You asked how to quantify the losses and what causes them, it explains both.
This is a much simpler explanation.
Read my post. There is the possibility of vertical loops the footprint of residential lots.
The discussion was geothermal. Heating a home with geothermal is in scope.
Sure seem to be.
Which still requires a whole lot of square footage and it doesn’t create power.
What it does is trap heat and utilize the natural ground temps and insulating capability.
In extremely cold regions it is viable but it isn’t generating any power, it’s just helping you utilize your existing power more efficiently.
No I did not. I asked at what efficiency factor does loss move an energy source from feasible to “impossible”.
You keep assigning that word to solar, as if any investment into its application is doomed by nature.
So I never asked how to calculate transmission loss, or what causes them. I asked at what loss does a source become non-viable.
Seriously rose, grade school reading comprehension here:
More facts here.
Maga generation plants.
Hell the power that can be captured between straits of Juan De Fuca and Carquinez Strait could possibly power damn near entire West coast.
Tides are almost 6 hours apart between SF and Seattle.
The factors are the cost of production at the source and the losses between the source and your meter.
Those factors are as I said, distance, resistance, and heat as the two links explain.
I agree.
The other definition of factor. The one from algebra.
I understand how it works which is why I understand the limits.
I think maybe using geothermal to push water through hydroelectric plants would be worth exploring over great distances where as direct steam generation works when you are close to a shallow geothermal source but those would be incredibly high pressure pipelines and they are going to be cost prohibitive at some point.
Conceivably you could recycle the same water as well so as to reduce the limits on available water at the generating source or supplement it along the way with a return pipeline.
My first thought though is that if it were economically feasible we’d already be doing it.
I’ll leave that to the electrical engineers to explain in detail.
As far as I know it’s not a hard and fast number because of all the variables involved but at some point the cost to the end user becomes prohibitive.
The further you are from the generating source the quicker you reach that point due to transmission loss.
I assume you mean mega, as in large scale.
The largest tidal plant produces approximately 250 megawatts of power, Seattle alone consume 25 megawatts on average (over 9,000,000 megawatts per year). Los Angeles, 22,000 gigawatts. Then of course you have transmission losses that WR is talking about with Snowfinch.
So no, sorry two tidal plants are not going to supply energy to the entire west coast.
Can tidal be part of an energy plan? Absolutely, is it a magic bullet. I don’t think so.
JMHO of course.
.
.
.
.WW, PSHS
And you are certain that there is no viable circumstance under which that solar power generation meets the limitation.
And I don’t mean in every case, or in a specific case you point out where it won’t work. I mean in all cases which has been the position you’ve staked.
My post was in response to “what about geothermal”.
There was no limitation that it’s application was limited to power generation. So it’s use as an energy source to heat home is entirely in scope.
You’re working hard at not following along.
In order to have solar generation be viable to supply our needs it would have to be global and you’d have to be able to move that power from one side of the planet to the other.
Same with wind. You’d have to be able to move wind power from where the wind is blowing to where it isn’t.
The laws of thermodynamics prevent that from being economically feasible because of transmission loss.
They can be additive but they cannot be reliable sources as a stand alone.
They type of geothermal you are talking about does not generate heat nor does it generate electricity.
I would say you are working hard to turn:
Solar has a place in the energy economy
Into:
Solar can not meet all of our energy production needs.
I don’t think a single post in this discussion has claimed the latter. Certainly none of mine.
But you are right, I am not following your movement into that argument (because I am not opposing it). Rather I am sticking with my position that thermodynamics does not prohibit Solar energy from being utilized economically.
I never said it can’t be a part of the equation.
The problem is you must be able to meet a minimum supply constantly or the system fails and you cannot do that with wind or solar because they are so undependable.
Ok great.
Your latter point addresses why they are poor candidates to feed the entire grid. And I agree. Although storage (chemical, kinetic, potential,thermal) may make that a possibility on some scales.
I’ll note that if solar makes sense on some scale, then thermodynamics must support economically energy extraction from solar. Otherwise it makes sense never.
Also this topic is not limited to feeding the power grid in its entirety. For example, energy intensive industry can utilize solar in conjunction with its availability and location. So while variability and transmission loss work against AZ sun feeding the grid in Maine, AZ steel could be utilized nationally with a net improvement to the energy economy. (This is a contrived example as AZ is not a center of steel production. Fertilizer or fracking sand might be a better energy intensive product for this example).
