Going Solar...the best solution for Mars.

kbd512 · 2023-11-25 19:03:16

Steve,

1mi^2 = 2,589,988.10m^2
100mi^2 = 258,998,810m^2
1m^2 of mono-crystalline photovoltaic panel = 585,000Wh of embodied energy (on average)
258,998,810m^2 * 585,000Wh/m^2 = 151,514,303,850,000Wh of embodied energy
4,230,000,000,000,000Wh or 4,230TWh = total US electricity consumption during 2022

We appear to be good to go on having enough input energy to merely make said photovoltaic panels, albeit a notable portion of the total available energy supply, with the understanding that all of the energy to make photovoltaics comes from coal, oil, and gas.

As of February of 2023, America's total installed generating capacity was 1,300,000,000,000 Watts.

258,998,810 * 200 = 51,799,762,000 Watts of solar photovoltaic generating capacity at high noon
1,300,000,000,000 / 51,799,762,000 = 25.09 <- this looks like a pretty serious problem, as I'm about to illustrate...

Let's say we get 8 full hours of Sun per day, over the entire year (wildly unrealistic, but so is Elon Musk's assertion, so let's pretend that summer and winter don't exist), and generate 200W/m^2, good for about 414,398,096,000Wh of electricity per day:
258,998,810 * 200 * 8 = 414,398,096,000Wh/day
4,230,000,000,000,000Wh per year / 414,398,096,000Wh per day = 10,208 days (rounded to the nearest day)

Anything over 365 days is ignoring present electrical consumption per year, but somehow assuming a drastic decrease in electrical power consumption, despite an attempt to electrify everything.

10,208days / 365.25days per year = 27.948 years <- this is a showstopper

The daily 414GW power surges would blow every transformer on the present electrical grid straight to the moon, long before we had to worry about not having nearly enough electricity, but still...

Large solar farms have an average of 2,822kg per MegaWatt of installed / "nameplate" capacity.

414,398.096MW nameplate capacity * 2,822kg/MW = 1,169,431,426.912kg or 1,169,431t

Annual Copper production was 22,000,000t in 2022. That seems doable until we consider the fact that the solar array needs to be 28X larger than Elon Musk's off-the-cuff estimate, in order to meet present demand, and then it grossly exceeds total global annual Copper production.

I assume that other large consumers of Copper, probably people who have the same fanciful ideas about photovoltaics and wind turbines, will attempt to use electrical wiring at the same time, so our Copper production needs to dramatically increase. Copper mining and refining currently represents about 50% of all mining energy consumption. We also produced about 1.9 billion metric tons of steel in 2022, which represents somewhere between 7% and 9% of total mining energy consumption.

After America consumes the world's Copper supply for more than a year, just to construct the array and in-plant wiring, then we need to source enough Copper and Aluminum to produce the electrical wiring and power transformers to connect our panels to the electric grid, whilst accounting for daily multi-hundred-GigaWatt power fluctuations by using wildly overbuilt transformers (more Copper, Aluminum, and steel). We also need steel and concrete for the support structure for the solar arrays.

It's fun to dream. Elon Musk dreams big, so props to him for that. Every Elon Musk needs a Gwynne Shotwell to keep the dreams grounded in reality, though. It's less fun to do real engineering work, whilst subject to real world physical limitations, like sourcing enough Copper to not grossly exceed total global annual supply.

Calliban · 2023-11-26 06:46:57

Agree with Kbd512 on this one. Below is a link to the 2015 Quadrennial energy review, produced by the US department of energy.
https://www.energy.gov/quadrennial-tech … eview-2015

Go to Section 10, Table 10.4 for a summary of materials inputs into several different types of powerplant in ton/TWh. Here are some tallys per TWh:

Nuclear (PWR) = 760t concrete / cement; 3t copper; 0t glass; 160t steel; 0t aluminium.
Wind = 8000t concrete / cement; 23t copper; 92t glass; 1800t steel; 35t aluminium.
Solar PV = 4050t concrete / cement; 850t copper; 2700t glass; 7900t steel; 680t aluminium.

Comparison between Solar PV and Nuclear PWR. Compared to a TWh from a PWR, solar PV requires 5x more concrete, 280x more copper, 11x more steel, hundreds of times more glass and aluminium. It is ironic that solar PV is often championed as the environmentally freindly option. Wind and solar PV are horrendous resource hogs. Solar if by far the worst of the two.

tahanson43206 · 2023-11-26 07:34:57

For Calliban re #652

Your observation about use of resources caught my eye ....

The resources that are being collected and shaped into various uses were previously idle. The energy to collect and shape the resources came from the Sun, which is a large fusion engine. The supply of energy from the Sun is so great that humans will take many centuries to consume even a tiny fraction of the supply.

It takes some human effort and thought to shape physical resources into a useful form. Fortunately we have a small number of humans who are willing to exert the effort to shape physical resources for beneficial purposes.

