# How is Solar Energy sustainable?



## elektra (Feb 3, 2015)

Such a simple question, such a simple word, thrown out as fact, indisputable.

Solar is sustainable.

Sure, the sun shines, on some days, on others, not. Forever no, but long enough.

But Solar Energy is much different than simply stating, "The Sun Shines!" Solar is the Sun, Solar Energy is Heavy Industry. Is heavy Industry Sustainable? 

Now, if Solar Panels grew on trees, that would qualify as, Sustainable. 

Sustainability - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia




> In ecology, *sustainability* is how biological systems remain diverse and productive. Long-lived and healthy wetlands and forests are examples of sustainable biological systems



Solar Energy, gets a free pass, on sustainability. 

Can we continue to divert our money, our labor into Solar, at rates that are simply expressed best as 100's of billions of dollars? Is that sustainable?

We can not sustain the whims of Government, Special Interest corporations, University "research", the "scientists". 

Thus far Solar has failed to produce electricity in quantity to make any difference, other than in EXPENSE.

How is Solar Sustainable? That makes no sense at all.


----------



## Pogo (Feb 3, 2015)

Apparently when you say "solar" you mean photovoltaics only.  That's not all there is to it.

But regardless how it's harnessed, solar energy is "sustainable" in that the simple fact of the sun shining, whether it's put to special use or not, doesn't deplete anything.  It's going to shine the next day exactly the same.


----------



## S.J. (Feb 3, 2015)

Solar energy may be feasible in the future but can't come close to providing energy at a cost comparable to fossil fuels at this time, and it never will be as long as government is involved in it's development because they can't do anything efficiently.  Never have, never will.


----------



## X.Onasis (Feb 3, 2015)

How is solar energy sustainable? By definition. 

*Sustainable energy is the form of energy obtained from non-exhaustible resources*, such that the provision of this form of energy serves the needs of the present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their needs.

Technologies that promote sustainable energy include renewable energy sources, such as hydroelectricity, solar energy, wind energy, wave power, geothermal energy, bioenergy, tidal power and also technologies designed to improve energy efficiency. Costs have fallen dramatically in recent years, and continue to fall. Most of these technologies are either economically competitive or close to being so. Increasingly, effective government policies support investor confidence and these markets are expanding. Considerable progress is being made in the energy transition from fossil fuels to ecologically sustainable systems, to the point where many studies support 100% renewable energy.

Sustainable energy - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia


----------



## X.Onasis (Feb 3, 2015)

S.J. said:


> Solar energy may be feasible in the future but can't come close to providing energy at a cost comparable to fossil fuels at this time, and it never will be as long as government is involved in it's development because they can't do anything efficiently.  Never have, never will.



It's getting closer to being comparable every year.












And the government has been quite efficient in getting many things done. Where do you think you'd be without roads, bridges, schools, the police and military, firefighters, clean air and water, safe food, healthcare, medicine and thousand other services you depend on that government provides?


----------



## S.J. (Feb 3, 2015)

X.Onasis said:


> S.J. said:
> 
> 
> > Solar energy may be feasible in the future but can't come close to providing energy at a cost comparable to fossil fuels at this time, and it never will be as long as government is involved in it's development because they can't do anything efficiently.  Never have, never will.
> ...


Nobody is advocating NO government at all.  Don't be ridiculous.


----------



## elektra (Feb 3, 2015)

Pogo said:


> Apparently when you say "solar" you mean photovoltaics only.  That's not all there is to it.
> 
> But regardless how it's harnessed, solar energy is "sustainable" in that the simple fact of the sun shining, whether it's put to special use or not, doesn't deplete anything.  It's going to shine the next day exactly the same.



We are speaking of the cost and manufacture of Solar panels, is this sustainable.

Type? Does not really matter

As far as the Sun shining the same every day kind of has nothing to do with the sustainability of the Industry that manufactures any type of Solar power plant.


----------



## elektra (Feb 3, 2015)

X.Onasis said:


> How is solar energy sustainable? By definition.
> 
> *Sustainable energy is the form of energy obtained from non-exhaustible resources*, such that the provision of this form of energy serves the needs of the present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their needs.
> 
> ...


Right, the sun, earth, wind, and fire are never exhausted, sure,  a given.

But all those technologies are 100% on heavy industry which depends on oil, natural gas, and nuclear power. 

Solar's dependence on fossil fuel makes solar only sustainable as long as we can make the energy solar is dependent on. 

There is no transition from fossil fuels to Solar.

Wikipedia is hardly a "technical", reference.

Seems more like a philosophy.

Non-exhaustible? Sure the sun will shine forever, big deal. Solar panels last a short period then get replaced, the solar panel literally gets exhausted, then we need to manufacture another,  and another,  and another. 

Is geothermal "non-exhaustible", I think the bankruptcies and constant drilling at the Salton Sea indicates otherwise. The Geysers in California is another example, where we literally must frack, because that source was exhausted.

So let's get beyond the philosophical,  and speak if the technical reality we are faced with.


----------



## elektra (Feb 3, 2015)

X.Onasis said:


> S.J. said:
> 
> 
> > Solar energy may be feasible in the future but can't come close to providing energy at a cost comparable to fossil fuels at this time, and it never will be as long as government is involved in it's development because they can't do anything efficiently.  Never have, never will.
> ...


The government does all this? In a Marxist society yes, not in our Republic.

Where would we be without the government? Considering we worked, ate, and had roads before government, I think it is safe to speculate your premise is backwards or simply describes a Marxist society.


----------



## X.Onasis (Feb 3, 2015)

elektra said:


> X.Onasis said:
> 
> 
> > S.J. said:
> ...



Your attempt at refuting my statement by constructing the flimsiest strawman possible is laughable. The invincible ignorance it represents, especially while hiding behind your "Marxist" boogieman, shows once again, you haven't the chops to engage on a "technical" level.

Forget the fact that you've chosen to run from every single question I've posed in two of your threads now, and even forget the fact you criticize others for making only philosophical statements instead of "technical" ones, while you repeat unsubstantiated claims and nonsensical opinions, your bluffing and superciliousness is childish in the extreme. You have no interest in discussing the sustainability of solar energy, you don't even understand the mechanics of its many facets. All you seem to care about is promoting your short-sighted and simplistic agenda.

Once again, roads, bridges, schools, the police and military, and firefighters are all things provided and supported by our non-Marxist government. And the regulation of clean air and water, safe food, reliable healthcare and medicine and a thousand other services you depend on, including the safety and most likely the very job you have, are things very much depended on in this country regardless of what you "speculate."

BTW, when I suggested you "keep it up" with your illiterate squirming, it was rhetorical, not a challenge.


----------



## Pogo (Feb 3, 2015)

S.J. said:


> Solar energy may be feasible in the future but can't come close to providing energy at a cost comparable to fossil fuels at this time, and it never will be as long as government is involved in it's development because they can't do anything efficiently.  Never have, never will.



You could pretty much replace the word "solar" with the word "nuclear" there.  Fun fact.
Let's drop the pretense that one's different from the other as far as institutional foundational support -- shall we?


----------



## Pogo (Feb 3, 2015)

elektra said:


> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> > Apparently when you say "solar" you mean photovoltaics only.  That's not all there is to it.
> ...



Yeah it does matter.  One of the major uses of "solar power" is heat, including hot water.  That requires no photovoltaic cells at all.  Just sunlight and a water reservoir.

Heat your water that way and you don't need a gas/electric water heater.


----------



## elektra (Feb 3, 2015)

Pogo said:


> elektra said:
> 
> 
> > Pogo said:
> ...



All I need is a reservoir and the sun? And what about in the winter? When the sun lays low? At best you have warm water, kind of just like being in a third world country 

Solar makes a hot bath, a luxury.

My house has a solar hot water heater, from november until march the sun stays to low to give me hot water.

A solar hot water heater can't sustain hot baths, in the evening nor anytime in the winter.

Commercial use of CSP, has thus far not met expectations as in Ivanpah.

The sun, thus is not sustainable, unless you can consider random as well as intermittent power sustainable.


----------



## Pogo (Feb 3, 2015)

elektra said:


> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> > elektra said:
> ...



