|
Maugrim posted:E: vvv no you're right I should read better before posting, especially in D&D. Sorry. Don’t worry about it. The standards aren’t really high for posting here. E.g. there is a moderator who would usually be probating me by now but recently is AFK, whose ignorance is not an impediment to posting a lot in this thread.  Post away! silence_kit fucked around with this message at 14:53 on Aug 27, 2022 |
#
?
Aug 27, 2022 13:25
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 9, 2024 08:23 |
|
|
silence_kit posted:Words Your arguments here aren't really wrong, and I don't really disagree with them. But they're just irrelevant IMO. Sure, EEs can grasp to operation of most solid state devices well enough to make use of them without solving Schrodingers equations (though we generally are forced to in university, just to prove that bandgaps aren't magic). Similarly, a baker doesn't need to understand the Calvin cycle to bake poo poo. But that comparison breaks down when specifically looking at manufacturing solid state devices. The baker doesn't need to understand the Calvin cycle because yeast already exists naturally. Otherwise, the baker would need to invent yeast (or something like it) at which point yes they sure as hell would need that PhD. Similarly, EGS does not occur naturally, and knowing how pure EGS need to be for whatever your devices requires more than a black box understanding of quantum mechanics. Also good luck getting lithography to work with sub-micron features without considering wave-particle duality. Anyways, it's irrelevant whether we consider transistors or PV cells to be "quantum" devices. The point is that manufacturing them requires hundreds of processes, many of which require a very deep understanding of physics to design and implement. ANIME AKBAR fucked around with this message at 13:56 on Aug 27, 2022 |
|
#
?
Aug 27, 2022 13:34
|
|
|
silence_kit posted:No that’s not the case, sorry. Try again. Having a simplified and functional model at the macro level does not in any way remove the underlying quantum physics. Being able to model something like a MOSFET or PV at the macro level is very different from all the work that needs to happen to make that manufacturable, let alone to miniaturize and improve efficiency
|
|
#
?
Aug 27, 2022 13:43
|
|
|
nobody tell this clown how much fundamental research is going into making cheaper materials and fab processes produce more efficient and more resilient PVs quantum mechanics is absolutely 100% relevant today and I'm not sure how you thought you would get away with this armchair Wikipedia, gut-feeling nonsense you can't pretend to provide insider insights on an industry from the outside
|
|
#
?
Aug 27, 2022 13:53
|
|
|
ANIME AKBAR posted:But that comparison breaks down when specifically looking at manufacturing solid state devices. I’m questioning this. Even the original research and development of electronics grade silicon was chemistry/material science research. The way the original R&D progressed was very likely NOT by the researchers becoming smarter and smarter quantum mechanics and getting better at solving the Schrodinger Equation to drive the development. The way it progressed was likely by doing a bazillion experiments and developing a heuristic understanding of the material and technology. ANIME AKBAR posted:Also good luck getting lithography to work with sub-micron features without considering wave-particle duality. The optics of the photo-lithography process is just classical EM though, no quantum mechanics required. If you want to present an argument that the development of the photo-resist technology and or UV/X-ray source technology absolutely requires you to be a quantum mechanic, go right ahead. ANIME AKBAR posted:The point is that manufacturing them requires humdreds of processes, many of which require a very deep understanding of physics to design and implement off. That’s a bad argument though. There are a lot of really complicated things/processes/organizations which are very normal and pervasive today. This is a part of living in a modern society!
|
|
#
?
Aug 27, 2022 13:55
|
|
|
What, am I to somehow believe that PV researchers are waking up each day, throwing a dart at a table of elements, and doping random substrates with whatever the dart lands on? When you corrected a previous poster about the presence of conflict materials in PVs only to concede that they're in PVs in the same sentence, did you stop to think that maybe there is research that is attempting to diminish dependence on materials with expensive or problematic sourcing? How do you think, perhaps, PV fabricators go about choosing suitable candidates for new panel chemistries, especially panel manufacturers who are looking at filling ever-growing orders for grid scale installations?
|
|
#
?
