# Renewables you support-solar or wind.



## ScienceRocks

Renewables you support-solar or wind. I support both


----------



## Two Thumbs

The one that can turn a profit w/o needing more of my tax money.

so neither


----------



## ScienceRocks

Germany uses a lot of wind(about 1/3rd of their energy mix) at a profit. Energy companies wouldn't add it to their energy profile if it didn't make a profile.
Tens of thousands of people buy roof top solar and make a profit.


----------



## ScienceRocks

*Japan's Solar Energy Market Surge Blows Away Earlier Forecasts*


Japan Solar Power Market Growth | The Energy Collective



> The newly projected 350 percent growth of Japan&#8217;s solar market from 2012 to 2013 dwarfs estimates made earlier this year.
> 
> &#8220;The Japanese feed-in tariff is one of the most lucrative in the world,&#8221; explained Adam James, GTM Research Solar Analyst for Global Demand. &#8220;As a result, there has been a gold rush. In the first half of 2013, we saw twice as much solar installed in Japan as in all of 2012. From 1.7 gigawatts last year, we expect the Japanese market to grow to well over 6 gigawatts of installed capacity in 2013.&#8221;



Not profitable? LOL


----------



## ScienceRocks

*3 Charts Showing Solar Power&#8217;s Wicked Growth*



> The solar power trend is undeniable. Solar power&#8217;s growth curve is so steep that anyone with half a brain cell can see that it is going up for a long time to come. Below are 4 recent charts on this topic that I think everyone in the US should see. So, please, check them out and then share them with your friends, families, and people on the street!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Here&#8217;s is some solar power growth looking to jump off the charts. This first chart shows annual capacity growth rates for renewable energy technologies. As you can see, several renewable energy technologies have seen strong growth, but solar thermal power&#8217;s growth rocks, and solar PV&#8217;s growth crushes it!



3 Solar Power Growth Charts -- Wicked Charts | Cost of Solar - Learn the Benefits of Solar Energy








> Look at that growth! It&#8217;s like what we saw with cell phones, computers, refrigerators, and many other commonplace technologies as they surged to dominance.
> 
> Lastly, here&#8217;s another fun one on how extremely fast solar thermal power is growing.


----------



## ScienceRocks

Renewables provide 99% new US grid capacity in October : Renew Economy

The renewable non-hydro probably will top hydro within the next 3-4 months  non-hydro renewables will cross nuclear by 2015


----------



## JWBooth

Two Thumbs said:


> The one that can turn a profit w/o needing more of my tax money.
> 
> so neither


----------



## ScienceRocks

You say that without a clue of what you're talking with. People make a profit off of solar all the time.


----------



## JWBooth

Matthew said:


> You say that without a clue of what you're talking with. People make a profit off of solar all the time.


Riiiiiiiiiight.


----------



## Mr Natural

Two Thumbs said:


> The one that can turn a profit w/o needing more of my tax money.
> 
> so neither



Not all profits can be measured in dollars and cents.


----------



## JWBooth

Mr Clean said:


> Two Thumbs said:
> 
> 
> 
> The one that can turn a profit w/o needing more of my tax money.
> 
> so neither
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Not all profits can be measured in dollars and cents.
Click to expand...


Its the only measurement of value when paying the bills or fleecing the taxpayers.


----------



## RKMBrown

Matthew said:


> You say that without a clue of what you're talking with. People make a profit off of solar all the time.



While one can make a profit off renewable sources, the jury is still out as to whether or not oil and natural gases are renewable sources and clearly oil and coal are more profitable than wind and solar if you are grid connected.

I voted both because I believe off grid solutions have their place, solar, wind, hydroelectric are all great things.  As are nuclear, oil, gas, coal... more the better in my opinion, just so long as we are not poisoning our water, cutting down our forests etc.


----------



## jon_berzerk

you forgot hydrogen


----------



## RKMBrown

jon_berzerk said:


> you forgot hydrogen



Hydrogen is more storage than energy production.


----------



## percysunshine

Matthew said:


> Renewables you support-solar or wind. I support both



Both are 'niche' forms of energy production. They should be supported when they actually produce more energy than they consume, and at the least cost. Massive government subsidies tend to turn the efficiency part on it's head, so I would not support that.


----------



## HelenaHandbag

Mr Clean said:


> Two Thumbs said:
> 
> 
> 
> The one that can turn a profit w/o needing more of my tax money.
> 
> so neither
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Not all profits can be measured in dollars and cents.
Click to expand...

Says the person who wants taxpayer dollars and cents to float their money losing energy boondoggles.


----------



## jon_berzerk

RKMBrown said:


> jon_berzerk said:
> 
> 
> 
> you forgot hydrogen
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hydrogen is more storage than energy production.
Click to expand...


hydrogen is the future


----------



## RKMBrown

jon_berzerk said:


> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> jon_berzerk said:
> 
> 
> 
> you forgot hydrogen
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hydrogen is more storage than energy production.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> hydrogen is the future
Click to expand...

You talking about fusion?


----------



## jon_berzerk

RKMBrown said:


> jon_berzerk said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> Hydrogen is more storage than energy production.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hydrogen is the future
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You talking about fusion?
Click to expand...


sorry RK have been away most of the day 

one step at a time 

I am mostly interested in hydrogen fuel cells 

for electric cars at this point


----------



## Two Thumbs

Matthew said:


> Germany uses a lot of wind(about 1/3rd of their energy mix) at a profit. Energy companies wouldn't add it to their energy profile if it didn't make a profile.
> Tens of thousands of people buy roof top solar and make a profit.



I don't recall living in germany where most of their power comes from nuclear


----------



## Two Thumbs

Mr Clean said:


> Two Thumbs said:
> 
> 
> 
> The one that can turn a profit w/o needing more of my tax money.
> 
> so neither
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Not all profits can be measured in dollars and cents.
Click to expand...


"I'm a die hard NY Yankees fan."  < that was the dumbest thing I ever heard.

Congrats, you're #1


----------



## flacaltenn

RKMBrown said:


> Matthew said:
> 
> 
> 
> You say that without a clue of what you're talking with. People make a profit off of solar all the time.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> While one can make a profit off renewable sources, the jury is still out as to whether or not oil and natural gases are renewable sources and clearly oil and coal are more profitable than wind and solar if you are grid connected.
> 
> I voted both because I believe off grid solutions have their place, solar, wind, hydroelectric are all great things.  As are nuclear, oil, gas, coal... more the better in my opinion, just so long as we are not poisoning our water, cutting down our forests etc.
Click to expand...


Nailed it Mr. Brown.. I can't vote in a silly poll that ASSUMES that wind and solar can only be used ON GRID.. *I'm for adding NEITHER in excess of 10% to the grid*.. 

*HOWEVER -- there are great applications for "free fuel" OFF GRID*.. As in desalinization plants, making fuels of all sorts (including biofuel and hydrogen), or processing grains or food stores.. And that is the OPTIMAL engineering APPLICATION of these flaky unreliable renewables. 

I would invest in an eyeblink for a hydrogen plant using OFF GRID solar and wind and storing energy in the produced fuel.. But as RELIABLE ALTERNATIVES? 

They suck huge...  You cannot write a contract for delivery of wind or solar power at a date and time certain.. No planning, no worse case design for grid reserve, just "hope". That's why it's still popular with the Hopey, Changey, Dopey contingient..


----------



## Lumpy 1

Solar panels can't be manufactured in the Unites States and show a profit at this time.

I suppose if you like solar you prefer manufacture in foreign countries and service jobs in the US.


----------



## RKMBrown

jon_berzerk said:


> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> jon_berzerk said:
> 
> 
> 
> hydrogen is the future
> 
> 
> 
> You talking about fusion?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> sorry RK have been away most of the day
> 
> one step at a time
> 
> I am mostly interested in hydrogen fuel cells
> 
> for electric cars at this point
Click to expand...


Yeah that's what I meant by hydrogen is storage.  It may be the future for cars but really the point is just that hydrogen is a clean substance to use for storage as the output is water.  However if you are burning coal or oil to generate the electricity used to separate the hydrogen from water... well then it's not really the solution its just a storage solution.  I think if we had a large excess of nuclear fission/fusion power we would then see a move to hydrogen as the way to convert the excess to a fuel for autos.

I'm not sure if hydrogen will be in the future for cars or not. We've become very adept at using gas. I suppose the government could force us if they wanted us to be less efficient than the countries operating on liquid fuels.


----------



## RGR

Matthew said:


> Renewables you support-solar or wind. I support both



I support methane. Power generation brought to humanity straight from the local landfill and dairy farm...about as renewable as it gets!


----------



## Derideo_Te

Two Thumbs said:


> The one that can turn a profit w/o needing more of my tax money.
> 
> so neither



Oil and nuclear are both supported with your tax dollars.


----------



## Derideo_Te

RKMBrown said:


> Matthew said:
> 
> 
> 
> You say that without a clue of what you're talking with. People make a profit off of solar all the time.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> While one can make a profit off renewable sources,* the jury is still out as to whether or not oil and natural gases are renewable sources* and clearly oil and coal are more profitable than wind and solar if you are grid connected.
> 
> I voted both because I believe off grid solutions have their place, solar, wind, hydroelectric are all great things.  As are nuclear, oil, gas, coal... more the better in my opinion, just so long as we are not poisoning our water, cutting down our forests etc.
Click to expand...


No, it isn't!


----------



## flacaltenn

Derideo_Te said:


> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Matthew said:
> 
> 
> 
> You say that without a clue of what you're talking with. People make a profit off of solar all the time.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> While one can make a profit off renewable sources,* the jury is still out as to whether or not oil and natural gases are renewable sources* and clearly oil and coal are more profitable than wind and solar if you are grid connected.
> 
> I voted both because I believe off grid solutions have their place, solar, wind, hydroelectric are all great things.  As are nuclear, oil, gas, coal... more the better in my opinion, just so long as we are not poisoning our water, cutting down our forests etc.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, it isn't!
Click to expand...


RGR just told you.. Natural Gas CAN BE a renewable resource.. To the extent we are willing to scavenge it.. OR we could bring it back from Titan, Jupiters moon with an entire atmos made of Methane.. 






It's part of the lore of the Church of Global Warming, that there is SOOO MUCH methane available in the Arctic permafrost, that should it be released --- it would ROAST the planet.. 

Would be a shame to let that fuel go to waste --- Drill, Baby Drill.. Before its' lost...


----------



## Derideo_Te

flacaltenn said:


> Derideo_Te said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> While one can make a profit off renewable sources,* the jury is still out as to whether or not oil and natural gases are renewable sources* and clearly oil and coal are more profitable than wind and solar if you are grid connected.
> 
> I voted both because I believe off grid solutions have their place, solar, wind, hydroelectric are all great things.  As are nuclear, oil, gas, coal... more the better in my opinion, just so long as we are not poisoning our water, cutting down our forests etc.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No, it isn't!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> RGR just told you.. Natural Gas CAN BE a renewable resource.. To the extent we are willing to scavenge it.. OR we could bring it back from Titan, Jupiters moon with an entire atmos made of Methane..
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It's part of the lore of the Church of Global Warming, that there is SOOO MUCH methane available in the Arctic permafrost, that should it be released --- it would ROAST the planet..
> 
> Would be a shame to let that fuel go to waste --- Drill, Baby Drill.. Before its' lost...
Click to expand...


Natural gas refers to fossil fuel gas. You are talking about methane which is natural but is different to what RKM was alleging.


----------



## flacaltenn

Derideo_Te said:


> flacaltenn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Derideo_Te said:
> 
> 
> 
> No, it isn't!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RGR just told you.. Natural Gas CAN BE a renewable resource.. To the extent we are willing to scavenge it.. OR we could bring it back from Titan, Jupiters moon with an entire atmos made of Methane..
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It's part of the lore of the Church of Global Warming, that there is SOOO MUCH methane available in the Arctic permafrost, that should it be released --- it would ROAST the planet..
> 
> Would be a shame to let that fuel go to waste --- Drill, Baby Drill.. Before its' lost...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Natural gas refers to fossil fuel gas. You are talking about methane which is natural but is different to what RKM was alleging.
Click to expand...


What IS natural gas --- Mr FossilFuel? It's cow farts and garbage dump gas...  OR it's the atmos. of Titan OR the gaseous form of those pesky Arctic tundra methane calthrates that threaten to blow up the planet...


----------



## ScienceRocks

Two Thumbs said:


> Mr Clean said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Two Thumbs said:
> 
> 
> 
> The one that can turn a profit w/o needing more of my tax money.
> 
> so neither
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Not all profits can be measured in dollars and cents.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> "I'm a die hard NY Yankees fan."  < that was the dumbest thing I ever heard.
> 
> Congrats, you're #1
Click to expand...


Benefits
1. renewables won't run out for the next billion years 
2. People won't get sick or cancer from it.
3. No smog


----------



## RKMBrown

Derideo_Te said:


> flacaltenn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Derideo_Te said:
> 
> 
> 
> No, it isn't!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RGR just told you.. Natural Gas CAN BE a renewable resource.. To the extent we are willing to scavenge it.. OR we could bring it back from Titan, Jupiters moon with an entire atmos made of Methane..
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It's part of the lore of the Church of Global Warming, that there is SOOO MUCH methane available in the Arctic permafrost, that should it be released --- it would ROAST the planet..
> 
> Would be a shame to let that fuel go to waste --- Drill, Baby Drill.. Before its' lost...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Natural gas refers to fossil fuel gas. You are talking about methane which is natural but is different to what RKM was alleging.
Click to expand...

heh...

Abiogenic petroleum origin - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


> Within the mantle, carbon may exist as hydrocarbonschiefly methaneand as elemental carbon, carbon dioxide, and carbonates.[12] The abiotic hypothesis is that the full suite of hydrocarbons found in petroleum can be generated in the mantle by abiogenic processes,[12] and these hydrocarbons can migrate out of the mantle into the crust until they escape to the surface or are trapped by impermeable strata, forming petroleum reservoirs.
> 
> Abiogenic hypotheses reject the supposition that certain molecules found within petroleum, known as biomarkers, are indicative of the biological origin of petroleum. They contend that these molecules mostly come from *microbes feeding on petroleum in its upward migration through the crust*, that some of them are found in meteorites, which have presumably never contacted living material, and that some can be generated abiogenically by plausible reactions in petroleum



Said microbes are the reason the oil slicks "disappeared" after the gulf spills. 

It makes a helluva lot more sense to me that oil, natural gas are seeping up underground from heat and pressure at the same time that shale based oil & natural gases are being released from billions of years of dead bio mass. 

I also find it interesting that it rains oil and/or liquid methane on Titan. I suppose it's because of some ancient biomass? let it rip? lol


----------



## flacaltenn

Matthew said:


> Two Thumbs said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mr Clean said:
> 
> 
> 
> Not all profits can be measured in dollars and cents.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> "I'm a die hard NY Yankees fan."  < that was the dumbest thing I ever heard.
> 
> Congrats, you're #1
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Benefits
> 1. renewables won't run out for the next billion years
> 2. People won't get sick or cancer from it.
> 3. No smog
Click to expand...


Wind runs out REGUARLY.  I need 120MW for my North Arkansas Coop Nexr Tuesday btween 10PM and 2AM...  CAN U GUARANTEE DELIVERY?   We all know the answer Matthew.  Why are u ignoring this? Is it someone elses problem to figure out how to make your fantasy real?

Solar cant be guaranteed either.  You want to pay for 2 generators for every watt of renewable you need online?  Most of us arent that dogmatic or naive.

These are not alternatives..  Solar is a 6hr/day sometimes peaker with limited geographic range of installed efficiency.  Wind is next to useless as a primary source,  and problematic as a sporadic supplement.. 

 Tell me how you are seeing these as a replacement for RELIABLE sources.


----------



## percysunshine

flacaltenn said:


> RGR just told you.. Natural Gas CAN BE a renewable resource.. To the extent we are willing to scavenge it.. OR we could bring it back from Titan, Jupiters moon with an entire atmos made of Methane..
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It's part of the lore of the Church of Global Warming, that there is SOOO MUCH methane available in the Arctic permafrost, that should it be released --- it would ROAST the planet..
> 
> Would be a shame to let that fuel go to waste --- Drill, Baby Drill.. Before its' lost...





That picture is hilarious.


----------



## Old Rocks

flacaltenn said:


> Derideo_Te said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> While one can make a profit off renewable sources,* the jury is still out as to whether or not oil and natural gases are renewable sources* and clearly oil and coal are more profitable than wind and solar if you are grid connected.
> 
> I voted both because I believe off grid solutions have their place, solar, wind, hydroelectric are all great things.  As are nuclear, oil, gas, coal... more the better in my opinion, just so long as we are not poisoning our water, cutting down our forests etc.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No, it isn't!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> RGR just told you.. Natural Gas CAN BE a renewable resource.. To the extent we are willing to scavenge it.. OR we could bring it back from Titan, Jupiters moon with an entire atmos made of Methane..
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It's part of the lore of the Church of Global Warming, that there is SOOO MUCH methane available in the Arctic permafrost, that should it be released --- it would ROAST the planet..
> 
> Would be a shame to let that fuel go to waste --- Drill, Baby Drill.. Before its' lost...
Click to expand...


Actually, there are a number of scientists already trying to figure a way to harvest the clathrate methane. Unfortunetly, that does not look doable at present. But you are correct, we would be better off harvesting that methane and burning it than seeing go into the atmosphere. On a time scale of a decade, methane is over 100 times as effective greenhouse gas as CO2.


----------



## Old Rocks

flacaltenn said:


> Matthew said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Two Thumbs said:
> 
> 
> 
> "I'm a die hard NY Yankees fan."  < that was the dumbest thing I ever heard.
> 
> Congrats, you're #1
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Benefits
> 1. renewables won't run out for the next billion years
> 2. People won't get sick or cancer from it.
> 3. No smog
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Wind runs out REGUARLY.  I need 120MW for my North Arkansas Coop Nexr Tuesday btween 10PM and 2AM...  CAN U GUARANTEE DELIVERY?   We all know the answer Matthew.  Why are u ignoring this? Is it someone elses problem to figure out how to make your fantasy real?
> 
> Solar cant be guaranteed either.  You want to pay for 2 generators for every watt of renewable you need online?  Most of us arent that dogmatic or naive.
> 
> These are not alternatives..  Solar is a 6hr/day sometimes peaker with limited geographic range of installed efficiency.  Wind is next to useless as a primary source,  and problematic as a sporadic supplement..
> 
> Tell me how you are seeing these as a replacement for RELIABLE sources.
Click to expand...


Yes, we do know the answer. If we have a national grid including solar, wind, hydro, geothermal, and nuclear, the answer is yes. And, for the next three decades, it will also include natural gas.

But if we listen to the yokels screaming 'it can't be done' at the tops of their voices, no, we will not be able to gaurentee the delivery of the energy this nation needs.


----------



## flacaltenn

Old Rocks said:


> flacaltenn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Matthew said:
> 
> 
> 
> Benefits
> 1. renewables won't run out for the next billion years
> 2. People won't get sick or cancer from it.
> 3. No smog
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wind runs out REGUARLY.  I need 120MW for my North Arkansas Coop Nexr Tuesday btween 10PM and 2AM...  CAN U GUARANTEE DELIVERY?   We all know the answer Matthew.  Why are u ignoring this? Is it someone elses problem to figure out how to make your fantasy real?
> 
> Solar cant be guaranteed either.  You want to pay for 2 generators for every watt of renewable you need online?  Most of us arent that dogmatic or naive.
> 
> These are not alternatives..  Solar is a 6hr/day sometimes peaker with limited geographic range of installed efficiency.  Wind is next to useless as a primary source,  and problematic as a sporadic supplement..
> 
> Tell me how you are seeing these as a replacement for RELIABLE sources.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes, we do know the answer. If we have a national grid including solar, wind, hydro, geothermal, and nuclear, the answer is yes. And, for the next three decades, it will also include natural gas.
> 
> But if we listen to the yokels screaming 'it can't be done' at the tops of their voices, no, we will not be able to gaurentee the delivery of the energy this nation needs.
Click to expand...


Don't think you answered my question.. I NEED 120MW of wind power delivered Tuesday Night between 10PM and 2AM.. Can you deliver it? If not -- you don't have a product in the energy marketplace.. Because the North Arkansas Power Coop needs to CONTRACT it's energy IN ADVANCE before the neighbors line up all the better power deals. That's the real world. We do not run a country this developed and this large on MAYBEs. 

That and a NATIONAL grid does not guarantee delivery from one end to the other. Detroit  WILL NEVER recieve solar power at 11PM. And it's not likely to recieve any at any other hour of day... The losses in transmission are just too great...


----------



## RKMBrown

flacaltenn said:


> Old Rocks said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> flacaltenn said:
> 
> 
> 
> Wind runs out REGUARLY.  I need 120MW for my North Arkansas Coop Nexr Tuesday btween 10PM and 2AM...  CAN U GUARANTEE DELIVERY?   We all know the answer Matthew.  Why are u ignoring this? Is it someone elses problem to figure out how to make your fantasy real?
> 
> Solar cant be guaranteed either.  You want to pay for 2 generators for every watt of renewable you need online?  Most of us arent that dogmatic or naive.
> 
> These are not alternatives..  Solar is a 6hr/day sometimes peaker with limited geographic range of installed efficiency.  Wind is next to useless as a primary source,  and problematic as a sporadic supplement..
> 
> Tell me how you are seeing these as a replacement for RELIABLE sources.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, we do know the answer. If we have a national grid including solar, wind, hydro, geothermal, and nuclear, the answer is yes. And, for the next three decades, it will also include natural gas.
> 
> But if we listen to the yokels screaming 'it can't be done' at the tops of their voices, no, we will not be able to gaurentee the delivery of the energy this nation needs.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Don't think you answered my question.. I NEED 120MW of wind power delivered Tuesday Night between 10PM and 2AM.. Can you deliver it? If not -- you don't have an energy marketplace.. Because the North Arkansas Power Coop needs to CONTRACT it's energy IN ADVANCE before the neighbors line up all the better power deals. That's the real world. We do not run a country this developed and this large on MAYBEs.
> 
> That and a NATIONAL grid does not guarantee delivery from one end to the other. Detroit  WILL NEVER recieve solar power at 11PM. And it's not likely to recieve any at any other hour of day... The losses in transmission are just too great...
Click to expand...

120 mega watt hours in 4hrs?

Dude that's a lot of power.  You use more power in an hour than I would use in two years.

You are using like 15% of the entire output of a typical coal power plant for each of the hours you are operating.


----------



## flacaltenn

Old Rocks said:


> flacaltenn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Derideo_Te said:
> 
> 
> 
> No, it isn't!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RGR just told you.. Natural Gas CAN BE a renewable resource.. To the extent we are willing to scavenge it.. OR we could bring it back from Titan, Jupiters moon with an entire atmos made of Methane..
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It's part of the lore of the Church of Global Warming, that there is SOOO MUCH methane available in the Arctic permafrost, that should it be released --- it would ROAST the planet..
> 
> Would be a shame to let that fuel go to waste --- Drill, Baby Drill.. Before its' lost...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Actually, there are a number of scientists already trying to figure a way to harvest the clathrate methane. Unfortunetly, that does not look doable at present. But you are correct, we would be better off harvesting that methane and burning it than seeing go into the atmosphere. On a time scale of a decade, methane is over 100 times as effective greenhouse gas as CO2.
Click to expand...


Don't tell me what's "doable" Scotty.. Now you get back to Engineering and make it work.. I want Calthrates mined and thawed before the Romulans discover we're taking them.. 

((Isnt that how progressives think technology advancement works?))


----------



## flacaltenn

RKMBrown said:


> flacaltenn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Old Rocks said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, we do know the answer. If we have a national grid including solar, wind, hydro, geothermal, and nuclear, the answer is yes. And, for the next three decades, it will also include natural gas.
> 
> But if we listen to the yokels screaming 'it can't be done' at the tops of their voices, no, we will not be able to gaurentee the delivery of the energy this nation needs.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Don't think you answered my question.. I NEED 120MW of wind power delivered Tuesday Night between 10PM and 2AM.. Can you deliver it? If not -- you don't have an energy marketplace.. Because the North Arkansas Power Coop needs to CONTRACT it's energy IN ADVANCE before the neighbors line up all the better power deals. That's the real world. We do not run a country this developed and this large on MAYBEs.
> 
> That and a NATIONAL grid does not guarantee delivery from one end to the other. Detroit  WILL NEVER recieve solar power at 11PM. And it's not likely to recieve any at any other hour of day... The losses in transmission are just too great...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 120 mega watt hours in 4hrs?
> 
> Dude that's a lot of power.  You use more power in an hour than I would use in two years.
> 
> You are using like 15% of the entire output of a typical coal power plant for each of the hours you are operating.
Click to expand...


Oh its not for me.. It's for the good customers at the N. Ark. Electric Coop region.. 

Lots of chicken plucking factories up there in the Northern Arkansas Electric Coop area.. (I made that part up).. But 120MW is just enough to keep about 120,000 homes running for that period of time.. Unless I've screwed up the math.. (not bloody likely)

That's how electrical demand contracts are written. They contract for a large REGION for a specified delivery date, time and terms.. ((Except in whacko places like California)).. Individual customers just get the costs passed on to them thru State/Local Utility Rate Commissions.


----------



## RKMBrown

flacaltenn said:


> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> flacaltenn said:
> 
> 
> 
> Don't think you answered my question.. I NEED 120MW of wind power delivered Tuesday Night between 10PM and 2AM.. Can you deliver it? If not -- you don't have an energy marketplace.. Because the North Arkansas Power Coop needs to CONTRACT it's energy IN ADVANCE before the neighbors line up all the better power deals. That's the real world. We do not run a country this developed and this large on MAYBEs.
> 
> That and a NATIONAL grid does not guarantee delivery from one end to the other. Detroit  WILL NEVER recieve solar power at 11PM. And it's not likely to recieve any at any other hour of day... The losses in transmission are just too great...
> 
> 
> 
> 120 mega watt hours in 4hrs?
> 
> Dude that's a lot of power.  You use more power in an hour than I would use in two years.
> 
> You are using like 15% of the entire output of a typical coal power plant for each of the hours you are operating.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Oh its not for me.. It's for the good customers at the N. Ark. Electric Coop region..
> 
> Lots of chicken plucking factories up there in the Northern Arkansas Electric Coop area.. (I made that part up).. But 120MW is just enough to keep about 120,000 homes running for that period of time.. Unless I've screwed up the math.. (not bloody likely)
> 
> That's how electrical demand contracts are written. They contract for a large REGION for a specified delivery date, time and terms.. ((Except in whacko places like California)).. Individual customers just get the costs passed on to them thru State/Local Utility Rate Commissions.
Click to expand...


Ah.. well off the grid you use a rack of batteries... On Grid you use solar & wind to augment during the day.  We could use a better grid with less loss.


----------



## Derideo_Te

RKMBrown said:


> Derideo_Te said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> flacaltenn said:
> 
> 
> 
> RGR just told you.. Natural Gas CAN BE a renewable resource.. To the extent we are willing to scavenge it.. OR we could bring it back from Titan, Jupiters moon with an entire atmos made of Methane..
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It's part of the lore of the Church of Global Warming, that there is SOOO MUCH methane available in the Arctic permafrost, that should it be released --- it would ROAST the planet..
> 
> Would be a shame to let that fuel go to waste --- Drill, Baby Drill.. Before its' lost...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Natural gas refers to fossil fuel gas. You are talking about methane which is natural but is different to what RKM was alleging.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> heh...
> 
> Abiogenic petroleum origin - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
> 
> 
> 
> Within the mantle, carbon may exist as hydrocarbonschiefly methaneand as elemental carbon, carbon dioxide, and carbonates.[12] The abiotic hypothesis is that the full suite of hydrocarbons found in petroleum can be generated in the mantle by abiogenic processes,[12] and these hydrocarbons can migrate out of the mantle into the crust until they escape to the surface or are trapped by impermeable strata, forming petroleum reservoirs.
> 
> Abiogenic hypotheses reject the supposition that certain molecules found within petroleum, known as biomarkers, are indicative of the biological origin of petroleum. They contend that these molecules mostly come from *microbes feeding on petroleum in its upward migration through the crust*, that some of them are found in meteorites, which have presumably never contacted living material, and that some can be generated abiogenically by plausible reactions in petroleum
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Said microbes are the reason the oil slicks "disappeared" after the gulf spills.
> 
> It makes a helluva lot more sense to me that oil, natural gas are seeping up underground from heat and pressure at the same time that shale based oil & natural gases are being released from billions of years of dead bio mass.
> 
> I also find it interesting that it rains oil and/or liquid methane on Titan. I suppose it's because of some ancient biomass? let it rip? lol
Click to expand...


Too bad you ignored the mass of factual evidence against abiogenesis in your own link.



> *Geological argument against*
> 
> Oil deposits are not directly associated with tectonic structures.
> Key arguments against chemical reactions, such as the serpentinite mechanism, as being the major source of hydrocarbon deposits within the crust are;
> The lack of available pore space within rocks as depth increases
> This is contradicted by numerous studies which have documented the existence of hydrologic systems operating over a range of scales and at all depths in the continental crust.[61]
> The lack of any hydrocarbon within the crystalline shield areas of the major cratons, especially around key deep seated structures which are predicted to host oil by the abiogenic hypothesis.[34] See Siljan Lake.
> Limited evidence that major serpentinite belts underlie continental sedimentary basins which host oil
> Lack of conclusive proof that carbon isotope fractionation observed in crustal methane sources is entirely of abiogenic origin (Lollar et al. 2006)[5]
> Mass balance problems of supplying enough carbon dioxide to serpentinite within the metamorphic event before the peridotite is fully reacted to serpentinite
> Drilling of the Siljan Ring failed to find commercial quantities of oil,[34] thus providing a counter example to Kudryavtsev's Rule[44] and failing to locate the predicted abiogenic oil.
> Helium in the Siljan Gravberg-1 well was depleted in 3He and not consistent with a mantle origin[62]
> The Gravberg-1 well only produced 84 barrels (13.4 m3) of oil, which later was shown to derive from organic additives, lubricants and mud used in the drilling process.[44][45][46]
> The distribution of sedimentary basins is caused by plate tectonics, with sedimentary basins forming on either side of a volcanic arc, which explains the distribution of oil within these sedimentary basins
> Kudryavtsev's Rule has been explained for oil and gas (not coal)gas deposits which are below oil deposits can be created from that oil or its source rocks. Because natural gas is less dense than oil, as kerogen and hydrocarbons are generating gas the gas fills the top of the available space. Oil is forced down, and can reach the spill point where oil leaks around the edge(s) of the formation and flows upward. If the original formation becomes completely filled with gas then all the oil will have leaked above the original location.[63]
> Ubiquitous diamondoids in natural hydrocarbons such as oil, gas and condensates are composed of carbon from biological sources, unlike the carbon found in normal diamonds.[64]
> Arguments against the incidental evidence[edit]
> Gas ruptures during earthquakes are more likely to be sourced from biogenic methane generated in unconsolidated sediment from existing organic matter, released by earthquake liquefaction of the reservoir during tremors
> The presence of methane hydrate is arguably produced by bacterial action upon organic detritus falling from the littoral zone and trapped in the depth due to pressure and temperature
> The likelihood of vast concentrations of methane in the mantle is very slim, given mantle xenoliths have negligible methane in their fluid inclusions; conventional plate tectonics explains deep focus quakes better, and the extreme confining pressures invalidate the hypothesis of gas pockets causing quakes
> Further evidence is the presence of diamond within kimberlites and lamproites which sample the mantle depths proposed as being the source region of mantle methane (by Gold et al.).[25]


----------



## Spiderman

I have no problem with renewables as long as we don't turn them into multi trillion dollar government boondoggles.