Meanwhile, we have vast numbers of humans who contribute nothing except commentary on what others are doing.

This topic was created by Louis. This topic is up to #653, as we (forum members) continue to argue about his claim that solar power is "best" for Mars. It can be rated in many ways, and there may be some measure in which solar power is "best", so I'll give Louis the benefit of the doubt, and assume there must be at least one measure in which solar power is superior to all other competitive power production methods.

(th)

Void · 2023-11-26 08:31:39

I will intrude. The problem is specialization thinking, which is currently outdated.

Referencing George Friedmans thinking WWII end allowed existing generalists to direct specialists into very efficient productivity. But the generalists are gone, and also, we have been specialists who cannot see the big picture. So, that has to reverse, and I expect that it will.

I believe in a flip/flop of the fourth turning. One flips to one extreme and then next corrects back to another extreme. What we had since WWII's end, of a stretch of time of about 85 years (+/- ? years), is needing reversal.

The whole idea of best and brightest is stupid, as who would know? Certifying "Experts" does not actually give them brains that work well. It is mostly a power game. Now it is not working so well.

Specialization can be efficient, if it is directed properly by persons who actually have a higher cross-referenced understanding of the situation.

Generalization is said to be the secret of human dominance; however, it has been said by some.

Disliking a type of energy method is like telling a child not to go to school to get better.

For Mars we might think of:
1) Solar Thermal
2) Solar Photo
3) Anti-Solar Cell technology
4) Nuclear Fission
5) Nuclear Fusion
6) Geothermal
7) Space Based Solar
8) Other

It really is looking like #1 and #4 are good starters with just a bit of #2 mixed in.

For #8, may I suggest a sort of solar Hydro power?

Looking at the Mariner Rift Valley, what happens if you drill slanted tunnels down and have a perch at the top for a "Condensing" process and a perch at the bottom for an "Expansion" process?

Cold is not that hard get on the top perch most or all of the time, Hot on the bottom perch is daily/seasonal/and dust storm determined.

But if you are sending a hot fluid up a tunnel from the bottom perch, and a cold fluid down from a top perch, (Two tunnels), then you have a device with its own thermal storage.

The boring company hopes to have a machine that can bore rather fast.

https://electrek.co/2022/04/21/elon-mus … iles%2Fday.
Quote:

7 miles/day
The current iteration of Prufrock, called Prufrock-2, is designed to mine at up to 1 mile/week, meaning a tunnel the length of the Las Vegas strip (approximately 4 miles) can be completed in a month. Prufrock-3 is designed to be even faster, with the medium term goal of 1/10 human walking speed, or 7 miles/day.

I think that those are mighty Musky specs of aspiration but that is OK.

How deep is it?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Valles_Ma … r%20System.
Quote:

7 km (23,000 ft)
At more than 4,000 km (2,500 mi) long, 200 km (120 mi) wide and up to 7 km (23,000 ft) deep, Valles Marinaris is the largest canyon of the Solar System.

These tunnels would be at a slant, but probably not impossible to drill, if the Boring Company can produce Prufrock 3, and it works somewhat as well as projected.

You might not need to use a condensation process either, just compressed gas of some kind, heat it hot and send it up one tunnel and chill it cold and send it down the other tunnel. Turbines/windmills presumed.

But maybe a condensation process of CO2 or water might be suitable.

In such a process various kinds of heat could be applied at the bottom perch.

My point is it is way to early to simply pick one and make it a dogma to prohibit the others.

That would not be wise.

Done

Last edited by Void (2023-11-26 08:55:34)

GW Johnson · 2023-11-26 10:53:56

Void:

I am unsure of what you have in mind with your "hot perch"-"cold perch" idea, but boring tunnels is expensive and high-effort infrastructure emplacement, on a planet where there is no supporting infrastructure (and there will not be, for a long time to come).

The ground is cold, so your "hot tunnel" will have to be insulated, or whatever is in it will not stay hot very long.

Thinking along the lines of minimal infrastructure emplacement, why not just hang pipes out in the open along the cliff down into the canyon? Insulate the hot one. That would be a whole lot easier and less expensive to do.

GW

PS -- that comes from an old engineer who did not over-specialize, instead learning enough to be quite dangerous in a wide variety of disciplines. Such are rare, unfortunately, as you indicated.

Last edited by GW Johnson (2023-11-26 10:55:19)

Calliban · 2023-11-26 11:14:22

There are two components to this topic. (1) Power systems that are shipped from Earth and assembled on Mars in support of scouting missions. (2) Power systems that are built, wholly or partially on Mars using ISRU. The latter becomes more attractive as Mars energy requirements grow and ISRU capabilities grow.

Reading back to the early posts in this thread, they do not appear to have been particularly productive. For both nuclear and solar power systems we have an assembly problem. The power systems require substantial assembly on the surface. This will be difficult to do remotely. But sending people to Mars without full propellant tanks on the surface is a risk. If that equipment breaks, your people are stranded on the surface.