Aug 27, 2022 14:05
|
|
|
Potato Salad posted:nobody tell this clown how much fundamental research is going into making cheaper materials and fab processes produce more efficient and more resilient PVs If you have any info you are willing to share, please do. It would be a lot more informative than you continuing to rest on your laurels. Potato Salad posted:you can't pretend to provide insider insights on an industry from the outside Are YOU really an insider? Earlier you implied that you worked on satellite solar cells, maybe as a crystal grower. The III-V semiconductor industry, ESPECIALLY the portion oriented towards the space application, is a totally different world from silicon. They operate under totally different constraints. silence_kit fucked around with this message at 14:11 on Aug 27, 2022 |
|
#
?
Aug 27, 2022 14:05
|
|
|
Potato Salad posted:When you corrected a previous poster about the presence of conflict materials in PVs only to concede that they're in PVs in the same sentence, did you stop to think that maybe there is research that is attempting to diminish dependence on materials with expensive or problematic sourcing? How do you think, perhaps, PV fabricators go about choosing suitable candidates for new panel chemistries, especially panel manufacturers who are looking at filling ever-growing orders for grid scale installations? What rare earth metals are used in silicon solar cells? edit: Are you implying that the silicon PV industry cannot keep up with the demand for solar cells? If true, that would be wild and very contrary to this thread's narrative. And that companies are seriously looking beyond silicon? That would be a shock to me. silence_kit fucked around with this message at 18:13 on Aug 27, 2022 |
|
#
?
Aug 27, 2022 14:06
|
|
|
Triple post: I will concede that you did get one thing right completely by accident, and it is that first principles are in fact used in molecular electrical modeling, which has been helpful in the hunt for inexpensive and environmentally friendly organic compounds in PV crystallography source: I have done an awful lot of computational chemistry work, including organic compound screening for OLEDs and PVs this unfortunately only goes to demonstrate that quantum mechanics is absolutely inseparable from PV research from top to bottom, from deciding on what chemistries and crystalographies to aim for to the manufacturing process itself and all the way to final treatment and packaging to protect from degradation Potato Salad fucked around with this message at 14:18 on Aug 27, 2022 |
|
#
?
Aug 27, 2022 14:15
|
|
|
silence_kit posted:I’m questioning this. Even the original research and development of electronics grade silicon was chemistry/material science research. The way the original R&D progressed was very likely NOT by the researchers becoming smarter and smarter quantum mechanics and getting better at solving the Schrodinger Equation to drive the development. The way it progressed was likely by doing a bazillion experiments and developing a heuristic understanding of the material and technology. quote:The optics of the photo-lithography process is just classical EM though, no quantum mechanics required. quote:That’s a bad argument though. There are a lot of really complicated things/processes/organizations which are very normal and pervasive today. This is a part of living in a modern society!
|
|
#
?
Aug 27, 2022 14:26
|
|
|
Potato Salad posted:Triple post: I will concede that you did get one thing right completely by accident, and it is that first principles are in fact used in molecular electrical modeling, which has been helpful in the hunt for inexpensive and environmentally friendly organic compounds in PV crystallography I don't understand here. Were you trying to find better materials for organic solar cells? Or better organic materials for encapsulants, resists, etc.? Potato Salad posted:source: I have done an awful lot of computational chemistry work, including organic compound screening for OLEDs and PVs Did your/others' calculations drive the experiments & technological development for whatever application you were working on? In the case of silicon PV, I suspect that a lot of the fundamental technological development for silicon PV was done a very long ago and predates the use of computational chemistry. I seriously doubt that the great cost reduction of silicon solar cells was mostly enabled by people being better quantum mechanics. If you can provide one example to argue against this point, I would be very interested in hearing.
|
|
#
?
Aug 27, 2022 14:31
|
|
|
quote:If you want to present an argument that the development of the photo-resist technology and or UV/X-ray source technology absolutely requires you to be a quantum mechanic, go right ahead. Oh, word? There exist components of the technology stack that are not driven by quantum mechanics? Wild, tell me more very obvious things. Also, to be absolutely clear, qm is absolutely involved in nanoscale lithography and etching technologies. silence_kit posted:It’s also kind of scientifically wrong. People often overstate the quantum mechanical nature of solid state electronics. They really aren’t that quantum mechanical. It really isn't necessary to engage you with anything posted past this point. This is fundamentally, facially, and terrifically incorrect, and no amount of waddling or walking back and forth is going to undo it.
|
|
#
?