----------



## jon_berzerk

flacaltenn said:


> Matthew said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Two Thumbs said:
> 
> 
> 
> "I'm a die hard NY Yankees fan."  < that was the dumbest thing I ever heard.
> 
> Congrats, you're #1
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Benefits
> 1. renewables won't run out for the next billion years
> 2. People won't get sick or cancer from it.
> 3. No smog
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Wind runs out REGUARLY.  I need 120MW for my North Arkansas Coop Nexr Tuesday btween 10PM and 2AM...  CAN U GUARANTEE DELIVERY?   We all know the answer Matthew.  Why are u ignoring this? Is it someone elses problem to figure out how to make your fantasy real?
> 
> Solar cant be guaranteed either.  You want to pay for 2 generators for every watt of renewable you need online?  Most of us arent that dogmatic or naive.
> 
> These are not alternatives..  Solar is a 6hr/day sometimes peaker with limited geographic range of installed efficiency.  Wind is next to useless as a primary source,  and problematic as a sporadic supplement..
> 
> Tell me how you are seeing these as a replacement for RELIABLE sources.
Click to expand...


the problem with wind and solar 

is you cant kick em into overdrive when it counts 

if wind and solar become our primary energy 

get used to sitting in the dark with no heat or a/c on occasion


----------



## jon_berzerk

RKMBrown said:


> jon_berzerk said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> You talking about fusion?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sorry RK have been away most of the day
> 
> one step at a time
> 
> I am mostly interested in hydrogen fuel cells
> 
> for electric cars at this point
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yeah that's what I meant by hydrogen is storage.  It may be the future for cars but really the point is just that hydrogen is a clean substance to use for storage as the output is water.  However if you are burning coal or oil to generate the electricity used to separate the hydrogen from water... well then it's not really the solution its just a storage solution.  I think if we had a large excess of nuclear fission/fusion power we would then see a move to hydrogen as the way to convert the excess to a fuel for autos.
> 
> I'm not sure if hydrogen will be in the future for cars or not. We've become very adept at using gas. I suppose the government could force us if they wanted us to be less efficient than the countries operating on liquid fuels.
Click to expand...


yes 

i also see nuclear energy as the future 

dont get me wrong i am not against fossil fuels 

i just really like hydrogen and hydrogen fuel cells 

and as time goes by we will find more and better 

ways to free up hydrogen


----------



## Derideo_Te

jon_berzerk said:


> flacaltenn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Matthew said:
> 
> 
> 
> Benefits
> 1. renewables won't run out for the next billion years
> 2. People won't get sick or cancer from it.
> 3. No smog
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wind runs out REGUARLY.  I need 120MW for my North Arkansas Coop Nexr Tuesday btween 10PM and 2AM...  CAN U GUARANTEE DELIVERY?   We all know the answer Matthew.  Why are u ignoring this? Is it someone elses problem to figure out how to make your fantasy real?
> 
> Solar cant be guaranteed either.  You want to pay for 2 generators for every watt of renewable you need online?  Most of us arent that dogmatic or naive.
> 
> These are not alternatives..  Solar is a 6hr/day sometimes peaker with limited geographic range of installed efficiency.  Wind is next to useless as a primary source,  and problematic as a sporadic supplement..
> 
> Tell me how you are seeing these as a replacement for RELIABLE sources.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> the problem with wind and solar
> 
> is you cant kick em into overdrive when it counts
> 
> if wind and solar become our primary energy
> 
> get used to sitting in the dark with no heat or a/c on occasion
Click to expand...


That is never going to happen, way too much invested in fossil fuels like coal and oil. However once solar and wind start playing a bigger role they will be able to compensate for shortages in different regions. The south western states could become major renewable energy exporters to both the northern states and to Mexico.


----------



## RGR

Derideo_Te said:


> Natural gas refers to fossil fuel gas. You are talking about methane which is natural but is different to what RKM was alleging.



We want CH4 and we don't care where it comes from!! YEE HAH!!!


----------



## RGR

Old Rocks said:


> Actually, there are a number of scientists already trying to figure a way to harvest the clathrate methane. Unfortunetly, that does not look doable at present.



It has already been done. There was a presentation given at the 33rd Annual Oil Shale Symposium back in October, and there was a resource modeler from the EIA there. He was discussing those "future" types of resource of immense size, and his number of synthetic crude barrels capable of being produced from hydrates was some trillion barrels or more. And  it has been produced, by the Japanese. They sanded out the well, which was producing at the synthetic barrel equivalent of about 70 barrels a day at the time.

Deeper into the resource pyramid we go.oh yeahand then solar panels had better be REALLY cheap to beat that CH4 supply.



			
				Old Rocks said:
			
		

> But you are correct, we would be better off harvesting that methane and burning it than seeing go into the atmosphere. On a time scale of a decade, methane is over 100 times as effective greenhouse gas as CO2.



Bring on the combustion of hydrates and save mankind!! I like the idea, makes perfect sense. I won't uninstall my solar panels of course, but I'll burn hydrate CH4 to heat the house just as fast as other kinds of CH4. I do not discriminate in my use of CH4!! The perfect fuel for the future!


----------



## elektra

Feed-in tariffs are taxes, so your profit is a government mandated tax. Government taxes, rules and regulations, that is all Green Energy is. Government rules, mandates, and penalties is what is the Green Energy industry. A new form of government control over our lives, mandated by bureaucrats and politicians.

The graph presented showing growth is the exact same graph used to show billions of dollars of tax money and new government debt that finances said "industry". 

There is zero truth to the posts in this thread.

Further, Solar and Wind power are not Green industries, both are extremely polluting, as in the industry that manufactures, the solar and wind manufacturers use a disproportionately high amount of energy to create Solar Panels and Wind Turbines. Both also use massive amounts raw materials, to include oil, so the claim of both being green is actually the opposite of the truth. Hardly renewable when one accounts for the fossil fuels needed to sustain this government mandated industry.

Fact is nothing is more destructive to our planet than Solar panels and Wind turbines.

Sad are the people who blindly read an article and think they understand "Green Energy".


----------



## ScienceRocks

boy what a idiot.

Do you know what renewable means moron? Unlike coal, oil and natural gas that are likely to run out, renewables won't.

That is all that matters at the end of the day.

I do support nuclear for the baseload so I am not a leftist. I voted for Bush, McCain and Romney. The problem with most of the right is how short sighted you're.

You never consider the long run when that day comes.


----------



## Mr. H.

Matthew said:


> boy what a idiot.
> 
> Do you know what renewable means moron? Unlike coal, oil and natural gas that are likely to run out, renewables won't.
> 
> That is all that matters at the end of the day.
> 
> I do support nuclear for the baseload so I am not a leftist. I voted for Bush, McCain and Romney. The problem with most of the right is how short sighted you're.
> 
> You never consider the long run when that day comes.



Educate us on the "baseload" of renewables. Then tell us how "renewables" are designed, manufactured, and implemented with zero hydrocarbon input.


----------



## Mr. H.

Matthew the funky monkey.


----------



## elektra

Matthew said:


> boy what a idiot.
> 
> Do you know what renewable means moron? Unlike coal, oil and natural gas that are likely to run out, renewables won't.
> 
> That is all that matters at the end of the day.
> 
> I do support nuclear for the baseload so I am not a leftist. I voted for Bush, McCain and Romney. The problem with most of the right is how short sighted you're.
> 
> You never consider the long run when that day comes.



Yes I do, but just because you call a Wind Turbine Renewable does not make it renewable, it takes oil, natural gas to make a Wind Turbine. So how can you use Oil and Natural Gas at a greater rate to make a Wind Turbine or Solar Panel yet claim that Oil will run out but not Renewables. 

Solar Panels and Wind Turbines have a small life span, years, not decades, they constantly need replacing hence you will constantly use more oil to produce Renewables.

Kindly explain how it can be green or renewable when you constantly replace them with new "renewables".

Your government mandated industry is using natural resources at an increased rate and you are ignorant to this? You completely discount the impact?


----------



## ScienceRocks

If you're trying to compare the tiny amount of pollution solar makes to coal. Well, you better go see the damage of coal in china 

Not even of the same world...

Oil is just as bad as society seems to accept huge areas of devastation from it.(about 1/5th of the gulf of Mexico). It is quite amazing to behold a republican bitching about a little bit of pollution.


----------



## elektra

Matthew said:


> If you're trying to compare the tiny amount of pollution solar makes to coal. Well, you better go see the damage of coal in china
> 
> Not even of the same world...
> 
> Oil is just as bad as society seems to accept huge areas of devastation from it.



Coal use in China has increased dramatically, in part to support the incredible amounts of energy required to manufacture solar panels, so yes, I see the devastation in China caused by Solar panels. 

How about the toxic waste in China that the Solar Panel manufactures create, why do you ignore this or why are you ignorant to this major contributor to pollution.

Seems Matthew does not take into account the manufacture of Solar and Wind power components.


----------



## ScienceRocks

> The environmental impact of the coal industry includes the consideration of issues such as land use, waste management, and water, air pollution caused by the coal mining, processing and the use of its products. In addition to atmospheric pollution, coal burning produces hundreds of millions of tons of solid waste products annually, including fly ash,[1] bottom ash, and flue-gas desulfurization sludge, that contain mercury, uranium, thorium, arsenic, and other heavy metals.
> 
> There are severe health effects caused by burning coal.[2][3] According to the reports issued by the World Health Organization in 2008 and by environmental groups in 2004, coal particulates pollution are estimated to shorten approximately 1,000,000 lives annually worldwide, including nearly 24,000 lives a year in the United States.[4][5] Coal mining generates significant additional independent adverse environmental health impacts, among them the polluted water flowing from mountaintop removal mining.



https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Environmental_impact_of_the_coal_industry


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oil_spills


----------



## elektra

Again, Solar Panel production requires the use of energy from Coal in China, so your solution to manufacture more Solar Panels increases the use of Coal. 

Yes, Coal is dirty, so quit using Coal to make Solar Panels and Wind Turbines


----------



## ScienceRocks

*Easing concerns about pollution from manufacture of solar cells*

Feb 25, 2008 



> In a finding that could help ease concerns about the potential environmental impact of manufacturing solar cells, scientists report that the manufacture of solar cells produces far fewer air pollutants than conventional fossil fuel technologies. Their report, the first comprehensive study on the pollutants produced during the manufacture of solar cells, is scheduled for the March 15 issue of the ACS' Environmental Science & Technology.
> 
> 
> Solar energy has been touted for years as a safer, cleaner alternative to burning fossil fuels to meet rising energy demands.
> 
> However, environmentalists and others are increasingly concerned about the potential negative impact of solar cell (photovoltaic) technology. Manufacture of photovoltaic cells requires potentially toxic metals such as lead, mercury and cadmium and produces carbon dioxide, which contributes to global warming.
> 
> In the new study, Vasilis M. Fthenakis and colleagues gathered air pollution emissions data from 13 solar cell manufacturers in Europe and the United States from 2004-2006. The solar cells include four major commercial types: multicrystalline silicon, monocrystalline silicon, ribbon silicon, and thin-film cadmium telluride.
> 
> *The researchers found that producing electricity from solar cells reduces air pollutants by about 90 percent in comparison to using conventional fossil fuel technologies*.



Read more at: Easing concerns about pollution from manufacture of solar cells


----------



## ScienceRocks

elektra said:


> Again, Solar Panel production requires the use of energy from Coal in China, so your solution to manufacture more Solar Panels increases the use of Coal.
> 
> Yes, Coal is dirty, so quit using Coal to make Solar Panels and Wind Turbines



This we can agree on. Why don't they use renewable energy to make the solar panels.


----------



## elektra

Matthew said:


> elektra said:
> 
> 
> 
> Again, Solar Panel production requires the use of energy from Coal in China, so your solution to manufacture more Solar Panels increases the use of Coal.
> 
> Yes, Coal is dirty, so quit using Coal to make Solar Panels and Wind Turbines
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This we can agree on. Why don't they use renewable energy to make the solar panels.
Click to expand...


The simple answer is it requires a massive amount of energy to make a Solar Panel, a Solar plant or Wind Turbine plant can not produce that kind of energy.

Further it takes hydrocarbon chemicals to make Solar and Wind components. Solar and Wind technologies can not exist without Oil. The use Oil at an increased rate to produce Solar and Wind energy is extremely short sighted and wasteful

silicon tetrachloride, one toxic pollutant, a by-product of the not so Green Energy industry.


----------



## ScienceRocks

comparison.
Time to Step up the Comparisons: Solar and Wind vs. Coal and Oil

I believe relying on a finite source of energy is short sighted.


----------



## elektra

Matthew said:


> comparison.
> 
> 
> I believe relying on a finite source of energy is short sighted.



Which is exactly what Solar and Wind Power does, they rely on finite source of energy, Solar and Wind production requires massive amounts of a finite source of energy to manufacture Solar Panels and Wind Turbines, hardly renewable. Further the life span of Solar panel or Wind Turbine is a fraction of the life span of Fossil plants. So you will have to manufacture new Solar Panels and new Wind turbines more often, using more of a finite source of energy.

Of course Solar and Wind require finite things like Boron and Propene, so your idea that Solar or Wind can outlast the source that creates them is just ludicrous.


----------



## Lumpy 1

Matthew said:


> elektra said:
> 
> 
> 
> Again, Solar Panel production requires the use of energy from Coal in China, so your solution to manufacture more Solar Panels increases the use of Coal.
> 
> Yes, Coal is dirty, so quit using Coal to make Solar Panels and Wind Turbines
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This we can agree on. Why don't they use renewable energy to make the solar panels.
Click to expand...


Someday, if I'm ever in the mood I'll explain crystal growth and fabrication to you, I've done it for over 35 years. Although, silicon boules are on the low end of growth and fabrication, the rare earth elements, refining, carcinogens/chemicals, manufacturing costs ..etc. are far to much of a problem to be accomplished in the U.S.A. competitively anymore.

There are layers of thin film materials that appear promising for the future of solar though.

When and if that is successful government should get the heck out of the way, the time just hasn't arrived yet.


----------



## ScienceRocks

Yeah, leave it to the Chinese to pour the shit into rivers.

Thank god for regulations here in America


----------



## elektra

Matthew said:


> Yeah, leave it to the Chinese to pour the shit into rivers.
> 
> Thank god for regulations here in America



Yet we import Solar Panels and Wind Turbines, bypassing our own regulations and imposing the problem on others, seems dishonest to call it "Green Energy"


----------



## ScienceRocks

MYTH: Solar Energy Is "Dirty"
&#9726;Claiming that a "green future" would be "dirty," the Taxpayer Protection Alliance's Drew Johnson wrote in a Washington Examiner op-ed that "It turns out that it takes a lot of power (and a lot of carbon) to build solar panels and wind turbines." [Washington Examiner, 7/24/12]
&#9726;A Wall Street Journal editorial lent some credence to the claim that solar "really doesn't reduce greenhouse gas emissions" because the carbon savings from solar projects on desert land could be "negat[ed]" by disturbing caliche deposits that release carbon dioxide. [Wall Street Journal, 9/4/12]
&#9726;At the American Enterprise Institute's blog, Kenneth Green promoted a press release claiming that "Solar cells do not offset greenhouse gases" because solar cell production emits gases that "make carbon dioxide (CO2) seem harmless." [American Enterprise Institute, 1/23/13]

FACT: Solar Energy Can Greatly Reduce Pollution

Solar Energy Emits Much Fewer Greenhouse Gas Emissions Than Fossil Fuels. A special report by the International Panel on Climate Change's Working Group III examined hundreds of estimates of greenhouse gas emissions (including the potent but rare gases that AEI referred to), and compiled the results of the most thorough studies. This chart of their results shows that renewable and nuclear energy have a substantially lower impact than fossil fuels over the lifespan of each power source:



> Producing electricity with photovoltaics (PV) emits no pollution, produces no greenhouse gases, and uses no finite fossil fuel resources. The environmental benefits of PV are great. But just as we say that it takes money to make money, it also takes energy to save energy. The term "energy payback" captures this idea. How long does a PV system have to operate to recover the energy--and associated generation of pollution and CO2--that went into making the system, in the first place? Energy payback estimates for rooftop PV systems are 4, 3, 2, and 1 years: 4 years for systems using current multicrystalline-silicon PV modules, 3 years for current thin-film modules, 2 years for anticipated multicrystalline modules, and 1 year for anticipated thin-film modules[.] With energy paybacks of 1 to 4 years and assumed life expectancies of 30 years, 87% to 97% of the energy that PV systems generate won't be plagued by pollution, greenhouse gases, and depletion of resources.



NREL: 87 To 97 Percent Of Solar PV Power Will Create No Pollution. A report by the Department of Energy's National Renewable Energy Laboratory explained that producing electricity with a solar photovoltaic (PV) system produces no greenhouse gases, greatly offsetting emissions from construction:

http://www.usmessageboard.com/newreply.php?do=newreply&noquote=1&p=8219408

This answers some of the questions. For the rest I just have to thank god for our regulations  Anyone that dumps raw sewage into rivers should get fined big time.


----------



## ScienceRocks

Emissions from Photovoltaic Life Cycles
Vasilis M. Fthenakis,*&#8224;&#8225; Hyung Chul Kim,&#8224; and Erik Alsema§



> PV Environmental Research Center, Brookhaven National Laboratory, Upton, New York, Center for Life Cycle Analysis, Columbia University, New York, New York, and Copernicus Institute of Sustainable Development, Utrecht University, Heidelberglaan 2, 3584 CS Utrecht, The Netherlands
> 
> Received for review July 17, 2007
> 
> Revised manuscript received December 19, 2007
> 
> Accepted January 4, 2008
> Abstract:
> Photovoltaic (PV) technologies have shown remarkable progress recently in terms of annual production capacity and life cycle environmental performances, which necessitate timely updates of environmental indicators. Based on PV production data of 2004&#8211;2006, this study presents the life-cycle greenhouse gas emissions, criteria pollutant emissions, and heavy metal emissions from four types of major commercial PV systems: multicrystalline silicon, monocrystalline silicon, ribbon silicon, and thin-film cadmium telluride. Life-cycle emissions were determined by employing average electricity mixtures in Europe and the United States during the materials and module production for each PV system. Among the current vintage of PV technologies, thin-film cadmium telluride (CdTe) PV emits the least amount of harmful air emissions as it requires the least amount of energy during the module production. However, the differences in the emissions between different PV technologies are *very small in comparison to the emissions from conventional energy technologies that PV could displace. *As a part of prospective analysis, the effect of PV breeder was investigated. Overall, all PV technologies generate far less life-cycle air emissions per GWh than conventional fossil-fuel-based electricity generation technologies. At least 89% of air emissions associated with electricity generation could be prevented if electricity from photovoltaics displaces electricity from the grid.
> 
> 
> 3 GHG and Criteria Pollutant Emissions
> 
> 
> We estimate the emissions GHG, SO2, and NOx during the PV life cycles. Together with the heavy metal emissions assessed later in this paper, these emissions comprise the main hazards to the environment and human health from energy use and materials extraction during the PV life cycle. These emissions are normalized by the electricity generated during the life cycle of PV. The major parameters for the life cycle, i.e., lifetime electricity generation of a PV system, include conversion efficiency (E), solar insolation (I), performance ratio (PR), and lifetime (L). The total lifetime electricity generation (G) per m2 of PV module is calculated as follows: G = E × I × PR × L. We consistently use, for our own analysis, the Southern European average insolation of 1700 kWh/m2/yr, a performance ratio of 0.8, and a lifetime of 30 years.
> 
> Alsema and de Wild report that the GHG emissions of Si modules for the year 2004 are within the 30&#8211;45 g CO2-equiv/kWh range, with an EPBT of 1.7&#8211;2.7 years for a rooftop application under Southern European insolation of 1700 kWh/m2/yr and a performance ratio (PR) of 0.75 (8, 10). Their estimates are based on the electricity mixture for the current geographically specific production of Si (Figure 2, Case 1).



4 Heavy Metal Emissions




> We followed the direct and indirect (due to energy use) emissions of heavy metals (arsenic, cadmium, chromium, lead, mercury, and nickel) during the life cycles of the four PV technologies we studied. The CdTe PV can emit Cd both directly and indirectly whereas the crystalline Si PV stages would emit such only indirectly.
> 
> 4.1 Direct Cd Emissions
> Fthenakis (11) compiled the direct, atmospheric Cd emissions from the life cycle of CdTe PV modules based on 30 years of module lifetime, 9% efficiency, and the average U.S. insolation of 1800 kWh/m2/yr. The total direct emissions of cadmium during the mining, smelting, and purification of the element and the synthesis of CdTe are 0.015 g/GWh. *The total direct emissions of cadmium during module manufacturing are 0.004 g/GWh (11). Emissions during accidental releases (e.g., fires) are extremely small, if any.* Such emissions could add to the total of 0.02 g/GWh. The latter have been investigated experimentally with the aid of high-energy synchrotron X-ray microprobes (16). Cd emissions from the life cycle of CdTe modules (Table S3 in *the Supporting Information) are estimated to be 90&#8211;300 times lower than those from coal power plants*, which are 2&#8211;7 g Cd/GWh (17).
> 
> 4.2 Indirect Cd Emissions due to Electricity and Fuel Use
> We hereby accounted for Cd emissions in the generation of electricity used in producing a PV system. Electricity generation by fossil fuels creates heavy metal emissions as those are contained in coal and oil and a fraction is released in the atmosphere during combustion. The electricity demand for PV modules and BOS were investigated based on the life-cycle inventory of each module and the electricity input data for production of BOS materials. Then, Cd emissions from the electricity demand for each module were assigned, assuming that the life-cycle electricity for the silicon-and CdTe-PV modules are supplied by the UCTE grid.
> 
> Indirect Cd emissions include those from using fossil fuel, such as natural gas, heavy oil, and coal for providing heat and mechanical energy during materials processing, for climate control of the manufacturing plant, and for the transportation of materials and products throughout the life cycle of PV modules. The dominant sources of such indirect Cd emissions were found to be the use of coal during steel-making processes and the use of natural gas during glass-making processes. The cadmium emissions from natural gas use are indirect, from the boiler materials and from the electricity supply needed in the boiler, not from the burning of gas itself.
> 
> The complete life-cycle atmospheric Cd emissions were estimated by adding the Cd emissions from electricity and fuel demand associated with manufacturing and materials production for PV module and Balance of System (BOS). These are shown in Figure 3. *The results show that CdTe PV displacing other electricity technologies actually prevents a significant amount of Cd from being released to the air. *Every GWh electricity generated by CdTe PV module can prevent around 4 g of Cd air emissions if used instead of or as a supplement to the UCTE electricity grid. The direct emissions of Cd during the life cycle of *CdTe PV are 10 times lower than the indirect emissions due to the electricity and fuel use in the same life cycle, and about 30 times lower than those indirect emissions in the life cycle of crystalline photovoltaics. *




6 Discussion



> Using data compiled from the original records of twelve PV manufacturers, we quantified the emissions from the life cycle of four major commercial photovoltaic technologies and showed that they are insignificant in comparison to the emissions that they replace when introduced in average European and U.S. grids. According to our analysis, replacing grid electricity with central PV systems presents significant environmental benefits, which for CdTe PV amounts to 89&#8211;98% reductions of GHG emissions, criteria pollutants, heavy metals, and radioactive species. For roof-top dispersed installations, such pollution reductions are expected to be even greater as the loads on the transmission and distribution networks are reduced, and part of the emissions related to the life cycle of these networks are avoided. It is interesting that emissions of heavy metals are greatly reduced even for the types of PV technologies that make direct use of related compounds. For example the emissions of Cd from the life cycle of CdTe PV are 90&#8722;300 times lower than those from coal power plants with optimally functioning particulate control devices. In fact, life-cycle Cd emissions are even lower in CdTe PV than in crystalline Si PV, because the former use less energy in their life cycle than the later. In general, thin-film photovoltaics require less energy in their manufacturing than crystalline Si photovoltaics, and this translates to lower emissions of heavy metals, SOx, NOx, PM, and CO2. In any case, emissions from any type of PV system are expected to be lower than those from conventional energy systems because PV does not require fuel to operate. PV technologies provide the benefits of significantly curbing air emissions harmful to human and ecological health. It is noted that the environmental profiles of photovoltaics are further improving as efficiencies and material utilization rates increase and this kind of analysis needs to be updated periodically. Also, future very large penetrations of PV would alter the grid composition and this has to be accounted for in future analyses.


An Error Occurred Setting Your User Cookie


----------



## elektra

Matthew said:


> MYTH: Solar Energy Is "Dirty"
> &#9726;Claiming that a "green future" would be "dirty," the Taxpayer Protection Alliance's Drew Johnson wrote in a Washington Examiner op-ed that "It turns out that it takes a lot of power (and a lot of carbon) to build solar panels and wind turbines." [Washington Examiner, 7/24/12]
> &#9726;A Wall Street Journal editorial lent some credence to the claim that solar "really doesn't reduce greenhouse gas emissions" because the carbon savings from solar projects on desert land could be "negat[ed]" by disturbing caliche deposits that release carbon dioxide. [Wall Street Journal, 9/4/12]
> &#9726;At the American Enterprise Institute's blog, Kenneth Green promoted a press release claiming that "Solar cells do not offset greenhouse gases" because solar cell production emits gases that "make carbon dioxide (CO2) seem harmless." [American Enterprise Institute, 1/23/13]
> 
> FACT: Solar Energy Can Greatly Reduce Pollution
> 
> Solar Energy Emits Much Fewer Greenhouse Gas Emissions Than Fossil Fuels. A special report by the International Panel on Climate Change's Working Group III examined hundreds of estimates of greenhouse gas emissions (including the potent but rare gases that AEI referred to), and compiled the results of the most thorough studies. This chart of their results shows that renewable and nuclear energy have a substantially lower impact than fossil fuels over the lifespan of each power source:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Producing electricity with photovoltaics (PV) emits no pollution, produces no greenhouse gases, and uses no finite fossil fuel resources. The environmental benefits of PV are great. But just as we say that it takes money to make money, it also takes energy to save energy. The term "energy payback" captures this idea. How long does a PV system have to operate to recover the energy--and associated generation of pollution and CO2--that went into making the system, in the first place? Energy payback estimates for rooftop PV systems are 4, 3, 2, and 1 years: 4 years for systems using current multicrystalline-silicon PV modules, 3 years for current thin-film modules, 2 years for anticipated multicrystalline modules, and 1 year for anticipated thin-film modules[.] With energy paybacks of 1 to 4 years and assumed life expectancies of 30 years, 87% to 97% of the energy that PV systems generate won't be plagued by pollution, greenhouse gases, and depletion of resources.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NREL: 87 To 97 Percent Of Solar PV Power Will Create No Pollution. A report by the Department of Energy's National Renewable Energy Laboratory explained that producing electricity with a solar photovoltaic (PV) system produces no greenhouse gases, greatly offsetting emissions from construction:
> 
> 
> This answers some of the questions. For the rest I just have to thank god for our regulations  Anyone that dumps raw sewage into rivers should get fined big time.
Click to expand...


I do not see a link to the article. 

I can post articles as well, do a search on the internet and you can find hundreds of opinion disguised as fact supporting your position. What is more difficult is to actually post the reports and studies used in the articles, if you did this you would find the conclusion is much different than what you believe.

Articles are really a poor source for the argument you make, they just tell you what you want to believe.

The reality is Solar panel production is extremely polluting, more polluting than burning fossil fuel, especially when one considers a solar panel will only last 10 years at best then we will be required to burn more fossil fuel to produce the replacement solar panel. 

and what about cadmium waste?  

anyhow, I would like to see some real facts from studies instead of opinion or obfuscation that the articles promoting green energy present

and now I see that while I thought out this post you provided more information, thanks, now it get a bit more interesting


----------



## elektra

how about a link to the article?