Last edited by Calliban (2023-11-26 11:19:11)

Void · 2023-11-26 11:51:21

Not wanting to intrude in a prolonged sense. GW Johnson, the entire idea of settling Mars will be expensive, and the result needs to be a payoff of profits.

The Hot perch would be any energy source, I mentioned several potential ones. The Cold Perch would be condensers on the side of the canyon. The tunnels would pick up heat in one case where a hot fluid moves up them such as steam, and in the other case would collect cold as in a possible case of Liquid CO2 flowing down a possible 7 km drop.

The energy storage would be natural to the system, but yes very expensive. But if you have boring technology, you can make lots of them and also can use that technology to make habitation facilitations as well.

But no reply is required, please continue with Calliban.

Done

Steve Stewart · 2023-11-26 13:20:37

Brian,

You need to learn to put units with numbers. Numbers are meaningless without units. Let me try and break down some of what you said:

Kbd512 Post #651
1mi^2 = 2,589,988.10m^2
100mi^2 = 258,998,810m^2

On the first line you are telling me that one square mile is equal to about 2.59 million square meters. I agree with that.

On the second line you are telling me that 100 square miles is equal to about 259 million square meters. I can buy that. Simple math so far, you just need to multiple the first line by 100.

However, Elon Musk didn't say an area of 100 square miles. He said an area that is 100 miles by 100 miles, which is 10,000 square miles. Not 100 square miles. Then you go on to talk about embodied energy, which has nothing to do with the area covered by solar panels.

Kbd512 Post #651
1m^2 of mono-crystalline photovoltaic panel = 585,000Wh of embodied energy (on average),
258,998,810m^2 * 585,000Wh/m^2 = 151,514,303,850,000Wh of embodied energy,
4,230,000,000,000,000Wh or 4,230TWh = total US electricity consumption during 2022

You're using a number of 585 kW for embodied energy of a solar panel. You must have gotten that number from Google. I went to Google and found this:

I went to the link above and found the following comment:

What is the typical embodied energy of a solar photovoltaic ...
Fossil fuels never reach energy payback
Electricity as a commodity has been in use for over a century, it isn’t going away in our lifetime. A better question is, “What’s the best way to produce it?”
If you look at the embodied energy of a coal plant, or even a modern high efficiency natural gas generator, how long does it take to earn back their embodied energy? The answer is they never do. We forget, or more accurately ignore the fact that once you build a coal plant, or gas fired turbine, you then have to feed it fuel the rest of its life which it converts to electricity at a rate somewhere less than 100%. So they keep digging themselves a deeper and deeper embodied energy hole they can never crawl out of.
At least the solar panel, water wheel and wind turbine can one day get even. This is why renewable energy as a whole is better for us environmentally and economically than any form of fossil based fuel source.

Embodied energy is not dependent on the area. It doesn't matter if we're talking about a solar panel that is one square meter in size, or a group of panels that are a square mile in size, or 10,000 square miles of solar panels as Elon mentioned. The embodied energy remains a constant. The area factors out of the equation. (You'd see that if you'd use units with numbers).

Here's a video from "Solar Queen Amy". The first myth is about embodied energy. She explains things better than I can. The video was posted about 7 years ago.

5 Solar Myths

Here is an episode of Science Friday from August 27, 2021.

How To Make Solar Power Work For Everyone

Here is a quote from that segment:

Joseph Berry said:
We often talk, in our group at NREL, about embodied energy, the amount of energy you have to put into something in order to make it to begin with, because that’s something that you have that you have to pay back, once that solar cell is, say, generating electricity.
And for typical silicon-based panels that you have on say, your roof, the energy payback time is somewhere between two and 1/2, three years to basically generate the electricity you needed to basically put those together. We’re looking at materials that are an order of magnitude lower in embodied energy than that. In other words, the energy payback time is something on the order of two or three weeks.

As the article above states, typical payback is about two and a half years to three years. And as Joseph Berry stated "We’re looking at materials that are an order of magnitude lower in embodied energy than that. In other words, the energy payback time is something on the order of two or three weeks."

Again this is independent of the area of the panels. The area covered by panels has nothing to do with the payback time.

Brian I find it interesting that when Elon talks about putting a million people on Mars you think he's a visionary, but when it points out the fact that solar energy is cheaper than coal you call him a dreamer. I think Elon was making the point that solar panels do not take up that much space. Elon is right about that, it's not a dream. He's not the only one that has pointed out that fact.

As Tom pointed out in post #653 this topic is about solar energy on Mars. Brian you keep hijacking it and want to talk about fossil fuel on Earth. You need to stay on topic.

Last edited by Steve Stewart (2023-11-26 13:24:25)

Steve Stewart · 2023-11-26 13:22:56

Calliban Post #652

Calliban it looks like you are talking about the cost to build a factory but you are not considering the cost of running the factory.