Aug 27, 2022 14:31
|
|
|
ANIME AKBAR posted:It's an iterative process, between theory and experiment. Theory predicts result, experiment produces data, scientists adjust model based on discrepancies, and design a new experiment. The process doesn't work without the theorists. I'm claiming that the theory is often NOT derived from first principles quantum-mechanical calculations. Heuristic theory often drives the experiments. ANIME AKBAR posted:I didn't say it "required quantum mechanics." Again, that's a dumb dichotomy. My point it that exposing 32nm features with a 600nm source can't be done with a layman's understanding. In fact I believe lithography is likely the most challenging aspect in the entire electronics industry. 10-20 years ago it was generally expected that lithography would be the bottleneck on lambda (without resorting to insanely inefficient processes like EBL, at least), but somehow they keep crushing expectations. Wave particle duality, which you cited, is a feature of quantum mechanics. I claim that the optics of breaking the diffraction limit is just waves, no particles. It's classical electro-magnetism.
|
|
#
?
Aug 27, 2022 14:40
|
|
|
Potato Salad posted:Also, to be absolutely clear, qm is absolutely involved in nanoscale lithography and etching technologies. How so? Potato Salad posted:It really isn't necessary to engage you with anything posted past this point. This is fundamentally, facially, and terrifically incorrect, and no amount of waddling or walking back and forth is going to undo it. Sorry, I disagree. I really wish you had put the effort into arguing with me instead of resting on your laurels. If you would have put your money where your mouth was, I could have potentially learned something interesting. silence_kit fucked around with this message at 14:58 on Aug 27, 2022 |
|
#
?
Aug 27, 2022 14:44
|
|
|
DTurtle posted:The vast majority of wood used for heating (especially pellets) is sourced from production scrap/sawdust. Old growth forests are not being razed just to produce firewood. That’s just false. First, people aren’t burning pellets in their homes, they’re burning logs. Seconds, https://www.nationalgeographic.com/environment/article/europe-burns-controversial-renewable-energy-trees-from-us
|
|
#
?
Aug 27, 2022 14:46
|
|
|
I saw there are two more posts in here but I can't see them, so I need to admit that after my last post I realized I'm basically arguing with Fishmech 2 and put sk on ignore. I'm not going to continue to engage with this, it's not healthy. I don't need to keep bashing my head against this wall. I have done everything this guy is bleating about with my own hands and/or keyboard, and I am satisfied with that. Edit: like, I was typing up something about situations where we actually have contrived geometries and chemistries where materials experience physical quantum mechanical phenomena that is repeatable and extremely durable, yet classical electrical phenomena in the sense that the material cell can be read by a memory controller like a classic resistor. Somewhere deep in God knows how many paragraphs, I had to lay back on my pillow and ask myself what the hell I'm doing--no amount of assurance that I know very deeply what the gently caress I'm talking about is going to change this poster's mind or at least invite them into accepting there's more going on under the surface than "IS THIS QM OR NO" That technology was called 3DXpoint, I worked for a semester for one of Intel's contributing PIs (I didn't realize this at the time). It's where my career jumped from PV fab and computational physics stuff under the AMO umbrella to HCI optimization for climate modeling Potato Salad fucked around with this message at 15:02 on Aug 27, 2022 |
|
#
?
Aug 27, 2022 14:47
|
|
|
I'm not sure I understand, I was bad at Q. SK, are you arguing that because the solutions may have been brute forced instead of mathed out, it doesn't count as QM? And also, why?
|
|
#
?
