# Solar Power Destroys Miles and Miles of Desert



## elektra (Feb 4, 2015)

California's desert is fast becoming a Solar Wasteland, what was once pristine desert habitat is being replaced with Industrial Scale Solar.

Thanks to Obama and the State Government of California.

California solar projects plan undergoing major overhaul - SFGate



> With billions of dollars in federal stimulus money in hand, the Obama administration set out five years ago on a grand experiment in the California desert.
> 
> The goal: Open public lands to renewable-energy development to wean the nation from fossil fuels.
> 
> The results haven't been pretty, a fact the administration has tacitly acknowledged by devising a new plan, expected to be released this month, to find better places to put industrial-scale solar farms in the California desert.





> The solar plants were rushed through the environmental approval process. Miles of unspoiled desert lands were scraped and bulldozed to make way for sprawling arrays of solar panels. Desert tortoises required mass relocation, and kit fox burrows were destroyed. Surprise troves of American Indian artifacts found in the Mojave Desert were moved to a San Diego warehouse, where they remain.
> 
> 
> And once it was built, the largest solar plant of its kind in the world - the Ivanpah installation in the Mojave - began igniting birds and monarch butterflies that fly through intensely concentrated, reflected sunbeams aimed at 40-story "power towers," according to a confidential report by federal wildlife officials.





> Much is at stake. Several projects are proposed near the three big national parks of the California desert: a 23-square-mile wind and solar farm in the Silurian Valley near Death Valley; a 3,000-acre solar project at Soda Mountain near the Mojave National Preserve that would straddle a bighorn sheep corridor; and another project by BrightSource at Palen, near Joshua Tree NationalPark, that would be a bigger version of Ivanpah and be located in a bird migratory path.





> Other conflicts are playing out elsewhere in the desert.
> 
> Brian Brown, fourth-generation owner of the China Ranch date farm, is one of the few residents of the Silurian Valley, a remote area at the southern end of Death Valley National Park that is the site of the proposed 15,000-acre wind and solar farm by the Spanish firm Iberdrola Renewables. The area is all but surrounded by federally protected wilderness and home to historic pioneer trails.
> 
> The Silurian Valley is "all big, long vistas and gorgeous purple and blue mountains," Brown said, views he believes will be destroyed by creating "a big industrial zone."









And all of this is just the beginning. We are forced to buy an expensive product literally created by the government. 

I do not want Obama's and California Energy policy driving up the cost of food, which is what expensive Solar does in a state dependent on Electricity to pump water.

Destruction of the Desert and forced to pay more for food, while the Republicans created the EPA, now they need to create another Agency to protect the Environment from the Government


----------



## ScienceRocks (Feb 4, 2015)

lol,

a DESERT IS A FUCKING WASTE LAND. Most of the desert solar is built on isn't useable.

I've come to the conclusion that both parties in this country are full of people that are truly sick in the head.


----------



## Tom Sweetnam (Feb 4, 2015)

Lysenkoism run amok.


----------



## elektra (Feb 4, 2015)

Matthew said:


> lol,
> 
> a DESERT IS A FUCKING WASTE LAND. Most of the desert solar is built on isn't useable.
> 
> I've come to the conclusion that both parties in this country are full of people that are truly sick in the head.


A desert in Arizona produces cotton, A desert in California produces artichokes, there are birds and animals that live there, Butterflies and bugs. 

But to mattpew, the Desert he does not like, its as if Mattpew is a bigot, a "waste land"? A "fucking waste land", in bold letters, so we see the true colors of mattpew. Matthpew does not see the desert, most likely never touched the desert, so he thinks its all waste land. I admit big areas of dry land may seem like a waste to some, but they are part of the environment, part of the earth, some of us enjoy the desert, people in the future will not if mattpew and people the same get their way. Bigots pass judgement without knowledge of what they judge. 

If most of the land Solar is built on non-usable wasteland, why did President Bill Clinton declare all the Desert Solar is destroying protected federal land.


----------



## elektra (Feb 4, 2015)

Solar must destroy the Earth to save the Earth?


----------



## haissem123 (Feb 4, 2015)

it's the whole monopolization of power that keeps us all enslaved to stupidity and greed. The goal should be to take all houses off the grid right were they are and with installations put on them. period. ground  heat and cooling, solar power/ wind with  battery or converted to hydrogen gas stored in tanks etc... But nobody wants to set anybody free from their rule. it's sad.


----------



## Roadrunner (Feb 4, 2015)

Matthew said:


> lol,
> 
> a DESERT IS A FUCKING WASTE LAND. Most of the desert solar is built on isn't useable.
> 
> I've come to the conclusion that both parties in this country are full of people that are truly sick in the head.


Define "useable".


----------



## Roadrunner (Feb 4, 2015)

elektra said:


> Solar must destroy the Earth to save the Earth?


Deserts are beautiful.


----------



## CultureCitizen (Feb 4, 2015)

elektra said:


> Solar must destroy the Earth to save the Earth?



No , only half a million kilometers of desert is needed to cover current and future energy needs of the whole planet up to 2030.

Land Art Generator Initiative


----------



## Moonglow (Feb 4, 2015)

Why is the desert any different than strip mining a mountain for coal?


----------



## ScienceRocks (Feb 4, 2015)

CultureCitizen said:


> elektra said:
> 
> 
> > Solar must destroy the Earth to save the Earth?
> ...



Yep, we could power our entire nation with only a half million kilometers of desert with solar. This isn't including wind, geo-thermal or even roof top solar, etc. Most of this desert would already be effin wasteland in the middle of no where...

Better than digging up a large chunk of our nation for coal or drilling here and their for natural gas! Also, humans are never going to be perfect as we build cities and roads. But, hey that's why we form national parks and try to focus our impact only in cities.


----------



## Old Rocks (Feb 4, 2015)

This is much preferable, Elektra?





 

The Appalachian region is home to one of the oldest and most biologically diverse mountain systems on the continent. Tragically, mountaintop removal mining has already destroyed more than 500 mountains encompassing more than 1 million acres of central and southern Appalachia.

After the coal companies blast apart the mountaintops, they dump the rubble into neighboring valleys, where lie the headwaters of streams and rivers, like the Kanawha, Clinch, and Big Sandy. The exposed rock leaches heavy metals and other toxics that pose enormous health threats to the region’s plants and animals — and people.

- See more at: Ecological Impacts of Mountaintop Removal Appalachian Voices


----------



## ScienceRocks (Feb 4, 2015)

And what else is the reality that the solar is mostly off the ground. It isn't destroy shit..Unlike what oldrocks just posted.


----------



## elektra (Feb 4, 2015)

CultureCitizen said:


> elektra said:
> 
> 
> > Solar must destroy the Earth to save the Earth?
> ...


That is all, a bargain, for a form of energy that was not needed and is going bankrupt left and right.


----------



## elektra (Feb 4, 2015)

Old Rocks said:


> This is much preferable, Elektra?
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Solar Power plants require square miles of land, while providing a tiny bit of electricity, that strip mine that would fit into one Solar Farm can supply California with its entire Energy needs for a fraction of the cost. 

But Solar causes even more damage, Solar requires strip mining, Solar literally doubles the size of strip mines.


----------



## elektra (Feb 4, 2015)

Moonglow said:


> Why is the desert any different than strip mining a mountain for coal?


Because Solar can not provide a fraction of the Power that Coal can.


----------



## Moonglow (Feb 4, 2015)

elektra said:


> Moonglow said:
> 
> 
> > Why is the desert any different than strip mining a mountain for coal?
> ...


Still does not change the fact that nature suffers for human needs....


----------



## ScienceRocks (Feb 4, 2015)

Moonglow said:


> elektra said:
> 
> 
> > Moonglow said:
> ...



Then you probably should just climb into a tree.


----------



## Moonglow (Feb 4, 2015)

Matthew said:


> Moonglow said:
> 
> 
> > elektra said:
> ...


I am three feet off the ground now...


----------



## CultureCitizen (Feb 4, 2015)

elektra said:


> That is all, a bargain, for a form of energy that was not needed and is going bankrupt left and right.



Wait a few months more and you'll discover which form of energy is not needed and going bankrupt, because its break-even price is arround 70 USD per barrel.


----------



## Billy_Bob (Feb 4, 2015)

Matthew said:


> lol,
> 
> a DESERT IS A FUCKING WASTE LAND. Most of the desert solar is built on isn't useable.
> 
> I've come to the conclusion that both parties in this country are full of people that are truly sick in the head.



I thought you enviro wackos want pristine and untouched lands?  You open up public land for total and permanent destruction for your green agenda. Then kick those who want to drill for gas and oil off even though they reclaim the land after drilling and return it to it pristine state during production time of 30 + years allowing indigenous life to return and thrive..

Tell me, Why do the left wit morons allow total destruction of these lands for their cause while others who would act responsibly are driven away? 

This do as I say not as I do shit makes me very angry!


----------



## Billy_Bob (Feb 4, 2015)

Roadrunner said:


> Matthew said:
> 
> 
> > lol,
> ...



I wonder why EPA regulations are only applicable to Coal, NG, or Oil production but not to green energy crap?


----------



## Old Rocks (Feb 5, 2015)

Tell me, little Billy Boob, what emissions have you seen from a windmill or a solar installation? What water pollution have you seen from either? The EPA regulations are completely applicable to the renewables, but there is virtually no pollution from any of them.


----------



## Old Rocks (Feb 5, 2015)

Billy_Bob said:


> Matthew said:
> 
> 
> > lol,
> ...


Well, if you get really angry, remind your mother to change your diaper. 

You and idiots like you, are one funny footnote to the new paradigm of clean energy in this nation.


----------



## Skull Pilot (Feb 5, 2015)

Matthew said:


> lol,
> 
> a DESERT IS A FUCKING WASTE LAND. Most of the desert solar is built on isn't useable.
> 
> I've come to the conclusion that both parties in this country are full of people that are truly sick in the head.


you've never spent time in the desert have you?

Deserts are full of life and are extremely fragile ecosystems.

Uglifying our  wild empty spaces is NOT the way to go we should be preserving them not destroying them


----------



## Moonglow (Feb 5, 2015)

Skull Pilot said:


> Matthew said:
> 
> 
> > lol,
> ...


Then we must stop all extraction or production of modern conveniences...


----------



## Skull Pilot (Feb 5, 2015)

Moonglow said:


> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> > Matthew said:
> ...


cover your own back yard in solar panels.

There in no need to uglify our natural wild spaces when we have millions of acres of south and southwest facing roof tops on which to install solar panels.

It's more practical and will cost less as the infrastructure is already in place

But idiots like you want to most expensive government boondoggles in order to call it progress


----------



## longknife (Feb 5, 2015)

Matthew said:


> lol,
> 
> a DESERT IS A FUCKING WASTE LAND. Most of the desert solar is built on isn't useable.
> 
> I've come to the conclusion that both parties in this country are full of people that are truly sick in the head.



 Every single acre of land on earth has a purpose for being there.

Mojave Desert Biome

When you destroy it, it has direct impacts on other biomes near and far.


----------



## CultureCitizen (Feb 5, 2015)

longknife said:


> Matthew said:
> 
> 
> > lol,
> ...



Agreed,  the desert is a frail ecosystem, with a low biomass. 
Now my point is why is this an issue and not the explosive growth of las Vegas or the thousands of miles of irrigated desert land or the water intensive and polluting practice of fracking ?

Though this destroys a patch of desert it doesn't have a spill over efect in the surrounding areas, as oposed to fracking, or mining.


----------



## ScienceRocks (Feb 5, 2015)

And life can still live under the solar panels. Can you say the same about a coal mine or a city like Las Vegas???


----------



## elektra (Feb 5, 2015)

Solar increases strip mining and kill fish, that is a fact. Unless Solar Panels grow on trees, which they do not.

The world's largest solar plant uses how much silica, cadium, aluminum,  concrete,  road base.

Funny,  the world's largest solar plant we are told uses no raw materials to build. 


Matthew said:


> And life can still live under the solar panels. Can you say the same about a coal mine or a city like Las Vegas???


Nothing lives under solar, yet people, cats, dogs, and birds live in Vegas.  Why must the most outrageous,  blatant lies be told to sell us on Solar.


----------



## longknife (Feb 5, 2015)

Matthew said:


> And what else is the reality that the solar is mostly off the ground. It isn't destroy shit..Unlike what oldrocks just posted.



Are you dense?

They clear the ground beneath the panels and that destroys the entire system. Plants. birds, animals all lose the places they live.


----------



## Moonglow (Feb 5, 2015)

Skull Pilot said:


> Moonglow said:
> 
> 
> > Skull Pilot said:
> ...


I want it all the forms of energy, but don't let that stop you from ass-uming you know what I want....


----------



## Moonglow (Feb 5, 2015)

longknife said:


> Matthew said:
> 
> 
> > And what else is the reality that the solar is mostly off the ground. It isn't destroy shit..Unlike what oldrocks just posted.
> ...


they do that with strip mining also, and oil production..


----------



## Moonglow (Feb 5, 2015)

longknife said:


> Matthew said:
> 
> 
> > lol,
> ...


So your now and environmentalist?


----------



## CultureCitizen (Feb 5, 2015)

elektra said:


> Solar increases strip mining and kill fish, that is a fact. Unless Solar Panels grow on trees, which they do not.
> 
> The world's largest solar plant uses how much silica, cadium, aluminum, concrete, road base.
> 
> Funny, the world's largest solar plant we are told uses no raw materials to build.



I don't really agree. In order to have significant increase ( 10% ) in USA's  silicon production a  solar plant with an area of two square miles would have to be created every single year. Such a plant would yield about   0.8 Gw of energy. 

List of countries by silicon production - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia


----------



## Billy_Bob (Feb 5, 2015)

Old Rocks said:


> Billy_Bob said:
> 
> 
> > Matthew said:
> ...



Ah... Another enlightening rant from a fool... Idiots like you need to stop using computers, medical equipment, medicine , electricity and lead by example showing us how you cease to emit CO2..


----------



## elektra (Feb 5, 2015)

CultureCitizen said:


> elektra said:
> 
> 
> > Solar increases strip mining and kill fish, that is a fact. Unless Solar Panels grow on trees, which they do not.
> ...


It is not just silica, it is also aggregate for the building of roads, for the base in which the Solar Panels will be mounted, for the entire project. I imagine developing a 2 sq. mile area for Solar will have a significant increase on the local gravel pits. At least that is what I found out investigating the California Valley Solar Ranch. They literally doubled the size of a local Quarry. Square miles of land increases the consumption of many materials, road aggregate is one such commodity in which seems to be forgotten about.

Currently, there are no 2 sq. mile solar plants that have an output of 800 mwh (0.8 gwh).


----------



## elektra (Feb 5, 2015)

Moonglow said:


> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> > Moonglow said:
> ...


Solar is a Luxury, extremely expensive. 

Do you really want a 20 year loan to pay for electricity? 

Further, the increase is Consumption which Solar is responsible for, uses our natural resources faster, Solar does not conserve.


----------



## CultureCitizen (Feb 5, 2015)

elektra said:


> Solar is a Luxury, extremely expensive.
> 
> Do you really want a 20 year loan to pay for electricity?
> 
> Further, the increase is Consumption which Solar is responsible for, uses our natural resources faster, Solar does not conserve.



It is still expensive. But it depends a lot on the region. US southern states are sunny most of the year. It's an ideal zone for solar or solar thermal.

If we compare three current projects Jinping-1 Dam and Ivanpah Solar thermal and Topaz plant we get the following costs per watt:
Ivanpah : 2.2 billion cost , 377 mw . Cost per watt : 5.83
Jinping 1: 8 billion cost , 2600 mw. Cost per watt : 3.07
Topaz : 2.4 billion cost , 550 mw. Cost per watt: 4.3

Ther isn't a lot of difference. Topaz's cost is about 40% above the jinping dam.
Note : solar thermal is more expensive , but can generate electricity 24/ 7. Also , I didn't include gas nuclear or coal plants , because they have high operating expenses and then I would have to calculate the levelized cost.
Hmm , seems a panel in the roof + batteries costs about 4$ per watt. 

Sieren s China Beijing building world s largest dam World DW.DE 04.09.2014
Ivanpah Solar Power Facility - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia
Topaz Solar Farm - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia
World s largest solar farm is up and running in California


----------



## elektra (Feb 5, 2015)

CultureCitizen said:


> elektra said:
> 
> 
> > Solar is a Luxury, extremely expensive.
> ...



The most glaring error I see is Ivanpah, which never worked yet as you have found, it is marketed as if it works and produces Energy, it does not.
Ivanpah also operates on Natural Gas pumped by Diesel fuel, seriously, nice threads here that have been forgotten chronicle the problems. 

Solar Thermal only produces 24/7 because it uses Natural Gas.
How much of your post is correct, if I can easily show a gross error, with such ease.

Ivanpah Solar Power Facility Owners Don t Deserve Taxpayer Bailout - Investors.com



> The facility opened earlier this year to great praise, naturally, because we've been told over and again that green energy, such as solar power, is the future.
> 
> But now its owners — NRG, Web giant Google and BrightSource Energy in Oakland, Calif. — are hoping to secure a $539 million federal grant to help pay off their $1.6 billion federal loan. That shows these moneyed companies have more brass than they do dollars.
> 
> ...


