# An Energy Question?



## Navy1960 (Apr 16, 2012)

While the debate rages  on both sides about such things as wind,solar, nuclear, nat-gas, oil,  and a whole host of other  energy sources,  it leads me to ask a question.  At what point does this debate  become  harmful to this nation? let me explain,  by picking and choosing what technology is good and what is bad are we not then putting our feet at the throat of American innovation and as a by-product of that  American Jobs ? 

Take the  Chevy Volt for instance,  while not everyone's cup of tea, and perhaps a little pricey amongst other things, I'm frankly  stunned that Americans especially in todays economy and todays  global atmosphere that some would be so against this car just on the off chance it is associated with a political figure they dont happen to like. 

The same is true for  domestic  oil and gas production and solar, and wind,  if we as a nation intend to stay at or near the top then we have to have the energy sources to do so.   To produce, explore, and  make the products needed for this here in this nation can serve only one purpose,  it  makes this nation stronger and less dependant on nations that do not have our best interests at heart. 

While it's true that some of these new technologies might  take time and even some might fail before  it becomes  a part of our daily lives , that is the cost we pay to take that path and realize the benefits of those technologies.   Take for instance  the  auto industry, at it's inception there were over a 100 different companies  producing cars in this nation, and  over the years as  the technology grew , companies came and went. In short no matter what the technology, if we STOP innovation then we  choose long road to decline.


----------



## GHook93 (Apr 16, 2012)

Navy1960 said:


> While the debate rages  on both sides about such things as wind,solar, nuclear, nat-gas, oil,  and a whole host of other  energy sources,  it leads me to ask a question.  At what point does this debate  become  harmful to this nation? let me explain,  by picking and choosing what technology is good and what is bad are we not then putting our feet at the throat of American innovation and as a by-product of that  American Jobs ?
> 
> Take the  Chevy Volt for instance,  while not everyone's cup of tea, and perhaps a little pricey amongst other things, I'm frankly  stunned that Americans especially in todays economy and todays  global atmosphere that some would be so against this car just on the off chance it is associated with a political figure they dont happen to like.
> 
> ...



Well stated! Sooner or later oil as a source of fuel for our mobility machines will end. We can either deal with it at that point, which would be catrophic or we can  slowly deal with it now! I see the electric car as the long-term solution. First, stationary sources have a much wider variety, easier to harness, more efficient and are evolting all the time. The mobile sources are virtually just oil. We need to break that.

This first generation of electric car definitely has it flaws: Price, range, availability and variety. However, they show great promise. They show that it can be done. Nonetheless ALL new and civilization changing technology has this cycle in the first generation.

Two examples: The computer and Cell Phone. The computer used to be vastly expensive. It used to take up a full room. The only ones who had them were the government and rich companies. Then they started to shrink them.  You had the naysayers fighting it pointing to type-writer and quicker, less bugs and cheaper. Slowly but surely more and more people obtained them. Now they are mainstream and the typewritter is extinct.

The Cell was very similar. The first generation came along with a bag. It cost $5 a minute to use. Only wealthy businessmen used them. Naysayers again said they were too costly and stationary phones were more efficient. Nowadays, most people in the world, even in Afghanistan, have cell phones!

This first generation has it's flaws, but people bought everything that was produced. The next generation will work on SOME of the flaws (I guarantee the Volt drops the gas engine) and get the price down and even more people will buy them. The third generation will perfect the electric car and nearly all new cars will be electric. 

The trend starts now and will move in that direction. Critized it yes, but still acknowledge this is the hope for the future!


----------



## Navy1960 (Apr 16, 2012)

GHook93 said:


> Navy1960 said:
> 
> 
> > While the debate rages  on both sides about such things as wind,solar, nuclear, nat-gas, oil,  and a whole host of other  energy sources,  it leads me to ask a question.  At what point does this debate  become  harmful to this nation? let me explain,  by picking and choosing what technology is good and what is bad are we not then putting our feet at the throat of American innovation and as a by-product of that  American Jobs ?
> ...



Exactly my point, and thank you, every technology has a starting point and  as it matures so to does it  become  better.  The electric car is no different and I would rather imagine so to would technologies like Solar, Wind  the newer technologies.  I suppose my take on this is why sit around and fight over things as a nation because of a political belief one way or the other when we all benefit  from the development of ALL these technologies take your pick. 

I can't help but think if  the Apollo program were today, we would have never gone to the Moon because on one side you would have people saying, "it costs too much" and on the other "rockets cause the birds not to migrate" and  as we did the rest of world would wave as they flew past us.  As they are now.


----------



## GHook93 (Apr 16, 2012)

Navy1960 said:


> GHook93 said:
> 
> 
> > Navy1960 said:
> ...



HOWEVER, also keep in mind there are many MANY wouldbe technologies that were supposed to change the world, but fell flat on their face! However, I don't think the electric car will be one of them!


----------



## Navy1960 (Apr 16, 2012)

GHook93 said:


> Navy1960 said:
> 
> 
> > GHook93 said:
> ...



Agreed,  I see some technologies to as a bridge to others.   Take for example  the way in which we  watch  movies.   Went from going to the movies on film, to Beta,  to VHS, to DVD,  and on to Digital media and  it still  is moving  forward.  So who is to say that todays electric car wont be something we cannot even  think of at the moment.   The point is  its a good first step in the right direction. My feeling is that EV opens all sorts of possibilites for this nation to use  massive resources  that this nation has at its disposal  and ends our  need to bend our knee's to mid eastern oil and  perhaps  get this nation into conflicts in that region in  a never ending  attempt to protect that asset not to mention the sheer number of  jobs that rebuilding on such a technology could mean in terms of domestic jobs, and the economy.  That is why, I could care less who is politically associated with this technology as long as it helps this nation.


----------



## Old Rocks (Apr 17, 2012)

I see the EV as another means of independence for the home owner. The combination of solar, grid tied,  and an EV gives you not only energy for your home and vehicle, but also a good backup in case of a grid failure. It also puts power on the grid at the time of greatest need, and takes power off in the slack period.

And I agree as to it also being a bridge technology. The ability that will be developed in storing high density electrical energy will lead to developments we cannot even imagine now. One could hardly have predicted the internet from the invention of the transistor in the late 1940's.


----------



## messki678 (Apr 23, 2012)

what you guys says about to run electricity of home with solar? is it cheaper?


----------



## Intense (Apr 23, 2012)

Navy1960 said:


> GHook93 said:
> 
> 
> > Navy1960 said:
> ...



Still, there is only so far one should be trying to jump ahead on Someone Else's dime. Especially when there are much more abundant Resources and Technologies available. Not to mention the scams and schemes making certain people rich, through fraud, incompetence, and embezzlement. We should be looking towards Natural Gas to Power our vehicles. Also, something to consider, is that which steers away from Centralized control, which seems to always lead to dictatorial ends. Let's not confuse that with Patriotism. Poorly managed Green Policies are bankrupting us, that is not healthy for anyone. Yes we need to address the problems caused by the competing technologies, yet, we should not be abandoning reason along the way.


----------



## Navy1960 (Apr 23, 2012)

Intense said:


> Navy1960 said:
> 
> 
> > GHook93 said:
> ...



I am in full agreement that NG is a  huge resource  that needs to be paid attention to when it comes to transportation.  Here is the issue with tax payer funded  technology research and  such things as  the Volt, Boeing etc.  While  I tend to want  our industries in a pure sense to stand on their own two feet, the sad fact remains that in todays world  every nation  takes use of subsidies to its major industries in order to give it a leg up. There is no bigger example of this than with Airbus and  and Boeing.  Take the A-380 for instance, which is the largest commercial airliner at the moment, virtually ALL of its R&D was  financed by EU Govts. and  by that I mean the  citizens of the Airbus partner nations.  Now this is a personal opinion here,  I tend to think that any technology that  produces  jobs here in this nation regardless of what label it has  "Green"  or otherwise, is a good thing. These newer industries  like solar, wind, etc.  are no different than any industry when it comes to how  they mature. Take your pick, go back a little ways in time and look at the sheer number of  companies in the PC Busniess that have come and gone, the high cost of those devices, some good some not so good, and yes even some Govt. purchased.  The fact is by promoting technologies that not only  move this nation away from depending on foreing sources of energy as well as employ Americans is an investment into this nation that American taxpayers should be willing to take a chance on rather than say perhaps, investing in rebuilding  the other 180 plus nations we happen to be in at the moment.


----------



## Navy1960 (Apr 23, 2012)

Oh one more than too,  if you have not guessed, I'm sort of the ALL in type as long as it benefits the  Good Ol USA and our people!!.