No, you have _hot _water.  I learned this about a million years ago when I worked in a greenhouse and saw that even if the outside temp was 10 degrees we'd have to open up the kwonset huts and run the fans to relieve our plants from being wilted by the heat.  Which was generated entirely by the sunlight.

That's why you face your sun catchers to the south.   To direct sunlight directly, regardless what season it is.  Sounds like yours is poorly designed.


----------



## X.Onasis (Feb 3, 2015)

Let's get technical. Post some pictures, specs. and data of your solar water heater system and we can show you where, besides jumping to illogical conjecture, your misconceptions lie.


----------



## elektra (Feb 3, 2015)

Pogo said:


> elektra said:
> 
> 
> > Pogo said:
> ...


Of course it is poorly designed, it is SOLAR.

Solar can not sustain heat during the winter, nor at night, nor during cloudy days.

The sun just does not rise that high during the winter.


----------



## elektra (Feb 3, 2015)

X.Onasis said:


> Let's get technical. Post some pictures, specs. and data of your solar water heater system and we can show you where, besides jumping to illogical conjecture, your misconceptions lie.


You have yet to even remotely post anything other than rhetoric, period.

Anytime you wish to qualify yourself, technically feel free.

Thus far, your three dozen responses to me have been nothing but flames and trolls, which is all you deserve in return.


----------



## X.Onasis (Feb 3, 2015)

I built a house about 35 years ago where the water pipes leading to the solar collectors, which were incidentally inside the living space, up in the cathedral ceiling under skylights, traveled through the interior mass block wall which also served as the return air plenum for the central air recirculating system. The system worked well. Perhaps a fifth of typical conventional electric DHW costs, and very likely well within the ability  to have 100% solar heated water, with the addition of PV.


----------



## elektra (Feb 3, 2015)

X.Onasis said:


> I built a house about 35 years ago where the water pipes leading to the solar collectors, which were incidentally inside the living space, up in the cathedral ceiling under skylights, traveled through the interior mass block wall which also served as the return air plenum for the central air recirculating system. The system worked well. Perhaps a fifth of typical conventional electric DHW costs, and very likely well within the ability  to have 100% solar heated water, with the addition of PV.


Well, post the technical details, and the pics, you have proven yourself as being able to troll and flame.


----------



## X.Onasis (Feb 3, 2015)

elektra said:


> X.Onasis said:
> 
> 
> > Let's get technical. Post some pictures, specs. and data of your solar water heater system and we can show you where, besides jumping to illogical conjecture, your misconceptions lie.
> ...


 I started by asking you to qualify your statement and answer simple questions, and in return you've attacked me and puked on yourself. Apparently, your only area of expertise.
 You're an expert because, "analyst"? You can't be questioned because you posted a picture? You're a fraud and an illiterate fool with an agenda.


----------



## X.Onasis (Feb 3, 2015)

Turning into Pee Wee Herman may be your best ploy yet. Old and over used, but still, your best.


----------



## elektra (Feb 3, 2015)

X.Onasis said:


> elektra said:
> 
> 
> > X.Onasis said:
> ...


Right, from the man/woman who consistently fails to post anything technical. 

XonAssis,  I stated I am an Analyst, Electrical Power Research Institute QDA.. You seem to be confused and still failing to live up to your own demands. 

What is your technical expertise. Hell, take a pic, now of your technical expertise. I did, I ca. Explain what you see, again, if you do not understand what you see.


----------



## X.Onasis (Feb 3, 2015)

What could be more convincing that you know of which you speak, eh? Of course the fact you've danced away from every single point I've made and every single question I've asked, make that pic no more valuable of any proof than one of your navel.

But if you refuse to even address your own original points, which BTW, I succinctly addressed in MY first post on this thread, please feel free to carry on vacillating between being both a supercilious, illiterate twit and a poor misunderstood victim of my trolling. It certainly works better than your "Solar hot water heater" bluff. BTW, you might ask an actual engineer why the word "hot" in that phrase also makes you look clueless.


----------



## elektra (Feb 3, 2015)

X.Onasis said:


> How is solar energy sustainable? By definition.
> 
> *Sustainable energy is the form of energy obtained from non-exhaustible resources*, such that the provision of this form of energy serves the needs of the present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their needs.
> 
> ...


Wikipedia is the depth of your technical knowledge, you must be joking!


----------



## X.Onasis (Feb 3, 2015)

All right, instead of refuting my reply of THE generally accepted definition of sustainable energy, which clearly makes you look like the idiot poser you are ... And of course, once again attacking ME ... Please link to any reputable source that states I'm wrong or defines it differently.

Go on, Bozo. Let's see your research expertise in action.


----------



## elektra (Feb 3, 2015)

X.Onasis said:


> All right, instead of refuting my reply of THE generally accepted definition of sustainable energy, which clearly makes you look like the idiot poser you are ... And of course, once again attacking ME ... Please link to any reputable source that states I'm wrong or defines it differently.
> 
> Go on, Bozo. Let's see your research expertise in action.


I gave mine, I started this OP with links, you claim Solar is sustainable, not me, support your claim, support your opinion, hell, support what you suppose to be fact. 

So, how about stop sniveling about who attacks who, and lets just stick to technical facts. Go ahead, I concede to let you go first, have at, unload all that great technical knowledge you have boasted of, go!


----------



## HenryBHough (Feb 3, 2015)

Let's talk about solar generated electricity after the next volcano goes off and the skies are black for a couple of months.

Then when your batteries run out jump on your ******-rigged bicycle generators and pedal up enough electricity to run your computer and hope a whole herd are gerbils are doing the same to power the internet.

Of course that won't happen because backup fossil-fuel generators will save your spavined little asses.


----------



## X.Onasis (Feb 4, 2015)

elektra said:


> X.Onasis said:
> 
> 
> > Go on, Bozo. Let's see your research expertise in action.
> ...



You posted a single link, Bozo, and a quote relating to biological sustainability. And what happened to your indignation at that inferior source for information? Huh? 
Is it possible to defend your nonsense in a more feeble way, Mr-Pretend-to-be-Analyst?


----------



## OnePercenter (Feb 4, 2015)

elektra said:


> Such a simple question, such a simple word, thrown out as fact, indisputable.
> 
> Solar is sustainable.
> 
> ...



On my house, all of components are 95% recyclable.

I have a zero dollar electric bill.

I had solar installed on my boat last summer and I never had to start the generator.

My point. Solar electricity on a large scale will do very little except provide additional profit for electric companies. 

I have a friend who develops homes here in Vegas, and has approached me to fund a development of 100 all electric homes that will have all of their energy provided by a community solar farm of panels on every home, as well as the community park. The additional cost would be $60.00 per month for cost and upkeep.

I can wait to see the cow that utilities and their Republican whore politicians are going to have.


----------



## elektra (Feb 4, 2015)

OnePercenter said:


> elektra said:
> 
> 
> > Such a simple question, such a simple word, thrown out as fact, indisputable.
> ...


I have no problem with people buying stuff for their homes, great statement on the "large scale" application. Can you give us specs? Brand name? Any pics of the Batteries? Not as a challenge or anything, simply because I have never seen one nor has anybody posted pics of their system. So it would be nice to finally see one.

I would love to see the project, even be part of the project. I have done many things in my life, from rewiring houses to building remote video systems to be used in a high radiation environment.

But, back to your house, how do you clean the panels? Pretty dusty in Vegas.


----------



## elektra (Feb 4, 2015)

X.Onasis said:


> elektra said:
> 
> 
> > X.Onasis said:
> ...


x onASSis, you care to see my research in action? You want me to define Sustainability again, because you think the Wikipedia link is strictly about, "biological". Well, thank you for the insight to your thinking, you read the quote but did not bother to follow the link, you assumed without doing anymore research, without following the link. I see now how you have come to believe in your nonsense. I see why you lack the technical knowledge to keep up.