----------



## elektra

Matthew said:


> Emissions from Photovoltaic Life Cycles
> Vasilis M. Fthenakis,* Hyung Chul Kim, and Erik Alsema§
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PV Environmental Research Center, Brookhaven National Laboratory, Upton, New York, Center for Life Cycle Analysis, Columbia University, New York, New York, and Copernicus Institute of Sustainable Development, Utrecht University, Heidelberglaan 2, 3584 CS Utrecht, The Netherlands
> 
> Received for review July 17, 2007
> 
> Revised manuscript received December 19, 2007
> 
> Accepted January 4, 2008
> Abstract:
> Photovoltaic (PV) technologies have shown remarkable progress recently in terms of annual production capacity and life cycle environmental performances, which necessitate timely updates of environmental indicators. Based on PV production data of 20042006, this study presents the life-cycle greenhouse gas emissions, criteria pollutant emissions, and heavy metal emissions from four types of major commercial PV systems: multicrystalline silicon, monocrystalline silicon, ribbon silicon, and thin-film cadmium telluride. Life-cycle emissions were determined by employing average electricity mixtures in Europe and the United States during the materials and module production for each PV system. Among the current vintage of PV technologies, thin-film cadmium telluride (CdTe) PV emits the least amount of harmful air emissions as it requires the least amount of energy during the module production. However, the differences in the emissions between different PV technologies are *very small in comparison to the emissions from conventional energy technologies that PV could displace. *As a part of prospective analysis, the effect of PV breeder was investigated. Overall, all PV technologies generate far less life-cycle air emissions per GWh than conventional fossil-fuel-based electricity generation technologies. At least 89% of air emissions associated with electricity generation could be prevented if electricity from photovoltaics displaces electricity from the grid.
> 
> 
> 3 GHG and Criteria Pollutant Emissions
> 
> 
> We estimate the emissions GHG, SO2, and NOx during the PV life cycles. Together with the heavy metal emissions assessed later in this paper, these emissions comprise the main hazards to the environment and human health from energy use and materials extraction during the PV life cycle. These emissions are normalized by the electricity generated during the life cycle of PV. The major parameters for the life cycle, i.e., lifetime electricity generation of a PV system, include conversion efficiency (E), solar insolation (I), performance ratio (PR), and lifetime (L). The total lifetime electricity generation (G) per m2 of PV module is calculated as follows: G = E × I × PR × L. We consistently use, for our own analysis, the Southern European average insolation of 1700 kWh/m2/yr, a performance ratio of 0.8, and a lifetime of 30 years.
> 
> Alsema and de Wild report that the GHG emissions of Si modules for the year 2004 are within the 3045 g CO2-equiv/kWh range, with an EPBT of 1.72.7 years for a rooftop application under Southern European insolation of 1700 kWh/m2/yr and a performance ratio (PR) of 0.75 (8, 10). Their estimates are based on the electricity mixture for the current geographically specific production of Si (Figure 2, Case 1).
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 4 Heavy Metal Emissions
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> We followed the direct and indirect (due to energy use) emissions of heavy metals (arsenic, cadmium, chromium, lead, mercury, and nickel) during the life cycles of the four PV technologies we studied. The CdTe PV can emit Cd both directly and indirectly whereas the crystalline Si PV stages would emit such only indirectly.
> 
> 4.1 Direct Cd Emissions
> Fthenakis (11) compiled the direct, atmospheric Cd emissions from the life cycle of CdTe PV modules based on 30 years of module lifetime, 9% efficiency, and the average U.S. insolation of 1800 kWh/m2/yr. The total direct emissions of cadmium during the mining, smelting, and purification of the element and the synthesis of CdTe are 0.015 g/GWh. *The total direct emissions of cadmium during module manufacturing are 0.004 g/GWh (11). Emissions during accidental releases (e.g., fires) are extremely small, if any.* Such emissions could add to the total of 0.02 g/GWh. The latter have been investigated experimentally with the aid of high-energy synchrotron X-ray microprobes (16). Cd emissions from the life cycle of CdTe modules (Table S3 in *the Supporting Information) are estimated to be 90300 times lower than those from coal power plants*, which are 27 g Cd/GWh (17).
> 
> 4.2 Indirect Cd Emissions due to Electricity and Fuel Use
> We hereby accounted for Cd emissions in the generation of electricity used in producing a PV system. Electricity generation by fossil fuels creates heavy metal emissions as those are contained in coal and oil and a fraction is released in the atmosphere during combustion. The electricity demand for PV modules and BOS were investigated based on the life-cycle inventory of each module and the electricity input data for production of BOS materials. Then, Cd emissions from the electricity demand for each module were assigned, assuming that the life-cycle electricity for the silicon-and CdTe-PV modules are supplied by the UCTE grid.
> 
> Indirect Cd emissions include those from using fossil fuel, such as natural gas, heavy oil, and coal for providing heat and mechanical energy during materials processing, for climate control of the manufacturing plant, and for the transportation of materials and products throughout the life cycle of PV modules. The dominant sources of such indirect Cd emissions were found to be the use of coal during steel-making processes and the use of natural gas during glass-making processes. The cadmium emissions from natural gas use are indirect, from the boiler materials and from the electricity supply needed in the boiler, not from the burning of gas itself.
> 
> The complete life-cycle atmospheric Cd emissions were estimated by adding the Cd emissions from electricity and fuel demand associated with manufacturing and materials production for PV module and Balance of System (BOS). These are shown in Figure 3. *The results show that CdTe PV displacing other electricity technologies actually prevents a significant amount of Cd from being released to the air. *Every GWh electricity generated by CdTe PV module can prevent around 4 g of Cd air emissions if used instead of or as a supplement to the UCTE electricity grid. The direct emissions of Cd during the life cycle of *CdTe PV are 10 times lower than the indirect emissions due to the electricity and fuel use in the same life cycle, and about 30 times lower than those indirect emissions in the life cycle of crystalline photovoltaics. *
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 6 Discussion
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Using data compiled from the original records of twelve PV manufacturers, we quantified the emissions from the life cycle of four major commercial photovoltaic technologies and showed that they are insignificant in comparison to the emissions that they replace when introduced in average European and U.S. grids. According to our analysis, replacing grid electricity with central PV systems presents significant environmental benefits, which for CdTe PV amounts to 8998% reductions of GHG emissions, criteria pollutants, heavy metals, and radioactive species. For roof-top dispersed installations, such pollution reductions are expected to be even greater as the loads on the transmission and distribution networks are reduced, and part of the emissions related to the life cycle of these networks are avoided. It is interesting that emissions of heavy metals are greatly reduced even for the types of PV technologies that make direct use of related compounds. For example the emissions of Cd from the life cycle of CdTe PV are 90&#8722;300 times lower than those from coal power plants with optimally functioning particulate control devices. In fact, life-cycle Cd emissions are even lower in CdTe PV than in crystalline Si PV, because the former use less energy in their life cycle than the later. In general, thin-film photovoltaics require less energy in their manufacturing than crystalline Si photovoltaics, and this translates to lower emissions of heavy metals, SOx, NOx, PM, and CO2. In any case, emissions from any type of PV system are expected to be lower than those from conventional energy systems because PV does not require fuel to operate. PV technologies provide the benefits of significantly curbing air emissions harmful to human and ecological health. It is noted that the environmental profiles of photovoltaics are further improving as efficiencies and material utilization rates increase and this kind of analysis needs to be updated periodically. Also, future very large penetrations of PV would alter the grid composition and this has to be accounted for in future analyses.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> An Error Occurred Setting Your User Cookie
Click to expand...


Your "article is not addressing the transportation of the hazardous waste to its disposal sties, it also does not tell us how many tons of waste is being created. The article also does not address the disposal of the Solar Panels after the end of their ten year life span.


----------



## Lumpy 1

Matthew said:


> Yeah, leave it to the Chinese to pour the shit into rivers.
> 
> Thank god for regulations here in America



To a point, yes indeed..but overkill has moved manufacturing overseas.

Beijing..a beautiful place

Beijing announces emergency measures amid fog of pollution - CNN.com


----------



## ScienceRocks

*How toxic are solar panels?*



> Concerns have been expressed recently about pollution from solar panels both during the manufacturing process and when they reach the end of their usable lives.
> 
> The manufacture of panels frequently involves toxic heavy metals such as cadmium, lead and mercury as well as producing CO2. However, a recent study found that due to the heavy metal content of fossil fuels, if we were to switch entirely from fossil to solar, overall there would still be a 90% reduction of pollution released into the atmosphere.* A recently developed panel, based on cadmium telluride, produces 300x less emissions in its manufacture when directly compared to coal power plants according to Vasilis Fthenakis, from Brookhaven National Laboratory, USA.*
> 
> Another issue discussed in solar panel manufacture is by-products such as hydrochloric acid. In factories in Europe and America all by-products are recycled. *In countries such as China, where there are not so many rules, problems have been reported with toxic waste. *These troubles are a symptom of economic corner-cutting and by no means isolated to the solar industry. A simple remedy to ensure solar panel manufacture with minimal pollution, is for companies to only accept sources of materials where there are stringent standards in place, thus placing economic pressure on factories to develop effective waste management.
> 
> A further concern is the safe disposal of panels containing toxic material at the end of their useful lives. However, the risk of pollution is far lower than that caused by household electrical goods due to the fact that solar panels are removed by trained professionals. A solar panel is effective for over 20 years, so adequate recycling facilities can be developed to meet the increasing demand. With disposal now more important, recycling technology can now be developed alongside solar technology so that sustainability can be guaranteed from the outset.



Sources:

Study: Solar Power 'Green' Despite Toxic Materials | Fox News

Solar Panel Toxic Manufacturing Byproducts, Product Disposal Needs Greater Oversight, Report Urges : TreeHugger

HYDROCHLORIC ACID - National Library of Medicine ITER Database

Solar Energy Firms Leave Waste Behind in China

Europe greenlights 'toxic' solar panel components - 25 Nov 2010 - News from BusinessGreen

Solar panels to become future source of toxic e-waste

How toxic are solar PV panels? | Sunhive


----------



## ScienceRocks

The link is a science paper and it is below the information I posted. It just doesn't show up as 

ttp://pubs.acs.org/doi/full/10.1021/es071763q


----------



## ScienceRocks

Lumpy 1 said:


> Matthew said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah, leave it to the Chinese to pour the shit into rivers.
> 
> Thank god for regulations here in America
> 
> 
> 
> 
> To a point, yes indeed..but overkill has moved manufacturing overseas.
> 
> Beijing..a beautiful place
> 
> Beijing announces emergency measures amid fog of pollution - CNN.com
Click to expand...


That is from burning coal. 
5 years off the avg life span
Cancer rates through the roof. 

This is what happens when you don't have regulations.


----------



## ScienceRocks

It was a peer reviewed paper.

Coal, natural gas and oil are 100 times worse. You defend those to the death.


----------



## elektra

Matthew said:


> Emissions from Photovoltaic Life Cycles
> Vasilis M. Fthenakis,* Hyung Chul Kim, and Erik Alsema§
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PV Environmental Research Center, Brookhaven National Laboratory, Upton, New York, Center for Life Cycle Analysis, Columbia University, New York, New York, and Copernicus Institute of Sustainable Development, Utrecht University, Heidelberglaan 2, 3584 CS Utrecht, The Netherlands
> 
> Received for review July 17, 2007
> 
> Revised manuscript received December 19, 2007
> 
> Accepted January 4, 2008
> Abstract:
> Photovoltaic (PV) technologies have shown remarkable progress recently in terms of annual production capacity and life cycle environmental performances, which necessitate timely updates of environmental indicators. Based on PV production data of 20042006, this study presents the life-cycle greenhouse gas emissions, criteria pollutant emissions, and heavy metal emissions from four types of major commercial PV systems: multicrystalline silicon, monocrystalline silicon, ribbon silicon, and thin-film cadmium telluride. Life-cycle emissions were determined by employing average electricity mixtures in Europe and the United States during the materials and module production for each PV system. Among the current vintage of PV technologies, thin-film cadmium telluride (CdTe) PV emits the least amount of harmful air emissions as it requires the least amount of energy during the module production. However, the differences in the emissions between different PV technologies are *very small in comparison to the emissions from conventional energy technologies that PV could displace. *As a part of prospective analysis, the effect of PV breeder was investigated. Overall, all PV technologies generate far less life-cycle air emissions per GWh than conventional fossil-fuel-based electricity generation technologies. At least 89% of air emissions associated with electricity generation could be prevented if electricity from photovoltaics displaces electricity from the grid.
> 
> 
> 3 GHG and Criteria Pollutant Emissions
> 
> 
> We estimate the emissions GHG, SO2, and NOx during the PV life cycles. Together with the heavy metal emissions assessed later in this paper, these emissions comprise the main hazards to the environment and human health from energy use and materials extraction during the PV life cycle. These emissions are normalized by the electricity generated during the life cycle of PV. The major parameters for the life cycle, i.e., lifetime electricity generation of a PV system, include conversion efficiency (E), solar insolation (I), performance ratio (PR), and lifetime (L). The total lifetime electricity generation (G) per m2 of PV module is calculated as follows: G = E × I × PR × L. We consistently use, for our own analysis, the Southern European average insolation of 1700 kWh/m2/yr, a performance ratio of 0.8, and a lifetime of 30 years.
> 
> Alsema and de Wild report that the GHG emissions of Si modules for the year 2004 are within the 3045 g CO2-equiv/kWh range, with an EPBT of 1.72.7 years for a rooftop application under Southern European insolation of 1700 kWh/m2/yr and a performance ratio (PR) of 0.75 (8, 10). Their estimates are based on the electricity mixture for the current geographically specific production of Si (Figure 2, Case 1).
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 4 Heavy Metal Emissions
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> We followed the direct and indirect (due to energy use) emissions of heavy metals (arsenic, cadmium, chromium, lead, mercury, and nickel) during the life cycles of the four PV technologies we studied. The CdTe PV can emit Cd both directly and indirectly whereas the crystalline Si PV stages would emit such only indirectly.
> 
> 4.1 Direct Cd Emissions
> Fthenakis (11) compiled the direct, atmospheric Cd emissions from the life cycle of CdTe PV modules based on 30 years of module lifetime, 9% efficiency, and the average U.S. insolation of 1800 kWh/m2/yr. The total direct emissions of cadmium during the mining, smelting, and purification of the element and the synthesis of CdTe are 0.015 g/GWh. *The total direct emissions of cadmium during module manufacturing are 0.004 g/GWh (11). Emissions during accidental releases (e.g., fires) are extremely small, if any.* Such emissions could add to the total of 0.02 g/GWh. The latter have been investigated experimentally with the aid of high-energy synchrotron X-ray microprobes (16). Cd emissions from the life cycle of CdTe modules (Table S3 in *the Supporting Information) are estimated to be 90300 times lower than those from coal power plants*, which are 27 g Cd/GWh (17).
> 
> 4.2 Indirect Cd Emissions due to Electricity and Fuel Use
> We hereby accounted for Cd emissions in the generation of electricity used in producing a PV system. Electricity generation by fossil fuels creates heavy metal emissions as those are contained in coal and oil and a fraction is released in the atmosphere during combustion. The electricity demand for PV modules and BOS were investigated based on the life-cycle inventory of each module and the electricity input data for production of BOS materials. Then, Cd emissions from the electricity demand for each module were assigned, assuming that the life-cycle electricity for the silicon-and CdTe-PV modules are supplied by the UCTE grid.
> 
> Indirect Cd emissions include those from using fossil fuel, such as natural gas, heavy oil, and coal for providing heat and mechanical energy during materials processing, for climate control of the manufacturing plant, and for the transportation of materials and products throughout the life cycle of PV modules. The dominant sources of such indirect Cd emissions were found to be the use of coal during steel-making processes and the use of natural gas during glass-making processes. The cadmium emissions from natural gas use are indirect, from the boiler materials and from the electricity supply needed in the boiler, not from the burning of gas itself.
> 
> The complete life-cycle atmospheric Cd emissions were estimated by adding the Cd emissions from electricity and fuel demand associated with manufacturing and materials production for PV module and Balance of System (BOS). These are shown in Figure 3. *The results show that CdTe PV displacing other electricity technologies actually prevents a significant amount of Cd from being released to the air. *Every GWh electricity generated by CdTe PV module can prevent around 4 g of Cd air emissions if used instead of or as a supplement to the UCTE electricity grid. The direct emissions of Cd during the life cycle of *CdTe PV are 10 times lower than the indirect emissions due to the electricity and fuel use in the same life cycle, and about 30 times lower than those indirect emissions in the life cycle of crystalline photovoltaics. *
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 6 Discussion
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Using data compiled from the original records of twelve PV manufacturers, we quantified the emissions from the life cycle of four major commercial photovoltaic technologies and showed that they are insignificant in comparison to the emissions that they replace when introduced in average European and U.S. grids. According to our analysis, replacing grid electricity with central PV systems presents significant environmental benefits, which for CdTe PV amounts to 8998% reductions of GHG emissions, criteria pollutants, heavy metals, and radioactive species. For roof-top dispersed installations, such pollution reductions are expected to be even greater as the loads on the transmission and distribution networks are reduced, and part of the emissions related to the life cycle of these networks are avoided. It is interesting that emissions of heavy metals are greatly reduced even for the types of PV technologies that make direct use of related compounds. For example the emissions of Cd from the life cycle of CdTe PV are 90&#8722;300 times lower than those from coal power plants with optimally functioning particulate control devices. In fact, life-cycle Cd emissions are even lower in CdTe PV than in crystalline Si PV, because the former use less energy in their life cycle than the later. In general, thin-film photovoltaics require less energy in their manufacturing than crystalline Si photovoltaics, and this translates to lower emissions of heavy metals, SOx, NOx, PM, and CO2. In any case, emissions from any type of PV system are expected to be lower than those from conventional energy systems because PV does not require fuel to operate. PV technologies provide the benefits of significantly curbing air emissions harmful to human and ecological health. It is noted that the environmental profiles of photovoltaics are further improving as efficiencies and material utilization rates increase and this kind of analysis needs to be updated periodically. Also, future very large penetrations of PV would alter the grid composition and this has to be accounted for in future analyses.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> An Error Occurred Setting Your User Cookie
Click to expand...


These articles are at best, inaccurate, first and foremost they assume that the solar panels last 20-30 years, which is reality, in practice, they do not, further all the calculations are based on "installed capacity", not on actual power produced, take this into consideration and the dirty fact is that Solar Panels are an extreme source of pollution during the manufacture of the panel. 

Some panels in the field have lasted less than 2 years, the study is based on the classroom, not the reality.


----------



## westwall

Matthew said:


> You say that without a clue of what you're talking with. People make a profit off of solar all the time.








Only because they get given OTHER PEOPLES MONEY.  Wake the fuck up.  Your ignorance is getting annoying.


----------



## westwall

Matthew said:


> Renewables you support-solar or wind. I support both








I support neither because neither is scalable.  Wind power is simply a migratory bird killer so that one is a non starter.  I have a solar system and it is fine in event of a disaster but without grid power life would be tough.  I also have a water wheel and that is far more reliable.

The renewables I support are geothermal and hydrothermal.  Both scalable, and both efficient.  Unlike those you champion.


----------



## ScienceRocks

Easing Concerns About Pollution From Manufacture Of Solar Cells

*Easing Concerns About Pollution From Manufacture Of Solar Cells*




> Feb. 26, 2008  In a finding that could help ease concerns about the potential environmental impact of manufacturing solar cells, scientists report that the manufacture of solar cells produces far fewer air pollutants than conventional fossil fuel technologies. Their report is the first comprehensive study on the pollutants produced during the manufacture of solar cells.



here is another source to that paper.


----------



## ScienceRocks

Let's say for a second that the pollution within the manufacturing process was as bad as coal!(It's not) BUT to be fair you have to consider that once you're powering your home with solar that it doesn't put out pollution at that level over time(emissions x time)  = less pollution then that of a coal plant doing the same job.

You also have to consider that solar is a infite resource that will be around for the next few billion years. Solar isn't perfect but will be around when coal is all gone and we will be better for it.


----------



## ScienceRocks

I have no problem with nuclear, hydrothermal, geothermal...All good idea's.


----------



## elektra

Solar Panels cost is expensive, much more expensive than coal, why is that, the simple answer is because it takes much more energy and raw materials to produce Solar Panels. Using more money means it produces more waste, more pollution, its a simple fact that all the "studies" in the world can not eliminate. 

Solar Panel Production must use energy produced from Coal and Fossil fuels, its a fact. Making Solar Panels increases fossil fuel use, period. Solar Panel production does not decrease fossil energy use. Somehow we must believe that using more fossil fuel somehow results in less pollution. 

I do not care how many articles you cut and paste, they are all based on the same studies, hence the same opinion is repeated over and over. look at the source in the articles, its all the same. You act like your finding proof and facts when you just regurgitate the same propaganda.

Solar Panels take more money, more fossil energy to produce, hence the fact that they are creating more pollution. 

Consider all these articles are based on "installed capacity", not actual power output, and the truth is the articles are extremely misleading.


----------



## elektra

Matthew said:


> Let's say for a second that the pollution within the manufacturing process was as bad as coal!(It's not) BUT to be fair you have to consider that once you're powering your home with solar that it doesn't put out pollution at that level over time(emissions x time)  = less pollution then that of a coal plant doing the same job.
> 
> You also have to consider that solar is a infite resource that will be around for the next few billion years. Solar isn't perfect but will be around when coal is all gone and we will be better for it.



Solar Panels are manufactured from a finite fossil fuel, hence your being extremely misleading. Once fossil fuel is gone, it will be impossible to make Solar Panels as well as impossible to maintain the installed Solar Panels.

Simple facts must be ignored to "Believe" in Green Energy.


----------



## ScienceRocks

So lets say the panels only last two years. What mind blowing amazing amount of energy it must take to make these things IF they really do require the same amount of energy as 2 years of running your home on coal. Jesus.


----------



## ScienceRocks

elektra said:


> Matthew said:
> 
> 
> 
> Let's say for a second that the pollution within the manufacturing process was as bad as coal!(It's not) BUT to be fair you have to consider that once you're powering your home with solar that it doesn't put out pollution at that level over time(emissions x time)  = less pollution then that of a coal plant doing the same job.
> 
> You also have to consider that solar is a infite resource that will be around for the next few billion years. Solar isn't perfect but will be around when coal is all gone and we will be better for it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Solar Panels are manufactured from a finite fossil fuel, hence your being extremely misleading. Once fossil fuel is gone, it will be impossible to make Solar Panels as well as impossible to maintain the installed Solar Panels.
> 
> Simple facts must be ignored to "Believe" in Green Energy.
Click to expand...


And what would you use to power civilization when that day comes?


----------



## elektra

Matthew said:


> elektra said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Matthew said:
> 
> 
> 
> Let's say for a second that the pollution within the manufacturing process was as bad as coal!(It's not) BUT to be fair you have to consider that once you're powering your home with solar that it doesn't put out pollution at that level over time(emissions x time)  = less pollution then that of a coal plant doing the same job.
> 
> You also have to consider that solar is a infite resource that will be around for the next few billion years. Solar isn't perfect but will be around when coal is all gone and we will be better for it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Solar Panels are manufactured from a finite fossil fuel, hence your being extremely misleading. Once fossil fuel is gone, it will be impossible to make Solar Panels as well as impossible to maintain the installed Solar Panels.
> 
> Simple facts must be ignored to "Believe" in Green Energy.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And what would you use to power civilization when that day comes?
Click to expand...


When that day comes, the day Petroleum is gone, I will be long gone, chances are the human race will be long gone before Petroleum is gone. 

That day is 1000's of years in the future. So your question is kind of nonsense. 

A better question is why do you advocate using Fossil Fuel at an alarming rate to manufacture Solar Panels with a short, finite, life?


----------



## Old Rocks

elektra said:


> Matthew said:
> 
> 
> 
> Emissions from Photovoltaic Life Cycles
> Vasilis M. Fthenakis,* Hyung Chul Kim, and Erik Alsema§
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PV Environmental Research Center, Brookhaven National Laboratory, Upton, New York, Center for Life Cycle Analysis, Columbia University, New York, New York, and Copernicus Institute of Sustainable Development, Utrecht University, Heidelberglaan 2, 3584 CS Utrecht, The Netherlands
> 
> Received for review July 17, 2007
> 
> Revised manuscript received December 19, 2007
> 
> Accepted January 4, 2008
> Abstract:
> Photovoltaic (PV) technologies have shown remarkable progress recently in terms of annual production capacity and life cycle environmental performances, which necessitate timely updates of environmental indicators. Based on PV production data of 20042006, this study presents the life-cycle greenhouse gas emissions, criteria pollutant emissions, and heavy metal emissions from four types of major commercial PV systems: multicrystalline silicon, monocrystalline silicon, ribbon silicon, and thin-film cadmium telluride. Life-cycle emissions were determined by employing average electricity mixtures in Europe and the United States during the materials and module production for each PV system. Among the current vintage of PV technologies, thin-film cadmium telluride (CdTe) PV emits the least amount of harmful air emissions as it requires the least amount of energy during the module production. However, the differences in the emissions between different PV technologies are *very small in comparison to the emissions from conventional energy technologies that PV could displace. *As a part of prospective analysis, the effect of PV breeder was investigated. Overall, all PV technologies generate far less life-cycle air emissions per GWh than conventional fossil-fuel-based electricity generation technologies. At least 89% of air emissions associated with electricity generation could be prevented if electricity from photovoltaics displaces electricity from the grid.
> 
> 
> 3 GHG and Criteria Pollutant Emissions
> 
> 
> We estimate the emissions GHG, SO2, and NOx during the PV life cycles. Together with the heavy metal emissions assessed later in this paper, these emissions comprise the main hazards to the environment and human health from energy use and materials extraction during the PV life cycle. These emissions are normalized by the electricity generated during the life cycle of PV. The major parameters for the life cycle, i.e., lifetime electricity generation of a PV system, include conversion efficiency (E), solar insolation (I), performance ratio (PR), and lifetime (L). The total lifetime electricity generation (G) per m2 of PV module is calculated as follows: G = E × I × PR × L. We consistently use, for our own analysis, the Southern European average insolation of 1700 kWh/m2/yr, a performance ratio of 0.8, and a lifetime of 30 years.
> 
> Alsema and de Wild report that the GHG emissions of Si modules for the year 2004 are within the 3045 g CO2-equiv/kWh range, with an EPBT of 1.72.7 years for a rooftop application under Southern European insolation of 1700 kWh/m2/yr and a performance ratio (PR) of 0.75 (8, 10). Their estimates are based on the electricity mixture for the current geographically specific production of Si (Figure 2, Case 1).
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 4 Heavy Metal Emissions
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 6 Discussion
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Using data compiled from the original records of twelve PV manufacturers, we quantified the emissions from the life cycle of four major commercial photovoltaic technologies and showed that they are insignificant in comparison to the emissions that they replace when introduced in average European and U.S. grids. According to our analysis, replacing grid electricity with central PV systems presents significant environmental benefits, which for CdTe PV amounts to 8998% reductions of GHG emissions, criteria pollutants, heavy metals, and radioactive species. For roof-top dispersed installations, such pollution reductions are expected to be even greater as the loads on the transmission and distribution networks are reduced, and part of the emissions related to the life cycle of these networks are avoided. It is interesting that emissions of heavy metals are greatly reduced even for the types of PV technologies that make direct use of related compounds. For example the emissions of Cd from the life cycle of CdTe PV are 90&#8722;300 times lower than those from coal power plants with optimally functioning particulate control devices. In fact, life-cycle Cd emissions are even lower in CdTe PV than in crystalline Si PV, because the former use less energy in their life cycle than the later. In general, thin-film photovoltaics require less energy in their manufacturing than crystalline Si photovoltaics, and this translates to lower emissions of heavy metals, SOx, NOx, PM, and CO2. In any case, emissions from any type of PV system are expected to be lower than those from conventional energy systems because PV does not require fuel to operate. PV technologies provide the benefits of significantly curbing air emissions harmful to human and ecological health. It is noted that the environmental profiles of photovoltaics are further improving as efficiencies and material utilization rates increase and this kind of analysis needs to be updated periodically. Also, future very large penetrations of PV would alter the grid composition and this has to be accounted for in future analyses.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> An Error Occurred Setting Your User Cookie
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> These articles are at best, inaccurate, first and foremost they assume that the solar panels last 20-30 years, which is reality, in practice, they do not, further all the calculations are based on "installed capacity", not on actual power produced, take this into consideration and the dirty fact is that Solar Panels are an extreme source of pollution during the manufacture of the panel.
> 
> Some panels in the field have lasted less than 2 years, the study is based on the classroom, not the reality.
Click to expand...


10 Things to Know Before Going Solar - Solar Energy

8. How Long do Solar Panels Last

Generally speaking, a solar panel will last 30 years or more and lose some ½ percent (0.5%) conversion efficiency annually. Hosing the panels off a few times during the summer and keeping leaves off them in the fall is about the only maintenance required.


----------



## Old Rocks

How long do roof solar panels last? - Yahoo Answers

All thick film panels I've seen are either warrantied for 20 or 25 years. 

However, there are no moving parts and so the only failure mechanisms that could come into play to cause them to fail would be physical damage or some sort of electro-migration effect. The electro-migration effect might take 100s of years to cause a problem. 

However, by 20 or 25 years from now, there will have been advancements that would make a current generation panel the equivalent of an Edsel anyway. So I would expect that you would want to replace them even if they had not failed. 

There is no "regular maintenance" required of a solar panel. (I don't considing brushing leaves or dust off the panels to be maintenance, in the sense that you need to change oil in your car, for example). Most inverters will have a coling fan and some sort of filter, which will probably require cleaning if not change occassionally. 

I did a little more looking at what causes degradation in solar panels, since I know the cell itself should not degrade. This is what I found: Renewable Energy & Efficiency Technologies | Home Power Magazine... 

PV warranties typically allow for 20 percent output degradation over the module&#8217;s 20- to 25-year warranty life. But measurements of many modules put into service in the 1980s show that it&#8217;s unusual to see even half that much degradation. Many of those earliest modules still perform to their original specifications. It is safe to say that modules carrying warranties of 20 years or more have a high probability of working well 30 years from now


----------



## Old Rocks

Solar is Future: How long will my photovoltaic system last?

How long will my photovoltaic system last?
Because solar systems have no moving parts, they very reliable and require little maintenance.
Solar modules come with a manufacturer&#8217;s warranty for a lifecycle of between 20 and 25 years. Depending on the quality, the installation can last up to 30 years. PV modules typically don&#8217;t &#8220;die&#8221; when they get old; rather their output begins to diminish. For example, after about 20 years, the output drops to about 80% of nominal. Modern inverters have a useful life of up to 20 years, with manufacturers now offering warranties of between five and ten years.


----------



## Old Rocks

30 year old PV still performing well;

Testing a Thirty-Year-Old Photovoltaic Module | GreenBuildingAdvisor.com


----------



## mudwhistle

Matthew said:


> Renewables you support-solar or wind. I support both



Neither.

Wind power kills eagles so I don't support that, and the Sun contributes to Global Warming so I can't support that. 

Anything that kills, causes head injuries, or raises the temperature of the Earth a fraction of a degree should be banned.


----------



## ScienceRocks

Ban coal, natural gas and oil for energy use....


This is the only thing that make sense.


----------



## ScienceRocks

mudwhistle said:


> Matthew said:
> 
> 
> 
> Renewables you support-solar or wind. I support both
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Neither.
> 
> Wind power kills eagles so I don't support that, and the Sun contributes to Global Warming so I can't support that.
> 
> Anything that kills, causes head injuries, or raises the temperature of the Earth a fraction of a degree should be banned.
Click to expand...