When I was at Kansas State University in the 1980's, one of my professors told us that the Jeffrey power plant (located about 35 miles East of Kansas State), burned two hundred train cars of coal a day to power two turbines. I have a cousin that used to work at that plant. While I was in college my cousin said that information was a bit dated. He said they had expanded the plant to use all three turbines. So I would assume they are burning three hundred train cars of coal a day.

It takes a lot of energy to mine that much coal. And the coal is shipped from Wyoming using fossil fuels, probably 600 miles to 1,000 miles I would guess. So more energy (cost) is used to ship the coal. This cost is independent of the cost to build the plant. The coal contains mercury, as well as other toxic elements, such as lead and arsenic. The resulting mountain of contaminated ash, resulting from burning 300 train cars of coal a day for decades, has to be maintained indefinitely. So the cost of maintaining the mountain of ash per day, multiplied by an infinite number of days, is an infinite cost.

I don't know why I have to point this out, but solar and wind do not need to be fed with a source of energy, that is their advantage. The wind comes to the windmill. Yes there is a cost to building a wind farm or solar farm, just like there is a cost to building a coal plant. And yes there is a cost to maintain a wind or solar farm, just like there is a cost to maintain a coal powered plant.

But wind and solar do not have the cost of mining the energy (coal) and shipping it to the plant. Wind and solar also do not have the cost of dealing with the coal ash afterward. The cost of wind (and solar) have gotten so cheap it's now cheaper to build a new wind farm than it is to keep an existing coal powered plant running.

It's now cheaper to build a new wind farm than to keep a coal plant running

The metric we need to look at is the cost per kilowatt, not the initial cost of building a plant, wind farm, solar farm, etc. The total cost of building, operating, buying fuel (if needed), dealing with waste afterward (such as coal ash, nuclear waste, etc), is figured into the cost per kilowatt.

Why does the cost of renewable energy continue to get cheaper and cheaper?

Majority of New Renewables Beat Cheapest Fossil Fuel on Cost: IRENA

Most new wind and solar projects will be cheaper than coal, report finds

Energy Fact – Solar is about to become the cheapest source of electricity

Solar energy is not only practical on Earth, it's also practical on the Moon and Mars. I'll post more about that at a later time.

Calliban · 2023-11-26 16:39:48

Steve, solar power plants do not replace fossil fuel plants, even on Earth. Your coal plant will still need to operate and will still need to ship coal from Wyoming. Unless that is, people are prepared to go without power at night and have rolling blackouts during winter days. The only thing the solar plant will do is marginally reduce the fuel bill at the coal plant. But capital and other operating costs remain the same. This is why no country anywhere has ever reduced the cost of electricity by building intermittent renewables.

kbd512 · 2023-11-26 16:57:40

Steve,

I normally express area in terms of a square, as in 100 square miles or 10,000 square miles, rather than saying 100 miles by 100 miles. My mistake, and apologies for that.

If the photovoltaic array covers 100 times more area, then it will require 100 times more Copper.

1,169,431t of Copper becomes 116,943,100t of Copper.

Over the past 4,000 years of Copper mining, we've mined about 700,000,000t of Copper. Most of that Copper is currently in-use, to this very day. Copper is one of the most recycled metals on the planet. We need more than 5 years of Copper mining, at 2022 production rates, merely to internally wire this proposed 10,000mi^2 photovolatic power plant.

Since all of the existing metal is already in-use, else it would be available for sale / use, then if we attempted to pursue this project, would you imagine that we might need to open even a few new Copper mines to meet an increase in demand equivalent to 1/7th of the total tonnage of Copper mined throughout the history of Copper mining?

Embodied energy is not dependent on the area. It doesn't matter if we're talking about a solar panel that is one square meter in size, or a group of panels that are a square mile in size, or 10,000 square miles of solar panels as Elon mentioned. The embodied energy remains a constant. The area factors out of the equation. (You'd see that if you'd use units with numbers).

Embodied energy absolutely is dependent upon surface area, because a specific weight of specific materials are being used to cover that specific surface area.

I think what you're getting at is that I expressed the number of photovoltaic panels in terms of square meters of surface area, behind the actual number of 1 square meter photovoltaic panels.

So, let me try it this way:

258,998,810 photovoltaic panels (each with 1m^2 of surface area) * 585,000Wh per 1m^2 of panel = 151,514,303,850,000Wh of embodied energy

Nothing about the number of Watt-hours of energy input required to produce 258,998,810 photovoltaic panels, which collectively cover 258,998,810m^2 of surface area, has changed one iota.

151,514,303,850,000Wh of energy is required to produce photovoltaic panels covering 100mi^2, so 100 times more energy is required to cover 100 times more area (10,000mi^2 or 25,899,881,000m^2).

15,151,430,385,000,000 or 15,151TWh <- This is 3.8 years of America's total 2022 electrical energy consumption, according to the US Energy Information Administration.