----------



## chenchenPeter (Jul 18, 2012)

Yes,I also want to know the answer....


----------



## Old Rocks (Jul 19, 2012)

Intense said:


> Navy1960 said:
> 
> 
> > GHook93 said:
> ...



Your evidence for that is?


----------



## Trakar (Jul 23, 2012)

Navy1960 said:


> While the debate rages on both sides about such things as wind,solar, nuclear, nat-gas, oil, and a whole host of other energy sources, it leads me to ask a question. At what point does this debate become harmful to this nation? let me explain, by picking and choosing what technology is good and what is bad are we not then putting our feet at the throat of American innovation and as a by-product of that American Jobs ?
> 
> Take the Chevy Volt for instance, while not everyone's cup of tea, and perhaps a little pricey amongst other things, I'm frankly stunned that Americans especially in todays economy and todays global atmosphere that some would be so against this car just on the off chance it is associated with a political figure they dont happen to like.
> 
> ...


 
I see nothing in your statement that I would disagree with, with the caveat that actions and inactions are always accompanied by consequences. The failure to acknowledge and account for those consequences is never in the best interests of our nation.

On the basis of this, I would certainly acknowledge that any advocacy for rapid and dramatic change is always to be a choice of last resort due to the disruption and uncertainty that the broad scale and scope of such change engenders. 

Given these there is still a great deal of discussion/debate to be held over a great many areas of concern, but with this set of base agreements that discussion can progress in a reasoned and productive manner to find directions and goals that are understandable and acceptable to all (or at least a majority of the) participants in a public policy discussion. 

At a personal level - I've no objection to carbon-fuel industries expending their own funding in the search for more exploitable resources and the technologies to recover, process/refine and transport/distribute those resources in a market where costs (both internal and external) are fully accounted for. I would be even more supportive of these technologies if they demonstrated a means of extracting the fuel's energy in a carbon neutral fashion. These are just personal perspectives, but your post, taken at face value, seems a good starting for a serious discussion.


----------



## Trakar (Jul 23, 2012)

GHook93 said:


> Well stated! Sooner or later oil as a source of fuel for our mobility machines will end. We can either deal with it at that point, which would be catrophic or we can slowly deal with it now! I see the electric car as the long-term solution. First, stationary sources have a much wider variety, easier to harness, more efficient and are evolting all the time. The mobile sources are virtually just oil. We need to break that.
> 
> This first generation of electric car definitely has it flaws: Price, range, availability and variety. However, they show great promise. They show that it can be done. Nonetheless ALL new and civilization changing technology has this cycle in the first generation.
> 
> ...


 
I'm not sure that I see the EV as "The" answer, but it certainly may be an important piece of the puzzle going forward. I think there may be many such pieces and it probably isn't a good idea to focus as much on finding 1 over-arching solution, as it is to look at and explore the different options at our disposal. 

One of the downsides of EV right now, is that in many cases we are replacing the carbon from burning refined petroleum in the car for the carbon from burning coal in a power plant (and neither of those options is very efficient or effective). There are consequences to all decisions and the drawbacks that have to be considered at each step of the way or all we are doing is fooling ourselves.


----------



## Trakar (Jul 23, 2012)

Navy1960 said:


> I can't help but think if the Apollo program were today, we would have never gone to the Moon because on one side you would have people saying, "it costs too much" and on the other "rockets cause the birds not to migrate" and as we did the rest of world would wave as they flew past us. As they are now.


 

Eer, ...that's largely the way it was! 

NASA was under constant reproach and attack by environmentalist extremests, and was a big target for fiscal conservatives (most infamously for the amount of "Golden Fleece" awards it received) "a Kennedy project" that deserved diminishment and swipes wherever possible (and I was a Nixon Republican who often nodded my head at such comments, even as many of my classmates were headed toward eventual aerospace engineering jobs in the field) The political vitriole of the past may have been more private and less mainstream in the past, but I can vouch for its existence in the '50s and '60s.


----------



## Trakar (Jul 23, 2012)

messki678 said:


> what you guys says about to run electricity of home with solar? is it cheaper?


 
Right now, for people whose primary concern is cost per kWh, solar probably isn't going to be your first choice.

Depending upon your requirements, your location, and local costs for installation and maintenance it's generally going to require a significant investment ($10-30k) to offset most of the average utility bill if you live in a state where the utilities are required to purchase your production. If not, and you are looking to live totally off the grid, the extra capacity and a battery room to handle all your needs is going to (again varies according to local conditions and costs) tack on at least another $8-10k in costs -more if you are using advanced batteries instead of lead-acid. 

as a personal preference, I would like to see a minimal self-generation system requirement added into building codes across the nation, it would provide a backbone for later enhancement and provide a back-up emergency power system (minimal lights, charging for battery devices, and other minor needs at least during the day) in times of outage.


----------



## Indofred (Jul 23, 2012)

I find it really hard to understand why people don't save energy in whatever ways they can.
All my light bulbs are energy savers except two.
The last two are because I'm upgrading to even lower power consumption LED units.
Exactly the same light but even less energy use.

My two cars are a mountain bike and a 110cc Yamaha scooter.
The first sails past petrol stations without the slightest thought of filling up, the second uses about a gallon every week or two.

It's true my carbon footprint is small but the cash leaving my wallet is even smaller.
I'm on about 16 times minimum wage so I could do when the hell I liked but I chose to save energy and save cash for more useful things.


----------



## Trakar (Jul 23, 2012)

Indofred said:


> I find it really hard to understand why people don't save energy in whatever ways they can.
> All my light bulbs are energy savers except two.
> The last two are because I'm upgrading to even lower power consumption LED units.
> Exactly the same light but even less energy use.
> ...


 
Sounds like a personal set of fiscally conservative lifestyle choices I can respect.


----------



## Moonglow (Jul 23, 2012)

The military is not waiting for the private sector to choose. It has formulated that biofuels will replace how the military moves.

The military uses more oil than all the citizens in the USA.


----------



## Wry Catcher (Jul 23, 2012)

A very well thought out and important thread.  To bad such discourse can't be had in the halls of Congress.


----------



## Trakar (Jul 23, 2012)

Wry Catcher said:


> A very well thought out and important thread. To bad such discourse can't be had in the halls of Congress.


 
More often and more publically!

There is a broad range of valid public policy positions and decisions that that need to be explored and discussed so that the electorate can make reasoned decisions.


----------



## Old Rocks (Jul 23, 2012)

That is indeed the problem with todays politics. The rhetoric in the halls of Congress all too often sounds like a reading of the National Enquirer, than reasoned discussion. On both sides of the aisle.

We have a couple of real problems coming down the road. Energy costs, particulary the cost of imported energy. 

And our reaction and preperation for the inevitable consequences of the GHGs that we have put into the atmosphere. The fires, droughts, storms, and floods of the last three years should be a heads up for all.


----------



## flacaltenn (Jul 26, 2012)

GHook93 said:


> Navy1960 said:
> 
> 
> > While the debate rages  on both sides about such things as wind,solar, nuclear, nat-gas, oil,  and a whole host of other  energy sources,  it leads me to ask a question.  At what point does this debate  become  harmful to this nation? let me explain,  by picking and choosing what technology is good and what is bad are we not then putting our feet at the throat of American innovation and as a by-product of that  American Jobs ?
> ...



I'm not against the Volt TECHNOLOGY -- I'm against the mixed message that motivates our politicians to be SUBSIDIZING IT.. Because I bet NONE of you will answer the question I've asked many times before about EVs.. 

Should we be ENCOURAGING the adoption of EVs and pushing folks to add 2.5KW circuits to their homes to charge them because there's no LACK of electrical power to worry about? 

OR 

Do we have to be constantly chastized to turn down the thermostats, unplug our phone chargers, and swap out all our bulbs to conserve every last drop and discourage additional growth of the grid? 

Right now -- the enviro-left is pushing BOTH agendas hoping that the dissonance of the mixed message is entirely missed. 

The reason there's fall-out in the solar and wind industries and massive consolidation of the number of players is EXACTLY that they are mature technologies and DO NOT require any further subsidies for COMMODITY items. Funding for R&D is a different issue. Solyndra failed because their little optics gimmick failed to add any incremental to the standard Solar PV product.. 

We cannot pump up the grid with sources are subject to severe siting restrictions, and sporadic reliability.. Can't design a society around energy sources that are gonna check out next Tuesday for 8 hours. 

It's realism that needs to be discussed on a political level -- we've been pushed into "hope and dreams" maybes for WAAYYY too long now.. 