From the link in my OP,



> In ecology, *sustainability* is how biological systems remain diverse and productive. Long-lived and healthy wetlands and forests are examples of sustainable biological systems. In more general terms, sustainability is the endurance of systems and processes. Theorganizing principle for sustainability is sustainable development, which includes the four interconnected domains: ecology, economics, politics and culture.[1] Sustainability science is the study of sustainable development and environmental science.[2]
> 
> Healthy ecosystems and environments are necessary to the survival of humans and other organisms. Ways of reducing negative human impact are environmentally-friendly chemical engineering, environmental resources management and environmental protection. Information is gained from green chemistry, earth science, environmental science and conservation biology. Ecological economics studies the fields of academic research that aim to address human economies and natural ecosystems.



I understand you are simply trolling, that you have an ideology not supported by technical facts. Hence the reason you offer platitudes and insults.

You are simply an example for others to see, that when confronted with a Technical Question, you simply can not answer.

In this thread the question I put forth, is how is Solar Sustainable.

Not one person has answered that question. From what I gather, people simply believe because somebody said so.

xonAssis, you gave a simple definition,? Big deal, defining the word Sustainable and applying the word to Solar, does not make Solar sustainable.


----------



## n0spam4me (Feb 4, 2015)

I really wonder if any study has been done to show how much energy it takes to mine iron out of the ground and melt it down to make an engine block and then the total energy to operate the factory where the engine is assembled and then the energy required to extract petrol from the ground and refine it for fuel and to then the whole energy requirement to manufacture the generator to be powered by the engine, and so the total cost in energy to produce a given Kilowatt from a diesel generator?

My gut level interpretation is that the systems currently in use by humanity are running a dead loss sort of energy use and sooner or later this will catch up with us.


----------



## X.Onasis (Feb 4, 2015)

*elektra*- - Words have meaning, Bozo. You don't get to redefine "sustainable energy" or other common words pertaining to renewables  because of your own ignorance or suspicions, regardless of whether or not you choose to randomly capitalize them.
Worse, you keep insisting on "technical" answers and keep questioning the knowledge of others, while you've demonstrated the inability to answer even the simplest questions, and have shown absolutely no knowledge of even the fundamentals of solar technology.

Your childish claims by someone claiming to be an analyst are bizarre. You don't think solar energy is sustainable because although the sun is an inexhaustible supply of energy, photo voltaic collectors won't last forever and need to be replaced? WTF?

You've made vague claims that it takes more energy to harness solar energy than can be used, yet blithely ignore the fact that not just warming the earth itself, but most energy we can and do harness, came originally from the sun, including fossil fuels.
I understand what you're trying to get at, but you haven't shown the capacity to find Jump Street let alone take a stroll.

What sort of "technical" responses do these idiotic statements deserve:

"Of course it is poorly designed, it is SOLAR."

That non sequitur was a logical fallacy, but it did beg the question, (see what I did there?) "What year did you drop out of high school?"

"Solar can not sustain heat during the winter, nor at night, nor during cloudy days."

What? Some sort of "technical analyst" doesn't understand that heat loss and storage systems are unrelated to heat source? Clearly a lesson in BTU's, R-values and their relationship to U-values would be futile.

"The sun just does not rise that high during the winter."

Right! That's why you can only take a bath in the summer at noon, Bozo.


----------



## X.Onasis (Feb 4, 2015)

n0spam4me said:


> I really wonder if any study has been done to show how much energy it takes to mine iron out of the ground and melt it down to make an engine block and then the total energy to operate the factory where the engine is assembled and then the energy required to extract petrol from the ground and refine it for fuel and to then the whole energy requirement to manufacture the generator to be powered by the engine, and so the total cost in energy to produce a given Kilowatt from a diesel generator?
> 
> My gut level interpretation is that the systems currently in use by humanity are running a dead loss sort of energy use and sooner or later this will catch up with us.


Good points.

Exactly right. But there's really no need to have an actual figure of what all that energy totals. Even if we could tally the BTU's and Kilowatts, we couldn't put a figure on lost lives, health, environmental loss or clean-up and all the other ancillary expenditures like acquiring and protecting assets overseas.

What we do know, which is pertinent to this thread, is *even if *we found a way to cheaply consume sea water as an energy source, eventually it would be depleted, and therefore would not be sustainable.


----------



## elektra (Feb 4, 2015)

n0spam4me said:


> I really wonder if any study has been done to show how much energy it takes to mine iron out of the ground and melt it down to make an engine block and then the total energy to operate the factory where the engine is assembled and then the energy required to extract petrol from the ground and refine it for fuel and to then the whole energy requirement to manufacture the generator to be powered by the engine, and so the total cost in energy to produce a given Kilowatt from a diesel generator?
> 
> My gut level interpretation is that the systems currently in use by humanity are running a dead loss sort of energy use and sooner or later this will catch up with us.


Great question, how much energy does it take to make a block, if a dollar represents the true cost of a Block, just look up the cost of short block or a crate motor. For a crate motor, my guess is 2500$. 

But seeing how this thread is about Solar and if its sustainable, how much oil does it take produce a solar panel. Of course an engine is not using rare metal, so how long can we sustain the mining of the rare earth elements, in which Solar is dependent on. Or better yet how can you make a Solar Panel of any type, without fossil fuels. To me, using fossil fuel to make solar panels is not sustainable.

The claim is Fossil Fuels are not sustainable but Solar pansel manufacture is sustainable, yet you must increase production of Oil to produce Solar panels?

It is a simply lie, Solar is nor more sustainable than burning Fossil fuel.

So how much oil, fossil fuel, does it take to cover 5 square miles with Solar Panels? 

Or, how many total square miles of land must Solar cover to provide 20% of our energy? How many tons of Batteries are you proposing we use?

Solar Power plants get thrown away, they wear out, quickly. How often to Commercial Solar Plants replace the panels? We already know its an issue across the world, as the Solar companies go bankrupt and they fail to uphold their warranties.

We get an easy 40 years of operation from one nuclear power plant, when it comes to Solar we are told it will take 40 years of building and installing Solar panels to cover the 1000's of square miles required to provide us with 5% of our peak demand energy, no more. We must forever build and replace Solar panels, forever. 

So how much oil will it take to forever keep building the Sustainable Solar canard?

Or, how much water in the drought ridden desert of the southwest will it take to clean the 1000's of square miles of solar panels? Who pays for the water, who builds the infrastructure? Do they get to drain precious desert aquifers? When will we quit giving Solar a free pass on EPA regulations? Why does the public have to build the power lines to the Solar plant when every other utility built their own? How long can we sustain billions in subsidies? 

Lots of questions, so how much Oil does it take, to make a Solar Panel, how much oil does it take to maintain a solar plant, and how much oil will it take to throw away the solar panels after its brief life, maybe 10 years? 

Nobody promoting Solar has the answers to the basic question, how is Solar sustainable.


----------



## elektra (Feb 4, 2015)

X.Onasis said:


> *elektra*- - Words have meaning, Bozo. You don't get to redefine "sustainable energy" or other common words pertaining to renewables  because of your own ignorance or suspicions, regardless of whether or not you choose to randomly capitalize them.
> Worse, you keep insisting on "technical" answers and keep questioning the knowledge of others, while you've demonstrated the inability to answer even the simplest questions, and have shown absolutely no knowledge of even the fundamentals of solar technology.
> 
> Your childish claims by someone claiming to be an analyst are bizarre. You don't think solar energy is sustainable because although the sun is an inexhaustible supply of energy, photo voltaic collectors won't last forever and need to be replaced? WTF?
> ...


Solar can maintain heat without the sun? In a industrial sized commercial solar power plant, I guess that is why Solar Plants use natural gas to keep the heat up when clouds go by? Right?

This thread is not about some sort of vague claim, this thread is literally a direct response to you x-onASSis, and all those posts where you make the unsubstantiated claim that Solar is Sustainable.

I gave you the opportunity to here, to give us you in depth Technical Knowledge of how Solar is Sustainable, and I am sorry but your answer that the "sun always shines" is a bit sophomoric.

I see you skipped over your last failed post and ignored your gross error, why is that, you have no response when you give us the proof you have a shallow knowledge of Solar beyond the headlines you read.

How many posts is that you can not quote and respond to? At least 2 dozen now.

Anyhow, all who read this will see if you, xonASSis will prove your mouth and post some of that great Technical Knowledge on the Sustainability of Solar.