----------



## elektra (Feb 5, 2015)

Roadrunner said:


> elektra said:
> 
> 
> > Solar must destroy the Earth to save the Earth?
> ...




 

Birds are smarter than people.


----------



## CultureCitizen (Feb 5, 2015)

elektra said:


> The most glaring error I see is Ivanpah, which never worked yet as you have found, it is marketed as if it works and produces Energy, it does not.
> Ivanpah also operates on Natural Gas pumped by Diesel fuel, seriously, nice threads here that have been forgotten chronicle the problems.



Indeed, it does use Natural gas. Yet it seems like it is actually producing energy though only about 50% of what it was expected .

Ivanpah Solar Plant Picking Up Steam Breaking Energy - Energy industry news analysis and commentary


----------



## elektra (Feb 5, 2015)

CultureCitizen said:


> elektra said:
> 
> 
> > The most glaring error I see is Ivanpah, which never worked yet as you have found, it is marketed as if it works and produces Energy, it does not.
> ...


Ivanpah, with a capacity factor of 30% give or take, thus was suppose to produce around 100 mwh, but at 50% its only producing around 50 mwh, and I believe once you include the line loss, being more than 50 miles from anything it drops another 50%, so we may be getting 25 mwh? At a cost of 2.1$ billion.


----------



## Old Rocks (Feb 5, 2015)

Well, that is more than we ever got out of the Bush boys buddy, Enron.


----------



## elektra (Feb 5, 2015)

Old Rocks said:


> Well, that is more than we ever got out of the Bush boys buddy, Enron.


Enron, Kenneth Lay, and Bill Clinton. 

Last I checked, California, was also Democrat controlled.


----------



## CultureCitizen (Feb 6, 2015)

elektra said:


> Ivanpah, with a capacity factor of 30% give or take, thus was suppose to produce around 100 mwh, but at 50% its only producing around 50 mwh, and I believe once you include the line loss, being more than 50 miles from anything it drops another 50%, so we may be getting 25 mwh? At a cost of 2.1$ billion.



PS10 solar power plant - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia

PS10 solar plant . Cost 46 million USD. Capacity 11 mw. Cost per watt 4.18 .
production per year : 23,400 MW.
Aproximate cost per kwh : 24 cents (10 year amorization)
It is still above the average in the US , but good enough to make a proffitable business


----------



## hadit (Feb 6, 2015)

Old Rocks said:


> Well, that is more than we ever got out of the Bush boys buddy, Enron.



*BUT BUUUUSSSSSHHHH!!!! *alert


----------



## elektra (Feb 6, 2015)

CultureCitizen said:


> elektra said:
> 
> 
> > Ivanpah, with a capacity factor of 30% give or take, thus was suppose to produce around 100 mwh, but at 50% its only producing around 50 mwh, and I believe once you include the line loss, being more than 50 miles from anything it drops another 50%, so we may be getting 25 mwh? At a cost of 2.1$ billion.
> ...


I guess you have not the technical knowledge of Electricity to include the capacity factor, which is at best 23% of what you you copied and pasted. You pasted the, "nameplate capacity", which in theory is the technical maximum. Solar plants true output is based on the Capacity Factor.

At best its capable of 2 mwh, when the sun shines at its hottest, a few hours a day. 

Either way, Spain's Government has declared Solar a complete failure and has thus quit the subsidies. The Spaniards have determined they lost 2 jobs for every Solar job created.

A small country like Spain can not afford the cost of Solar power. Neither can we.

Endless studies and articles attest to the failures in Spain.

Yes, the cost per kwh is at leat 1.00$ if not 10x's that cost once we factor in all the hidden costs that never get accounted for.


----------



## CultureCitizen (Feb 7, 2015)

elektra said:


> I guess you have not the technical knowledge of Electricity to include the capacity factor, which is at best 23% of what you you copied and pasted. You pasted the, "nameplate capacity", which in theory is the technical maximum. Solar plants true output is based on the Capacity Factor.



Oh , I did the math. In ideal conditions the plant will produce energy for 12 hours with a peak at noon
This yields 31.5% as the maximum capacity ( (2/3.14) /2) factor for a solar plant of any kind.
PS10 is very close to this as it has a capacity factor of 24%.
So the anual kwh generation already accounts for this ( my cost per watt figure is what's actually wrong).Else the output would be  96 GW per year which would require 24/7 sunshine.

The cost per kwh is correct , and this paper from abengoa confirms my quick calculation . Their figure is around 22 cents of Euro per kwh which is 24.8 cents of a dollar.

Soluciones al Cambio Clim tico una Visi n Panor mica

"Capacity factor is a measure of how often an electric generator runs for a specific period of time. It indicates how much electricity a generator actually produces relative to the maximum it could produce at continuous full power operation during the same period."
What is a capacity factor - FAQ - U.S. Energy Information Administration EIA


----------



## elektra (Feb 7, 2015)

CultureCitizen said:


> elektra said:
> 
> 
> > I guess you have not the technical knowledge of Electricity to include the capacity factor, which is at best 23% of what you you copied and pasted. You pasted the, "nameplate capacity", which in theory is the technical maximum. Solar plants true output is based on the Capacity Factor.
> ...


12 hours while all other Solar plants get at best 7 hours of production? Where do you come up with 12 hours of operation? 
33% less than the theoretical maximum is close?

Spain has determined that Solar is too expensive, produces too little, and resulted in negative job growth. 

Ivanpah pretty much killed all CSP plants of the future, maybe all Large Scale Solar. When large industrial scale solar failed, as in Ivanpah the politicians realized that they can not have such huge examples of failure, its best to limit the failures to many multi-million dollar failures than a few huge catastrophic multi-billion dollar failures.

As far as your source for facts, I would choose somebody other than the Owner or Builder of said Solar plant, hardly credible or unbiased.

Either way, the Spanish government has determined Solar does not work and have changed their policy, no more support for Solar in Spain.

People have discussed this in detail in these threads.


----------



## elektra (Feb 7, 2015)

Here, we can see that Solar tariffs and subsidies put the Spanish economy in the whole for 26 billion euro. Very significant for a small country. And this is just the Tariff Deficit, not the cost of building Solar, include the cost of building Solar and we can see that the Spanish economy never would of needed a bailout had they not built Solar. Spain in the same year, 2012 required a 36 billion euro bailout. So we can see had Spain not wasted money on Solar the deficit may not of existed at all. Especially when the Spanish government admits Solar cost 2 jobs for every one job created.

Renewable energy in Spain The cost del sol The Economist



> But costs exploded, too. Subsidies to solar energy rose from €190m in 2007 to €3.5 billion in 2012 (an 18-fold increase). Total subsidies to all renewables reached €8.1 billion in 2012, see chart. Since the government was unwilling to pass the full costs on to consumers, the cumulative tariff deficit (the cost of the system minus revenues from consumers) reached €26 billion, having risen by about €5 billion a year.



Spanish bank bailout gets go-ahead - Nov. 28 2012



> *The European Commission has approved Spain's plans to restructure four of its weakest banks, clearing the way for them to receive nearly €37 billion in fresh capital from the eurozone's bailout fund.*



It is a shortsighted policy that is not sustainable, as spain proves.


----------



## Judicial review (Feb 7, 2015)

What word is desert short for? I say who gives a damn.  You'll understand what I mean when you figure out that word.


----------



## elektra (Feb 7, 2015)

Judicial review said:


> What word is desert short for? I say who gives a damn.  You'll understand what I mean when you figure out that word.


As if you posted something so clever we need to think about your post, little high on your horse I say, get back to me when you figure that out, okay.


----------



## Judicial review (Feb 7, 2015)

elektra said:


> Judicial review said:
> 
> 
> > What word is desert short for? I say who gives a damn.  You'll understand what I mean when you figure out that word.
> ...



I don't see the need to really give a shit about a worthless piece of desert that is "deserted."  I prefer land that is good for investment.  I believe we can all agree the desert is wasteland.


----------



## elektra (Feb 7, 2015)

Judicial review said:


> elektra said:
> 
> 
> > Judicial review said:
> ...


Believing, knowing, and reality is much different. 

If the desert is such a wasteland why is Solar energy dependent on Desert for growth? 
If the desert is such a wasteland, why are Wind Turbines dependent on elements found in the Mojave desert? 

Certainly Solar in the Desert is not a good investment. 

Deserted? Hardly, I think you should actually get a little education about the desert before you dismiss it as useless. We could not build Wind Turbines without the Desert.


----------



## Judicial review (Feb 7, 2015)

elektra said:


> Judicial review said:
> 
> 
> > elektra said:
> ...



Just out of curiosity how many people live in the desert?  How much investment property is there that's profitable?   Keep in mind people aren't solar panels or wind Turbines.  Btw... if solar is dependent on the desert for growth wouldn't it be a good investment?  You contradicted yourself.  better go back and edit.


----------



## ScienceRocks (Feb 7, 2015)

I think building a city or road in the desert is far more destructive. Should we do that, yes we should!


----------



## Judicial review (Feb 7, 2015)

Matthew said:


> I think building a city or road in the desert is far more destructive. Should we do that, yes we should!



if you can get the city access to clean water or water period I'd agree!  Better have damn good air conditioners and water fountains everywhere.


----------



## elektra (Feb 7, 2015)

Judicial review said:


> elektra said:
> 
> 
> > Judicial review said:
> ...


How many people live in the desert? I am not sure, in California there are at least 22 million that live in the desert.
I contradicted myself, I never said Solar was a good investment, Solar is a negative investment requiring a constant source of money to be sustainable. Nice try, at twisting my comments. 

In Arizona, Cotton is grown in the Desert, hardly a wasteland, as you describe. 

How much investment property? Good question, I would say all of Southern California, except for of course the land the Government is giving to the special interest solar power companies.


----------



## ScienceRocks (Feb 7, 2015)

I think we should build a city on mars!


----------



## elektra (Feb 7, 2015)

Judicial review said:


> Matthew said:
> 
> 
> > I think building a city or road in the desert is far more destructive. Should we do that, yes we should!
> ...


Solar can not be sustained without water. Yet somehow Solar is finding plenty of water in the desert, which according to you is a wasteland?


----------



## Judicial review (Feb 7, 2015)

elektra said:


> Judicial review said:
> 
> 
> > elektra said:
> ...



When there is a drought in the main land, where do you think the deserts imported water will go?  The the people in the desert or the people in the cities?  The places where food is grown.  Not cotton.


----------



## Judicial review (Feb 7, 2015)

elektra said:


> Judicial review said:
> 
> 
> > Matthew said:
> ...



well
*Nestlé* is finding it and taking it no matter how rare it is to find on the surface.
Addicting Info 8211 8220 Stealing 8221 Water From Drought-Ridden California Desert Thanks Nestle.


Oh! and look at this,

11 trillion gallons needed to replace California water losses


----------



## Judicial review (Feb 7, 2015)

Matthew said:


> I think we should build a city on mars!



If we can find water first!!!!!


----------



## Old Rocks (Feb 7, 2015)

elektra said:


> Judicial review said:
> 
> 
> > Matthew said:
> ...


You silly ass, why don't you just link us a credible source that states you need a lot of water for solar?


----------



## elektra (Feb 7, 2015)

Judicial review said:


> elektra said:
> 
> 
> > Judicial review said:
> ...


Boy, you are all over the place with your post. Bit lost are you? From you link:



> Do you see all of those cute bottles of Arrowhead



Arrowhead? That is not arrowhead as in an Indian's Bow and Arrow, that is Arrowhead as in Lake Arrowhead in the San Bernardino mountains.
So what is your point, you can Google but can not read and comprehend. 

Either way, people drink water, and you have shown in the desert we have water, so your point that deserts are worthless wasteland is being disproved by your posts.


----------



## elektra (Feb 7, 2015)

Old Rocks said:


> elektra said:
> 
> 
> > Judicial review said:
> ...


Because anyone who knows solar and has read these threads now this as fact.


----------



## Judicial review (Feb 7, 2015)

elektra said:


> Judicial review said:
> 
> 
> > elektra said:
> ...



When your state is 11 trillion gallons of water short you have a pretty worthless state.  Not to mention all that debt California has piled up to where they are headed for bankrupt, but we'll discuss that some other time.


----------



## Judicial review (Feb 7, 2015)

elektra said:


> Old Rocks said:
> 
> 
> > elektra said:
> ...



To be honest I don't believe anybody really gives a shit.


----------



## elektra (Feb 7, 2015)

Judicial review said:


> elektra said:
> 
> 
> > Judicial review said:
> ...


You are confusing politics with reality, we are not short one drop of water. Hell, we just had 3 years of record grape harvests.


----------



## Judicial review (Feb 7, 2015)

elektra said:


> Judicial review said:
> 
> 
> > elektra said:
> ...



are you on drugs or did you miss the helicopters flying inland with water and dropping it from above?


----------



## ScienceRocks (Feb 7, 2015)

There's plenty of water on mars! Water on Mars - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia

Abundant water ice is also present beneath the permanent carbon dioxide ice cap at the Martian south pole and in the shallow subsurface at more temperate latitudes.[3][4][5][6] More than five million cubic kilometers of ice have been identified at or near the surface of modern Mars, enough to cover the whole planet to a depth of 35 meters.[7]


----------



## Judicial review (Feb 7, 2015)

Matthew said:


> There's plenty of water on mars! Water on Mars - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia
> 
> Abundant water ice is also present beneath the permanent carbon dioxide ice cap at the Martian south pole and in the shallow subsurface at more temperate latitudes.[3][4][5][6] More than five million cubic kilometers of ice have been identified at or near the surface of modern Mars, enough to cover the whole planet to a depth of 35 meters.[7]



I wish we could fund NASA Mathew.  Really I do.  I'd get a PHD in mathematics and science and work for them.  I'm their wet dream.  I have a friend who also is a genius, but has 
*Asperger's Syndrome* and one of the symptoms includes an obsession in a specific area or field of study such as math, weather or whatever.  In his case it's astrology/science.  He knows more about space than anybody I know.  Also has the best memory of anyone I know except me.  I consider him my equal in terms of smarts and knowledge.  He went to school and got a phd in quantum mechanics. He could work for NASA right now.


----------



## elektra (Feb 7, 2015)

Judicial review said:


> elektra said:
> 
> 
> > Judicial review said:
> ...


Nope, not on drugs, I simply recognize that when you incorrectly describe water in terms of gallons instead of acre feet, you simply do not know what your talking about.


----------



## Judicial review (Feb 7, 2015)

elektra said:


> Judicial review said:
> 
> 
> > elektra said:
> ...




You are without question smoking something.  This discussion is so ridiculous and finished by me.


----------



## elektra (Feb 7, 2015)

Judicial review said:


> elektra said:
> 
> 
> > Judicial review said:
> ...


I should of forewarned you, you come in my threads, you best be ready to debate me, you best read your links, and damn well better make sure you know something more than your feelings.

I was disappointed when your posts were just a bit better than mattpew's and not even close to Old Crock's garbage. You fell right between dumb and dumber.



> This discussion is so ridiculous and finished by me.



You are funny though, I think you meant to say: "This discussion is so ridiculous, its finished by me". What you stated is that you made this discussion ridiculous.


----------



## elektra (Feb 7, 2015)

Matthew said:


> There's plenty of water on mars! Water on Mars - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia
> 
> Abundant water ice is also present beneath the permanent carbon dioxide ice cap at the Martian south pole and in the shallow subsurface at more temperate latitudes.[3][4][5][6] More than five million cubic kilometers of ice have been identified at or near the surface of modern Mars, enough to cover the whole planet to a depth of 35 meters.[7]


Mars? You lack focus. Let me help you, www.cleantechnia.com, they should do your thinking for you, trust me.


----------



## elektra (Feb 7, 2015)

Old Rocks said:


> elektra said:
> 
> 
> > Judicial review said:
> ...


Okay, how about the Final Environmental Impact Statement from the World's Largest Solar Power Plant, Ivanpah. It is located in the Mojave desert. I will use the Bureau of Land Management and the actual EIS. Is that good or should I use your source Old Crock, wikipedia!

http://www.blm.gov/style/medialib/b...r.19048.File.dat/1-CDCA-Ivanpah-Final-EIS.pdf



> The facilities would require a water source to support operations, including process water consisting of make-up water for the steam system and wash water for the heliostats, and potable water for domestic water needs. Groundwater would be supplied from one of two wells that would be constructed at the northwest corner of Ivanpah 1, just outside the perimeter fence but within the construction logistics area. Each of the three power blocks would be connected to the groundwater wells by underground water pipelines. The applicant estimates project water consumption would not exceed a maximum of 100 acre-feet per year for all three solar plants combined, which would primarily be used to provide water for washing heliostats (mirrors) and to replace boiler feed water blow-down. The quality of groundwater would be improved using a treatment system for meeting the requirements of the boiler make-up and mirror wash water. Water treatment equipment would consist of activated carbon filters, de-ionization media, and a mixed-bed polisher. Each power plant would have a 250,000 gallon raw water storage tank. Approximately 100,000 gallons would be usable for plant process needs and 150,000 gallons would be reserved for fire protection. Demineralized water would be stored in a 25,000-gallon demineralized water storage tank. Boiler feedwater make-up water would be stored in another 25,000-gallon tank. Fire Protection The fire protection system would be designed to protect personnel and limit property loss and plant downtime in the event of a fire. The primary source of fire protection water would be the 250,000 gallon raw



Damn, Ivanpah requires two wells and its own water treatment facility which is being powered by electricity supplied by Fossil Fuel. 

