar PV bypasses the power cycle altogether, and so avoids this setback. The energy efficiency of a solar PV system is the ratio of the incoming solar energy (power) striking the solar panels to the output electric energy (power) leaving the panels. Another measure, the quantum efficiency, is the ratio of charge carriers produced/the number of incident photons striking the panel. So 46% is HUGE for solar PV if it is a reality and can be produced affordably. Keep in mind also that sunlight is "free" energy - doesn't have to be mined, blown off mountain tops, fracked, or entail toxic emissions and disposal - the latter in the case of coal byproducts/residuals and nuclear waste.
+OculusGames That's not entirely true. Yes, the cost of solar has been steadily dropping but it is only being competitive with fossil sources because coal power plants which produce power at 3 cents a kWh are being shut down and being replaced with natural gas power plants and wind turbines which are upwards of 16 cents a kWh. Besides, with the new administration, the restrictions closing the coal plants will likely be dropped.
But how do you supply your evening peak demand when it is dark outside, and the wind is not blowing, and you live in a water scarce country? This happens more often than I'd like to be without electricity. Can you store enough energy in batteries or sodium chloride solutions to power a whole country's peak demand?
While the fossil fuel industry has made a lot of money for some very brilliant and deserving people, like civil, mechanical, and chemical engineers, and geophysicists - people whose intellect and hard work I have the utmost respect for - the fossil fuel industry also makes a lot of useless people wealthy as well. Some of these people are land owners, who were merely fortunate enough to own land that happened to have large amounts of fossil fuels. Some of these people are business types, who make money doing the simple task of selling this fuel. Some of these people who are wealthy, are the children of these useless people, who, due to the good old boy system which is rampant in the fossil fuel industry, get their lucrative professions due to nepotism. So outside of getting a cheaper, cleaner, and a limitless supply of fuel, once the greater efficiency of these greener sources of energy becomes more accessible to the public, the other positive is that these aforementioned useless people, who are not wealthy because of their talent, but because of circumstances born of the fossil fuel industry, will now finally be on the losing side of the economic ladder - where they belong.
People dance around with wind/wave/solar as though this is gonna change the world - it won't simply because we cannot get enough kWh's out of those sources - even if they ran at 100% efficiency. Wind and solar (especially) use rare Earth elements normally from China and are completely dependent on location (latitude, climate, offshore etc). In the meantime we are encountering massive growth in energy consumption from the developing world and I'm not talking of people buying widescreen TV's, this is people having a single lightbulb and the ability to cook their food without using wood sources - the west would have to cut consumption by 95% at current levels to supply them with equivalent energy needs that we have in the west see Tim Jackson's TED talk on this issue (www.ted.com/talks/tim_jackson_s_economic_reality_check#t-502834) . Trendy renewables, admirable as they are simply cannot do this - this is not gonna be the revolution people want. The thing that frustrates me is that the Green parties know this but they insist on banging the renewable drum drum - and all it will do is hold back the developing world. This century, nuclear is king, it is clean and extremely powerful, but it's important to remember this is not renewable - it will run out. Oil and gas will run out in the next hundred or so years anyway making them irrelevant. Coal's good too when used in terms of carbon capture and storage - and there's enough of it for an additional century. This will see us through until thorium has proved its worth, and who knows, maybe we will get there with fusion. The thing about it is nuclear is coming whether we like it or not. Once the lights start flickering and the heating in the house stops, people will grow very angry, demanding a solution. I just wish there was a way of filtering power so that Green anti-nuclear supporters experienced this first. Being 'green' they are the ones that should have embraced this from the start, but because their CND roots, hold a politcal agenda instead of doing things for the good of mankind.
Karl Beal I read that if we continue development towards other reactors we'll have enough power to last longer than the earth would, is there any weight to that?
Prof. Phoenix, there is a misconception that nuclear is the everlasting hope - enough to see us through many human lifetimes unfortunately, the reality is far from this. Firstly, we cannot mine enough U235 to provide fuel to our existing reactors (average ore grade at about 0.3% from mined yellowcake), resulting in countries like the US and UK topping up from ex-military supplies. Secondly, even if we could mine fast enough to supply, reasonably assured resources (RAR) predictions show we will run out of U235 around the end of the century (inferred resources (IR) in combination with RAR take us only to the middle of the next century (from Energy Watch Group's 2006 paper 1/06). We can stave off some of the supply issues with secondary sources of uranium, (such as tail stocks of depleted uranium from previous enrichment and reprocessing from existing reactors), mixed oxide fuel (MOX) in fast breeder reactors using U238 - but this requires enrichment of around 20% and the process is very slow. Costs of building this type of reactor and managing its waste make them extremely expensive and undesirable. To summarise, unfortunately nuclear is not eternal - it experiences the same finite limitation fossil fuels have - we can stretch this resource out to buy us more time, but it requires innovation and a lot of money (in the same way, refer to thorium 232 work experimental work currently being undertaken as an alternative).
They "forgot" to mention a hidden facet of efficiency: solar and wind generation facilities require vast areas of land, which means they have to be located much farther from where the electricity is actually used. There is substantial loss in transporting the power over those distances. Offshore wind only makes this worse.
humanyoda no you don't want to be because you want to get he most energy in the smallest and fastest way especially since the panels themselves don't just come out of the sky in huge amounts for free
Energy wise it's enough, of course, but the resource cost goes up. Panels need maintenance and have a limited lifetime and eventually have to be replaced every couple of decades. You want an energy solution that is as resource efficient as you can make it. Otherwise even if you're getting enough energy, you're slowly losing.
There are wind turbines being tested that instead of just off a tower it actually is full of helium (or something else) and floats in the sky much higher than any other sort of turbine (was even featured in big hero 6) so not sure if it is more efficient or not but putting it out there
+Arvind Andrew Das There is wireless power transmission and it's even used in some power grid's around the world but it's only about 80% efficient. However, calculations of space based power stations still show higher capital costs compared to Earth based power stations even if the launch costs were reduced to zero.
@@johnwang9914 Which wireless power grid is 80% efficient? I've only heard about a small experimental one with resonators and that was still less than 50%.
@Seeker I am pretty sure that you calculations are incorrect. As far as I know, efficiency is output power divided by input power. So in case of Power plants that would be total electricity generated in watts divided by total energy fed to the turbines in watts. Do Correct me if I'm wrong.
Your efficiency equation is messed up. It should be: the electrical energy output divided by the accesible energy delivered (electromagnetic energy of the sun rays, wind kinetic energy, chemical energy of the fuel). If you want to include not only electricity but also heat into the numerator, as you did in the video, then steam-cycle coal plants with cogeneration reach above 90%.
+candiduscorvus Well, you can go off grid now by using batteries but amortizing the capital costs of such an off-road system over the estimated power production over the design life would probably be about four times the cost per kWh of buying from the grid. Being grid tied instead of battery based can bring the costs down a lot but it would still be less expensive to just buy from the grid. Unless you look at say the forcasted energy costs of say Alberta where they are planning to update their entire grid, at Alberta's forcasts, personal photovoltaics may be a viable option especially if the carbon tax is ramped up as it's expected to be. Unfortunately, as capital expenses, only the rich would benefit from solar in Alberta.
You already can go completely off-grid with todays Photovoltaic & Wind Power generation and electrical storage technologies but the initial cost is significantly higher than a grid tied system and you'll likely never recover the cost of the investment on such a system or will have an extremely long payback period unless your local grid electricity rates are extremely high.
"It's 46% efficient!" *How much does it cost to produce a kWh?* "to calculate output efficiency..." *How much does it cost per kWh?* "even the most efficient coal pants are only 45% efficient" *Supercritical brown coal is $95 per mega-kWh. If solar is more expensvie then it's less efficient on aggregate. HOW MUCH per kWh for solar? The EDF reports $293 per mega-kWh in 2011. Did it become 10% more efficient, so now what $291/mega-kWh?* *Is it comforting to lie about solar being viable?*
That is a terrible sales pitch for solar. It works but only for a city in the middle of a desert at 115 degrees latitude and with 15 hours of sun every 24 hours.
himura kenshiro Yes, but Las Vegas is a desert wijth pretty much Sun and almost no clouds year long. If we were to use solar panels in, let's say, Seattle, that would be very expensive and inefficient as it rains too often.
