The example of the buoy made me laugh Eclectron!
ABC2019 wrote:On the other hand, thermodynamic solar power plants are only used to amaze the gallery, and are expensive without changing the problem, it's true. We can do without them, moreover very few countries have them (those which have large sunny cities), but they remain just as dependent on fossils as if they did not have any.
I put thermodynamic solar in the balance with nuclear power (not with fossils ...) because this solar energy is essential to get out of carbon society (although we have to get out of it, but as a precaution ... Co2 = 0,7, XNUMX% of anthropogenic origin)
You tell us that thermodynamic solar is expensive!
Let's see the efficiency of power plants compared to nuclear fuel:
FuelThermodynamic solar: fuel at zero cost, and zero carbon emissions.
Except gray energy to manufacture the power station, but afterwards the solar rays are “free” (except operating expenses).
Nuclear: only about 5% of the atoms of the fuel crack, you should know that if you were a physicist.
The output electricity produced / potential energy of the fuel is a lamentable 1.5% (breaking everything)
But it is never this performance that is shown! The pro-nuclear announce a phantasmagorical return of 30% based on the Carnot cycle, but this is not an “effective” but maximum return (from what this physical law allows)
Nuclear power emits Co2, and African ore enrichment plants in particular run on coal.
Average net return:Thermodynamic solar: 15% ã Themis. 30% for Désertec. (Sahara, Morocco ...)
At night, production can continue by storing thermal energy in concrete blocks or molten sodium. And at night the demand decreases.
Nuclear power plants: 33% gross on the installed capacity but in reality only 22% after calculation of the realized capacity.
But theoretically it would be necessary to (partially) deduce the night production capacity, when demand is very low, since these plants must continue to produce 24 hours a day. This further reduces the interest in its availability by a third since only two thirds is used, i.e. between 24% and 15% of the capacity actually used VS 17% theoretical according to Carnot (if we consider that the plant is then running ã empty).
- 991C4E24-5FA8-4911-8C10-147D51539402.png (190.2 Kio) Consulté 1407 fois
ABC2019 wrote:they are expensive without changing the problem, it's true.
So wrong
We don't give a damn about operating costs, since such a plant will always cost less to operate than an atomic plant (ouch have to clean mirrors, it's really expensive that ...) and no nuclear waste, which we does not know what to do. If the yield is slightly lower than expected, (as in the US) it is not very serious either, it is enough to increase the catchment area a little ... 3,5% of the surface of the Sahara would cover the total global energy demand. Impossible with nuclear power ...
ABC2019 wrote: We can do without
The longer humanity waits, the more it will cost him dearly, and even at the incalculable cost of the exhaustion of all resources (at the cost of the geological time it took to constitute them ...)
ABC2019 wrote: moreover, very few countries have them (those with large sunny cities),
With superconducting high voltage lines, we can transport electricity over long distances, and the problem is the same for nuclear power, whose energy must also be transported ... Kif, kif.
ABC2019 wrote: but they remain just as dependent on fossils as if they had none.
You have just given the best possible argument for solar energy, which cannot run out and which does not depend on a problem of availability / extraction / security of supply!
So you have to reject your argument as it is, as far as the real facts are concerned.