Old Crock, I am going to start calling you, "Strawberry" (low hanging fruit).


----------



## Judicial review (Feb 7, 2015)

elektra said:


> Judicial review said:
> 
> 
> > elektra said:
> ...



What's funny is I made your thread completely worthless with my first post.  Too easy. The rest were just added fun.  btw.. you know this to be true, because you ended up stalking me in other threads with your pissy attitude.  Lighten up.  Quit being so stubborn.  When you are wrong you are wrong.  Just accept it.


----------



## Judicial review (Feb 7, 2015)

elektra said:


> Old Rocks said:
> 
> 
> > elektra said:
> ...



You know that desert water is limited, right?  The grape farm you referenced was due to the rain california got in the last few days, which just so happened to be perfect timing for grape harvesting season.  Have you been paying attention to the California droughts? It was just on the news today.  Did you hear about the water usage ban in all of CA?  Hear about the helicopters bringing in water to farmers from the pacific due to things being so dire.  It's national news.  hey!  It's all good.  there's no drought.  Or  you want desert everywhere.  That is happening.  California is becoming more and more desert.  

Just give it up.  You are looking like a fool who doesn't have the balls to let it go.


----------



## longknife (Feb 7, 2015)

Old Rocks said:


> Well, that is more than we ever got out of the Bush boys buddy, Enron.


----------



## elektra (Feb 7, 2015)

Judicial review said:


> elektra said:
> 
> 
> > Old Rocks said:
> ...


Wow, you really took my posts personal, was it the, "opposite world" thing, so sorry.

Maybe I should call you, "Strawberry" (low hanging fruit).

Yes, things are so bad, as you say, "Hear about the helicopters bringing in water to farmers from the pacific due to things being so dire.  It's national news." Last I checked plants will die if you water them with SALT WATER! California farmers go to great lengths to rinse salt from the soil, salt from the evaporation of fresh water.

Grapes, I did say Grapes, not to be confused with your name, "Strawberrry (Judicial review), I could not bait someone better than if I walked into the woods with honey all over me to attract the bears, seriously, you want to talk about grapes, I would think you would of had your fill of me by now, "Strawberry". You did say you finished my thread? Yes?

Anyhow, "Strawberry", I can let the stupidity of your, "grape" comments go, I have a great california grape thread coming, so here I will at least try to get back on topic, I will start the grape thread after the official, "Crush" report for 2014 is released in March.

So, in closing, "Strawberry", thanks for all the extra views, it helps with trophy points and all, ha! ha! (little private joke between me and "strawberry").

p.s. grape farmers do not like rain, it literally destroys the grapes, this time of year most the grapes are from chile.


----------



## Judicial review (Feb 7, 2015)

elektra said:


> Judicial review said:
> 
> 
> > elektra said:
> ...



Wow!  I got absolutely NOTHING not a damn fucking thing out of that entire horrible, worthless, fruity post of yours except the FACT that you like fruit.  I guess my only question that's left is, are you queer?


----------



## elektra (Feb 7, 2015)

Judicial review said:


> elektra said:
> 
> 
> > Judicial review said:
> ...


Oh, I thought I stated Strawberry, as in Low Hanging Fruit. I did not link for, sorry.

Low Hanging Fruit

low-hanging fruit - Idioms by The Free Dictionary



> *low-hanging fruit*
> 
> Also found in: Dictionary/thesaurus, Financial.
> *low-hanging fruit*
> ...



Strawberries are a low hanging fruit, see the pick, "Strawberry"


----------



## Billy_Bob (Feb 7, 2015)

elektra said:


> Old Rocks said:
> 
> 
> > Well, that is more than we ever got out of the Bush boys buddy, Enron.
> ...



you mean moron and idiot socialist controlled...


----------



## elektra (Feb 7, 2015)

Billy_Bob said:


> elektra said:
> 
> 
> > Enron, Kenneth Lay, and Bill Clinton.
> ...


I said that, I was simply politically correct.


----------



## Billy_Bob (Feb 7, 2015)

Judicial review said:


> elektra said:
> 
> 
> > Judicial review said:
> ...



Because you do not understand what power generation requires.  Calling someone stupid from a point of ignorance is....  ignorant!


----------



## CultureCitizen (Feb 7, 2015)

elektra said:


> 12 hours while all other Solar plants get at best 7 hours of production? Where do you come up with 12 hours of operation?
> 33% less than the theoretical maximum is close?
> 
> Spain has determined that Solar is too expensive, produces too little, and resulted in negative job growth.


On the average the sun shines for 12 hours, but since it describes an arch  I used the integral of sin , which yields  (2/3.14) /2) = 31.5%
Internal combustion motors use only about 45% of the energy they are supplied, so yes , 33% below is quite close.
Well, you can disregard their costs, but why would they lie? 
If they operate the plant and their costs are above the price they will loose money. 
Regardless the price for kwh is still high and a simple solar panel with a couple of batteries can match the cost ( but you dont get electricity 24/7 still ).

Spain is in a serious recesion and the oil has hit a 10 year low. It is logic they stopped investing in solar. 
Solar is mature enough, it's the storage technology whats holding it back , so we'll have to wait until we have better batteries.


----------



## CultureCitizen (Feb 7, 2015)

Judicial review said:


> elektra said:
> 
> 
> > Judicial review said:
> ...



... and don't forget about facking, fracking requires tons and tons of water.


----------



## rdean (Feb 7, 2015)

Matthew said:


> lol,
> 
> a DESERT IS A FUCKING WASTE LAND. Most of the desert solar is built on isn't useable.
> 
> I've come to the conclusion that both parties in this country are full of people that are truly sick in the head.


Apparently someone thinks birds live in the desert.

German power prices negative over weekend 8211 German Energy Transition

Germany Reached Nearly 75 Renewable Power Use On Sunday CleanTechnica


----------



## elektra (Feb 7, 2015)

CultureCitizen said:


> elektra said:
> 
> 
> > 12 hours while all other Solar plants get at best 7 hours of production? Where do you come up with 12 hours of operation?
> ...


Yes, of course, you are so wrong, but that does not matter, Spain's crisis preceded the fall in the price of gasoline, the subsideis and tariffs were discontinued long before the fall in the price of gas. 

As far as the idea of yours, is that solar simply needs battery in ridiculous as well, at no point in the day does Solar ever supply more power than we need, there is never excess. 

So your idea is to drive up the cost of all other forms of electricity and then force consumers to by solar and batteries? 

Of course that ignores the fact that industry and commercial users will not have power.

It will be our homes that are saddled with the burden of expensive, solar. 

Yes, in Spain, Solar caused the recession. They admitted as much while everyone else makes excuses.


----------



## Judicial review (Feb 7, 2015)

Billy_Bob said:


> Judicial review said:
> 
> 
> > elektra said:
> ...



Not talking about power generation.


----------



## elektra (Feb 7, 2015)

Judicial review said:


> Billy_Bob said:
> 
> 
> > Judicial review said:
> ...


Oh, hi, Strawberry, welcome back to my thread.


----------



## CultureCitizen (Feb 7, 2015)

elektra said:


> So your idea is to drive up the cost of all other forms of electricity and then force consumers to by solar and batteries?
> 
> Of course that ignores the fact that industry and commercial users will not have power.
> 
> ...


Jajaja, no, I didn't say that !!!
Where did you get that stuff from ?

Ok. I use around 114 kwh per month
So by buying 2 solar panels which will yield about 64. kwh per month.  I become energy independent.
Now , to the cost : 600 USD for the panels ( both )
My actual bill is near 13.5 USD per month so in 4 years I'll recover the cost.

So far so good, except I need to invest another 2400 USD for the batteries to have 24/7 electricity . So now It will take 19 years to recover the investment. Since the solar panel will have a usefull life of 20 years, at this point I'll have to buy another panel, so I am just at the break even price. 

So as I said , the solar technology is ready. We still need to wait for cheaper batteries.


----------



## Judicial review (Feb 7, 2015)

elektra said:


> Judicial review said:
> 
> 
> > Billy_Bob said:
> ...



What do you want?


----------



## kiwiman127 (Feb 7, 2015)

elektra said:


> California's desert is fast becoming a Solar Wasteland, what was once pristine desert habitat is being replaced with Industrial Scale Solar.
> 
> Thanks to Obama and the State Government of California.
> 
> ...



So elektra, do you get paid by the fossil fuel industry for starting all these anti-Green Energy threads or what?
And the fossil fuel industry hasn't created havoc to the landscape, water supply and skies of this Earth? I must of missed your thread on that subject.


----------



## elektra (Feb 7, 2015)

CultureCitizen said:


> elektra said:
> 
> 
> > So your idea is to drive up the cost of all other forms of electricity and then force consumers to by solar and batteries?
> ...





kiwiman127 said:


> elektra said:
> 
> 
> > California's desert is fast becoming a Solar Wasteland, what was once pristine desert habitat is being replaced with Industrial Scale Solar.
> ...


Do you get paid to support wind and solar? 

So funny, so many people just can not accept the truth. You guys consume extreme amounts of oil to build the world's largest solar plants and act like solar grows magically on trees.

Solar is a huge step backwards, nothing consumes more.


----------



## elektra (Feb 7, 2015)

CultureCitizen said:


> elektra said:
> 
> 
> > So your idea is to drive up the cost of all other forms of electricity and then force consumers to by solar and batteries?
> ...


Right.

You do realize this thread is about industry, not your backyard.


----------



## MaryL (Feb 7, 2015)

Miles upon miles of useless desert being wasted by humans  putting up solar panels or even all those useless power generating wind turbines. What we need instead is more coal or oil fired power plants making all that wonderful pollution we all adore so much.


----------



## kiwiman127 (Feb 7, 2015)

elektra said:


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



No, I don't get paid by and Green Industries.
My position doesn't involve eliminating any fossil fuel usage (although I do have a problem with the coal industry's pollution).  My position, which I stated in another one of your anti-Green threads, is to use renewable energy to beef up the US's inventory of energy resources.  This would make the US more self reliant.
It's that simple and is as simple to see as it is to see your anti-Green energy agenda.
Also, expanding this country's energy inventory gives people more of choice for their energy needs, instead of getting force fed fossil fuels.


----------



## elektra (Feb 7, 2015)

kiwiman127 said:


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


Yes, I remember, it's too bad you never actually take into account how big solar or wind must be to provide so little.

Diversify our energy? Solar and wind dies not do that. It does not produce enough and is dependent on increasing consumption of Fossil fuel.

I swear to god the plan of green energy is to use all the oil up, in manufacturing green leaving us an energy starved nation.

We should all own 20 green energy cars, drive each a quarter mile, get in the next, drive a quarter mile. You won't use any gas, hence it's not counter productive to use 20 when 1 could do the job.

I think each person should have their own supermarket, As long as it's green, no waste there.

Green energy, the biggest fraud in history, sold on the lie of agw.


----------



## kiwiman127 (Feb 7, 2015)

Yeah and that's why China is soon to be the world's largest user of renewable energy.
Here's a link I posted in another one of tour anti-Green threads.
China Is Besting the U.S. on Renewable Energy - US News
I don't think China is that concerned with Global Warming.
You are such a small thinker, you really don't have the ability to look at the Big Picture. Countries around the world are investing in renewable energy because it's smart thinking for the future, we never have enough energy.  If all hell breaks loose in the Middle East an energy crunch occurs.  If you have alternative energy resources you are sure the hell better off than those who have all their eggs in one basket.
Energy experts from around the world know this, thus the growth of renewable energy. This has nothing to do with Global Warming.  It has everything to do with energy.


----------



## elektra (Feb 7, 2015)

kiwiman127 said:


> Yeah and that's why China is soon to be the world's largest user of renewable energy.
> Here's a link I posted in another one of tour anti-Green threads.
> China Is Besting the U.S. on Renewable Energy - US News
> I don't think China is that concerned with Global Warming.
> ...


Actually, you are a bit of late thinker, 

China is going Nuclear, big, with our technology, transferred by Obama to China.

Honestly, you have not researched what you speak of, you are about backwards with all you state. Solar and Wind are not even a pimple on the ass of one nuclear power plant. China will be the strongest Nation ever, period. We will buy Solar and Wind from China, they will sell Nuclear Reactors to the World.

You my friend, are the "small thinker"

China Nuclear Power Chinese Nuclear Energy



> *Nuclear Power in China*
> _(Updated January 2015)_
> 
> 
> ...


----------



## elektra (Feb 7, 2015)

kiwiman127 said:


> Yeah and that's why China is soon to be the world's largest user of renewable energy.
> Here's a link I posted in another one of tour anti-Green threads.
> China Is Besting the U.S. on Renewable Energy - US News
> I don't think China is that concerned with Global Warming.
> ...


You are worried about China "trumping" us in Green Energy while they build the most modern nuclear power infrastructure in the World, you are worried about Green Energy when in a few years China will be the World's largest exporter of Nuclear Power.

Your idea destroys America, literally.


----------



## elektra (Feb 7, 2015)

MaryL said:


> Miles upon miles of useless desert being wasted by humans  putting up solar panels or even all those useless power generating wind turbines. What we need instead is more coal or oil fired power plants making all that wonderful pollution we all adore so much.


That is a nice feeling, how much coal gets burnt up making 100 miles of solar panels.?

You can not hardly complain about coal when your solution is to destroy a land mass bigger than the entire state of Western Virginia and Pennsylvania combined.


----------



## kiwiman127 (Feb 7, 2015)

elektra said:


> kiwiman127 said:
> 
> 
> > Yeah and that's why China is soon to be the world's largest user of renewable energy.
> ...



Interesting.
Currently nuclear power accounts for 2% of China.s electricity, the anticipated growth by 2040 shows nuclear power accounting for 7% of China's electricity,  Where as hydropower accounts for 20% of their electricity.  Renewable energy will account for 35% of China's electricity by 2040.
That's hardly a pimple on China's nuclear facilities ass.


----------



## elektra (Feb 7, 2015)

kiwiman127 said:


> elektra said:
> 
> 
> > kiwiman127 said:
> ...


Coloring book pictures hardly tell the story of power in China. Seems that the Chinese do not agree with your optimism. Costs are a problem, yet Solar is so cheap and such a great source of power?

Small-scale solar stalls at China s city limits Nicholas Olczak - China Dialogue



> *Small-scale solar stalls at China’s city limits*
> *Nicholas Olczak*
> 
> China is failing to meet growth targets for small-scale solar energy generation as urban building owners struggle to justify installation costs


----------



## Billy_Bob (Feb 7, 2015)

elektra said:


> kiwiman127 said:
> 
> 
> > elektra said:
> ...



Subsidies ended in the European Union this year for wind and solar. Major wind power generation areas are now going massively over budget and the people will not pay the huge increases in power costs. Now begins the massive run on building new Coal and CNG plants while the wind turbines are beginning to be abandoned as they go bankrupt and their economies fail. It started 2 years ago and now its raging to get their economies back on track and be competitive again.

This collapse is going to be ugly...


----------



## Andylusion (Feb 7, 2015)

CultureCitizen said:


> elektra said:
> 
> 
> > Solar must destroy the Earth to save the Earth?
> ...



Come on....    Are you bonkers?

That entire site is a joke.   You want me to detail how crazy that is, line by line?


----------



## kiwiman127 (Feb 7, 2015)

elektra said:


> kiwiman127 said:
> 
> 
> > Yeah and that's why China is soon to be the world's largest user of renewable energy.
> ...



"Your idea destroys America, literally."

Do you have anything from experts not connected to the fossil fuel sector to back that comment up?

Even "W" an oil man agrees or I agree with him.
*In 2007, President Bush signed the Energy Independence and Security Act (EISA), which responded to his “Twenty in Ten” challenge to expand alternative fuels and improve vehicle fuel economy.*  Although the President’s proposed alternative fuel standard would have gone further and faster than this legislation, EISA represents a major step forward in expanding the production of renewable fuels, reducing our dependence on oil, and confronting global climate change.
Energy for America s Future


----------



## elektra (Feb 7, 2015)

kiwiman127 said:


> elektra said:
> 
> 
> > kiwiman127 said:
> ...


Solar construction needs the largest amount of fossil fuel of any industry. It is about making people ric. Of course an oil man like bush supports anything that increases the use of oil.

Bush is greedy bastard except when it comes to solar?

A bit naive you are. Bush is a red flag.


----------



## Judicial review (Feb 7, 2015)

Why are we still talking about solar energy when it's a bad investment?


----------



## kiwiman127 (Feb 7, 2015)

Billy_Bob said:


> elektra said:
> 
> 
> > kiwiman127 said:
> ...