Heat efficiency is not the same thing resource efficiency, which is the primary concern for environmental and economic evaluation. Hydro is of course the most heat efficient: It doesn't burn anything. The way to calculate resource efficiency is to take [(total cost)--(cost of direct and indirect subsidies)+(direct and indirect taxes and regulatory costs)+(estimated costs of externalities)-(estimated benefits of externalities)]/(MegwatsPerYear Produced) : ( C - S + G - Xc +Xb ) / mWPY (A year baseline is preferred to an hour because the output of solar and wind plants varies drastically throughout the day and year.) S, G, Xc and Xb will necessarily be estimates, and affected by analyst bias, and thus efficiency scores will vary between analysts. But most economist agree that by any measure solar and wind are horribly resource inefficient by any measure, and will remain so until we can place massive solar stations in orbit and beam the energy to earth safely. In other words, in terms of damage to the environment done per mWat produced, Solar and Wind are currently the WORST (most damaging) sources of energy.
Efficiency is one thing, but how much energy do photons have that is usuable in photo voltaic cells? If I use a 100% of the energy produced by a wax candle, it's still less energy than I would get from capturing 30% of the energy from the same mass of kerosene. I am all for renewable energy, but it simply cannot supply 100% of our current needs much less the increasing energy demands of the future. To replace a 1800 megawatt nuclear unit which takes up 1.7 square miles. You would need 169 square miles of wind turbines and 21 square miles of solar panels. Coal plants need even less, 640 acres compared to the 1100 acres for a nuclear plant. Nuclear is the only solution we have that is cleaner, safer, and more energy rich than coal. Wind an solar are nice, but they will never supply the needs of the US or other industrial world powers like China. We need nuclear to fill the large gaps that renewable will never be able fill.
Imagine the world's biggest deserts covered in solar plants. It would be more than enough energy for the world and by absorbing sunlight and providing shade beneath the panels you would gradually make them cooler, so that they will shrink, or at least, stop growing.
Now imagine the world's biggest deserts covered in mirrors that focus the light into fewer higher strength solar panels. Also desertification isn't due to the heat of the ground, it's the climate changing so that it rains less in a wider area. Deserts are just defined as places where it doesn't rain much.
deanna smith Of course it is, everyone knows things grow when you heat them... hey I've got an idea, we should heat the polar ice, then it'll grow and we'll fix the problem.
what is the total picture cost? how much energy goes into coal and nuclear plants vs. solar plants? Land costs, costs of materials and energy to make the solution plus the manhours, plus the possible pollution clean up costs for the manufacturring process? I have yet to see any analysis in that fashion.
We need all forms of energy, and that is a fact. I personally prefer nuclear, mainly because of it's efficiency in outputting to the electric grid (not the equation he used but the amount of time a nuclear power plant provides for the electrical grid). Also nuclear is far safer than any of the other sources of electricity, with the exception of geothermal because of the very little maintenance that has to be done on it. However, like I said earlier we need all forms of energy because not all of them are perfect and never will be perfect, that is why I like what France does and has a lot of sources of energy.
SgtKilgore406 i've read somewhere that actually the number of failed nuclear power plant is much lower than coal-based power plant. however the environmental effects of those failing power plants are more severe. when we want to call it safer or not, we must first argue the definition of "safe" itself
Nope, this is false, including the bit about "safety". You only "need" all forms of energy if you want it to continue being cheap for the next 50 years. Either way, prices will go up and we'll only have renewables then. Nuclear is dead.
Ynemey ummm.... nuclear can give technically "infinite" energy so in long term nuclear is not dead. the reason why nuclear is hated is because of its safety rather than its cost and its efficiency.
Ari Sudewa That is not an argument that matters. Wind, solar, hydro, thermal, nuclear, tidal, bio; they are all close to infinite. I am talking politically and socio-economically. Nuclear is politically dead and dying socio-economically.
What type of nuclear energy is dying? Fusion or fission? As far as I know fusion energy is undergoing rapid development and I think it is our next hope to keep the world light up
Solar is a means to extract energy from a fusion reactor; the sun. Kind of similar to the way a steam generator is used to extract energy from a fission reactor.
+Kevin Ping The hope for a fusion reactor is to somehow achieve the stable fusion of our Sun's core. Well, look at the energy production of our Sun's core, it's about 300 watts per cubic meter which is less energy production than a hot compost pile. Obviously, more energy can be produced but only with less stable fusion conditions with the most extreme being the fusion bomb. The public is misled about fusion power and though the research is good useful research, the prospects of safe fusion power is overstated. It would be better to invest in safer fission reactors such as Liquid Flouride Thorium Reactors and or Doppler pebble reactors.
Good summary of all the technologies, but you left out fuel cells; specifically, Solid Oxide Fuel Cells (SOFC). SOFC's can reach as high as 70% and they run on natural gas just like a lot of gas fired power plants.
The efficiency thermal Power plants (like coal) can be improved by combining power generation and district heating. Small oil or coal plants that use their waste heat to heat the nearby households can have up to 90% efficiency.
+burningSHADOW42 Ultimately, fossil fuels are energy captured from the Sun by ancient photosynthesis and given that modern plants are about 0.5% efficient at capturing solar energy by photosynthesis...
46% panel efficiency looks bad on paper and to the wallet, but 46% of a number you can't accurately measure because its so high, is still more than we need.
You missed something when burning coal in power plants!!! You have to also subtract out the energy required to MINE and TRANSPORT the coal. ...It's similar to the oversight of using ethanol, it requires more energy to produce it than it yields.
You did not mention transmission losses. Also , dams built for hydro power create reservoirs , which in turn release a huge amount of greenhouse gases (methane from rotting vegetation ) in the long run . You could make a video on the pros and cons of Thorium Molten Salt Nuclear reactors .
Capacity factor is far more important then efficiency. even if solar had an efficiency of 100% but if it's capacity factor is only 15% ( at best). then still a storage device Is needed to draw power from the other 85% of the time. So for a 1Gw solar plant you need a 5Gw solar farm store the 4Gw of power to use later at night then draw on the storage on cloudy days.
No mention of all the externalities involved. You have to build a solar panel or wind turbine, but after you deploy it you don't need fuel source. You have to build a coal, nuclear, or hydro plant, and once you do that you still have to feed it raw resources which have their own impact (mining, transport, flooding, etc). It would be more accurate to bundle in all those externalities before making an assessment of "efficiency".
I'm in Southern Arizona. Getting these more efficient solar panels installed on the roof of one's house would be a godsend for homeowners and businesses. With as much sun as we get down here, it'd be stupid NOT to do that.
Answer: none. the greater mistake we are making, is not how the electricity is produced but rather, how it is being inefficiently misused. During peak usage hours, the electricity is obviously feeding the grid and being used.. but during off peak hours when there is very little demand for electricity, it is not cost effective to store and yet we do it anyway with battery Banks etc. Leading to a huge waste of money. Instead of storing unneeded electricity we should be converting it to hydrogen and using the hydrogen to power vehicles.
dude We cant convert to hydrogen electricty you will need a LOT of resources and its not efficent. we are not in a sci fi movie also if we ever converted to hydrogen vehicles, we still need oil ahem: *plastic*
IT IS TIME TO CHANGE THE DELIVERY SYSTEM OF POWER! NO MORE COPPER MINING, WE HAVE PLENTY OF SCRAP TO RECYCLE FOR DECADES! THERE ARE HUNDREDS OF NEW INVENTIONS JUST BECAUSE THE OIL CORPORATE MEDIA DONT ALLOW IT INTO AMERICA YOU DONT SEE IT UNLESS YOU LOOK FOR IT! ION BATTERY IS PROMISING AND SUSTAINABLE UNLIKE LITHIUM...TRUMPS COUP INCENTIVE OF AMERICA!
I am curious as to how the effeciency of solar is measured in this video? Are you referring to the energy that is transmitted to the grid vs energy wasted due to heating of the turbine etc. Burnt coal stays chemically changed, however wind that is not captured stays in motion.
What is the efficiency when you add in the cost or energy used to extract coal, process coal and transport coal to the power plant? Renewable have almost none of those costs or energy uses to contend with once they're up and running....
I think all clean forms of producing energy should work together, Hydroelectric+Wind+Solar=Success We can't think of these individually and expect just one to run everything, it's unrealistic. But it's necessary for us to rely solely on these and rid ourselves of fossil fuels, the earth is dying and it's worst to go extinct than to make a sacrifice and learn how to live without fossil fuels. It's not a matter of debate anymore, it has to happen for us to continue to exist.