Coal, natural gas and oil kill a lot of a lot more


----------



## elektra

Old Rocks said:


> How long do roof solar panels last? - Yahoo Answers
> 
> All thick film panels I've seen are either warrantied for 20 or 25 years.
> 
> However, there are no moving parts and so the only failure mechanisms that could come into play to cause them to fail would be physical damage or some sort of electro-migration effect. The electro-migration effect might take 100s of years to cause a problem.
> 
> However, by 20 or 25 years from now, there will have been advancements that would make a current generation panel the equivalent of an Edsel anyway. So I would expect that you would want to replace them even if they had not failed.
> 
> There is no "regular maintenance" required of a solar panel. (I don't considing brushing leaves or dust off the panels to be maintenance, in the sense that you need to change oil in your car, for example). Most inverters will have a coling fan and some sort of filter, which will probably require cleaning if not change occassionally.
> 
> I did a little more looking at what causes degradation in solar panels, since I know the cell itself should not degrade. This is what I found: Renewable Energy & Efficiency Technologies | Home Power Magazine...
> 
> PV warranties typically allow for 20 percent output degradation over the modules 20- to 25-year warranty life. But measurements of many modules put into service in the 1980s show that its unusual to see even half that much degradation. Many of those earliest modules still perform to their original specifications. It is safe to say that modules carrying warranties of 20 years or more have a high probability of working well 30 years from now



http://www.nytimes.com/2013/05/29/business/energy-environment/solar-powers-dark-side.html



> LOS ANGELES  The solar panels covering a vast warehouse roof in the sun-soaked Inland Empire region east of Los Angeles were only two years into their expected 25-year life span when they began to fail.
> Related
> 
> 
> Coatings that protect the panels disintegrated while other defects caused two fires that took the system offline for two years, costing hundreds of thousands of dollars in lost revenues.
> 
> It was not an isolated incident. Worldwide, testing labs, developers, financiers and insurers are reporting similar problems and say the $77 billion solar industry is facing a quality crisis just as solar panels are on the verge of widespread adoption.



Old Rock, you are wrong.


----------



## elektra

Matthew said:


> mudwhistle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Matthew said:
> 
> 
> 
> Renewables you support-solar or wind. I support both
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Neither.
> 
> Wind power kills eagles so I don't support that, and the Sun contributes to Global Warming so I can't support that.
> 
> Anything that kills, causes head injuries, or raises the temperature of the Earth a fraction of a degree should be banned.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Coal, natural gas and oil kill a lot of a lot more
Click to expand...


So why do you advocate increasing production and use of Coal, Natural Gas and Oil to produce Solar Panels? An increase in using Oil to produce Solar Panels is an increase in all the negative effects of oil, which is now a direct cause of the Solar industries use of the Fossil Fuel they are supposedly able to replace.

Complete nonsense while ignoring facts


----------



## elektra

Matthew said:


> Ban coal, natural gas and oil for energy use....
> 
> 
> This is the only thing that make sense.



Banning Coal, Natural Gas and Oil for energy use means you will have no Hydrogen to make Solar Panels.

Hydrogen gas is a precursor gas used in CVD reactors. Can not get around that fact. 

So your proposal kills the manufacture of Solar Panels. 

Too funny, I have to bite my tongue.


----------



## HelenaHandbag

Matthew said:


> Ban coal, natural gas and oil for energy use....
> 
> 
> This is the only thing that make sense.


Ever made coke for steel, which is essential for building those windmills, without coal?


----------



## kwc57

I'm waiting for my own personal Stark Industries arc reactor.


----------



## ScienceRocks

Old Rocks said:


> How long do roof solar panels last? - Yahoo Answers
> 
> All thick film panels I've seen are either warrantied for 20 or 25 years.
> 
> However, there are no moving parts and so the only failure mechanisms that could come into play to cause them to fail would be physical damage or some sort of electro-migration effect. The electro-migration effect might take 100s of years to cause a problem.
> 
> However, by 20 or 25 years from now, there will have been advancements that would make a current generation panel the equivalent of an Edsel anyway. So I would expect that you would want to replace them even if they had not failed.
> 
> There is no "regular maintenance" required of a solar panel. (I don't considing brushing leaves or dust off the panels to be maintenance, in the sense that you need to change oil in your car, for example). Most inverters will have a coling fan and some sort of filter, which will probably require cleaning if not change occassionally.
> 
> I did a little more looking at what causes degradation in solar panels, since I know the cell itself should not degrade. This is what I found: Renewable Energy & Efficiency Technologies | Home Power Magazine...
> 
> PV warranties typically allow for 20 percent output degradation over the module&#8217;s 20- to 25-year warranty life. But measurements of many modules put into service in the 1980s show that it&#8217;s unusual to see even half that much degradation. Many of those earliest modules still perform to their original specifications. It is safe to say that modules carrying warranties of 20 years or more have a high probability of working well 30 years from now



Not bad for something that only fucks the planet once and makes it back in aces for 20+ years   I wonder if these people have any clue on just how many tons a year of coal, and gallons of natural gas solar keeps us from burning. One of my reports I posted above shows that it has the pollution of silcon wafers. Don't like your computer???? Believe me that would pollute just as badly if there wasn't for the regulations we have in America. Oh no one has to break their back in working in that coal mine  or dying of cancer from black lung 

These people will scream and rage against regs but this is why we have them. Enjoy the clean air? Clean water? Thank your government.


http://www.ti.com/corp/docs/csr/news_recycling_silicon.shtml

Converting silicon wafers to solar panels



> For more than 10 years, TI has been recycling scrap silicon wafers, keeping this material left over from the chipmaking process out of the waste stream.
> 
> TI not only rescues scrap silicon that is otherwise destined for the smelter or waste heap, but ensures that the silicon is put to good use, for example in solar panels.
> 
> TI's recycled wafers have produced enough solar panels to supply electricity year-round to approximately 1,600 homes. Use of solar panels has helped prevent an estimated 10,900 metric tons of carbon dioxide from being released into the atmosphere, the equivalent to planting half a million trees.
> 
> Paul Westbrook, TI's sustainable development manager, said TI recycled 95 percent of its waste in 2010, scrap silicon being one example.


----------



## mudwhistle

Matthew said:


> mudwhistle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Matthew said:
> 
> 
> 
> Renewables you support-solar or wind. I support both
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Neither.
> 
> Wind power kills eagles so I don't support that, and the Sun contributes to Global Warming so I can't support that.
> 
> Anything that kills, causes head injuries, or raises the temperature of the Earth a fraction of a degree should be banned.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Coal, natural gas and oil kill a lot of a lot more
Click to expand...


Where?

Prove it.


----------



## mudwhistle

Matthew said:


> Old Rocks said:
> 
> 
> 
> How long do roof solar panels last? - Yahoo Answers
> 
> All thick film panels I've seen are either warrantied for 20 or 25 years.
> 
> However, there are no moving parts and so the only failure mechanisms that could come into play to cause them to fail would be physical damage or some sort of electro-migration effect. The electro-migration effect might take 100s of years to cause a problem.
> 
> However, by 20 or 25 years from now, there will have been advancements that would make a current generation panel the equivalent of an Edsel anyway. So I would expect that you would want to replace them even if they had not failed.
> 
> There is no "regular maintenance" required of a solar panel. (I don't considing brushing leaves or dust off the panels to be maintenance, in the sense that you need to change oil in your car, for example). Most inverters will have a coling fan and some sort of filter, which will probably require cleaning if not change occassionally.
> 
> I did a little more looking at what causes degradation in solar panels, since I know the cell itself should not degrade. This is what I found: Renewable Energy & Efficiency Technologies | Home Power Magazine...
> 
> PV warranties typically allow for 20 percent output degradation over the modules 20- to 25-year warranty life. But measurements of many modules put into service in the 1980s show that its unusual to see even half that much degradation. Many of those earliest modules still perform to their original specifications. It is safe to say that modules carrying warranties of 20 years or more have a high probability of working well 30 years from now
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Not bad for something that only fucks the planet once and makes it back in aces for 20+ years   I wonder if these people have any clue on just how many tons a year of coal, and gallons of natural gas solar keeps us from burning. One of my reports I posted above shows that it has the pollution of silcon wafers. Don't like your computer???? Believe me that would pollute just as badly if there wasn't for the regulations we have in America. Oh no one has to break their back in working in that coal mine  or dying of cancer from black lung
> 
> These people will scream and rage against regs but this is why we have them. Enjoy the clean air? Clean water? Thank your government.
> 
> 
> Corporate Citizenship Report - News - Converting silicon wafers to solar panels
> 
> Converting silicon wafers to solar panels
> 
> 
> 
> 
> For more than 10 years, TI has been recycling scrap silicon wafers, keeping this material left over from the chipmaking process out of the waste stream.
> 
> TI not only rescues scrap silicon that is otherwise destined for the smelter or waste heap, but ensures that the silicon is put to good use, for example in solar panels.
> 
> TI's recycled wafers have produced enough solar panels to supply electricity year-round to approximately 1,600 homes. Use of solar panels has helped prevent an estimated 10,900 metric tons of carbon dioxide from being released into the atmosphere, the equivalent to planting half a million trees.
> 
> Paul Westbrook, TI's sustainable development manager, said TI recycled 95 percent of its waste in 2010, scrap silicon being one example.
> 
> Click to expand...
Click to expand...


There's more than one way to mine coal.

Out West they have more coal that can be strip-mined than there is oil in the Middle-East.


----------



## Peterf

Matthew said:


> Germany uses a lot of wind(about 1/3rd of their energy mix) at a profit. Energy companies wouldn't add it to their energy profile if it didn't make a profile.
> Tens of thousands of people buy roof top solar and make a profit.



They only make a profit because they are heavily subsidised - mainly by government guaranteeing them a price way above the market value for the energy they produce.


----------



## Peterf

No wind or solar power is produced anywhere in the world without direct or indirect tax-payer subsidies.

The only economic renewables are nuclear and geothermal,  with fusion to come.


----------



## HelenaHandbag

Firewood is renewable. Makes a nice cozy setting, too.

I like it best.


----------



## RGR

Matthew said:


> Ban coal, natural gas and oil for energy use....
> 
> 
> This is the only thing that make sense.



Not at all. But coming from someone undoubtedly using coal, natural gas and oil in all sorts of ways, it is wildly ironic.


----------



## Derideo_Te

Mr. H. said:


> Matthew said:
> 
> 
> 
> boy what a idiot.
> 
> Do you know what renewable means moron? Unlike coal, oil and natural gas that are likely to run out, renewables won't.
> 
> That is all that matters at the end of the day.
> 
> I do support nuclear for the baseload so I am not a leftist. I voted for Bush, McCain and Romney. The problem with most of the right is how short sighted you're.
> 
> You never consider the long run when that day comes.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Educate us on the "baseload" of renewables. Then tell us how "renewables" are designed, manufactured, and implemented with zero hydrocarbon input.
Click to expand...


That comparison is only valid if you compare it to the "baseload" of fossil, hydro and nuclear energy sources. In essence they are a one time overhead and all energy sources are going to encounter them. What matters is the "ongoing" hydrocarbon footprint over the lifespan of the energy source. For fossil fuel energy that continues to rise whereas for hydro, solar and wind it doesn't. Nuclear does have an ongoing hydrocarbon footprint because of the cost of mining, refining, transportation, storage and disposal of the fuel source.


----------



## Derideo_Te

elektra said:


> Matthew said:
> 
> 
> 
> boy what a idiot.
> 
> Do you know what renewable means moron? Unlike coal, oil and natural gas that are likely to run out, renewables won't.
> 
> That is all that matters at the end of the day.
> 
> I do support nuclear for the baseload so I am not a leftist. I voted for Bush, McCain and Romney. The problem with most of the right is how short sighted you're.
> 
> You never consider the long run when that day comes.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes I do, but just because you call a Wind Turbine Renewable does not make it renewable, it takes oil, natural gas to make a Wind Turbine. So how can you use Oil and Natural Gas at a greater rate to make a Wind Turbine or Solar Panel yet claim that Oil will run out but not Renewables.
> 
> Solar Panels and Wind Turbines have a small life span, years, not decades, they constantly need replacing hence you will constantly use more oil to produce Renewables.
> 
> Kindly explain how it can be green or renewable when you constantly replace them with new "renewables".
> 
> Your government mandated industry is using natural resources at an increased rate and you are ignorant to this? You completely discount the impact?
Click to expand...


The moving parts on wind turbines can be refurbished and solar panels are expected to last up to 40 years.


----------



## Derideo_Te

elektra said:


> Matthew said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> elektra said:
> 
> 
> 
> Again, Solar Panel production requires the use of energy from Coal in China, so your solution to manufacture more Solar Panels increases the use of Coal.
> 
> Yes, Coal is dirty, so quit using Coal to make Solar Panels and Wind Turbines
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This we can agree on. Why don't they use renewable energy to make the solar panels.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *The simple answer is it requires a massive amount of energy to make a Solar Panel, a Solar plant or Wind Turbine plant can not produce that kind of energy.*
> 
> Further it takes hydrocarbon chemicals to make Solar and Wind components. Solar and Wind technologies can not exist without Oil. The use Oil at an increased rate to produce Solar and Wind energy is extremely short sighted and wasteful
> 
> silicon tetrachloride, one toxic pollutant, a by-product of the not so Green Energy industry.
Click to expand...


----------



## Derideo_Te

elektra said:


> how about a link to the article?



Ironic!


----------



## Derideo_Te

elektra said:


> Solar Panels cost is expensive, much more expensive than coal, why is that, the simple answer is because it takes much more energy and raw materials to produce Solar Panels. Using more money means it produces more waste, more pollution, its a simple fact that all the "studies" in the world can not eliminate.
> 
> Solar Panel Production must use energy produced from Coal and Fossil fuels, its a fact. Making Solar Panels increases fossil fuel use, period. Solar Panel production does not decrease fossil energy use. Somehow we must believe that using more fossil fuel somehow results in less pollution.
> 
> I do not care how many articles you cut and paste, they are all based on the same studies, hence the same opinion is repeated over and over. look at the source in the articles, its all the same. You act like your finding proof and facts when you just regurgitate the same propaganda.
> 
> Solar Panels take more money, more fossil energy to produce, hence the fact that they are creating more pollution.
> 
> Consider all these articles are based on "installed capacity", not actual power output, and the truth is the articles are extremely misleading.



And yet you never produce a single credible link supporting your own allegations.


----------



## westwall

Matthew said:


> So lets say the panels only last two years. What mind blowing amazing amount of energy it must take to make these things IF they really do require the same amount of energy as 2 years of running your home on coal. Jesus.









Matthew, here is a fact you need to deal with.  Solar module payback time is roughly 40 years.  They have a life expectancy of 25 years.

Do you see the problem there?


----------



## Politico

What's to support? It's requires fossil fuels to make them. It's a freaking fact derp.


----------



## westwall

Derideo_Te said:


> elektra said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Matthew said:
> 
> 
> 
> boy what a idiot.
> 
> Do you know what renewable means moron? Unlike coal, oil and natural gas that are likely to run out, renewables won't.
> 
> That is all that matters at the end of the day.
> 
> I do support nuclear for the baseload so I am not a leftist. I voted for Bush, McCain and Romney. The problem with most of the right is how short sighted you're.
> 
> You never consider the long run when that day comes.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes I do, but just because you call a Wind Turbine Renewable does not make it renewable, it takes oil, natural gas to make a Wind Turbine. So how can you use Oil and Natural Gas at a greater rate to make a Wind Turbine or Solar Panel yet claim that Oil will run out but not Renewables.
> 
> Solar Panels and Wind Turbines have a small life span, years, not decades, they constantly need replacing hence you will constantly use more oil to produce Renewables.
> 
> Kindly explain how it can be green or renewable when you constantly replace them with new "renewables".
> 
> Your government mandated industry is using natural resources at an increased rate and you are ignorant to this? You completely discount the impact?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The moving parts on wind turbines can be refurbished and solar panels are expected to last up to 40 years.
Click to expand...








After 5 years of use the maintenance costs on windmills eats all of the profits.  Solar panels have a life expectancy of 25 years.


----------



## Derideo_Te

westwall said:


> Derideo_Te said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> elektra said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yes I do, but just because you call a Wind Turbine Renewable does not make it renewable, it takes oil, natural gas to make a Wind Turbine. So how can you use Oil and Natural Gas at a greater rate to make a Wind Turbine or Solar Panel yet claim that Oil will run out but not Renewables.
> 
> Solar Panels and Wind Turbines have a small life span, years, not decades, they constantly need replacing hence you will constantly use more oil to produce Renewables.
> 
> Kindly explain how it can be green or renewable when you constantly replace them with new "renewables".
> 
> Your government mandated industry is using natural resources at an increased rate and you are ignorant to this? You completely discount the impact?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The moving parts on wind turbines can be refurbished and solar panels are expected to last up to 40 years.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> After 5 years of use the maintenance costs on windmills eats all of the profits.  Solar panels have a life expectancy of 25 years.
Click to expand...


Wind Turbines



> *Operation and Maintenance Costs*
> 
> From experience, the maintenance costs of a new turbine will be very low but as the turbine ages these costs will increase.
> 
> Studies done in Denmark on the 5000 wind turbines installed in the country since 1975 has demonstrated that each new generations of turbines has had lower repair and maintenance costs than the previous generation. (The studies compared wind turbines which were built and erected at approximately the same time, but which belong to different technological generations).
> 
> *Older wind turbines have an annual maintenance cost are on average 3% of the original cost of the turbine.* Because newer turbines are usually quite substantially larger you get an economy of scale, lower maintenance costs per kW of rated power. This is simply because you do not need to service a large turbine any more often than a small one. Couple this with the constant development of new materials and techniques and you will make savings on the maintenance costs.* For modern machines the estimated maintenance costs are in the range of 1.5% to 2% of the original investment per annum.*
> 
> *Project Lifetime, Design Lifetime*
> 
> *The components of a wind turbine are typically designed to remain operational for twenty years.* It would be quite easy, and hardly any more expensive to design and build some of the components to remain operational for far longer. However, because most of the major components would be very expensive to build for a longer life span, it would be a waste to have a whole turbine standing idle because one part failed years earlier than the rest.
> 
> *By agreeing on a twenty year design lifetime, an economic compromise is met which guides the engineers who develop new components for wind turbines. When planning new components they know that it will be expected to work reliably for two decades. They have to show that their planned components will have little chance of failing within twenty years of installation.
> 
> The design lifetime of a component compared to its actual lifetime means that a wind turbine can last far longer than originally planned.* How long it will continue working depends on the build quality of all of the turbine components, how well put together and the local environmental conditions. Environment isn't just the wind factors, like how much turbulence is experienced at the site, but also the air density, average humidity, even seismic factors.


----------



## flacaltenn

Derideo_Te said:


> Mr. H. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Matthew said:
> 
> 
> 
> boy what a idiot.
> 
> Do you know what renewable means moron? Unlike coal, oil and natural gas that are likely to run out, renewables won't.
> 
> That is all that matters at the end of the day.
> 
> I do support nuclear for the baseload so I am not a leftist. I voted for Bush, McCain and Romney. The problem with most of the right is how short sighted you're.
> 
> You never consider the long run when that day comes.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Educate us on the "baseload" of renewables. Then tell us how "renewables" are designed, manufactured, and implemented with zero hydrocarbon input.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That comparison is only valid if you compare it to the "baseload" of fossil, hydro and nuclear energy sources. In essence they are a one time overhead and all energy sources are going to encounter them. What matters is the "ongoing" hydrocarbon footprint over the lifespan of the energy source. For fossil fuel energy that continues to rise whereas for hydro, solar and wind it doesn't. Nuclear does have an ongoing hydrocarbon footprint because of the cost of mining, refining, transportation, storage and disposal of the fuel source.
Click to expand...


_An aside for Matthew.... _
You're a piss poor Republican if you insist on DEMANDING that solar be installed on every roof and you want the Govt to approve every investment in electrical generation.. 

_And in general for Matthew, but also tossed to Derideo... _ 

You continue to display total intransigience to learning anything about what you support.. We are just now seeing the "footprint" of how much enviro damage gets done by trying to shove MORE than 10% of unreliable renewables on a grid. When that HAPPENS --- then there MUST BE a MASSIVE investment in battery storage.. NOT TO SMOOTH OUT the long time outages of night-time and cloudy days and windless days --- but MERELY TO KEEP THE GRID FROM CRASHING as you frantically switch from sketchy renewables to baseline generation.. 

A $500Mill investment in battery smoothing today will buy you ONE 36MWhr facility the size of a football field. Containing 100s of TONS of toxic battery waste that WILL NEED REPLACEMENT periodically. That amount of storage will only smooth the transition of a wind field for 40 or 50 wind turbines for ONE HOUR... 

 The dollar cost and the enviro cost of these fixes PROVE you're wrong about no continuing enviro cost.. And YET --- you persist to demonstrate how utterly brainwashed you are...


----------



## Derideo_Te

flacaltenn said:


> Derideo_Te said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mr. H. said:
> 
> 
> 
> Educate us on the "baseload" of renewables. Then tell us how "renewables" are designed, manufactured, and implemented with zero hydrocarbon input.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That comparison is only valid if you compare it to the "baseload" of fossil, hydro and nuclear energy sources. In essence they are a one time overhead and all energy sources are going to encounter them. What matters is the "ongoing" hydrocarbon footprint over the lifespan of the energy source. For fossil fuel energy that continues to rise whereas for hydro, solar and wind it doesn't. Nuclear does have an ongoing hydrocarbon footprint because of the cost of mining, refining, transportation, storage and disposal of the fuel source.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Just as an aside.. You're a piss poor Republican if you want to DEMAND that solar gets installed on every roof and you think the Govt should design the electrical generation system.
> 
> But moreover, you continue to display total intransigience to learning anything about what you support.. We are just now seeing the "footprint" of how much enviro damage gets done by trying to shove MORE than 10% of unreliable renewables on a grid. When that HAPPENS --- then there MUST BE a MASSIVE investment in battery storage.. NOT TO SMOOTH OUT the long time outages of night-time and cloudy days and windless days --- but MERELY TO KEEP THE GRID FROM CRASHING as you frantically switch from sketchy renewables to baseline generation..
> 
> A $500Mill investment in battery smoothing today will buy you ONE 36MWhr facility the size of a football field. Containing 100s of TONS of toxic battery waste that WILL NEED REPLACEMENT periodically. That amount of storage will only smooth the transition of a wind field for 40 or 50 wind turbines for ONE HOUR...
> 
> The dollar cost and the enviro cost of these fixes PROVE you're wrong about no continuing enviro cost.. And YET --- you persist to demonstrate how utterly brainwashed you are...
Click to expand...


Non sequitur response!


----------



## flacaltenn

Derideo_Te said:


> elektra said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Matthew said:
> 
> 
> 
> This we can agree on. Why don't they use renewable energy to make the solar panels.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *The simple answer is it requires a massive amount of energy to make a Solar Panel, a Solar plant or Wind Turbine plant can not produce that kind of energy.*
> 
> Further it takes hydrocarbon chemicals to make Solar and Wind components. Solar and Wind technologies can not exist without Oil. The use Oil at an increased rate to produce Solar and Wind energy is extremely short sighted and wasteful
> 
> silicon tetrachloride, one toxic pollutant, a by-product of the not so Green Energy industry.
> 
> Click to expand...
Click to expand...


There are tetrachlorides used in cleaning and processing silicon.. But the worst nightmare is the use of the Worlds Most Powerful GreenHouse gas... 



> http://www.clca.columbia.edu/papers/deWild etal - paper EPVSEC22 Milano - 20070830 MdW.pdf
> 
> *Some fluorinated gases (F-gases) which are used, or considered to be used, in crystalline silicon photovoltaic solar cell and film silicon module manufacturing have a very high global warming effect. CF4, C2F6, SF6 and NF3 have global warming potentials 7390, 12200, 22800 and 17200 times higher than CO2.*
> 
> *As electricity mix we use the European UCTE average which corresponds to greenhouse gas emissions of 484 g CO2-eq per kWh.* The impact assessment method used is CML 2 baseline 2000 (modified with latest GWPs of CF4, C2F6, SF6 and NF3 from [2]). The functional unit for the LCA comparison is 1 kWh of electricity produced by PV systems in Southern Europe.
> 
> 
> *Finally we compare the effects on global warming for the investigated process alternatives in terms of CO2-eq emission per kWh generated. *For this comparison we assume a PV system with multi- or monocrystalline modules located in Southern-Europe (irradiation 1700 kWh/m2.year), a Performance Ratio of 0.75 and a system life time of 30 years. Module efficiencies are 13.2% respectively 14% for multi- and monocrystalline silicon. *The total greenhouse gas emission for a silicon PV system, produced with the wet acid or wet alkaline texturing process, under these conditions is 30 or 36 g/kWh for multi- respectively monocrystalline modules*



Note that the 35gram number is for an UNTESTED ALTERNATE process with lower GreenHouse implications.. You have to dig thru the paper to see WHAT ACTUALLY the CO2 equivalents are for REAL solar panel processes.. But they are currently 3X that number or about 100gr/KWhr over the lifetime of the panel.. 

THUS -- The CO2 implications of JUST MANUFACTURING the panels is about 25% of the current Euro mix of emissions. But it is STILL HIGH !!!

And that's just manufacturing.. Doesn't include the enviro effects of needing massive battery barns. AND it doesn't include the mining of the raw materials and the FEEDER stock of chemicals and other materials. 

So one can believe that solar panels emit considerable amounts of CO2 over their lifetime. So the savings in GHGases are NOT infinite --- but maybe about 50% over a "current mix" of baseline generation...

*When you add the battery barns required to put MORE of this crap on the grid.. THEN --- it's a losing proposition all around.. *


----------



## ScienceRocks

Your stupid oil, natural gas and coal will be gone within the next 100 years. One way or another we will be running on renewables.


----------



## flacaltenn

Derideo_Te said:


> flacaltenn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Derideo_Te said:
> 
> 
> 
> That comparison is only valid if you compare it to the "baseload" of fossil, hydro and nuclear energy sources. In essence they are a one time overhead and all energy sources are going to encounter them. What matters is the "ongoing" hydrocarbon footprint over the lifespan of the energy source. For fossil fuel energy that continues to rise whereas for hydro, solar and wind it doesn't. Nuclear does have an ongoing hydrocarbon footprint because of the cost of mining, refining, transportation, storage and disposal of the fuel source.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Just as an aside.. You're a piss poor Republican if you want to DEMAND that solar gets installed on every roof and you think the Govt should design the electrical generation system.
> 
> But moreover, you continue to display total intransigience to learning anything about what you support.. We are just now seeing the "footprint" of how much enviro damage gets done by trying to shove MORE than 10% of unreliable renewables on a grid. When that HAPPENS --- then there MUST BE a MASSIVE investment in battery storage.. NOT TO SMOOTH OUT the long time outages of night-time and cloudy days and windless days --- but MERELY TO KEEP THE GRID FROM CRASHING as you frantically switch from sketchy renewables to baseline generation..
> 
> A $500Mill investment in battery smoothing today will buy you ONE 36MWhr facility the size of a football field. Containing 100s of TONS of toxic battery waste that WILL NEED REPLACEMENT periodically. That amount of storage will only smooth the transition of a wind field for 40 or 50 wind turbines for ONE HOUR...
> 
> The dollar cost and the enviro cost of these fixes PROVE you're wrong about no continuing enviro cost.. And YET --- you persist to demonstrate how utterly brainwashed you are...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Non sequitur response!
Click to expand...


Meaning that YOU have no clue what the CONTINUING and uncounted costs of flaky renewables will be when MORE of that crap hits the grid.. And you're not even interested in $500Mill/battery barn type costs and the environmental impact of that.. 

Is everything you refuse to understand a "non sequitur"??


----------



## Derideo_Te

flacaltenn said:


> Derideo_Te said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> flacaltenn said:
> 
> 
> 
> Just as an aside.. You're a piss poor Republican if you want to DEMAND that solar gets installed on every roof and you think the Govt should design the electrical generation system.
> 
> But moreover, you continue to display total intransigience to learning anything about what you support.. We are just now seeing the "footprint" of how much enviro damage gets done by trying to shove MORE than 10% of unreliable renewables on a grid. When that HAPPENS --- then there MUST BE a MASSIVE investment in battery storage.. NOT TO SMOOTH OUT the long time outages of night-time and cloudy days and windless days --- but MERELY TO KEEP THE GRID FROM CRASHING as you frantically switch from sketchy renewables to baseline generation..
> 
> A $500Mill investment in battery smoothing today will buy you ONE 36MWhr facility the size of a football field. Containing 100s of TONS of toxic battery waste that WILL NEED REPLACEMENT periodically. That amount of storage will only smooth the transition of a wind field for 40 or 50 wind turbines for ONE HOUR...
> 
> The dollar cost and the enviro cost of these fixes PROVE you're wrong about no continuing enviro cost.. And YET --- you persist to demonstrate how utterly brainwashed you are...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Non sequitur response!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Meaning that YOU have no clue what the CONTINUING and uncounted costs of flaky renewables will be when MORE of that crap hits the grid.. And you're not even interested in $500Mill/battery barn type costs and the environmental impact of that..
> 
> Is everything you refuse to understand a "non sequitur"??
Click to expand...


You are the first, and as yet only poster, to have come up with this off the wall idea of requiring batteries to support renewable energy sources. Here is a newsflash for you, the wind is always blowing somewhere or other. Water will still be flowing through hydro-electric plants. The tides will still be going in and out providing tidal power. Geothermal sources will still be operating on "full steam". And yes, nuclear plants will still be in operation and so will natural gas "instant on" emergency power generators. 

So yes, your post was a complete and utter non sequitur.


----------



## flacaltenn

Matthew said:


> Your stupid oil, natural gas and coal will be gone within the next 100 years. One way or another we will be running on renewables.



We will never "run" on renewables. And PANIC or FORCE wont fix the problem. 

You need to get Hairy Ass Reid to replace the Yucca Mtn facility he junked after great expense to the taxpayers.. MOSTLY to pick up the trash from the Nation's Nuclear Weapons Labs that is leaking into major waterways. But also as an assurance to the public that we are serious about PROPER storage and disposal.. 

We need to build out some 3rd generation nuclear NOW -- before we lose that technology biz to the rest of the world also.. And put your RENEWABLES to work OFF GRID.. Making hydrogen and biofuels for transportation...


