Free Power From the Sun

Status
Not open for further replies.
iwire said:
In my opinion what happened in Japan could be used to further Nukes if the media would just stop trying to sensationalize it.
Click to expand...
Quite agree.
The media does stories that the public have an appetite for. It seems that the more lurid and sensational, the more voracious the appetite.

One of the things that struck me about the 11 March tsunami is how the direct consequences of it resulting in huge numbers of fatalities, probably in excess of 20,000 and there are some estimates of double that, got relatively short term media coverage. That's a huge disaster by any measure. And unrelated to the damage to the Fukushima plant.
But the Fukushima plant problems got the coverage. The media generally panders to what will sell. It's business so why wouldn't it....

I followed the story quite closely at the time and, as far as I recall, there was one fatality at the plant and that was someone falling off a crane.

Nuclear power gets a bad rap with the public. Quite why, I don't know. Stuff of science fiction. Quatermass and Dr Who rolled into one. And an irrational fear that the media stokes?

I'm old enough to pre-date nuclear power. I know of three major accidents.
Three Mile Island. There were no direct fatalities.
Chernobyl with fewer than forty.
Fukushima, also no direct fatalities related to nuclear that I'm aware of.

Fossils, on the other hand, have resulted in many thousands.
A couple of incidents of the many that stick in my mind for various reasons......
Aberfan, 144 fatalities. Most of them young schoolchildren.
Off-shore oil rig Piper Alpha, 167 fatalities, about two thirds of the entire crew.

No doubt the Fukushima plant problems will further alienate public opinion. Politicians get into office based on public opinion however ill-founde that may be.

Rant over.
 
curt swartz said:
I would still like to know where photovoltaic panels come from. Do they just appear out of nowhere? Every time I question the sales people about the amount of electricity and hazardous chemicals used to make the panels they don't want to hear it. They claim their product is 100% clean which can't be further than the truth. I personally think photovoltaic sales people are some of the most dishonest people out there.
Click to expand...

Reminds me of when I went out of my way to find recycled paper & other products. Our city had a recycle store for a time. I went there & was surprised that recycled paper was costlier than "new" paper. I asked about that & the clerk gave the old line about "timber companies are buying trees at below market value". I said "but they do pay something for it. Most scrap paper I've seen is either given to the recycler free or sold at about $1.00 per hundred pounds". Plus, the trees have to be cut to logs, hauled to mill, debarked, cut, etc. She was tongue tied by that time. I asked about letterhead. She showed prices, again high. I asked if it shouldn't be cheaper for 2nd & later orders, as the plate had already been made. She stammered around & finally said the printer used disposable plates. That was the beginning of discovering that the environmental movement is not all it seems.
 
weressl said:
Don't forget to calculate the additional cost of the reinforced structure that suposed to carry the weight of the HUGE solar water-heaters.:grin:
Click to expand...

In the scheme of things, I can't think the cost of a reinforced roof is that much more. Roofs support HVAC equipment, helicopter pads, plumbing pipes, etc. Heating water is often said to be about 25% of the average electric bill. If a solar system provided all or most of the hot water 3 to 6 months of the year, the electricity cost would go down 10 or 15%
 
Ha ha, just realized something.
I wonder many insurance will pay the claims when the roof gets blown off with those solar panels on them.

weressl said:
Don't forget to calculate the additional cost of the reinforced structure that suposed to carry the weight of the HUGE solar water-heaters.:grin:
Click to expand...
 
Change is hard...

Change is hard...

Reading the posts so far it seems that much more information about solar energy is required. Why we need it - along with wind, and what our options are. Why the government must subsidize it today, and the current return on investment.
We have been waging a war on the environment, just look at the effects of coal and other carbon fuels, and now with a new reminder of the issues of nuclear. Oil seems unrelated to electricity, however as we migrate to electric cars in all likelihood we need to really consider just how much energy is used in everyday transportation (oil) and what amount of energy we will fall short if we do not build out our grid.
If you have any doubt of the issues we face check out "peak oil" or watch the documentary "Fuel" or "Crude awakening".
The vast majority of the developed nations and a number of Americans are keenly aware that oil is becoming increasingly unfordable, and that the rising and warmer oceans will be a bit of a calamity which we will all have to pay for. Many nations have now embarked on a long-term plan to transition from coal, nuclear, oil, etc. to a form of energy that does not cause harm to the environment and can be created locally, keeping their currency at home - and most importantly does not start a war to secure the energy flow of a nation.
It is clear from all known science that wind and solar is the solution, heavy subsidies over the last 10 years have brought huge reductions in cost (thank you Germany and Japan), in many states, (HI, NJ, CA) the cost to produce solar power is lower than the grid power, in some cases without the subsidy (Federal and utility). Due to manufacturing investments we can expect the cost to drop for the foreseeable future allowing us to remove all subsidies. The point of a subsidy is to help a strategic industry along - it is working very well, thanks to the European leadership.
The return on investment in a typical USA home is 5-10 years, it greatly depends on sunlight and local energy costs, after this you are making money - it is after all a generator with no fuel costs. They last easily 25-30 years (plenty of such systems exist today) with almost no maintenance or repair costs, and ~0.5% loss per year in power.
The most patriotic thing you can do today is buy US made solar PV (Solar World, Suniva, Solon) for your house and an electric car (Ford, Chevy, Tesla), then we all do not need to send our young men and women to secure our energy of the future. I have solar, installed it myself, and hope to have an electric car by next year.
 