For the people that are asking about the different costs of the different energy types I'd like to direct you towards the EIA report on LCOE(Levelized cost of electricity). It accounts for the lifetime cost, fuel costs, O&M, the time value of money and is probably the most reliable tool for comparing costs of generation technologies. It is by no means perfect and the intermittent power sources have to be taken with a grain of salt due to the capacity factor varying greatly by location, but that factor is accounted for in the report and as such it serves as a good average estimate to use. www.eia.gov/outlooks/aeo/pdf/electricity_generation.pdf
Your efficiency equation is incorrect. It's energy out divided by energy in.
his efficiency is 100% for everything...
Irrespective of whether efficiency is 1 or less than 1, the equation is fundamentally wrong. May confuse people new to the subject.
THANK YOUU
If I remember correctly
Efficiency = Work(out)/Heat(in)
It will always be less than one because you never use a 100% of the heat (for the power plant to work you always need to lose some heat in the process)
Everything is incorrect -this is one of those make-believe acts, with an specific agenda (green). Unfortunate (or fortunately depending how your view it), fossil fuels are cheaper and can be improved to more environmentally responsible (check this video to see the impact of solar and wind on the environment ua-cam.com/video/N-yALPEpV4w/v-deo.html)
While efficiency is certainly great, I think power density is going to matter more in the long run. It's great to have something that is efficient at converting one energy to another, but the amount of space we can devote to power plants is also a finite resource. This also has profound impacts on both ecology and commercial development.
What about geothermal power like in Iceland?
We just decided to pick the top 5 for this video. If you want to learn more about it though, we covered it a few months ago here: ua-cam.com/video/aygNHYdv3dk/v-deo.html
DNews
Thank you thank you.
+TJ B Geothermal uses turbines too. Efficiency is a function of how hot steam enter the turbine. Geothermal typically captures heat deep underground.
So total efficiency (considering heat at the capture point vs electricity produced) is likely in the 20-40% range.
The other important aspect is usage of low pressure turbines. Those can increase efficiency by a third, but they cost a bundle and prevent the plant from doing load following.
So it might make more sense to do geothermal without low pressure turbines as the fuel is free, just capture more heat and add another turbine if more power is needed.
The other aspect not discussed is electrical losses. Nuclear and fossil plants usually are built fairly close to their intended consumers, to minimize electrical losses, while hydro plants (and geothermal) must be built where they can build the damn dam (or they have the high temperature vulcanic heat available). So while hydroelectric can convert up to 95% of mechanical energy into electricity, after 1000 miles of electrical lines that could loose another 20% or more of energy.
My Brazil has the 2nd largest hydro electric dam in the world (Itaipu), with the biggest consumer of its energy 1000Km away. Other dams in Brazil have their primary consumer markets as far as 2500km away. But with the fuel being free and no CO2 emissions, hydro is still a good deal almost every time you can use it in large scales. Itaipu generates as much electricity as a half a dozen large nuclear reactors, and hydro can do load following, which allows solar and wind to be added to the grid without needing extra energy storage solutions.
That is the biggest problem with solar and wind. Storage. With enough storage Hawaii and all other sunny islands could run 100% on a combination of solar+wind, but without storage that wouldn't work.
I suggest looking into Tesla PowerPack and PowerWall.
+TJ B energy.gov/energysaver/geothermal-heat-pumps
These geothermal pumps have some crazy 300% efficiency, which doesn't even make sense to me. How could it be that efficient but it's not a common thing to homeowners?
Sim Lash Isn't that a heat pump ? That's not an energy source, but a electrical equipment (that consumes energy). Although it can pump 300% of the energy it consumes, its not "generating" energy.
Okay so can you now describe to us the production costs of 1 MW of solar, taking into consideration the cost of panels and the weekly and costs of cleaning them so they can work efficiently. I think it would change a lot of opinions.
On top of that the life expectancy of Solar panels.
Also solar, like wind turbines output is dependent on the weather conditions and light output from the sun. Taking all of that into consideration I declare nuclear power the true champion, the only thing is it needs to be reimagined and developed.
I am all for solar/wind energy. But if our energy bill goes from $200/month to $1000/month, we wouldnt be able to make that work. If someone is able to make solar/wind energy worth the cost, then you wont have to convince us of anything. We would gladly use it.
Solar power is already reaching cost parody with fossil fuels, particularly as the more easily accessed fossil fuels are getting harder to dig up, the fossil fuel infrastructure is aging and the price and efficiency of Solar continues to drop. Many large scale electronics companies have in the last few years discovered that much of their assembly lines can be easily refitted to mass produce solar panels. This, combined with constant technological improvements mean that if it keeps to the current trend the only thing that will make fossil fuels competitive with solar cost wise in a few years time will be tax breaks and government regulation.
Bryn Phillips Well, I havent noticed a price drop in solar energy. But I hope you are right.
I have surely noticed a price drop in fossil fuels in the past 10 years as a result of fracking.
RonPaul Revered Which is awesome! I love it.
vottoduder Me too!
I'm still waiting on fusion reactors to come along and destroy the competition!
Sure let's make a sun that could collapse and become a white dwarf on earth said no one ever
darkheat246
yeah I think you took destroy too literally :D
darkheat246 not sure if joking... or just stupid
***** I was kidding although imploding miniature star on your enemy would be epic
darkheat246 Nah. Didn't you watch Spider-man 2? Just throw it in the ocean.
Solar and Wind related Energy is too intermittent & unreliable to be factored in as base load ; it's too inefficient on the Grid.
Power Factor Correction and Sine Wave Stability are problems that "renewable energy supporters" tend to ignore...
I think if we can split an atom then we can solve the aforementioned problems if we put our minds to it. Or are you defeatist on the issue
@@AndyLowe-net I dont think you understand what hes talking about. Its the nature of electricity and how it has to be transmitted. Its like saying "since we know how to split an atom, we should be able to make up the new down!"
There is something fishy in your efficiency formula at 1:23 in the video. Efficiency = Pout / Pin = Pout / (Pout + losses) = (Pin - losses) / Pin where Losses are heat and noise.
Robert Evans q
I don't pay a lot for sunshine, so I don't really care how efficient my panels are. I just care if I can get all the energy I need from the space on my roof and how much it costs per energy generated. So, efficiency is secondary.
Where did you get those free panels? So we can all get some!
@@mikefranklin70 , they are not cheap, but either is remodeling a bathroom. Yet, a nice new bathroom does not save me any money, but in California a solar energy system typically pays for itself in ~ 5 years. The more a heavy energy user the better for the return on investment.
In the link below, it says that in California a typical savings over the life of the system is $73,000 www.solar-estimate.org/solar-panels/california?aff=4713&cam=45&gclid=CjwKCAjwp-X0BRAFEiwAheRui4pDyOGWXj9gHuRrrkURleTkZg_7064awjkpgPNpVIxQRs_43DtByhoC_u8QAvD_BwE
ua-cam.com/video/Oa5mvmbxNio/v-deo.html
@@beetlebuice8666 video removed for harassment
@@KillroyX99 yeah ik lmao
Aaaaand cost of production not mentioned... As always
Doesn't that decrease with solar over time compared to coal as solar panels only need to be manufactured once while coal has to be constantly mined.
spacedoohicky
But if something cost millions of dollars, how many years will it take to make back that 1 million dollars? Will it last before it gets paid off?
Those are the questions I want to know also
Candi Soda For a personal installation in 2009 it averages 15 years for a return on investment. Solar panels are cheaper now. So maybe 15 years would be a conservative estimate for paying back the entire cost of a solar plant. So basically solar panels cost less than zero dollars after ~15 years of usage. There's quite a few sites that have info about this. You should look at it yourself. I'm probably a bit off on my numbers because I haven't researched it myself in years. I'd think with this new tech the returns could be much greater. Personal installations are probably better than a plant because of resistance, but a plant is probably more easily maintained.
As far as lifespan here's this www.engineering.com/ElectronicsDesign/ElectronicsDesignArticles/ArticleID/7475/What-Is-the-Lifespan-of-a-Solar-Panel.aspx
I think that beats millions of dollars spent on coal that has maybe around 20% returns on investment because of mining, transportation of materials, heat loss, and more up down price fluctuation over time. In contrast to solar panels which cost about ~15-30% of what they did in the 1990s at initial cost.
THANK YOU!
Read it, that's interesting stuff
Candi Soda Sure. Like I said I'm probably off on some of my numbers because my info is from around 2009. The link is relevant though.
Solar tech is an interesting thing. Being that in some cases it has a more that 100% return on investment which is unlike other energy tech. Wind is close, but it requires far more maintenance, and is more prohibitive for personal installations.
My favorite form of power generation is nuclear. Recently I've been very intrigued by thorium reactors.
try to convince people to do THAT. with the stigma about nuclear energy I think people would not like it a lot.