Personally, I think wind/solar ought to be reserved for OFF-GRID production of Hydrogen to support a fuel cell fleet. And we ought to start with a fast approval process leading to 150 new nuclear plants before the decade is out. 

THEN -- we can talk about what problems get solved with plug-in EVs..


----------



## Trakar (Jul 26, 2012)

flacaltenn said:


> I'm against the mixed message that motivates our politicians to be SUBSIDIZING IT.. Because I bet NONE of you will answer the question I've asked many times before about EVs..
> 
> Should we be ENCOURAGING the adoption of EVs and pushing folks to add 2.5KW circuits to their homes to charge them because there's no LACK of electrical power to worry about?




"Add 2.5KW circuits"? what are you talking about? The average US home already draws about 11.5MWh of power/year, that's almost 1000KWh per month. If you draw an additional 2.5KWh a day charging your EV that's only another ~80KWh per month, or an additional 8% electrical usage/draw. Now don't mistake my words, I'm not saying that local, regional and national grids don't need updating, upgrading and overall improvement,...just the opposite. In fact, I have long advocated that this needs to be a first step immediate action that shouldn't be controversial or partisan. Heck, it doesn't even require you to accept the realities of AGW, all you need to do is look at the growth of our power usage over the last 50 years and project that parabola forward. That and realizing that our electrical infrastructure is a patchwork of grids and systems that were largely inadequate 20 years ago and haven't been much improved, yet alone expanded over that time frame. 

With regards to energy, I'll reserve carbon tax/bank and other policy issue discussion for another post. Nuclear power should and will play an expanded role in our nation's energy independence and long-term sustainability. Gas can help us transition to a carbon neutral society. Solar, wind, hydro (especially in northern mountainous areas as increasingly wet climes provide a bountiful potential to tap for energy needs), geothermal, tidal/wave/current all have expanding roles to play. As the technologies mature and settle into their roles we can increasingly allow the gas and eventually the nuclear to be replaced as they are retired by newer alternative/sustainable energy replacements. A plan along these general lines can sustain a growth of energy usage and achieve carbon neutrality within a half century. I, personally, don't think that's enough to seriously diminish or eliminate dangers and problems AGW is bringing, but it will give future generations the best shot possible to adapt within and absorb the early and initial changes and problems and still have the capacity and resources to chart their own future.  



> OR
> 
> Do we have to be constantly chastized to turn down the thermostats, unplug our phone chargers, and swap out all our bulbs to conserve every last drop and discourage additional growth of the grid?
> 
> Right now -- the enviro-left is pushing BOTH agendas hoping that the dissonance of the mixed message is entirely missed...


 
What type of confusion leads to the thinking that conservation and efficiency shouldn't work hand-in-hand with the smart development, growth and expansion of a sustainable national energy plan?


----------



## flacaltenn (Jul 26, 2012)

Trakar said:


> flacaltenn said:
> 
> 
> > I'm against the mixed message that motivates our politicians to be SUBSIDIZING IT.. Because I bet NONE of you will answer the question I've asked many times before about EVs..
> ...



We meet somewhere in the middle -- but you didn't really answer my simple question.. Which effort are we wasting time and money on until we define the problem?


----------



## Politico (Jul 26, 2012)

The Volt is still based on fossil fuels. And a lot of pollution is created making the batteries for them. They cost too much, the benefits don't outweigh the negatives and they apparently catch fire for no reason. All that aside it comes down to the consumer. And until they make something that performs the same as gas powered vehicles people are not going to buy them.


----------



## flacaltenn (Jul 26, 2012)

Politico said:


> The Volt is still based on fossil fuels. And a lot of pollution is created making the batteries for them. They cost too much, the benefits don't outweigh the negatives and they apparently catch fire for no reason. All that aside it comes down to the consumer. And until they make something that performs the same as gas powered vehicles people are not going to buy them.



Actually a lot of good innovations in EV tech. And generally, there HAS been reasons for the Volt catching fire. 

But you're correct about the side effects. Like asking what problem we're solving with them when a coal fired plant is providing the charge. Or what we're gonna do to handle an unprecendented HUGE waste stream from the batteries..


----------



## Trakar (Jul 26, 2012)

flacaltenn said:


> Trakar said:
> 
> 
> > flacaltenn said:
> ...


 
Time is not unimportant.

The longer we wait before beginning to take action (especially since 90% of the actions are ones that make sense to both our energy present and future without issues of AGW to add urgency to our path) enhances the problems we face (or more specifically, the problems our descendents will face) the more expensive and extensive the problems will be. I'm not saying that there isn't time for more analysis and a thorough discussion of options and choices, but we do know enough to lay out the early impacts and begin these discussions of initial foundational steps. The early impacts are already unfolding, if we wait until things get really bad before we start taking serious actions, we'll be too busy plugging breaches in the too small, too weak storm wall to go back and simultaneously try to lift everyone's home and business up on stilts. (admittedly poor analogy).


----------



## Indofred (Jul 27, 2012)

Trakar said:


> Indofred said:
> 
> 
> > I find it really hard to understand why people don't save energy in whatever ways they can.
> ...



I'm from Yorkshire.
It's a place where we don't spend anything we don't have or want to.
Back in the UK, I used biofuels in my van.
The weather forced me to mix with pump product but, if I bought rancid veg oil from the Chinese supermarket, I could run the thing at 10 times less fuel cost in summer.
I only had the van at all because I had to for my business.

That makes sense in anyone's wallet.

Before I got married, I only used laptop computers and a portable DVD player.
I really didn't see the advantage in having a TV as I never watched broadcast programs.

When energy saving bulbs were first available, various schemes were around, giving away free bulbs so you could try one.
I stopped at every place I passed and got as many as I could for bugger all.

My electricity bill was tiny.
It was so low, the electricity company sent a bloke out to see if I was fiddling the meter.

Ok, I'll go with being "Green" but I think of my wallet first.


----------



## polarbear (Jul 28, 2012)

Old Rocks said:


> I see the EV as another means of independence for the home owner. The combination of solar, grid tied,  and an EV gives you not only energy for your home and vehicle, but also a good backup in case of a grid failure. It also puts power on the grid at the time of greatest need, and takes power off in the slack period.
> 
> And I agree as to it also being a bridge technology. The ability that will be developed in storing high density electrical energy will lead to developments we cannot even imagine now. One could hardly have predicted the internet from the invention of the transistor in the late 1940's.



First  about the Chevy Volt and then to your "EV power backup"
I guess it`s news to you, that the Chevy volt production has been cancelled...here is why...:
The Volt Re-Evaluated: $250,000 Per Car | Conservative News, Views & Books
You claim you are a millwright, yet you sit every day all day long at your PC and post crap like that. If you are not an outright fake then you faked a disability and suck on the system like most of the people of your stripe do. How else would you find the time to do what you do?
If you were in fact a millwright You`ld know how much the hardware for solar per KVA really costs even if You install it yourself to make it a viable power backup system. In another post you bragged how "only the technically challenged" would have a DIY problem to install a solar grid tie system. As if somone like you, who hasn`t even the foggiest notion what a SCR-Capacitor  voltage doubling system  or a "stair case" wave generator is would be able to DIY a grid tie for solar or wind.
I do and I did my own from the ground up, 3000 Watts solar + 1500 Watts wind. It`s a nice hobby and that`s all it is, because if the grid fails and you want to rely on that you either hope for the sun to shine or the wind to blow just right. Although I use 6 deep cycle marine batteries it doesn`t take long till my freezers + the other appliances suck them down and then I start up my 6.5 KVA Hyundai which was only a fraction of the cost of the solar panels and after that I don`t really care if the power is out all night and the following day:
[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3bbDxOCpatA&list=UUvj7dbOY14kt_MFIR1Y1iwA&index=1&feature=plcp"]Sturmangriff.wmv - YouTube[/ame]


----------



## flacaltenn (Jul 28, 2012)

PolarBear --- You've probably saved some lives today from folks who would heed Rock"s advice about DIY Power generation.. I'd rep ya if I could.. 

While you're at it -- (i'm tired of dealing with the used solar salesman) -- could you explain to him how his plan to put up a couple KWatts of solar to charge your electric vehicle just doesn't comply with the manufacturers' warning to have a COMPETENTLY installed and dedication 230V, 40A service to run the Nissan Leaf charger??? (or you could wait 20 hours (3 solar days) and charge it from 110V)

I'd like to see that 20KW arrray on HIS roof --- wouldn't you?

