Will Solar Power Outshine Oil in the Near Future?

[mfb]

so then why bother, use oil until tokamak comes online

Too much pollution, way too much CO2 for my taste.

Forget the money involved, for a minute - I know that's the first thing people attack, to kill an idea, but just for the sake of exploring the concept, let's imagine that it is not financially imprudent.

Let's dig caverns under major bodies of water, where we can install turbos (or whatever hydro uses) to turn the water dumping from the lake/sea/ocean above into the cavern below into electricity. We know such structures are possible, as they already exist, in the (mostly natural) form of salt mines.

It is always about the money. Sure, you can create huge underground caverns, but the cost of such a project is completely unreasonable.

A 100 m x 100 m x 100 m hole 300 meter deep (at its center) could store $(100m)^3 \cdot 1000 \frac{kg}{m^3} \cdot 300m \cdot 9.81 \frac{m}{s^2} = 800~\text{MWh}$. You need 30 of these gigantic holes to buffer the production of a single 1 GW plant for one day.

 

[Blank_Stare]

Too much pollution, way too much CO2 for my taste.It is always about the money. Sure, you can create huge underground caverns, but the cost of such a project is completely unreasonable.

A 100 m x 100 m x 100 m hole 300 meter deep (at its center) could store $(100m)^3 \cdot 1000 \frac{kg}{m^3} \cdot 300m \cdot 9.81 \frac{m}{s^2} = 800~\text{MWh}$. You need 30 of these gigantic holes to buffer the production of a single 1 GW plant for one day.

Well, that certainly puts it in perspective. Is a typical plant around 1Gw/day output? I'm clueless. How far did you use for the distance in water level change from surface to storage? I admit that I do not understand the math that you present, so I don't really know what factors you have included in your calculations. I'm not saying you are wrong in your calculations, but doesn't a change in elevation have a direct effect on production of electricity? If the drop is deep enough, couldn't the same stream pass over multiple generators, before it reached the lower level? I'm guessing there is a minimum drop to gain any efficiency. Is that why you selected 100m as the vertical dimension of the cavern?

Then again, every drop that goes down has to get pumped back up, and the higher the change in elevation, the more solar power that takes, during the daytime cycle... so maybe anything deeper than the minimum to get generator efficiency is a bad idea.

You obviously have some broad knowledge in this subject. I obviously have limited knowledge. I would appreciate it if you could elaborate on your calculations, so that I might better understand them.

Thank you.

 

[mfb]

1 GW is a power (energy per time) already, GW/day is not a useful unit. GW*day is an energy.
1 GW is a typical power of a nuclear reactor block or a coal power plant.

How far did you use for the distance in water level change from surface to storage?

300 meters, see the previous post.
Multiple smaller generators are worse than a single more powerful one. What I calculated is the absolute maximum you can get with 100% efficiency. Taking into account practical considerations will just make it worse. The calculation is just the potential energy - mass (volume*density) multiplied by height difference (here: 300m) multiplied by acceleration (g).

I used 100 meters side length because that is a really big cavern. It corresponds to 1 million cubic kilometers.
The Aerium, only partially visible in this image, has an interior volume of 5.2 million cubic meters. Humans for size comparison.
The Vehicle Assembly Building, designed to house up to four Saturn V, has a volume of 3.7 million cubic meters. Cars for size comparison.

 

[Blank_Stare]

1 GW is a power (energy per time) already, GW/day is not a useful unit. GW*day is an energy.
1 GW is a typical power of a nuclear reactor block or a coal power plant.300 meters, see the previous post.
Multiple smaller generators are worse than a single more powerful one. What I calculated is the absolute maximum you can get with 100% efficiency. Taking into account practical considerations will just make it worse. The calculation is just the potential energy - mass (volume*density) multiplied by height difference (here: 300m) multiplied by acceleration (g).

I used 100 meters side length because that is a really big cavern. It corresponds to 1 million cubic kilometers.
The Aerium, only partially visible in this image, has an interior volume of 5.2 million cubic meters. Humans for size comparison.
The Vehicle Assembly Building, designed to house up to four Saturn V, has a volume of 3.7 million cubic meters. Cars for size comparison.

Excellent reply.

I can see that this was indeed another hare-brained idea.