Aug 27, 2022 15:18
|
|
|
Harold Fjord posted:I'm not sure I understand, I was bad at Q. SK, are you arguing that because the solutions may have been brute forced instead of mathed out, it doesn't count as QM? And also, why? Please reference below quote from this source http://www.phyast.pitt.edu/~blc/book/chapter14.html : quote:A solar cell is a highly sophisticated electronic device, about one inch in diameter, based on advanced principles of quantum physics developed in the 1950s. It is made from materials of extremely high purity, a purity that was unattainable even in scientific laboratories until the late 1940s. Cells are manufactured by processes that have taken some of the best efforts of modern technology to develop. They must be capable of standing up to all the vagaries of outside weather for 30 years. To cover the ground with these sophisticated devices for just twice the price we pay to cover it with a thin layer of cement, manufactured simply by grinding up rock and heating it, would indeed be an impressive accomplishment. I think there are a couple points I am making: 1) The argument in above quote, which is that solar cells involve very complicated, very novel, very exotic physics, so necessarily they must be very high cost, is bunk. 2) I even argue with the idea that solar cells involve very advanced principles of quantum physics. I claim that people often overstate the role of quantum mechanics in the science and technological development of solar cells and other solid state devices like transistors. Of course this would make a computational chemist very angry. I didn't know that somebody who has worked as one would be reading my posts at the time. 3) I claim that the science and engineering behind the great cost reduction in solar cells was likely not driven by first-principles quantum mechanical thinking/principles/calculations. I suspect that the development was performed using the more traditional methods of material science/engineering. Cost improvements were things like figuring out how to saw the silicon wafers from the ingot without creating so much wasted material in the form of silicon sawdust. I'm not sure what quantum mechanics has to do with sawdust. silence_kit fucked around with this message at 16:01 on Aug 27, 2022 |
|
#
?
Aug 27, 2022 15:56
|
|
|
silence_kit posted:Please reference below quote from this source http://www.phyast.pitt.edu/~blc/book/chapter14.html : The argument in the quote is saying we would have to work hard to get to a specific price. How close are we to that price? Thanks for the clarification about the disputed bit that's over my head. I imagine people involved know how much they reference the math but I claim no expertise in that area. Harold Fjord fucked around with this message at 16:31 on Aug 27, 2022 |
|
#
?
Aug 27, 2022 16:29
|
|
|
What is a “very advanced” principle of QM, as opposed to just a basic principle of QM? Again, the entire existence of a band gap is QM. No, that doesn’t mean we use the wave equation to construct semiconductors from first principles. It does mean that solar cells absolutely rely on quantum phenomena to function.
|
|
#
?
Aug 27, 2022 16:33
|
|
|
This is a really dumb slapfight over what is basically semantics.
|
|
#
?
Aug 27, 2022 16:41
|
|
|
Harold Fjord posted:The argument in the quote is saying we would have to work hard to get to a specific price. How close are we to that price? He was obviously making the argument I am attributing to him. You only need to look at the title of the chapter to see this: "The Solar Dream". Not only is the reasoning stupid, he was also wrong--it wasn't impossible to lower the solar panel price to the goals set by the US government program at the time. They've already done it! Here is a link I quickly Googled https://homeguide.com/costs/solar-panel-cost#square. That's ~$40-100 per meter panel cost. Average panel efficiency is 15-18% according to Google. Converting 1987 dollars to 2022 dollars means you need to convert the old government goal to $120/m^2. We're there dude. It took longer than the end of the 20th century, but they made it. And the solar electricity price is still dropping. Phanatic posted:What is a “very advanced” principle of QM, as opposed to just a basic principle of QM? Again, the entire existence of a band gap is QM. If you take this argument to a ridiculous extreme (which I know you aren't), you could argue that well, since the Higgs Boson is like the god particle, really everything relies upon the Higgs Boson to exist and therefore it informs the science of everything under the sun. Obviously that's not true. They finally found the Higgs Boson and the next day, the rest of the world continued on as if nothing really changed. A lot of things people associate with quantum phenomena aren't really that important when explaining the physics of semiconductor devices. There are some things which pop up (one example--current flows through likely almost every metal-semiconductor ohmic contact/junction through quantum mechanical tunneling so you could argue that without quantum mechanical tunneling, no semiconductor device could ever conduct electricity) but they aren't at the heart of how the devices work IMO. You could say that well you need the Fermi level in the middle of the semi-conductor energy gap to have electrical control of conductivity, a very fundamental aspect of transistor devices, and you can't explain that without quantum mechanics, and you would be right, but I say just take it on faith. I'm not totally up to date on the electronic band theory of solids, but I have heard that they can't very accurately predict from first principles things like: what is Eg, is a direct/indirect gap, etc., so you may as well take it on faith anyway. silence_kit fucked around with this message at 17:30 on Aug 27, 2022 |
|
#
?