This thread was specifically made so that xOnASSis could demonstrate his/her technical knowledge on the sustainability of Solar, and that is Solar Panels or Systems, not that the Sun shines part of the day.


----------



## X.Onasis (Feb 4, 2015)

I've built homes that consume 50% to 75% less energy than similar homes in the same degree-day zones. The added cost was in the neighborhood of 2-10% of total construction cost. My 25 year old home in NY will cost about $2000 less this year to heat than my neighbor directly across the street. That's a one-to-two-year pay back. Is it sustainable in your little mind, Bozo?


----------



## elektra (Feb 4, 2015)

X.Onasis said:


> I've built homes that consume 50% to 75% less energy than similar homes in the same degree-day zones. The added cost was in the neighborhood of 2-10% of total construction cost. My 25 year old home in NY will cost about $2000 less this year to heat than my neighbor directly across the street. That's a one-to-two-year pay back. Is it sustainable in your little mind, Bozo?


Who are you replying to? Show us the pictures of the installed solar system, I would like to see what you are talking about. Or is this your way of stating your Technical Knowledge of Solar, that you somehow or in some way are part of something that builds houses?

Sustainability, how about Aluminum production, that is a sustainable business, yes or no?


----------



## HenryBHough (Feb 4, 2015)

When you control what you allow yourself to control what you use solar can be a very good thing.  Here's an installation I threw together over ten years ago and it's still running for the present owner.  Storage is two batteries of a size commonly used in small earth movers.  When the sun shines 5 days charging brings up the batteries to where they'll last at least two days of lighting, CD player and occasional use of VHF ham radio.  But can't let the batteries discharge too much if there's threat of a solid week of no sun 'cause the electrolyte would freeze.



 

Note, they're not optimally angled and face slightly off the ideal direction but did the job without a lot of expense.


----------



## elektra (Feb 4, 2015)

Not one person can explain why Solar is Sustainable because Solar is not sustainable. If one thing it takes to manufacture Solar is not sustainable than Solar is not Sustainable. Oil must be Sustainable, in order to call Solar Sustainable, you need Oil to make Solar. 

Is Oil Sustainable.


----------



## X.Onasis (Feb 4, 2015)

elektra said:


> Not one person can explain why Solar is Sustainable because Solar is not sustainable. If one thing it takes to manufacture Solar is not sustainable than Solar is not Sustainable. Oil must be Sustainable, in order to call Solar Sustainable, you need Oil to make Solar. Is Oil Sustainable.



Ladies and gentlemen: a moron.


----------



## X.Onasis (Feb 4, 2015)

Listen carefully, Bozo. When we talk of "green energy" "renewable energy" or "sustainable energy", we're talking about an energy source that's not depletable. In other words BY DEFINITION wind energy, solar energy, hydro power in a variety of forms, are all forms of sustainable energy. Their source, and thus the potential to convert that energy to usable power will NEVER be depleted.

Why is that so difficult for you to understand? It doesn't have anything to do with price, cost, risk of investment, production materials or infrastructure that's needed for it to be useful. If you want to make that argument, you'll have to do so in terms that are clearly far beyond your ability to articulate.

You didn't start this thread to challenge me or to expect me to demonstrate my experience, you started this thread because you made a fool of yourself on the other one, got spanked properly, and hoped this time others would come to your rescue. Well they didn't. Once again you're caught with your pants down doing your crybaby act, with nothing but a red ass to show for your silly effort. I constructed solar homes. You can't construct a complete sentence except by pure chance, let alone a coherent thought.

I'm done with you. Go ahead give me your last limp-wristed insult. Make it good.


----------



## elektra (Feb 4, 2015)

X.Onasis said:


> elektra said:
> 
> 
> > Not one person can explain why Solar is Sustainable because Solar is not sustainable. If one thing it takes to manufacture Solar is not sustainable than Solar is not Sustainable. Oil must be Sustainable, in order to call Solar Sustainable, you need Oil to make Solar. Is Oil Sustainable.
> ...


Nice that you have defined yourself and demonstrated the term "dumbstruck".

That is the best you can do, in the thread I created for you, technically you can't come up with anything?


----------



## elektra (Feb 4, 2015)

X.Onasis said:


> Listen carefully, Bozo. When we talk of "green energy" "renewable energy" or "sustainable energy", we're talking about an energy source that's not depletable. In other words BY DEFINITION wind energy, solar energy, hydro power in a variety of forms, are all forms of sustainable energy. Their source, and thus the potential to convert that energy to usable power will NEVER be depleted.
> 
> Why is that so difficult for you to understand? It doesn't have anything to do with price, cost, risk of investment, production materials or infrastructure that's needed for it to be useful. If you want to make that argument, you'll have to do so in terms that are clearly far beyond your ability to articulate.
> 
> ...


Everything you mentioned destroys the environment, which is not sustainable, period. That is just one tiny aspect of Sustainability that you ignore.

I still see you fail to meet your own standard of presenting "Technical Knowledge".


----------



## Uncensored2008 (Feb 4, 2015)

Solar radiation is an abundant source of energy.

That we lack the technology to effectively harness it at this time doesn't alter the fact that solar is an attractive and sustainable energy source.


----------



## elektra (Feb 4, 2015)

Uncensored2008 said:


> Solar radiation is an abundant source of energy.
> 
> That we lack the technology to effectively harness it at this time doesn't alter the fact that solar is an attractive and sustainable energy source.


That we can not harness the sun's energy does not mean its not sustainable? 

What about the amount of land that it requires, can we constantly destroy the environment to sustain solar.

How about water usage, can california increase water usage to sustain solar.

And as technology advances, will not all forms of energy advance as well, do we not have forms of energy that are vastly superior in which if we developed would actually drive down the cost of living.


----------



## OnePercenter (Feb 4, 2015)

elektra said:


> That we can not harness the sun's energy does not mean its not sustainable?
> 
> What about the amount of land that it requires, can we constantly destroy the environment to sustain solar.
> 
> ...



*That we can not harness the sun's energy does not mean its not sustainable? *

I harness the suns energy everyday on my home in Coronado, CA AND my boat. How may RV's on the road today harness the suns energy? 

*What about the amount of land that it requires, can we constantly destroy the environment to sustain solar.* 

The footprint is the smallest of any development.

*How about water usage, can california increase water usage to sustain solar.* 

Ever hear of reclaimed water? Goes into the ground to be recycled. Golf courses do it, why not solar farms?

*And as technology advances, will not all forms of energy advance as well, do we not have forms of energy that are vastly superior in which if we developed would actually drive down the cost of living.*

Depends if their traded on the market. Look at oil.


----------



## Uncensored2008 (Feb 4, 2015)

elektra said:


> That we can not harness the sun's energy does not mean its not sustainable?



Correct, the energy source will be here next week, next year, next century. It is sustainable.



> What about the amount of land that it requires, can we constantly destroy the environment to sustain solar.



I already acknowledged that we lack the technology to truly harvest this energy, but that doesn't alter the fact that the energy is there. We humans ALWAYS figure out a way to use things, eventually.



> How about water usage, can california increase water usage to sustain solar.
> 
> And as technology advances, will not all forms of energy advance as well, do we not have forms of energy that are vastly superior in which if we developed would actually drive down the cost of living.



I'm not sure what one has to do with the other. The solar farms in California are a farce, a scam to put taxpayer money into the pocket of Obama's cronies. Obama is a crook, he is robbing the nation to enrich his buddies and himself.

This still does not change the fact that solar is a power source of great potential.


----------



## Uncensored2008 (Feb 4, 2015)

OnePercenter said:


> *That we can not harness the sun's energy does not mean its not sustainable? *
> 
> I harness the suns energy everyday on my home in Coronado, CA AND my boat. How may RV's on the road today harness the suns energy?



Not entirely true.

You have Solar Panels that were paid for mostly by tax payers and will never generate enough current to pay for their manufacturing cost, You have them only because you did not have to pay the majority of the cost of them.


*



			What about the amount of land that it requires, can we constantly destroy the environment to sustain solar.
		
Click to expand...

*


> The footprint is the smallest of any development.



Utter bullshit,

If you're going to flat out lie, you should be ignored.