But hey, that's what happens when I let my brain off the leash!

 

[Gandhar NImkar]

I guess solar power can be brought to the level of oil if planned properly. The thing is it's equipment is costly and produces less power as compared to the oil. If the equipment is made less expensive then it might be very useful in future and we can also conserve natural oil and gas.

 

[mheslep]

Solar seems to top out at 5-8% share of generation in major grids.

 

[Blank_Stare]

I guess solar power can be brought to the level of oil if planned properly. The thing is it's equipment is costly and produces less power as compared to the oil. If the equipment is made less expensive then it might be very useful in future and we can also conserve natural oil and gas.

Would you agree that two of the main factors driving cost are:
1.) advances in the science, and in production,
2.) popularity - that is to say, if they were selling more of them, the price would decrease, because more companies would compete for the business?

 

[Blank_Stare]

Solar seems to top out at 5-8% share of generation in major grids.

That's disappointing.
Did they offer any indications of why Solar was topping out?
Could you provide a link back to that article, please?

 

[NTL2009]

That's disappointing.
Did they offer any indications of why Solar was topping out?
Could you provide a link back to that article, please?

Those are average rates, so the peaks are much higher. Obviously, only producing power in the day time, and lower power depending on clouds, snow cover, and summer/winter effects. So to get to 5-8% 24/365 average, you are getting peaks on clear summer days that are higher than the grid can absorb. After that you can't use the power (no, we don't have reasonable storage at this time, and there's really nothing on the table at the moment), so if you install more solar, it takes longer to payback, and on and on.

 

[mheslep]

That's disappointing.
Did they offer any indications of why Solar was topping out?..

Essentially, intermittent power (solar, wind) eats its own lunch. In case after case, as larger amounts of wind and solar are installed, on days of high output the market price collapses, going negative when production credits are applied, so that solar-wind loses its value with greater share. At other times, lulls are so low that most of the conventional power fleet must be maintained as is, so that little capital cost saving is obtained for the grid as a whole.

Lion Hirth, "The market value of variable renewables: The effect of solar wind power variability on their relative price",
Energy Economics
Volume 38, July 2013, Pages 218–236
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eneco.2013.02.004

Several papers aggregated here:
https://thebreakthrough.org/index.php/voices/energetics/a-look-at-wind-and-solar-part-2

Could you provide a link back to that article, please?

Source data: Page http://www.bp.com/content/dam/bp/en/corporate/pdf/energy-economics/statistical-review-2017/bp-statistical-review-of-world-energy-2017-renewable-energy.pdf

 

[Physics_Kid]

sorry, could not get back here in quite some time. i mentioned kerogen still under progress and was challenged. the only solid evidence i have is that kerogen is still down there being sought after by the fracking folks. that's at least some evidence to tell me the process is still going on, the Earth is still crushing organics and kerogen is still there also being crushed/processed by nature.
http://www.petroleum.co.uk/chemistry-of-petroleum-formation

 

[Blank_Stare]

sorry, could not get back here in quite some time. i mentioned kerogen still under progress and was challenged. the only solid evidence i have is that kerogen is still down there being sought after by the fracking folks. that's at least some evidence to tell me the process is still going on, the Earth is still crushing organics and kerogen is still there also being crushed/processed by nature.
http://www.petroleum.co.uk/chemistry-of-petroleum-formation

Interesting information, and plainly stated in layman terms.

What I took away:

• it takes thousands or millions of years to make petroleum
• petroleum only forms when the organic material is deposited in an oxygen-deprived environment (mostly zooplankton)
• that means most deposits are at the bottom of what are now or once were great bodies of water

This tells me that to find newly forming deposits, we need to look for them at the bottom of (perhaps formerly) bodies of very deep water (remember the process also requires extreme pressure, whether that be water on top of the deposit, which is covered by silt, or filled in areas that were once water). I honestly don't know enough geology to now what that means, not only in terms of time, but in geographical locations.

My biggest question, however, is when was the last time we had a massive die-off of zooplankton, or other species, that was subsequently, and immediately covered in something that could prevent oxygen from reaching the biomass, while the process takes place? Or. to approach the question from another angle, has anyone carbon-dated the oil that we are pulling from the earth? Do we actually know how old the resource we are burning really is?