----------



## flacaltenn

Derideo_Te said:


> flacaltenn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Derideo_Te said:
> 
> 
> 
> Non sequitur response!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Meaning that YOU have no clue what the CONTINUING and uncounted costs of flaky renewables will be when MORE of that crap hits the grid.. And you're not even interested in $500Mill/battery barn type costs and the environmental impact of that..
> 
> Is everything you refuse to understand a "non sequitur"??
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You are the first, and as yet only poster, to have come up with this off the wall idea of requiring batteries to support renewable energy sources. Here is a newsflash for you, the wind is always blowing somewhere or other. Water will still be flowing through hydro-electric plants. The tides will still be going in and out providing tidal power. Geothermal sources will still be operating on "full steam". And yes, nuclear plants will still be in operation and so will natural gas "instant on" emergency power generators.
> 
> So yes, your post was a complete and utter non sequitur.
Click to expand...


Not really.. You are just more naive than the average environmentalist.. 

1) Wind is completely unreliable and can be gone under a 500 mile wide high pressure dome for days. Electrical transport OUTSIDE of that area is extremely lossy and nobody wants to pay for heating transmission wires. Bad enough that it's on for 20 minutes and gone for an hour.. 

2) Hydro is not likely to be ADDING any generation capacity here in this country.. And NEW hydro installations are a LARGE source of CO2 and NOT enviro friendly.. Go ask the Sierra Club...  

3) Tidal power destroys massive areas of coastal habitat and when the plans are on the table --- don't look that good as an enviro deal.. I can show you multiple examples of folks wanting to literally WALL OFF (dam) square MILES of coast to increase the efficiency of tidal turbines. It's a cuisinart barrier for those biomes.. Maintenance is an f'ing nightmare.

4) Geothermal is a dirty mining operation. Worse than fracking in that the effluent is so corrosive -- the drill location has to be redone after several years.. It IS FRACKING. And it's not even truly renewable as the local heat does peter out and the wells need to be periodically extended or redrilled. In the case of BLOWOUTS -- toxic fluids and vapors have the capacity to KILL every living thing in a 1/2 mile radius.. Also very geographically limited. 

But lets get back to the NECCESSITY of adding battery or other storage to the grid when more than 10% flaky renewables are present.. Are you COMPLETELY IGNORANT of this requirement? Or do you just think that grid stability is a right-wing myth?


----------



## RGR

Matthew said:


> Your stupid oil, natural gas and coal will be gone within the next 100 years. One way or another we will be running on renewables.



We've got more than a century of hydrates to burn that we aren't even USING any of yet, where did you get THIS stupid number?


----------



## elektra

Derideo_Te said:


> elektra said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Matthew said:
> 
> 
> 
> boy what a idiot.
> 
> Do you know what renewable means moron? Unlike coal, oil and natural gas that are likely to run out, renewables won't.
> 
> That is all that matters at the end of the day.
> 
> I do support nuclear for the baseload so I am not a leftist. I voted for Bush, McCain and Romney. The problem with most of the right is how short sighted you're.
> 
> You never consider the long run when that day comes.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes I do, but just because you call a Wind Turbine Renewable does not make it renewable, it takes oil, natural gas to make a Wind Turbine. So how can you use Oil and Natural Gas at a greater rate to make a Wind Turbine or Solar Panel yet claim that Oil will run out but not Renewables.
> 
> Solar Panels and Wind Turbines have a small life span, years, not decades, they constantly need replacing hence you will constantly use more oil to produce Renewables.
> 
> Kindly explain how it can be green or renewable when you constantly replace them with new "renewables".
> 
> Your government mandated industry is using natural resources at an increased rate and you are ignorant to this? You completely discount the impact?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The moving parts on wind turbines can be refurbished and solar panels are expected to last up to 40 years.
Click to expand...


I see you have asked for a link twice, so where is your link? Ironic, huh, asking of me twice while failing to provide your own link.

Seeing how you seem to know so much tell us why the 40 ton turbine blades are replaced, not refurbished. That part moves, or are you talking about all the ball bearing that needed redesign and replacing, not refurbishing.

So provide a link if you expect the same


----------



## elektra

Derideo_Te said:


> elektra said:
> 
> 
> 
> Solar Panels cost is expensive, much more expensive than coal, why is that, the simple answer is because it takes much more energy and raw materials to produce Solar Panels. Using more money means it produces more waste, more pollution, its a simple fact that all the "studies" in the world can not eliminate.
> 
> Solar Panel Production must use energy produced from Coal and Fossil fuels, its a fact. Making Solar Panels increases fossil fuel use, period. Solar Panel production does not decrease fossil energy use. Somehow we must believe that using more fossil fuel somehow results in less pollution.
> 
> I do not care how many articles you cut and paste, they are all based on the same studies, hence the same opinion is repeated over and over. look at the source in the articles, its all the same. You act like your finding proof and facts when you just regurgitate the same propaganda.
> 
> Solar Panels take more money, more fossil energy to produce, hence the fact that they are creating more pollution.
> 
> Consider all these articles are based on "installed capacity", not actual power output, and the truth is the articles are extremely misleading.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And yet you never produce a single credible link supporting your own allegations.
Click to expand...


Its not an allegation, its something you can physically see, Solar Power farms are bigger in size than a Fossil Power plant that produces equal power, bigger in size does mean it takes more energy to produce, more natural resources. If you can not grasp something that simple no amount of links in the world will convince you. 

Should I also provide a link to show you that the Sky is blue.

Links will not teach common sense.


----------



## ScienceRocks

Solar farms produce a resource that isn't ever going to run out(in the human time frame). Do you morons really believe that your fracking and oil drilling doesn't take up a lot of fucking land???? A desert out in the middle of no where causing no pollution and no threat of doing what your pipelines do all the time = winning.

Sure the area is bigger but 1. it isn't going to spill all over the place unless you're talking about manufacturing then regulations are there for a reason...2. It isn't gong anywhere....Unlike your filth that explodes nearly every week.


----------



## ScienceRocks

Did I say that we don't have to fucking worry about it running out? You short sighted idiots.


----------



## flacaltenn

Matthew said:


> Solar farms produce a resource that isn't ever going to run out(in the human time frame). Do you morons really believe that your fracking and oil drilling doesn't take up a lot of fucking land???? A desert out in the middle of no where causing no pollution and no threat of doing what your pipelines do all the time = winning.
> 
> Sure the area is bigger but 1. it isn't going to spill all over the place unless you're talking about manufacturing then regulations are there for a reason...2. It isn't gong anywhere....Unlike your filth that explodes nearly every week.



Environmentalists never complained about the tiny footprint left after the nat gas well or oil well is drilled and producing.  They complain about the ACCESS and infrastructure and traffic that an energy site brings with it.  In the middle of the desert its the roads and transmission lines and maintenance housing that impacts the enviro..  And yes ---- the developed footprint for a well is far less than 100s of acres of desert floor being covered with panels.

And again Matthew.  Solar is not an alternative to nat gas..  It "runs out" 18 hours a day and everytime a cloud goes by or it rains or snows.  Its merely a Daytime peaker tech.  You can keep claiming its either/or with nat gas, but youd be wrong every time.


----------



## Politico

Arguing with Matt is like trying to reason with a crack addict. Nothing said even registers or is considered.


----------



## elektra

Solar Panels kill rats

Silicon tetrachloride - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia



> Silicon tetrachloride is used as an intermediate in the manufacture of high purity silicon,[2] since it has a boiling point convenient for purification by repeated fractional distillation. It can be reduced to silicon by hydrogen gas. Very pure silicon derived from silicon tetrachloride is used in large amounts in the semiconductor industry, and also in the production of photovoltaic cells



MSDS Sheet Search from Scott Specialty Gases for SILICON TETRACHLORIDE

11. TOXICOLOGICAL INFORMATION

LETHAL CONCENTRATION (LC50): 750 ppm, rat 1 hour.

See that, Green Clean Energy is killing rats!!!


----------



## westwall

Politico said:


> Arguing with Matt is like trying to reason with a crack addict. Nothing said even registers or is considered.








Yes, Matthew is descending into trolldom..


----------



## elektra

Sad, Green Energy is destroying the Earth, the soil, the rivers, how cold and callous must one be to be an advocate for Solar Panels when its known that the production of the panels results in millions of pounds of toxic waste each year. Waste that need not of been created.

Silicon tetrachloride - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia



> Pollution from the production of silicon tetrachloride has been reported in China associated with the increased demand for photovoltaic cells that has been stimulated by subsidy programs



Solar Energy Firms Leave Waste Behind in China








> GAOLONG, China -- The first time Li Gengxuan saw the dump trucks from the nearby factory pull into his village, he couldn't believe what happened. Stopping between the cornfields and the primary school playground, the workers dumped buckets of bubbling white liquid onto the ground. Then they turned around and drove right back through the gates of their compound without a word.
> 
> This ritual has been going on almost every day for nine months, Li and other villagers said.
> 
> In China, a country buckling with the breakneck pace of its industrial growth, such stories of environmental pollution are not uncommon. But the Luoyang Zhonggui High-Technology Co., here in the central plains of Henan Province near the Yellow River, stands out for one reason: It's a green energy company, producing polysilicon destined for solar energy panels sold around the world. But the byproduct of polysilicon production -- silicon tetrachloride -- is a highly toxic substance that poses environmental hazards.


----------



## ScienceRocks

China dumps everything into their environment as they're unregulated. This is why you republicans are wrong about unregulating stuff.

They dump oil, coal, natural gas and probably even dead animals into their rivers.  Have you ever seen the smog that is killing that country because of fucking coal? The thing that you're defending.


----------



## ScienceRocks

*China's smog threatens health of global coal projects*


China's smog threatens health of global coal projects | Reuters



> (Reuters) - A choking smog across much of northern China threatens not just the health of local residents, but also of major coal projects globally that are still on the drawing board.
> 
> Beijing's plans to tackle pollution largely target coal-fired power, which will hit already slowing demand in the world's top importer of the fuel.
> 
> With China's coal demand the primary driver for a slew of mine investments over the past decade, this trend could derail a list of capital intensive coal projects from Australia to Indonesia and Mozambique.
> 
> Even without the environmental drive, new railways from mines to ports, falling investment in coal-fired generation and slowing power demand growth could see China's miners export some of their surplus output at competitive prices, hitting regional miners and the viability of new projects.



Coal is a million times worse then a little bit of shit from solar cells. The worse fucking thing imaginable.

http://www.reuters.com/article/slideshow?articleId=USBRE9AD19L20131114&slide=1#a=1

AT LEAST SOLAR ISN"T GOING TO SMOG OUT THE FUCKING SKY EVERY DAY!


----------



## westwall

Matthew said:


> China dumps everything into their environment as they're unregulated. This is why you republicans are wrong about unregulating stuff.
> 
> They dump oil, coal, natural gas and probably even dead animals into their rivers.  Have you ever seen the smog that is killing that country because of fucking coal? The thing that you're defending.









Let me see....who was it that created the EPA????  Now who was that????  Oh yeah, it was a REPUBLICAN by the name of RICHARD NIXON, you fucking moron....


----------



## ScienceRocks

This is what coal does...Unregulated fucking coal.


----------



## ScienceRocks

westwall said:


> Matthew said:
> 
> 
> 
> China dumps everything into their environment as they're unregulated. This is why you republicans are wrong about unregulating stuff.
> 
> They dump oil, coal, natural gas and probably even dead animals into their rivers.  Have you ever seen the smog that is killing that country because of fucking coal? The thing that you're defending.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Let me see....who was it that created the EPA????  Now who was that????  Oh yeah, it was a REPUBLICAN by the name of RICHARD NIXON, you fucking moron....
Click to expand...


And it is your party that wants to remove it you fucking cowards. Piece of shit!


----------



## flacaltenn

If solar was NOT a mature technology -- we'd have a prayer of taking it back from the Chinese. But this is now OLD tech. And panels are a commodity item like tennis shoes.. Getting another 5% out of them is not enough reason to start a company.. Cutting cost IS.. 

We need to focus on disruptive innovation.. The stuff that isn't 40 years old. Like 3rd gen nuclear and hydrogen production, quick response toxic cleanup, and advanced recycling. . Plenty of opportunities to create entirely NEW industries for the energy field..


----------



## ScienceRocks

Outside of a one time energy transfer solar won't pump constantly this shit. This is coal, oil and other fussil fuels.


----------



## ScienceRocks




----------



## ScienceRocks




----------



## westwall

Matthew said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Matthew said:
> 
> 
> 
> China dumps everything into their environment as they're unregulated. This is why you republicans are wrong about unregulating stuff.
> 
> They dump oil, coal, natural gas and probably even dead animals into their rivers.  Have you ever seen the smog that is killing that country because of fucking coal? The thing that you're defending.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Let me see....who was it that created the EPA????  Now who was that????  Oh yeah, it was a REPUBLICAN by the name of RICHARD NIXON, you fucking moron....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And it is your party that wants to remove it you fucking cowards. Piece of shit!
Click to expand...








I'm a DEMOCRAT you idiot.  Have been my whole life.  I've also cleaned up more environmental shit than you can even imagine so you can blow that out your sphincter.  I see you are in Portland, you MUST be olfrauds son, you two are equally dim.


----------



## ScienceRocks

You think a regulated society like the US will allow solar to dump shit into the water? Fuck no. Thank you epa. Trying to slam solar for what china allows is stupid.


----------



## westwall

Matthew said:


>









You should realize (but I understand you have the intellect of a gnat now) that those plumes are WATER VAPOR.  Dude, when you go full moron you really go all out.


----------



## westwall

Matthew said:


> You think a regulated society like the US will allow solar to dump shit into the water? Fuck no. Thank you epa. Trying to slam solar for what china allows is stupid.








Solar is cheap because it is made in China.  Make it anywhere in the first world where we have laws that prevent the pollution and your precious cheap solar modules become incredibly expensive.  No cheap solar moron. 

BTW that's fine with me.  I'm not wrapped around the axle of the socialists you seem to love.


----------



## elektra

Matthew said:


> Outside of a one time energy transfer solar won't pump constantly this shit. This is coal, oil and other fussil fuels.



Yes, Coal used by the Wind Turbine and Solar Panel manufacturers. You must use a higher percentage of Fossil fuels to manufacturer Green Energy and this is the result.


----------



## ScienceRocks

*Harbin Smog Crisis Highlights Chinas Coal Problem*



> Choked with smog that shut down roads, schools, and its main airport, the city of Harbin (map) this week offered a striking reminder that China has a long way to go in addressing the hazards caused by its dependence on coal.
> 
> Visibility in the northeastern city of more than 10 million people reportedly was reduced in places to less than 65 feet (20 meters) as coal-fired heating systems ramped up for the winter months. Officials also pointed to farmers burning crop stubble and low winds as additional causes for the pollution crisis.
> 
> Harbin, also known as the Ice City, hosts an ice and snow festival every year that features displays of elaborate ice sculptures. But the city's frigid temperatures, which can reach -40ºF (-40º C) in winter, mean that residences usually need heating for six months of the year. As part of a national effort to reduce energy intensity, Harbin in 2010 spent $1.1 million to retrofit 21 million square feet (2 million square meters) of residential buildingsadding five new layers of wall insulation, as well as better windows and roofing. (See related story: "In China's Icy North, Outfitting Buildings to Save Energy.")
> 
> But building retrofits can go only so far in a country where coal fuels 70 percent of the energy consumption. China, the world's largest consumer of coal, is also the world's leader in carbon emissions. (See related interactive map: "Four Ways to Look at Global Carbon Footprints.") Those emissions have stark consequences for the country's residents, a fact highlighted in two recent studies that measured the health impacts of fossil fuel emissions.
> 
> Deadly Pollution Problems
> 
> The level of fine particulate matter, or PM2.5, in Harbin's air this week reportedly reached 1,000 micrograms per cubic meter, exceeding the World Health Organization's daily target level by a factor of 40. While Harbin's predicament is alarming, it is not isolated; many cities in Northern China, including the capital Beijing and neighboring Tianjin, rank among the most polluted in the world. In January, Beijing made headlines when its air quality got so bad that it went beyond the very top of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency's Air Quality Index.



Harbin Smog Crisis Highlights China's Coal Problem

99% electricy to power homes and buildings. + cars. Coal is the nasties shit imagine when unregulated.

History proves me right as Europe and America during the early part of the 20th century seen the same thing.

Take your lies and stick them up your ass!


----------



## ScienceRocks

Gulf oil spill=uncontrolled cluster fuck!

At least the solar corps can control it here in America and safely take care of it. Not true when it is a damn oil spill.





















The difference is the oil corps can't control these cluster fucks while solar can as it is within a building. If they're stupid enough to try to personally pour it into a river like here in America = fined the shit out of them. China if they gave a damn would do just that to anyone polluting.

Of course you will support such a uncontrollable cluster fuck as you simply don't care.


----------



## elektra

Matthew said:


> Gulf oil spill=uncontrolled cluster fuck!
> 
> At least the solar corps can control it here in America and safely take care of it. Not true when it is a damn oil spill.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The difference is the oil corps can't control these cluster fucks while solar can as it is within a building. If they're stupid enough to try to personally pour it into a river like here in America = fined the shit out of them. China if they gave a damn would do just that to anyone polluting.
> 
> Of course you will support such a uncontrollable cluster fuck as you simply don't care.



The Oil spills you post are just a tiny fraction of the Fossil Fuel demanded by the Green Energy industry for the manufacture and installation of Solar panels and Wind Turbines.


----------



## Derideo_Te

flacaltenn said:


> Derideo_Te said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> flacaltenn said:
> 
> 
> 
> Meaning that YOU have no clue what the CONTINUING and uncounted costs of flaky renewables will be when MORE of that crap hits the grid.. And you're not even interested in $500Mill/battery barn type costs and the environmental impact of that..
> 
> Is everything you refuse to understand a "non sequitur"??
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You are the first, and as yet only poster, to have come up with this off the wall idea of requiring batteries to support renewable energy sources. Here is a newsflash for you, the wind is always blowing somewhere or other. Water will still be flowing through hydro-electric plants. The tides will still be going in and out providing tidal power. Geothermal sources will still be operating on "full steam". And yes, nuclear plants will still be in operation and so will natural gas "instant on" emergency power generators.
> 
> So yes, your post was a complete and utter non sequitur.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Not really.. You are just more naive than the average environmentalist..
> 
> 1) Wind is completely unreliable and can be gone under a 500 mile wide high pressure dome for days. Electrical transport OUTSIDE of that area is extremely lossy and nobody wants to pay for heating transmission wires. Bad enough that it's on for 20 minutes and gone for an hour..
> 
> 2) Hydro is not likely to be ADDING any generation capacity here in this country.. And NEW hydro installations are a LARGE source of CO2 and NOT enviro friendly.. Go ask the Sierra Club...
> 
> 3) Tidal power destroys massive areas of coastal habitat and when the plans are on the table --- don't look that good as an enviro deal.. I can show you multiple examples of folks wanting to literally WALL OFF (dam) square MILES of coast to increase the efficiency of tidal turbines. It's a cuisinart barrier for those biomes.. Maintenance is an f'ing nightmare.
> 
> 4) Geothermal is a dirty mining operation. Worse than fracking in that the effluent is so corrosive -- the drill location has to be redone after several years.. It IS FRACKING. And it's not even truly renewable as the local heat does peter out and the wells need to be periodically extended or redrilled. In the case of BLOWOUTS -- toxic fluids and vapors have the capacity to KILL every living thing in a 1/2 mile radius.. Also very geographically limited.
> 
> But lets get back to the NECCESSITY of adding battery or other storage to the grid when more than 10% flaky renewables are present.. Are you COMPLETELY IGNORANT of this requirement? Or do you just think that grid stability is a right-wing myth?
Click to expand...


"Heating transmission wires"? Seriously? After pretending that massive batteries are essential? Congratulations, you went from zero to negative credibility in just 2 posts!


----------



## Derideo_Te

elektra said:


> Derideo_Te said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> elektra said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yes I do, but just because you call a Wind Turbine Renewable does not make it renewable, it takes oil, natural gas to make a Wind Turbine. So how can you use Oil and Natural Gas at a greater rate to make a Wind Turbine or Solar Panel yet claim that Oil will run out but not Renewables.
> 
> Solar Panels and Wind Turbines have a small life span, years, not decades, they constantly need replacing hence you will constantly use more oil to produce Renewables.
> 
> Kindly explain how it can be green or renewable when you constantly replace them with new "renewables".
> 
> Your government mandated industry is using natural resources at an increased rate and you are ignorant to this? You completely discount the impact?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The moving parts on wind turbines can be refurbished and solar panels are expected to last up to 40 years.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I see you have asked for a link twice, so where is your link? Ironic, huh, asking of me twice while failing to provide your own link.
> 
> Seeing how you seem to know so much tell us why the 40 ton turbine blades are replaced, not refurbished. That part moves, or are you talking about all the ball bearing that needed redesign and replacing, not refurbishing.
> 
> So provide a link if you expect the same
Click to expand...


Already done so in another post but still zip from you!


----------



## Derideo_Te

elektra said:


> Derideo_Te said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> elektra said:
> 
> 
> 
> Solar Panels cost is expensive, much more expensive than coal, why is that, the simple answer is because it takes much more energy and raw materials to produce Solar Panels. Using more money means it produces more waste, more pollution, its a simple fact that all the "studies" in the world can not eliminate.
> 
> Solar Panel Production must use energy produced from Coal and Fossil fuels, its a fact. Making Solar Panels increases fossil fuel use, period. Solar Panel production does not decrease fossil energy use. Somehow we must believe that using more fossil fuel somehow results in less pollution.
> 
> I do not care how many articles you cut and paste, they are all based on the same studies, hence the same opinion is repeated over and over. look at the source in the articles, its all the same. You act like your finding proof and facts when you just regurgitate the same propaganda.
> 
> Solar Panels take more money, more fossil energy to produce, hence the fact that they are creating more pollution.
> 
> Consider all these articles are based on "installed capacity", not actual power output, and the truth is the articles are extremely misleading.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And yet you never produce a single credible link supporting your own allegations.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Its not an allegation, its something you can physically see, Solar Power farms are bigger in size than a Fossil Power plant that produces equal power, bigger in size does mean it takes more energy to produce, more natural resources. If you can not grasp something that simple no amount of links in the world will convince you.
> 
> Should I also provide a link to show you that the Sky is blue.
> 
> Links will not teach common sense.
Click to expand...


Zero link = zero credibility!


----------



## Derideo_Te

flacaltenn said:


> Matthew said:
> 
> 
> 
> Solar farms produce a resource that isn't ever going to run out(in the human time frame). Do you morons really believe that your fracking and oil drilling doesn't take up a lot of fucking land???? A desert out in the middle of no where causing no pollution and no threat of doing what your pipelines do all the time = winning.
> 
> Sure the area is bigger but 1. it isn't going to spill all over the place unless you're talking about manufacturing then regulations are there for a reason...2. It isn't gong anywhere....Unlike your filth that explodes nearly every week.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Environmentalists never complained about the tiny footprint left after the nat gas well or oil well is drilled and producing.  They complain about the ACCESS and infrastructure and traffic that an energy site brings with it.  In the middle of the desert its the roads and transmission lines and maintenance housing that impacts the enviro..  And yes ---- the developed footprint for a well is far less than 100s of acres of desert floor being covered with panels.
> 
> And again Matthew.  Solar is not an alternative to nat gas..  It "runs out" 18 hours a day and everytime a cloud goes by or it rains or snows.  Its merely a Daytime peaker tech.  You can keep claiming its either/or with nat gas, but youd be wrong every time.
Click to expand...


Obviously you have never actually read anything at all about solar energy because you believe that it "runs out" "everytime a cloud goes by or it rains".


----------



## elektra

Derideo_Te said:


> elektra said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Derideo_Te said:
> 
> 
> 
> The moving parts on wind turbines can be refurbished and solar panels are expected to last up to 40 years.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I see you have asked for a link twice, so where is your link? Ironic, huh, asking of me twice while failing to provide your own link.
> 
> Seeing how you seem to know so much tell us why the 40 ton turbine blades are replaced, not refurbished. That part moves, or are you talking about all the ball bearing that needed redesign and replacing, not refurbishing.
> 
> So provide a link if you expect the same
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Already done so in another post but still zip from you!
Click to expand...


No, you do not provide links to your recent posts that I commented on, you have zero credibility providing no links to your posts.


----------



## Derideo_Te

elektra said:


> Matthew said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Outside of a one time energy transfer solar won't pump constantly this shit. This is coal, oil and other fussil fuels.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, Coal used by the Wind Turbine and Solar Panel manufacturers. You must use a higher percentage of Fossil fuels to manufacturer Green Energy and this is the result.
Click to expand...


Too bad you can't produce anything credible to substantiate your allegations!


----------



## elektra

Derideo_Te said:


> flacaltenn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Matthew said:
> 
> 
> 
> Solar farms produce a resource that isn't ever going to run out(in the human time frame). Do you morons really believe that your fracking and oil drilling doesn't take up a lot of fucking land???? A desert out in the middle of no where causing no pollution and no threat of doing what your pipelines do all the time = winning.
> 
> Sure the area is bigger but 1. it isn't going to spill all over the place unless you're talking about manufacturing then regulations are there for a reason...2. It isn't gong anywhere....Unlike your filth that explodes nearly every week.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Environmentalists never complained about the tiny footprint left after the nat gas well or oil well is drilled and producing.  They complain about the ACCESS and infrastructure and traffic that an energy site brings with it.  In the middle of the desert its the roads and transmission lines and maintenance housing that impacts the enviro..  And yes ---- the developed footprint for a well is far less than 100s of acres of desert floor being covered with panels.
> 
> And again Matthew.  Solar is not an alternative to nat gas..  It "runs out" 18 hours a day and everytime a cloud goes by or it rains or snows.  Its merely a Daytime peaker tech.  You can keep claiming its either/or with nat gas, but youd be wrong every time.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Obviously you have never actually read anything at all about solar energy because you believe that it "runs out" "everytime a cloud goes by or it rains".
Click to expand...


Enlighten us, what is the output of the best Solar Panels during thunderstorms?


----------



## Derideo_Te

elektra said:


> Derideo_Te said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> elektra said:
> 
> 
> 
> I see you have asked for a link twice, so where is your link? Ironic, huh, asking of me twice while failing to provide your own link.
> 
> Seeing how you seem to know so much tell us why the 40 ton turbine blades are replaced, not refurbished. That part moves, or are you talking about all the ball bearing that needed redesign and replacing, not refurbishing.
> 
> So provide a link if you expect the same
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Already done so in another post but still zip from you!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, you do not provide links to your recent posts that I commented on, you have zero credibility providing no links to your posts.
Click to expand...


Try reading post #114.

http://www.usmessageboard.com/8235901-post114.html


----------



## Derideo_Te

elektra said:


> Derideo_Te said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> flacaltenn said:
> 
> 
> 
> Environmentalists never complained about the tiny footprint left after the nat gas well or oil well is drilled and producing.  They complain about the ACCESS and infrastructure and traffic that an energy site brings with it.  In the middle of the desert its the roads and transmission lines and maintenance housing that impacts the enviro..  And yes ---- the developed footprint for a well is far less than 100s of acres of desert floor being covered with panels.
> 
> And again Matthew.  Solar is not an alternative to nat gas..  It "runs out" 18 hours a day and everytime a cloud goes by or it rains or snows.  Its merely a Daytime peaker tech.  You can keep claiming its either/or with nat gas, but youd be wrong every time.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Obviously you have never actually read anything at all about solar energy because you believe that it "runs out" "everytime a cloud goes by or it rains".
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Enlighten us, what is the output of the best Solar Panels during thunderstorms?
Click to expand...


Photovoltaics use ultraviolet rays and continue to perform at about 50% capacity during a thunderstom as opposed to zero output as erroneously alleged by your ignorant buddy.


----------



## elektra

Derideo_Te said:


> elektra said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Derideo_Te said:
> 
> 
> 
> Already done so in another post but still zip from you!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No, you do not provide links to your recent posts that I commented on, you have zero credibility providing no links to your posts.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Try reading post #114.
> 
> http://www.usmessageboard.com/8235901-post114.html
Click to expand...


A press announcement from a Wind Turbine service company that provides wind measurement equipment is your source?

Now that is a big joke, there is zero technical data in the press announcement, zero, nothing showing costs or failures. Nothing showing even basic maintenance. 

All this proves is you know nothing of your own link.

At best its a simple marketing piece advertising for a service company.

Your link is useless in supporting the claim you make.


----------



## Derideo_Te

elektra said:


> Derideo_Te said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> elektra said:
> 
> 
> 
> No, you do not provide links to your recent posts that I commented on, you have zero credibility providing no links to your posts.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Try reading post #114.
> 
> http://www.usmessageboard.com/8235901-post114.html
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> A press announcement from a Wind Turbine service company that provides wind measurement equipment is your source?
> 
> Now that is a big joke, there is zero technical data in the press announcement, zero, nothing showing costs or failures. Nothing showing even basic maintenance.
> 
> All this proves is you know nothing of your own link.
> 
> At best its a simple marketing piece advertising for a service company.
> 
> Your link is useless in supporting the claim you make.
Click to expand...


Typical mindless response. You were provided with a credible link and you cannot refute a single fact so you pretend instead!


----------



## elektra

Derideo_Te said:


> elektra said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Derideo_Te said:
> 
> 
> 
> Obviously you have never actually read anything at all about solar energy because you believe that it "runs out" "everytime a cloud goes by or it rains".
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Enlighten us, what is the output of the best Solar Panels during thunderstorms?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Photovoltaics use ultraviolet rays and continue to perform at about 50% capacity during a thunderstom as opposed to zero output as erroneously alleged by your ignorant buddy.
Click to expand...


50% or more, if the storm is severe enough output will zero. I have no Buddies here, why take cheap shots at me.

Photovoltaics energy output goes down to as little as 2% during severe weather conditions.


----------



## jon_berzerk

elektra said:


> Derideo_Te said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> elektra said:
> 
> 
> 
> Enlighten us, what is the output of the best Solar Panels during thunderstorms?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Photovoltaics use ultraviolet rays and continue to perform at about 50% capacity during a thunderstom as opposed to zero output as erroneously alleged by your ignorant buddy.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 50% or more, if the storm is severe enough output will zero. I have no Buddies here, why take cheap shots at me.
> 
> Photovoltaics energy output goes down to as little as 2% during severe weather conditions.
Click to expand...


just when you would need it the most


----------



## Derideo_Te

elektra said:


> Derideo_Te said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> elektra said:
> 
> 
> 
> Enlighten us, what is the output of the best Solar Panels during thunderstorms?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Photovoltaics use ultraviolet rays and continue to perform at about 50% capacity during a thunderstom as opposed to zero output as erroneously alleged by your ignorant buddy.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 50% or more, if the storm is severe enough output will zero. I have no Buddies here, why take cheap shots at me.
> 
> Photovoltaics energy output goes down to as little as 2% during severe weather conditions.
Click to expand...


