Intermittency Of Renewables?… Not So Much

[kristopher]

6. More ravings?

The present grid isn't "designed" to pay attention to generating sources smaller than the 1MW level.

There is some information compiled at the link below to assist readers in putting PamGreg's ravings into a broader context.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1127&pid=48646

For example, did you know that, according to the physics of Pam/DrGreg the Earth reflects 90% of the Sun's energy? This is the post making the claim, those that follow (its the first sample at the page link above) explain the problem with the statement. It shows that Pam/DrGreg simply has no sense of shame when it comes claims that are demonstrated to be false.

First a solar plant will NEVER produce 2 gigawatts continuously;
not without energy storage. For half the 24 hour day the
solar plant doesn't see the sun - so produces ZERO.

2 Gigawatts is a BIG scale up. The largest solar plants built
to date are 2 Megawatts ( 1000X smaller ) and Spain is currently
building a 20 Megawatt plant ( 100X smaller )

Solar is less efficient than Rankine steam cycles. Also the
argument that the solar proponents give that the sunlight falls
there anyway is false.

A typical landscape REFLECTS about 90% of the suns energy. Only
10% is absorbed. A PV plant will absorb 100% of the energy if it
is efficient < black in color >, and will convert about 20% to
electricity and discharge 80% as heat.

So if we take a piece of land with 100 watts of sunlight falling
on it; then if we leave it alone - we will have 10 watts of solar
heating.

If we build a PV plant; then that same area will give us 20 watts,
and we will have 80 watts of heating.

If we built a Rankine steam cycle plant, of 40% efficiency; or
1.5 times as much waste heat as electricity; then for the same
20 watts, we would have 30 watts of waste heat, plus the 10 watts
from the sun or 40 watts of heat total.

That 40 watts is HALF of what a PV plant would discharge.