Any minute now --- watch --- the guy is gonna show up and accuse me of not knowing what "grid-tied" means.. To him grid-tied means --- it's somebody ELSE'S problem where the energy comes from AT NIGHT when he's charging his EV...


----------



## Middleoftheroad (Jul 28, 2012)

polarbear said:


> Old Rocks said:
> 
> 
> > I see the EV as another means of independence for the home owner. The combination of solar, grid tied,  and an EV gives you not only energy for your home and vehicle, but also a good backup in case of a grid failure. It also puts power on the grid at the time of greatest need, and takes power off in the slack period.
> ...



WOW.  That article about the volt was arguably the stupidest article I have ever read, and I didn't even bother to finish it.  Even they admit their math is completely faulty.  First lets assume that no more Volts will ever be sold again (what?) so that makes 6k (we are already over that mark) then we assume that every possible company will get every possible subsidy (not going to happen) and then we will add in the entire cost of the GM bailout (how does that even remotely make sense).  Also we are not going to factor in any way that the Volt saves money, because that would lower our number, and we are only using numbers that raise the number.

Bravo.  Dumbest article ever.


----------



## Indofred (Jul 28, 2012)

My energy costs run at about US$40/month including home and transport.

Who is daft here?


----------



## RGR (Jul 28, 2012)

Politico said:


> The Volt is still based on fossil fuels.



and because we have plenty of them around you think...we should stop?



			
				Politico said:
			
		

> And a lot of pollution is created making the batteries for them. They cost too much, the benefits don't outweigh the negatives and they apparently catch fire for no reason. All that aside it comes down to the consumer. And until they make something that performs the same as gas powered vehicles people are not going to buy them.



They don't cost any more than the median car in America, they catch fire (weeks later) when you smach them together at speed...then stand back and wait a week or two...and I guarentee you that I can road rage someone beside me at a stoplight in a pretty authoritative fashion and yes...some of us have bought them. You should take one for a spin, they are quite nice!


----------



## RGR (Jul 28, 2012)

Middleoftheroad said:


> Bravo.  Dumbest article ever.



Nah. Some of the fracking posts and articles and ideas have been even dumber.


----------



## flacaltenn (Jul 28, 2012)

Indofred said:


> My energy costs run at about US$40/month including home and transport.
> 
> Who is daft here?



fred:

not being judgemental here,, but my family and I LIKE to travel together in something larger than a scooter and I run a home office with 2200 sq ft of complex electronics equipment. I'd say that my life is completely blissful, I'm glad you're happy with yours.

I'm happy for you..


----------



## Old Rocks (Jul 28, 2012)

flacaltenn said:


> PolarBear --- You've probably saved some lives today from folks who would heed Rock"s advice about DIY Power generation.. I'd rep ya if I could..
> 
> While you're at it -- (i'm tired of dealing with the used solar salesman) -- could you explain to him how his plan to put up a couple KWatts of solar to charge your electric vehicle just doesn't comply with the manufacturers' warning to have a COMPETENTLY installed and dedication 230V, 40A service to run the Nissan Leaf charger??? (or you could wait 20 hours (3 solar days) and charge it from 110V)
> 
> ...



Dumb fuck still doesn't understand grid parrallel. A real engineer


----------



## Indofred (Jul 28, 2012)

flacaltenn said:


> Indofred said:
> 
> 
> > My energy costs run at about US$40/month including home and transport.
> ...



I'm sexually aroused by the thought of 2,200 sq ft of complex electronics.
I have a small 'cool'lection of electronics as well but not that complex.
All, just in case you were wondering, are low energy devices.

What do you use that lot for?


----------



## Old Rocks (Jul 28, 2012)

polarbear said:


> Old Rocks said:
> 
> 
> > I see the EV as another means of independence for the home owner. The combination of solar, grid tied,  and an EV gives you not only energy for your home and vehicle, but also a good backup in case of a grid failure. It also puts power on the grid at the time of greatest need, and takes power off in the slack period.
> ...



*As usual, BiPolar, you are full of shit.*

2013 Chevy Volt now available (randomly)

GM said last month that the 2013 Volt boosted its all-electric range by three miles  to 38  compared to the 2012 version while increasing its miles-per-gallon-equivalent rating by four to 98 MPGe. GM also said the Volt's battery capacity increased to 16.5 kilowatt hours from an even 16.

2013 version or not, Volt sales are on the upswing. GM sold 8,817 of them through the first six months of the year, more than three times the number from this point in 2011.


----------



## Old Rocks (Jul 28, 2012)

Note how the 'Conservatives' are absolutely livid over the idea that a homeowner can free himself from dependence on the big energy companies. Could it be that they like and desire servitude?


----------



## flacaltenn (Jul 28, 2012)

Old Rocks said:


> flacaltenn said:
> 
> 
> > PolarBear --- You've probably saved some lives today from folks who would heed Rock"s advice about DIY Power generation.. I'd rep ya if I could..
> ...




*AND THERE IT IS !!!!!! SEE, I predicted that... *


----------



## flacaltenn (Jul 28, 2012)

Indofred said:


> flacaltenn said:
> 
> 
> > Indofred said:
> ...



As an "extremist Muslim" getting aroused by lab equipment must put you on some very shaky moral ground -- No??        

I use that lot to support a couple world-wide product consulting groups I run in order to my bills. And my penchant for extensive dilly-daddling on USMB.. 

But no worries -- most of my designs are very low power.. That makes me eligible for MASSIVE govt subsidies..


----------



## Indofred (Jul 29, 2012)

flacaltenn said:


> Indofred said:
> 
> 
> > flacaltenn said:
> ...



I'm getting a chubby at the thought of your electronics.

I play a little with A/V stuff.
I have a home cinema that can be carried in a medium size camera bag but will put a 2m wide 16:9 picture on the wall in a reasonably dark room and play a movie from internal memory.

I'm restarting my collection of QRP amateur radio gear as I'm about to renew my old licence.
So far, just an all band RX  (AM, FM, WFM) and a low power 2m rig.
A reasonable antenna in this location (Say, a co-linear) should give me a non lift condition radius of 20 miles or so except for North where I have a bad take of.
More will come.
A low power 10, 15, 20 and 40 rig with a half size G5RV will do nicely.


----------



## California Girl (Jul 29, 2012)

Navy1960 said:


> Oh one more than too,  if you have not guessed, I'm sort of the ALL in type as long as it benefits the  Good Ol USA and our people!!.



The problem, as I see, it is that the 'green' agenda has been hijacked by very left wing politics as a means to an end. Do they care about green principles? No, but they see it as an opportunity to grab power... political power. 

Conservatives should be supporting alternative energy technologies. I know I do. I'm all for an 'all of the above' approach. But we need to take those policies away from the socialist politics and mainstream them into conservatism too.


----------



## Old Rocks (Jul 29, 2012)

California Girl said:


> Navy1960 said:
> 
> 
> > Oh one more than too,  if you have not guessed, I'm sort of the ALL in type as long as it benefits the  Good Ol USA and our people!!.
> ...



Unfortunetly, the 'Conservatives' have been fighting the idea of alternative energies tooth and nail. Anything that does not burn fossil fuels or enrich a very large corperation is an anthema to them. And the very idea of a homeowner being both a consumer and producer of power absolutely turns them livid.


----------



## editec (Jul 29, 2012)

WE ought to be helping homeowners take advantage of wind and solar (and conversion to natural gas) such that we can all lessen this nation's dependence on foreigh oil.

Low cost loans, and outright grants to those who cannot afford these conversions would be an excellent policy to advance.

But such a policy dilutes the energy giants CONTROL over national energy production, so don't expect this kind of policy to happen in this nation anytime soon.


----------



## California Girl (Jul 29, 2012)

Old Rocks said:


> California Girl said:
> 
> 
> > Navy1960 said:
> ...



No one fights the idea of alternative energies. We do, however, object to the political agenda that has hijacked alternative energies. Hence the term 'watermelon men' when applied to people like Van Jones. Get your fucking politics out of alternative energies. That is, if you care about those energies. But you don't. You are just another 'watermelon'.


----------



## Old Rocks (Jul 29, 2012)

LOL.  Every time someone posts how individuals can save money for themselves and their families by using small scale solar or wind, there are a half dozen posts stating that it cannot work, and is morally wrong in some manner. Or someone like you flapping yap about 'watermelon' politics. 

Just look at the posts denigrating the LEDs, EVs, and any other useful idea that would save the individual money, and lead to more independence for the average homeowner. It is not liberals doing their best to keep the homeowner on the tits of the large energy corperations.