*



			How about water usage, can california increase water usage to sustain solar.
		
Click to expand...

*


> Ever hear of reclaimed water? Goes into the ground to be recycled. Golf courses do it, why not solar farms?
> 
> *And as technology advances, will not all forms of energy advance as well, do we not have forms of energy that are vastly superior in which if we developed would actually drive down the cost of living.*
> 
> Depends if their traded on the market. Look at oil.



My hope is the popularity of solar leads to innovations that make it actually viable.

I have solar on my house as well, but I realize that I would have never bought it if taxpayers had not footed 99% of the costs.


----------



## OnePercenter (Feb 4, 2015)

Uncensored2008 said:


> OnePercenter said:
> 
> 
> > *That we can not harness the sun's energy does not mean its not sustainable? *
> ...



Fair question. Total cost was $21K. With cost savings and excess credit of $1k/mo, payoff is 21 months with a 25 year warranty. Do the math.

The footprint base of a solar array is much less than a building.

Using tax-based funds to fund your solar array is good use of the taxes you've paid.  Who would have thunk you'd have a return on paid taxes, besides infrastructure and tax-based services.


----------



## elektra (Feb 4, 2015)

OnePercenter said:


> elektra said:
> 
> 
> > That we can not harness the sun's energy does not mean its not sustainable?
> ...


So, you harness the Sun's energy, how about some pics, specs, technical information, the name, stuff like that. So we can get technical. Your biggest use of energy, is water. Which Solar does not pump. 

The footprint is the smallest? Do you have any idea of the amount of land Solar is covering, it is measured in miles, to replace one nuclear power plant you would need a 100 square mile solar panel field. We have covered at least that much land in california yet Solar accounts for less than 1% of out total electricity usage in california.

Reclaimed water, could be used to grow food, if distilled, purified, you can use it to clean solar panels, so you are going to reclaim water, pump it to the desert, pump it with what, Fossil Fuel? Solar can not pump water, and how much will it cost? Billions? 

Your ideology exists in a vacuum of intelligence.


----------



## elektra (Feb 4, 2015)

Uncensored2008 said:


> elektra said:
> 
> 
> > That we can not harness the sun's energy does not mean its not sustainable?
> ...


Land use alone is staggering, we can not cover an entire state with Solar panels, Solar literally is a boon to chemical companies, mines, and oil companies. 

Covering 100's of square miles of land with Solar has increased consumption of toxic chemicals produced by Corporations like Dow Chemical. 

It is all so staggering, literally impossible to dig up all the facts. 

How about all that Cadmium used, extremely dangerous to life. How much will escape into the atmosphere, how much has poisoned the earth simply due to increased Solar use? 

I think there are a lot of questions that should be asked before we invest so heavily into Solar, but that ship has already sailed, my guess that price tag is already over 1$ Trillion dollars world wide. 

Easy money for the rich and powerful who control government.


----------



## n0spam4me (Feb 4, 2015)

Bottom line here is that the modern life-style is NOT sustainable!

Ideally a solar panel factory would be powered by solar panels and so the whole thing would constitute a sustainable technology, HOWEVER, given that the solar panel factory must be supplied with raw material, mined from the earth, it becomes sort of a moot point. 

The problem here is that even if it doesn't happen in my life-time, its bound to happen ( unless of course the earth magically produces underground deposits of Petrol ) that is the depletion of natural resources to the point that the current life-style is simply NOT possible. ( bummer! ) 

Some pundits have predicted mega-cities that dwarf present LA sprawl and would have a Billion people driving cars on the freeways & consuming fuel, electricity & natural gas at a rate certainly diminished from the present per/capita consumption, but unfortunately .... given ANY rate of consumption at all, the idea of having a Billion people living the "good life" that is having whatever they wanted whenever they wanted it, cell phones for all, TVs computers, smart appliances ..... oh the future is so bright, and SO WRONG!
We can't do it!

Get used to it, your Children & GrandChildren will NOT have it better than You do right now.


----------



## n0spam4me (Feb 4, 2015)

> Solar can not pump water,



PROVE IT!


----------



## Old Rocks (Feb 4, 2015)

*24V Submersible Deep DC Solar Well Water Pump, Solar, battery, alternate energy*

$129.90
Buy It Now
Free shipping
109 watching

Solar Powered Water Pumps eBay

*Ol' Elektra pulls the sillyest stuff out of her asshole.*


----------



## elektra (Feb 4, 2015)

n0spam4me said:


> > Solar can not pump water,
> 
> 
> 
> PROVE IT!


Done!

On the Conservative side, it will take 48,000 GWh, which is a physical impossibility for Solar

How much energy does California use to move water Big Picture Agriculture



> Blogger Dan Brekke summarizes the 2005 California Energy Commission report, “California’s Water – Energy Relationship” in a pie chart here, which would suggest that the amount of electricity used to move water in California is 4.2 percent of its total electrical use, or 48,000 GWh. This is too low, however, because irrigation is put into a separate category and I’d think it should be included as “moving water”, too. Also, more recent studies and papers since the 2005 California Energy Commission’s paper say that the Commission’s estimates were too low; and, that earlier studies overall have been using assumptions which have been too conservative.


----------



## Old Rocks (Feb 4, 2015)

Really? Impossible, how so? That 48,000 Gw is spread over what time?


----------



## elektra (Feb 4, 2015)

Old Rocks said:


> *24V Submersible Deep DC Solar Well Water Pump, Solar, battery, alternate energy*
> 
> $129.90
> Buy It Now
> ...


Idiot, that can not pump the water a house needs, which is 6 gpm. That pump is rated at 1.6 gpm and can only be a 100' deep, useless.
Further, we need to pump water to all those solar panels, that pump is a toy, it would never be used for industrial solar farms. That is which we speak, but the simple-minds think only of the simple. 

From your link Old Crock


> Flow Rate: 1.6 GPM Max. Submersion Depth: 100 ft


----------



## Old Rocks (Feb 4, 2015)

Solar power in California - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia

California has the technical potential to install 76,000 MW of rooftop solar panels, which would generate 106,411 GWh/year, about 41% of the total electricity used in California in 2012. 

*Just what is possible from rooftops. So, yes, solar can well provide for all the water pumping in California.*


----------



## elektra (Feb 4, 2015)

Old Rocks said:


> Really? Impossible, how so? That 48,000 Gw is spread over what time?


You left out the "h", which stands for hour, Gwh. How many Solar farms will it take to produce 48,000 GWH! 

Again, stupidity from those who support Solar. You can not come up with one fact, all you can do is offer ridiculous questions.


----------



## Old Rocks (Feb 4, 2015)

Solar powered pump and solar pumps for solar water pumping from wells ponds and creeks
Please give us a call and put our 25 plus years of experience to work for you today! *Now with pumps to lift water up to 350 feet or flow up to 45 gpm on shallow wells. *
*
Now silly old gal, there are many, many pumps on the market for off grid locations. With all kinds of capacities and possible depths.*


----------



## Old Rocks (Feb 4, 2015)

elektra said:


> Old Rocks said:
> 
> 
> > Really? Impossible, how so? That 48,000 Gw is spread over what time?
> ...


I see, so the 85 kwHr batteries mean you have to use all 85 kws in one hour. Elektra, you are beyond stupid. LOL


----------



## jon_berzerk (Feb 4, 2015)

elektra said:


> Such a simple question, such a simple word, thrown out as fact, indisputable.
> 
> Solar is sustainable.
> 
> ...



solar has its place 

but for peak energy is not that reliable


----------



## elektra (Feb 4, 2015)

Old Rocks said:


> Solar powered pump and solar pumps for solar water pumping from wells ponds and creeks
> Please give us a call and put our 25 plus years of experience to work for you today! *Now with pumps to lift water up to 350 feet or flow up to 45 gpm on shallow wells.
> 
> Now silly old gal, there are many, many pumps on the market for off grid locations. With all kinds of capacities and possible depths.*


Failed to quote so you could lie again? I quoted your post and showed you to be wrong, period. That is why the post is not included.