Aug 27, 2022 16:53
|
|
|
Who is arguing, anyway, that PVs are expensive because their materials science is "very exotic" and whatnot? This whole thing looks like a strawman that's been plucked out of the opinion of some author in a reference, then used to try to paint everyone in the thread who has been (often incorrectly) perceived to disparage PV in the past. Nobody in this thread is making the argument that PV tech is somehow exotic or whatever. Anyone making that claim is putting words in everyone elses' mouths. Potato Salad fucked around with this message at 17:09 on Aug 27, 2022 |
|
#
?
Aug 27, 2022 17:06
|
|
|
ok i have a solid third of the posters on the last two pages on ignore, and I did a lot of skim scrolling because it was all awful, but I think I have it down to this: old guy's editorializing/opinion: solar pv is exotic quantum poo poo so we may never figure out how to make it cheap silence kit: yes its technically got a quantum mechanic involved, but its not even really necessary to understand that to get it working, and it has not held us back from making it cheap three pages of goon pendants: I KNOW MORE ABOUT QUANTUM STUFF THAN YOU DO (USER WAS PUT ON PROBATION FOR THIS POST)
|
|
#
?
Aug 27, 2022 17:10
|
|
|
silence_kit posted:He was obviously making the argument I am attributing to him. You only need to look at the title of the chapter to see this: "The Solar Dream". He may have been wrong about his assumptions, but it doesn't matter. This whole discussion is irrelevant. Even if solar panels were practically free we still couldn't use them to power the planet, nights and clouds ruin everything. The minimum it would require is a global super conductive electrical grid. When it's night in Americas the electricity from Asian and European solar plants would need to be transferred across Atlantic and Pacific oceans.
|
|
#
?
Aug 27, 2022 17:11
|
|
|
MightyBigMinus posted:three pages of goon pendants: I KNOW MORE ABOUT QUANTUM STUFF THAN YOU DO it is in fact very bad to discuss things on a deeper level than alt tabbing to Wikipedia  Saukkis posted:He may have been wrong about his assumptions, but it doesn't matter. This whole discussion is irrelevant. Even if solar panels were practically free we still couldn't use them to power the planet, nights and clouds ruin everything. you can get awfully close, though, with dramatically improved investment in transmission. it's why reasonable pathways forward that include some kind of baseload will usually be dominated by photovoltaics and wind regardless. To say that base load will be needed in the future is not to say that there will be a crusade against photovoltaics, wind generation, and battery storage; as a matter of fact, they will be the cornerstone of the future. Battery storage especially is going to be important for providing local reactive power. Potato Salad fucked around with this message at 17:19 on Aug 27, 2022 |
|
#
?
Aug 27, 2022 17:12
|
|
|
MightyBigMinus posted:
The greatest cost reductions deriving from increased endurance, increased efficiency, reduced dependence on expensive materials, fabrication yield improvement, etc are largely tied to the fundamental physics research going into alternate materials and fabrication methodologies. By this point, there has been enough posting on this matter that you are either willing to accept PV materials science for what it is, or you will continue to stuff cotton in your ears and pretend that your imagination is representative of the PV industry. I'm not saying that s_k is off the mark in this position that you purport to summarize or that this is a slap fight about semantics, he is objectively and completely incorrect about where humanity is seeking materials cost reduction, manufacture cost reduction, efficiency gains, and endurance gains in photovoltaics and how those gains are sought.
|
|
#
?
Aug 27, 2022 17:34
|
|
|
Maybe go sign up for a public tour day at a photovoltaic lab near you. Start googling research institutions or universities, I guess. Nerds like talking about their work. At some point maybe you just need to see this with your own eyes, or hear it from the horse's mouth. Look at a terminal connected to a system doing computational chemistry screening or other cost optimization modeling. I cannot help your stubborn disbelief beyond this.
|
|
#
?