I like nuclear. quite a lot in fact.
well you're one of the few
RGplayer101 I think you'd be hard pressed to find a DNews viewer who dislikes Nuclear power ;)
RGplayer101 Thorium reactors are way more efficient and safer than currently used reactors. In fact the US invented them years ago, but since it was during the cold war it was dumped because it couldn't be used to make nuclear weapons. But today that con is now a plus with all the paranoia surrounding nuclear weapons. Also Thorium MSR reactors can't melt down or explode, and they can even run off of nuclear waste, reducing the amount and lifespan of the leftovers.
I highly encourage everyone to google space based solar. Without the atmosphere to filter it, the sun is much more intense in space, and it always shines. The technology to convert and beam the energy back to earth is safe and viable. Japan is investing 30 billion dollars into this and the rest of the world should too. Spread the word!
Solar ranks with nuclear in terms of pollution. For each ton of heavy metal toxins produced as by-products from manufacturing, you can thousands of computers; Or 10 homes worth of solar panels. Thousands of computers is not a bad deal. But solar panels? Ouch.
Not sure what you are saying is 100% accurate. Also that is assuming photovoltaics. There are also technologies that use mirrors to concentrate light at one receptor, which can either use a smaller photovoltaic cell, or heat a fluid to generate power.
joecugo = troll I'll just disregard his stupidity and continue to try to have an intelligent conversations with others willing to have one.
sounds like a pretty awesome weapon
its an awesome idea, its perfect for when we manage to build a space elevator. but now, the maintenance cost is just too high. and most of the energy beamed to the earth is lost in the atmosphere, so even though its way better than harvesting on earth, in the end its inefficient because of the energy lost when trying to send it back to us.
and there is some people that says that beaming the atmosphere with microwave is not that smart. in the 80's the USA and URSS made some experiments with climate control with huge antennas beaming radiation in the atmosphere... if it worked or not is conspiracy theory
you couldn't compare solar panels to nuclear power plants even if solar had 90% effi and the nuclear had 20% ... the amount of energy easily obtainable from nuclear reactions is simply overwhelming
And nuclear creates much less pollution, as compared to solar panels.
When you're talking about percentages, the efficiency of nuclear plants is greatly misleading. Get enough solar panels, and you can produce just as much energy as a nuclear plant, and at a much lower risk.
Lower risk? 10X the radioactive heavy metals toxic waste, is lower risk?
ForestBeekeeper Name just one incident where solar panels lead to a pseudo-Chernobyl, then come back here.
hiddenfog180
Not sure the amount of energy from the sun hitting the Earth is enough to support human consumption, no matter the panels' efficiency.
There is a reason Canadas two main energy sources are Hydro and Nuclear, even though we have tons of oil.
Yes, nuclear and hydro are the only way you are every going to accommodate a growing population that is becoming increasingly dependent on electricity.
Nuclear. No competition.
There's too many reasons for me to type out here. But it is what I will passionately defend in person.
AgentOracle if they ran a thorium reactor that would be ideal. The life span of the waste is significantly less then plutonium reactors.
Millions Of Gallons Of Toxic and Radioactive WASTE....Not an Option....billions of gallons of freshwater to produce...NOT AN OPTION!!!...Only Sustainable Energy...Geothermal in the USA would be Awesome, It has Very Good results so far!
@@shanekonarson upside is huge.
Bro
Nuclear reactors produce a lot of radiations which harms human health
OUTER SPACE is NUCLEAR ENERGY. GOOD FOR NUCLEAR ENERGY. NUCLEAR NOT FOR EARTH.
You forgot gas turbine-steam power-plants which run about 61% efficient. A gas turbine runs at approx 33%. then the exhaust heat is used to make steam for a steam turbine.
Steve b, lol scott was right. Scott was describing "combined cycle". Steam and gas turbine are not the same dude. And when you combined both, efficiency of the plant increase. Haha calling people dumbass when you were ignorant in the first place😂
How much energy (from coal/nuclear) did it take to create those panels? Because I'm pretty sure they didn't include that in their efficiency ratings.
True. But if you have to spend $10000 on a money generator that gives you $1 a day, by the 10001st day you'll be making pure profit.
Same story here.
its not like they made those Specifically to create solar panels and seeing as they already exist obviously they will be used as they are the most common, SO OBVIOUSLY once there starts to be more solar plants produced you can move away from fossil fuels etc and eventually wipe them out and operate more on solar than others which in turn will produce more energy to make more solar Cleanly with solar energy so, NOT A GOOD POINT AT ALL!!!
Now i'm just spitballing ideas here, commercial buildings are great candidates for solar. How much energy does it take to create a gallon of tight oil? Or to extract coal? day after day with no change in end results?
Same can be said for the coal plants and nuclear plants.
This comment makes 0 sense.
you can't compare nuclear to the rest of the energy sources because of its much higher capacity factor.
Evan Gangle it’s so much better. Yet the USA funds wind.
ua-cam.com/video/Oa5mvmbxNio/v-deo.html
I enjoy that these aren’t too long and drawn out
I am a 2nd year chemistry student. At school I once made a polymer film with an Europium complex. I placed that on top of a solar cell and the efficiency went about 2-4% up. It's very fun to do and easy as well. Sadly Europium is very rare and costs a lot of money.
Hydro power the best ( cheap, effecient , " 95%" and mass production of energy , also cost effective
Hydro is great but most of the ideal locations for dams are already used
I think hydro works at night too. so 95% 100% of the time
Nuclear is superior
@@joshswanson4719 dam it
Sorry
Exactly but how to produce hydro in the middle of dessert
2 years later and still not on the market
Commercialization takes time.
They are very expensive and more prone to breakdown than standard solar cells.
The Australian govt cut all funding to the CSIRO most Australian scientists head OS and take their inventions and knowledge with them .
6 years later
6 years later
goverments reacting to nuclear fuel: *fwhauisghewaiurhvuiseufghseyuigyseghyuhdf*
goverments reacting to fossil fuels: *STONKS*
nuclear fuel is the most cleanest way to produce energy so its kinda funny
Talking about efficiency between radically different forms of production is ridiculous. Wind efficiency vs solar efficiency is not comparable in the slightest... you might as well talk about return on investment rather than literal efficiency, because there is no basis to compare a quantity of fossil fuels to a quantity of solar light.
wrong. efficiency is thermodynamic efficiency = (energy output) / (available energy at input), and you can work it out for any kind of energy transforming process, even your muscles, your body, you. Coal has a certain amount of energy per ton (unit weight) locked up in it - burn a ton, boil water, put the steam through a turbine and turn a generator to produce electricity, run the electric through a heating element - how much heat did you get? And sunlight has a certain amount of energy per unit collection area, and you can do the same kind of calculation. The result is a dimensionless number > 0, but < 1 in both cases, and directly comparable.
That is only technically true though, it doesn't actually address the economic viability of solar. There are mountains of costs associated with converting any energy, and these costs are not equal across methods, so speaking of efficiency is a moot point.
look Jacob - the title of the video... We're not talking about cost, or
cost-efficiency or whether a thing is affordable or
"economically-viable" or economic. That's another subject entirely. You
want to talk about those, fine, but that's not the topic here.
The efficiency of basic Si solar cells has hardly changed in the last 30 years - the cheapest cells have improved from 12 to 15% overall conversion efficiency. But the cost has reduced by hundreds of times. Utility solar electricity is now cheaper than generation from coal per MWh, or around 3.8c/kWh, and getting cheaper.
This video has a political angle, people are going to take from this that solar is more efficient and people will come up with conspiracy theories about why we're this magical technology isn't widespread
nonsense, Jacob. There's no politics here. Words have meanings, not just what you want them to mean. 'Efficient' has a very definite meaning. It's completely quantitative - not some qualitative hand-waving. Solar is potentially much more efficient as a means of generation of electricity, AND more cost-efficient - Trace tells you what's lost in turning heat from burning coal into electricity. None of that long chain happens with solar. The laws of thermodynamics tell you that coalfire->steam->alternator just cannot be made to be very efficient - it has too many steps. And, capping it all, with solar, the source energy falls on you out of the sky - you don't have to dig it out of the ground, or transport it to the point where you will convert it into electric - these two are the primary cost of coal, and they _don't happen at all_ with solar - the energy comes to you, wherever you are.