Don't get me wrong, please. I am not saying this is all hogwash. Rather, I am trying to it put into a time-scale of reference, so that we can consider the scale of production, verses usage, so that we can think about how long it might take (if all of this is indeed realistic,) for the Earth to "stockpile" enough new petroleum, to make it worth considering as a practical resource.

My gut tells me that the period of time before that happens is so far in the distant future, as to make discussion moot, because other forms of energy, that have far less impact on our environment, and are much easier to renew become practical, and financially advantageous, by comparison.

Of course, Solar and wind and wave stand out as the fore runners, but as we have already discussed, they each have their short-comings, at least in so much as technology offers them to us, today. Nuclear has it's pros and cons, and I suspect will be hotly debated until the last nuclear plant is closed. Coal, Natural Gas, and all other fossil fuels have a (nearly) finite reserve, at least until we can get a grapple on the numbers discussed above, and are very distructive to our ecosystem. (But that's a whole 'nother kettle of fish...)

And so we come full circle (I think). What is the future of Solar? How can we overcome the shortcomings of a power source that only produces for a limited number of hours each day, and is highly dependent on weather, and distance of placement from the equator? Can we interconnect solar arrays around the world, and therefore create an always-on source of power? (Seems kinda wasteful, IMO.) Do we "settle" for a hi-brid system, and augment power using some combination of the other choices, until we dream up a better solution? Sadly, I don't see a better choice.

 

[CWatters]

Blank_Stare.. there are some calculations down this page which estimates how much oil the Earth might be producing on average per year. They suggest it's less than 100,000 barrels.

https://Earth'science.stackexchange.com/questions/571/how-much-oil-is-created-each-year

 

[Blank_Stare]

Blank_Stare.. there are some calculations down this page which estimates how much oil the Earth might be producing on average per year. They suggest it's less than 100,000 barrels.

https://Earth'science.stackexchange.com/questions/571/how-much-oil-is-created-each-year

This website
https://www.eia.gov/tools/faqs/faq.php?id=33&t=6
Says we are using (after doing some math), approximately 227.2 barrels per second, in the US, alone. Taking that math a bit further, means that the Earth is producing enough oil per YEAR, to feed our nasty habit for less than 7-1/2 minutes, in JUST the United States. I did not look to see what the annual global consumption is, but I'm sure it's much higher... probably 3 or 4 times higher...maybe even more.

I'm inclined to believe the consumption figures are accurate enough for conversation. Let's assume, for the sake of conversation, that the production numbers are off by a factor of ten, and that production each year is a million gallons. That still means that there is only 75 minutes worth of oil being produced each year, and again, that is just using figures for the US.

There are approximately 31570560 seconds in a year, adding in a quarter of a leap day.
75 minutes is 4500 seconds
that means that every 31570560 / 4500 seconds we produce enough oil to go one whole year on these newly produced reserves.

That means that it will take a little over 7000 years to produce enough "new" oil to supply the United States for one year.

And the truth is, if the actual numbers we started with are accurate, it's more like 70,000 years to produce enough oil to satisfy JUST the US's appetite for one year...and that's at our current population.

Sorry @Physics_Kid, based on those grim numbers, the future of petroleum is indeed dead...or at least in a deep coma. When our current supply is diminished to the point where it is no longer financially feasible to use as a primary energy source, that industry will die, with very little chance of ever becoming viable again, in the future history of mankind. By the time there is enough in the ground to be worth using widespread again, we will have harnessed other technologies that make using petroleum look like wood-burning steam engines. Sure, it works, but why bother? I've heard it said that mankind, in our most primitive state, has been here less than 100,000 years. Imagine what we'll accomplish in the next 70,000, if we are still here, and surviving the mess we're making?

In my mind, this issue has been put to rest, unless someone has something profoundly enlightening to add to the prospects for petroleum's future.

 

[Physics_Kid]

so your # is 70k:1

wasnt the existing estimate 100million for what's there now, 100mil/70k = 1428.5 yrs worth of oil
1428.5 yrs worth of US, but that's US only, let's says that supply is 3x world use, thus leaving ~476yrs for US at world consumption rates.

we are just ~158yrs into oil harvesting, but noted the harvest rates were much smaller then, that still leaves us 318yrs left. a far cry from those who say 20-30yrs left of oil, no? 318yrs to figure out how the world will function w/o oil. not just for fuel, but for everything that comes from oil, plastics will be a challenge.

so yes, from your #'s oil will run dry, but not in the near future.