Do you think we might have to open some new power plants, just to produce energy to make that many photovoltaic panels?

SpaceNut · 2023-11-26 17:57:30

Well embodied energy on mars is even greater than on earth since it's going to be received at a much lower level than on earth.
Coal is not replaced as we are still making use of all of the solar to power rather than making use of some of it to make more panels. That is a choice on how to make use of it.
Yes, all the huge numbers apply when looking at a huge population but not so much for a mars beginning.

kbd512 · 2023-11-26 17:57:31

Steve,

It takes a lot of energy to mine that much coal. And the coal is shipped from Wyoming using fossil fuels, probably 600 miles to 1,000 miles I would guess. So more energy (cost) is used to ship the coal. This cost is independent of the cost to build the plant. The coal contains mercury, as well as other toxic elements, such as lead and arsenic. The resulting mountain of contaminated ash, resulting from burning 300 train cars of coal a day for decades, has to be maintained indefinitely. So the cost of maintaining the mountain of ash per day, multiplied by an infinite number of days, is an infinite cost.

The energy to mine coal comes from burning coal. The energy to move the coal from the mine to the power plant, also came from burning coal. Now it comes from diesel fuel because diesel engines are more efficient than the steam engines of 100 years ago. The energy to make photovoltaic panels and wind turbines, likewise, comes from burning coal. Semiconductors are made by burning a special grade of coal known as metallurgical coal. Photovoltaics are not manufactured by using other photovoltaics to supply the input energy. If it was practical to do so, then the most obvious first use for the first batch of photovoltaic panels that rolls off the assembly line of any photovoltaics factory, would be to power the factory and all the processes used to make them. This does not describe real world photovoltaic manufacturing, at all.

The minerals and metals used to manufacture photovoltaic panels, primarily Gallium and Arsenic, also contain Mercury, Arsenic, and Lead. In point of fact, coal is used to make all the semiconductors (microchips, photovoltaics, etc). Making semiconductors is one of the most energy intensive activities undertaken by humans. That's why 1 square meter of photovoltaic panel requires 585kWh of input energy, most of which comes from burning coal.

The fly ash from burning of coal, which you assert represents infinite cost, is in fact mixed into all the concrete that cities, photovoltaic and wind turbine farms, hydroelectric dams, nuclear power plants, and houses. The fly ash is mostly uncombusted Carbon, which is also used to make steel.

Using fly ash in concrete reduces cracking, permeability, and bleeding, creating a dense, high-durability concrete that is resistant to sulphates and alkali-aggregate reactions. This concrete mix also requires less water and has a tendency to resist shrinking.

The steelmaking industry is a typical resource and energy intensive industry that generates a variety of solid wastes,among which fly ash is more abundant.
Dust is generated in every process, from the raw material unit to the rolling line workshop. The dust is collected through a dust collection system. When the dust wind passes through the system, the dust is collected at the dust collection and the rest of the air is output as exhaust gas. The collected dust is what we usually call fly ash.
According to statistics, for every ton of steel produced in the steel industry, the amount of dust generated is generally 100 to 130 kg.
Fly ash contains not only a large amount of iron, carbon and other elements (stainless steel fly ash also contains chromium, nickel and other elements), but also a certain amount of calcium oxide, magnesium oxide, iron oxide, manganese oxide, etc.
It is a secondary metallurgical resource with high recovery value.
Fly ash briquetting technology is a recycling technology based on this concept. Various kinds of fly ash are mixed in different proportions, add the right amount of water and binder, mix well, and pass the mixed material through the fly ash briquette press, that is, fly ash briquette machine. After drying, the finished briquettes can be returned to the steelmaking converter for reuse as slagging agent or coolant.

The global fly ash market is valued at around $6B USD.

Fly ash is used in concrete, bricks, road base for making new roads, soil stabilization, pipes, roof tiles, blasting grit, home insulation, cosmetics, tooth paste, certain kinds of plastics, paints and corrosion protection coatings, and the list goes on.

I don't know why I have to point this out, but solar and wind do not need to be fed with a source of energy, that is their advantage. The wind comes to the windmill. Yes there is a cost to building a wind farm or solar farm, just like there is a cost to building a coal plant. And yes there is a cost to maintain a wind or solar farm, just like there is a cost to maintain a coal powered plant.

Solar and wind absolutely do have to be fed with a source of energy, one that is highly variable and, in the case of solar, one that is always unavailable for at least 12 hours of the day, at the equator. An infinite number of photovoltaic panels, multiplied by zero input photons from the Sun, still produces zero Watts of energy output.

SpaceNut · 2023-11-27 08:07:41

Why are power plants not where the coal is mined as that reduces the cost to make use of coal?
Why are oil rigs also not with a power plant to reduce the pipelines required further reducing the cost to use oil?
As far as the solar materials are they even all with in a small area so as to do the same with the manufacturing plants?