This 'magical technology' is becoming more widespread with every day that passes - it's been held up by vested interests far too long - there's your only 'conspiracy', if you insist on finding one. And it's attracting much of the available investment, along with windpower, which at present is the cheapest source of bulk electricity ever - nobody is going to be building new coal-fired power plants, in fact they are shutting them down as fast as they can bring alternatives on-stream. E.G. the chinese have decided not to build dozens of plants they planned for 10 years ago.
8 years later and the absolute best you can get on the market is 23% efficient. Looks like the product didn't live up to the claims.
The most efficient was close to 40% but yes it didn't hit the market yet
HydroElectric, Geothermal, Nuclear, and Solar energy are obviously more efficient.
Than any combustion engine.
Efficient, yes. Reliable, no.
Well the nuclear energy is very reliable
jose madureri Reliable yes, but not very reliable. It takes longer to turn it on an off than a fossil fuel power plant.
Schwarzer Ritter yeah 6-8 weeks for outages. However assuming everything goes to plan it will run for 18 months. Multiple nuclear reactors are the best because a nuclear power plant is constantly providing energy. Also, nuclear doesn't have the limitations of solar or wind with the fact that wind stops and it is not always day, because you can't stop radioactive decay.
If hype about so-called "renewables" could turned into power, we could power the entire galaxy.
I heard Co-gens were 80% efficient. I would be interested if you did a comparison of $/KW-hr over say 5, 10, 20 years of the project. To make it fair all costs would have to be included.
When the weather is right we use solar power to heat our hot water. For heating the house we use a log burner to burn the prunings from the olive groves which have to be burnt to stop the spread of pests and diseases. They used to be burnt in situ on the hillsides resulting in a lot of smoke particulates (low temperature burn) but by burning them in the logburner, we achieve much higher temperatures ensuring that the smoke particulates are burnt giving very little smoke at all.
Realistically, all four of these are not enough alone. They should be used to complement each other not to compete with each other.
in Germany heat from power plants is used for heating private houses. the Audi facilities in Ingolstadt are heated using 'waste' heat from a nearby power plant... which is a trash burning power plant
In germany there's no AC and everyone has to pay for crazy oil prices and electricity just to keep their homes warm and running
which is good for the Environment... it makes People think twice before wasting energy and oil.
and actually Prices are quite ok. everyone complains about them but that's everywhere the same.
and People who can't afford it get help from the state.
Stefan Sierraoneoneseven true I just feel spoiled from living in America after bring being in Germany for 2 years now some centralized air wouldn't kill anyone.
In Québec, we have no need to use polluting energy sources… It's all hydroelectricity! :D
SymbolX that's because Quebec is loaded with rivers and lakes... Not every place is so lucky
Nuclear power is best. We just need to figure out more advanced methods as well as figure out how to dispose of the waste properly, then it's all up to good regulation to keep it safe. Wind and solar just aren't that good, but they should definitely replace coal burning factories.
"We just need to figure out more advanced methods as well as figure out how to dispose of the waste properly(...)".
Well, you just said why many people think that nuclear isn't the best. At least, right now. If those problems are solved, *then*, yeah, it would be the best by far. Maybe if the nuclear fusion reactor becomes a reality.
Until then... Not really. Nuclear waste is a really, really, reaaly big problem.
But the future is energy produced at home. While nuclear energy is promising, solar energy could allow free power anywhere
Yeah, but the research into nuclear seems to be making headway. More research is surely needed but with large projects like HIPER and the NIF, as well as lockheed's project to make a 100mw reactor in a few years, and material advances that may make molten salt reactors (thorium/uranium) a reality, they dwarf the energy you can make from a chemical process. orders of magnitude. you can call something 90% efficient, but if its from molecular sources, or the force carrier photons of the EM spectrum you're still way off from the strong nuclear force's raw dominance. molten salt looked like a stop gap until fusion, and to many still does, but if lockheed follows its schedule even approximately it may not be the case
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liquid_fluoride_thorium_reactor there are others as well, Loads of people just Freak at any mention of Reactors. don't take my word for it! ted talks Feature many Brilliant Folks in the field talking about them, and many other Great solutions.
nuclear fission and nuclear fusion are two different things. nuclear fusion only produces energy and helium. there is no uranium involved and therefore no nuclear waste.
I'm pretty proud to say that 99 % of norway's power comes from water! ^_^
what's a norway?
Norway has super good recycling system as well, right? You all seem to be ahead....In good areas....
XGMoney93 Norway is a country. I am really hoping you are joking with that question.
To bad the acid rain from Germany's pollution is fucking up your fish life though...
Yeah, I'm already envious enough of Norwegians, no need to rub that in as well. Fucking number 1 HDI in the world for years..... it's not fair, why should only norwegians be happy :(
So instead of tapping 210 W/m^2 (15% efficiency) at peak hours, they can tap 616 W/m^2 (44% efficiency); so we've gone from powering 9% of an electric oven per square meter to being able to power 26% of an electric per square meter at peak hours in the day (given the standard electric oven consumes 2300 Wh/h). I am deeply impressed...
Nuclear energy is the best for the environment. It has virtually no waste and has zero negative environmental effects
All forms of clean energy have strengths and weaknesses, and the efficiency of any single method isn't relevant. The only factor that’s relevant, is what method is most practical in the environment it will be used in. I.E. how much wind, sun, hydro, thermal geographic access is there. Nuclear plants need reasonably isolated stable land in close proximity to a metropolitan area. And wind and solar work best if you put little bits of it everywhere and connect it to storage facilities as part of a smart grid. Window treatment, photoelectric paint, rooftop arrays, it all adds up. Corporations don't want to put money in the decentralized approach, because you can't easily bottle it up to sell.
Here’s an idea, put together these new PV cells with Airlight Energy’s Dsolar dish, that uses a water cooling technology developed by IBM to use sea water to cool CPV’s. Put these dishes on coastal deserts to use the heated sea water from cooling the cells to start the desalination process and run pumps to flood large areas of desert with the brackish water. Then use aquatic plants and microorganisms to further clean the water so they can support tasty fish. Terraforming that produces energy neutral food, is good no?
That a good idea, I would like to talk about it more if your interested.
P.S. have your heard of L.F.T.R? (check out my comment above)
that is a really awesome idea, its something that would work really well here in brazil
Sounds like it would pretty much destroy the desert ecosystem where it is located. We have a tendency to think there is nothing going on in the desert, but I bet there actually is.
Geothermal energy!
Permanent perpetual battery combined with heavy duty capacitors... and why not add a Tesla Coil System for intake!!!
"The Well of Life" by Ion Murgu Cleveland will be, wait for USPTO To publish second Apllication for The Well of Life
Not every place has access to geothermal energy. Iceland would be great though.
it depends on where you are
iceland ok.
It's great that hydroelectric is efficient, but it also has ecological impacts in the rivers that it's in. This also didn't factor in any pollution created in making any of these. There are a lot more factors to think about than just efficiency when deciding upon one.
This was an all around terrible video.
Could you make a vid? Im really interested
What's the efficiency of a solar panel at 2 am?
I'm taking a look here around... There is no wind. The wind turbines aren't moving. What's its efficiency at this point of time ?
i was hoping for a video wich way was most efficient financially
This video is misleading in that the raw efficiency of a source of power isn't the most important thing. While increasing efficiency does increase the usefulness of a technology, if you are investing in solar power, for example, the % efficiency is less important than the amount of power per dollar invested and the amount of watts per aggregate ton of emitted CO2. The highest efficiency solar panels are always extremely expensive and are almost never worth actually using. This advance should be taken as more of a benchmark for how the technology is progressing. One day we'll have 48% efficient panels everywhere, just not anytime soon,
For example, if solar panels were super cheap to make (which has changed a lot recently), it wouldn't matter that they are 15% efficient, since we're only using a tiny portion of incoming solar energy.
The fact that hydro is really efficient is due to the dynamics of a power station. The potential energy of a water column can't really be lost, and a turbine is a simple enough and well-understood enough mechanism that we can get a lot of efficiency out of it. The trouble with hydro is that there aren't that many viable places where we can build dams, and the dams themselves are really expensive.
Exactly!
Talking so much about the efficiencies is nonsense.
According to the "efficiency equation", most power plants are operating at about 300% efficiency.
@Carbonic Potassium Detection Contraption I was pointing out that the equation they used in the video for the efficiency was incorrect.
The only problem with hydroelectricity is that it harms marine life!!
FUCK THE MARINE LIFE!!!
***** IF YOURE OKAY WITH THE RIPPLE EFFECTS OF RUINING EVERY OTHER ECOSYSTEM then ok
Jamie Courtney
YOLO
actually, with modern fish ladders, this is not a problem.
deanna smith wouldn't that only help with salmon and other fish that jump? or is it every fish's natural instinct to propel its body upwards?