 

[mfb]

wasnt the existing estimate 100million for what's there now, 100mil/70k = 1428.5 yrs worth of oil

You are misusing the source time frame (which does not take the production into account) and you make the incorrect assumption that the rate never changed.
You also underestimate the oil consumption of the rest of the world, the global consumption is nearly 5 times the US consumption.

You should also take into account that a large fraction of the existing oil cannot be accessed at reasonable prices. For some of the oil it wouldn't be feasible at any price because extraction needs more energy than you gain.

so yes, from your #'s oil will run dry, but not in the near future.

If you make wildly incorrect assumptions, you get fantasy numbers leading to wrong conclusions.

 

[Blank_Stare]

so yes, from your #'s oil will run dry, but not in the near future.

(Note: In my previous post, I referred to "gallons". Of course, I meant barrels, sorry for any confusion.)

From your numbers, we run out even sooner. (Not that I even suggested a date when we would run out, mind you.)

I don't know where you get 100million from - 100miliion what?...barrels still in the ground?
I think you need to have another look at the math - I think you have mixed some things up, leaving you with numbers that look pretty, but are meaningless.

You are saying that there is enough oil to last 10 to 15 times as long as what the experts are saying. Believe you me, if the numbers were that far off, there would be a HUGE number of people raising almighty hell, because the economics of oil would be in a tailspin... Prices would drop like a stone if even ONE credible source claimed what you are. Believe me also, when I tell you that if it were the case, SOMEONE would be singing that song for everyone to hear.

But they aren't, because your numbers are gibberish. Look at them again, make sure you are looking at apples and apples, not apples and oranges...

I hope we have more than 100 million barrels of oil still in the ground - by my calculations, the US uses that much in about 5 years, 32+ days...

100,000,000 barrels reserve / 19,630,000 barrels used annually in the US = 5.09 years reserves, and that's if only the US is using those 100 million barrels. If the whole world is sharing that 100 million barrels, we are going to have a damned cold winter in 2018-2019.

Again, check your numbers - if we only have 100 million reserve, it's 5 years, not 300+. Somewhere, your numbers are just not right... by a huge error.

Fix your math, and get back with us.

 

[Physics_Kid]

for clarity on last couple of replies.

100million was said to be how long (years) it took to make the current oil in the ground.

the 70k yrs : 1 yr ratio was not deduced by me
70k years to crush kerogen into 1yr oil use by US

the current use and near future use of wind/solar/gas/other non-oil sources should slow oil use rate, perhaps to a zero slope, then even maybe a neg slope.

so, i only took the #'s provided and calculated how many more yrs left of oil. was my math off using the #'s provided by others??

i do see other #'s on net, which show about ~43yrs left of oil. i will not be here in 43yrs, so it will be interesting to see what happens over this short time. better start engineering.

 

[Blank_Stare]

for clarity on last couple of replies.
100million was said to be how long it took to make the current oil in the ground.
the 70k yrs : 1 yr ratio was not deduced by me
the current use and near future use of wind/solar/gas/other non-oil sources should slow oil use rate, perhaps to a zero slope, then even maybe a neg slope.
so, i only took the #'s provided and calculated how many more yrs left of oil. was my math off using the #'s provided by others??

Hmmm, I don't know. How about showing the math?

I don't see where you are pulling the rest of the numbers from. And how long it took to make all the oil in the ground is irrelevant. All things equal, it takes just as long to make an ounce, as it does a billion barrels. How long it took to create the current stockpile may be an interesting number for some other discussion, but it has nothing to do with how much longer the oil will last.

If you want to factor in the measly amount that is still being produced each year, that's a number that fits the discussion, although it's affect on the date we'll finally run out is almost inconsequential. It fits the equation, but we have to decide how many points to the right of the decimal are worth including.

Further, figuring out how other resources will replace oil in the near future is a GREAT IDEA, and could make for an intelligent discussion - if you show the math, and some research (not necessarily your own,) that backs it up - otherwise, it's an unsubstantiated opinion, not a scientific discussion.

