Solar a viable energy alternative?

Status
Not open for further replies.
petersonra said:
So far, no one has come up with any "alternative" energy sources that are even remotely economically feasible on any wide spread basis, except with massive subsidies.
Click to expand...

I do not think that is true, coal to gas is here and can carry the US for a couple hundred years without imports and all production right here. Coupled with nuclear will take us a long way. All you got to do is get rid of a fanatical religion called environmentalist.
 
dereckbc said:
I do not think that is true, coal to gas is here and can carry the US for a couple hundred years without imports and all production right here. Coupled with nuclear will take us a long way. All you got to do is get rid of a fanatical religion called environmentalist.
Click to expand...

The environmentalists are starting to warm to nuclear because they are beginning to understand that it is far less polluting, and often releases less radioactivity, than nuclear.

I remember back in the day when the US could be oil self-sufficient if CAFE was raised to 27MPG. That never happened because SUVs were classed as "trucks" and trucks are exempt -- people who wanted to drive land yachts without paying the sin tax just switched to SUVs. I don't know what value for CAFE would be required to get us off our addiction to Middle Eastern oil, but it's probably over 30MPG now and would have to include SUVs in the requirements.
 
Thats going back to Carter's day, when the USA produced over 50% of the oil it needed. What a good idea it was to use it more economically. Now that the USA produces a less than a third of it's needs (and approaching a quarter, and production is dropping year on year) the problem is bigger and harder. I still think America could solve the problem if it wanted too, America has some damned clever people available to do the work, but there is no political will to make America use less gas. Look what happened to Carter. Americans dont want to hear about fuel economy (or energy economy in general) whilst gas is still cheap.
 
dereckbc said:
You just hit the nail on the head without realizing it. The market will make all the decisions as it should. No government can change that.
Click to expand...

That's true to the extent that Americans are informed consumers, but with most of our information coming from corporations that have profit as their primary motive (I'm a capitalist with slight marxist leanings, so I'm all for profit, I just like it to be less classist and more socially responsible ...), I don't see Americans making decisions about which car to drive that aren't based, in large part, on whether the giant SUV has a higher profit margin than the subcompact commuter mobile that wrings the greatest possible mileage from a gallon of gas.

Indeed, my local utility talks a lot about "energy audits", but I can't recall a single insert or anything that argues strongly for cutting down on electric consumption through complete replacement of incandescents with CFLs. I use a programmable thermostat, keep my fridge set at a reasonable level, turn things off when I don't need them (okay, the computers all stay running, but the big ones do useful stuff ...). It wasn't until I went to size a backup generator for the house -- meaning, I had a motivation other than cutting the POCO's profits -- that I found how much electricity can be saved with the twisty little bulbs. Over the several weeks time I went through and replaced just about every incandescent I could find with a CFL and this is what happened --

ElectricHistory.jpg


Not just the lowest consumption I've ever had, but a nearly 30% reduction in consumption compared to the lowest prior month.

This is the kind of guidance and direction governments should be putting out. That and the twisty bulb makers should be advertising with copies of bills like mine.

(Edited because I wasn't clear about when I did the incandescent bulb replacement ...)
 
Last edited:
tallgirl said:
Indeed, my local utility talks a lot about "energy audits", but I can't recall a single insert or anything that argues strongly for cutting down on electric consumption through complete replacement of incandescents with CFLs.
Click to expand...
My local energy company (National Grid) has been sending out catalogs and promoting on-line purchases of CFLs, and lamps and fixtures with integral ballasts, at substantial discounts from what you can buy for them in the stores. The only disappointment is that their current list is much shorter and order limits smaller.

In addition to saving power for the lights, they also save on A/C cost. For every 3 kWHr used by lights, computers, and appliances, it takes 1 kWHr to pump the heat out of the house.
 
dereckbc said:
Julie do you live in TX?. If so what POCO serves you?
Click to expand...

TXU Electric.

I'm just north of the Austin city limits, so I'm not on City of Austin power. I'm sure the people just south of me are told how to reduce their electric bills by going outside and hugging a tree for 20 minutes a day.

Oh, this is what was stuffed in the bill this month, according to their website (I don't have the actual insert, so I had to ask the website what the insert was ...)

TXU-Insert.jpg


It looks to be some kind of reward program along the lines of "Cash back for every kWh used" ...
 
Last edited:
mr dbuckley, thats one nice gadget. hope they export some here in my neck of the woods.

ma'am tallgirl, our utility does include CFLs (UL listed, so many cheap versions here) in ther energy saving campaign. And they include building materials to cut down in airconditioning costs.

no sloars here yet, as they are very expensive 9even to those who can afford) and no net metering here.
 
tallgirl said:
TXU Electric.
Click to expand...
Was just curious, so am I. In March of last year I paid 12-cents per Kwh and this March I paid 13.5 per Kwh. Just can't figure out how you were only charged 6.9 per Kwh in March of 2006 and rolled back to 6.5 this March.
 
dereckbc said:
Was just curious, so am I. In March of last year I paid 12-cents per Kwh and this March I paid 13.5 per Kwh. Just can't figure out how you were only charged 6.9 per Kwh in March of 2006 and rolled back to 6.5 this March.
Click to expand...

I believe there are "loyalty rebates" in some of those monthly bills. My recollection is that there was a $25 rebate this month.

On the other hand, I don't see how you get $0.069 / kWh for last March -- $140.89 / 975kWh = $0.145 per kWh. Do you have a base charge you're assuming I have as well? I think the base customer charge here is circa $6.00 per month. This month was $96.27 / 630 kWh = $0.153 per kWh.

Are you sure you're doing the division in the correct order?!? :-?
 
energy payback is 2-8 years

energy payback is 2-8 years

"I have nothing to confirm this - but I believe they have only just crossed the line in the amount of energy to produce PV panels vs. the amount of energy they produce over the lifetime of said PV panel."

Absolutely and totally untrue!! I'm a pv installer in NC, EROI on PV panels can be less than three years and they produce useful for 25 to 30 years minimum. Industry average warranty is 80% power output 20 -25 years.
See http://www.energybulletin.net/17219.html
for an unbiased meta-anaylsis
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top