Thanks for your input.  However, I'd like you to take a look at this report. I fear that you fear too much.
Here's the link.
http://www.iea.org/Textbase/npsum/MTrenew2014sum.pdf


----------



## kiwiman127 (Feb 7, 2015)

elektra said:


> kiwiman127 said:
> 
> 
> > elektra said:
> ...



"A bit naive you are."  
You do know that solar energy is just one of several options for renewable energy,,right?
Also, I'm still waiting for you to prove "Your idea destroys America, literally."
So, you have really not proved a thing today.
Countries around the world are expanding their energy inventories by expanding their resources.  That's a fact.  If you were right, then I'm sure the world wouldn't be moving forward by expanding their energy resources with renewable energy.  We also wouldn't being having this discussion.
I can't say anymore, facts are overwhelming on my side.  You are now boring me. You want to be stubborn and ignore what's going on around you worldwide, well that's your problem. 
Adios!


----------



## elektra (Feb 7, 2015)

kiwiman127 said:


> elektra said:
> 
> 
> > kiwiman127 said:
> ...


Post a fact or two, if you have all the facts.

250 billion spent last year, trillions more needed, great success,  as Spain and brazil prove.

Do you know what oced, is?


----------



## Billy_Bob (Feb 8, 2015)

kiwiman127 said:


> Billy_Bob said:
> 
> 
> > elektra said:
> ...



I am very familiar with the IEA and its biased reports.  I am also familiar with the European markets and how they value things. Its called following the money. Now that subsidies are done the inability to compete in the open market is going to happen quickly. Last year alone 3,110  of the 5million dollar a piece wind mills were abandoned due to cost over run and high maintenance costs. That was in Germany alone. The failure is stunning and growing rapidly, a fact the IEA refuses to acknowledge.


----------



## elektra (Feb 8, 2015)

9 trillion dollars we must spend to cover the earth with solar.


----------



## Judicial review (Feb 8, 2015)

elektra said:


> 9 trillion dollars we must spend to cover the earth with solar.



why the hell would we think about doing that?


----------



## ScienceRocks (Feb 8, 2015)

Judicial review said:


> Why are we still talking about solar energy when it's a bad investment?



Why is 5.5gw of the stuff being installed every year between house hold and solar farms? This is only second to natural gas! How can that be a bad investment?


----------



## elektra (Feb 8, 2015)

Matthew said:


> Judicial review said:
> 
> 
> > Why are we still talking about solar energy when it's a bad investment?
> ...


Cause it gives us nothing in return and will cost another 9 trillion dollars.


----------



## Judicial review (Feb 8, 2015)

Matthew said:


> Judicial review said:
> 
> 
> > Why are we still talking about solar energy when it's a bad investment?
> ...



The cost to instal on ones house is average $25,000 to  $35,000 depending on Sq ft. When the cost gets down to $10,000 or the cost of a normal roof with no subsidies, then we'll talk.  I know about subsidy's cover about 50%. However, I'm not going to wait 7-10 years to get my money back, when I'll only stay in my house likely for 15 years then move.

You also have to consider cloud cover and area and regions.  Most people will only get 4-5 hours of sun light in a day.  It's a bad investment in may parts of the world.


----------



## CultureCitizen (Feb 8, 2015)

elektra said:


> Do you get paid to support wind and solar?
> 
> So funny, so many people just can not accept the truth. You guys consume extreme amounts of oil to build the world's largest solar plants and act like solar grows magically on trees.
> 
> Solar is a huge step backwards, nothing consumes more.


Ok Elektra, 
  I gave you the numbers. It is not a huge plant what I am proposing but rather a do it yourself solution. I've gone through the numbers several times, and honestly I don't feel ready  to make the jump just yet. Investing so much for a break-even is not particularly exciting. But it's not the panels what are stopping me , it's the storage technology : it's expensive and not particularly ecologic.  
  I'm optimistic I am certain that within 5 or 10 years I will be able to become energy independent.


----------



## elektra (Feb 8, 2015)

In an economy with no industry, where we are dependent on imports for everything, all we need is to keep our lights on. Our economy will be draining the Baby Boomers life savings through health care, after that we will have nothing.

The end of the usa.


----------



## CultureCitizen (Feb 8, 2015)

Andylusion said:


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


A household can cover most of its energy needs with  60  m2 of solar panels  ( 2 electric cars, + house appliances ).
No desert has to be destroyed. The problem are the batteries : they pollute a lot and they are very inefficient. 
I guess I'll have to wait until we have graphene batteries.


----------



## Old Rocks (Feb 8, 2015)

elektra said:


> kiwiman127 said:
> 
> 
> > elektra said:
> ...


Ol' Booby, are you ever going to try to provide a credible link to your nonsense claims? Or just continue to impress us all as to what a babbling idiot you are. Solar and wind will continue to increase their share of the energy provided in this nation, and around the world. And fools like you will be able to do nothing about that.


----------



## Old Rocks (Feb 8, 2015)

CultureCitizen said:


> Andylusion said:
> 
> 
> > CultureCitizen said:
> ...


Going grid parallel is the answer to that.


----------



## elektra (Feb 8, 2015)

Old Rocks said:


> elektra said:
> 
> 
> > kiwiman127 said:
> ...


I used your link. The information came from  you.


----------



## elektra (Feb 8, 2015)

9 trillion dollars will be spent to build solar and wind.


----------



## Judicial review (Feb 8, 2015)

elektra said:


> 9 trillion dollars will be spent to build solar and wind.



Electra - I have a problem with deserts.  You know what it is?  They are too damn hot.


----------



## Muhammed (Feb 8, 2015)

Matthew said:


> a DESERT IS A FUCKING WASTE LAND.


Exactly. And it's still a desert with or without solar panels.


----------



## elektra (Feb 8, 2015)

Judicial review said:


> elektra said:
> 
> 
> > 9 trillion dollars will be spent to build solar and wind.
> ...


Too hot destroys solar panels, literally. That is why they tried the CSP, Ivanpah. 

I love the desert, I spent 1 year in the USMC stationed in 29 Palms when I was young, another year not so long ago. The Desert is quiet and clean. Some places barren, but that is not where they want to build Solar because its too far away from the Power Lines. 

This is a picture of Ivanpah from 100 miles away, I was over the 10 Freeway, at the Arizona border, give or take. Its that bright spot kind of in the middle of the pic.


----------



## Crick (Feb 8, 2015)

If Ivanpah was replaced with a fossil fuel burning plant of the same capacity, you'd have seen more than that speck of light, wouldn't you.  You'd see a towering plume of exhaust gases and soot.  I'll take this one.


----------



## elektra (Feb 8, 2015)

Crick said:


> If Ivanpah was replaced with a fossil fuel burning plant of the same capacity, you'd have seen more than that speck of light, wouldn't you.  You'd see a towering plume of exhaust gases and soot.  I'll take this one.


No you won't, otherwise we would see your pick. Further we would not need another 100,000 Ivanpah's to equal one Coal plant, like lets say, Cholla. Which is actually in the desert, so a photo would be a great comparison of the two. How about from 1/4 mile away, then you can show a photo from 100 miles away, ha! ha!

Its been a long time since U.S. Coal spewed as much pollution as you are making claims to. 

Panoramio - Photo of Cholla Power Plant from I-40


----------



## elektra (Feb 8, 2015)

Crick said:


> If Ivanpah was replaced with a fossil fuel burning plant of the same capacity, you'd have seen more than that speck of light, wouldn't you.  You'd see a towering plume of exhaust gases and soot.  I'll take this one.


If Ivanpah was replaced with a fossil fuel plant you would see a plume? You know nothing of anything, as you prove. Ivanpah burns natural gas 24/7!

They even got Diesel pumps for that Natural Gas cause apparently Solar can not pump the Natural Gas it uses so we need Diesel pumps. 

Ivanpah solar plant wants to burn more natural gas



> Bright Source Energy, the company operating the plant, is petitioning the California government, requestiong permission to burn more natural gas and to emit 94,749 more tons of carbon dioxide per year.


----------



## CultureCitizen (Feb 8, 2015)

Old Rocks said:


> Going grid parallel is the answer to that.



Yes , of course , but for some reason I feel that's cheating on the electric company


----------



## Andylusion (Feb 8, 2015)

CultureCitizen said:


> Andylusion said:
> 
> 
> > CultureCitizen said:
> ...



*60 m² of solar panels? *   One panel is 1.6 m².   60 / 1.6 = 38 panels.

38 Panels would cost $10.6 Thousand dollars.    That does not include power inverter, or batteries, or the charger controller or any wiring, nor housing for equipment, or surge protections, or breakers and disconnects.  That can easily add up to another $10 Thousand.

So $20K.  I spend about $40 a month on electricity.   In 40 years, I'll break even.   Perhaps I use little electricity.  Let's say $80 a month.  That's 20 years to break even.   Let's say the government subsidizes the big solar companies, to the tune of 50%.  That's 10 years, to break even.

Fail?

*So would 60 m² be able to supply all the power I would need?*   On average... yes.  The average household uses 30 kWh a day.  38 panels are rated to provide 200 watts, per panel, at 7.6 kW, assuming about 4 hours of light a day, would be 30 kWh.

The problem is, "rated" power is not the same as practical power. Calculating out how much power you'll get from 'rated' power, is a joke.    Rated power is under the most ideal circumstances.

For example...  Angle of the panels to the sun.   As we all know, ideally the panels should always face directly at the sun.  Which almost never happens when you mount them on your roof.  That alone eliminates that ideal rated power from ever happening.

What about dust and leaves?  My parents house for example has 3 very large trees, that shade most of their yard and roof.

In dusty areas of the country, that dust can kill off 5% to 10% of the power generation.

Here in Ohio, we have white fluffy stuff called snow.  You expect everyone to climb on their roof all winter long and clear off the snow?

Then you have losses from wiring.  Larger array, more power loss to wiring and inversion.  You also have power mismatch losses.  Differences in power output per panel, cause and overall loss in production.   Larger array, more loss.

So clearly we need significantly more solar panels than the 38 minimum.   Yet even then, we still have a problem, because over time, panels lose their power generation.  There is a significant 1.5% to 2% loss the first month.   Then after that, about 1% power loss per year.   In just 8 years, the total power generation will be down 10%.

Pretty soon, you'll be running out of power.

Of course all of this ignores the fact that many... if not most homes, wouldn't have the space for 38 solar panels anyway.  My parents home, nor my own, would have enough space for that.

*So back to the question:  So would 60 m² be able to supply all the power I would need?*

Theoretically, in the most ideal situation, yes.  In practical reality, not even close.


----------



## Andylusion (Feb 8, 2015)

Old Rocks said:


> CultureCitizen said:
> 
> 
> > Andylusion said:
> ...



True, but that defeats the purpose.   I'm not going to spend $20K on a solar panel setup, only to end up with an electric bill anyway.

If you are going to spend thousands on thousands on thousands of dollars, I'd better not have a power bill every month.


----------



## CultureCitizen (Feb 8, 2015)

Andylusion said:


> *60 m² of solar panels? * One panel is 1.6 m². 60 / 1.6 = 38 panels.
> 
> 38 Panels would cost $10.6 Thousand dollars. That does not include power inverter, or batteries, or the charger controller or any wiring, nor housing for equipment, or surge protections, or breakers and disconnects. That can easily add up to another $10 Thousand.
> 
> ...


No
http://www.wholesalesolar.com/products.folder/module-folder/Astronergy/CHSM6612P-300.html
Each panel measures almost 2 m2 . Each provides 300 w, and each costs 300 US.
That's $9,000, and as I said that includes the energy to charge two electric cars ( for a daily 45 mile ride each ).
So you'll have to add the equivlent expense for gas ( petrol ).
To cover just my electricity needs 2 of the aforementioned panels are more than enough.

That's $600 ... I pay a lot less than you in electricity $12. 600/12 = 50 months.
Considering batteries and wiring , it would add up a lot more : $1800 = 150 months . = 12.5 years.
And as I said , I don't like current batteries. But I do get to the break-even price

Mind you , last time I checked  $50 * 12 months * 200 years  = 120,000. I think you made a math mistake.
Fail ?


----------



## Mad_Cabbie (Feb 9, 2015)

elektra said:


> Green energy, the biggest fraud in history, sold on the lie of agw.



The real question is why do you hate it so much?

*Answer: because that's how you were told to think.*


----------



## elektra (Feb 9, 2015)

Mad_Cabbie said:


> elektra said:
> 
> 
> > Green energy, the biggest fraud in history, sold on the lie of agw.
> ...


9 trillion dollar fraud that destroys the earth while claiming to save the earth.


----------



## Crick (Feb 9, 2015)

Who has spent 9 trillion dollars?

In your haste you may not have noticed this, but alternative energy systems ARE putting power into the world's grids.


----------



## Mad_Cabbie (Feb 9, 2015)

elektra said:


> Mad_Cabbie said:
> 
> 
> > elektra said:
> ...



Correct! Solar energy is destroying the earth! I better start my high fat diet and fornicating like there's no tomorrow .. because there ain't!!!


----------



## elektra (Feb 9, 2015)

Crick said:


> Who has spent 9 trillion dollars?
> 
> In your haste you may not have noticed this, but alternative energy systems ARE putting power into the world's grids.


Crick, you comprehension is weak, hence you believe everything you read. It is a good question, "who has spent 9 trillion dollars", seeings how I did not say 9 trillion dollars has been spent. I stated Green/Renewable/Alternative Energy is a 9 trillion dollar fraud. I guess I should of said 10-11 trillion dollar fraud to account for what has been spent thus far.

Alternative energy systems is a misuse of the word energy. That implies you are using something other than fossil fuels. Alternative energy systems all use fossil fuels. Only difference is, instead of making energy directly, efficiently out of fossil fuels, we increase our production of fossil fuel to create monstrosities that set records every day in size while delivering barely enough power to make an "Energy Star", super energy efficient LED light-bulb on. 

Spain, Greece, and Germany are cutting Solar and Wind power to their grids, its bankrupting their countries. The news about Brazil is they economy is crashing on Green Energy, the diverted money from developing water resources to Alternative Energy now they are suffering massive black-outs. 

The United States of America must dedicate a 100% of all our taxes to developing Green/Alternative/Renewable Energy for the next 20 years, or more. If that is not true tell us how much it will cost, crick.


----------



## elektra (Feb 9, 2015)

5 square miles, .1% of the area that will be developed for Alternative energy.


----------



## Mad_Cabbie (Feb 9, 2015)

elektra said:


> Spain, Greece, and* Germany *are cutting Solar and Wind power to their grids, its bankrupting their countries. The news about Brazil is they economy is crashing on Green Energy, the diverted money from developing water resources to Alternative Energy now they are suffering massive black-outs.



_Elektra, you are seemingly clueless when it comes to this topic -- it is you that needs to better acclimate yourself to the subject matter and to better assimilate the information already made available. _

*Germany Now Produces Half Of Its Energy Using Solar*

June 24, 2014 | by Stephen Luntz





photo credit: Turelio. This solar array at Buschhoven near Bonn was an early example of the movement that has now produced half Germany's electricity demand, albeit for just an hour.
Share on facebook237K Share on twitter1.4K Share on reddit Share on google_plusone_share More Sharing Services

Germany has set a new record, with solar power providing 50.6% of its electricity in the middle of the day on Monday June 9th. Solar production peaked that day at 23.1GW. Three days earlier it was 24.2GW between 1 and 2pm, but on the 9th demand was down for a public holiday, allowing the breaking of the psychological 50% barrier.

Reporting of the achievement has been quite inaccurate in some cases. Coverage has often confused electricity demand with total energy consumption, which properly includes heating and industrial uses of natural gas, although these would have been low on a warm public holiday. Headlines have often implied that the 50% threshold was exceeded for over a fortnight, rather than a single hour.

Nevertheless, the scale of the achievement is considerable. Germany is not a sunny place. Indeed more than 90% of the world's population lives in countries with substantially more sunlight.




Even by European standards German solar panels have little to work with.

Consequently, it is wind, rather than solar, that has been the backbone of Germany's Energiewende, the transition to renewable, non-polluting sources of power.

The shift to solar energy in Germany has not come cheap, with €16 billion of subsidies in 2013. However, by creating a level of demand that spurred mass manufacturing, Germany has played a large part in bringing the cost of solar panels down by 80% in five years, allowing other countries to follow in its footsteps for a fraction of the price, particularly those with more sunlight.

Moreover, where the initial stages of the move to wind were driven by government subsidies, solar power in Germany can now compete with fossil fuels on price alone, andcontinues to expand, albeit at a slower rate than a few years ago.

German solar production is up 34% compared to the same time last year as a result of both better weather and increased installations. While the first is unpredictable, increasing quantities of panels ensure that the 50% record will be breached again, probably this year.

Germany Now Produces Half Of Its Energy Using Solar IFLScience


----------



## Mad_Cabbie (Feb 9, 2015)

*Spain....*

*38% Of Spain’s July Electricity Demand Was Met By Wind and Solar Power*

August 15th, 2014 by Mridul Chadha 





Solar and wind energy sector has a bumper output in Spain last month as the two technologies fulfilled more than a third of the country’s total electricity demand.