GW Johnson · 2023-11-27 09:42:39

Hi Spacenut:

I think the answer to your question is that power plant sites (oil or gas or coal) are limited a whole lot more by where the need is located and where the transmission lines are located. A big piece of that is line losses, but that is not the only issue. The physical location of assets already in place is another huge piece.

Similar issues pertain to renewables like solar PV and wind, except that these are also very limited to sites where the resource is readily available. Texas wind farms rarely made much contribution until the big transmission line loop through west Texas got built. After that, wind rapidly grew to about 25% of generation on the Texas grid (mostly stand-lone to avoid federal regulation). At 25%, it has run smack into the intermittency/reserve capacity/energy storage issue.

GW

SpaceNut · 2023-11-27 12:18:19

In the early days of energy, the location needs we built next to the rivers to provide power to our usage of energy. That allowed less energy to lose and a deliverable of it from a source nearby.

Calliban · 2023-11-27 14:07:27

SpaceNut wrote:

In the early days of energy, the location needs we built next to the rivers to provide power to our usage of energy. That allowed less energy to lose and a deliverable of it from a source nearby.

Yes indeed. Before the days of electricity, long distance power transmission was not practical. So if you wanted to power your factory using the river, you had to be on the river. There were (and are) mechanical power transmission technologies. But they were cumbersome. Jerker lines, rods, rope drives, etc. Hydraulics didn't arrive as a practical power transmission technology until electricity was already on the scene. Even so, these old technologies still have niche applications.

In the pre-coal era, wind and water power were used to drive factories via line shafts. A water wheel would drive a shaft that ran along the ceiling of an open plan factory. Individual machines would draw power from the shaft via belt drives. There are still some line shaft systems in use, mostly in hobby workshops, but even in some large factories. In the UK, there were still a few direct water driven factories working in the 1970s. But line shafts severely constrained factory layout and were maintenance intensive. When using renewable energy in the past, there was no attempt at energy storage. If nature delivered less power via the wind or water flow, then work rate adjusted to the power available, not the other way round. In my opinion, this is still the way that RE would need to work if it is to be successful. Use of energy needs to be intermittent, to match the intermittent supply. Somehow, we have to find ways of adjusting to this. As I have said before, people will not enjoy living this way.

Last edited by Calliban (2023-11-27 14:09:18)

Steve Stewart · 2023-11-28 02:59:09

Thanks for your comments gentlemen. I'm trying really hard not to laugh. Honestly, some of these comments are nothing short of hilarious. I'll try to answer at least one comment from each of you. I work a lot of hours so I don't have a whole lot of time. I'll do my best to address a few of your comments.

I can see many of you have a lot to learn about how power generation/distribution works. After I graduated from college in the 1980's, I moved to Indianapolis Indiana and I worked for the Navy as a manufacturing engineer. Years later, I worked for a company in Indianapolis that was called "Cellnet". They automate the reading of electric meters, eliminating the need of meter readers. I was in charge of rolling out the wireless network. I planned the installation of 20 "Towers". They work much like cell towers do with cell phones. I had four technicians that worked under me.

I worked closely with the local utility, Indianapolis Power and Light (IPL). I coordinated the work that was done by our technicians, and the work that was done by the utility workers (IPL). Through that experience I learned a lot about how power generation works, and power distribution.

Some of what I learned is that about half the cost of electricity is in the generation of electricity, and the other half is in the distribution of electricity, including reading meters. At that time Indianapolis had about 460,000 electric meters. It cost IPL about one dollar a month to read each meter. In other words, IPL was spending about $460,000 a month just to read meters.

Another thing I learned is that coal powered plants are their own biggest customer. That is to say, a coal powered plant itself uses more of its own electricity than any one of their biggest customers. That's not true of renewables.

I'll go through some of your comments and answer some of your questions. I plan to come back at a later time and I post more information.

Steve Stewart · 2023-11-28 03:00:28

Calliban post #660

solar power plants do not replace fossil fuel plants, even on Earth. Your coal plant will still need to operate and will still need to ship coal from Wyoming.

Not true. We don't need coal plants at all. At at least not for making electricity. Coal is still used in the production of steel. Understand that solar and wind work together as a single system. You need to think of them as a network, not as a standalone system.

The only thing the solar plant will do is marginally reduce the fuel bill at the coal plant. But capital and other operating costs remain the same.

Not true. How many times do I have to say this? The cheapest form of electricity in terms of cost per kilowatt, which is the metric we need to be looking at, is solar. The second cheapest is wind. And both continue to get cheaper and cheaper. Obviously you didn't read the articles that I posted earlier. Here I'll post them them again:

It's now cheaper to build a new wind farm than to keep a coal plant running
This article was posted back in November 2018. Wind and solar have gotten a lot cheaper since then.

Energy Fact – Solar is about to become the cheapest source of electricity

* Wind became cheaper than natural gas around 2012, with solar beating out gas in 2016.
* Solar starts to beat out wind as the cost-king around 2020.

