Natural gas from shale

[Paratus]

That isn't true. The average yearly Solar Insolation for the vast majority of major US cities in the north is near or above 4 "peak sun hours" a day. A sun hour is basically a meassurement of solar radiation hitting a defined area and 1 "peak" sun hour = 1000w per square meter. So how does the north stack up to the south? Lets take a look:

I use yearly averages because I mainly work with grid tied solar electric systems. You can optimize systems to generate more power in the winter or summer by simply adjusting the tilt angle of the panels. When installing a grid-tied system the goal is to produce the most power possible in a year, not to produce X amount in a certain month.

Average daily Peak Sun Hours:

New Orleans LA: 4.92 avg. sun hours per day
Cape Hatteras NC: 5.31
Sea Brook NJ: 4.21
New York City NY: 4.08
Newport RI: 4.23
Charleston SC: 5.06
Medford OR: 4.51
Boise ID: 4.92
Indianapolis IN: 4.21
Washington DC: 4.23
Wareham MA: 3.99
St. Cloud MN: 4.53
Lander WY: 6.06
Richmond VA: 4.13
Madison WI: 4.29
Ely NV: 5.98
Omaha NB: 4.9
Fairbanks AK: 3.99

Obviously less power is generally produced in winter months than in summer months but when we are talking about what we can do right now today it is the yearly average that really matters. I just wanted to debunk the myth that northern states do not have "good sun". A lot of northern areas have better sun than the "deep south". It varies greatly upon location (Chicago gets an avg 3.14 peak sun hours per day) but damn near the entire country has pretty good sun.

For reference, Germany who has invested a TON in solar averages around 2 peak sun hours a day.

There is also technology that is currently on the market that takes advantage of much less light than traditional C-SI solar panels. Products like Uni-Solars A-SI "thin film" panel produces power from much less light (therefor it is producing power for a longer period of time every day) but as a tradeoff is less efficient (produces less power per square foot of panel). Fortunately it is expected that the efficiency will gradually increase as the technology matures much like C-SI panels have/are doing.

I am a realist. We can do a ton with solar with todays technologies to drastically reduce our traditional energy use. We don't need to go straight from "the grid" to "all your home and transportation fuel comes from the sun", it simply isn't practical at this time. That doesn't mean that solar power in general isn't very practical for a large portion of the country though.

I'm curious, how many sqft would you need for an avg 6kw load down south?

I'm not as familiar with terrestrial solar applications. Do you know what the solar incident radiation is on the ground? I've heard upto 1000 W/m^2 on a clear day. Orbital is ~ 1300 W/m^2.

 

[Matthiasa]

I'm curious, how many sqft would you need for an avg 6kw load down south?

I'm not as familiar with terrestrial solar applications. Do you know what the solar incident radiation is on the ground? I've heard upto 1000 W/m^2 on a clear day. Orbital is ~ 1300 W/m^2.

Those numbers tell the amount at those locations for an entire day.

 

[iGas]

I'm not sure as to what extend shale gas can be commercially extracted, but from what I have read that Canada natural gas is getting more difficult to extract as greater number bore holes are yielding less, due to drilling into lower yield fields.

Sciencetific speculation from the Canadian natural gas mining industry suggests that in 10~20 years they have to triple the number of natural gas wells to get the same flow rate as today. It also suggested that Canada will need 5X~6X more natural gas wells as today to satisfy growth & demand in 15~20 years, and to make mater worst the new wells lifespan are less than 5 years, therefore investment in drilling and field expansion is high prohibited at this time due to low natural gas price.

The media spin on shale cracking technique is just for show IMHO, because shale cracking has been around for a while. Gas companies has deployed it in the field for several decades, and there are suggestions from experts that shale cracking isn't going to lower energy cost or let the US free from the grip of demand on oil.

Sorry, to crack your bubble. I would love to see positive development in the oil/gas sector in North America as I have vested interests in it, but I haven't seen any thing positive in the field so far to be excited.

