Obama pushes for Solar Power North of the Arctic Circle.
Comments
-
Yes the future of energy is some sort of nuclear fission. Ways we can convert normal water to energy and return it to normal water (or something like that). For now, it's FS to just ignore anything that helps reduce our dependence on fossil fuels.HuskyInAZ said:Memo to @2001400ex and @OZONE........
Solar energy displaces other forms of energy WHEN THE SUN IS OUT. Same is true for wind power. It only works when the wind is blowing. There is no "battery" in the sky. It doesn't exist. You don't get to store your unused solar energy in the "energy cloud". The argument that you can just buy it back from the grid when you need is so fucking stupid I'm speechless. Buying it back from the grid at a future date means you are buying power generated by means other than solar, usually fossil fuel or nuclear.
If the intention is to go green, support something that doesn't have the "sun is out" limitation. Maybe something like nuclear and hydroelectric. No one wants to continue to burn carbon fuels to support our energy needs. But for someone to suggest that all we need to do is store solar energy via batteries or the the grid has no understanding how power and the grid work. -
Like batteries?2001400ex said:
Yes the future of energy is some sort of nuclear fission. Ways we can convert normal water to energy and return it to normal water (or something like that). For now, it's FS to just ignore anything that helps reduce our dependence on fossil fuels.HuskyInAZ said:Memo to @2001400ex and @OZONE........
Solar energy displaces other forms of energy WHEN THE SUN IS OUT. Same is true for wind power. It only works when the wind is blowing. There is no "battery" in the sky. It doesn't exist. You don't get to store your unused solar energy in the "energy cloud". The argument that you can just buy it back from the grid when you need is so fucking stupid I'm speechless. Buying it back from the grid at a future date means you are buying power generated by means other than solar, usually fossil fuel or nuclear.
If the intention is to go green, support something that doesn't have the "sun is out" limitation. Maybe something like nuclear and hydroelectric. No one wants to continue to burn carbon fuels to support our energy needs. But for someone to suggest that all we need to do is store solar energy via batteries or the the grid has no understanding how power and the grid work. -
I know you are being sarcastic, but that comment was FS.HuskyInAZ said:
Like batteries?2001400ex said:
Yes the future of energy is some sort of nuclear fission. Ways we can convert normal water to energy and return it to normal water (or something like that). For now, it's FS to just ignore anything that helps reduce our dependence on fossil fuels.HuskyInAZ said:Memo to @2001400ex and @OZONE........
Solar energy displaces other forms of energy WHEN THE SUN IS OUT. Same is true for wind power. It only works when the wind is blowing. There is no "battery" in the sky. It doesn't exist. You don't get to store your unused solar energy in the "energy cloud". The argument that you can just buy it back from the grid when you need is so fucking stupid I'm speechless. Buying it back from the grid at a future date means you are buying power generated by means other than solar, usually fossil fuel or nuclear.
If the intention is to go green, support something that doesn't have the "sun is out" limitation. Maybe something like nuclear and hydroelectric. No one wants to continue to burn carbon fuels to support our energy needs. But for someone to suggest that all we need to do is store solar energy via batteries or the the grid has no understanding how power and the grid work. -
Pretty sure you were the fucktard who suggested that batteries would solve the solar problem for the Alaskans living north of the arctic circle......and then doubled down a time or two.2001400ex said:
I know you are being sarcastic, but that comment was FS.HuskyInAZ said:
Like batteries?2001400ex said:
Yes the future of energy is some sort of nuclear fission. Ways we can convert normal water to energy and return it to normal water (or something like that). For now, it's FS to just ignore anything that helps reduce our dependence on fossil fuels.HuskyInAZ said:Memo to @2001400ex and @OZONE........
Solar energy displaces other forms of energy WHEN THE SUN IS OUT. Same is true for wind power. It only works when the wind is blowing. There is no "battery" in the sky. It doesn't exist. You don't get to store your unused solar energy in the "energy cloud". The argument that you can just buy it back from the grid when you need is so fucking stupid I'm speechless. Buying it back from the grid at a future date means you are buying power generated by means other than solar, usually fossil fuel or nuclear.