----------



## elektra (Feb 5, 2015)

Old Rocks said:


> Solar power in California - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia
> 
> California has the technical potential to install 76,000 MW of rooftop solar panels, which would generate 106,411 GWh/year, about 41% of the total electricity used in California in 2012.
> 
> *Just what is possible from rooftops. So, yes, solar can well provide for all the water pumping in California.*


With a capacity factor of 13% that leaves us 9,880 Mwh, far short of what is needed to pump water.

Of course, how many houses in California have a south facing roof making your idea feasible? Less than 10%. How many trees will need to be cut down? So many little details left out of Old Crock's simple thoughts.

And then with a 100% rooftop coverage that will increase the amount of water needed, further that water will have to be pumped to the top of the roof, requiring more power. 

Old Crock's reasoning falls far short of reality.


----------



## OnePercenter (Feb 5, 2015)

elektra said:


> So, you harness the Sun's energy, how about some pics, specs, technical information, the name, stuff like that. So we can get technical. Your biggest use of energy, is water. Which Solar does not pump.
> 
> The footprint is the smallest? Do you have any idea of the amount of land Solar is covering, it is measured in miles, to replace one nuclear power plant you would need a 100 square mile solar panel field. We have covered at least that much land in california yet Solar accounts for less than 1% of out total electricity usage in california.
> 
> ...



I have 40 panels that produce 14,000 watts of electricity per day. The inverter is Outback. Batteries, I don't know. When I return to San Diego in late June I'll look. 

The area is large for solar, but the footprint (actually touching the ground) is smallest. 

Golf courses already use reclaimed water. The infrastructure is already in place, besides, washing panels is a twice per year task.


----------



## Uncensored2008 (Feb 5, 2015)

n0spam4me said:


> Bottom line here is that the modern life-style is NOT sustainable!



Then you should opt out of life. Lead by example and remove yourself as a problem.

If every envirowacko leftist would simply exit the human race, most of the problems we face would be solved.



> Ideally a solar panel factory would be powered by solar panels and so the whole thing would constitute a sustainable technology, HOWEVER, given that the solar panel factory must be supplied with raw material, mined from the earth, it becomes sort of a moot point.
> 
> The problem here is that even if it doesn't happen in my life-time, its bound to happen ( unless of course the earth magically produces underground deposits of Petrol ) that is the depletion of natural resources to the point that the current life-style is simply NOT possible. ( bummer! )
> 
> ...



The dream of the left since as far back as I can remember is a declining society and the promise of misery.

You have yet to realize your dream. If you do your part and exit the human race, we never will realize the decline you seek.


----------



## n0spam4me (Feb 5, 2015)

So amid cries of "go off yourself" the opposition hopes to cloud the fact that what is going on in the world at present, is the rampant use of non-renewable sources of energy & material.  Our life style of dependence on cell phones, automobiles, aircraft ( etc.... ) burns up fuel & material at an alarming rate and the way that the system is currently rigged, its a one way trip from the deposits in the ground to a short life as an aid to the modern life, and then having been oxidized or in other ways rendered useless, simply discarded.

Look at a forest with all the wildlife that lives therein, its a complete system, the animals, plants, insects, microbes, all live in balance.

a modern city is totally out of balance, and the result is obvious.
The industrialized world is headed for a crash, and the only thing that would save humanity, is for some genius inventor to create a power source that is truly sustainable.  ( right, like that is going to happen )


----------



## OnePercenter (Feb 5, 2015)

n0spam4me said:


> So amid cries of "go off yourself" the opposition hopes to cloud the fact that what is going on in the world at present, is the rampant use of non-renewable sources of energy & material.  Our life style of dependence on cell phones, automobiles, aircraft ( etc.... ) burns up fuel & material at an alarming rate and the way that the system is currently rigged, its a one way trip from the deposits in the ground to a short life as an aid to the modern life, and then having been oxidized or in other ways rendered useless, simply discarded.
> 
> Look at a forest with all the wildlife that lives therein, its a complete system, the animals, plants, insects, microbes, all live in balance.
> 
> ...



There won't be a crash. The few that run the joints won't let it.


----------



## elektra (Feb 6, 2015)

n0spam4me said:


> So amid cries of "go off yourself" the opposition hopes to cloud the fact that what is going on in the world at present, is the rampant use of non-renewable sources of energy & material.  Our life style of dependence on cell phones, automobiles, aircraft ( etc.... ) burns up fuel & material at an alarming rate and the way that the system is currently rigged, its a one way trip from the deposits in the ground to a short life as an aid to the modern life, and then having been oxidized or in other ways rendered useless, simply discarded.
> 
> Look at a forest with all the wildlife that lives therein, its a complete system, the animals, plants, insects, microbes, all live in balance.
> 
> ...





> rampant use of non-renewable sources of energy & material.



Do you mean the "rampant use of non-renewable sources of energy & material", to build the World's Largest Solar Farm with the least return of energy per ton of energy and material used to build the World's Largest Solar Farm?


----------



## X.Onasis (Feb 10, 2015)

Got any more bad investment ideas elektra? Please post them.

Apple CEO Tim Cook Will partner with First Solar on 850M CA solar farm

*Apple to build $850M solar energy farm in CA*


----------



## n0spam4me (Feb 10, 2015)

RE: washing solar panels, it really depends on where the panels are, in some off-grid little cabin out in the middle of nowhere, the rain may be sufficient to wash the panels as much as they need.  Someplace like smog city ( L. A. ) the panels need washing often.

Also, the panels can be set flat, and that constitutes a compromise, but there are a number of flat roof installs that indeed produce rather well.

Solar & wind are by far not perfect, however the idea of building yet another Nuke or Coal-fired plant is just plain sick!


----------



## elektra (Feb 10, 2015)

n0spam4me said:


> RE: washing solar panels, it really depends on where the panels are, in some off-grid little cabin out in the middle of nowhere, the rain may be sufficient to wash the panels as much as they need.  Someplace like smog city ( L. A. ) the panels need washing often.
> 
> Also, the panels can be set flat, and that constitutes a compromise, but there are a number of flat roof installs that indeed produce rather well.
> 
> Solar & Wind are by far not perfect, however the idea of building yet another Nuke or Coal-fired plant is just plain sick!


Solar and Wind will cost us over 10 trillion dollars, not because we do not have the energy we need, but because you want to replace everything that exists today. 

They increase the use of Oil and Coal, takes a lot of energy to build Solar and Wind forever.

Solar and Wind can never power Industry. 

Solar and Wind have failed in Germany, Spain, and Greece. Can we say bankruptcy. 

The only thing Solar and Wind does is make people rich. Government Guaranteed Loans and Grants. For every bit of that 11 Trillion dollars. Who profits, Chase Manhattan bank, which is Rockefeller bank, Rockefeller as in ExxonMobile money. Oil money. 

Banks and Oil companies profit from a Government Policy.

The consumers are forced to pay more for a product many of us do not want. Literally forced because Electric Utilities all have government controlled Monopolies.

Solar and Wind can not even supply the electricity to pump the water that Solar uses in California. That is done with Fossil Fuels.


----------



## z_luzhina (Feb 10, 2015)

elektra said:


> Solar and Wind can not even supply the electricity to pump the water that Solar uses in California. That is done with Fossil Fuels.


Do you think fossil fuels will last forever?


----------



## elektra (Feb 10, 2015)

z_luzhina said:


> elektra said:
> 
> 
> > Solar and Wind can not even supply the electricity to pump the water that Solar uses in California. That is done with Fossil Fuels.
> ...


I think they will last as long as the Human Race lasts. 

Solar and Wind Energy do not replace Oil, Oil is not used to make Electricity. 

Solar and Wind Energy increase the use of Oil, in the manufacture, maintenance and replacement of Solar and Wind Power.

Over 10 trillion dollars will be spent on Solar and Wind, that money will go to the manufacture and installation Solar and Wind power plants. Much of that money and manufacture will increase the consumption of Oil.

If you are really worried about running out of Oil, why use our dwindling reserves to build the World's largest in physical size Wind and Solar power plants that returns so little energy?