 

[iGas]

That isn't true. The average yearly Solar Insolation for the vast majority of major US cities in the north is near or above 4 "peak sun hours" a day. A sun hour is basically a meassurement of solar radiation hitting a defined area and 1 "peak" sun hour = 1000w per square meter. So how does the north stack up to the south? Lets take a look:

I use yearly averages because I mainly work with grid tied solar electric systems. You can optimize systems to generate more power in the winter or summer by simply adjusting the tilt angle of the panels. When installing a grid-tied system the goal is to produce the most power possible in a year, not to produce X amount in a certain month.

Average daily Peak Sun Hours:

New Orleans LA: 4.92 avg. sun hours per day
Cape Hatteras NC: 5.31
Sea Brook NJ: 4.21
New York City NY: 4.08
Newport RI: 4.23
Charleston SC: 5.06
Medford OR: 4.51
Boise ID: 4.92
Indianapolis IN: 4.21
Washington DC: 4.23
Wareham MA: 3.99
St. Cloud MN: 4.53
Lander WY: 6.06
Richmond VA: 4.13
Madison WI: 4.29
Ely NV: 5.98
Omaha NB: 4.9
Fairbanks AK: 3.99

Obviously less power is generally produced in winter months than in summer months but when we are talking about what we can do right now today it is the yearly average that really matters. I just wanted to debunk the myth that northern states do not have "good sun". A lot of northern areas have better sun than the "deep south". It varies greatly upon location (Chicago gets an avg 3.14 peak sun hours per day) but damn near the entire country has pretty good sun.

For reference, Germany who has invested a TON in solar averages around 2 peak sun hours a day.

There is also technology that is currently on the market that takes advantage of much less light than traditional C-SI solar panels. Products like Uni-Solars A-SI "thin film" panel produces power from much less light (therefor it is producing power for a longer period of time every day) but as a tradeoff is less efficient (produces less power per square foot of panel). Fortunately it is expected that the efficiency will gradually increase as the technology matures much like C-SI panels have/are doing.

I am a realist. We can do a ton with solar with todays technologies to drastically reduce our traditional energy use. We don't need to go straight from "the grid" to "all your home and transportation fuel comes from the sun", it simply isn't practical at this time. That doesn't mean that solar power in general isn't very practical for a large portion of the country though.

Just to let you know that many tree huggers and enviromental leftist pulled their investment out of solar because it is a losing proposition, and they invested their money in the last couple of months in the unenvironmental dirty coals.

Look up solar power research/manufactures/minerals vs. coal mining if you don't believe me.

 

[Zorkorist]

I'm not sure as to what extend shale gas can be commercially extracted, but from what I have read that Canada natural gas is getting more difficult to extract as greater number bore holes are yielding less, due to drilling into lower yield fields.

Sciencetific speculation from the Canadian natural gas mining industry suggests that in 10~20 years they have to triple the number of natural gas wells to get the same flow rate as today. It also suggested that Canada will need 5X~6X more natural gas wells as today to satisfy growth & demand in 15~20 years, and to make mater worst the new wells lifespan are less than 5 years, therefore investment in drilling and field expansion is high prohibited at this time due to low natural gas price.

The media spin on shale cracking technique is just for show IMHO, because shale cracking has been around for a while. Gas companies has deployed it in the field for several decades, and there are suggestions from experts that shale cracking isn't going to lower energy cost or let the US free from the grip of demand on oil.

Sorry, to crack your bubble. I would love to see positive development in the oil/gas sector in North America as I have vested interests in it, but I haven't seen any thing positive in the field so far to be excited.

Oil, Gas, and Shale in America won't develop when the rest of the world sells there reserves inexpensively.

Meanwhile, we can develop clean energy Nuclear Power.

-John

 

[Zorkorist]

Or we can continue doing the cheapest, most abundant natural resource, coal.

-John

 

[Zorkorist]

If you are any sort of environmentalist, the obvious answer is nuclear power.

if you are any sort of scientist, the obvious answer is nuclear power.

if you are any sort of politician, the obvious answer is nuclear power.

-John