----------



## Bfgrn (Jul 29, 2012)

Navy1960 said:


> While the debate rages  on both sides about such things as wind,solar, nuclear, nat-gas, oil,  and a whole host of other  energy sources,  it leads me to ask a question.  At what point does this debate  become  harmful to this nation? let me explain,  by picking and choosing what technology is good and what is bad are we not then putting our feet at the throat of American innovation and as a by-product of that  American Jobs ?
> 
> Take the  Chevy Volt for instance,  while not everyone's cup of tea, and perhaps a little pricey amongst other things, I'm frankly  stunned that Americans especially in todays economy and todays  global atmosphere that some would be so against this car just on the off chance it is associated with a political figure they dont happen to like.
> 
> ...



Great post Navy1960 (your screen name always makes me recall Joe Bellino)

America is in a war. I'm not talking about Afghanistan or Iraq. I'm talking about a war most Americans don't even know we are in, or know that America is losing badly. We are having our heads handed to us while we argue over climate change.

Green China? You'd better believe it

A recent report by the Pew Charitable Trusts shows that China was the worlds number one investor in green energy in 2010.

With a total investment of $54.4 billion, China was well ahead of second-ranked Germany ($41.2 billion) and the US in third place with $34 billion invested, not to mention Australia with $3.3 billion and ranked 12th.


The New Chinese War for Energy

Were fighting our own war against terrorism. Theyre fighting a war to accumulate enough resources so that they can live through the next century with a new kind of energy system, reveals Stephen Leeb, author of Red Alert: How Chinas Growing Prosperity Threatens the American Way of Life.  In this episode of Radio Free Dylan, Stephen describes the ever-growing political and economic power of China, and how their wind, solar and renewable energy development is leaving other countries  especially the United States  in the dust.

China is spending all the money they possibly can to create and better those particular industries and theyre creating a lot of jobs in the process The two critical renewable alternative energy industries on this planet are wind and solar and both of them, China has a hammerlock, says Stephen. Theyre in a war to acquire resources, not just for the sake of depriving the rest of the world of these resources, but to have the resources that they need to build out a new energy infrastructure.

The United States, he says, will be left playing catch up unless we make a dramatic push for redesigning our national energy infrastructure, affecting not only how we power our country, but our financial and economic future as well.

We spend a lot of time talking about how we can reduce debt in this country and I think that thats a very good discussion.  But at the end of the Second World War, we had government debt as a percent of GDP was greater than it is today, but whats the difference?  The difference was that at the end of the Second World War, perhaps inadvertently, we had created, in order to win that war, we had created an infrastructure that allowed the United States a generation of great economic growth, says Stephen.

In terms of installed capacity, Chinas wind power sector alone doubled every year between 2005 and 2009. According to the latest statistics from the Global Wind Energy Council (GWEC), China added 18.9 GW of new wind power capacity in 2010, thus overtaking the US with the most installed wind power capacity in the world.

Chinas parliament, the National Peoples Congress (NPC), recently considered a 'New Energy Industry Development Strategy which is to be adopted as a major policy document by the State Council (some changes are expected due to the Fukushima nuclear plant disaster).

According to this proposed development strategy, during 2011-2020, China will invest about $800 billion in seven green energy areas, namely, wind, solar, nuclear, bio-energy, hydro, coal cleaning and smart power grid.


----------



## Indofred (Jul 29, 2012)

There is something else I haven't noticed a mention of here.
Dependency on oil means dependency on oil rich nations.
Most of those are less than friendly to the US so have to be bought off.


----------



## Bfgrn (Jul 29, 2012)

Indofred said:


> There is something else I haven't noticed a mention of here.
> Dependency on oil means dependency on oil rich nations.
> Most of those are less than friendly to the US so have to be bought off.



Meet your daddies...


----------



## Navy1960 (Jul 29, 2012)

Bfgrn said:


> Navy1960 said:
> 
> 
> > While the debate rages  on both sides about such things as wind,solar, nuclear, nat-gas, oil,  and a whole host of other  energy sources,  it leads me to ask a question.  At what point does this debate  become  harmful to this nation? let me explain,  by picking and choosing what technology is good and what is bad are we not then putting our feet at the throat of American innovation and as a by-product of that  American Jobs ?
> ...



The name does tend to age me somewhat, but then again what would the world be without a few of us old  codgers out there to make the young folks  lives miserable ( my attempt at humor)  before everyone takes that too seriously.  As for my thread here, I tend to think that our nation still has  more than enough brain power and will to choose it's own destiny  and once again take its place at the top of the economic  energy production stand.  It's my humble opinion that for too long now, during both Republican and Democrat Administration we have settled into this comfort zone of  dependence on foreign sources of energy and allowed ourselves  to fall into a 2nd class status  when it comes to being a major  player in the world.   I fail to understand  the  need to use technologies  as political "fodder"  be it wind,solar, gas, oil, nuclear, when the production of those technologies  makes this nation stronger, employs Americans, makes this nation more financially secure and most of all keeps money to buy weapons out of the hands of nations that dont like us very much.  So what if an energy company fails, that is all part of  how technology advances for the benefit of everyone in a  free market.  Take for example the PC, does anyone here still run out an buy an Osborne computer or any number of the 100's of companies that have come and gone during the evolution of the PC?  The bottom line here we as a nation need to understand that sometimes seeking cheap offshore  goods for that sake of saving a dollar, doesn't always benefit this nation and doesn't always save the dollar you think it does and when it comes to energy, if we want jobs, and security as welll as long lasting  financial security for this nation then we begin by advancing EVERY form of domestic energy that benefits Americans and let those that survive do so and those that fail  do the same.


----------



## Bfgrn (Jul 29, 2012)

Navy1960 said:


> Bfgrn said:
> 
> 
> > Navy1960 said:
> ...



I completely agree. And I'd like to add that corporations are a good thing. They encourage us to take risks. They maximize wealth. They create jobs. *BUT* (BIG but), corporations are not always willing to take risks that are necessary to our country and it's people. That is where government must step in and spur investment with taxpayer money.

The space program created thousands of private sector jobs, innovations and technologies that all of us take for granted today. Does anyone believe the space program would have got off the ground (pun intended) if President Kennedy hadn't throw our hats over that wall?


The President of the United States - Address at Rice University, Houston, Texas
September 12, 1962






If this capsule history of our progress teaches us anything, it is that man, in his quest for knowledge and progress, is determined and cannot be deterred. The exploration of space will go ahead, whether we join in it or not, and it is one of the great adventures of all time, and no nation which expects to be the leader of other nations can expect to stay behind in the race for space.

     Those who came before us made certain that this country rode the first waves of the industrial revolutions, the first waves of modern invention, and the first wave of nuclear power, and this generation does not intend to founder in the backwash of the coming age of space. We mean to be a part of it--we mean to lead it. For the eyes of the world now look into space, to the moon and to the planets beyond, and we have vowed that we shall not see it governed by a hostile flag of conquest, but by a banner of freedom and peace. We have vowed that we shall not see space filled with weapons of mass destruction, but with instruments of knowledge and understanding.

     Yet the vows of this Nation can only be fulfilled if we in this Nation are first, and, therefore, we intend to be first. In short, our leadership in science and in industry, our hopes for peace and security, our obligations to ourselves as well as others, all require us to make this effort, to solve these mysteries, to solve them for the good of all men, and to become the world's leading space-faring nation.

     We set sail on this new sea because there is new knowledge to be gained, and new rights to be won, and they must be won and used for the progress of all people. For space science, like nuclear science and all technology, has no conscience of its own. Whether it will become a force for good or ill depends on man, and only if the United States occupies a position of pre-eminence can we help decide whether this new ocean will be a sea of peace or a new terrifying theater of war. I do not say the we should or will go unprotected against the hostile misuse of space any more than we go unprotected against the hostile use of land or sea, but I do say that space can be explored and mastered without feeding the fires of war, without repeating the mistakes that man has made in extending his writ around this globe of ours.

     There is no strife, no prejudice, no national conflict in outer space as yet. Its hazards are hostile to us all. Its conquest deserves the best of all mankind, and its opportunity for peaceful cooperation many never come again. But why, some say, the moon? Why choose this as our goal? And they may well ask why climb the highest mountain? Why, 35 years ago, fly the Atlantic? Why does Rice play Texas?

