Why Green Energy Won’t Work In The Alarmists’ Future

Posted: April 15, 2019 by oldbrew in alarmism, Critique, Energy, fraud, Temperature, wind
Tags: , , ,

Image credit: MIT

If the global warming nightmare was to happen, solar and wind systems simply don’t work in high-heat environments. So why are activists pushing them, asks Climate Change Dispatch?

Everything, and I mean everything about the man-made global warming movement is rotten to the core, says Dr. Joel Adams.

Tens of thousands of our own brave and brilliant scientists, as well as websites such as Climate Change Dispatch, are fighting the good fight against the climate change fraud every day. It’s a fight we are working hard to win.

I just completed a 435-page book on the subject of climate change fraud and the people and motivations behind it.

I discovered that as bad as the scientific fraud is, the motivations behind it turned out to be worse. These motivations are to put it in a few words: money and a political totalitarian power grab by the political Left.

These all are covered in the book in full-color detail.

The global warming movement is not actually about climate. It’s about money and power.

My background is as an engineer working in alternative energy for over 25 years.

Alternative energy projects I have done and equipment I’ve designed are in the US, Canada, Malaysia, South Korea, China, Russia, Israel, and the EU.

The specific production-type technology includes hydropower, but also wind, solar photovoltaic and solar thermal. I’m a specialist in the effects of unusually cold ambient temperatures on infrastructures. And cold is the direction we are headed.

When I look at the Green New Deal, and its reliance on what they call “alternative energy,” I don’t know whether to laugh or cry.

If the outlandish tale of global warming was to happen, these so-called alternative energy systems simply don’t work in high-temperature environments.

Let’s go briefly through their two major hopes for alternative power: photovoltaic and wind.

Solar electric panels don’t work well in hot weather. That’s why we don’t see any in places like the United Arab Emirates / Dubai.

Solar panels are from the start rather inefficient, at best 22% or 23%.

Bad news for AOC: As the temperature rises, they become less and less efficient. When the temperature of the panel reaches 42 degrees C (107.5 degrees F), they begin losing the little efficiency they have and fast.

In places like Arizona, where people make the effort to USE them, they need to be cooled by running cold water in pipes underneath them to make them function reasonably well.

But here’s the kicker in determining the efficiency of photovoltaic panels at high temperatures. The temperature of a photovoltaic solar panel is usually about 20 degrees C (36 degrees F) hotter than the ambient air.

This means that the loss of efficiency actually begins when the air temperature is 22 degrees C (71.6 degrees F).

For every degree above ambient air temperature of 22 degrees C, the panels will lose 1.1% of their peak electric output.

Just think about the hysterical projections of the Al Gore – AOC followers, and we see that in their nightmare world, the panels will be operating at efficiency levels approaching zero.

Just when it seems that things can’t get worse for the global warming movement, it does. Not only do the PV panels drop in efficiency as the temperature increases… their product life decreases.

Right now, with the most advanced PV technology (China of course, which is another problem), the best solar electric panels have a lifespan of about 25 years absolute maximum. After that, the only place for them is the garbage dump.

They are not recyclable at all. Except for the little aluminum frames around each one.

Thus, we will end up in the future with new mountain ranges in America. Made of burned-out photovoltaic panels. Every 25 years, every single one of them is going to become part of the new garbage mountain range.

If the temperatures projected by the global warming hysterics would actually occur, the product lifespan of the panels would be reduced to a few years. And those years, the panels would be operating at low efficiency.

Yet, it gets even worse for AOC and Bernie Sanders’ PV panels. The electronic control equipment which controls and directs the harvested electricity conks out at about 40 to 45 degrees C (104 to 113degF). Which is a cool day in the doomsters’ global warming future.

While these temperatures may seem high, the equipment itself, just like solar panels, tends to become even hotter than ambient air.

So much for the solar electric panels. Goodbye.

What about the wind turbines?

Continued here.

  1. ivan says:

    All of this has been obvious to engineers for ages. ‘Climate science’ is not a science but a belief system and I can’t help wondering just how much money from the ‘green fund’ is being used by the UN Church of Climatology to support the so called scientists that are talking doom and gloom, also how much does the MSM get to print the hogwash.

  2. oldbrew says:

    Major ice melt – in 1922…

  3. tom0mason says:

    So lets industrialize the countryside. Lets put acres, and acres of solar panels all over the green and pleasant land for very little produced electricity. What is the cost of loosing so many green acres? What is the cost of loosing spectacular views of open countryside?
    And how long do they last? Not very long, especially if there is stormy weather.
    Can they (are they) recycled? No it’s too difficult.

    And while we’re there lets rip up the ground and install windfarms!
    Lets go ahead and destroy the natural world with these noisy, industrial monstrosities.
    It is completely illogical that we are industrializing and littering the countryside with these highly ineffective machines. Ripping up the ground and planting short-lived bird/bat killers, all for a minuscule amount (on average) grid wrecking intermittent electricity.
    They wear out, especially the turbine blades. Are they recyclable — no!

    Can the amount of power made by these two technologies, ever cover the cost of making and maintaining these industrial products — no!

    Only the demented politically left green idiots could ever think that these follies are an answer for anything.
    They are nothing but monuments to human stupidity!