Your word carries zero weight around here given your failure to substantiate your allegations.


----------



## elektra

Derideo_Te said:


> elektra said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Derideo_Te said:
> 
> 
> 
> Photovoltaics use ultraviolet rays and continue to perform at about 50% capacity during a thunderstom as opposed to zero output as erroneously alleged by your ignorant buddy.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 50% or more, if the storm is severe enough output will zero. I have no Buddies here, why take cheap shots at me.
> 
> Photovoltaics energy output goes down to as little as 2% during severe weather conditions.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Your word carries zero weight around here given your failure to substantiate your allegations.
Click to expand...


Your post is substantiation enough, when you only respond with personal attacks and allegations that are untrue, that is reflective of your lack of ability to provide any facts or logic to support your contentions and beliefs.


----------



## elektra

Derideo_Te said:


> elektra said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Derideo_Te said:
> 
> 
> 
> Try reading post #114.
> 
> http://www.usmessageboard.com/8235901-post114.html
> 
> 
> 
> 
> A press announcement from a Wind Turbine service company that provides wind measurement equipment is your source?
> 
> Now that is a big joke, there is zero technical data in the press announcement, zero, nothing showing costs or failures. Nothing showing even basic maintenance.
> 
> All this proves is you know nothing of your own link.
> 
> At best its a simple marketing piece advertising for a service company.
> 
> Your link is useless in supporting the claim you make.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Typical mindless response. You were provided with a credible link and you cannot refute a single fact so you pretend instead!
Click to expand...


Advertising and Marketing from a corporation is considered credible? Hardly, keep trolling and flaming, its what your best at.


----------



## Derideo_Te

elektra said:


> Derideo_Te said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> elektra said:
> 
> 
> 
> A press announcement from a Wind Turbine service company that provides wind measurement equipment is your source?
> 
> Now that is a big joke, there is zero technical data in the press announcement, zero, nothing showing costs or failures. Nothing showing even basic maintenance.
> 
> All this proves is you know nothing of your own link.
> 
> At best its a simple marketing piece advertising for a service company.
> 
> Your link is useless in supporting the claim you make.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Typical mindless response. You were provided with a credible link and you cannot refute a single fact so you pretend instead!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Advertising and Marketing from a corporation is considered credible? Hardly, keep trolling and flaming, its what your best at.
Click to expand...


For someone who whines about "cheap shots" you have no problem slinging them around yourself but this is typical for a low information poster such as yourself who adds nothing in the way of value to this topic.


----------



## elektra

Derideo_Te said:


> elektra said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Derideo_Te said:
> 
> 
> 
> Typical mindless response. You were provided with a credible link and you cannot refute a single fact so you pretend instead!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Advertising and Marketing from a corporation is considered credible? Hardly, keep trolling and flaming, its what your best at.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> For someone who whines about "cheap shots" you have no problem slinging them around yourself but this is typical for a low information poster such as yourself who adds nothing in the way of value to this topic.
Click to expand...


Your best at trolling, another cheap flame, once again your post has nothing to do with the thread, keep the personal attacks rolling and characterization of my post coming, they work, they distract from your post linking to advertisements from corporation as a "Credible Link".

Its nice to see your so upset with my facts you got to keep trolling and flaming my post.

Derideo_Te Links to a Corporation's marketing advertisement and calls that a credible link, ha, ha, ha!


----------



## longknife

The problem is - do you support worth while ignoring coal and oil?

If so, you are doing nothing but hurting the poor by raising the costs of energy to the point where it hurts their ability to eat and provide for other necessities.

Remember, it has taken nearly a century to bring coal and oil technologies to where they are today. Renewable energies are still in the shake-down stages and the side effects are still being studied.

I think we are being forced to use technologies that are not yet ready for the market - they will not survive at this moment without onerous government support.


----------



## Derideo_Te

longknife said:


> The problem is - do you support worth while ignoring coal and oil?
> 
> If so, you are doing nothing but hurting the poor by raising the costs of energy to the point where it hurts their ability to eat and provide for other necessities.
> 
> Remember, it has taken nearly a century to bring coal and oil technologies to where they are today. Renewable energies are still in the shake-down stages and the side effects are still being studied.
> 
> I think we are being forced to use *technologies that are not yet ready for the market - they will not survive at this moment without onerous government support*.



Please substantiate "onerous government support", thank you.


----------



## longknife

Derideo_Te said:


> longknife said:
> 
> 
> 
> The problem is - do you support worth while ignoring coal and oil?
> 
> If so, you are doing nothing but hurting the poor by raising the costs of energy to the point where it hurts their ability to eat and provide for other necessities.
> 
> Remember, it has taken nearly a century to bring coal and oil technologies to where they are today. Renewable energies are still in the shake-down stages and the side effects are still being studied.
> 
> I think we are being forced to use *technologies that are not yet ready for the market - they will not survive at this moment without onerous government support*.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Please substantiate "onerous government support", thank you.
Click to expand...


I'm specifically referring to the billions spent supporting green companies that later went bankrupt! You want some specifics, do your own search.


----------



## Derideo_Te

longknife said:


> Derideo_Te said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> longknife said:
> 
> 
> 
> The problem is - do you support worth while ignoring coal and oil?
> 
> If so, you are doing nothing but hurting the poor by raising the costs of energy to the point where it hurts their ability to eat and provide for other necessities.
> 
> Remember, it has taken nearly a century to bring coal and oil technologies to where they are today. Renewable energies are still in the shake-down stages and the side effects are still being studied.
> 
> I think we are being forced to use *technologies that are not yet ready for the market - they will not survive at this moment without onerous government support*.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Please substantiate "onerous government support", thank you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'm specifically referring to the billions spent supporting green companies that later went bankrupt! You want some specifics, do your own search.
Click to expand...


In other words you don't have anything at all to support your allegation. Thank you for being honest enough to admit to your lack of substance when it comes to solar and wind energy.


----------



## longknife

Derideo_Te said:


> longknife said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Derideo_Te said:
> 
> 
> 
> Please substantiate "onerous government support", thank you.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'm specifically referring to the billions spent supporting green companies that later went bankrupt! You want some specifics, do your own search.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> In other words you don't have anything at all to support your allegation. Thank you for being honest enough to admit to your lack of substance when it comes to solar and wind energy.
Click to expand...


The sad, inevitable results of the VC bubble and solar shakeout @ Rest in Peace: The List of Deceased Solar Companies : Greentech Media

President Obama's Taxpayer-Backed Green Energy Failures @ President Obama's Taxpayer-Backed Green Energy Failures

Among a very few


----------



## westwall

Derideo_Te said:


> elektra said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Derideo_Te said:
> 
> 
> 
> And yet you never produce a single credible link supporting your own allegations.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Its not an allegation, its something you can physically see, Solar Power farms are bigger in size than a Fossil Power plant that produces equal power, bigger in size does mean it takes more energy to produce, more natural resources. If you can not grasp something that simple no amount of links in the world will convince you.
> 
> Should I also provide a link to show you that the Sky is blue.
> 
> Links will not teach common sense.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Zero link = zero credibility!
Click to expand...










How about some photo's?  Everything has a cost, something which you all seem to forget.
Here's the visual cost, add to that the loss of ground for the critter that used to live under these things.  A serious problem here in the Nevada desert where these will make life very difficult, if not impossible for the desert tortoise which is endangered.


----------



## westwall

Derideo_Te said:


> longknife said:
> 
> 
> 
> The problem is - do you support worth while ignoring coal and oil?
> 
> If so, you are doing nothing but hurting the poor by raising the costs of energy to the point where it hurts their ability to eat and provide for other necessities.
> 
> Remember, it has taken nearly a century to bring coal and oil technologies to where they are today. Renewable energies are still in the shake-down stages and the side effects are still being studied.
> 
> I think we are being forced to use *technologies that are not yet ready for the market - they will not survive at this moment without onerous government support*.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Please substantiate "onerous government support", thank you.
Click to expand...







They would not exist without government support.  Period.  If you take away the massive government tax subsidies and the governments war on fossil fuels to drive up their cost, then renewables would be gone in under a year.  They are totally non competitive with fossil fuels at the moment (and probably forever).


----------



## westwall

Derideo_Te said:


> longknife said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Derideo_Te said:
> 
> 
> 
> Please substantiate "onerous government support", thank you.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'm specifically referring to the billions spent supporting green companies that later went bankrupt! You want some specifics, do your own search.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> In other words you don't have anything at all to support your allegation. Thank you for being honest enough to admit to your lack of substance when it comes to solar and wind energy.
Click to expand...








No, it's the other way around.  You intentionally choose to ignore the costs of renewables.  Just a typical response from one who wants to do good but doesn't know how to.


----------



## Derideo_Te

longknife said:


> Derideo_Te said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> longknife said:
> 
> 
> 
> I'm specifically referring to the billions spent supporting green companies that later went bankrupt! You want some specifics, do your own search.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> In other words you don't have anything at all to support your allegation. Thank you for being honest enough to admit to your lack of substance when it comes to solar and wind energy.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The sad, inevitable results of the VC bubble and solar shakeout @ Rest in Peace: The List of Deceased Solar Companies : Greentech Media
> 
> President Obama's Taxpayer-Backed Green Energy Failures @ President Obama's Taxpayer-Backed Green Energy Failures
> 
> Among a very few
Click to expand...


So 10% of ventures fail? Sounds about normal given that the prior administration wrecked the economy. But it is hardly the "onerous" burden that you are pretending that it is. The war in Iraq cost more per month than all of those failures combined. And from the successes we get new jobs but the war in Iraq produced nothing of any value while harming the lives of some of our finest.


----------



## elektra

Is it even possible to know the exact cost of Solar Power, its extremely expensive and much of the cost is subsidized. How about all the Public Universities across the USA pumping tax dollars into Professors hands. I say its billions but try and find a figure, its impossible, if the facts are on the web they are obscured by all the junk results, stuff the Green Energy companies themselves pay to have found first. 

So what is the burden and cost placed on us by using public Universities for failing Solar Policies.


----------



## flacaltenn

Derideo_Te said:


> elektra said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Derideo_Te said:
> 
> 
> 
> Photovoltaics use ultraviolet rays and continue to perform at about 50% capacity during a thunderstom as opposed to zero output as erroneously alleged by your ignorant buddy.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 50% or more, if the storm is severe enough output will zero. I have no Buddies here, why take cheap shots at me.
> 
> Photovoltaics energy output goes down to as little as 2% during severe weather conditions.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Your word carries zero weight around here given your failure to substantiate your allegations.
Click to expand...


The problem is Derideo -- that you NEED a lot of remedial tutorials to bring your common sense about solar PV effects up to date. 

Electra is correct to assert that what you will get during a storm is close to zero.. Your eye is a bandlimited LOGARITHMIC detector --- whereas a PV panel is more linear and possibly (if you paid enough) wider band detector. Thus even TINY differences that your eye can barely detect will humble the output the output of a panel.. 

THIS ------ is a typical variation of a home installation due to weather conditions. MOST of the effect is not precipt, but simply cloud cover and shading from trees and chimneys and such.. 

The impact of clouds on your solar PV system | GreenEnergyNet.com






Here is a vid showing barely ANY output on a cloudy day.. Less than 10% of rated generation... 

[ame="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ReqmFfLvRKc"]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ReqmFfLvRKc[/ame]


----------



## flacaltenn

Derideo_Te said:


> longknife said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Derideo_Te said:
> 
> 
> 
> In other words you don't have anything at all to support your allegation. Thank you for being honest enough to admit to your lack of substance when it comes to solar and wind energy.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The sad, inevitable results of the VC bubble and solar shakeout @ Rest in Peace: The List of Deceased Solar Companies : Greentech Media
> 
> President Obama's Taxpayer-Backed Green Energy Failures @ President Obama's Taxpayer-Backed Green Energy Failures
> 
> Among a very few
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So 10% of ventures fail? Sounds about normal given that the prior administration wrecked the economy. But it is hardly the "onerous" burden that you are pretending that it is. The war in Iraq cost more per month than all of those failures combined. And from the successes we get new jobs but the war in Iraq produced nothing of any value while harming the lives of some of our finest.
Click to expand...


The onerous burden is that $BILLS was committed and WASTED by the govt to chase ridiculous ideas to make America more competitive in the Solar Biz. At this point, the tech is FULLY MATURE and gimmicks (like Solyndra) have no market value.. The ONLY thing that matters at this point is cost of production and quality control..  ALL American solar companies save 3 or 4 have failed. And the remainder of the zombies are only living off Govt welfare and massive subsidies..


----------



## Derideo_Te

flacaltenn said:


> Derideo_Te said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> elektra said:
> 
> 
> 
> 50% or more, if the storm is severe enough output will zero. I have no Buddies here, why take cheap shots at me.
> 
> Photovoltaics energy output goes down to as little as 2% during severe weather conditions.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Your word carries zero weight around here given your failure to substantiate your allegations.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The problem is Derideo -- that you NEED a lot of remedial tutorials to bring your common sense about solar PV effects up to date.
> 
> Electra is correct to assert that what you will get during a storm is close to zero.. Your eye is a bandlimited LOGARITHMIC detector --- whereas a PV panel is more linear and possibly (if you paid enough) wider band detector. Thus even TINY differences that your eye can barely detect will humble the output the output of a panel..
> 
> THIS ------ is a typical variation of a home installation due to weather conditions. MOST of the effect is not precipt, but simply cloud cover and shading from trees and chimneys and such..
> 
> The impact of clouds on your solar PV system | GreenEnergyNet.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Here is a vid showing barely ANY output on a cloudy day.. Less than 10% of rated generation...
> 
> [ame="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ReqmFfLvRKc"]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ReqmFfLvRKc[/ame]
Click to expand...


Didn't even read your own link, did you?



> *domestic scale solar PV system...located in mid-Scotland*


----------



## Derideo_Te

flacaltenn said:


> Derideo_Te said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> longknife said:
> 
> 
> 
> The sad, inevitable results of the VC bubble and solar shakeout @ Rest in Peace: The List of Deceased Solar Companies : Greentech Media
> 
> President Obama's Taxpayer-Backed Green Energy Failures @ President Obama's Taxpayer-Backed Green Energy Failures
> 
> Among a very few
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So 10% of ventures fail? Sounds about normal given that the prior administration wrecked the economy. But it is hardly the "onerous" burden that you are pretending that it is. The war in Iraq cost more per month than all of those failures combined. And from the successes we get new jobs but the war in Iraq produced nothing of any value while harming the lives of some of our finest.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The onerous burden is that $BILLS was committed and WASTED by the govt to chase ridiculous ideas to make America more competitive in the Solar Biz. At this point, the tech is FULLY MATURE and gimmicks (like Solyndra) have no market value.. The ONLY thing that matters at this point is cost of production and quality control..  *ALL American solar companies save 3 or 4 have failed*. And the remainder of the zombies are only living off Govt welfare and massive subsidies..
Click to expand...


$80b was allocated and so far less than 10% of those funds have been listed by your links as "failed" so unless you have another magic list somewhere you are just making this up as you go along!


----------



## flacaltenn

Derideo_Te said:


> flacaltenn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Derideo_Te said:
> 
> 
> 
> So 10% of ventures fail? Sounds about normal given that the prior administration wrecked the economy. But it is hardly the "onerous" burden that you are pretending that it is. The war in Iraq cost more per month than all of those failures combined. And from the successes we get new jobs but the war in Iraq produced nothing of any value while harming the lives of some of our finest.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The onerous burden is that $BILLS was committed and WASTED by the govt to chase ridiculous ideas to make America more competitive in the Solar Biz. At this point, the tech is FULLY MATURE and gimmicks (like Solyndra) have no market value.. The ONLY thing that matters at this point is cost of production and quality control..  *ALL American solar companies save 3 or 4 have failed*. And the remainder of the zombies are only living off Govt welfare and massive subsidies..
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> $80b was allocated and so far less than 10% of those funds have been listed by your links as "failed" so unless you have another magic list somewhere you are just making this up as you go along!
Click to expand...


Not only do you require Remedial Tutoring on how Solar PV functions in the presence of weather --- but evidently, you also need refreshment on basic reading skills. 

Don't CARE about some list of Govt renewable funding and their failures. My point was LIMITED to Solar Panel manufacturing and particularly its SUCCESS in the USA.. My comment was extremely correct.. Unless you can come up with MORE THAN 3 or 4 AMERICAN names on these lists.. 

List of photovoltaics companies - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

And of the 2 companies in the World top 10 producers, BOTH of them have severe financial issues.. 



> SunPower: Twice As Bad As Solyndra, Twice As Bad For Obama
> 
> How did a failing California solar company, buffeted by short sellers and shareholder lawsuits, receive a $1.2 billion federal loan guarantee for a photovoltaic electricity ranch project-three weeks after it announced it was building new manufacturing plant in Mexicali, Mexico, to build the panels for the project.
> 
> The company, SunPower (SPWR-NASDAQ), now carries $820 million in debt, an amount $20 million greater than its market capitalization.   If SunPower was a bank, the feds would shut it down.   Instead, it received a lifeline twice the size of the money sent down the Solyndra drain.



This thread is about solar and wind --- not the entire renewable circus...


----------



## flacaltenn

Derideo_Te said:


> flacaltenn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Derideo_Te said:
> 
> 
> 
> Your word carries zero weight around here given your failure to substantiate your allegations.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The problem is Derideo -- that you NEED a lot of remedial tutorials to bring your common sense about solar PV effects up to date.
> 
> Electra is correct to assert that what you will get during a storm is close to zero.. Your eye is a bandlimited LOGARITHMIC detector --- whereas a PV panel is more linear and possibly (if you paid enough) wider band detector. Thus even TINY differences that your eye can barely detect will humble the output the output of a panel..
> 
> THIS ------ is a typical variation of a home installation due to weather conditions. MOST of the effect is not precipt, but simply cloud cover and shading from trees and chimneys and such..
> 
> The impact of clouds on your solar PV system | GreenEnergyNet.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Here is a vid showing barely ANY output on a cloudy day.. Less than 10% of rated generation...
> 
> [ame="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ReqmFfLvRKc"]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ReqmFfLvRKc[/ame]
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Didn't even read your own link, did you?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *domestic scale solar PV system...located in mid-Scotland*
> 
> Click to expand...
Click to expand...


Of COURSE I read my own link.. Are you so brain-damaged that you believe that Solar Panels work DIFFERENTLY in Scotland?? 

They do not produce jack-shit on a cloudy day or during a storm. THAT'S gonna be on your quiz this Friday --  so learn it...
In the meantime -- pull yourself together and TRY to read that graph provided by a Green energy supplier.. It will explain to you why Solar is ONLY a peaker technology and is unreliable at even producing power 6 hours a day...


----------



## Derideo_Te

flacaltenn said:


> Derideo_Te said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> flacaltenn said:
> 
> 
> 
> The onerous burden is that $BILLS was committed and WASTED by the govt to chase ridiculous ideas to make America more competitive in the Solar Biz. At this point, the tech is FULLY MATURE and gimmicks (like Solyndra) have no market value.. The ONLY thing that matters at this point is cost of production and quality control..  *ALL American solar companies save 3 or 4 have failed*. And the remainder of the zombies are only living off Govt welfare and massive subsidies..
> 
> 
> 
> 
> $80b was allocated and so far less than 10% of those funds have been listed by your links as "failed" so unless you have another magic list somewhere you are just making this up as you go along!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Not only do you require Remedial Tutoring on how Solar PV functions in the presence of weather --- but evidently, you also need refreshment on basic reading skills.
> 
> Don't CARE about some list of Govt renewable funding and their failures. My point was LIMITED to Solar Panel manufacturing and particularly its SUCCESS in the USA.. My comment was extremely correct.. Unless you can come up with MORE THAN 3 or 4 AMERICAN names on these lists..
> 
> List of photovoltaics companies - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
> 
> And of the 2 companies in the World top 10 producers, BOTH of them have severe financial issues..
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SunPower: Twice As Bad As Solyndra, Twice As Bad For Obama
> 
> How did a failing California solar company, buffeted by short sellers and shareholder lawsuits, receive a $1.2 billion federal loan guarantee for a photovoltaic electricity ranch project-three weeks after it announced it was building new manufacturing plant in Mexicali, Mexico, to build the panels for the project.
> 
> The company, SunPower (SPWR-NASDAQ), now carries $820 million in debt, an amount $20 million greater than its market capitalization.   If SunPower was a bank, the feds would shut it down.   Instead, it received a lifeline twice the size of the money sent down the Solyndra drain.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> This thread is about solar and wind --- not the entire renewable circus...
Click to expand...


Wall Street knows more about the profitability of SunPower than you do because it is rated as a "buy" stock.

SPWR stock quote - SunPower Corporation stock price - NASDAQ.com


----------



## flacaltenn

Matthew said:


> This is what coal does...Unregulated fucking coal.



Let's discuss what can be learned from this pic.. Assuming its mostly pollution and not weather. 

The worlds LARGEST EVER centrally planned economy (the kind of govt you adore), gets tired of supporting a BILLION people who are mostly at subsidence poverty level.. They decide to leverage a modern economy by attracting capital and expertise from all over the world and capturing the MAJORITY of the world's labor and production output.

Fast forward to today where their middle class has EXPLODED from near zero to a substantial car-buying, mall-shopping, IPhone carrying populace. A nation that's virtually cornered the market in "renewable energy products". Tearing up miles of gorges to build out hydro, installing the world's LARGEST BASE of renewables and STILL --- we get that picture. Why is that? 

1) The plan to move China to a world economy REQUIRED constant CHEAP AND RELIABLE energy.. That was on the Top 3 reasons for world manufacturers to come there. 

2) The Central Planners placed no value on building BACKBONE generation with adequate or even state of the art scrubbing and pollution controls.. 

3) All the renewables they brought to bear were KNOWN not to have value to the CHEAP AND RELIABLE energy that they needed to succeed and impress their foreign investors.. In some cases, it was simply a ploy to build EXPERIENCE with these products that the rest of the world seemed to crave.. 

THAT should be stuff you learn from that picture... Fix the Central Planning and the RELIABILITY of renewables and things might change... 

But in the meantime --- THEY ARE GAINING JOBS and wealth.. We are BLEEDING JOBS and WEALTH.. Go figure eh??


----------



## flacaltenn

Derideo_Te said:


> flacaltenn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Derideo_Te said:
> 
> 
> 
> $80b was allocated and so far less than 10% of those funds have been listed by your links as "failed" so unless you have another magic list somewhere you are just making this up as you go along!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Not only do you require Remedial Tutoring on how Solar PV functions in the presence of weather --- but evidently, you also need refreshment on basic reading skills.
> 
> Don't CARE about some list of Govt renewable funding and their failures. My point was LIMITED to Solar Panel manufacturing and particularly its SUCCESS in the USA.. My comment was extremely correct.. Unless you can come up with MORE THAN 3 or 4 AMERICAN names on these lists..
> 
> List of photovoltaics companies - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
> 
> And of the 2 companies in the World top 10 producers, BOTH of them have severe financial issues..
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SunPower: Twice As Bad As Solyndra, Twice As Bad For Obama
> 
> How did a failing California solar company, buffeted by short sellers and shareholder lawsuits, receive a $1.2 billion federal loan guarantee for a photovoltaic electricity ranch project-three weeks after it announced it was building new manufacturing plant in Mexicali, Mexico, to build the panels for the project.
> 
> The company, SunPower (SPWR-NASDAQ), now carries $820 million in debt, an amount $20 million greater than its market capitalization.   If SunPower was a bank, the feds would shut it down.   Instead, it received a lifeline twice the size of the money sent down the Solyndra drain.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> This thread is about solar and wind --- not the entire renewable circus...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Wall Street knows more about the profitability of SunPower than you do because it is rated as a "buy" stock.
> 
> SPWR stock quote - SunPower Corporation stock price - NASDAQ.com
Click to expand...



Let's see. First you needed technical remediation.. Then you required reading comprehension refresher. AND NOW we gotta add financial common sense?? 
Wow man --- This list is getting truely long.... 






Why of course kiddo --- DIVE RIGHT IN.. If you like going opposite of the general marketplace.. 

But before you get your wallet out --- I'm obligated to tell you to read your own link.. 



> 52 Week High /Low: $ 35.39 / $ 4.51
> 
> Read more: SPWR stock quote - SunPower Corporation stock price - NASDAQ.com



Over ONE YEAR? A stock that varied from $4.50 to $35.00 and peaked a week ago and is headed back down?? By all means --- go all in...


----------



## westwall

Derideo_Te said:


> flacaltenn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Derideo_Te said:
> 
> 
> 
> Your word carries zero weight around here given your failure to substantiate your allegations.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The problem is Derideo -- that you NEED a lot of remedial tutorials to bring your common sense about solar PV effects up to date.
> 
> Electra is correct to assert that what you will get during a storm is close to zero.. Your eye is a bandlimited LOGARITHMIC detector --- whereas a PV panel is more linear and possibly (if you paid enough) wider band detector. Thus even TINY differences that your eye can barely detect will humble the output the output of a panel..
> 
> THIS ------ is a typical variation of a home installation due to weather conditions. MOST of the effect is not precipt, but simply cloud cover and shading from trees and chimneys and such..
> 
> The impact of clouds on your solar PV system | GreenEnergyNet.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Here is a vid showing barely ANY output on a cloudy day.. Less than 10% of rated generation...
> 
> [ame="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ReqmFfLvRKc"]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ReqmFfLvRKc[/ame]
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Didn't even read your own link, did you?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *domestic scale solar PV system...located in mid-Scotland*
> 
> Click to expand...
Click to expand...







Are you being intentionally stupid?  The video is presented to show what happens when a cloud occults a solar module.


----------



## Derideo_Te

westwall said:


> Derideo_Te said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> flacaltenn said:
> 
> 
> 
> The problem is Derideo -- that you NEED a lot of remedial tutorials to bring your common sense about solar PV effects up to date.
> 
> Electra is correct to assert that what you will get during a storm is close to zero.. Your eye is a bandlimited LOGARITHMIC detector --- whereas a PV panel is more linear and possibly (if you paid enough) wider band detector. Thus even TINY differences that your eye can barely detect will humble the output the output of a panel..
> 
> THIS ------ is a typical variation of a home installation due to weather conditions. MOST of the effect is not precipt, but simply cloud cover and shading from trees and chimneys and such..
> 
> The impact of clouds on your solar PV system | GreenEnergyNet.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Here is a vid showing barely ANY output on a cloudy day.. Less than 10% of rated generation...
> 
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ReqmFfLvRKc
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Didn't even read your own link, did you?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *domestic scale solar PV system...located in mid-Scotland*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Are you being intentionally stupid?  The video is presented to show what happens when a cloud occults a solar module.
Click to expand...


The fixation on clouds by the extreme right says volumes about their desperation. Solar works and it is moving into the mainstream. Utilities are investing in solar farms for the simple reason that they know that the cost of fossil fuels will outstrip the cost of solar long before the panels need to be replaced. They have done the math and figured out that the return from wind power is cost effective too. Every new technology has successes and failures. The extreme right would be whining every time a steam train boiler blew up or derailed and claiming that it will never be viable. They would have had fits about the Model T and pointed at every traffic accident as a reason why no one would ever buy them.

Reality is in the math. Renewable energy sources have become cost effective and are being implemented both nationwide and worldwide. The extreme right doomsayers will continue to rant and rave but they cannot stop the march of progress.


----------



## westwall

Derideo_Te said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Derideo_Te said:
> 
> 
> 
> Didn't even read your own link, did you?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Are you being intentionally stupid?  The video is presented to show what happens when a cloud occults a solar module.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The fixation on clouds by the extreme right says volumes about their desperation. Solar works and it is moving into the mainstream. Utilities are investing in solar farms for the simple reason that they know that the cost of fossil fuels will outstrip the cost of solar long before the panels need to be replaced. They have done the math and figured out that the return from wind power is cost effective too. Every new technology has successes and failures. The extreme right would be whining every time a steam train boiler blew up or derailed and claiming that it will never be viable. They would have had fits about the Model T and pointed at every traffic accident as a reason why no one would ever buy them.
> 
> Reality is in the math. Renewable energy sources have become cost effective and are being implemented both nationwide and worldwide. The extreme right doomsayers will continue to rant and rave but they cannot stop the march of progress.
Click to expand...







Desperation?  We're not the desperate ones silly person.  You are witnessing the wholesale failure of an entire division of science called "climatology".  So long as theirs was the only message renewables were growing.  

Now that our voice is finally being heard, the total failure of the renewable systems is becoming known and the support for them is likewise failing.

Keep dancing, but your time is coming to a end...and soon.


----------



## Derideo_Te

westwall said:


> Derideo_Te said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> Are you being intentionally stupid?  The video is presented to show what happens when a cloud occults a solar module.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The fixation on clouds by the extreme right says volumes about their desperation. Solar works and it is moving into the mainstream. Utilities are investing in solar farms for the simple reason that they know that the cost of fossil fuels will outstrip the cost of solar long before the panels need to be replaced. They have done the math and figured out that the return from wind power is cost effective too. Every new technology has successes and failures. The extreme right would be whining every time a steam train boiler blew up or derailed and claiming that it will never be viable. They would have had fits about the Model T and pointed at every traffic accident as a reason why no one would ever buy them.
> 
> Reality is in the math. Renewable energy sources have become cost effective and are being implemented both nationwide and worldwide. The extreme right doomsayers will continue to rant and rave but they cannot stop the march of progress.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Desperation?  We're not the desperate ones silly person.  You are witnessing the wholesale failure of an entire division of science called "climatology".  So long as theirs was the only message renewables were growing.
> 
> Now that our voice is finally being heard, the total failure of the renewable systems is becoming known and the support for them is likewise failing.
> 
> Keep dancing, *but your time is coming to a end...and soon.*
Click to expand...


----------



## flacaltenn

Derideo_Te said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Derideo_Te said:
> 
> 
> 
> Didn't even read your own link, did you?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Are you being intentionally stupid?  The video is presented to show what happens when a cloud occults a solar module.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The fixation on clouds by the extreme right says volumes about their desperation. Solar works and it is moving into the mainstream. Utilities are investing in solar farms for the simple reason that they know that the cost of fossil fuels will outstrip the cost of solar long before the panels need to be replaced. They have done the math and figured out that the return from wind power is cost effective too. Every new technology has successes and failures. The extreme right would be whining every time a steam train boiler blew up or derailed and claiming that it will never be viable. They would have had fits about the Model T and pointed at every traffic accident as a reason why no one would ever buy them.
> 
> Reality is in the math. Renewable energy sources have become cost effective and are being implemented both nationwide and worldwide. The extreme right doomsayers will continue to rant and rave but they cannot stop the march of progress.
Click to expand...