Low-carbon electricity sources generated more than 55% of the electricity consumed in Spain last month as power generated from wind energy increased substantially. Almost 30% of the total electricity consumed last month was generated by wind energy projects, while about 4% each was generated by solar photovoltaic and concentrated solar power projects. Electricity generated from nuclear power projects constituted about 18% of the country’s total demand.

July’s share of wind and solar power technologies was significantly higher than their respective share in power generated during the first six months of the year. Between January and July 2014, the share of wind energy was about 22% while that of solar PV was 3.3%.

The wind energy sector has been consistently increasing its share in Spain power generation sector. In 2013 wind energy had the highest share among all technologies in the country’s generation mix. Wind energy projects supplied 21.1% of all electricity consumed in Spain, followed by nuclear power projects which had a share of 21%. During January, February, March and November, wind energy had the highest share in the generation mix.

Renewable energy technologies – wind, solar PV, and solar thermal – represented 49% of the total power generation capacity added in 2013. Generation from coal, natural gas-based power plants, as well as nuclear power generation fell in 2013. Portugal also reported that 70% of the electricity consumed in 2013 was generated by renewable energy sources.

As a result, greenhouse gas emissions from the electricity sector in the Spanish peninsula fell 23.1% to 61.4 million tonnes of CO2e.

Spain has paid €56 billion in subsidies to renewable energy projects since 1998. These projects will receive an additional €142 billion over their lifetimes. The Spanish government intends to restrict the subsidies to renewable energy projects through a bill approved recently. As per the new rules, existing renewable energy projects will be able to earn 7.5% rate of return over their lifetimes.

Wind and Solar Power Provide Over 1 3 of Spain s Power in July


----------



## Mad_Cabbie (Feb 9, 2015)

*Greece....*

*Greece Sees Impressive Solar PV Growth Despite Banking Crisis*
Paul Gipe, Contributor 
January 31, 2013  | 4 Comments

Despite on the ongoing financial tragedy that has gripped Greece for the past three years, the country has risen Phoenix-like from the ashes to become one of the world's largest markets for solar photovoltaics (solar PV).

According to data compiled by the Hellenic Association of Photovoltaic Companies (HELAPCO), Greeks installed more than 900 MW of solar PV last year, bringing total installed capacity to more than 1,500 MW.






Both in relative and absolute terms Greece has become a world leader in solar energy development. The country now ranks third in solar PV per capita worldwide, behind only Germany and Italy.

Greece has now installed five times more solar PV per capita than the U.S. 


Greece Sees Impressive Solar PV Growth Despite Banking Crisis


----------



## elektra (Feb 9, 2015)

Mad_Cabbie said:


> *Spain....*
> 
> *38% Of Spain’s July Electricity Demand Was Met By Wind and Solar Power*
> 
> ...


The Spanish Government and People disagree with you!
Lets try this in Google: "spain green energy and the economy"


*Europe's Green Energy Industry Collapses As Subsidies Cut ...*
dailycaller.com/.../europes-*green*-*energy*-industry-faces-...
The Daily Caller

Jun 24, 2014 - Last year, Spain began to dismantle its green energy subsidy system as energy debts grew and the economy continued to lag. New laws were ...
You've visited this page 2 times. Last visit: 12/29/14

*Spain Dumps the Renewable Energy Scam, Before it ...*
mothersagainstwindturbines.com/.../*spain*-dumps-the-*renewable*-*energy*-s...

Jun 2, 2014 - Spain's Renewable Energy Disaster Draws to a Close June 2, 2014 by ... shrinking) economy and keeping the renewables gravy train rolling.

*Renewable Energy in Spain Is Taking a Beating - NYTimes ...*
www.nytimes.com/.../*energy*.../*renewable*-*energy*-i...
The New York Times

Oct 8, 2013 - MADRID — Years of disastrous policies, coupled with the economic crisis, have recast renewable energy in Spain. Once touted as the ...

*Spain's Green Disaster a Lesson for America - Finance ...*
www.cbn.com/.../*Spains*-*Green*-Disaster-...
Christian Broadcasting Network

Nov 29, 2011 - However, President Obama may like Spain's green technology ... in therenewable energies, that would create a sort of new economy with new ...

*Renewable energy in Spain: The cost del sol | The Economist*
www.economist.com/.../21582018-sustainable-*energy*-me...
The Economist

Jul 20, 2013 - Economics ... Hoping to stimulate a new green industry, for which sunnySpain seems ideal, the government increased the prices it paid for solar ... The changes have turned renewable energy into a fully-regulated business.
You visited this page on 2/6/15.

*Spanish downturn a disaster for green energy - Phys.org*
phys.org › Technology › Energy & Green Tech
Phys.org
 Rating: 4.5 - ‎13 votes
Jun 23, 2013 - In the middle of the last decade when the economy was enjoying strong growth, Spain put a cap on the price of green energies and provided ...

*The Myth of Green Energy Jobs: The European Experience*
www.aei.org/.../the-myth-of-*green*-*energy*-j...
American Enterprise Institute

Feb 15, 2011 - But their expectations clash with both economic theory and practical experience in Europe. Green programs in Spain destroyed 2.2 jobs for ...

*The Lesson in Renewable Energy Development from Spain*
www.*renewableenergy*world.com/.../a-lesson-i...
Renewable Energy World

Jul 30, 2013 - The most recent energy sector reforms passed in Spain represent the ...and partly to encourage the development of new economic sectors.

*Green Energy Is Dead In Spain | Tory Aardvark*
toryaardvark.com/2012/05/30/*green*-*energy*-is-dead-in-*spain*/

May 30, 2012 - Spain has a record high for unemployment, twice the EU limit on budget deficit and a Green economy that has caused this mess in the first ...


----------



## elektra (Feb 9, 2015)

Mad_Cabbie said:


> elektra said:
> 
> 
> > Spain, Greece, and* Germany *are cutting Solar and Wind power to their grids, its bankrupting their countries. The news about Brazil is they economy is crashing on Green Energy, the diverted money from developing water resources to Alternative Energy now they are suffering massive black-outs.
> ...



Google Search this: germany green energy and the economy

*Green Energy Bust in Germany | Dissent Magazine*
Article Dissent Magazine*green*-*energy*-bust-in-*germany*
Dissent

Germany has become the great green hope, promising to dispel the aura of ... Many believe that the Energiewende shows that the economics and the ...
You've visited this page 4 times. Last visit: 2/4/15
*Renewable energy in Germany - Wikipedia, the free ...*
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/*Renewable*_*energy*_in_*Germany*
Wikipedia

Germany has been called "the world's first major renewable energy economy". More than 23,000 wind turbines and 1.4 million solar PV systems are distributed ...
*Germany's Expensive Gamble on Renewable Energy - WSJ*
www.wsj.com/.../*germanys*-expensive-gamble-on-*re*...
The Wall Street Journal

Aug 26, 2014 - The European Union has set a series of binding renewable energytargets ... Despite the weak second quarter, Germany's economy—Europe's ...
*45 US Should Learn from Germany's Renewable Energy ...*
www.*renewableenergy*world.com/.../us-should...
Renewable Energy World

Jul 16, 2014 - Green energy is a a dark religion foisted on an ignorant population by spineless ..... Germany's economy is the most efficient in the world: ...
*High Renewable Energy Costs Damage the German Economy*
the*energy*collective.com/.../high-*renewable*-*energy*-costs-damage-*germa*...

Feb 12, 2014 - In September 2010, the German government announced a new energypolicy with the target of increasing the relative share of renewable ...
*Germany's energy transition: Sunny, windy, costly and dirty ...*
www.economist.com/.../21594336-*germanys*-new-super-...
The Economist

Jan 18, 2014 - Germany's new “super minister” for energy and the economy has his work cut ... The share of renewable energy from sun, wind and biomass is ...
*Germany Now Produces 28.5% of Energy from Renewables ...*
time.com/3059043/*germany*-*green*-*energy*-*renewable*s/
Time

Jul 30, 2014 - Germany set a new record on green energy in the first half of 2014, by producing 28.5% of its energy entirely from renewable sources, ...
*[PDF]The German experience - Institute for Energy Research*
institutefor*energy*research.org/.../*germany*/...
Institute for Energy Research

Projektbericht. Rheinisch-Westfälisches Institut für Wirtschaftsforschung. Economicimpacts from the promotion of renewable energies: The German experience.
*Moves Toward Green Energy Hamper Germany's Economy ...*
https://www.stratfor.com/.../moves-toward-*green*-*energy*-hamper-...
Stratfor

Feb 1, 2015 - The German economy took a hit when renewable energy sources began gaining popularity.
*Germany's Green Energy Is an Expensive Success ...*
www.bloombergview.com/.../*germany*-s-*green*-*energy*-is-an-expensive-s...

Sep 22, 2014 - Germany's policy of switching to clean energy looks like a failure on the ... of Germany's energy-intensive industries, without the economy ...


----------



## Andylusion (Feb 9, 2015)

CultureCitizen said:


> Andylusion said:
> 
> 
> > *60 m² of solar panels? * One panel is 1.6 m². 60 / 1.6 = 38 panels.
> ...



Yeah, I put down months, instead of years.   I corrected it pretty quick.  You must be fast on replies.

As for the rest of your stuff...  Well, yeah.  If you barely use any power, then you can easily cover your power needs.

Unfortunately, the vast majority of Americans are not going to live like hobbits.  The average American household uses 10,000 watt hours.  You say 600 watts, at 4 hours, 2,400 watt hours is enough for you?   Great.  More power to you Mr Frodo.  The rest of us want more.  Thanks.

Even if I were to get solar panels, I would never depend on them to dive somewhere.  I'm not going to wake up the next morning after a cloudy day, and not be able to get to work.  And it's not unusual that I have to go somewhere a distance out of the way.  I'm not going to tell my boss "sorry I can't deliver this because it was partly cloudy yesterday.", or "oh sorry, my EV has a 80 mile max range".

So, no I don't add in petrol savings because there would be none.  And I know this is crazy, but for most people there would be none.

Here where I live, this past week was cloudy every day.  Following your plan, I'd be fired by now.

Again, if this works for you, then more power to you.  I truly mean that.  If you can live as a hobbit, I'm all for people living how they wish.

But as a social policy, that's a fail.  And we most certainly should not be taxed, to pay for your hobbit life style.


----------



## elektra (Feb 9, 2015)

Mad_Cabbie said:


> *Greece....*
> 
> *Greece Sees Impressive Solar PV Growth Despite Banking Crisis*
> Paul Gipe, Contributor
> ...


Greece is dead, bailout time again. 


*Renewable Energy Infrastructure Costs More Than Greek ...*
www.breitbart.com/.../*renewable*-*energy*-infrastructure-costs-mo...
Breitbart

4 days ago - Renewable Energy Infrastructure Costs More Than Greek And IrishBailouts .... If I won £6000 billion on the eco-subsidy lottery, I'd be RICH!

*Greek Debt Crisis Exposes Green Energy Subsidies ...*
www.*energy*tribune.com/.../*greek*-debt-crisis-exposes-*green*-*energy*-*subs*...

Feb 10, 2012 - If the debt crisis is a tragedy for the people of Greece, the EUs bailoutattempts look increasingly comedic. A second bailout, worth EUR130 ...
You visited this page on 2/8/15.

*Greek Debt Crisis Exposes Green Subsidies Scam*
canadafreepress.com/.../*greek*-debt-crisis-exposes-*green*-*subsidies*-scam

Feb 10, 2012 - Greek Debt Crisis Exposes Green Subsidies Scam, Greek debt: Who's exposed, government subsidy cuts, renewable energy. ... If the debt crisis is a tragedy for the people of Greece, the EUs bailout attempts look increasingly ...

*Renewable Energy In Europe Cost £600 Billion (And That's ...*
https://notalotofpeopleknowthat.wordpress.com/.../*renewable*-*energy*-in-...

3 days ago - Renewable Energy Infrastructure Costs More Than Greek And Irish Bailouts Combined - Breitbart From Breitbart: ...Green Subsidies Soar To £2.6bnIn "Climate Change". EU Energy Policies ...

*[PDF]English - Transnational Institute*
www.tni.org/sites/www.tni.../exec_summary-en.pd...
Transnational Institute

Greek debt after the bond value had already been downgraded, and was then offered ...have sued at international tribunals for cuts in subsidies for renewable energy. ... The public bailout of banks that led to the European debt crisis could be ...

*Greece to revive economy by exporting sun | Europe | DW ...*
TOP STORIES DW.DE*greece*-to-revive-economy.../a-15819322
Deutsche Welle

Mar 19, 2012 - Greece is poised to boost its economy by exporting solar power to big markets like ... But it appears that subsidizing German solar energy is a dead end. ....Greece's Tsipras rejects EU bailout, proposes 'bridge program'.

*The EU Debt Crisis and its Impact on Energy Investment ...*
Garten Rothkopf*energy*.../the-*eu*-debt-crisis-and-its-impact-o...

May 24, 2010 - Despite a large bailout package earlier this month, the European ...Long hailed as leaders in renewable energy development, Spain, Germany and the UK will no longer be as generous with direct subsidies to fuel renewable growth. Today's ...The crisis in Greece, despite extraordinary interventions by the ...

*Going Cold Turkey: Renewables without Subsidies - TCLabz*
www.tclabz.com/.../going-cold-turkey-life-without-*renewable*s-*subsidies*/

May 22, 2010 - The Greek-induced panic that Feed in tariff subsidies would be cut is coming on ... The worry for investors in renewable energy is that just when the momentum is ... with the cost of the Euro problems and the bailout of Greece.

*Greek Electric, Gas Utilities Ask Banks for a Bailout Too ...*
greece.greekreporter.com › Greek news › economy

Jun 10, 2012 - ATHENS – Short on cash and unable to pay its providers, Greece's ...not matched the big subsidies it pays to renewable energy producers, ...

*EU signals end to high subsidies for renewable energy ...*
EU - European Union and Eurozone business news EUbusiness.com › Breaking news

Nov 7, 2013 - The European Commission has issued new guidelines which could end costly and ... EU signals end to high subsidies for renewable energy ... ECB says awaits views from Greek authorities on bailout · EU aid shipment ...


----------



## CultureCitizen (Feb 9, 2015)

Andylusion said:


> Here where I live, this past week was cloudy every day. Following your plan, I'd be fired by now.
> 
> Again, if this works for you, then more power to you. I truly mean that. If you can live as a hobbit, I'm all for people living how they wish.
> 
> But as a social policy, that's a fail. And we most certainly should not be taxed, to pay for your hobbit life style.


Well , of course solar is not for everyone. 
I would not recomend it to someone living in Seattle at all. I think it is a good option for someone living in a sunny state. 
But for anyone who wants to go green it is almost a viable option.
And I say almost because current batteries are not nearly green.


----------



## elektra (Feb 9, 2015)

5 square miles of Solar, 2.1 billion dollars, needs 600 million dollar bailout, for now, to pay loans, not to produce electricity, the Solar output of Ivanpah is close to zero.


----------



## Andylusion (Feb 10, 2015)

Crick said:


> Who has spent 9 trillion dollars?
> 
> In your haste you may not have noticed this, but alternative energy systems ARE putting power into the world's grids.





Mad_Cabbie said:


> *Greece....*
> 
> *Greece Sees Impressive Solar PV Growth Despite Banking Crisis*
> Paul Gipe, Contributor
> ...



Let me get this straight.......

Greece spend billions of dollars to subsidize solar energy for years, until they run themselves out of money, crash the economy, and are on the verge of being forced out of the Eurozone, and depend on Germany for their survival at this point......  and your position is, this is a pattern we should follow?


----------



## Old Rocks (Feb 10, 2015)

*WHAT'S AT STAKE*
The Navajo Generating Station is the largest coal-fired power plant on the Colorado Plateau and one of the ten biggest polluters in the country.

It is just 12 miles from the Grand Canyon and responsible for frequently polluted air that makes vistas hazy and unhealthy at the park.







Haze obscures a view of the Grand Canyon.

*I was there on one of the smoggy days at the Grand Canyon. That is an obscenity. One of the grandest and most beautiful areas on the planet, and the power companies choose to pollute it.*


----------



## Old Rocks (Feb 10, 2015)

CultureCitizen said:


> Old Rocks said:
> 
> 
> > Going grid parallel is the answer to that.
> ...


Not if it is done like this. You sell, during the day, when you are not using the electricity, what you produce to the power company at the wholesale rate that is being paid by the utility at that time. At night, you buy electricity at the retail price.

So, during the day, you are just another generator at the time of most use, during the night, you are a customer at the time of least use. Win-win.


----------



## Kosh (Feb 10, 2015)

Old Rocks said:


> *WHAT'S AT STAKE*
> The Navajo Generating Station is the largest coal-fired power plant on the Colorado Plateau and one of the ten biggest polluters in the country.
> 
> It is just 12 miles from the Grand Canyon and responsible for frequently polluted air that makes vistas hazy and unhealthy at the park.
> ...