     We choose to go to the moon. *We choose to go to the moon in this decade and do the other things, not because they are easy, but because they are hard, because that goal will serve to organize and measure the best of our energies and skills, because that challenge is one that we are willing to accept, one we are unwilling to postpone, and one which we intend to win.*


----------



## Navy1960 (Jul 29, 2012)

I have no issues to be honest with these  " Big Companies", what I do have an issue with is companies who have no sense of obligation to the nation in which they call home or sense of "pride" in the nation in which they call home.  While it's true a company has an obligation to it's share holders and alike,  I submit to you that they also have an obligation to the nation in which they call home and the one in which they grew to be the companies they are.  I didn't see GM asking the Chinese  Govt. for a bailout, or  the American banks  running to Russia for a bailout, I did see them however asking the American taxpayers for one and  my feelings are , that these companies need to realize that  "Made in the USA" is not something to shy away from or deem evil, or for that matter in search of short term profits  seek long term failure of the nation in which they were born.  I submit that Americans want " Made in the USA" and will buy it over other products if they had the chance and  energy is no different.


----------



## Navy1960 (Jul 29, 2012)

Trakar said:


> Navy1960 said:
> 
> 
> > I can't help but think if the Apollo program were today, we would have never gone to the Moon because on one side you would have people saying, "it costs too much" and on the other "rockets cause the birds not to migrate" and as we did the rest of world would wave as they flew past us. As they are now.
> ...



Yout last sentence in your post is EXACTLY why I put that statement in there,  in fact I was in the  Navy at the time of the  "Apollo program" so am well aware of the history of the project.   The  reason in which  I posted  my comment was to show  that  political vitriole  today has become so toxic that the program would never have accomplised  it's  intended mission regardless of the  talk at the time.  All programs  had at one time or the other, people who disagreed with them on issues of cost, performance, environmental, and even a political basis, but for the most part there was  a sense of  national pride  regardless of the disagreements even for a  Nixon Republican and a Kennedy Democrat.


----------



## Bfgrn (Jul 29, 2012)

Navy1960 said:


> I have no issues to be honest with these  " Big Companies", what I do have an issue with is companies who have no sense of obligation to the nation in which they call home or sense of "pride" in the nation in which they call home.  While it's true a company has an obligation to it's share holders and alike,  I submit to you that they also have an obligation to the nation in which they call home and the one in which they grew to be the companies they are.  I didn't see GM asking the Chinese  Govt. for a bailout, or  the American banks  running to Russia for a bailout, I did see them however asking the American taxpayers for one and  my feelings are , that these companies need to realize that  "Made in the USA" is not something to shy away from or deem evil, or for that matter in search of short term profits  seek long term failure of the nation in which they were born.  I submit that Americans want " Made in the USA" and will buy it over other products if they had the chance and  energy is no different.



I do have a problem when the icon of  these "Big Companies" said: "Ideally you'd have every plant you own on a barge" -- ready to move if any national government tried to impose restraints on the factories' operations, or if workers demanded better wages and working conditions."


----------



## flacaltenn (Jul 29, 2012)

Bfgrn said:


> Navy1960 said:
> 
> 
> > While the debate rages  on both sides about such things as wind,solar, nuclear, nat-gas, oil,  and a whole host of other  energy sources,  it leads me to ask a question.  At what point does this debate  become  harmful to this nation? let me explain,  by picking and choosing what technology is good and what is bad are we not then putting our feet at the throat of American innovation and as a by-product of that  American Jobs ?
> ...



What a hypocrit.. Just last week you posted pictures of folks in China walking thru air so thick you couldn't breathe.. But WHEN IT'S CONVIENIENT -- they are as green as a tree frog. 

Do I need to go pull your comments and context? Or are you gonna re-camo yourself just to win debates?

Gee -- go sell nuclear, hydro and CLEAN COAL to your Green Weenie minions and get back to me on the results eh?


----------



## Bfgrn (Jul 29, 2012)

flacaltenn said:


> Bfgrn said:
> 
> 
> > Navy1960 said:
> ...



Not hypocritical at all. They are two separate issues.

The environmental disaster is very real in China. BUT, the Chinese government sees economic opportunity in green energy. Will the Chinese government apply those technologies to their own industries? I hope so.

Pollution causes 470,000 premature deaths in China every year

And, what model has the current Teapublican House of Representatives adopted for America's future?






*The Most Anti-Environment House In History*

House Republican leaders have pushed through an astonishing *191* votes to weaken environmental protections.

"The House Republican assault on the environment has been reckless and relentless," said Rep. Waxman in a statement. "In bill after bill, for one industry after another, the House has been voting to roll back environmental laws and endanger public health.  The Republican anti-environment agenda is completely out-of-touch with what the American public wants."

The House of Representatives averaged more than one anti-environmental vote for every day the House was in session in 2011, according to the report. More than one in five of the legislative roll call votes taken in 2011  22%  were votes to undermine environmental protections.

Click here to read the full report (PDF).


----------



## flacaltenn (Jul 29, 2012)

The government of China does not NEED Green Energy anymore than they need Happy Meal Toys or Thigh-Masters or any other of the crap they can sell.. 

In fact -- any installed base of wind or solar was just a training investment so that their companies could get Obama Stimulus cash and come here to build wind farms in Texas.. 

Here's their REAL energy policy.. Something we substitute "hope" and "forest fairies" for.. 



> China
> 
> In the last decade, Beijing has made nuclear power a central component in its energy strategy. China has 13 operating nuclear reactors producing nearly 2 percent of its total power output, but there are another 27 reactors under construction, 50 more planned and more than 100 proposed. With new reactors coming every year, China is aiming for a tenfold increase in its nuclear generating capacity by 2020, with rapid growth projected to continue until 2050.



That will solve the problem and leave THEIR semiconductor facilities free from California style "rotating outages" and brownouts. They are not gonna fart around with windmills and solar.. Except to load them on the same boats as the Barbie Doll Electric Cars and boxes of Richard Nixon Halloween masks..


----------



## Bfgrn (Jul 29, 2012)

flacaltenn said:


> The government of China does not NEED Green Energy anymore than they need Happy Meal Toys or Thigh-Masters or any other of the crap they can sell..
> 
> In fact -- any installed base of wind or solar was just a training investment so that their companies could get Obama Stimulus cash and come here to build wind farms in Texas..
> 
> ...



Let's see, should I go with your dogmatic and ignorant emotes, or should I go with the FACTS...tough call...

In terms of installed capacity, Chinas wind power sector alone doubled every year between 2005 and 2009. According to the latest statistics from the Global Wind Energy Council (GWEC), China added 18.9 GW of new wind power capacity in 2010, thus overtaking the US with the most installed wind power capacity in the world.

Chinas parliament, the National Peoples Congress (NPC), recently considered a 'New Energy Industry Development Strategy which is to be adopted as a major policy document by the State Council (*some changes are expected due to the Fukushima nuclear plant disaster*).

According to this proposed development strategy, during 2011-2020, China will invest about $800 billion in seven green energy areas, namely, wind, solar, nuclear, bio-energy, hydro, coal cleaning and smart power grid.


----------



## flacaltenn (Jul 29, 2012)

Navy1960 said:


> Bfgrn said:
> 
> 
> > Navy1960 said:
> ...



There's nothing more serious than a nation not having a reliable, consistent, plentiful and cheap source of energy. Wind and solar are failing because they are neither reliable, consistent or actually cheap (when all factors are considered). Before you write off my comments as political --- I have posted uses for PROPER utilization of wind and solar that involve using it OFF-GRID for producing transportation fuels and other commodities. 

There was a shake-out in computer manufacturers (like Osbourne and TI) but NEVER in that period would the ETF for the entire sector look like the following graphs for the overall Global solar and wind markets.. 












Data tells us that solar and wind are MATURE. That the market is OVER-SUPPLIED, and subsidies for PRODUCT should cease. I would however fund basic R&D on the technologies, but they are now commodity items. And they have limited application on a grid that MUST operate EVERY MINUTE 24/7/365 days a year..


----------



## Bfgrn (Jul 29, 2012)

flacaltenn said:


> Navy1960 said:
> 
> 
> > Bfgrn said:
> ...



Although some authorities on nuclear power around the world have said that it would be unwise to radically change energy policies due to one incident, nuclear power is getting much less popular throughout the world. Several of the European Union member states are conducting extensive reviews of their nuclear energy safety programs and Germany has gone so far as to shut down several of its oldest nuclear reactors.

If the situation at the Fukushima Daiichi nuclear power plant worsens, it could be a blow to the nuclear power industry but it could also give a huge boost to the prospects of companies with operations in the alternative energy sector, such as wind and solar.

Read more: How to Trade the Japanese Radiation Scare (LDK, TSL, HSOL, FAN, PWND, GEX) | Benzinga


----------



## flacaltenn (Jul 30, 2012)

Wind and Solar are not and never will be an alternative to a 24/7/365 nuclear plant. It's hard enough balancing the grid with FULL-TIME facilities going down for maintenance.. 