----------



## elektra (Feb 11, 2015)

X.Onasis said:


> Got any more bad investment ideas elektra? Please post them.
> 
> Apple CEO Tim Cook Will partner with First Solar on 850M CA solar farm
> 
> *Apple to build $850M solar energy farm in CA*


Long term, its an incredibly bad investment,Thanks, the headline should be:

*APPLE to destroy 4 square miles of farmland.*

This is great, the rich people who own Apple can afford to destroy 4 square miles of farmland, how sustainable is that? And from your link it states that the 4 square miles will power 60,000 homes. That is not taking into account the capacity factor of about 23%.

Is that a fair trade? 4 square miles of farmland to maybe power 15,000 homes? 1.2 million individual Solar panels. Of course we need batteries because most people use their homes at night.

Sustainable? I wonder, any grants involved? Maybe there are some Professors or whole departments of a University involved?

Solar is stabbing a fork in the eye of Americans.


----------



## n0spam4me (Feb 11, 2015)

> Solar and Wind can not even supply the electricity to pump the water that Solar uses in California. That is done with Fossil Fuels.



Source please.


----------



## rdean (Feb 11, 2015)

They asked the same thing about the "horseless carriage".


----------



## rdean (Feb 11, 2015)

elektra said:


> X.Onasis said:
> 
> 
> > Got any more bad investment ideas elektra? Please post them.
> ...


OMG.  We are all going to starve.

Oh wait, Republicans don't care if anyone starves.  Ask children whose food stamps were cut.  Nevermind.


----------



## Delta4Embassy (Feb 11, 2015)

elektra said:


> Such a simple question, such a simple word, thrown out as fact, indisputable.
> 
> Solar is sustainable.
> 
> ...



Solar's sustainable because the Sun will outlive the human race by far. Didn't they cover that in school for ya? 

Is solar a preferred technology to oil is a better question. Short answer's no. As it stands right now, the solar panels used in solar energy generation are too inefficient to replace existing proven technology as with oil, coal, nuclear, etc.  Friendlier and safer than those, sure. But unless you're okay blanketing every free square mile with solar panels (when we bitch and moan enough as it is about windmills) I don't see it as practical. 

No one technology is practical by itself. Rather, some are better in some locations than others. Tidal plants are preferred near the ocean for example, solar's preferred way the hell out in the middle of the Mojave, nuclear near rivers which don't ever dry up (and away from faultlines,) oil near major ports, etc. 

Eventually oil will run out. Oil industry itself says about 60 years with "proven reserves" meaning if we don't drill and discover any more new sources. But whether that's right or pessismistic and it'll last 100 years doesnt' much matter. Eventually it's gonna and we're gonna need a backup supply so we don't go through an adjustment period with a tiny fraction of what we had with oil when we still had it. So we need to perfect all the others like solar, tidal, geothermal, wind, and even nuclear now when it's mostly an optional supply and not yet a critical need. If we don't work on alt supplies until we literally have nothing else we're royally screwed.


----------



## n0spam4me (Feb 11, 2015)

Technology needs to be refined, note that many years ago, the only technology available for electrical energy storage was a lead-acid battery, however technology has become refined over the years such that we can now have battery powered flying toys (etc.... ) The fact is, Solar ( photovoltaic ) is in its infancy, is one factor here.  The analog to this scene is the evolution in light bulbs, the incandescent light served for more than a century, and a proposed replacement was the "CFL" lamp, but it had HUGE problems, and now we have the LED light that is taking over as a practical replacement for the incandescent lamp.  So the solar panel of today may be simply a marginally productive tangent and possibly the heat-engine type solar utilization is the way to go, time will tell.  The truly sustainable aspect will be achieved at such time as there is sufficient capacity in alternative energy to power the factory that produces the hardware necessary for the use of the alternative energy technology.  We are obviously decades away from that program ( some genius please prove me wrong ) however it is completely valid to work toward that goal.


----------



## hadit (Feb 11, 2015)

n0spam4me said:


> Technology needs to be refined, note that many years ago, the only technology available for electrical energy storage was a lead-acid battery, however technology has become refined over the years such that we can now have battery powered flying toys (etc.... ) The fact is, Solar ( photovoltaic ) is in its infancy, is one factor here.  The analog to this scene is the evolution in light bulbs, the incandescent light served for more than a century, and a proposed replacement was the "CFL" lamp, but it had HUGE problems, and now we have the LED light that is taking over as a practical replacement for the incandescent lamp.  So the solar panel of today may be simply a marginally productive tangent and possibly the heat-engine type solar utilization is the way to go, time will tell.  The truly sustainable aspect will be achieved at such time as there is sufficient capacity in alternative energy to power the factory that produces the hardware necessary for the use of the alternative energy technology.  We are obviously decades away from that program ( some genius please prove me wrong ) however it is completely valid to work toward that goal.



The geek in me loves new technology.  The realist in me decries efforts to force the adoption of new technology before it's mature and stable.


----------



## n0spam4me (Feb 11, 2015)

as an example, if the "CFL" light had existed in a laboratory only it may have taken many decades to figure out its true practicality or lack thereof, but in the market place, there is the crucible of progress, things get tested and in ways that a laboratory model would never see. The photovoltaic panels that are in use right now are testing the technology and its all part of the process of proving out what systems will truly benefit humankind & what technologies are not productive.


----------



## elektra (Feb 11, 2015)

Delta4Embassy said:


> elektra said:
> 
> 
> > Such a simple question, such a simple word, thrown out as fact, indisputable.
> ...


Solar increases the use of oil, you think we can build and rebuild solar, consuming more oil forever. You are confusing the sunshine for the man made objects that collect the sun.


----------



## elektra (Feb 11, 2015)

hadit said:


> n0spam4me said:
> 
> 
> > Technology needs to be refined, note that many years ago, the only technology available for electrical energy storage was a lead-acid battery, however technology has become refined over the years such that we can now have battery powered flying toys (etc.... ) The fact is, Solar ( photovoltaic ) is in its infancy, is one factor here.  The analog to this scene is the evolution in light bulbs, the incandescent light served for more than a century, and a proposed replacement was the "CFL" lamp, but it had HUGE problems, and now we have the LED light that is taking over as a practical replacement for the incandescent lamp.  So the solar panel of today may be simply a marginally productive tangent and possibly the heat-engine type solar utilization is the way to go, time will tell.  The truly sustainable aspect will be achieved at such time as there is sufficient capacity in alternative energy to power the factory that produces the hardware necessary for the use of the alternative energy technology.  We are obviously decades away from that program ( some genius please prove me wrong ) however it is completely valid to work toward that goal.
> ...


Solar and wind is old technology. Literally zero advances in wind turbines. Solar we see some new stuff but it is all oil dependent.


----------



## HenryBHough (Feb 11, 2015)

California would be much improved were it 100% covered with solar panels.  Because solar panels don't vote.


----------



## elektra (Feb 11, 2015)

rdean said:


> elektra said:
> 
> 
> > X.Onasis said:
> ...


Republicans support green energy, just us conservatives oppose green energy. It's all about making money. The price tag is 10-11 trillion dollars. Big bucks for wallstreet, the 9il companiee, and banks.


----------



## elektra (Feb 11, 2015)

n0spam4me said:


> > Solar and Wind can not even supply the electricity to pump the water that Solar uses in California. That is done with Fossil Fuels.
> 
> 
> 
> Source please.


Our Solar and Wind industry can not pump water. Solar on homes use water supplied by the state or cities. That is not ran on Solar. Never will be. Solar only supplies power to homes. Every headline about Solar states this. Not one article has ever mentioned pumping water. If you can find something that states Solar will pump water, feel free to post it but I can not find.it. Simply seeing how much energy is needed to move water shows the sheer madness in pursuing a source of electricity that will never meet 1% of that need. 

How much energy does California use to move water Big Picture Agriculture


> It consumes an average of 5 billion kWh/yr, more than 25 percent of the total electricity consumption for the entire state of New Mexico. The California Energy Commission reports that SWP energy use accounts for 2 to 3 percent of all electricity consumed in California.
> 
> The SWP consumes so much energy because of where it sends its water. To convey water to Southern California from the Sacramento–San Joaquin Delta, the SWP must pump it 2,000 feet over the Tehachapi Mountains, the highest lift of any water system in the world. Pumping one acre-foot of SWP water to the region requires approximately 3,000 kWh. Southern California’s other major source of imported water is also energy intensive: pumping one acre-foot of Colorado River Aqueduct water to Southern California requires about 2,000 kWh.
> 
> ...