And the AGW cult will use anything to promote their religious propaganda especially when it not based on real science..


----------



## Kosh (Feb 10, 2015)

Old Rocks said:


> CultureCitizen said:
> 
> 
> > Old Rocks said:
> ...



Solar farms destroy the environment and they are ok with it as long as it follows their religious dogma.


----------



## Old Rocks (Feb 10, 2015)

Given the advances in the manufacture of grid scale batteries, by 2020, solar and wind can become 24/7 sources of power when teamed with those batteries. And that will even further decrease the wholesale, unsubsidized cost of both solar and wind. Wind is as low as 3.7 cents per kilowatt, solar as low as 7.2. Those are unsubsidized costs, dirty coal is at 6.6 cents per kilowatt, and that is with a depletion allowance, which is a subsidy.


----------



## Old Rocks (Feb 10, 2015)

Kosh said:


> Old Rocks said:
> 
> 
> > *WHAT'S AT STAKE*
> ...


So, you approve of the pollution of the Grand Canyon. What else to expect!


----------



## Kosh (Feb 10, 2015)

Old Rocks said:


> Kosh said:
> 
> 
> > Old Rocks said:
> ...



And the AGW cult proves once again they are not connected to reality..


----------



## Delta4Embassy (Feb 10, 2015)

When oil spills you stop drinking the water, as just happened near Yellowstone. When a solar farm has a problem you what? Stop tanning? 

Yellowstone Oil Spill Missing from Keystone XL Coverage On CNN Fox Blog Media Matters for America

"Oil Pipeline Leaked 50,000 Gallons Of Crude Into Yellowstone River. On January 17, an oil pipeline owned by Bridger Pipeline Co. spilled 1,200 barrels of crude oil -- or about 50,000 gallons -- into the Yellowstone River, prompting the governor to declare a state of emergency...

...Spill Has Released Cancer-Causing Agent Into Region's Water. Days after the spill, officials detected benzene -- a cancer-causing agent -- in the water supply of Glendive."


----------



## elektra (Feb 10, 2015)

Old Rocks said:


> CultureCitizen said:
> 
> 
> > Old Rocks said:
> ...


At a cost of over 9 trillion dollars


----------



## elektra (Feb 10, 2015)

Delta4Embassy said:


> When oil spills you stop drinking the water, as just happened near Yellowstone. When a solar farm has a problem you what? Stop tanning?
> 
> Yellowstone Oil Spill Missing from Keystone XL Coverage On CNN Fox Blog Media Matters for America
> 
> ...


Solar and Wind do not prevent Oil use! Gas, Diesel, Lubricants, Chemicals, Asphalt come from the Oil in that there pipeline.


----------



## Andylusion (Feb 10, 2015)

Old Rocks said:


> Kosh said:
> 
> 
> > Old Rocks said:
> ...



So where exactly, would you suggest we pollute?

Or would you suggest we just not have electricity at all?   Because without power plants, there simply won't be enough electricity.  There is no such thing as a pollution free power source.   Sorry.   Wind power?   Do you realize how many millions of TeraWatts of power is used to mine the ore, smelt the iron, make the steal, put the towers together, and put them in place?   Solar?   Have you seen the 3000º furnaces, using millions of kilowatts of power to make those panels, then dupe them properly?   Not to mention the power used to purify the silicone.

And even if we could build all the solar panels, and wind mills using zero electricity, and made enough of them to harness 100% of the renewable power in the country, it would still be a tiny tiny fraction of the power we use today.

So we would still need conventional power sources, or do without.

Are you willing to do without?  Then how the heck are you on this forum?

Even if you are willing to do without, the vast majority of the US population would end up starving to death.   Are you willing to go that route to avoid all pollution?   Because that's what you are advocating.

The only alternative is Nuclear power.  But the people on the left, which you seem to be a part of, have determine we can't do that.  Even though the number of people who have died because of nuclear power, is a faction of the number who have died slipping on soap in the shower, you have convinced everyone that nuclear power will turn the entire country into a giant Chernobyl.

But modern nuclear power is the only clean safe, and abundant source of power on the planet today.

The only other options are... mass starvation and a drop in the standard of living to caveman levels, or.... pollution.

Coal Returns to German Utilities Replacing Lost Nuclear - Bloomberg Business

When Germany started phasing out Nuclear, the switch wasn't to solar or wind.... but coal.

Why this is a shock to anyone, is beyond me.


----------



## Andylusion (Feb 10, 2015)

elektra said:


> Delta4Embassy said:
> 
> 
> > When oil spills you stop drinking the water, as just happened near Yellowstone. When a solar farm has a problem you what? Stop tanning?
> ...



This is the most obvious to me, it's shocking anyone can't grasp it.

You really think we can charge up enough batteries, to replace jets planes crossing the ocean, with electric props?

Even if we could magically bend the laws of physics, to allow jet engines to be replaced with electric solar powered props.....  hello... the props still need oiled.

There are MILLIONS of uses for oil.   MILLIONS.   Oil is used in the productions of TRILLIONS of products.

Your solar powered EV.....  rolling on tires made with oil... will not stop the use of oil.    Oil is used in making the frame of the car.  Oil is used in making the plastic dash.  Oil is used in making circuit boards, and computer controller of the car.   Oil is used in making the seats you put your butt in, in the car.   Windshield wipers, AC units, the weather seals that prevent water from dripping on your head through the sun roof....  all of them and many many more, use oil in their production.

The bottom line is, you can complain about oil spills all you want.

We're still going to get the oil... or someone else will.    No matter what policy you put in place, the oil going to be gotten by someone somewhere.   There will never be a policy of any kind, that eliminates the need, or production, of oil.  It's going to happen.

The only difference will be, do you want to get cheaper oil... or import expensive oil.  Do you want to get wealthy off of domestically produced oil?  Or poor, off of buying expensive foriegn oil?

If we were stupid enough to actually ban the use of oil... that would only make us incredibly poor in the biggest economic crash in world history, while making the rest of the world rich, as they would have cheaper energy supplies than ever before.


----------



## jc456 (Feb 10, 2015)

Judicial review said:


> elektra said:
> 
> 
> > Judicial review said:
> ...


 the most stupid post of the week.


----------



## jc456 (Feb 10, 2015)

Andylusion said:


> Old Rocks said:
> 
> 
> > Kosh said:
> ...


 because they don't care about human life.  It is simple.  Read their posts.  They want human life gone. they really post this most stupid stuff.  Really, they do, go read all of the other threads in here.  They want the earth to be without human life.  It cracks me up daily.


----------



## jc456 (Feb 10, 2015)

Judicial review said:


> elektra said:
> 
> 
> > Old Rocks said:
> ...


 says the fool!


----------



## jc456 (Feb 10, 2015)

elektra said:


> Judicial review said:
> 
> 
> > elektra said:
> ...


 Now that was the genius that didn't know that salt kills plants.  He is a real genius, right? The most stupid one.


----------



## jc456 (Feb 10, 2015)

kiwiman127 said:


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


 i really wish you all would just get it.  Why post such stupid?  You really have no idea about renewables.  None, zero.   I bet you don't even know the definition of renewable. n But hey, keep posting the stupid, it is funny to read.


----------



## jc456 (Feb 10, 2015)

elektra said:


> kiwiman127 said:
> 
> 
> > Yeah and that's why China is soon to be the world's largest user of renewable energy.
> ...


 right?  holy crap, the stupid coming in on this thread is absolutely amazing.  the mental capacity of these greenies is about as much as the entire solar desert.


----------



## jc456 (Feb 10, 2015)

kiwiman127 said:


> elektra said:
> 
> 
> > kiwiman127 said:
> ...


 holy crap, we can't script this stuff Electra. Holy, holy crap the stupid from the fingers of the lost. Hey, kiwi, get a job or something and leave the forums alone.  You are lost s0n.


----------



## jc456 (Feb 10, 2015)

Andylusion said:


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


 he isn't worth it.


----------



## jc456 (Feb 10, 2015)

Old Rocks said:


> elektra said:
> 
> 
> > kiwiman127 said:
> ...


 and again you have no proof.  You come on here frequently lacking proof.  you are useless.


----------



## CultureCitizen (Feb 10, 2015)

elektra said:


> Solar and Wind do not prevent Oil use! Gas, Diesel, Lubricants, Chemicals, Asphalt come from the Oil in that there pipeline



I do not intend fosil fuels to come to a complete halt, but rather decreasing their use. 
While AWG is debatable, the fact that an excess of CO2 causes ocean acidification is not. This is an externality which we will be passing to the coming generations and which could ruin the ecosystems in the ocean.


----------



## elektra (Feb 10, 2015)

CultureCitizen said:


> elektra said:
> 
> 
> > Solar and Wind do not prevent Oil use! Gas, Diesel, Lubricants, Chemicals, Asphalt come from the Oil in that there pipeline
> ...


CO2 acidifies? So the ocean is like 10% CO2? My Coca Cola has CO2, you figure that CO2 gives Coke that little acid bite? What about simple carbonated water? CO2 acidifies? 

Either way, Solar increases the use of Oil, Solar is Oil dependent, 9 trillion dollars of Renewable Energy starts by using oil, and we have to build Solar panels every day forever, thus forever increasing the demand for Oil.

Its pretty simple, It will take a long time to cover the entire South West with Solar Panels, at least 40 years your side tells us, within the first 10 years of time will start replacing panels that are getting burnt out by the sun.

I wonder how much recycling that will take, 5 square miles at a time, of how many square miles of solar?


----------



## elektra (Feb 10, 2015)

Old Rocks said:


> *WHAT'S AT STAKE*
> The Navajo Generating Station is the largest coal-fired power plant on the Colorado Plateau and one of the ten biggest polluters in the country.
> 
> It is just 12 miles from the Grand Canyon and responsible for frequently polluted air that makes vistas hazy and unhealthy at the park.
> ...


Coal, Old Crock, did you not shovel coke from Coal on top of that steal those Horse drawn Wagons brought to the Iron Smelter you grew up in?

Old Crock, clean you glasses, I can see 30 miles into the canyon, maybe more, at least 14 clear defined cuts in that there Colorado plateau. Great pic but it does not look like he used a polarized filter.


----------



## CultureCitizen (Feb 10, 2015)

elektra said:


> Its pretty simple, It will take a long time to cover the entire South West with Solar Panels, at least 40 years your side tells us, within the first 10 years of time will start replacing panels that are getting burnt out by the sun.
> 
> I wonder how much recycling that will take, 5 square miles at a time, of how many square miles of solar?



That would be the case if the net output of solar panels was close to zero , which is the case for biofuels made from corn. 
Sinc 2010 panels generate more energy than the energy that is required to create them . 
Solar panels finally produce more energy than it takes to make them study finds The Verge

Recycling is a much more important factor. As I understand it's a process still in its infancy.


----------



## elektra (Feb 10, 2015)

CultureCitizen said:


> elektra said:
> 
> 
> > Its pretty simple, It will take a long time to cover the entire South West with Solar Panels, at least 40 years your side tells us, within the first 10 years of time will start replacing panels that are getting burnt out by the sun.
> ...


It ain't a matter if a study states Solar makes the energy it needs to turn sand into solar panels or some rare earth metal, that means nothing.

If solar came just a tiny bit close to what a "study" claims, we would not have to build them forever and ever. Do you even know the types of energy required, for what duration, that Solar manufacture requires? 

I bet it takes gas and temperatures of at least 1800 c.


----------



## CultureCitizen (Feb 10, 2015)

elektra said:


> It ain't a matter if a study states Solar makes the energy it needs to turn sand into solar panels or some rare earth metal, that means nothing.



Then your word counts more than any study  ? 
Or what kind of proof would you need ?
During its usefull life a solar panel will generate 16,000 kwh
The equivalent is 450 gallons of gasoline.
Do you really think a single panel requires 450 gallones of gasoline to be created ?
If so , with current oil/ energy prices, the panel would have to cost at least 600 USD.


----------



## Billy_Bob (Feb 10, 2015)

elektra said:


> Old Rocks said:
> 
> 
> > *WHAT'S AT STAKE*
> ...



Old Crock doesn't know the difference between smoke and smog... IN his picture it was smoke from a fire.  But they cant be held accountable for what they post, even if it is a fabrication.. they will say it is smog as the basic enviroweinne doesn't have a clue what the difference is.


----------



## Billy_Bob (Feb 10, 2015)

CultureCitizen said:


> elektra said:
> 
> 
> > Its pretty simple, It will take a long time to cover the entire South West with Solar Panels, at least 40 years your side tells us, within the first 10 years of time will start replacing panels that are getting burnt out by the sun.
> ...


Bio-fuels... LOL that is what has caused major upheaval in the middle east lately..  The used all that food for fuel.. let the people starve for the green movement... Morons...


----------



## elektra (Feb 10, 2015)

CultureCitizen said:


> elektra said:
> 
> 
> > It ain't a matter if a study states Solar makes the energy it needs to turn sand into solar panels or some rare earth metal, that means nothing.
> ...


Yes, my word is better than a study. 
What is the subsidized price? And a panel does cost at least 600$.

I thought you made the claim that Solar could provide the energy to make a Solar Panel, that I said is impossible and will always be impossible. You need Fossil Fuels to make any kind of Solar Panel. 

Solar at best powers homes, never the Heavy Industry used to create a Solar Panel. 

Somehow you think its efficient for every single house to have its own power plant?


----------



## CultureCitizen (Feb 10, 2015)

elektra said:


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



Jaja. Your word is better than any study ? Ok then you like to live in your own reallity. 

No , a 300 watt panel costs less than $300 without subsidy
http://www.wholesalesolar.com/products.folder/module-folder/Astronergy/CHSM6612P-300.html
Large Solar Panels
Yes, I think that for some sunny zones it is more efficient, because they avoid the transmission and distribution costs and losses.


----------



## elektra (Feb 10, 2015)

CultureCitizen said:


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


A 300 watt panel will not deliver 300 watts, at best 240 watts. I am going to reference every thing from your link. I think you did not read all the information on the panel you have chosen. In the info/FAQ it explains you will not get 300 watts from a panel, that is its laboratory tested best output that you quoted. Perfect conditions, meaning maximum sun at the perfect temperature.

http://www.wholesalesolar.com/Information-SolarFolder/solar-panel-efficiency.html



> A solar panel, which is rated at 17 volts will put out less than its rated power when used in a battery system. That’s because the working voltage will be between 12 and 15 volts. Because wattage (or power) is the product of volts multiplied by the amps, the module output will be reduced. For example, a 50-watt solar panel working at 13.0 volts will products 39.0 watts (13.0 volts x 3.0 amps = 39.0 watts). This is important to remember when sizing a PV system.



Next is the specs from the datasheet. NOCT is normal operating temperature, why is that stated? Simply because the Panel never operates at that normal temperature outside the testing laboratory. If we take into account the loss simply for hooking it up, as said above, the rated output of the panel, installed drops down to 160 watts, maybe less taking into account which temperature it will operate at any given location.

You can turn on one 100 watt lightbulb at a cost of well over 1300$, I imagine it would cost another 500$ to install, then of course it will have to be added to my homeowner insurance policy. I am thinking roof damage is a real concern.

http://pdf.wholesalesolar.com/module pdf folder/CHSM6612P-305_Specs.pdf



> Rated output (Pmpp) at NOCT 209.5 Wp


So in stating the price, we only look at the panel? No inverter, no wire, no batteries.

http://www.wholesalesolar.com/products.folder/systems-folder/OffGridPackages.html


> Off-grid Solar Cabins / Starter Kits
> Cabin Off-grid AC Kit 1    280    36    1890100    $1,290


.

You are challenging me, as to my knowledge, yet it is me that has to read the link you provide, I am assuming you did not read everything instead of ignoring the technical stuff. If you have not researched yourself and educated yourself on the simple basics of Solar what do you know of what I speak, when I state Solar can never pump water, or power the industry that is needed to sustain Solar.


----------



## CultureCitizen (Feb 10, 2015)

elektra said:


> A 300 watt panel will not deliver 300 watts, at best 240 watts. I am going to reference every thing from your link. I think you did not read all the information on the panel you have chosen. In the info/FAQ it explains you will not get 300 watts from a panel, that is its laboratory tested best output that you quoted. Perfect conditions, meaning maximum sun at the perfect temperature.



Well elektra , even if you consider all the factors you mention and divide the total energy output by 2 you still get the equivalent 275 gallons of gasoline. Even with  current prices ($1.80 in Texas), you invest $300 and get the equivalent of  $497 USD. 

Granted, it is not as cheap as coal. You can get the same amount of energy from 4 tons of industrial coal at a price $38 per ton for a total of $165, which is about 4 times cheaper than the solar cell , considering all the inefficiencies of the solar cell. 
Regardless, this are industrial prices, not the price at which the average person will be able to buy coal.

Solar for industry , not, not yet. For home usage, sure ,if you live in a sunny spot.


----------



## elektra (Feb 11, 2015)

CultureCitizen said:


> elektra said:
> 
> 
> > A 300 watt panel will not deliver 300 watts, at best 240 watts. I am going to reference every thing from your link. I think you did not read all the information on the panel you have chosen. In the info/FAQ it explains you will not get 300 watts from a panel, that is its laboratory tested best output that you quoted. Perfect conditions, meaning maximum sun at the perfect temperature.
> ...