Look, I wish you were right. I wish there were 15 more generations of oil available for our use...kinda. On the other hand, the sooner we run out, the sooner we will be forced to use other means of energy production - hopefully cleaner energy production. Heaven knows that until we have no choice, we'll just keep doing business as usual. That's something our environment can not afford.

 

[Physics_Kid]

post #504 is where the #'s are at
it shows 70k yrs to crush kerogen into 1yr worth of US daily consumption
504 seems to suggest an available kerogen and thus his math says 70k years to convert that available kerogen into 1yr US oil.

 

[Blank_Stare]

post #504 is where the #'s are at
it shows 70k yrs to crush kerogen into 1yr worth of US daily consumption
504 seems to suggest an available kerogen and thus his math says 70k years to convert that available kerogen into 1yr US oil.

I don't see how that supports your case. I also don't see how your math makes any sense, based on that math. (If we're talking about carpet fibers, multiplying oranges times baseball bats doesn't give you anything useful, unless you just want to now how many objects are in the room.)

>>> snip vitriol <<<

Like I said, petroleum is a dead end. (Probably in my lifetime, but almost certainly in my kid's lifetime, even if there is still some residual oil in the ground.) You have offered nothing that makes any sense, much less refutes this common knowledge. The reserve supply we have access to is measured in decades, not centuries, as you propose.

Unless you present a coherent argument, complete with sources, and coherent math, all in one post, I'm done. Anything less is a waste of band-width, IMO.

All you have to do, to have the final word, is say more stuff that is unsupportable by science and / or math.

But if you want ME to participate further, you're going to have to up your game, my friend.

 

[Physics_Kid]

i am not sure why its so hard to follow.

post 504 said it takes 70k years to make 1yr of oil, in the ground.
so over the 100million years (that many are saying is how long to convert kerogen to make what we harvest now)
100mil/70k = 1428.5 yrs of oil (US consumption rate) in the ground now.

i see no evidence that tells us how much kerogen there was or is still there, apparently there was/is a lot. this is like Y2K, all worried and when the clock clicked past everyone went silent w/o issue.

at the 70k:1 rate that obviously says the ongoing conversion is too slow vs current harvest rates, so we run out at some point. but at what point? solid evidence is there that tells us kerogen is still there under the ground, so my only assumption has to be that kerogen is still being converted to oil at a 70k:1 yr rate (if that is correct from post 504).

interesting though, other credible sources online puts it (dry time) at ~7.1yrs, while others have #'s that show ~42yrs. that still a wild swing given the notion that we should know exactly what's left and thus be able to accurately determine when oil will dry. to me, that just says we really don't know.

 

[mfb]

so over the 100million years (that many are saying is how long to convert kerogen to make what we harvest now)

You still didn't provide a reference for that 100 million years number. And you also didn't provide any argument or reference for the implicit claim that the production rate would have been constant all the time.

this is like Y2K, all worried and when the clock clicked past everyone went silent w/o issue.

Alternative hypothesis: It all worked smoothly because everyone put effort into fixing their software.

interesting though, other credible sources online puts it (dry time) at ~7.1yrs, while others have #'s that show ~42yrs. that still a wild swing given the notion that we should know exactly what's left and thus be able to accurately determine when oil will dry. to me, that just says we really don't know.

The number depends on what exactly you want to calculate. Oil with the current facilities? Oil at the current market price? Oil at a higher market price? Oil with current technology? Oil we expect to get accessible in the future? Oil in total?
Only including oil that has been mapped out well, or including oil expected elsewhere?

You cannot just compare two numbers made with different assumptions and then complain that they differ, and therefore all estimates should be discarded (apparently apart from yours, which is based on several misconceptions). That is not how science works.How is all this related to solar power, by the way?

 

[OmCheeto]

...
How is all this related to solar power, by the way?

Good question.

Btw, this upcoming solar eclipse has been making me think crazy hard, as to how I'm going to survive for 4 days, with only a (small) pickup trucks worth of solar powered stuff.

If I can figure out how to survive for 4 days, strictly on solar, then solar might be doable. At least, in the summer months.
The main problem I've found, is that there is little on the "off the shelf" market, that does what I want.
So, it's kind of a DIY, duck tape hell.