----------



## Old Rocks (Feb 12, 2015)

*Silly old girl, look right here. Your site states that it took about 5 gigawatts of power to pump the water in California. And the site below show where solar generated about 5 gigawatts of power last year. In other words, by just itself, solar could have done the job, with no help from wind. And there is more solar going in on a daily basis now. President Obama has won his bet on the renewables. Now the market will take over, and it will be the utilities driving the increase of wind, solar, and geothermal.*

How much energy does California use to move water Big Picture Agriculture

It consumes an average of 5 billion kWh/yr, more than 25 percent of the total electricity consumption for the entire state of New Mexico. The California Energy Commission reports that SWP energy use accounts for 2 to 3 percent of all electricity consumed in California.

Increased solar and wind electricity generation in California are changing net load shapes - Today in Energy - U.S. Energy Information Administration EIA 

Wind and solar plants do not incur any fuel costs to generate electricity, and, when available, they are among the first resources that grid operators use. Utility-scale solar has exhibited particularly significant growth in the past year, with hourly solar output reaching nearly 5 gigawatts (GW) by the end of September 2014. This amount represents more than 10% of the system's 2014 year-to-date hourly peak demand, and it is more than two-thirds higher than the peak hourly solar output level in 2013.


----------



## danielpalos (Feb 12, 2015)

elektra said:


> Such a simple question, such a simple word, thrown out as fact, indisputable.
> 
> Solar is sustainable.
> 
> ...


it depends; i use a solar oven to propagate from seed in the winter and to dry bread for bread crumbs and to dry herbs such as lemon balm and spearmint in the summer.


----------



## CultureCitizen (Feb 16, 2015)

elektra said:


> How is Solar Sustainable? That makes no sense at all.



It's been working fine in the IIS during  14 years under rather harsh conditions.


----------



## elektra (Feb 16, 2015)

CultureCitizen said:


> elektra said:
> 
> 
> > How is Solar Sustainable? That makes no sense at all.
> ...


IIS, what is that?


----------



## CultureCitizen (Feb 16, 2015)

elektra said:


> CultureCitizen said:
> 
> 
> > elektra said:
> ...


Typo , sorry. ISS ( International space station ) .


----------



## elektra (Feb 16, 2015)

n0spam4me said:


> as an example, if the "CFL" light had existed in a laboratory only it may have taken many decades to figure out its true practicality or lack thereof, but in the market place, there is the crucible of progress, things get tested and in ways that a laboratory model would never see. The photovoltaic panels that are in use right now are testing the technology and its all part of the process of proving out what systems will truly benefit humankind & what technologies are not productive.


So we are conducting a $1 Trillion dollar experiment with Tax Dollars so the Government can pick which corporations get rich while our Electric Bills get fixed at an extremely expensive rate, forever?

We have tested, proven which technology works, its not Solar. 

Solar is Old, as Old as Earth itself. Man has used Solar since there Man has existed. We started modern Solar research, a 100 years ago. Solar Technology has proven itself as insignificant when compared to other forms of Energy Production.

"The Crucible of Progress". Solar has failed, and failed, and failed, do I need to link? No, ask yourself, are we still researching Solar in order to make it practical, the answer is yes.


----------



## elektra (Feb 16, 2015)

CultureCitizen said:


> It's been working fine in the IIS during  14 years under rather harsh conditions.
> IIS, what is that?
> Typo , sorry. ISS ( International space station )



You do not realize that in Space, Solar is not encumbered by the Atmosphere. Solar actually works a 1000 x's better. Literally.
That is why they test and rate Solar Panels at high elevations, not sea level. New Mexico to be exact.


----------



## CultureCitizen (Feb 16, 2015)

elektra said:


> We have tested, proven which technology works, its not Solar.


Might I point out that given how recent is the Fukushima accident applying such technology might not appeal to most citizens.


----------



## CultureCitizen (Feb 16, 2015)

elektra said:


> You do not realize that in Space, Solar is not encumbered by the Atmosphere. Solar actually works a 1000 x's better. Literally.
> That is why they test and rate Solar Panels at high elevations, not sea level. New Mexico to be exact.


But in the thermosphere the temperature varies a lot more than in any part of the stratosphere ( -270 c to 500 c) , causing more damage to the panels... so they do last at least 14 years.


----------



## elektra (Feb 16, 2015)

n0spam4me said:


> Technology needs to be refined, note that many years ago, the only technology available for electrical energy storage was a lead-acid battery, however technology has become refined over the years such that we can now have battery powered flying toys (etc.... ) The fact is, Solar ( photovoltaic ) is in its infancy, is one factor here.  The analog to this scene is the evolution in light bulbs, the incandescent light served for more than a century, and a proposed replacement was the "CFL" lamp, but it had HUGE problems, and now we have the LED light that is taking over as a practical replacement for the incandescent lamp.  So the solar panel of today may be simply a marginally productive tangent and possibly the heat-engine type solar utilization is the way to go, time will tell.  The truly sustainable aspect will be achieved at such time as there is sufficient capacity in alternative energy to power the factory that produces the hardware necessary for the use of the alternative energy technology.  We are obviously decades away from that program ( some genius please prove me wrong ) however it is completely valid to work toward that goal.


Practical? LED bulbs? Literally they cost a 1,000x's more, they use then again the same in natural resources, Incandescent bulbs were perfect, they were cheap, when I was a kid they were free, literally. We could exchange burnt out bulbs for new ones, of course someone got mad and sued, so the government outlawed giving away free light bulbs.

So you took something that cost next to nothing, and replaced it with something that uses more oil and natural resources to produce, and that is progress.

I had one light bulb last 30 years. 

Evolution? As dictated by Government. That is hardly evolution, but the government did pay for all the research, so in order to keep all that bureaucracy operating, we will have to use our tax dollars to Research and Develop stuff, and then have the Government decide who gets rich selling it.

On top of this Evolution the Government must put its boot on everything us free people developed, they must demonize the simple, the light bulb, you must feel guilty for using the light bulb, a billion dollar marketing campaign, making us feel guilty, until we buy the LED light bulb developed by the Government, which supports Government researchers in Government Universities. 

We must be kept in the dark, about the production of LED Bulbs, they built new factories, ignore the energy it took to build the factories. We increased mining for silica, let us ignore that. We increased the use of Fossil Fuels, to process the materials that it takes to make a LED light bulb.

It is insane, we could build 20 regular incandescent light bulbs for every 1 LED light bulb.

Increasing production, doubling production, quadrupling production, more, more, more, so that in the end we get less that cost more. Wall Street gets rich, Government employees stay fat, the Universities get rich, and we can afford none of it.

We increasingly look to the government, to take care of us, to feed us, to give us light.

Please government, give us light.


----------



## elektra (Feb 17, 2015)

CultureCitizen said:


> elektra said:
> 
> 
> > We have tested, proven which technology works, its not Solar.
> ...


GE Boiling Reactor? We have I think 9 of them in the USA, I have worked inside the one in Iowa. We shut ours down when the river reaches a certain level in the spring. 

The BWR is an old, early 1960's design. I wonder if they used a computer to design the BWR (boiling water reactor). In the USA we have had one problem with BWR's, that would be Fermi outside of Detroit, I believe they traced that problem to a Beer can left in the system during construction, either way Fermi is the second reactor meltdown in the USA, TMI was the 3rd, TMI (I have worked at TMI) is PWR, pressurized water reactor with OTSG's, very few of this type of PWR was built. All by B&W, a company I am working for right now, on CANDU reactors. 

So the idea that 1960's technology does not appeal to people is certainly true, at the same time those same people most likely do not know we have around 9 of those 1960's era reactors still operating. Over 40 years. Pretty impressive. 

I think people will understand that today's Reactors are much different than what was designed without the aid of computers. 

Its the year 2015 and we are struggling to build Solar and Wind, which we can not sustain. We do not have the land, the sun does not shine all the time, and who knows which way the wind blows, I guess it doesn't really matter, at all (sing to the tune of Bohemian Rhapsody).


----------