Solar for a home is going to cost at least 20k, its not going to last much over 10 years, and will be obsolete as soon as you install. Further when you need to replace your roof or ever have a leak the cost to fix your roof will be incredible.

In southern California you would have to cut down millions of trees, and of course millions of homes were not designed for Solar. Further millions of homes do not even face the right direction.

If the government would quit destroying the cost of electricity with all its restrictive regulations and every other bureaucratic hurdle they allow electricity would be cheap. 

And how about the water used to clean the panels? Or the risk of being on a roof while cleaning the panels? You do not simply rinse them off, we are in a devastating three year drought we are told, could go on a long time. Cleaning Solar panels is another burden on our heavily taxed water system.


----------



## Yarddog (Feb 11, 2015)

elektra said:


> California's desert is fast becoming a Solar Wasteland, what was once pristine desert habitat is being replaced with Industrial Scale Solar.
> 
> Thanks to Obama and the State Government of California.
> 
> ...




One of my dear Uncles who is now passed away,  owned a little silver claim out in the middle of the Mojave Desert,  he bought it off some old prospector back in the 50's.  It was nothing more than a cabin and a hole in the ground.  He used to enjoy taking family members out there to go 'camping' , pulling a few rocks out of the ground and dreaming a little bit.   He was a life long Democrat,  but I remember how Pissed he was at Fienstien for passing some desert protection act,  that said he could no longer drive a pickup truck down a dirt road.  

Fuck these politicians,  it really is all about the money isnt it?  They have nothing in common with Americans. They are Washingtonians. sure know how to run our lives for us dont they?  gonna protect us from ourselves.  Oh wait,  we elected them didnt we?


----------



## Old Rocks (Feb 11, 2015)

elektra said:


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


OK, asshole, just why don't you do some basic research and find out what it takes to build a solar panel, instead of just posting ignorant nonsense?


----------



## elektra (Feb 11, 2015)

Old Rocks said:


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


blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, you did all the research Old Crock. You know so much you can just disagree as quick as you think. Its basic research, you are quick with "facts", tell us what it takes. 

We can start with something simple, like the metal that Solar uses.

Then we can go on to the Aluminum, which uses gobs and gobs of electricity.

And then what it takes to melt sand.

Of course lets not forget Cadmium production.

Zinc production.

Or what about chemicals, which chemicals and what type of energy does that require. 

Simple stuff, right. Except Old Crock and those who support Solar know so little, they do not have the answer.


----------



## CultureCitizen (Feb 11, 2015)

elektra said:


> In southern California you would have to cut down millions of trees, and of course millions of homes were not designed for Solar. Further millions of homes do not even face the right direction.
> 
> If the government would quit destroying the cost of electricity with all its restrictive regulations and every other bureaucratic hurdle they allow electricity would be cheap.
> 
> And how about the water used to clean the panels? Or the risk of being on a roof while cleaning the panels? You do not simply rinse them off, we are in a devastating three year drought we are told, could go on a long time. Cleaning Solar panels is another burden on our heavily taxed water system.



1.As I said , IF YOU LIVE IN A SUNNY SPOT. Yes, if you live in a basement it's a waste of resources. 
2.No , the prices I gave you for coal are the cheapest price, and they don't even take into account the loss from the generation or transmission lines. The DIY solution works because there are no transmission losses. 
3.The amount of water is negligible, that statement is as foolish as saying you can't clean your windows because there is a drought.

Solar Panel Cleaning It s Important


----------



## elektra (Feb 11, 2015)

CultureCitizen said:


> elektra said:
> 
> 
> > In southern California you would have to cut down millions of trees, and of course millions of homes were not designed for Solar. Further millions of homes do not even face the right direction.
> ...


Southern California's Coast is not sunny, you ever hear of the June Gloom, which is actually 3 months of Coastal Fog? If is a big word. 

DIY? You are not going to feed into the grid? 

The amount of water used, during a 3 year drought, by 30 million people, is not negligible. 

That water comes from the city, that water is pumped, there is no DIY, with solar. Solar relies on water, it is foolish to state water use during a drought crisis is negligible.


----------



## CultureCitizen (Feb 12, 2015)

elektra said:


> Southern California's Coast is not sunny, you ever hear of the June Gloom, which is actually 3 months of Coastal Fog? If is a big word.
> 
> DIY? You are not going to feed into the grid?
> 
> ...


Oh elektra , so pessimistic
1) Yes, DIY stands for do it yourself not for energy self sufficient.
2) Well , actually you can use a solar distiler. One square yard of surface can distile about a gallon which is the amount of water you'll need to keep the panel clean. So yes , it is negligible : you'll sepend like 1 galon per month because of leaks in the distiler.


----------



## elektra (Feb 12, 2015)

CultureCitizen said:


> elektra said:
> 
> 
> > Southern California's Coast is not sunny, you ever hear of the June Gloom, which is actually 3 months of Coastal Fog? If is a big word.
> ...


Your idea of Solar, is the biggest scam in History. You got your idea rapped around something that won't provide for life, literally. You can fix up your house all you want with these expensive luxury, but in the end, they got built with Oil and made people Billionaires. It ain't you who is going to save a dollar, a dime, or a bucket of Oil.

Do it yourself, that ended with the buffalo.


----------



## Judicial review (Feb 12, 2015)

elektra said:


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



Why are you so upsest with the desert?  Do you like big poisonous spiders and scopions?  Go build yourself a shack out there and travel 20 miles to get a drink.  You have this thing about California and it's pissing me off.  All of California is becoming desert.  You know that, right?  You'll get your wish and live on pure cracked dirt.  Not to mention your dumbass state will go bankrupt eventually, so you will feel it, while many are smart and getting out.  You think detroit is bad just wait.  But hey it's your own town.  Live with it.  I've been to CA many times.


----------



## elektra (Feb 12, 2015)

Judicial review said:


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


Gee "Strawberry", you got you pink panty's in an uproar. 

Yep, we will go bankrupt, and beings how California is too big to fail, guess what.

Most of the nations produce comes from california, what hurts us, kicks your ass, most Californians are Rich or on Welfare, and we know who pays for welfare, its not the state.


----------



## Judicial review (Feb 12, 2015)

elektra said:


> Judicial review said:
> 
> 
> > elektra said:
> ...



Be honest... Do you like whip cream or chocolate on your strawberries?


----------



## elektra (Feb 12, 2015)

Judicial review said:


> elektra said:
> 
> 
> > Judicial review said:
> ...


Strawberries are a low hanging fruit, not surprised, you suggesting whip cream.


----------



## Judicial review (Feb 12, 2015)

elektra said:


> Judicial review said:
> 
> 
> > elektra said:
> ...



Mam, I asked you are question and it is your responsibility to answer it.


----------



## elektra (Feb 12, 2015)

Judicial review said:


> Mam, I asked you are question and it is your responsibility to answer it.



Elektra is a record label you shithead.

Oh, I know it will go over your head, "strawberry", so I got to explain it. I was thinking of you when I picked this 45.


----------



## CultureCitizen (Feb 12, 2015)

elektra said:


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



Hmm , well now that you have no arguments left, you start ranting. 
Expensive luxury ? Oh my. Let me show you how expensive a solar distiler is. 




One bucket big bucket, one small bucket a plastic sheet and  a stone. How expensive is that ?


----------



## elektra (Feb 12, 2015)

CultureCitizen said:


> Hmm , well now that you have no arguments left, you start ranting.
> Expensive luxury ? Oh my. Let me show you how expensive a solar distiler is.
> 
> 
> ...


Run out of arguments? You have ran about as far away from this OP as I have seen anyone. Dare I say, miles and miles. You should take a couple dozen of those cute toys to Death Valley and then post a pic after a month.

Solar destroys miles and miles and miles of desert, it is you who has ran out of, "argument".


----------



## CultureCitizen (Feb 12, 2015)

elektra said:


> CultureCitizen said:
> 
> 
> > Hmm , well now that you have no arguments left, you start ranting.
> ...


Miles and miles sounds like a very big number, Ivanpah is responsible for only 5.5 miles of the aforementioned destruction. 
Now think of how many desert miles have been lost due to the constructions of cities in the desert : El paso, Denver, Las Vegas, Phoenix , Tucson , Albuquerque.
Denver alone would be responsible for the destruction of 1,244  square miles of desert. That's about  240 Ivanpahs put together.
So why the outcry ?


----------



## ScienceRocks (Feb 12, 2015)

The outcry is because it is all they got. There dirty fucked up energy source can't be logically defended!!! We could power our entire country with solar and one day do it for far less!


----------



## elektra (Feb 12, 2015)

CultureCitizen said:


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



Because Solar's share of $36 Trillion is 9,000 Invapahs. Now lets add the destruction of land that Wind will be responsible for. 

Apple alone will destroy 5 sq. miles of the Carrizo Plains.


----------



## elektra (Feb 12, 2015)

Matthew said:


> The outcry is because it is all they got. There dirty fucked up energy source can't be logically defended!!! We could power our entire country with solar and one day do it for far less!


All we got, you have to use this "dirty fucked up energy source" to build 100,000's of sq. mi. of Solar Panels, now logically defend that! 

Increase Oil Consumption to build Solar Panels which will all get burnt out by the sun, while telling us its free and lasts forever.


----------



## CultureCitizen (Feb 12, 2015)

elektra said:


> Because Solar's share of $36 Trillion is 9,000 Invapahs. Now lets add the destruction of land that Wind will be responsible for.
> 
> Apple alone will destroy 5 sq. miles of the Carrizo Plains.


Where did you get that figure from? 
That's about twice the GDP of the USA and enough to buy 80 solar cells per capita plus wiring  plus batteries .


----------



## elektra (Feb 12, 2015)

CultureCitizen said:


> elektra said:
> 
> 
> > Because Solar's share of $36 Trillion is 9,000 Invapahs. Now lets add the destruction of land that Wind will be responsible for.
> ...



It is a thread I created but I got the idea from a post in one of Matthew's threads, not sure if he made it or crick or old crock or even you, but someone linked to the report so I thought it would make a nice thread.

 36 Trillion for Clean Energy IEA reports. US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum
IEA - International Energy Agency - affordable clean energy for all iea.org


> Working together to ensure reliable, affordable and clean energy


----------



## CultureCitizen (Feb 12, 2015)

elektra said:


> It is a thread I created but I got the idea from a post in one of Matthew's threads, not sure if he made it or crick or old crock or even you, but someone linked to the report so I thought it would make a nice thread.
> 
> 36 Trillion for Clean Energy IEA reports. US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum
> IEA - International Energy Agency - affordable clean energy for all iea.org


Oh , ok , that makes sense: it is distributed in a 35 years span, so it's like 6% of the gdp per year, and it would be distributed in wind, solar and fusion and subsidies. In the case of solar , given the lifespan of solar cells it would include the replacement costs of the first generation fo cells, it doesn't necesarily mean covering thousand of miles with solar panels.


----------



## elektra (Feb 12, 2015)

CultureCitizen said:


> elektra said:
> 
> 
> > It is a thread I created but I got the idea from a post in one of Matthew's threads, not sure if he made it or crick or old crock or even you, but someone linked to the report so I thought it would make a nice thread.
> ...


In your dreams, you did not even read it


----------



## Judicial review (Feb 12, 2015)

elektra said:


> Judicial review said:
> 
> 
> > Mam, I asked you are question and it is your responsibility to answer it.
> ...



Still waiting for you to answer my question.


----------



## ScienceRocks (Feb 12, 2015)

Solar doesn't even destroy the environment like building a city within a desert certainly does. Solars foot print on the ground is tiny compared to the overall area it takes.


----------



## Old Rocks (Feb 12, 2015)

And were we to cover the industrial and commercial roofs within the cities with solar, a large percentage of the cities power would be self supplied.


----------



## Old Rocks (Feb 12, 2015)

elektra said:


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


Yes, you dumb fuck, 36 trillion for the whole world spread over about 35 years. We will spend that on energy infrastructure during that period in any case. And that report was not just about government spending, but included private firms, like the money Apple is putting up.


----------



## elektra (Feb 12, 2015)

Matthew said:


> Solar doesn't even destroy the environment like building a city within a desert certainly does. Solars foot print on the ground is tiny compared to the overall area it takes.


5 sq. mi of mirrors and panels is small, and that is just one Solar Plant and this is just the start, with $36 trillion dollars to spend on panels on free public land, you are simply a liar.


----------



## Judicial review (Feb 12, 2015)

Old Rocks said:


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



Anybody that spends 36 trillion over 35 years on this is a dumbfuck. Just like you.


----------



## elektra (Feb 12, 2015)

Old Rocks said:


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


So the cost is $ 72 trillion with the infrastructure. 

Apple just destroyed 5 sq. mi. of the Carrizo Plain. The desert is too expensive without an additional $36 trillion, for that total of 72$ trillion. 

Apple is rich, like I said, Solar is an expensive luxury, Apple gets beat up over extreme profits and then bought off the Obama administration. Good Political move by Apple, nothing more.

Carrizo Plain Marks 10 Years as Colorful National Monument


----------



## Andylusion (Feb 14, 2015)

Old Rocks said:


> And were we to cover the industrial and commercial roofs within the cities with solar, a large percentage of the cities power would be self supplied.



That's simply not true unless you are in Arizona and similar places with little weather, and high sunlight energy.

Even so, currently solar panels just barely make enough power to meet or exceed the power used in their creation, and the costs per kWh, is still a hundred times higher than conventional power.

We'll know Solar Panels have finally arrived when the solar panel factories disconnect from the power grid, and can run exclusively on the power generated by their own product.  Until that happens, I wager the idea of solar powered cities is still a long way off.

Of course you never know.  A break through could happen right around the corner.     But thus far, drastic increases in PV efficiency has come at massively highers prices.  New Cadmium telluride photovoltaics, with high 40% efficiency, come with steep price tags, making them impractical for all but aerospace applications.

I doubt we'll be seeing cities covered in panels any time soon.  Just my opinion.


----------



## Andylusion (Feb 14, 2015)

elektra said:


> Old Rocks said:
> 
> 
> > elektra said:
> ...



What exactly did Apple buy off Obama?


----------



## elektra (Feb 14, 2015)

Andylusion said:


> elektra said:
> 
> 
> > Old Rocks said:
> ...


Do you mean, how? They donated to solar, after bad press about their profits.


----------



## Billy_Bob (Feb 15, 2015)

elektra said:


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



You have hit the nail pretty good.  You did miss however the charge controllers and the idle usage of stored energy at night and when the wind is not blowing or intermittent.

I built repeater systems for off grid mountain top powering. The average unit consisted of 14-300w panels, 3-130amp PMA wind mills, 14-2,200CCA deep cycle batteries, 3-thermal enclosures, 4 charge controllers, 2- 5000w pure sine wave inverters (coupled for 220vac), associated wiring, lightening arresters, dump loads, enclosure heaters and in some instances auto switching and a back up set of inverters. the average cost is around 50,000.00 and 70,000.00 US dollars installed. (dont forget the yearly maintenance required, and the EPA document for batteries)

The system will produce 20 amps continuous output @ 220vac and can last 3 days without wind or solar input.  This particular system can power the average home (2000kwh) including an electric stove or dryer. 

Siting is the problem. Winds on a ridge line are constant and thus the wind mills will produce the majority of the power. in a valley location more emphasis is required on panels and tall towers for the wind generators. factoring charge times and amperage draws, transmission losses, siting concerns for direct sun or wind zones, zoning laws and those same eco-nuts who do not want these in their own yards or near them....

A whole lot of math is required to size one of these systems. What is the average daily usage, (storage requirements for off grid systems is 5-7 days) thus you must factor in ability to gain full charge in limited time spans.  Heck of a lot of math for the average person to do.


----------



## CultureCitizen (Feb 15, 2015)

elektra said:


> Solar for a home is going to cost at least 20k, its not going to last much over 10 years, and will be obsolete as soon as you install. Further when you need to replace your roof or ever have a leak the cost to fix your roof will be incredible.



What's your game Elektra ?
First you post a link for an off grid kit which includes anels, inverters, charge controllers and batteries for a cost of $1,290, and then you claim it will cost at least 20K. 
WTF?
Even using this numbers AND assuming the panels will last ONLY 10 years  ( in spite of the fact that it say 20 year limited warranty on power output.) you get : 4,320 kwh during the kit's lifetime, you get 0.29 cents per kwh. 
Now, the biggest cost here are batteries, and I wouldn't go offgrid just because of them : they are expensive and not ecologicaly sound. 
So once again , solar is ok , but batteries still need to be improved a lot.


----------



## Synthaholic (Feb 15, 2015)

_*Solar Power Destroys Miles and Miles of Desert*_

How do you destroy a desert?


----------



## elektra (Feb 15, 2015)

CultureCitizen said:


> elektra said:
> 
> 
> > Solar for a home is going to cost at least 20k, its not going to last much over 10 years, and will be obsolete as soon as you install. Further when you need to replace your roof or ever have a leak the cost to fix your roof will be incredible.
> ...