 

[gleem]

The main problem I've found, is that there is little on the "off the shelf" market, that does what I want.

And what do you want/need? Oh, and on ABC's Good Morning America this morning they made a point of noting that electrical power lost by the eclipse would be handled by nuclear and gas powered plants.

 

[OmCheeto]

And what do you want/need? Oh, and on ABC's Good Morning America this morning they made a point of noting that electrical power lost by the eclipse would be handled by nuclear and gas powered plants.

I'll be "dry" tent camping with no access to grid electricity. I also plan on "zero" supplies to be locally available.
This is a "Is solar power feasible as a sole source of energy?" experiment.
So I'm looking for a small (1.5-2.5 ft^3) freezer that cools down to ≈ -40°C, that doesn't cost $2000.
I basically want to build the following from scratch: Sun Frost F4 - Freezer
For a fraction of the price, obviously, as this is a one time experiment.
I don't need a $2000 failed pile of experimental junk.
I have everything necessary to power it: 150 watts of solar panels, 1.2 kwh deep cycle battery, and 400 watt inverter.

ps. And yes, I have been googling...

 

[Blank_Stare]

I'll be "dry" tent camping...

What exactly is "dry" tent camping? I mean, I hope you can stay dry in a tent, otherwise, most of it's usefulness is gone?
I googled dry tent camping, and got a bunch of apparently unrelated listings...so... what's that mean?

 

[OmCheeto]

What exactly is "dry" tent camping? I mean, I hope you can stay dry in a tent, otherwise, most of it's usefulness is gone?
I googled dry tent camping, and got a bunch of apparently unrelated listings...so... what's that mean?

It's actually a "recreational vehicle" term, which means you do not have direct hookup to water, electricity, nor sewer, to your RV.
Where I have camped over the last 25 years, we have always had access to electricity, port-a-potty, and a mountain lake fed stream. (see my avatar)
And there was a store nearby, where we could buy ice for our coolers.

The campground I plan on staying at has not responded to my question; "Can I borrow about 20 gallons per day from your pond?"
So I plan on leaving my solar thermal heating unit at home, and will just be taking "spit baths" for a few days.

Solar power has no future, if it means we have to live like cavemen.
Hence, my experiment.

 

[Blank_Stare]

It's actually a "recreational vehicle" term, which means you do not have direct hookup to water, electricity, nor sewer, to your RV.
Where I have camped over the last 25 years, we have always had access to electricity, port-a-potty, and a mountain lake fed stream. (see my avatar)
And there was a store nearby, where we could buy ice for our coolers.

The campground I plan on staying at has not responded to my question; "Can I borrow about 20 gallons per day from your pond?"
So I plan on leaving my solar thermal heating unit at home, and will just be taking "spit baths" for a few days.

Solar power has no future, if it means we have to live like cavemen.
Hence, my experiment.

So "Dry Camping" is just what we called "Wilderness Camping", way back when I was a Boy Scout.
Are you also practicing "Leave No Trace"? If so, are you taking EVERYTHING back out with you? (Think about it, it's disgusting, but die-hards do it.)

I agree that a certain level of creature comforts will have to be addressed, before the general public will embrace Solar, or any other alternative energy source, due to the lesser quantities of electricity that will be available. But it's actually surprising how many of them can be adequately duplicated using low-tech. (Think Steam-punk to turn your thoughts in the right direction...)

Still, aside from ditching our electrical toys, internet powered entertainment/communication, and fast transportation, it would only be an inconvenience for most people to live like our forebears did, 100 years ago. Yeah, there would be a lot of disappointed people (at first, and mostly only those who had the highest lifestyles), but "life as we know it" would only be modified (slowed), not ended. Some third world countries might hardly notice the change.

Maybe I'm lucky that I'm old enough that I probably won't live that long... I rather like my creature comforts.

 

[OmCheeto]

...
Are you also practicing "Leave No Trace"?
...

We have actually left our campsite CLEANER than we found it, every year.

...
to live like our forebears did, 100 years ago.
...

This was actually the inspiration for my Zoob-Sister solar powered refrigerator. Everyone is saying you HAVE TO HAVE a battery backup to go solar. This isn't true. You only need to "store energy", in some form or another, just like they did before electricity. Hence, why I need a particular kind of freezer.