One thing I have yet to see addressed in any sort of video like this is the fact that the power grid is under a constant need for energy, solar doesnt produce at night, wind doesnt produce when the wind isnt blowing. And batteries dont hold enough power to power a city.
It's not about energy efficiency. It's about impact (footprint) on the environment and resource. Efficiency can lower that impact but it's not the end game. Efficacy or effectiveness is the goal. Solar PV efficiency of 46% is wonderful but if it costs a lot in terms of implementation it's a problem. Hydro is great but there are short and medium term environmental impacts (localized flooding and redistribution of organics in the soil) that vary widely by location. Nuclear is also very effective but seems to have very scary long term impact (radioactive waste). A low solar PV energy efficiency is not a problem if its cheap enough. Any electrical power generation also requires a battery or storage system of some sort and that also cuts into efficiency. All energy generation/fuel conversion/capture systems then require a transmission grid and it's attendant losses and implementation and maintenance costs.
The efficiency of solar cells is not that much of a big deal, because the sun is shining anyway.
If 2/3 of the sunlight is wasted, then that is still better than not having a solar cell because that would waste 100% of the sunlight on a given surface.
Powerplants that use fuel are different to that. If you have a fixed amount of fuel, that you even have to pay for and that polutes the planet, you should really worry about every % of the energy inside that fuel, that could be used.
Even if solar cells would have less than 10% efficiency, you would only waste solar rays, that you get for free, if you want to have them or not.
The problem with the low efficiency of solar is that it would be extremely expensive and would require very large quantities of land in order to meet the enegery demands of today. Putting solar panels on individual houses or buildings is a great idea to help reduce our energy needs, but we will still need another source capable of putting out the energy we need, unfortunately solar as it stands would be far too expensive and take up far to much room to act on its own
+Transhumanist Space Exploration That's a good thing. I think solar panels are a good option to be placed on rooftops but they couldn't realistically meet all of o it power needs. Solar panels should be more of a cost controller for people instead of a full on source of power.
+Transhumanist Space Exploration It's hot fusion they are investing in. But that date is relatively correct for when the ITER will go online. Cold fusion is has never been replicated. I never said that Solar and wind couldn't meet the global energy demand it's just that it would be much more costly (several times) and would take up vast amount of land. Though this could be minimized if hydroelectric power was brought in as that is highly productive and is the only source that can have power stations that produce more than current nuclear reactors.
Yes. Germany and France have the Wendelstein 7-x stellarator and the ITER tokomak respectively. Both are huge milestones in the path towards fusion power
+Transhumanist Space Exploration The purposes of fusion power is to produce the stable fusion of our Sun's core. Well the energy production of the Sun's core is less than 300 watts per cubic meter ( look it up ), who is less than that of a hot compost pile. Yes, higher energy production rates us possible with less stability such as in a fusion bomb but Fusion power is an oversold concept to get funding for research. Don't get me wrong, the research is valuable in itself but for civilian energy production it's not.
45....really? pretty sure i read somewhere about a solar panel that was like 51% like a year ago...
This video was published in 2014
Driven_Mx5 either 41 or 51
What are the costs involved?
This is a great question. The benefits alone aren't enough to estimate value.
Maintenance and replacing broken panels is bound to cost some, no such thing as forever.
Another thing concerning the energy efficiency: you should also add the (energy) cost of producing of the equipment to the equation, as well as the maintenance requirements.
well it's the equipment and maintenance of the everyday power generation is expensive too. that's why you pay bills
A bit of a clarification: the thermodynamic power cycle efficiency is defined as "usable power or energy output/power or energy input" or "1-(final cold temp/initial combusted hot temp)". You may have the concept right, but your terms are misleading.
The power output (energy produced per unit of time) - say 500MW - is divided by the power input of the coal, natural gas, geothermal source, or nuclear material (for turbine related power production). For example, natural gas and oxygen (i.e. air) are fed into the combustor at a particular mass flow rate, whose chemical bonds have energy. On combustion with oxygen, the (ideal) products formed are water and CO2, whose bonds also have an energy associated with them. The difference in energy between the reactant and product bonds represents the MAXIMUM energy one can obtain from a chemical reaction. In reality, we cannot capture all - or even most - of that energy in coal and nuclear plants (combined cycle natural gas plants are the exception in that CCNG plants approach 60% efficiency). To use the 33% coal plant efficiency example used in the video, this means that coal and oxygen are fed to the combustor at a rate of 1500MW (worth of bond energy in the reactants and products): 33%=500MW/1500MW.
With regard to comparing efficiencies across different power sources, one has to be careful: electricity produced via photovoltaic power is a completely different process than that of a thermal power plant, the latter which uses a power cycle. Solar PV bypasses the power cycle altogether, and so avoids this setback. The energy efficiency of a solar PV system is the ratio of the incoming solar energy (power) striking the solar panels to the output electric energy (power) leaving the panels. Another measure, the quantum efficiency, is the ratio of charge carriers produced/the number of incident photons striking the panel.
So 46% is HUGE for solar PV if it is a reality and can be produced affordably. Keep in mind also that sunlight is "free" energy - doesn't have to be mined, blown off mountain tops, fracked, or entail toxic emissions and disposal - the latter in the case of coal byproducts/residuals and nuclear waste.
Update: Solar energy surpassed fossil energy AND wind energy, with "surpass" I mean cheaper and more efficient.
+OculusGames That's not entirely true. Yes, the cost of solar has been steadily dropping but it is only being competitive with fossil sources because coal power plants which produce power at 3 cents a kWh are being shut down and being replaced with natural gas power plants and wind turbines which are upwards of 16 cents a kWh. Besides, with the new administration, the restrictions closing the coal plants will likely be dropped.
That's not remotely true. At least in the U.S., solar and wind have the highest per kwh price and are the most heavily subsidized.
Gammareign, why are they even subsidized? I guess to get them going! But why. We have hydro and Nuclear we are good.
we need to go atomic!
I live in Manitoba and hydro is the best
But it requires a specific type of terrain
Troy Petryk the issue is dams damage the natural course of the river hurting fish
Also sediment build up along the dam. lots of environmental issues.
MB has great wind power potential.
Robert Schuster none of that is true.
Hey i live in manitoba too
But how do you supply your evening peak demand when it is dark outside, and the wind is not blowing, and you live in a water scarce country? This happens more often than I'd like to be without electricity. Can you store enough energy in batteries or sodium chloride solutions to power a whole country's peak demand?
um you forgot to address the differences in the energy production - that is much more important than efficiency percentages.
While the fossil fuel industry has made a lot of money for some very brilliant and deserving people, like civil, mechanical, and chemical engineers, and geophysicists - people whose intellect and hard work I have the utmost respect for - the fossil fuel industry also makes a lot of useless people wealthy as well. Some of these people are land owners, who were merely fortunate enough to own land that happened to have large amounts of fossil fuels. Some of these people are business types, who make money doing the simple task of selling this fuel. Some of these people who are wealthy, are the children of these useless people, who, due to the good old boy system which is rampant in the fossil fuel industry, get their lucrative professions due to nepotism. So outside of getting a cheaper, cleaner, and a limitless supply of fuel, once the greater efficiency of these greener sources of energy becomes more accessible to the public, the other positive is that these aforementioned useless people, who are not wealthy because of their talent, but because of circumstances born of the fossil fuel industry, will now finally be on the losing side of the economic ladder - where they belong.
You got that right!!!
I personally give your statement a 100% efficiency rating!
I like most of what you're saying
Solar: if it really was as easy as some people make it sound, everyone would be doing it.
That said, %40+ efficiency is remarkable!
Nuclear's still best
People dance around with wind/wave/solar as though this is gonna change the world - it won't simply because we cannot get enough kWh's out of those sources - even if they ran at 100% efficiency. Wind and solar (especially) use rare Earth elements normally from China and are completely dependent on location (latitude, climate, offshore etc). In the meantime we are encountering massive growth in energy consumption from the developing world and I'm not talking of people buying widescreen TV's, this is people having a single lightbulb and the ability to cook their food without using wood sources - the west would have to cut consumption by 95% at current levels to supply them with equivalent energy needs that we have in the west see Tim Jackson's TED talk on this issue (www.ted.com/talks/tim_jackson_s_economic_reality_check#t-502834) . Trendy renewables, admirable as they are simply cannot do this - this is not gonna be the revolution people want.