Aug 27, 2022 17:39
|
|
|
Since it seems like you are no longer putting me on ignore, you could start with my education by replying to the questions I ask you in my posts in this thread. In your narrative, I am just an idiot who quotes Wikipedia and you are the big expert, so it seems like you'd have pretty good answers to my questions.
|
|
#
?
Aug 27, 2022 17:45
|
|
|
silence_kit posted:In the webpage you linked, Feynman at the end in a few paragraphs describes the physics of transistor action in a bipolar transistor. The explanation mostly works for field effect transistors as well. A transistor is an electrical device where the conductivity of the device between two terminals is actuated by a third control electrical terminal--it exhibits 'transfer conductance' or 'transconductance'. A simple "you're right, transistors are not adequately explained by classical E&M and are in fact quantum devices" would have sufficed. It isn't the 1980s anymore, the government isn't impressed by your use of the word "quantum" in your research proposal. This conspiratorial motivation you've invented is unrealistic. e: Weighing in on the context, I don't attribute expensiveness or exoticness or whatever to whether or not something needs to have "quantum" physics to describe how it works. QuarkJets fucked around with this message at 18:14 on Aug 27, 2022 |
|
#
?
Aug 27, 2022 18:08
|
|
|
I'm honestly a little confused and lost track as to what the argument is, SK any chance can you restate your argument? Is it just you disagree with the presentation of this one author and his article? Or that you disagree with it being linked in the thread? I think we all agree the cost of solar will probably continue to go down regardless of how exotic some of the materials and processes might be.
|
|
#
?
Aug 27, 2022 18:16
|
|
|
silence_kit posted:
And your argument eventuates in “nothing is quantum mechanical because literally nothing is done by starting with the Schrodinger wave function and working it out for the system you’re dealing with.” There is no classical theory which explains the function of semiconductors. They are only understandable as quantum phenomenon.
|
|
#
?
Aug 27, 2022 18:25
|
|
|
Raenir Salazar posted:I'm honestly a little confused and lost track as to what the argument is, SK any chance can you restate your argument? Is it just you disagree with the presentation of this one author and his article? Or that you disagree with it being linked in the thread? I think we all agree the cost of solar will probably continue to go down regardless of how exotic some of the materials and processes might be. I made the below post which was a dig at a big contingent of this thread's tendency to uncritically cite old, out-of-date pro-nuclear electricity sources on 'The State of Electricity/Energy Technology'. I'm reflexively very skeptical of most posters in this thread for this reason and at the implausibility of their theories of how the US' energy policy works. To them, everything is a conspiracy. silence_kit posted:Yeah, I'd be interested in sources on that too. I would award bonus points for sources which: I replied to the below response with examples of popular sources in this thread which stated incorrect stuff about solar cells and argued against the sources and it spiraled from there. Harold Fjord posted:Are there specific recent developments you have in mind, s_k?
|
|
#
?
Aug 27, 2022 18:30
|
|
|
Ok thanks I'm piecing together better how this all flows Your ask is still pretty vague though. Maybe just pick a date a bit after the most recent development you think relevant?
|
|
#
?
Aug 27, 2022 18:38
|
|
|
silence_kit posted:I made the below post which was a dig at a big contingent of this thread's tendency to uncritically cite old, out-of-date pro-nuclear electricity sources on 'The State of Electricity/Energy Technology'. I'm reflexively very skeptical of most posters in this thread for this reason and at the implausibility of their theories of how the US' energy policy works. To them, everything is a conspiracy. Have you tried not making it your modus operandi to post only as a means of making "digs" at the thread, and instead try to argue substantiated points on the basis of facts? Wouldn't it have been more constructive, to find newer up to date information, provide that to the thread, so links can be updated, or just have a straight up honest discussion about why you feel that the paper is out of date without making it about other posters? Why not just ask, honest questions so discussion can be about the heart of the matter at hand? Like just being distrustful of the information at hand doesn't mean it's okay to say under your breath every other sentence "Yeah that's what you want me to think isn't it?". If someone states something authoriatively and you think something doesn't pass the smell test about it, why not ask instead, "Hey that sounds interesting but doesn't match my understanding of the thing, do you have any sources?" If its about what you feel in your heart of hearts and what you imagine the opinions of other posters to be, that isn't ever going to result in a constructive conversation because its just you looking to dunk on strawmen instead of engaging constructively about the topic of the thread. I am also going to point out the irony that you seem to be arguing very strenuously in favour of technological progress and proliferation means costs going down and convenience and widespread use going up means solar is presumably a viable alternative for decarbonizing the economy but in a certain other context when I make the same argument you disagreed. So it's a concern that maybe your arguments are formed according to what you're disagreeing with, and no one is exactly sure what you honestly believe as an affirmative argument.
|
|
#
?