[directed towards zoobyshoe] ps. While trying to figure out how to eliminate those god awfully expensive batteries, I ended up inventing a new type of refrigerator. I'll cut you and Woolie in on the profits, once I get things patented and to the market. If your electric bill hadn't been so low, I'd have never researched it. So, it's kind of your fault. Thanks!

It's really a simple idea.

... I rather like my creature comforts.

I also refuse to live like a caveman.
Nor do my slightly older fellow campers.
Though, being apparently "made of money", they opted not to wait for me to "put into production", my solar powered camping shower system:

My system: $10 (I see value in just about everything, and keep things around, just in case.)
My friends' propane powered system: $600

Cries of "Oh my god!", could be heard from everyone, taking their first warm shower, after bathing in a mountain creek, for many years.

But, we've only used their system twice, so it's difficult to say whether or not the return on their system was "worth the cost".
Admittedly, I would say yes. Hot showers, are priceless, IMHO.

 

[gleem]

I use to live on a boat. I had 260 watts of solar power 660 AH @ 12 V. about half of what you have. My frig/freezer used about 1400 watt-hours daily my main electrical drain.with extra drain from LED and incandescent lighting, 100 watt radio rec/xtmr, laptop, water pump, assorted electronics I had t recharge the batteries from my engine or my Honda 1000W gas generator(with a 40 A charger) about every four days or when the capacity dropped to about 50%.

You can get portable cooler style 12/24 V refridge/freezer as large as 3.7 cu.ft. from Defender Marine for under $1000. With your 150 W panel and you battery you should get the same performance as mine. If you double your panel you should double your use time assuming you have the Sunlight.

 

[OmCheeto]

...
You can get portable cooler style 12/24 V refridge/freezer as large as 3.7 cu.ft. from Defender Marine for under $1000. With your 150 W panel and you battery you should get the same performance as mine. If you double your panel you should double your use time assuming you have the Sunlight.

Temperatures are too high. I need -40°F.

As I mentioned, this is a one time experiment. I'm not willing to spend $1000 on something I will never use again.
Unfortunately, I don't know enough about the various refrigerants, to determine if I can "hack" a $100 mini-fridge into going down to -40°F.
I can only get my "dissociated" broken window air conditioner down to -10°F, and it draws 350 watts. That would require about $1000 worth of new panels, and new inverter, which again, I will only use once. And again, it's not getting cold enough. So, double ixnay.

 

[gleem]

Why -40F when the usual freezer temp is about 0 deg F? Lower temps require thicker insulation and or a higher duty cycle.

 

[OmCheeto]

Why -40F when the usual freezer temp is about 0 deg F? Lower temps require thicker insulation and or a higher duty cycle.

The plan is, to NOT use the deep cycle battery to power the fridge. It's mainly a surge suppressor, and voltage regulator.
My panels put out 20 volts at no load, so my inverter won't even turn on due to "over voltage" protection without the battery being hooked up.
I'm not just trying to keep my water cool. I'm inventing something new here.
The plan is to chill water bottles down to -40°F during sunlight hours, and put them in a secondary cooler, where all my perishables are.
Given that it's predicted to be 85°F where I'll be on the 21st, I'm going to have to figure out how thick the insulation will have to be for this to work.

Of course, the battery can run my laptop (11 watts), lighting (4 watts), and other things during the night.
1200 watt hours/15 watts = 80 hours.

Seems doable.

 

[gleem]

First I misread your battery specs you have a 100 AH battery (50 AH usually available). So your battery wouldn't give you much for a freezer.

The plan is, to NOT use the deep cycle battery to power the fridge. It's mainly a surge suppressor, and voltage regulator.

You need a charge regulator for your battery otherwise you will fry it. Depending on the type flooded cell, gel cell or AGM the charging voltage will vary
Regulators go about $25 for about 8 amps. The max charging voltage will be about 14.5 volts.for a flooded cell. Whether you can get a system down to -40 degF with normally available refrigerants I cannot say. As for insulation 4 in. Styrofoam should be adequate. First you have to know if you can get to that temperature
.and what type of conversion efficiency your cooling system can achieve. If you cannot reach -40 then you need to cool more water. I suppose you want to keep your perishables less that 38 deg F.