  4. Saighdear says:

    Ohhhohhhh!- I fear, nay, KNOW it’s falling on DEAF Ears.
    EVERY DAYin the media interviews with folk who have “anything” to do with the outdoor life brings in the phrase “climate change” as though they ‘support ‘ it … and then now today the beeb reports that the financial firm ” Illegal & Particular “will no longer invest in Firms which do not play by the rules of Climate change, etc
    How sad is this… We need to drain that financial swamp too

  5. oldbrew says:

    Power Poverty: Subsidised Wind & Solar Means 5 Million Germans Struggle To Pay Rocketing Power Bills & 340,000 Families Cut From Grid
    April 16, 2019 by stopthesethings

    Germany’s wind and solar experiment has failed: the so-called ‘Energiewende’ (energy transition) has turned into an insanely costly debacle.

    German power prices have rocketed; blackouts and load shedding are the norm; and once bucolic farmland has been turned into industrial wastelands (see above).

    Hundreds of billions of euros have been squandered on subsidies to wind and solar, all in an effort to reduce carbon dioxide gas emissions. However, that objective has failed too: CO2 emissions continue to rise.

    But you wouldn’t know it from what appears in the mainstream media.

    – – –
    They seem intent on chasing their own tails in vain pursuit of pointless trace gas targets.

  6. GregG says:

    I certainly agree with the sentiment that alternative power, such as solar and wind, without massive improvements in energy storage, are not going to power civilization in the near term without backup from traditional energy sources, such as natural gas. I personally think that the idea of using the massive amounts of nuclear waste to drive molten salt thorium reactors (see LFTR) should at least be explored, if not implemented.

    However, my reason for writing this reply is to set the record straight about the loss of efficiency of solar panels. The article says that the loss will be 1.1% for every degree Celsius rise in temperature. Actually, the current output increases in the diode I-V curve with increased temperature. Also, the voltage degradation for modern silicon solar cells is approximately -040% to -0.55% per degree Celsius, depending on the type of cell. So, the power degradation is less than half what was stated. In fact, when we get the Solar Minimum cooling that we are expecting, solar panels will actually increase significantly in efficiency. I once got a letter back from an Antarctic expedition saying that the output from their solar panels was 40-50% greater than what was specified. That was a result of both reflection off of the ice/snow and the cold temperature, as the panels performed about 0.5% better per degree C of temperature drop. At -50C, the approximate increase in efficiency from spec is +38%. The remainder was from albedo.

  7. oldbrew says:

    GregG says: In fact, when we get the Solar Minimum cooling that we are expecting, solar panels will actually increase significantly in efficiency.

    Indeed, but a large part of the argument for spending fortunes on solar panels is the claim that it’s a necessary response to warming :/

  8. GregG says:

    I personally installed a small solar array (0.6 kW) on my house in 1986. In combination with batteries, it acts as an emergency backup when the power fails, which it does on occasion. It’s enough to power lights, refrigerator, garage door opener and other small loads for a few days. In 2011 I installed a larger 3.2 kW system that has powered more than 100% of my house loads since that time and has paid itself off in savings already.

    I don’t think solar is for everybody and I sure agree that the government shouldn’t flee from the cheap power generation that allowed civilization to thrive and force people into intermittent alternative energy. However, in the interest of full disclosure, I thought I’d mention that I use solar energy at home and it has worked well for me. I should also mention that I was an Aerospace Engineer for 30 years, specializing in solar cells and panels for spacecraft, so using solar energy kind of comes naturally to me.

  9. Gamecock says:

    GregG, how are the solar panels cooled while deployed in space?

  10. oldbrew says:

    Installing solar panels on the roof of a house often requires the use of scaffolding, which is quite expensive relative to the cost of the panels.


  11. GregG says:

    Gamecock: There is no convective cooling of solar panels in Space, but luckily deep Space faces the back of the panels, so we use thermally conductive adhesive and themally conductive facesheets and honeycomb material. Therefore, heat is conducted to the rear of the panels and radiated to the cold of deep Space. That said, there are some missions, such as using solar panel aerobraking for planetary orbital insertion or when visiting Venus, when all solar panel joints between cells and wires have to be welded because the panel temperature exceeds the melting temperature of silver based solders! We are now making thin, flexible solar arrays that are manufactured using robotics. Solar cell efficiency now exceeds 40%. In fact, terrestrial concentrators using 4 junction cells have almost reached 50% cell conversion efficiency.

    Oldbrew: The rules in Los Aneles require a 3 foot setback from the roof edge so firemen have better access to the roof if they need to fight a fire. That results in smaller solar arrays for a given roof size, but safer to install. It also makes it easier and safer to clean them. Much of my solar array was installed using tilted structural frames on a flat roof with a parapet wall, so was extremely safe. My sister installed her array using ground mounted racks on a hillside, again very safe. Only steep roofs require that the installers use mountain climbing gear.

  12. oldbrew says:

    Greg G – my house in the UK though not large has 3 floors. The cost of the scaffolding was about 10% of the total installation of 12 panels. The roof angle is standard, not steep.

    That was over 8 years ago, so panels may be cheaper now but scaffolding would no doubt cost more, both as a gross figure and as a percentage of the whole bill.

  13. Gamecock says:

    Thanks, GregG!