Aug 27, 2022 18:41
|
|
|
silence_kit posted:Not a lot is quantum mechanical about the above paragraph A nuclear bomb works by smashing two clumps of material together to create a big explosion. Not a lot is quantum mechanical about that sentence so I guess you'd argue that nuclear fission is a classical physics process.
|
|
#
?
Aug 27, 2022 18:47
|
|
|
Raenir Salazar posted:So it's a concern that maybe your arguments are formed according to what you're disagreeing with, and no one is exactly sure what you honestly believe as an affirmative argument. If I'm reading the quote right, the position starts with "This thread is full of conspiracy theorists" and thus begins in opposition to what is perceived to be a conspiracy of conspiracy theorists.
|
|
#
?
Aug 27, 2022 19:13
|
|
|
If you go back, the basic point is that nuclear is bad and anyone who says otherwise is part of a grand conspiracy to kill renewables, especially solar. That's the argument being made.
|
|
#
?
Aug 28, 2022 08:32
|
|
|
Phanatic posted:That’s just false. The article you posted about wood being exported for heating was about wood from South Carolina being exported to the UK.
|
|
#
?
Aug 28, 2022 09:31
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 9, 2024 08:23 |
|
|
SK, you said old mate was woefully wrong, I sourced and posted links to recent information that demonstrated he was in the ball park (considering he wrote his take 30 years ago), you put words in his mouth saying that he meant just solar panels by themselves cost $1k (because otherwise you basically demonstrated that your best gotcha of Mr 1992's guess on 2022 demonstrated he knew what he was on about) even though I quoted the section where he specially said quote:It therefore seems unlikely that an operating solar power plant can ever cost less than $1,000 per peak kilowatt. Come on mate, just admit you misread the chapter and got it woefully wrong. This is not to say he was entirely correct, PV 30 years later is cheaper than what he envisaged it would be but no one in this thread was drawing conclusions on relative costs of power in 2022 on old mates chapter written in 1992. Which was the point of your original dig (that nuclear chuds only use 1992 data to argue against renewables). In fact, you still haven't got back to me on my point by point assessment of your Lazneby (?) LCOE chart you posted before. I was using your sources and highlighted where caution would have to be applied before drawing certain conclusions and you completely ignored it. I assume silence means acceptance of all the kit I provided. On the PV quantum nature, he said quote:Photovoltaics are based on the quantum physics of materials, which is a field where "miracles" have occurred before and are always a possibility for the future. But solar thermal technologies are relatively standard engineering developments, which is hardly an area where one can hope for "miracles," especially after well over a decade of effort. You are specifically going on about quantum mechanics and imply that he is using the concept of QM to scare would be PV users but the only place he specifically mentions quantum mechanics is where he talks up the future tech advances of PV solar. And he was right, solar has come down in price and going gang busters but solar thermal is relatively unexpanded versus PV solar due to the lack of similar cost improvement. So again, come on mate, just admit you misread the chapter and got it woefully wrong. I think you have decided that he is is tainted by being pro-nuclear, seen the chapter title and then went heuristically looking for gotchta's. I say heuristic because you (unknowingly?) misrepresent what was said that if taken as you describe, make the work look a lot worse than what it is. In some ways I don't mind you post silly questions and takes as there is no such thing as a silly question (someone else was thinking the same thing and were too afraid to ask) and it is awesome to have the opportunity to read the input from literal physicists responding to you but it would be appreciated if you put up your hand and say you were wrong when it is obvious so the audience watching at home can also move on to the next topic rather than watching those same physicists take time to argue semantics.
|
|
#
?
Aug 28, 2022 11:50
|
|