You do not build the energy supply for a modern economy on STOCHASTIC models. With a wind source, it's there for 20 minutes -- gone for 40 minutes. NO ONE is gonna idle a coal powered plant to take 20 minutes of wind power onto the grid. ((UNLESS - the GOVT demands that they do -- in which case the coal/gas plant keeps running but the energy is sent wasted into the ground)) That kind of lunacy is coming to an end.

The COST of wind considering this redundancy requirement is Astronomically high -- and the enviro savings because of the sporadic nature are waaay less than is attributed to it.. 

It's about peaked.. Nice experiment -- bad economics and engineering.


----------



## Navy1960 (Jul 30, 2012)

The Solana Generating Station is a 250-megawatt (MW) concentrating solar power (CSP) plant to be built 70 miles southwest of Phoenix,  near Gila Bend, Arizona.  The plant will be located on the northwest corner of Interstate 8 (I-8) and Painted Rock Dam road.

It will produce enough energy to serve 70,000 APS customers when operating at full capacity. The plant will be built by Abengoa Solar Inc., and is scheduled to provide renewable energy beginning in 2013
APS :: About Solana - Arizona's Largest Solar Power Plant

The use of wind power in the United States has expanded quickly over the last several years. Construction of new wind power generation capacity in the first quarter of 2012 totaled 1695 megawatts (MW) bringing the *cumulative installed capacity to 48,611 MW*.[1] This capacity is exceeded only by China.[2] For the 12 months from June 2011 to May 2012, the electricity produced from wind power in the United States amounted to 129 terawatt-hours, or 3.17% of all generated electrical energy.[3] In 2010, *the wind power industry in the US received 42% ($4.986 billion) of all federal subsidies for electricity generation*.[4]

New wind farms can produce electricity in the 5-8 cents per kWh range, making wind power competitive with the cost of fossil fuel electricity generation in many markets.[5] Fourteen states have installed over 1,000 MW of wind capacity, and a total of 37 states now have installed at least some utility-scale wind power.[6] Texas, with 10,337 MW of capacity, has the most installed wind power capacity of any U.S. state, followed by Iowa with 4,322 MW.[7] The Alta Wind Energy Center in California is the largest wind farm in the United States with a capacity of 1020 MW of power
Wind power in the United States - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

As of 2011, nuclear power in the United States is provided by 104 commercial reactors (69 pressurized water reactors and 35 boiling water reactors) licensed to operate at 65 nuclear power plants, *producing a total of 806.2 TWh of electricity, which was 19.6% of the nation's total electric energy generation in 2008*.[1] The United States is the world's largest supplier of commercial nuclear power.
Nuclear power in the United States - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


Just a thought here,  it would seem to me that if you concentrate on ALL these technologies as a means to produce power, alongside domestic  oil and gas production as well as  a whole host of other  domestic energy technologies, then its a large upside for this nation.  It creates  millions of new jobs, as well as makes this nation stronger in terms of its own domestic energy supply  and  takes financial power out of the hands of oil producing nations that currently use monies  from the US to fund groups around the globe that do not have our interests at heart.


----------



## Trakar (Aug 4, 2012)

Navy1960 said:


> Trakar said:
> 
> 
> > Navy1960 said:
> ...


 
Sorry about the delay in response, real life frequently interrupts my discussions here. Training camp opened and I've spent most of the last week up in Renton watching my Seahawks get ready for the coming season! As for the partisanship, there are more people, thus more extremists and a media driven to accentuate the conflict to draw voyeurs, participants and most importantly, advertisers, to their venue. 

People are pretty much as they have always been. In times of societal stresses, some people tend to respond and react with an exaggeration of their personalities. Perhaps these factors play into the types of polarizations we see in so many aspects of our modern culture, not really my specialty. 

I don't think that national pride nor the lack thereof is any more pronounced in prevalence or absence than it has ever been, but I'd be interested in what evidences led you to that conclusion.


----------



## Trakar (Aug 4, 2012)

California Girl said:


> Navy1960 said:
> 
> 
> > Oh one more than too, if you have not guessed, I'm sort of the ALL in type as long as it benefits the Good Ol USA and our people!!.
> ...


 
What leads you to this net of understandings? What evidences led you to accepting this as the most accurate and plausible explanation of the vaguely described and largely undefined "'green' agenda" and "very left wing politics"?


----------



## Navy1960 (Aug 4, 2012)

Trakar said:


> Navy1960 said:
> 
> 
> > Trakar said:
> ...



Initial NASA estimates of the costs of Project Apollo were about $20 billion through the end of the decade, a figure approaching $150 billion in 1992 dollars when accounting for inflation. Webb quickly stretched those initial estimates for Apollo as far as possible, with the intent that even if NASA did not receive its full budget requests, as it did not during the latter half of the decade, it would still be able to complete Apollo. At one point in 1963, for instance, Webb came forward with a NASA funding projection through 1970 for more than $35 billion. As it turned out Webb was able to sustain the momentum of Apollo through the decade, largely because of his rapport with key members of Congress and with Lyndon B. Johnson, who became president in November 1963.34 

Project Apollo, backed by sufficient funding, was the tangible result of an early national commitment in response to a perceived threat to the United States by the Soviet Union. NASA leaders recognized that while the size of the task was enormous, it was still technologically and financially within their grasp, but they had to move forward quickly. Accordingly, the space agency's annual budget increased from $500 million in 1960 to a high point of $5.2 billion in 1965.35 The NASA funding level represented 5.3 percent of the federal budget in 1965. A comparable percentage of the $1.23 trillion Federal budget in 1992 would have equaled more than $65 billion for NASA, whereas the agency's actual budget then stood at less than $15 billion. 

*Out of the budgets appropriated for NASA each year approximately 50 percent went directly for human spaceflight*, and the vast majority of that went directly toward Apollo. Between 1959 and 1973 NASA spent $23.6 billion on human spaceflight, exclusive of infrastructure and support, of which nearly $20 billion was for Apollo.36 In addition, Webb sought to expand the definition of Project Apollo beyond just the mission of landing humans on the Moon. As a result even those projects not officially funded under the Apollo line item could be justified as supporting the mission, such as the Ranger, Lunar Orbiter, and Surveyor satellite probes. 

Project Apollo: A Retrospective Analysis

This bill (PDF) actually keeps NSF at the fiscal year 11 funding, although thats $900 million less than the Presidential request. NOAA is being cut $100 million (2.2%), or $1 billion less than requested. NIST: cut by $50 million over FY11 (6.5%), $300 million less than requested. 

But NASA is the one where the cuts are nothing short of savage. The cuts total $1.64 billion from last year, which is nearly $2 billion less than requested. Thats a cut of 8.8%. A billion of that is due to the Shuttle retiring, but the galling part is that the House is requiring that all funding for the James Webb Space Telescope, Hubbles successor, be cut entirely. In other words, they are canceling the JWST program
Congress puts NASA and JWST on the chopping block | Bad Astronomy | Discover Magazine

 Heres the deal,  while it was  true that during the  60's  people were basically split  on public  opinion about going the moon my reference  was in a Govt.   that set its mind to a task and then accomplished it.  Let me cite you an example, as you are well aware the Space Shuttle was recently  retired,  and for years  now  as various Administrations  both Republican and Democrat  decided upon a direction for  NASA , the current President  came into office  and after a review  of  the last one's plan to return to the moon  led to its cancellation and as a result when the Space Shuttle was  retired, the US was left with no ability  for manned space flight for the first time in almost 45 years.  I submit  this is because you have a lack of   direction at NASA and  as a result  no " national  pride" in its achievenments.  This can be seen in a congress that cannot even agree on it's direction  and  with each Administration you have a changing  focus that results  in no accomplisments. In fact the in the last several years I would submit to you that the  biggest  accomplishments at NASA were  a result of  unmanned  low cost space flight that had little or no fanfare,  i.e. the Mars Rovers.   Forgive me if  I see out society as more  politically divissive than during my younger days , at least  during that time  the Govt. could at least  disagree on issues as well as the American public and still come to a point whre we could accomplish great things.  I believe we still have that ability today, however, I am of the opinion that many see their political party as  where their loyality needs to be above their nations and to be and  while many may disagree with me,  in the past at least in my humble opinion always took a back seat  to the nations.


----------



## whitehall (Aug 4, 2012)

A debate is never harmful. A forced agenda is. It's hard to believe that there are Americans who really believe that a substitute for oil is right around the corner, oil makes you sick and government can force the private sector to invent something. Meanwhile we are selling our grand-kids future to oil producing countries while we are in an economic crisis. A person could reasonably assume that democrats are conspiring to ruin this Country.