Let me say this again since some of you aren't listening. As of today solar is the cheapest form of electricity. Wind is the second cheapest.

Steve Stewart · 2023-11-28 03:01:29

Kbd512 #661

Do you think we might have to open some new power plants, just to produce energy to make that many photovoltaic panels?

Why would we need to do that? The embodied energy of both solar and wind is less than that of a coal powered plant. The real question is do we need to build more more solar and wind power, so that we have the enormous energy required to build a coal power plant?

Steve Stewart · 2023-11-28 03:03:23

SpaceNut #662

Well embodied energy on mars is even greater than on earth since it's going to be received at a much lower level than on earth.

Well, I can agree with what I think you are trying to say. But keep in mind that the embodied energy to make solar panels on Earth, and the embodied energy to make solar panels on Mars is one subject. The fact that Mars receives less light from the sun than does Earth is different subject.

The embodied energy to make solar panels on Mars, and the embodied energy on Earth should be about the same. But that's assuming we have the same raw materials available on Mars, and it's assuming transportation costs are the same. My guess is that the embodied energy to make solar panels on Mars would be more than it is on Earth, simply because the integrated supply chain on Earth is more developed. Even so, embodied energy to make solar panels on Mars will likely be less than the embodied energy it takes to build a coal plant on Earth.

When GW Johnson first proposed his "train-truck on Mars" idea there were some questions asked about why these things would be needed. Hopefully some of you now are starting to realize the importance of having this type of transportation on Mars. Personally, I saw the need right away and I like his idea.

Yes, it is true that the light level is less on Mars than it is on Earth. SpaceNut I think you yourself put up a post somewhere, maybe on this thread, that the light level on Mars is 59% of that of Earth. From that number alone it would seem that a solar panel on Mars would only produce 59% of what it would produce on Earth. But that's not the whole story.

Mars is a very cold place. The average temperature is -80F. When solar panels are cold they produce more power. The cold of Mars will help make up some of that power difference. I did the numbers on this over 10 years ago. If I remember right I think the numbers come out to about 70%. That is, a solar panel on Mars will produce about 70% of the power that it would produce on Earth. When I get time I'll dig out the information and post it on this thread. You're making a good point.

Steve Stewart · 2023-11-28 03:05:55

Kbd512 #663

The energy to mine coal comes from burning coal.

That's true but it doesn't need to be that way.

The energy to move the coal from the mine to the power plant, also came from burning coal. Now it comes from diesel fuel because diesel engines are more efficient than the steam engines of 100 years ago.

Well that's sort of true, but it would help to learn some history. The reason that coal was used in the 1800s is because that was the only large form of energy available at that time.

From the beginning and up through the middle 1800's, people used to burn whale oil in their lamps. Whales started to become more scarce as a result, and the price of whale oil skyrocketed as the demand for whale oil greatly increased. A guy by the name of Abraham Gesner was the first person to extract a clear liquid from oil that came from the ground. He noticed that "clear liquid" would burn cleanly in his lamp, and it was a whole lot cheaper than whale oil. That "clear liquid" is today known as kerosene.

Needless to say word spread quickly. In the United States, the State of Pennsylvania had lakes/pounds of oil. These dirty, grimy, puddles of oil were considered waste. That was until everyone realized that they could put this oil in their still, (the one they used to make moonshine). By distilling the oil they could extract out this clear liquid (kerosene) that was a great substitute for whale oil, and a whole lot cheaper.

From that point forward everyone ran to the ponds of oil and hauled it back to their still. A man named Edwin Drake realized that it was only a matter of time before these ponds of oil would dry up. Edwin Drake decided he would try drilling for oil. Of course everyone laughed at him. He bought a steam engine in order to drill deeper. After many days/weeks/years of hard work and a lot of expense he reached the whooping depth of 70 feet and struck oil. It was in 1859 when Edwin Drake drilled the Worlds first oil well.

About 6 years ago I visited the Edwin Drake oil well in Titusville Pennsylvania. Below are some pictures I took while visiting the site. It has a museum and a park. The picture below is of the building where Edwin Drakes oil well is located. The second picture below is Edwin Drakes oil well inside the building. They pumped some oil from the well and then recirculated it for display purposes.

The reason coal was used in early steam locomotives is because that was the only large energy source available. Later, after kerosene was discovered, kerosene was another major source of fuel. Early engines, such as those made by Stover and Warner Manufacturing, all ran on kerosene. When the Model T was first mass produced in 1908, it could run on either kerosene or gasoline, because there weren't any gas stations. When the Model T first went into production, there were more electric and steam powered cars than there were gas/kerosene powered cars.

Steve Stewart · 2023-11-28 03:07:02

Since I seem to have everyones attention, I need to ask a question of all of you.

If America were to try and run the whole Country on electricity from wind, what percentage of electricity do you think could come from wind?