If the intention is to go green, support something that doesn't have the "sun is out" limitation. Maybe something like nuclear and hydroelectric. No one wants to continue to burn carbon fuels to support our energy needs. But for someone to suggest that all we need to do is store solar energy via batteries or the the grid has no understanding how power and the grid work. -
Your reading comprehension is terrible.HuskyInAZ said:
Pretty sure you were the fucktard who suggested that batteries would solve the solar problem for the Alaskans living north of the arctic circle......and then doubled down a time or two.2001400ex said:
I know you are being sarcastic, but that comment was FS.HuskyInAZ said:
Like batteries?2001400ex said:
Yes the future of energy is some sort of nuclear fission. Ways we can convert normal water to energy and return it to normal water (or something like that). For now, it's FS to just ignore anything that helps reduce our dependence on fossil fuels.HuskyInAZ said:Memo to @2001400ex and @OZONE........
Solar energy displaces other forms of energy WHEN THE SUN IS OUT. Same is true for wind power. It only works when the wind is blowing. There is no "battery" in the sky. It doesn't exist. You don't get to store your unused solar energy in the "energy cloud". The argument that you can just buy it back from the grid when you need is so fucking stupid I'm speechless. Buying it back from the grid at a future date means you are buying power generated by means other than solar, usually fossil fuel or nuclear.
If the intention is to go green, support something that doesn't have the "sun is out" limitation. Maybe something like nuclear and hydroelectric. No one wants to continue to burn carbon fuels to support our energy needs. But for someone to suggest that all we need to do is store solar energy via batteries or the the grid has no understanding how power and the grid work. -
Here ya go, dumbass......
-
Batteries store energy from solar panels. You clearly don't get it.HuskyInAZ said:Here ya go, dumbass......
-
Really? Where are these battery farms storing all this energy? Elon Musk is working on this on a micro scale (single family homes). As of today, it's only offered in Hawaii, where homes use very little power. And at the end of the day, it's like a knat on the ass of an elephant.2001400ex said:
Batteries store energy from solar panels. You clearly don't get it.HuskyInAZ said:Here ya go, dumbass......
Monster solar projects like you see in the SW do not store their energy in batteries. They are connected to the grid. There are not enough batteries in the world to store that power. And it would make no sense to store it anyway.
I understand you like to comment on things you have now clue about, but do you get out much? -
Your focus is so narrow, you can only see the tip of your nose. It's quite embarrassing actually.HuskyInAZ said:
Really? Where are these battery farms storing all this energy? Elon Musk is working on this on a micro scale (single family homes). As of today, it's only offered in Hawaii, where homes use very little power. And at the end of the day, it's like a knat on the ass of an elephant.2001400ex said:
Batteries store energy from solar panels. You clearly don't get it.HuskyInAZ said:Here ya go, dumbass......
Monster solar projects like you see in the SW do not store their energy in batteries. They are connected to the grid. There are not enough batteries in the world to store that power. And it would make no sense to store it anyway.
I understand you like to comment on things you have now clue about, but do you get out much? -
I apologize if my focus is limited to the OP and subsequent posts in this thread. I thought that's how it works. Silly me. Please enlighten me how I need to broaden my understanding of the fact that you don't store solar power in batteries, any more than you store nuclear power in batteries. Thanks in advance for your help.2001400ex said:
Your focus is so narrow, you can only see the tip of your nose. It's quite embarrassing actually.HuskyInAZ said:
Really? Where are these battery farms storing all this energy? Elon Musk is working on this on a micro scale (single family homes). As of today, it's only offered in Hawaii, where homes use very little power. And at the end of the day, it's like a knat on the ass of an elephant.2001400ex said:
Batteries store energy from solar panels. You clearly don't get it.HuskyInAZ said:Here ya go, dumbass......
Monster solar projects like you see in the SW do not store their energy in batteries. They are connected to the grid. There are not enough batteries in the world to store that power. And it would make no sense to store it anyway.
I understand you like to comment on things you have now clue about, but do you get out much?