...extreme right.... ... extreme right... ... extreme right doomsayers... 

Been trying to tell ya WestWall ---- if you're gonna insist on being a lefty, you're gonna have to renounce logic, science, and reason... 

   

So if ya think your solar panels are working great on a cloudy day --- it's just because you're a liberal.... 

ROFLing over the sad state of our country.....


----------



## jon_berzerk

flacaltenn said:


> Matthew said:
> 
> 
> 
> This is what coal does...Unregulated fucking coal.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Let's discuss what can be learned from this pic.. Assuming its mostly pollution and not weather.
> 
> The worlds LARGEST EVER centrally planned economy (the kind of govt you adore), gets tired of supporting a BILLION people who are mostly at subsidence poverty level.. They decide to leverage a modern economy by attracting capital and expertise from all over the world and capturing the MAJORITY of the world's labor and production output.
> 
> Fast forward to today where their middle class has EXPLODED from near zero to a substantial car-buying, mall-shopping, IPhone carrying populace. A nation that's virtually cornered the market in "renewable energy products". Tearing up miles of gorges to build out hydro, installing the world's LARGEST BASE of renewables and STILL --- we get that picture. Why is that?
> 
> 1) The plan to move China to a world economy REQUIRED constant CHEAP AND RELIABLE energy.. That was on the Top 3 reasons for world manufacturers to come there.
> 
> 2) The Central Planners placed no value on building BACKBONE generation with adequate or even state of the art scrubbing and pollution controls..
> 
> 3) All the renewables they brought to bear were KNOWN not to have value to the CHEAP AND RELIABLE energy that they needed to succeed and impress their foreign investors.. In some cases, it was simply a ploy to build EXPERIENCE with these products that the rest of the world seemed to crave..
> 
> THAT should be stuff you learn from that picture... Fix the Central Planning and the RELIABILITY of renewables and things might change...
> 
> But in the meantime --- THEY ARE GAINING JOBS and wealth.. We are BLEEDING JOBS and WEALTH.. Go figure eh??
Click to expand...


obama once wondered aloud 

"why cant we be more like china"...."why"


----------



## westwall

Derideo_Te said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Derideo_Te said:
> 
> 
> 
> The fixation on clouds by the extreme right says volumes about their desperation. Solar works and it is moving into the mainstream. Utilities are investing in solar farms for the simple reason that they know that the cost of fossil fuels will outstrip the cost of solar long before the panels need to be replaced. They have done the math and figured out that the return from wind power is cost effective too. Every new technology has successes and failures. The extreme right would be whining every time a steam train boiler blew up or derailed and claiming that it will never be viable. They would have had fits about the Model T and pointed at every traffic accident as a reason why no one would ever buy them.
> 
> Reality is in the math. Renewable energy sources have become cost effective and are being implemented both nationwide and worldwide. The extreme right doomsayers will continue to rant and rave but they cannot stop the march of progress.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Desperation?  We're not the desperate ones silly person.  You are witnessing the wholesale failure of an entire division of science called "climatology".  So long as theirs was the only message renewables were growing.
> 
> Now that our voice is finally being heard, the total failure of the renewable systems is becoming known and the support for them is likewise failing.
> 
> Keep dancing, *but your time is coming to a end...and soon.*
> 
> Click to expand...
Click to expand...








Yes, you clowns bleat that all of the time.  For over 2,000 years fools like you have been wearing the sandwich boards, yours is just the latest incarnation.  How many "tipping points" have you asshats warned us about?  For 30 years now?

  The unwashed loons wearing the sandwich boards are YOU!  And here is one of your high priests to reinforce my argument... Oh yes he now showers less to prevent climate change....how's that for loony?



"One of the world's leading climate scientists has outlined a radical plan to hold temperatures to a 2C rise, the threshold that governments have agreed to limit rises to  but he accepts it may cause consternation among the very rich.


Kevin Anderson, professor of energy and climate change at the University of Manchester and deputy head of the Tyndall Centre, has argued previously that industrialised countries may need to go into recession to reduce emissions enough to ensure temperatures do not rise over 2C.


But as a 4C rise, which is looking increasingly realistic, would be "catastrophic" and must be avoided at all costs, he now says that political and personal efforts should be concentrated on changing the consumption patterns of the very few who emit the most  and that includes most of the people at the climate talks currently underway in Warsaw.


"We think it is still possible to avoid 2C rise. It's feasible, but only just. We think that there are economic but not financial benefits," he told a side meeting at the UN talks.


"Annex 1 [industrialised] countries need a 70% reduction in emissions consumption in 10 years to give us an outside chance of holding temperatures to a 2C rise. They need to cut emissions by 10% annually. We need to be fully de-carbonised in the 2020-30s, and that means planes, fridges, everything [must emit far less] to give a bit of an opportunity for poorer parts of the world to develop."




Make the rich change their ways to avoid a 2C rise, says top scientist | Environment | theguardian.com


----------



## elektra

Derideo_Te said:


> flacaltenn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Derideo_Te said:
> 
> 
> 
> $80b was allocated and so far less than 10% of those funds have been listed by your links as "failed" so unless you have another magic list somewhere you are just making this up as you go along!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Not only do you require Remedial Tutoring on how Solar PV functions in the presence of weather --- but evidently, you also need refreshment on basic reading skills.
> 
> Don't CARE about some list of Govt renewable funding and their failures. My point was LIMITED to Solar Panel manufacturing and particularly its SUCCESS in the USA.. My comment was extremely correct.. Unless you can come up with MORE THAN 3 or 4 AMERICAN names on these lists..
> 
> List of photovoltaics companies - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
> 
> And of the 2 companies in the World top 10 producers, BOTH of them have severe financial issues..
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SunPower: Twice As Bad As Solyndra, Twice As Bad For Obama
> 
> How did a failing California solar company, buffeted by short sellers and shareholder lawsuits, receive a $1.2 billion federal loan guarantee for a photovoltaic electricity ranch project-three weeks after it announced it was building new manufacturing plant in Mexicali, Mexico, to build the panels for the project.
> 
> The company, SunPower (SPWR-NASDAQ), now carries $820 million in debt, an amount $20 million greater than its market capitalization.   If SunPower was a bank, the feds would shut it down.   Instead, it received a lifeline twice the size of the money sent down the Solyndra drain.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> This thread is about solar and wind --- not the entire renewable circus...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Wall Street knows more about the profitability of SunPower than you do because it is rated as a "buy" stock.
> 
> SPWR stock quote - SunPower Corporation stock price - NASDAQ.com
Click to expand...


Wall Street is known to make short term gains selling stocks, today they say buy, tomorrow may be a shock.


----------



## elektra

Derideo_Te said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Derideo_Te said:
> 
> 
> 
> Didn't even read your own link, did you?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Are you being intentionally stupid?  The video is presented to show what happens when a cloud occults a solar module.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The fixation on clouds by the extreme right says volumes about their desperation. Solar works and it is moving into the mainstream. Utilities are investing in solar farms for the simple reason that they know that the cost of fossil fuels will outstrip the cost of solar long before the panels need to be replaced. They have done the math and figured out that the return from wind power is cost effective too. Every new technology has successes and failures. The extreme right would be whining every time a steam train boiler blew up or derailed and claiming that it will never be viable. They would have had fits about the Model T and pointed at every traffic accident as a reason why no one would ever buy them.
> 
> Reality is in the math. Renewable energy sources have become cost effective and are being implemented both nationwide and worldwide. The extreme right doomsayers will continue to rant and rave but they cannot stop the march of progress.
Click to expand...


Actually utilities are investing in Solar because they have a monopoly in local markets protected by Liberal Government rules and regulations. State law in California is being changed to allow the utilities to raise electrical rates to pay for expensive Solar, the customers have no choice, we are literally serfs doing as a tyrannical government dictates. 

Government mandated profits for Utilities companies is pushing the investment in Solar. Not to mention Cap and Trade on CO2 via AB32 here in California. 

Do the math, bull? Read the Assembly bills, read the laws, and read how government is mandating what a customer must buy.


----------



## Bern80

At the moment I can't really support either other than on a small scale. For indiviudual use it's good, but trying to do it on a scale to provide power to a large community you're really just trading one environmental problem for another. Sure you might be making a rather miniscule impact in improving air quality, but what about the habitable land you're taking up to do that? And I'm not talking about habitable land for humans, but animals too. You have to see the irony in environmentalists, who are supposed to be for protecting nature and all its creatures, pushing technology these mass wind farm, solar plants. Ethanol as a fuel source, etc. 

The production of ethanol is turning into one of the greatest ecological disasters ever. The ecological problems it causes far, far outway the detriment of their non-use. From the dead zones in the gulf created by fertilizer coming from the Mississippi which has increased because of more corn production to the loss of habitat for many animals for the corn. I live in southern Minnesota where most of the country side is corn crops. This is also true of the Dakotas. It wasn't always covered in corn fields though. Millions and millions of acres used to be CRP land. CRP was land farmers owned and the government subsidized them for to NOT plant on to preserve the natural environment. Then Obama, in another one of his moments of infinite wisdom, decided to have all these ethanol fuel mandates and subsidize production of ethanol. All of a sudden it simply became too lucrative to farmers to not plant corn. Now it's nothing but corn fields here and the population of pheasants is at a ten year low.  

Again I don't see a problem with using wind and solar on an individual basis. But the simple fact is as far as providing power for whole communities you simply can't match the energy you can get out of square acre of land from wind or solar to what you can get out of fossil fuels. They have a vastly smaller impact on the environment in terms of sqare acerage required to produce it.


----------



## Derideo_Te

Bern80 said:


> At the moment I can't really support either other than on a small scale. For indiviudual use it's good, but trying to do it on a scale to provide power to a large community you're really just trading one environmental problem for another. Sure you might be making a rather miniscule impact in improving air quality, but what about the habitable land you're taking up to do that? And I'm not talking about habitable land for humans, but animals too. You have to see the irony in environmentalists, who are supposed to be for protecting nature and all its creatures, pushing technology these mass wind farm, solar plants. Ethanol as a fuel source, etc.
> 
> The production of ethanol is turning into one of the greatest ecological disasters ever. The ecological problems it causes far, far outway the detriment of their non-use. From the dead zones in the gulf created by fertilizer coming from the Mississippi which has increased because of more corn production to the loss of habitat for many animals for the corn. I live in southern Minnesota where most of the country side is corn crops. This is also true of the Dakotas. It wasn't always covered in corn fields though. Millions and millions of acres used to be CRP land. CRP was land farmers owned and the government subsidized them for to NOT plant on to preserve the natural environment. Then Obama, in another one of his moments of infinite wisdom, decided to have all these ethanol fuel mandates and subsidize production of ethanol. All of a sudden it simply became too lucrative to farmers to not plant corn. Now it's nothing but corn fields here and the population of pheasants is at a ten year low.
> 
> Again I don't see a problem with using wind and solar on an individual basis. But the simple fact is as far as providing power for whole communities you simply can't match the energy you can get out of square acre of land from wind or solar to what you can get out of fossil fuels. They have a vastly smaller impact on the environment in terms of sqare acerage required to produce it.



You get dual use from land with wind turbines. The land can still be farmed at the same time as producing energy. The fallacy about ethanol was using corn instead of sawgrass. It was more of a boondoggle subsidy for the Farming Industrial Complex than a genuine green energy alternative.


----------



## flacaltenn

Derideo_Te said:


> Bern80 said:
> 
> 
> 
> At the moment I can't really support either other than on a small scale. For indiviudual use it's good, but trying to do it on a scale to provide power to a large community you're really just trading one environmental problem for another. Sure you might be making a rather miniscule impact in improving air quality, but what about the habitable land you're taking up to do that? And I'm not talking about habitable land for humans, but animals too. You have to see the irony in environmentalists, who are supposed to be for protecting nature and all its creatures, pushing technology these mass wind farm, solar plants. Ethanol as a fuel source, etc.
> 
> The production of ethanol is turning into one of the greatest ecological disasters ever. The ecological problems it causes far, far outway the detriment of their non-use. From the dead zones in the gulf created by fertilizer coming from the Mississippi which has increased because of more corn production to the loss of habitat for many animals for the corn. I live in southern Minnesota where most of the country side is corn crops. This is also true of the Dakotas. It wasn't always covered in corn fields though. Millions and millions of acres used to be CRP land. CRP was land farmers owned and the government subsidized them for to NOT plant on to preserve the natural environment. Then Obama, in another one of his moments of infinite wisdom, decided to have all these ethanol fuel mandates and subsidize production of ethanol. All of a sudden it simply became too lucrative to farmers to not plant corn. Now it's nothing but corn fields here and the population of pheasants is at a ten year low.
> 
> Again I don't see a problem with using wind and solar on an individual basis. But the simple fact is as far as providing power for whole communities you simply can't match the energy you can get out of square acre of land from wind or solar to what you can get out of fossil fuels. They have a vastly smaller impact on the environment in terms of sqare acerage required to produce it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You get dual use from land with wind turbines. The land can still be farmed at the same time as producing energy. The fallacy about ethanol was using corn instead of sawgrass. It was more of a boondoggle subsidy for the Farming Industrial Complex than a genuine green energy alternative.
Click to expand...


Just like your argument, the use of corn created valuable byproducts that can STILL be used for cattlefeed and other purposes. And it's more efficient for ethanol production anyway. 

The dual land argument is kinda getting panned in reality. Late in the day when the sun shadows the turbines, it drives both humans and cattle crazy with the giant moving shadows. That and the noise from multiple turbines is awfully dam loud..


----------



## Derideo_Te

flacaltenn said:


> Derideo_Te said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bern80 said:
> 
> 
> 
> At the moment I can't really support either other than on a small scale. For indiviudual use it's good, but trying to do it on a scale to provide power to a large community you're really just trading one environmental problem for another. Sure you might be making a rather miniscule impact in improving air quality, but what about the habitable land you're taking up to do that? And I'm not talking about habitable land for humans, but animals too. You have to see the irony in environmentalists, who are supposed to be for protecting nature and all its creatures, pushing technology these mass wind farm, solar plants. Ethanol as a fuel source, etc.
> 
> The production of ethanol is turning into one of the greatest ecological disasters ever. The ecological problems it causes far, far outway the detriment of their non-use. From the dead zones in the gulf created by fertilizer coming from the Mississippi which has increased because of more corn production to the loss of habitat for many animals for the corn. I live in southern Minnesota where most of the country side is corn crops. This is also true of the Dakotas. It wasn't always covered in corn fields though. Millions and millions of acres used to be CRP land. CRP was land farmers owned and the government subsidized them for to NOT plant on to preserve the natural environment. Then Obama, in another one of his moments of infinite wisdom, decided to have all these ethanol fuel mandates and subsidize production of ethanol. All of a sudden it simply became too lucrative to farmers to not plant corn. Now it's nothing but corn fields here and the population of pheasants is at a ten year low.
> 
> Again I don't see a problem with using wind and solar on an individual basis. But the simple fact is as far as providing power for whole communities you simply can't match the energy you can get out of square acre of land from wind or solar to what you can get out of fossil fuels. They have a vastly smaller impact on the environment in terms of sqare acerage required to produce it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You get dual use from land with wind turbines. The land can still be farmed at the same time as producing energy. The fallacy about ethanol was using corn instead of sawgrass. It was more of a boondoggle subsidy for the Farming Industrial Complex than a genuine green energy alternative.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Just like your argument, the use of corn created valuable byproducts that can STILL be used for cattlefeed and other purposes. *And it's more efficient for ethanol production anyway. *
Click to expand...

Facts NOT in evidence!



> Switchgrass is a perennial grass that grows naturally on roadsides and the edges of fields. In the new study, published Wednesday in the journal Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, researchers from the University of Nebraska and the U.S. Department of Agriculture teamed with paid farmers on 10 farms in Nebraska, South Dakota, North Dakota and Minnesota. The farmers planted switchgrass in fields ranging in size from about seven to 23 acres and grew it as a crop. They recorded all of the resources that they used in the planting and harvesting, from seeds to tractor fuel to pesticides to fertilizer, as well as the amount of switchgrass they harvested.
> 
> *The researchers then used that information, together with a model that calculates the amount of ethanol that can be produced per kilogram of switchgrass, and found that the switchgrass could provide 540 percent more energy than went into producing it.*





> The dual land argument is kinda getting panned in reality. Late in the day when the sun shadows the turbines, it drives both humans and cattle crazy with the giant moving shadows. That and the noise from multiple turbines is awfully dam loud..



That you have to resort to imaginary "noises" and "shadows" demonstrates just how weak your position has become.


----------



## Bern80

Derideo_Te said:


> Bern80 said:
> 
> 
> 
> At the moment I can't really support either other than on a small scale. For indiviudual use it's good, but trying to do it on a scale to provide power to a large community you're really just trading one environmental problem for another. Sure you might be making a rather miniscule impact in improving air quality, but what about the habitable land you're taking up to do that? And I'm not talking about habitable land for humans, but animals too. You have to see the irony in environmentalists, who are supposed to be for protecting nature and all its creatures, pushing technology these mass wind farm, solar plants. Ethanol as a fuel source, etc.
> 
> The production of ethanol is turning into one of the greatest ecological disasters ever. The ecological problems it causes far, far outway the detriment of their non-use. From the dead zones in the gulf created by fertilizer coming from the Mississippi which has increased because of more corn production to the loss of habitat for many animals for the corn. I live in southern Minnesota where most of the country side is corn crops. This is also true of the Dakotas. It wasn't always covered in corn fields though. Millions and millions of acres used to be CRP land. CRP was land farmers owned and the government subsidized them for to NOT plant on to preserve the natural environment. Then Obama, in another one of his moments of infinite wisdom, decided to have all these ethanol fuel mandates and subsidize production of ethanol. All of a sudden it simply became too lucrative to farmers to not plant corn. Now it's nothing but corn fields here and the population of pheasants is at a ten year low.
> 
> Again I don't see a problem with using wind and solar on an individual basis. But the simple fact is as far as providing power for whole communities you simply can't match the energy you can get out of square acre of land from wind or solar to what you can get out of fossil fuels. They have a vastly smaller impact on the environment in terms of sqare acerage required to produce it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You get dual use from land with wind turbines. The land can still be farmed at the same time as producing energy. The fallacy about ethanol was using corn instead of sawgrass. It was more of a boondoggle subsidy for the Farming Industrial Complex than a genuine green energy alternative.
Click to expand...


Tell that to the geese here that are getting chopped up by the wind farms. And duel purpose? Have you ever actually seen a wind farm? No farmer is going to want to try to harvest that land.


----------



## mamooth

Bern80 said:


> Have you ever actually seen a wind farm?



Yes, and almost all of them are located in cornfields.



> No farmer is going to want to try to harvest that land.



Then one wonders why they planted crops under the wind turbines.

I did pull over, prepared to be deafened by the wind turbines, and listened. From around a thousand feet away, I couldn't hear them over the background noise. Since the wind turbines are less noisy than passing traffic, I'm not hearing a problem.


----------



## jon_berzerk

mamooth said:


> Bern80 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Have you ever actually seen a wind farm?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, and almost all of them are located in cornfields.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No farmer is going to want to try to harvest that land.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Then one wonders why they planted crops under the wind turbines.
> 
> I did pull over, prepared to be deafened by the wind turbines, and listened. From around a thousand feet away, I couldn't hear them over the background noise. Since the wind turbines are less noisy than passing traffic, I'm not hearing a problem.
Click to expand...


i have not seen them in cornfields 

but rather on pasture land


----------



## Old Rocks

Bern80 said:


> Derideo_Te said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bern80 said:
> 
> 
> 
> At the moment I can't really support either other than on a small scale. For indiviudual use it's good, but trying to do it on a scale to provide power to a large community you're really just trading one environmental problem for another. Sure you might be making a rather miniscule impact in improving air quality, but what about the habitable land you're taking up to do that? And I'm not talking about habitable land for humans, but animals too. You have to see the irony in environmentalists, who are supposed to be for protecting nature and all its creatures, pushing technology these mass wind farm, solar plants. Ethanol as a fuel source, etc.
> 
> The production of ethanol is turning into one of the greatest ecological disasters ever. The ecological problems it causes far, far outway the detriment of their non-use. From the dead zones in the gulf created by fertilizer coming from the Mississippi which has increased because of more corn production to the loss of habitat for many animals for the corn. I live in southern Minnesota where most of the country side is corn crops. This is also true of the Dakotas. It wasn't always covered in corn fields though. Millions and millions of acres used to be CRP land. CRP was land farmers owned and the government subsidized them for to NOT plant on to preserve the natural environment. Then Obama, in another one of his moments of infinite wisdom, decided to have all these ethanol fuel mandates and subsidize production of ethanol. All of a sudden it simply became too lucrative to farmers to not plant corn. Now it's nothing but corn fields here and the population of pheasants is at a ten year low.
> 
> Again I don't see a problem with using wind and solar on an individual basis. But the simple fact is as far as providing power for whole communities you simply can't match the energy you can get out of square acre of land from wind or solar to what you can get out of fossil fuels. They have a vastly smaller impact on the environment in terms of sqare acerage required to produce it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You get dual use from land with wind turbines. The land can still be farmed at the same time as producing energy. The fallacy about ethanol was using corn instead of sawgrass. It was more of a boondoggle subsidy for the Farming Industrial Complex than a genuine green energy alternative.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Tell that to the geese here that are getting chopped up by the wind farms. And duel purpose? Have you ever actually seen a wind farm? No farmer is going to want to try to harvest that land.
Click to expand...


Are you that brain dead? Many thousands of acres of wheatland in Oregon and Washington support not only wheat but thousands of windmills. And, as one wheat farmer said about the ten mills on his land, the only complaint that he had was there were not twenty. The base of the mills take up little space, and the yearly royalty is around 5K. That is a real boon in an endeavor that can vary wildly from year to year in profitability.


----------



## Derideo_Te

Bern80 said:


> Derideo_Te said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bern80 said:
> 
> 
> 
> At the moment I can't really support either other than on a small scale. For indiviudual use it's good, but trying to do it on a scale to provide power to a large community you're really just trading one environmental problem for another. Sure you might be making a rather miniscule impact in improving air quality, but what about the habitable land you're taking up to do that? And I'm not talking about habitable land for humans, but animals too. You have to see the irony in environmentalists, who are supposed to be for protecting nature and all its creatures, pushing technology these mass wind farm, solar plants. Ethanol as a fuel source, etc.
> 
> The production of ethanol is turning into one of the greatest ecological disasters ever. The ecological problems it causes far, far outway the detriment of their non-use. From the dead zones in the gulf created by fertilizer coming from the Mississippi which has increased because of more corn production to the loss of habitat for many animals for the corn. I live in southern Minnesota where most of the country side is corn crops. This is also true of the Dakotas. It wasn't always covered in corn fields though. Millions and millions of acres used to be CRP land. CRP was land farmers owned and the government subsidized them for to NOT plant on to preserve the natural environment. Then Obama, in another one of his moments of infinite wisdom, decided to have all these ethanol fuel mandates and subsidize production of ethanol. All of a sudden it simply became too lucrative to farmers to not plant corn. Now it's nothing but corn fields here and the population of pheasants is at a ten year low.
> 
> Again I don't see a problem with using wind and solar on an individual basis. But the simple fact is as far as providing power for whole communities you simply can't match the energy you can get out of square acre of land from wind or solar to what you can get out of fossil fuels. They have a vastly smaller impact on the environment in terms of sqare acerage required to produce it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You get dual use from land with wind turbines. The land can still be farmed at the same time as producing energy. The fallacy about ethanol was using corn instead of sawgrass. It was more of a boondoggle subsidy for the Farming Industrial Complex than a genuine green energy alternative.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Tell that to the geese here that are getting chopped up by the wind farms. And duel purpose? Have you ever actually seen a wind farm? No farmer is going to want to try to harvest that land.
Click to expand...


Wildfowl deaths due to fossil fuel plants exceed those of wind turbines. FYI plenty of farmers are happy with dual use because they know that as long as those turbines are turning they have an alternate source of income that doesn't depend upon how much rain falls.


----------



## Derideo_Te

Old Rocks said:


> Bern80 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Derideo_Te said:
> 
> 
> 
> You get dual use from land with wind turbines. The land can still be farmed at the same time as producing energy. The fallacy about ethanol was using corn instead of sawgrass. It was more of a boondoggle subsidy for the Farming Industrial Complex than a genuine green energy alternative.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tell that to the geese here that are getting chopped up by the wind farms. And duel purpose? Have you ever actually seen a wind farm? No farmer is going to want to try to harvest that land.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Are you that brain dead? Many thousands of acres of wheatland in Oregon and Washington support not only wheat but thousands of windmills. And, as one wheat farmer said about the ten mills on his land, the only complaint that he had was there were not twenty. The base of the mills take up little space, and the yearly royalty is around 5K. That is a real boon in an endeavor that can vary wildly from year to year in profitability.
Click to expand...


Exactly, having a steady $50k pa income takes the stress out of the boom/bust cycles of farming.


----------



## jon_berzerk

Derideo_Te said:


> Old Rocks said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bern80 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Tell that to the geese here that are getting chopped up by the wind farms. And duel purpose? Have you ever actually seen a wind farm? No farmer is going to want to try to harvest that land.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Are you that brain dead? Many thousands of acres of wheatland in Oregon and Washington support not only wheat but thousands of windmills. And, as one wheat farmer said about the ten mills on his land, the only complaint that he had was there were not twenty. The base of the mills take up little space, and the yearly royalty is around 5K. That is a real boon in an endeavor that can vary wildly from year to year in profitability.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Exactly, having a steady $50k pa income takes the stress out of the boom/bust cycles of farming.
Click to expand...


i have heard ranging from 2 to 4 grand per mill property taxes rise as value of 

property increases with the long term income


----------



## mamooth

It might, however, give rise to "jealous neighbor syndrome", which causes a whole host of maladies that are blamed on the wind turbines. It's never the person getting the check who feels ill.


----------



## Derideo_Te

jon_berzerk said:


> Derideo_Te said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Old Rocks said:
> 
> 
> 
> Are you that brain dead? Many thousands of acres of wheatland in Oregon and Washington support not only wheat but thousands of windmills. And, as one wheat farmer said about the ten mills on his land, the only complaint that he had was there were not twenty. The base of the mills take up little space, and the yearly royalty is around 5K. That is a real boon in an endeavor that can vary wildly from year to year in profitability.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Exactly, having a steady $50k pa income takes the stress out of the boom/bust cycles of farming.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> i have heard ranging from 2 to 4 grand per mill property taxes rise as value of
> 
> property increases with the long term income
Click to expand...


Property improvements always raise taxable value. Farms are businesses, property taxes are deductible expenses against income. The net difference will still be money in the pockets of the farmers that otherwise would not be there.


----------



## jon_berzerk

Wisconsin Farmer Has Regrets about Hosting Turbines


----------



## jon_berzerk

Derideo_Te said:


> jon_berzerk said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Derideo_Te said:
> 
> 
> 
> Exactly, having a steady $50k pa income takes the stress out of the boom/bust cycles of farming.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> i have heard ranging from 2 to 4 grand per mill property taxes rise as value of
> 
> property increases with the long term income
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Property improvements always raise taxable value. Farms are businesses, property taxes are deductible expenses against income. The net difference will still be money in the pockets of the farmers that otherwise would not be there.
Click to expand...


i was not making a judgement one way or the other 

just pointing out what surrounds leasing land for windmills 

or cell towers for that matter


----------



## Derideo_Te

jon_berzerk said:


> Wisconsin Farmer Has Regrets about Hosting Turbines



Mistake #1, signing a contract without it being reviewed by your lawyer. Hopefully other farmers won't make the same mistake.


----------



## Bern80

Old Rocks said:


> Bern80 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Derideo_Te said:
> 
> 
> 
> You get dual use from land with wind turbines. The land can still be farmed at the same time as producing energy. The fallacy about ethanol was using corn instead of sawgrass. It was more of a boondoggle subsidy for the Farming Industrial Complex than a genuine green energy alternative.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tell that to the geese here that are getting chopped up by the wind farms. And duel purpose? Have you ever actually seen a wind farm? No farmer is going to want to try to harvest that land.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Are you that brain dead? Many thousands of acres of wheatland in Oregon and Washington support not only wheat but thousands of windmills. And, as one wheat farmer said about the ten mills on his land, the only complaint that he had was there were not twenty. The base of the mills take up little space, and the yearly royalty is around 5K. That is a real boon in an endeavor that can vary wildly from year to year in profitability.
Click to expand...


Yeah when somone subsidized you to the tune of 5k, it gets easier to ignore the environmental impact they have.


----------



## flacaltenn

Der-Te:

You just require too much remedial education for my busy schedule.. 
Everytime you check in with your fairy tale knowledge of "renewables", it causes me to repost crap that any KNOWLEDGEABLE citizen should know before they weigh in on the topics.. Last time you didn't know that clouds affect solar panels and NOW you deny that there is a growing sense of being lied to in the public about the siting hazards of wind. 

You REALLY REALLY need to know about wind shadow flickering. Because LAWYERS shouldn't be neccessary.. An INFORMED public would NEVER allow these generators to be placed ANYWHERE near homes or livestock areas. This effect will RUIN the value of a property.. 


[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MbIe0iUtelQ]Industrial Wind Turbine Shadow Flicker in Wisconsin 2008 - YouTube[/ame]

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iyOImGHyJtQ]Wind Turbine Shadow Flicker and Noise, Byron Wisconsin - YouTube[/ame]

As for that assertion of wind noise --- I've been there and done that MULTIPLE times. It's also addressed in the 2 vids above..  But for Mammoth, who either stood in the wrong position or was talking about a much smaller turbine than these. Even the manufacturer SPEC SHEETS puts the noise level WAY above a turbo prop plane consistantly flying overhead or a back seat at a rock concert. 

The sound fields will vary GREATLY depending on whether you standing in the wind line or off to the side and with the NUMBER of turbines in the area. Because the individual wind patterns will combine to form beats and nodal points that add and subtract and MIX the frequencies of the sounds.. 