I want each of you to give me a percentage. What do you think is the highest percentage of electricity you think can come from wind?

I need an answer from anyone/everyone reading this. I'm going to be busy for the next several days. It might be the weekend before I'm able to get back on this forum again. We'll talk more then.

In the meantime, I need an answer from everyone.

kbd512 · 2023-11-28 03:59:11

Steve Stewart wrote:

Kbd512 #661
Do you think we might have to open some new power plants, just to produce energy to make that many photovoltaic panels?
Why would we need to do that? The embodied energy of both solar and wind is less than that of a coal powered plant. The real question is do we need to build more more solar and wind power, so that we have the enormous energy required to build a coal power plant?

Steve,

Assuming Elon Musk's proposed project was completed over 10 years, we would need more energy to make 81.7 times more photovoltaic panels than are presently made for the US market each year. We would also require 1/7th as much new Copper as has been mined over the entire history of Copper mining, merely to internally wire this proposed 10,000 square mile photovoltaic power plant. That will require more energy, which doesn't come from photovoltaic panels or wind turbines that don't presently exist.

There is no stock of Copper or Silicon or Aluminum sitting in a warehouse somewhere, that we can readily transform into a 10,000 square mile photovoltaic array. We presently burn enormous quantities of coal and gas to mine and refine metal, whether it's used to make photovoltaic panels, or for any other purpose.

If you want to engage in hypotheticals about where you think the energy to make the next photovoltaic panel might come from in the future, then some company that actually makes photovoltaic panels needs to power their photovoltaic panel factory using some of their manufactured products, rather than coal and gas.

kbd512 · 2023-11-28 05:18:41

Steve,

kbd512 wrote:

The energy to mine coal comes from burning coal.

Steve Stewart wrote:

That's true but it doesn't need to be that way.

The real physical world doesn't work the way you think it should, which is fine, but at the present time it still works the way that it does. The substance of my argument was related to the enormous amount of energy and metals required, thus the number of new coal fired power plants that will be created to manufacture all of these new photovoltaics and wind turbines, since neither the energy nor the materials to make them presently exists.

Your commentary seems to imply that we're not going to need to mine enormous quantities of metals, or that making all these short-lived machines will somehow require less energy than we presently consume. The quantities of metals involved, especially Silver and Copper, are so large that they will rapidly consume all known reserves, regardless of the energy and therefore monetary economics of trying to exploit them. There seems to be no acknowledgement of this fact on your part, or possibly no awareness.

I've seen nothing whatsoever about the energy and monetary investment into the energy storage system that would be required, unless we're going to have daily grid crashes when the Sun stops shining or the wind stops blowing.

New Mars Forums

Announcement

#651 2023-11-25 19:03:16

Re: Going Solar...the best solution for Mars.

#652 2023-11-26 06:46:57

Re: Going Solar...the best solution for Mars.

#653 2023-11-26 07:34:57

Re: Going Solar...the best solution for Mars.

#654 2023-11-26 08:31:39

Re: Going Solar...the best solution for Mars.

#655 2023-11-26 10:53:56

Re: Going Solar...the best solution for Mars.

#656 2023-11-26 11:14:22

Re: Going Solar...the best solution for Mars.

#657 2023-11-26 11:51:21

Re: Going Solar...the best solution for Mars.

#658 2023-11-26 13:20:37

Re: Going Solar...the best solution for Mars.

#659 2023-11-26 13:22:56

Re: Going Solar...the best solution for Mars.

#660 2023-11-26 16:39:48

Re: Going Solar...the best solution for Mars.

#661 2023-11-26 16:57:40

Re: Going Solar...the best solution for Mars.

#662 2023-11-26 17:57:30

Re: Going Solar...the best solution for Mars.

#663 2023-11-26 17:57:31

Re: Going Solar...the best solution for Mars.

#664 2023-11-27 08:07:41

Re: Going Solar...the best solution for Mars.

#665 2023-11-27 09:42:39

Re: Going Solar...the best solution for Mars.

#666 2023-11-27 12:18:19

Re: Going Solar...the best solution for Mars.

#667 2023-11-27 14:07:27

Re: Going Solar...the best solution for Mars.

#668 2023-11-28 02:59:09

Re: Going Solar...the best solution for Mars.

#669 2023-11-28 03:00:28

Re: Going Solar...the best solution for Mars.

#670 2023-11-28 03:01:29

Re: Going Solar...the best solution for Mars.

#671 2023-11-28 03:03:23

Re: Going Solar...the best solution for Mars.

#672 2023-11-28 03:05:55

Re: Going Solar...the best solution for Mars.

#673 2023-11-28 03:07:02

Re: Going Solar...the best solution for Mars.

#674 2023-11-28 03:59:11

Re: Going Solar...the best solution for Mars.

#675 2023-11-28 05:18:41

Re: Going Solar...the best solution for Mars.

Board footer