The thing that frustrates me is that the Green parties know this but they insist on banging the renewable drum drum - and all it will do is hold back the developing world.
This century, nuclear is king, it is clean and extremely powerful, but it's important to remember this is not renewable - it will run out. Oil and gas will run out in the next hundred or so years anyway making them irrelevant. Coal's good too when used in terms of carbon capture and storage - and there's enough of it for an additional century. This will see us through until thorium has proved its worth, and who knows, maybe we will get there with fusion.
The thing about it is nuclear is coming whether we like it or not. Once the lights start flickering and the heating in the house stops, people will grow very angry, demanding a solution. I just wish there was a way of filtering power so that Green anti-nuclear supporters experienced this first. Being 'green' they are the ones that should have embraced this from the start, but because their CND roots, hold a politcal agenda instead of doing things for the good of mankind.
Karl Beal I presume once we run out of fission material we will have fusion technology
Karl Beal I read that if we continue development towards other reactors we'll have enough power to last longer than the earth would, is there any weight to that?
Prof. Phoenix, there is a misconception that nuclear is the everlasting hope - enough to see us through many human lifetimes unfortunately, the reality is far from this.
Firstly, we cannot mine enough U235 to provide fuel to our existing reactors (average ore grade at about 0.3% from mined yellowcake), resulting in countries like the US and UK topping up from ex-military supplies.
Secondly, even if we could mine fast enough to supply, reasonably assured resources (RAR) predictions show we will run out of U235 around the end of the century (inferred resources (IR) in combination with RAR take us only to the middle of the next century (from Energy Watch Group's 2006 paper 1/06).
We can stave off some of the supply issues with secondary sources of uranium, (such as tail stocks of depleted uranium from previous enrichment and reprocessing from existing reactors), mixed oxide fuel (MOX) in fast breeder reactors using U238 - but this requires enrichment of around 20% and the process is very slow. Costs of building this type of reactor and managing its waste make them extremely expensive and undesirable.
To summarise, unfortunately nuclear is not eternal - it experiences the same finite limitation fossil fuels have - we can stretch this resource out to buy us more time, but it requires innovation and a lot of money (in the same way, refer to thorium 232 work experimental work currently being undertaken as an alternative).
Really Late it's not put in the ocean, it's. normally put deep underground. it's illegal to put nuclear waste anywhere except certain areas
Ok BUT IS THE 48% of a nuclear reactor is WAY STRONGER than the 95% of the hydroelectric
Yes
They "forgot" to mention a hidden facet of efficiency: solar and wind generation facilities require vast areas of land, which means they have to be located much farther from where the electricity is actually used. There is substantial loss in transporting the power over those distances. Offshore wind only makes this worse.
Considering that there is a gigantic amount of solar energy falling onto our planet, I am OK with low efficiency of solar panels.
humanyoda no you don't want to be because you want to get he most energy in the smallest and fastest way especially since the panels themselves don't just come out of the sky in huge amounts for free
You can replace all the world's natural forests with solar panels and biofuel farms if you want.
leerman22 so greeeeeen
Luke, a relatively small percentage of a huge amount of energy may not be too bad.
Energy wise it's enough, of course, but the resource cost goes up. Panels need maintenance and have a limited lifetime and eventually have to be replaced every couple of decades. You want an energy solution that is as resource efficient as you can make it. Otherwise even if you're getting enough energy, you're slowly losing.
Go Nuclear!!!
eff solar thorium is abundant clean and want put people in the poor house tell the truth
Learn english first, please.
***** didnt know i was in school today?
R Davian
Never mind punctuation, solar thorium? You've just nonsensicaly combined two types of power generation!
so now that you feel smart what else will you do on the internetz.........
R Davian
Don't try to be smart, you're the idiot
There are wind turbines being tested that instead of just off a tower it actually is full of helium (or something else) and floats in the sky much higher than any other sort of turbine (was even featured in big hero 6) so not sure if it is more efficient or not but putting it out there
It would be cool to see the efficiency%/dollar comparison on video
If there was a way to transfer energy wirelessly we could set up solar panels on the moon ✌🏻
+Arvind Andrew Das There is wireless power transmission and it's even used in some power grid's around the world but it's only about 80% efficient. However, calculations of space based power stations still show higher capital costs compared to Earth based power stations even if the launch costs were reduced to zero.
@@johnwang9914
Which wireless power grid is 80% efficient? I've only heard about a small experimental one with resonators and that was still less than 50%.
i want hamster power make the hamsters run in there wheels
Even though this was 5 year ago CANCELED (2020 humans smh)
ua-cam.com/video/E86o_9jizF0/v-deo.html
hydroelectric where possible, thorium when not.
but then im a hippie from WA state. so, yea.
Thorium where hydroelectric.
Restore the rivers!
Nobody ever mentions thorium, its most likely our only realistic long term cost effective option
@Seeker I am pretty sure that you calculations are incorrect. As far as I know, efficiency is output power divided by input power. So in case of Power plants that would be total electricity generated in watts divided by total energy fed to the turbines in watts.
Do Correct me if I'm wrong.
Your efficiency equation is messed up.
It should be: the electrical energy output divided by the accesible energy delivered (electromagnetic energy of the sun rays, wind kinetic energy, chemical energy of the fuel).
If you want to include not only electricity but also heat into the numerator, as you did in the video, then steam-cycle coal plants with cogeneration reach above 90%.
It only counts when I can wire my house up to these solar panels and get off the grid. Until then, I guess good job?
+candiduscorvus Well, you can go off grid now by using batteries but amortizing the capital costs of such an off-road system over the estimated power production over the design life would probably be about four times the cost per kWh of buying from the grid. Being grid tied instead of battery based can bring the costs down a lot but it would still be less expensive to just buy from the grid. Unless you look at say the forcasted energy costs of say Alberta where they are planning to update their entire grid, at Alberta's forcasts, personal photovoltaics may be a viable option especially if the carbon tax is ramped up as it's expected to be. Unfortunately, as capital expenses, only the rich would benefit from solar in Alberta.
Yep, you can.
You already can go completely off-grid with todays Photovoltaic & Wind Power generation and electrical storage technologies but the initial cost is significantly higher than a grid tied system and you'll likely never recover the cost of the investment on such a system or will have an extremely long payback period unless your local grid electricity rates are extremely high.
yes, but not recommended due being expensive, you might well use grid tied system instead.
"It's 46% efficient!"
*How much does it cost to produce a kWh?*
"to calculate output efficiency..."
*How much does it cost per kWh?*
"even the most efficient coal pants are only 45% efficient"
*Supercritical brown coal is $95 per mega-kWh. If solar is more expensvie then it's less efficient on aggregate. HOW MUCH per kWh for solar? The EDF reports $293 per mega-kWh in 2011. Did it become 10% more efficient, so now what $291/mega-kWh?*
*Is it comforting to lie about solar being viable?*
Solar has became so cost effective that las vegas one of our nations largest consumers of energy is getting most of its energy from Solar panels
That is a terrible sales pitch for solar. It works but only for a city in the middle of a desert at 115 degrees latitude and with 15 hours of sun every 24 hours.
himura kenshiro Yes, but Las Vegas is a desert wijth pretty much Sun and almost no clouds year long. If we were to use solar panels in, let's say, Seattle, that would be very expensive and inefficient as it rains too often.
Solar: 78€/MWh
Fossil fuel: 38€/MWh
You were saying?
Heat efficiency is not the same thing resource efficiency, which is the primary concern for environmental and economic evaluation. Hydro is of course the most heat efficient: It doesn't burn anything. The way to calculate resource efficiency is to take [(total cost)--(cost of direct and indirect subsidies)+(direct and indirect taxes and regulatory costs)+(estimated costs of externalities)-(estimated benefits of externalities)]/(MegwatsPerYear Produced) : ( C - S + G - Xc +Xb ) / mWPY
(A year baseline is preferred to an hour because the output of solar and wind plants varies drastically throughout the day and year.)
S, G, Xc and Xb will necessarily be estimates, and affected by analyst bias, and thus efficiency scores will vary between analysts. But most economist agree that by any measure solar and wind are horribly resource inefficient by any measure, and will remain so until we can place massive solar stations in orbit and beam the energy to earth safely.
In other words, in terms of damage to the environment done per mWat produced, Solar and Wind are currently the WORST (most damaging) sources of energy.
Question, What are the costs predicted for this new solar energy? What is the cost per energy obtained in relation to other sources of energy?
nuclear.