----------



## flacaltenn (Aug 4, 2012)

Navy1960 said:


> The Solana Generating Station is a 250-megawatt (MW) concentrating solar power (CSP) plant to be built 70 miles southwest of Phoenix,  near Gila Bend, Arizona.  The plant will be located on the northwest corner of Interstate 8 (I-8) and Painted Rock Dam road.
> 
> It will produce enough energy to serve 70,000 APS customers when operating at full capacity. The plant will be built by Abengoa Solar Inc., and is scheduled to provide renewable energy beginning in 2013
> APS :: About Solana - Arizona's Largest Solar Power Plant
> ...



Nice sales job.. Quick Question.. Have you ever seen a daily production schedule from a large wind farm? Got any idea how to use something that 20minutes on and 30 minutes off without WASTING the energy from a fully fledged primary back-up system???


----------



## Navy1960 (Aug 4, 2012)

flacaltenn said:


> Navy1960 said:
> 
> 
> > The Solana Generating Station is a 250-megawatt (MW) concentrating solar power (CSP) plant to be built 70 miles southwest of Phoenix,  near Gila Bend, Arizona.  The plant will be located on the northwest corner of Interstate 8 (I-8) and Painted Rock Dam road.
> ...



third storage project envisaged by Gamesa is the creation of high-capacity flux batteries. These batteries will be able to store a dozen of MW per hour. This system could be used to efficiently store excess power generated from wind farms. The project is still in its initial research phase. 

However, companies such as Xcel Energy have such systems readily available. They have developed a storage system which can save 7.2 MWh of electricity with its wind-to-battery system.
Wind Energy

 Thats just one idea out of many, so what is your  point? don't develop any of these domestic energy resources because its too hard?  Or simply keep importing more and more  oil and gas from the middle east and watch as  billions of  American dollars flow offshore to nations that don't have our best interests at heart?  If your suggesting that  Nuclear and  drill for more oil and gas is the solution,  you do realize how much it costs to not only  build a nuclear plant , then you run into  costs, and others issues associated with waste storage.  So there is no perfect solution .  My contention is why simply, spend your time on calling into question issues with one technology  when all of them together  serve to move this nation into a positive direction .  Frankly what   I posted reflected  what is in place now, not a sales job as you say, and is a indication that utility companies are  starting to broaden their  focus into these energy fields.   Finally, if your going to develop a technology , then as that technology matures  , solutions will evolve as well.   Even a mature field like  oil and gas is no where near the same as it was  100 years ago, and as technology improves so to does the ability for  that industry to harvest that resource as  well as wind and solar.


----------



## flacaltenn (Aug 4, 2012)

Navy1960 said:


> flacaltenn said:
> 
> 
> > Navy1960 said:
> ...



Before we run off Rube Goldberg style and try to patch a fundamentally unsound method of supplying a grid with sketchy power sources --- we should check the original enviromental premises. You CAN run home on 24/7/365 on nuclear power with only 0.7 ounces of waste per year. Something that is imminently solvable considering that putting mercury or lithium or any other heavy metal into a waste stream has a longer "half-life" of toxicity than nuclear material.. 

When I see us REPLACING and BUILDING out considerable amounts of nuclear (like 150 new plants) I'll be a lot more receptive to the meme that "we should be using ALL AVAILABLE methods" of energy production.. 

Adding local battery storage to wind will:

1) Greatly increase the price, perhaps doubling the installed cost of a wind field.

2) Create a Ginormous environmental waste stream from toxic materials that have a limited useful life.

3)Still not address the redundancy and back-up costs of idling a nat gas or coal plant for periods of time that can't be served from the battery - buffered wind. Like Tuesday and Saturday). 

4) The design of wind turbines will have to change to reduce the inefficiencies of "inverting and re-inverting" the power stored in the batteries. Meaning that OLD existing designs will not be as efficient with battery systems and be less valuable. Add to that the inefficiency of charging and discharging and leakage and you have reduced a wind turbine from producing ONLY 30% of it's capacity today -- to perhaps 20% of its rated capacity tomorrow.

5) ALL of these battery-backed wind concepts that I know of are talking about TRANSIENT short-term storage of wind energy. Nothing exceeding a couple hours of production.. The idea being to "bundle" the wind spikes into parcels more easily sold and managed on the grid. STILL does not address the MEAN or AVERAGE unreliability of the system. Typically you buy 3X the generation capacity that you will get. That's why I'm not impressed with the numbers for INSTALLED capacity. But typically you get energy above 30% only 2 to 3 a week on a GOOD week.. 

The Danes have virtually thrown their hands up on handling wind on the grid. They invested immense cash in "electric water boilers" that take the bulk of their wind generation and pre-heat water as a "storage element".. This dictates that energy from somewhere ELSE on the grid be used to finish it off into steam and turbine movement. 

The Germans are tearing up MOUNTAINS in their pristine wilderness to put in Wind hydro storage. With MILES of pipes that add huge inefficiencies in pumps and motors and infrastructure to merely attempt to smooth unreliable wind power. 

Rube Goldberg language ""over the top""??? -- not to this Electrical Engineer...

Now to be fair.. I'm a HUGE FAN of taking wind/solar OFF THE GRID and using them to make HYDROGEN, chemicals and OTHER energy intensive fuels. Another more rational type of "energy storage". THIS -- would enable a transport energy shift to Fuel Cells and BioFuels created with wind/solar and is HIGHLY rational..


----------



## lectricgenius (Aug 4, 2012)

Navy1960 said:


> While the debate rages  on both sides about such things as wind,solar, nuclear, nat-gas, oil,  and a whole host of other  energy sources,  it leads me to ask a question.  At what point does this debate  become  harmful to this nation? let me explain,  by picking and choosing what technology is good and what is bad are we not then putting our feet at the throat of American innovation and as a by-product of that  American Jobs ?
> 
> Take the  Chevy Volt for instance,  while not everyone's cup of tea, and perhaps a little pricey amongst other things, I'm frankly  stunned that Americans especially in todays economy and todays  global atmosphere that some would be so against this car just on the off chance it is associated with a political figure they dont happen to like.
> 
> ...




Right, and we have known abt things like the zinc air battery for over three decades now as can be evidenced by this site search for argonne national labe via google:  site:anl.gov zinc-air.  Furthermore we were on track to go to completely electric with our fleet of cars before george w bush n dick chenet hijacked our government and took us to war for oil!


----------



## Trakar (Aug 4, 2012)

Navy1960 said:


> As of 2011, nuclear power in the United States is provided by 104 commercial reactors (69 pressurized water reactors and 35 boiling water reactors) licensed to operate at 65 nuclear power plants, *producing a total of 806.2 TWh of electricity, which was 19.6% of the nation's total electric energy generation in 2008*.[1] The United States is the world's largest supplier of commercial nuclear power.
> Nuclear power in the United States - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


 
Ah, the hazards of relying on Wiki! I've made changes that will be reviewed. The EIC source (1) stated .807 TWh not 806.2 TWh for annual US nuclear power generation. (makes sense as current total net electrical energy production in the US is around 4-5 TWh and is expected to be 9-10 Twh in 2030).

I support a 5 TWh/by 2030 nuclear baseload program, along with carbon bond programs to help establish solar (both pv and therm), wind, geotherm, tidal/wave/current and more traditional hydro where they are viable and reliable alternative systems, this in addition to a replacement of coal and oil generation systems by natural gas systems and a national smart grid backbone to support this energy production and distribution over the same time frame.


----------



## flacaltenn (Aug 4, 2012)

lectricgenius said:


> Navy1960 said:
> 
> 
> > While the debate rages  on both sides about such things as wind,solar, nuclear, nat-gas, oil,  and a whole host of other  energy sources,  it leads me to ask a question.  At what point does this debate  become  harmful to this nation? let me explain,  by picking and choosing what technology is good and what is bad are we not then putting our feet at the throat of American innovation and as a by-product of that  American Jobs ?
> ...



If it wasn't for Dick Cheney and the Iraq war -- we'd all be driving EVs? You sure of that??

  Welcome to the board -- we like to do one topic at a time (doesn't ever happen, but that's the underlying infrastructure).. UNLESS of course there's a connection I don't know about... 



And didya know -- If it wasn't for Al Gore -- we'd have a rational energy energy policy instead of an over-hyped list of Alternatives? And we wouldn't have food riots in Mexico and be paying $1 per ear of corn?


----------