Helios said:
Reading the posts so far it seems that much more information about solar energy is required. Why we need it - along with wind, and what our options are. Why the government must subsidize it today, and the current return on investment.
We have been waging a war on the environment, just look at the effects of coal and other carbon fuels, and now with a new reminder of the issues of nuclear. Oil seems unrelated to electricity, however as we migrate to electric cars in all likelihood we need to really consider just how much energy is used in everyday transportation (oil) and what amount of energy we will fall short if we do not build out our grid.
If you have any doubt of the issues we face check out "peak oil" or watch the documentary "Fuel" or "Crude awakening".
The vast majority of the developed nations and a number of Americans are keenly aware that oil is becoming increasingly unfordable, and that the rising and warmer oceans will be a bit of a calamity which we will all have to pay for. Many nations have now embarked on a long-term plan to transition from coal, nuclear, oil, etc. to a form of energy that does not cause harm to the environment and can be created locally, keeping their currency at home - and most importantly does not start a war to secure the energy flow of a nation.
It is clear from all known science that wind and solar is the solution, heavy subsidies over the last 10 years have brought huge reductions in cost (thank you Germany and Japan), in many states, (HI, NJ, CA) the cost to produce solar power is lower than the grid power, in some cases without the subsidy (Federal and utility). Due to manufacturing investments we can expect the cost to drop for the foreseeable future allowing us to remove all subsidies. The point of a subsidy is to help a strategic industry along - it is working very well, thanks to the European leadership.
The return on investment in a typical USA home is 5-10 years, it greatly depends on sunlight and local energy costs, after this you are making money - it is after all a generator with no fuel costs. They last easily 25-30 years (plenty of such systems exist today) with almost no maintenance or repair costs, and ~0.5% loss per year in power.
The most patriotic thing you can do today is buy US made solar PV (Solar World, Suniva, Solon) for your house and an electric car (Ford, Chevy, Tesla), then we all do not need to send our young men and women to secure our energy of the future. I have solar, installed it myself, and hope to have an electric car by next year.
Click to expand...

Oh, dear! Gimme a tree I can hug, quick.
 
nothing to do with trees...

nothing to do with trees...

weressl said:
Oh, dear! Gimme a tree I can hug, quick.
Click to expand...

this has nothing to do with trees...
Ask yourself the real cost of war, and why we have been fighting wars ever since the end of the cold war. My son's best friend will not come home, ever, countless other soldiers would rather be here at home than fighting for oil.
If you don't buy the war scenario, think economics: Germany has now ~400'000 jobs directly in the renewable energy business. They are now building factories here in the USA to supply the emerging American market, a shame it is not the other way around. Growth of solar is on a steady 40% + growth rate for over 10 years now, time to wake up and join the rest of the world.
 
Helios said:
this has nothing to do with trees...
Ask yourself the real cost of war, and why we have been fighting wars ever since the end of the cold war. My son's best friend will not come home, ever, countless other soldiers would rather be here at home than fighting for oil.
If you don't buy the war scenario, think economics: Germany has now ~400'000 jobs directly in the renewable energy business. They are now building factories here in the USA to supply the emerging American market, a shame it is not the other way around. Growth of solar is on a steady 40% + growth rate for over 10 years now, time to wake up and join the rest of the world.
Click to expand...

More to the point, the cost of solar is going down and the cost of the alternative is going up. That simple economic relationship means that sooner or later, solar will be a part of your life.

You can argue war, the environment, "Global Warming", funding terrorists, oil moguls exploiting the working class -- whatever. The basic facts are thus -- the cost of solar (and wind, too) is going down and the cost of other power sources isn't.
 
tallgirl said:
More to the point, the cost of solar is going down and the cost of the alternative is going up. That simple economic relationship means that sooner or later, solar will be a part of your life.

You can argue war, the environment, "Global Warming", funding terrorists, oil moguls exploiting the working class -- whatever. The basic facts are thus -- the cost of solar (and wind, too) is going down and the cost of other power sources isn't.
Click to expand...