Efficiency is one thing, but how much energy do photons have that is usuable in photo voltaic cells? If I use a 100% of the energy produced by a wax candle, it's still less energy than I would get from capturing 30% of the energy from the same mass of kerosene. I am all for renewable energy, but it simply cannot supply 100% of our current needs much less the increasing energy demands of the future. To replace a 1800 megawatt nuclear unit which takes up 1.7 square miles. You would need 169 square miles of wind turbines and 21 square miles of solar panels. Coal plants need even less, 640 acres compared to the 1100 acres for a nuclear plant. Nuclear is the only solution we have that is cleaner, safer, and more energy rich than coal. Wind an solar are nice, but they will never supply the needs of the US or other industrial world powers like China. We need nuclear to fill the large gaps that renewable will never be able fill.
Imagine the world's biggest deserts covered in solar plants. It would be more than enough energy for the world and by absorbing sunlight and providing shade beneath the panels you would gradually make them cooler, so that they will shrink, or at least, stop growing.
Now imagine the world's biggest deserts covered in mirrors that focus the light into fewer higher strength solar panels.
Also desertification isn't due to the heat of the ground, it's the climate changing so that it rains less in a wider area. Deserts are just defined as places where it doesn't rain much.
that is not how desertification works.
deanna smith Of course it is, everyone knows things grow when you heat them... hey I've got an idea, we should heat the polar ice, then it'll grow and we'll fix the problem.
The problem is that you loose energy with every km it needs to be transported.
what is the total picture cost? how much energy goes into coal and nuclear plants vs. solar plants? Land costs, costs of materials and energy to make the solution plus the manhours, plus the possible pollution clean up costs for the manufacturring process? I have yet to see any analysis in that fashion.
It takes energy to gather materials, build engines, and electrical grids. When considering efficiency, all costs must be accounted for.
We need all forms of energy, and that is a fact. I personally prefer nuclear, mainly because of it's efficiency in outputting to the electric grid (not the equation he used but the amount of time a nuclear power plant provides for the electrical grid). Also nuclear is far safer than any of the other sources of electricity, with the exception of geothermal because of the very little maintenance that has to be done on it.
However, like I said earlier we need all forms of energy because not all of them are perfect and never will be perfect, that is why I like what France does and has a lot of sources of energy.
SgtKilgore406 i've read somewhere that actually the number of failed nuclear power plant is much lower than coal-based power plant. however the environmental effects of those failing power plants are more severe.
when we want to call it safer or not, we must first argue the definition of "safe" itself
Nope, this is false, including the bit about "safety". You only "need" all forms of energy if you want it to continue being cheap for the next 50 years. Either way, prices will go up and we'll only have renewables then. Nuclear is dead.
Ynemey ummm.... nuclear can give technically "infinite" energy so in long term nuclear is not dead. the reason why nuclear is hated is because of its safety rather than its cost and its efficiency.
Ari Sudewa That is not an argument that matters. Wind, solar, hydro, thermal, nuclear, tidal, bio; they are all close to infinite. I am talking politically and socio-economically. Nuclear is politically dead and dying socio-economically.
What type of nuclear energy is dying? Fusion or fission? As far as I know fusion energy is undergoing rapid development and I think it is our next hope to keep the world light up
i want fusion
well u ain't gonna get it
well travle to the sun and enjoy its safe and highly efficient output
Solar is a means to extract energy from a fusion reactor; the sun. Kind of similar to the way a steam generator is used to extract energy from a fission reactor.
+Kevin Ping The hope for a fusion reactor is to somehow achieve the stable fusion of our Sun's core. Well, look at the energy production of our Sun's core, it's about 300 watts per cubic meter which is less energy production than a hot compost pile. Obviously, more energy can be produced but only with less stable fusion conditions with the most extreme being the fusion bomb. The public is misled about fusion power and though the research is good useful research, the prospects of safe fusion power is overstated. It would be better to invest in safer fission reactors such as Liquid Flouride Thorium Reactors and or Doppler pebble reactors.
Good summary of all the technologies, but you left out fuel cells; specifically, Solid Oxide Fuel Cells (SOFC). SOFC's can reach as high as 70% and they run on natural gas just like a lot of gas fired power plants.
Solar power generation just keeps on getting better everyday.
The efficiency thermal Power plants (like coal) can be improved by combining power generation and district heating. Small oil or coal plants that use their waste heat to heat the nearby households can have up to 90% efficiency.
+burningSHADOW42 Ultimately, fossil fuels are energy captured from the Sun by ancient photosynthesis and given that modern plants are about 0.5% efficient at capturing solar energy by photosynthesis...
46% panel efficiency looks bad on paper and to the wallet, but 46% of a number you can't accurately measure because its so high, is still more than we need.
Last time I was this late seeker was Dnews
You missed something when burning coal in power plants!!! You have to also subtract out the energy required to MINE and TRANSPORT the coal.
...It's similar to the oversight of using ethanol, it requires more energy to produce it than it yields.
You did not mention transmission losses. Also , dams built for hydro power create reservoirs , which in turn release a huge amount of greenhouse gases (methane from rotting vegetation ) in the long run . You could make a video on the pros and cons of Thorium Molten Salt Nuclear reactors .
Capacity factor is far more important then efficiency. even if solar had an efficiency of 100% but if it's capacity factor is only 15% ( at best). then still a storage device Is needed to draw power from the other 85% of the time. So for a 1Gw solar plant you need a 5Gw solar farm store the 4Gw of power to use later at night then draw on the storage on cloudy days.
No mention of all the externalities involved. You have to build a solar panel or wind turbine, but after you deploy it you don't need fuel source. You have to build a coal, nuclear, or hydro plant, and once you do that you still have to feed it raw resources which have their own impact (mining, transport, flooding, etc). It would be more accurate to bundle in all those externalities before making an assessment of "efficiency".
I'm in Southern Arizona. Getting these more efficient solar panels installed on the roof of one's house would be a godsend for homeowners and businesses. With as much sun as we get down here, it'd be stupid NOT to do that.
Answer: none. the greater mistake we are making, is not how the electricity is produced but rather, how it is being inefficiently misused. During peak usage hours, the electricity is obviously feeding the grid and being used.. but during off peak hours when there is very little demand for electricity, it is not cost effective to store and yet we do it anyway with battery Banks etc. Leading to a huge waste of money. Instead of storing unneeded electricity we should be converting it to hydrogen and using the hydrogen to power vehicles.
dude
We cant convert to hydrogen electricty
you will need a LOT of resources and its not efficent.
we are not in a sci fi movie
also if we ever converted to hydrogen vehicles, we still need oil
ahem: *plastic*
IT IS TIME TO CHANGE THE DELIVERY SYSTEM OF POWER! NO MORE COPPER MINING, WE HAVE PLENTY OF SCRAP TO RECYCLE FOR DECADES! THERE ARE HUNDREDS OF NEW INVENTIONS JUST BECAUSE THE OIL CORPORATE MEDIA DONT ALLOW IT INTO AMERICA YOU DONT SEE IT UNLESS YOU LOOK FOR IT! ION BATTERY IS PROMISING AND SUSTAINABLE UNLIKE LITHIUM...TRUMPS COUP INCENTIVE OF AMERICA!
I am curious as to how the effeciency of solar is measured in this video? Are you referring to the energy that is transmitted to the grid vs energy wasted due to heating of the turbine etc.
Burnt coal stays chemically changed, however wind that is not captured stays in motion.
Been 9 years now. To date in the US and Canada, the most effiecient solar panels on the market for residential use is 22.8%
What is the efficiency when you add in the cost or energy used to extract coal, process coal and transport coal to the power plant? Renewable have almost none of those costs or energy uses to contend with once they're up and running....
I think all clean forms of producing energy should work together, Hydroelectric+Wind+Solar=Success
We can't think of these individually and expect just one to run everything, it's unrealistic. But it's necessary for us to rely solely on these and rid ourselves of fossil fuels, the earth is dying and it's worst to go extinct than to make a sacrifice and learn how to live without fossil fuels. It's not a matter of debate anymore, it has to happen for us to continue to exist.
For the people that are asking about the different costs of the different energy types I'd like to direct you towards the EIA report on LCOE(Levelized cost of electricity). It accounts for the lifetime cost, fuel costs, O&M, the time value of money and is probably the most reliable tool for comparing costs of generation technologies. It is by no means perfect and the intermittent power sources have to be taken with a grain of salt due to the capacity factor varying greatly by location, but that factor is accounted for in the report and as such it serves as a good average estimate to use.
www.eia.gov/outlooks/aeo/pdf/electricity_generation.pdf
So, how much is the environment affected in the initial construction of any of these?