> http://www.k2wind.ca/wp-content/uploads/WTS-Wind-Turbine-Specifications-Report-and-App-A.pdf
> 
> Sound power nameplate (2.030 MW)
> 3 m/s &#8211; 91.4 dBA; 4 m/s &#8211; 95.6 dBA; 5 m/s &#8211; 99.8 dBA; 6 m/s &#8211; 102.5 dBA; >7 m/s &#8211; 103.0 dBA



That was from a report by Ontario wind on the MANUFACTURER stated noise specs for their turbines. 
You cannot ARGUE with the facts.. A 95dbA noise generator is OBNOXIOUS at less than a 1/4 mile..


----------



## Old Rocks

Bern80 said:


> Old Rocks said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bern80 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Tell that to the geese here that are getting chopped up by the wind farms. And duel purpose? Have you ever actually seen a wind farm? No farmer is going to want to try to harvest that land.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Are you that brain dead? Many thousands of acres of wheatland in Oregon and Washington support not only wheat but thousands of windmills. And, as one wheat farmer said about the ten mills on his land, the only complaint that he had was there were not twenty. The base of the mills take up little space, and the yearly royalty is around 5K. That is a real boon in an endeavor that can vary wildly from year to year in profitability.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yeah when somone subsidized you to the tune of 5k, it gets easier to ignore the environmental impact they have.
Click to expand...


LOL. The wheat farmers own the land. The power company needs land to put the mills on. Not subsudization, but a business deal. And it is 5K per mill. Not only that, they grow wheat right up to the base of the mills. So it is win-win for all.

Report: Wind Energy Price in the U.S. at All-Time Low, Localized Wind Power on the Rise | The Daily Fusion

Wind is a credible source of new generation in the U.S. Wind power comprised 43% of all new U.S. electric capacity additions in 2012 and represented $25 billion in new investment. Wind power currently contributes more than 12% of total electricity generation in nine states (with three of these states above 20%), and provides more than 4% of total U.S. electricity supply.


----------



## Derideo_Te

flacaltenn said:


> Der-Te:
> 
> You just require too much remedial education for my busy schedule..
> Everytime you check in with your fairy tale knowledge of "renewables", it causes me to repost crap that any KNOWLEDGEABLE citizen should know before they weigh in on the topics.. Last time you didn't know that clouds affect solar panels and NOW you deny that there is a growing sense of being lied to in the public about the siting hazards of wind.
> 
> You REALLY REALLY need to know about wind shadow flickering. Because LAWYERS shouldn't be neccessary.. An INFORMED public would NEVER allow these generators to be placed ANYWHERE near homes or livestock areas. This effect will RUIN the value of a property..
> 
> 
> Industrial Wind Turbine Shadow Flicker in Wisconsin 2008 - YouTube
> 
> Wind Turbine Shadow Flicker and Noise, Byron Wisconsin - YouTube
> 
> As for that assertion of wind noise --- I've been there and done that MULTIPLE times. It's also addressed in the 2 vids above..  But for Mammoth, who either stood in the wrong position or was talking about a much smaller turbine than these. Even the manufacturer SPEC SHEETS puts the noise level WAY above a turbo prop plane consistantly flying overhead or a back seat at a rock concert.
> 
> The sound fields will vary GREATLY depending on whether you standing in the wind line or off to the side and with the NUMBER of turbines in the area. Because the individual wind patterns will combine to form beats and nodal points that add and subtract and MIX the frequencies of the sounds..
> 
> 
> 
> 
> http://www.k2wind.ca/wp-content/uploads/WTS-Wind-Turbine-Specifications-Report-and-App-A.pdf
> 
> Sound power nameplate (2.030 MW)
> 3 m/s  91.4 dBA; 4 m/s  95.6 dBA; 5 m/s  99.8 dBA; 6 m/s  102.5 dBA; >7 m/s  103.0 dBA
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That was from a report by Ontario wind on the MANUFACTURER stated noise specs for their turbines.
> You cannot ARGUE with the facts.. A 95dbA noise generator is OBNOXIOUS at less than a 1/4 mile..
Click to expand...


Strike 2! 

Your domestic cloud cover link in notoriously rain soaked Scotland was a complete bust and now your latest offering exposes even more ignorance on your part. *The noise levels in your link are all taken from a height of 10m (30'+) above ground level.* At ground level the noise from a wind turbine is less than that of the wind itself. You can stand at ground level at the base of a wind turbine and converse at the same level as you would in a normal office.

Thanks for once again doing such a magnificent job of harming your own credibility. Have a nice day.


----------



## Old Rocks

Derideo_Te said:


> flacaltenn said:
> 
> 
> 
> Der-Te:
> 
> You just require too much remedial education for my busy schedule..
> Everytime you check in with your fairy tale knowledge of "renewables", it causes me to repost crap that any KNOWLEDGEABLE citizen should know before they weigh in on the topics.. Last time you didn't know that clouds affect solar panels and NOW you deny that there is a growing sense of being lied to in the public about the siting hazards of wind.
> 
> You REALLY REALLY need to know about wind shadow flickering. Because LAWYERS shouldn't be neccessary.. An INFORMED public would NEVER allow these generators to be placed ANYWHERE near homes or livestock areas. This effect will RUIN the value of a property..
> 
> 
> Industrial Wind Turbine Shadow Flicker in Wisconsin 2008 - YouTube
> 
> Wind Turbine Shadow Flicker and Noise, Byron Wisconsin - YouTube
> 
> As for that assertion of wind noise --- I've been there and done that MULTIPLE times. It's also addressed in the 2 vids above..  But for Mammoth, who either stood in the wrong position or was talking about a much smaller turbine than these. Even the manufacturer SPEC SHEETS puts the noise level WAY above a turbo prop plane consistantly flying overhead or a back seat at a rock concert.
> 
> The sound fields will vary GREATLY depending on whether you standing in the wind line or off to the side and with the NUMBER of turbines in the area. Because the individual wind patterns will combine to form beats and nodal points that add and subtract and MIX the frequencies of the sounds..
> 
> 
> 
> 
> http://www.k2wind.ca/wp-content/uploads/WTS-Wind-Turbine-Specifications-Report-and-App-A.pdf
> 
> Sound power nameplate (2.030 MW)
> 3 m/s  91.4 dBA; 4 m/s  95.6 dBA; 5 m/s  99.8 dBA; 6 m/s  102.5 dBA; >7 m/s  103.0 dBA
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That was from a report by Ontario wind on the MANUFACTURER stated noise specs for their turbines.
> You cannot ARGUE with the facts.. A 95dbA noise generator is OBNOXIOUS at less than a 1/4 mile..
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Strike 2!
> 
> Your domestic cloud cover link in notoriously rain soaked Scotland was a complete bust and now your latest offering exposes even more ignorance on your part. *The noise levels in your link are all taken from a height of 10m (30'+) above ground level.* At ground level the noise from a wind turbine is less than that of the wind itself. You can stand at ground level at the base of a wind turbine and converse at the same level as you would in a normal office.
> 
> Thanks for once again doing such a magnificent job of harming your own credibility. Have a nice day.
Click to expand...


Stood beneath a mill south of Wasco, Oregon, and did exactly the same thing. I could hear a gentle swoosh-swoosh, and my wife, with excellent hearing, said the noise was not objectionable.


----------



## flacaltenn

Y'all are engineering illiterate.. The sound fields REACH the ground within 100 yards of fan.. 
Are you really trying to be embarrassed here claiming that there is no noise field from wind turbines? 

The 30ft that Der-Te parrots is the IEC standard height for measuring the WIND VELOCITY -- not the noise. The link that I with the Siemans Acoustic Data clearly states the distance was 130M. 

Date: 16-04-2011
Engineer: EJK
Location: XXXXX in Ontario
Turbine-ID: T1
Hub Height: 80m
*Distance: 130m*

Roughness: 0,05m
K-Faktor: 0.7418
V_P/V_Anemo: 1.041

And a discussion about IEC 61400-11 measurement here  
http://www.windenergy.org/swat/IEC%20Acoustic%20Standard%20IEC%2061400-11%20110718.pdf

.... will CLEARLY show you that the placement of MICROPHONE is at GROUND LEVEL... 

Better READ the Appendix A BETTER in the link I first gave you BEFORE you go off inventing facts not in evidence.. 

PS.. Clouds in Scotland reduce Solar panel efficiencies the same as they do anywhere in the world.. 
YOU --- just didn't understand what you were looking at.. Wanna continue to DENY basic physics? 

PPS.. at this point Der-Te -- you've got no credibility left to lose --- SO 
GO FOR IT...


----------



## flacaltenn

> Wind turbine noise, an independent assessment | Rand Acoustics
> 
> 
> Wind turbines larger than one megawatt of rated power have become an unexpected surprise for many nearby residents by being much louder than expected. The sounds produced by blades, gearing, and generator are significantly louder and more noticeable as wind turbine size increases. Long blades create a distinctive aerodynamic sound as air shears off the trailing edge and tip. The sound character varies from a &#8220;whoosh&#8221; at low wind speeds to &#8220;a jet plane that never lands&#8221; at moderate and higher wind speeds. Blade-induced air vortices spinning off the tip may produce an audible &#8220;thump&#8221; as each blade sweeps past the mast. Thumping can become more pronounced at distance, described as &#8220;sneakers in a dryer,&#8221; when sounds from multiple turbines arrive at a listener&#8217;s position simultaneously.
> 
> Other professionals have developed thresholds, or criteria, for sound level to protect public health that may be applied to planning for wind turbine permitting. Recommendations from Hayes McKenzie Partnership in 2006 limited maximum wind turbine sound levels at residences to 38 dBA and no more than 33 dBA when &#8220;beating noises&#8221; are audible when the turbines spin.
> 
> Dan Driscoll presented his analysis in 2009 (Environmental Stakeholder Roundtable on Wind Power, June 16, 2009) with a Composite Noise Rating analysis of 33 dBA to reduce rural community response to the level of &#8220;sporadic complaints.&#8221;
> 
> Michael Nissenbaum issued his findings in 2010 from his medical study at Mars Hill, recommending a 7000-foot setback for public health. The World Health Organization published sound level thresholds of sleep disturbance and adverse health effects from peer-reviewed medical studies (Night Noise Guidelines for Europe, October 2009).
> 
> Our next column will compare our sound level versus distance data with these medical, health, and community response criteria and show what distances are necessary to protect public health.
> 
> Currently there is no effective, reliable noise mitigation for wind turbines of this size other than shutdown. *Therefore, at this time it appears appropriate that proposed wind turbine sites should position wind turbines at least one mile away from residential properties and further for sites with more than one wind turbine.* Smaller wind turbines (under one megawatt power rating) produce less noise than those currently being marketed and installed for grid power in Maine; these may be an option when distance is an issue.



Really? No noise? Probably because they DONT WORK very often.. Go back on day when they ARE working... And the wind speeds are above 10mph.


----------



## Corrigendum

I'm in favor of any kind of technology that can provide value in the free market.  But if you have to tax and regulate successful energy technologies in order to make your "supported" products fly, you're backing the wrong technologies.

If an energy technology works, people will buy it.  I'm in favor of free markets in energy.


----------



## elektra

Derideo_Te said:


> Bern80 said:
> 
> 
> 
> At the moment I can't really support either other than on a small scale. For indiviudual use it's good, but trying to do it on a scale to provide power to a large community you're really just trading one environmental problem for another. Sure you might be making a rather miniscule impact in improving air quality, but what about the habitable land you're taking up to do that? And I'm not talking about habitable land for humans, but animals too. You have to see the irony in environmentalists, who are supposed to be for protecting nature and all its creatures, pushing technology these mass wind farm, solar plants. Ethanol as a fuel source, etc.
> 
> The production of ethanol is turning into one of the greatest ecological disasters ever. The ecological problems it causes far, far outway the detriment of their non-use. From the dead zones in the gulf created by fertilizer coming from the Mississippi which has increased because of more corn production to the loss of habitat for many animals for the corn. I live in southern Minnesota where most of the country side is corn crops. This is also true of the Dakotas. It wasn't always covered in corn fields though. Millions and millions of acres used to be CRP land. CRP was land farmers owned and the government subsidized them for to NOT plant on to preserve the natural environment. Then Obama, in another one of his moments of infinite wisdom, decided to have all these ethanol fuel mandates and subsidize production of ethanol. All of a sudden it simply became too lucrative to farmers to not plant corn. Now it's nothing but corn fields here and the population of pheasants is at a ten year low.
> 
> Again I don't see a problem with using wind and solar on an individual basis. But the simple fact is as far as providing power for whole communities you simply can't match the energy you can get out of square acre of land from wind or solar to what you can get out of fossil fuels. They have a vastly smaller impact on the environment in terms of sqare acerage required to produce it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You get dual use from land with wind turbines. The land can still be farmed at the same time as producing energy. The fallacy about ethanol was using corn instead of sawgrass. It was more of a boondoggle subsidy for the Farming Industrial Complex than a genuine green energy alternative.
Click to expand...


I laughed when I read, "sawgrass". Yes, replace farmland and food with "sawgrass". A win, win, for everyone.

Wind Turbines, extremely expensive, massive amounts of concrete, millions of tons of fossil fuel turned into non-producing wind turbines that do not last 10 years. So sad so many feel so good, just call yourself Green, doesn't that make you feel goooood. 

Honestly, Green Energy advocates are using more natural resources than everyone else, Solar Panels, LED bulbs, 200 ton windmills, nickel batteries in cars, simply call it Green and people jump on board, post an article they can find with Google, and wow, they are educated. Follow up with a news report of the president or vice president warning and then all the Green Living folks are validated. Hell, mine as well payoff the Scientist with grants and fat jobs at the universities.

sorry, I am sure you have a very good arguement in favor of Sawgrass and I should just let you tax the hell out of me so you can prove it.


----------



## Derideo_Te

elektra said:


> Derideo_Te said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bern80 said:
> 
> 
> 
> At the moment I can't really support either other than on a small scale. For indiviudual use it's good, but trying to do it on a scale to provide power to a large community you're really just trading one environmental problem for another. Sure you might be making a rather miniscule impact in improving air quality, but what about the habitable land you're taking up to do that? And I'm not talking about habitable land for humans, but animals too. You have to see the irony in environmentalists, who are supposed to be for protecting nature and all its creatures, pushing technology these mass wind farm, solar plants. Ethanol as a fuel source, etc.
> 
> The production of ethanol is turning into one of the greatest ecological disasters ever. The ecological problems it causes far, far outway the detriment of their non-use. From the dead zones in the gulf created by fertilizer coming from the Mississippi which has increased because of more corn production to the loss of habitat for many animals for the corn. I live in southern Minnesota where most of the country side is corn crops. This is also true of the Dakotas. It wasn't always covered in corn fields though. Millions and millions of acres used to be CRP land. CRP was land farmers owned and the government subsidized them for to NOT plant on to preserve the natural environment. Then Obama, in another one of his moments of infinite wisdom, decided to have all these ethanol fuel mandates and subsidize production of ethanol. All of a sudden it simply became too lucrative to farmers to not plant corn. Now it's nothing but corn fields here and the population of pheasants is at a ten year low.
> 
> Again I don't see a problem with using wind and solar on an individual basis. But the simple fact is as far as providing power for whole communities you simply can't match the energy you can get out of square acre of land from wind or solar to what you can get out of fossil fuels. They have a vastly smaller impact on the environment in terms of sqare acerage required to produce it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You get dual use from land with wind turbines. The land can still be farmed at the same time as producing energy. The fallacy about ethanol was using corn instead of sawgrass. It was more of a boondoggle subsidy for the Farming Industrial Complex than a genuine green energy alternative.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I laughed when I read, "sawgrass". Yes, replace farmland and food with "sawgrass". A win, win, for everyone.
> 
> Wind Turbines, extremely expensive, massive amounts of concrete, millions of tons of fossil fuel turned into non-producing wind turbines that do not last 10 years. So sad so many feel so good, just call yourself Green, doesn't that make you feel goooood.
> 
> Honestly, Green Energy advocates are using more natural resources than everyone else, Solar Panels, LED bulbs, 200 ton windmills, nickel batteries in cars, simply call it Green and people jump on board, post an article they can find with Google, and wow, they are educated. Follow up with a news report of the president or vice president warning and then all the Green Living folks are validated. Hell, mine as well payoff the Scientist with grants and fat jobs at the universities.
> 
> sorry, I am sure you have a very good arguement in favor of Sawgrass and I should just let you tax the hell out of me so you can prove it.
Click to expand...


Sawgrass grows wild, it doesn't require any fertilizers or weedkillers, it isn't grown on farmland either. But don't let your profound ignorance stop you from making a fool of yourself again.


----------



## flacaltenn

Derideo_Te said:


> elektra said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Derideo_Te said:
> 
> 
> 
> You get dual use from land with wind turbines. The land can still be farmed at the same time as producing energy. The fallacy about ethanol was using corn instead of sawgrass. It was more of a boondoggle subsidy for the Farming Industrial Complex than a genuine green energy alternative.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I laughed when I read, "sawgrass". Yes, replace farmland and food with "sawgrass". A win, win, for everyone.
> 
> Wind Turbines, extremely expensive, massive amounts of concrete, millions of tons of fossil fuel turned into non-producing wind turbines that do not last 10 years. So sad so many feel so good, just call yourself Green, doesn't that make you feel goooood.
> 
> Honestly, Green Energy advocates are using more natural resources than everyone else, Solar Panels, LED bulbs, 200 ton windmills, nickel batteries in cars, simply call it Green and people jump on board, post an article they can find with Google, and wow, they are educated. Follow up with a news report of the president or vice president warning and then all the Green Living folks are validated. Hell, mine as well payoff the Scientist with grants and fat jobs at the universities.
> 
> sorry, I am sure you have a very good arguement in favor of Sawgrass and I should just let you tax the hell out of me so you can prove it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Sawgrass grows wild, it doesn't require any fertilizers or weedkillers, it isn't grown on farmland either. But don't let your profound ignorance stop you from making a fool of yourself again.
Click to expand...


All of the studies ive seen assume CULTIVATED sawgrass with fertilizer and irrigation..  What youre implying is more bait and switch dishonesty aboutnefficiencies and real costs.


----------



## Derideo_Te

flacaltenn said:


> Derideo_Te said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> elektra said:
> 
> 
> 
> I laughed when I read, "sawgrass". Yes, replace farmland and food with "sawgrass". A win, win, for everyone.
> 
> Wind Turbines, extremely expensive, massive amounts of concrete, millions of tons of fossil fuel turned into non-producing wind turbines that do not last 10 years. So sad so many feel so good, just call yourself Green, doesn't that make you feel goooood.
> 
> Honestly, Green Energy advocates are using more natural resources than everyone else, Solar Panels, LED bulbs, 200 ton windmills, nickel batteries in cars, simply call it Green and people jump on board, post an article they can find with Google, and wow, they are educated. Follow up with a news report of the president or vice president warning and then all the Green Living folks are validated. Hell, mine as well payoff the Scientist with grants and fat jobs at the universities.
> 
> sorry, I am sure you have a very good arguement in favor of Sawgrass and I should just let you tax the hell out of me so you can prove it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sawgrass grows wild, it doesn't require any fertilizers or weedkillers, it isn't grown on farmland either. But don't let your profound ignorance stop you from making a fool of yourself again.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> All of the studies ive seen assume CULTIVATED sawgrass with fertilizer and irrigation..  What youre implying is more bait and switch dishonesty aboutnefficiencies and real costs.
Click to expand...


----------



## flacaltenn

Derideo_Te said:


> flacaltenn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Derideo_Te said:
> 
> 
> 
> Sawgrass grows wild, it doesn't require any fertilizers or weedkillers, it isn't grown on farmland either. But don't let your profound ignorance stop you from making a fool of yourself again.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> All of the studies ive seen assume CULTIVATED sawgrass with fertilizer and irrigation..  What youre implying is more bait and switch dishonesty aboutnefficiencies and real costs.
> 
> Click to expand...
Click to expand...


When someone tells you that EVERY study of sawgrass efficiency is based on CULTIVATED sawgrass     -----     seems to me its up to you to produce ONE thats not..


----------



## Derideo_Te

flacaltenn said:


> Derideo_Te said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> flacaltenn said:
> 
> 
> 
> All of the studies ive seen assume CULTIVATED sawgrass with fertilizer and irrigation..  What youre implying is more bait and switch dishonesty aboutnefficiencies and real costs.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> When someone tells you that EVERY study of sawgrass efficiency is based on CULTIVATED sawgrass     -----     seems to me its up to you to produce ONE thats not..
Click to expand...


When someone with zero credibility like yours says something then the onus is on you to substantiate your allegation.


----------



## flacaltenn

Derideo_Te said:


> flacaltenn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Derideo_Te said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> When someone tells you that EVERY study of sawgrass efficiency is based on CULTIVATED sawgrass     -----     seems to me its up to you to produce ONE thats not..
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> When someone with zero credibility like yours says something then the onus is on you to substantiate your allegation.
Click to expand...


Ive embarrassed you enough and relieved u of every misconception on renewables that youve asserted..  Figure im not the one that needs a score..  Sawgrass is your deal.  Even tho in 20 years there hasnt been a real CELLUOSIC ethanol full scale demonstration worth pursuing..  im gonna run out the clock here.  Your ball.


----------



## westwall

flacaltenn said:


> Derideo_Te said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> flacaltenn said:
> 
> 
> 
> When someone tells you that EVERY study of sawgrass efficiency is based on CULTIVATED sawgrass     -----     seems to me its up to you to produce ONE thats not..
> 
> 
> 
> 
> When someone with zero credibility like yours says something then the onus is on you to substantiate your allegation.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Ive embarrassed you enough and relieved u of every misconception on renewables that youve asserted..  Figure im not the one that needs a score..  Sawgrass is your deal.  Even tho in 20 years there hasnt been a real CELLUOSIC ethanol full scale demonstration worth pursuing..  im gonna run out the clock here.  Your ball.
Click to expand...










Yep.  These guys have received 100 million from us the people and to date no commercial ethanol to be had.  They hope to get it going next year.

"Corn-based ethanol, which makes up nearly 10 percent of U.S. motor fuel, has been in large-scale production for years. But Congress was worried about driving up the price of corn used as feed for livestock and poultry. So lawmakers capped the total production of corn-based ethanol and set a schedule for ramping up the use of &#8220;advanced&#8221; biofuels made from corn husks, switch grass, wood chips and other stuff known as &#8220;cellulosic&#8221; material to 16 billion gallons by 2022. 

There&#8217;s one problem, though: So far, no company has produced cellulosic ethanol at commercial volumes."



http://www.washingtonpost.com/busin...c41a70-35c7-11e3-8a0e-4e2cf80831fc_story.html


----------



## Old Rocks

Given the progress in batteries at all scales, I hardly think that ethenol is worth funding at any level.


----------



## longknife

The truly renewable source of energy is the most available material in the universe - hydrogen!

They already know that hydrogen cell technology could revolutionize the energy consumption in the entire world. Clean with amazing power. 

I'll be truly appreciative of "green technology" when an all-out effort is made in this direction. Check out Fuel cell - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia and a lot of similar articles.


----------



## flacaltenn

westwall said:


> flacaltenn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Derideo_Te said:
> 
> 
> 
> When someone with zero credibility like yours says something then the onus is on you to substantiate your allegation.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ive embarrassed you enough and relieved u of every misconception on renewables that youve asserted..  Figure im not the one that needs a score..  Sawgrass is your deal.  Even tho in 20 years there hasnt been a real CELLUOSIC ethanol full scale demonstration worth pursuing..  im gonna run out the clock here.  Your ball.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yep.  These guys have received 100 million from us the people and to date no commercial ethanol to be had.  They hope to get it going next year.
> 
> "Corn-based ethanol, which makes up nearly 10 percent of U.S. motor fuel, has been in large-scale production for years. But Congress was worried about driving up the price of corn used as feed for livestock and poultry. So lawmakers capped the total production of corn-based ethanol and set a schedule for ramping up the use of advanced biofuels made from corn husks, switch grass, wood chips and other stuff known as cellulosic material to 16 billion gallons by 2022.
> 
> Theres one problem, though: So far, no company has produced cellulosic ethanol at commercial volumes."
> 
> 
> 
> Cellulosic ethanol, once the way of the future, is off to a delayed, boisterous start - The Washington Post
Click to expand...


But maybe we're missing that ONE DEMONSTRATION of Celluousic ethanol blowing away corn --- Perhaps we missed the news flash.. Der-Te should get right on that and EDUCATE us !!!  After the corn debacle -- I figure they're not gonna get til 2022 to demonstrate it.. 
I'd say they got more like 2 years..


----------



## flacaltenn

longknife said:


> The truly renewable source of energy is the most available material in the universe - hydrogen!
> 
> They already know that hydrogen cell technology could revolutionize the energy consumption in the entire world. Clean with amazing power.
> 
> I'll be truly appreciative of "green technology" when an all-out effort is made in this direction. Check out Fuel cell - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia and a lot of similar articles.







Absolutely.. Most Asian car companies are emphasizing fuel cells over future battery wagon development. AND -- the idea of investing in fuel infrastructure gets more attractive if you can use solar and wind to produce HYDROGEN..


----------



## Derideo_Te

flacaltenn said:


> Derideo_Te said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> flacaltenn said:
> 
> 
> 
> When someone tells you that EVERY study of sawgrass efficiency is based on CULTIVATED sawgrass     -----     seems to me its up to you to produce ONE thats not..
> 
> 
> 
> 
> When someone with zero credibility like yours says something then the onus is on you to substantiate your allegation.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Ive embarrassed you enough and relieved u of every misconception on renewables that youve asserted..  Figure im not the one that needs a score..  Sawgrass is your deal.  Even tho in 20 years there hasnt been a real CELLUOSIC ethanol full scale demonstration worth pursuing..  im gonna run out the clock here.  Your ball.
Click to expand...


Failure to support your allegation when called upon to do so is a de facto forfeiture on your part. Have a nice day.


----------



## Delta4Embassy

Any and all of them. 

I'm sure that when coal and oil first came onto the scene they were cost-ineffective too. But once infrastructure caught up and other countries adopted them it became cost-effective. So it will be with new sources like solar, wind, geothermal, tidal, etc..

All these energy technologies are is steam and figuring out how to turn a big wheel for the cheapest cost. Waves crashing into a wheel turns in like old fashioned water wheels, windmills use the wind, solar generates heat which boils water producing the steam, same with geothermal and nuclear. But only one of those makes large chunks of land uninhabitable for centuries...So the only "good" ones are those that don't cost us energy to produce energy like solar, wind, and tidal. Geothermal works, but not at as high an efficiency as the others. Plus there's a concern about punching holes into the earth above a volcanic region. Holes in the Earth above a magna chamber equals a volcanic eruption. 

Oil's only got about 40 years or so left before useful quantities are gone. Nuclear's great assuming nothing bad happens ever ever. Unfortunately that's never the case. Natural gas emits greenhouse gases and getting it wrecks the enviroment it's extracted from. 

People objecting to existing 'proven' tech are financial stake holders in those technologies so not exactly unbiased.


----------



## flacaltenn

Delta4Embassy said:


> Any and all of them.
> 
> I'm sure that when coal and oil first came onto the scene they were cost-ineffective too. But once infrastructure caught up and other countries adopted them it became cost-effective. So it will be with new sources like solar, wind, geothermal, tidal, etc..
> 
> All these energy technologies are is steam and figuring out how to turn a big wheel for the cheapest cost. Waves crashing into a wheel turns in like old fashioned water wheels, windmills use the wind, solar generates heat which boils water producing the steam, same with geothermal and nuclear. But only one of those makes large chunks of land uninhabitable for centuries...So the only "good" ones are those that don't cost us energy to produce energy like solar, wind, and tidal. Geothermal works, but not at as high an efficiency as the others. Plus there's a concern about punching holes into the earth above a volcanic region. Holes in the Earth above a magna chamber equals a volcanic eruption.
> 
> Oil's only got about 40 years or so left before useful quantities are gone. Nuclear's great assuming nothing bad happens ever ever. Unfortunately that's never the case. Natural gas emits greenhouse gases and getting it wrecks the enviroment it's extracted from.
> 
> People objecting to existing 'proven' tech are financial stake holders in those technologies so not exactly unbiased.



Your assumption is that either wind and solar or both are EQUIVALENT ALTERNATIVES to what we currently have. They are not. Solar is an OK daytime peaker technology in limited parts of the world and during certain seasons. If you're only concerned with generating power for 6 hours a day.  Wind is a nightmare of sketchy unreliable performance that cant' be scheduled or contracted for.. THAT'S the problem with your analysis. 

And BECAUSE of these performance deficits we are reaching the point where INCREASLY DESPARATE measures will be taken to try put lipstick on the pig.. Things like $BILLS being spent in Europe and California now just to keep these sketchy renewables from destabilizing load/demand curves during a day.. Battery Barns as big as a football field -- are being bought that will only store about 3 hours of power for 15,000 homes. 

We can continue to stumble that way.. But NOTHING is gonna make these curiousities --- ALTERNATIVES... 






The green is what the Texas Grid (ERCOT) demands. The blue is where the entire installed wind capacity decided to come to work. 

An example of a SINGLE wind farm (one of the best sited in the world) is shown below in case you don't realize how FAR wind is from really being an electrical generation "alternative".


----------



## elektra

Delta4Embassy said:


> Any and all of them.
> 
> I'm sure that when coal and oil first came onto the scene they were cost-ineffective too. But once infrastructure caught up and other countries adopted them it became cost-effective. So it will be with new sources like solar, wind, geothermal, tidal, etc..
> 
> All these energy technologies are is steam and figuring out how to turn a big wheel for the cheapest cost. Waves crashing into a wheel turns in like old fashioned water wheels, windmills use the wind, solar generates heat which boils water producing the steam, same with geothermal and nuclear. But only one of those makes large chunks of land uninhabitable for centuries...So the only "good" ones are those that don't cost us energy to produce energy like solar, wind, and tidal. Geothermal works, but not at as high an efficiency as the others. Plus there's a concern about punching holes into the earth above a volcanic region. Holes in the Earth above a magna chamber equals a volcanic eruption.
> 
> Oil's only got about 40 years or so left before useful quantities are gone. Nuclear's great assuming nothing bad happens ever ever. Unfortunately that's never the case. Natural gas emits greenhouse gases and getting it wrecks the enviroment it's extracted from.
> 
> People objecting to existing 'proven' tech are financial stake holders in those technologies so not exactly unbiased.



Actually, your idea that Coal or Oil were "cost-ineffective" is wrong. Oil has always been cheap until recent political times. Same with Coal.

Oil was developed as cheap alternative to plant and vegetable oils that were used in lamps to provide light. Plant and vegetable oils were being used as a cheap alternative to Whale Oil which was used for lights.


----------

