So you noticed it was an advertisement? and chose to call it an article?
I'm curious, what was the good information? The author seems pretty clueless on the subject.
Of course, conductivity is increased at colder temps, but it's not why solar conversion efficiency varies with temp which is a result of the band gap decreasing as temperature increases. She also doesn't seem to understand what she references from the phys.org article when she appears to conflate emissions reductions and carbon reduction.
The author also cites Germany as a success which is also true is certain respects, but there are also parts of the story that are not as successful. It's an interesting example in the context of advocating solar as a way to lower CO2 emissions. Certainty Germany has put a lot of solar and wind on line at great capital cost ($1T+) and at the cost of them now having some of the most expensive electricity anywhere (4X US prices on average). But this does not necessarily equate to lower CO2 emissions.
If you're a believer in manmade climate change, the increases in renewables is starting to become a problem in that it has been largely replacing nuclear, which means fossil generation has had to increase to provide sufficient backup for renewables. "Dirty" coal has also increased vis-a-vis cleaner coal because of the low cost necessary to offset the sky high costs created by renewables, and as a result, CO2 emissions in Germany have INCREASED in recent years despite having the largest installed base of renewables anywhere prompting the NY Times to write:
All the renewable energy is also creating interesting problems such as negative electrical prices. Since they can't take any fossil fuel plants offline without risking nationwide blackouts (as would have happened this past January had even one fossil fuel plant gone down), and since fossil-fuel plants don't ramp up and down easily, Germany often has to pay $millions them to keep running even when there is ample renewable power. Also, now there is so much renewable capacity, they have to pay wind power to go off line when there is too much to avoid damaging the grid. They can literally be paying conventional and renewable providers both NOT to produce at the same time. Germany has stopped the open ended subsidies so people don't keep adding more renewable capacity and further exacerbating the problem.
Germany could reduce their carbon emissions to zero and it would have no effect on climate change no matter what you believe. They acknowledge this and state that they want to set an example, but it's an example that most of the world can't afford to follow.
https://www.nytimes.com/2016/07/20/business/e...ourse.html
https://www.technologyreview.com/s/601514/ger...enewables/
http://fortune.com/2017/03/14/germany-renewab...rgy-solar/
I'm curious, what was the good information? The author seems pretty clueless on the subject.
Quote:The truth is, [solar panels] are highly functional in cold climates, as conductivity is increased at colder temperatures .
Of course, conductivity is increased at colder temps, but it's not why solar conversion efficiency varies with temp which is a result of the band gap decreasing as temperature increases. She also doesn't seem to understand what she references from the phys.org article when she appears to conflate emissions reductions and carbon reduction.
The author also cites Germany as a success which is also true is certain respects, but there are also parts of the story that are not as successful. It's an interesting example in the context of advocating solar as a way to lower CO2 emissions. Certainty Germany has put a lot of solar and wind on line at great capital cost ($1T+) and at the cost of them now having some of the most expensive electricity anywhere (4X US prices on average). But this does not necessarily equate to lower CO2 emissions.
If you're a believer in manmade climate change, the increases in renewables is starting to become a problem in that it has been largely replacing nuclear, which means fossil generation has had to increase to provide sufficient backup for renewables. "Dirty" coal has also increased vis-a-vis cleaner coal because of the low cost necessary to offset the sky high costs created by renewables, and as a result, CO2 emissions in Germany have INCREASED in recent years despite having the largest installed base of renewables anywhere prompting the NY Times to write:
Quote:The United States, and indeed the world, would do well to reconsider the promise and the limitations of its infatuation with renewable energy.
All the renewable energy is also creating interesting problems such as negative electrical prices. Since they can't take any fossil fuel plants offline without risking nationwide blackouts (as would have happened this past January had even one fossil fuel plant gone down), and since fossil-fuel plants don't ramp up and down easily, Germany often has to pay $millions them to keep running even when there is ample renewable power. Also, now there is so much renewable capacity, they have to pay wind power to go off line when there is too much to avoid damaging the grid. They can literally be paying conventional and renewable providers both NOT to produce at the same time. Germany has stopped the open ended subsidies so people don't keep adding more renewable capacity and further exacerbating the problem.
Germany could reduce their carbon emissions to zero and it would have no effect on climate change no matter what you believe. They acknowledge this and state that they want to set an example, but it's an example that most of the world can't afford to follow.
https://www.nytimes.com/2016/07/20/business/e...ourse.html
https://www.technologyreview.com/s/601514/ger...enewables/
http://fortune.com/2017/03/14/germany-renewab...rgy-solar/
1