The cost of solar is going down and its efficiency is going up. However it is ECONOMICALLY unsustainable without subsidies. The 'other' energy market is penalized via additional taxes that are funneled to subsidize the solar and wind market. The policy is the abose of taxpayers trust and money for political purposes. Will business protect the taxpayers? Of course not, they will make a bundle on any oppurtunity. In this and many other cases it is the Government that FAILS in its primary role as to serve the individual citizens.

Should there be alternative energy sources? Well, when oil and it?s energy related uses were discovered that WAS the NEW and ALTERNATIVE energy. Actually wind and solar power are both considerably older than oil as an energy source. Ancient Greeks have used both. Why didn?t they emerge as THE energy resource of choice? Technology, efficiency and market.

Hybrid and electric cars actually have a larger carbon footprint than the average gasoline/diesel driven ones.

 
don't forget that the defense departments' budget is an ipso-facto subsidy for oil.
And even without the help (some markets are doing just fine even with hostile utilities), PV is looking at grid-parity as early as 2016. I admit I have sorta already drank the solar kool-aid, but it ain't going anywhere, and while we're bickering over whether it makes sense, a whole lot of jobs and capital are moving elsewhere.
 
Helios said:
....................... and hope to have an electric car by next year.
Click to expand...

Then you can wipe out the output of a couple of residential solar panel systems, unless you don't drive it. Then what whould the point be in having it? It's all great until you run out of other peoples money. If your doing it because it's cool, more power to you. But if you think your saving the enviroment, your sadly mistaken. I would like to build a microhydro plant, which is far more efficient than solar, but I would do it just because it would be a cool thing to do.
 
c_picard said:
don't forget that the defense departments' budget is an ipso-facto subsidy for oil.
And even without the help (some markets are doing just fine even with hostile utilities), PV is looking at grid-parity as early as 2016. I admit I have sorta already drank the solar kool-aid, but it ain't going anywhere, and while we're bickering over whether it makes sense, a whole lot of jobs and capital are moving elsewhere.
Click to expand...

You want to run by that Defense Budget subsidy again? In business terms?

Solar market can look for market equity when there is a(nother) technological breakthrough somewhat akin to the discovery of transistors.

But look at the current stage. If we are to cover all of our needs with solar, it would it would need to cover landmass that will result in the significant loss of arable land and mass deforrestation. (There is very little that can be grown under the solar panels.:happysad:) Then there is the problem of storage and conversion to and back from storage, all adding to the inefficiency and requiring significant and sophisticated manufacturing with it's own huge carbon footprint, not to mention the disposal carbon footprint. These things need to be eco-calculated from cradle-to-grave to be fully honest.
 
hillbilly1 said:
Then you can wipe out the output of a couple of residential solar panel systems, unless you don't drive it. Then what whould the point be in having it? It's all great until you run out of other peoples money. If your doing it because it's cool, more power to you. But if you think your saving the enviroment, your sadly mistaken. I would like to build a microhydro plant, which is far more efficient than solar, but I would do it just because it would be a cool thing to do.
Click to expand...

Here comes a Hillbilly with common sense...:eek: Gooo away already, you're disturbing our meditation......:roll:, but just leave that valet that fell out of your pocket, or did just Uncle Sam snatched it?:cry:
 
mivey said:
Don't hold your breath. :)
Click to expand...

Of course I am not.

The point is that I do NOT have a problem with using energy the most efficient way and that includes carbon emmissions, less unusable byproduct into landfill, less thermal output into the atmosphere, etc.

What irks me is when they telling me that I have to spend all sort of extra money while the new 'product' is producing more carbon emissions than the alternative; have to spend future moneys because of the vastly increased maintenace, repair and replacement cost; all the while the seller is snickering with his fat account in the bank.

I hate when people treat me as a moron. Obviously it's all in the packaging because masses of people ARE drinking the Kool-Aid.
 
mivey said:
Looks like somebody was using that advanced metric math. Maybe they need some Yanks to do some figuring using HP and such
:D
Click to expand...

They need to do more of what they haven't done -- storage development. Looking solely at pumped hydro for storage is wrong. I don't know enough about the geology of the UK to know if compressed air is possible, but that's another technology that's being looked at here in the States, along with flywheels and good old fashioned lead-acid batteries.

There are plenty of ways to soak up excess power. Sadly the profits from RECs often go to investors rather than inventors -- I have a client who does hydrogen gas storage with their surplus production. Better to build storage schemes than give someone money to buy a summer flat in Brighton or a new Range Rover.
 
tallgirl said:
They need to do more of what they haven't done -- storage development. Looking solely at pumped hydro for storage is wrong. I don't know enough about the geology of the UK to know if compressed air is possible, but that's another technology that's being looked at here in the States, along with flywheels and good old fashioned lead-acid batteries.
Click to expand...

When you do a(n) - truthful - eco-analysis with true investement return on those, you would be mortified. If private business could not afford it, because it would bankrupt them, why do we insist on 'Government' investement? I tell you why, because it is the SHEEPLE's money....
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top