It was your link, not mine. You referenced one panel without the equipment that it takes to operate. I used your link, your one panel, and the cost of a one panel system from your link, of course 132 watts will not operate a house, so from your link I posted the price that you ignored.

That is my game, using your link to show you have zero understanding of your own source.


----------



## elektra (Feb 15, 2015)

Synthaholic said:


> _*Solar Power Destroys Miles and Miles of Desert*_
> 
> How do you destroy a desert?


It begins with ignorance, need an example?


----------



## Synthaholic (Feb 15, 2015)

elektra said:


> Synthaholic said:
> 
> 
> > _*Solar Power Destroys Miles and Miles of Desert*_
> ...


Do they disturb the tumbleweeds and the sand?

You conservatives are a bunch of enviro-whackos!


----------



## CultureCitizen (Feb 15, 2015)

elektra said:


> It was your link, not mine. You referenced one panel without the equipment that it takes to operate. I used your link, your one panel, and the cost of a one panel system from your link, of course 132 watts will not operate a house, so from your link I posted the price that you ignored.
> 
> That is my game, using your link to show you have zero understanding of your own source.



My house operates with that amount of electricity... the invoice from the electric company says I use 3 kwh per day ( I'll actually have to increase my consumption to use take full advantage of such a kit).
So yes , it is enough to run a household if coupled with a solar watter heater.


----------



## elektra (Feb 15, 2015)

Synthaholic said:


> elektra said:
> 
> 
> > Synthaholic said:
> ...


Yes, they do destroy tumble weeds, which should suggest to you that stuff actually grows in what you erroneously refer to, as sand. 

And you think you are the smart one.


----------



## CultureCitizen (Feb 15, 2015)

Synthaholic said:


> elektra said:
> 
> 
> > Synthaholic said:
> ...



She probably thinks fracking is the most environmentally and health friendly option for any ecosystem.


----------



## elektra (Feb 15, 2015)

CultureCitizen said:


> elektra said:
> 
> 
> > It was your link, not mine. You referenced one panel without the equipment that it takes to operate. I used your link, your one panel, and the cost of a one panel system from your link, of course 132 watts will not operate a house, so from your link I posted the price that you ignored.
> ...


Liar, one solar panel putting out less than 200 watts can run your house? Yea, if you use an ice chest to keep your food cold. A refrigerator uses 600 watts. 

So smart you are.


----------



## elektra (Feb 15, 2015)

CultureCitizen said:


> Synthaholic said:
> 
> 
> > elektra said:
> ...


Geothermal fracks yet you call geothermal green?


----------



## elektra (Feb 15, 2015)

CultureCitizen said:


> Synthaholic said:
> 
> 
> > elektra said:
> ...


Nobody touched this thread all day, I get a message from you, and another fool at the same time, both of you thanking and rating one another, is the other your lover or your second account? I can see why you would want it to appear as if you have help.


----------



## Old Rocks (Feb 15, 2015)

Andylusion said:


> Old Rocks said:
> 
> 
> > And were we to cover the industrial and commercial roofs within the cities with solar, a large percentage of the cities power would be self supplied.
> ...


*Well Andy, why don't you try backing your opinion with some basic research? *

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/11/24/b...-win-on-price-vs-conventional-fuels.html?_r=0

And, also in Oklahoma, American Electric Power ended up tripling the amount of wind power it had originally sought after seeing how low the bids came in last year.

“Wind was on sale — it was a Blue Light Special,” said Jay Godfrey, managing director of renewable energy for the company. He noted that Oklahoma, unlike many states, did not require utilities to buy power from renewable sources.

“We were doing it because it made sense for our ratepayers,” he said.

According to a study by the investment banking firm Lazard, the cost of utility-scale solar energy is as low as 5.6 cents a kilowatt-hour, and wind is as low as 1.4 cents. In comparison, natural gas comes at 6.1 cents a kilowatt-hour on the low end and coal at 6.6 cents. Without subsidies, the firm’s analysis shows, solar costs about 7.2 cents a kilowatt-hour at the low end, with wind at 3.7 cents.

*Wind already cheaper than dirty coal, and solar very close to the price of dirty coal. And that is without subsidies, but with coal getting depletion allowances, which is a form of subsidy.*


----------



## elektra (Feb 15, 2015)

Old Rocks said:


> Andylusion said:
> 
> 
> > Old Rocks said:
> ...


Basic research is a New York Times article? Old Crock, it is hard to tell which side you are fighting for? You are against Wind and Solar? Yes? That is why you make yourself an example of stupidity speaking as if you speak for solar and wind.

This is funny stuff, "Basic research starts with the New York  Times".


----------



## Old Rocks (Feb 15, 2015)

Oncor proposes giant leap for grid batteries Dallas Morning News

Oncor, which runs Texas’ largest power line network, is willing to bet battery technology is ready for wide-scale deployment across the grid.

In a move that stands to radically shift the dynamics of the industry, Oncor is set to announce Monday that it is prepared to invest more than $2 billion to store electricity in thousands of batteries across North and West Texas beginning in 2018.

Utility-scale batteries have been a holy grail within the energy sector for years. With enough storage space, surplus electricity can be generated at night, when plants usually sit idle, to be used the next day, when demand is highest. Power outages would become less frequent. Wind and solar power, susceptible to weather conditions, could be built on a larger scale. The only problem has been that the price of batteries has been too high to make economic sense. But if they’re purchased on a large enough scale, that won’t be the case for long, said Oncor CEO Bob Shapard.

“Everyone assumed the price point was five to six years out. We’re getting indications from everyone we’ve talked to they can get us to that price by 2018,” he said in an interview Wednesday.

The Dallas-based transmission company is proposing the installation of 5,000 megawatts of batteries not just in its service area but across Texas’ entire grid. That is the equivalent of four nuclear power plants on a grid with a capacity of about 81,000 megawatts.

Ranging from refrigerator- to dumpster-size, the batteries would be installed behind shopping centers and in neighborhoods. Statewide, Oncor estimates a total price tag of $5.2 billion. A study commissioned by Oncor with the Brattle Group, a Massachusetts consulting firm that provides power market analysis for state regulators, says the project would not raise bills. Revenue from rental of storage space on the batteries, along with a decrease in power prices and transmission costs, should actually decrease the average Texas residential power bill 34 cents to $179.66 a month, the report said.

*And another newspaper story from hyper-liberal Texas.*


----------



## Old Rocks (Feb 15, 2015)

*And look what all the hyper liberal pinko commies have to say in Oklahoma.*

Wind Energy - Oklahoma Department of Commerce

State Energy Office
 / 
Renewable Energy
 / 
Wind Energy
Oklahoma boasts the 8th best wind resource in the nation it’s easy to see why Oklahoma IS Wind Energy. 

*Utility Scale Wind Generation*
Each of Oklahoma’s utility providers utilizes wind power as part of their generation portfolio.  While each utility and cooperative employ wind power by different means, wind is an option for all of Oklahoma’s citizens.  For more information about each utility’s wind program, please see the links below:
Oklahoma Gas & Electric:OG E - 404 Page Not Found
Public Service Company of Oklahoma:PSO - WindChoice

*Small Wind*
Oklahoma’s amazing wind resource not only provides power to our utilities for commercial power generation, but also can be utilized and harnessed on a smaller scale for your home, farm or business.  Oklahoma is home to the leading small wind turbine manufacturer, Bergey Windpower, based in Norman.  Let the SEO help you determine if a small wind installation is right for you.

*Education*
The wind energy industry is a growing industry in need of skilled and well educated personnel.  Opportunities range from engineering to meteorology, to wind turbine technicians to business development and much more.  Oklahoma’s universities, community colleges and Career Tech schools have numerous programs to choose from to get you started on this path.  Contact the SEO for further information on programs available across the state. 

*Manufacturing*
Oklahoma is recognized for its pro-business environment.  Our supply chain is ready to serve the manufacturing needs of the wind industry.  With aggressive incentive packages, skilled workforce and competitive cost of doing business, Oklahoma is a great location for businesses.  Contact us to find out how we can help you grow in Oklahoma.


----------



## Old Rocks (Feb 15, 2015)

As Renewable Energy Grows Wind and Solar Pull Ahead of Hydropower StateImpact Texas

Nationally, wind generation has increased from three percent to over 30 percent of total renewable generation since 2003. Texas wind power saw tremendous growth during that time. With the Texas Renewable Portfolio Standard from 1999 and the state’s Emerging Technology Fund from 2005, Texas energy demand met with wind power rose from one percent in 2001 to 10 percent in 2014.

In solar generation, Texas is lagging behind some other sunny Southwestern states, but progress is underway. The city of El Paso doubled its solar power generation capacity in 2014 and will rely heavily on a massive new solar farm (even if it’s in New Mexico). Austin and San Antonio have also become national frontrunners in the use of solar energy.

Perhaps the biggest boost for renewable energy in Texas was a recently completed $7 billion project to connect wind farms of West Texas and the Panhandle to big cities where the power is used. The project has opened huge energy markets, which once relied on nearby power plants, to wind production hundreds of miles away.

Hydropower came to Texas in the 1930’s as part of President Roosevelt’s New Deal economic stimulus. The Lower Colorado River Authority was initially created in 1935 as a quasi-public corporation that qualified to receive New Deal funding from the federal government to build six dams on the Colorado River by 1941. Today, Texas has 23 dams with hydroelectric generators.

*Doggone liberal Texans.*


----------



## elektra (Feb 15, 2015)

Old Rocks said:


> Oncor proposes giant leap for grid batteries Dallas Morning News
> 
> Oncor, which runs Texas’ largest power line network, is willing to bet battery technology is ready for wide-scale deployment across the grid.
> 
> ...


ONCOR, they have a tax-free exempt status and are part of bankruptcy proceedings.


----------



## elektra (Feb 15, 2015)

Old Rocks said:


> As Renewable Energy Grows Wind and Solar Pull Ahead of Hydropower StateImpact Texas
> 
> Nationally, wind generation has increased from three percent to over 30 percent of total renewable generation since 2003. Texas wind power saw tremendous growth during that time. With the Texas Renewable Portfolio Standard from 1999 and the state’s Emerging Technology Fund from 2005, Texas energy demand met with wind power rose from one percent in 2001 to 10 percent in 2014.
> 
> ...


Hydropower has failed in Brazil. It's called DROUGHT.

Now we are told a Mega - Drought is coming, according to NASA, hmmmm, how does a hydroelectric dam operate doing this Super drought?


----------



## Old Rocks (Feb 15, 2015)

The droughts will not be universal. There will be areas with ample rainfall. However, that is a strong arguement for solar and wind. Coal, nuclear, and natural gas need large amounts of water for cooling and steam. PV solar and wind need very little water. In a drought, guess what is still generating when the nukes, coal, and natural gas plants are shut down for lack of water. And with grid scale storage, that energy is 24/7.


----------



## Billy_Bob (Feb 15, 2015)

CultureCitizen said:


> elektra said:
> 
> 
> > It was your link, not mine. You referenced one panel without the equipment that it takes to operate. I used your link, your one panel, and the cost of a one panel system from your link, of course 132 watts will not operate a house, so from your link I posted the price that you ignored.
> ...


At 3,000 watts per day, your 132 watt panel wont even keep one 40 watt light lit for more than about 4 hours, assuming the battery is charged. If you plugged in your water heater, which uses two elements using 1,500 watts each, you would bury that panel in 30 seconds along with the battery..

Lots of people want pie in the sky green energy because they think its free but the cost to set up and operate these systems for a 3kwh daily usage is in the range of 55,000.00 depending on location, energy storage choice and what is best to use for day and night time charge/discharge cycles. Ohms Law is unforgiving and those who do not understand it will make stupid choices.Just look at Old Crock and his rantings of shit.. This looks like a couple of sock puppets.


----------



## Billy_Bob (Feb 15, 2015)

elektra said:


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



Liberal math.... this is why America is failing...


----------



## Billy_Bob (Feb 15, 2015)

Old Rocks said:


> The droughts will not be universal. There will be areas with ample rainfall. However, that is a strong arguement for solar and wind. Coal, nuclear, and natural gas need large amounts of water for cooling and steam. PV solar and wind need very little water. In a drought, guess what is still generating when the nukes, coal, and natural gas plants are shut down for lack of water. And with grid scale storage, that energy is 24/7.



At 50 times the cost.. and 50 times the toxic waste and damage to ecosystems that will be permanent.  All in all, its a fools errand..

The stupidity of the left which thinks the bald eagle hunting and feeding areas impacted by these giant wind farms killing 30 a day is ok but if an oil rig moves a nest, saving the lives of the birds and then rebuilding the nesting habitat when they are finished drilling, they should be shut down.. fucking left wit morons! These ECO-FASCISTS need to be stopped cold!


----------



## CultureCitizen (Feb 15, 2015)

elektra said:


> Nobody touched this thread all day, I get a message from you, and another fool at the same time, both of you thanking and rating one another, is the other your lover or your second account? I can see why you would want it to appear as if you have help.


We are unrelated. I guess we just share common points of view. Pure coincidence.


----------



## Andylusion (Feb 15, 2015)

Old Rocks said:


> Andylusion said:
> 
> 
> > Old Rocks said:
> ...



That is not true at all.

Wind power is cheapest energy EU analysis finds Environment The Guardian

Wind power is only cheaper, if you make a bunch of estimates of how much the mythical deaths and health problems due to coal cost, and add that into the cost of coal power.

Yes, if I just make up a bunch of mythical costs, and add them to the cost of coal, the cost of coal power will be higher than wind.

But in reality, when Germany shut down their nuclear plants, they didn't build wind turbines, they built coal power plants.

Coal Returns to German Utilities Replacing Lost Nuclear - Bloomberg Business

This is the reality over the leftist myths.

As far as Solar, yes the COST of solar has gone down, drastically.  It's gone down, because the Chinese have flooded the market, and in the process, they have produced crap solar panels that are failing in just 2 years.

Log In - The New York Times

You want facts instead of opinion?  Follow your own advice.


----------



## CultureCitizen (Feb 15, 2015)

Billy_Bob said:


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


Jaajaja , of course not !
My fridge uses 410 kwh per year !!
That's 1.13 kwh per day , which means my fridge is actually the energy hog in my household, consuming 37% of the electricity.


----------



## Andylusion (Feb 15, 2015)

Billy_Bob said:


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



Yeah, he's said this a number of times, that he barely uses any power at all. I have to assume he doesn't actually have a refrigerator.   Certainly not A/C.   Maybe he lives out of his car or something, I'm not sure.

A basic computer home office setup, would use more power than that kit would provide, unless he's running to the library to post this.

I have to assume this guy is a hobbit.  Because no average American would use so little power.   And if he is a modern day hobbit, that's fine... but his views on energy supply are largely irrelevant to the rest of us in the non-hobbit world.


----------



## CultureCitizen (Feb 15, 2015)

Andylusion said:


> Billy_Bob said:
> 
> 
> > elektra said:
> ...



My fridge uses about 1.3 kwh. I also have a washing machine , but I use it only once per week. All the light bubs are energy saving , I have a led tv which I use on ocasion, a laptop which runs with less than 30 W, and a microwave oven ( another energy hog , which I do use about 3 minutes a day,).

I am outside most of the time, but during one month I was jobless, and my energy consumption barely moved ( I think it wen't up by 25%, mostly because I used the laptop more time ).


----------



## Billy_Bob (Feb 15, 2015)

CultureCitizen said:


> Andylusion said:
> 
> 
> > Billy_Bob said:
> ...



I call Bull Shit..
1.3kwh is 1,300 watts per hour at 120 Volts. Your 137 watts 24 volt array can only supply  137/24 = 5.7 Amps @ 24 volts or 1.14 amps @ 121 Volts.  In other words your math is severely lacking as is your understanding of how these systems work.


----------



## Synthaholic (Feb 15, 2015)

elektra said:


> Synthaholic said:
> 
> 
> > elektra said:
> ...


Since when do conservatives care about the environment?


----------



## Billy_Bob (Feb 15, 2015)

Synthaholic said:


> Since when do conservatives care about the environment?


There is a big difference between good stewardship and econutterism.. When we drill for oil we clean up and restore the area habitats.  When enviro-wackos and left wits make a mess they blame it on others and leave it for others to clean up..

Case in point are the recent gatherings in DC... can you tell which is Conservatives who are responsible for themselves and liberals who dont give a dam and just want to feel good?


----------



## CultureCitizen (Feb 15, 2015)

Billy_Bob said:


> CultureCitizen said:
> 
> 
> > Andylusion said:
> ...



Oh man , not again!!
Your calculations are wrong because my whole consumption during a day is 3 kwh at most. 
 The fridge uses 1.3 kwh THE IN THE WHOLE 24 HOURS THAT MAKE A DAY !! 
 That's 1.3 kwh spread throughout 24 hours ( 1 day ) .
This means it uses 0.054 kwh per hour.
Now , do your math again.


----------



## CultureCitizen (Feb 15, 2015)

Billy_Bob said:


> Synthaholic said:
> 
> 
> > Since when do conservatives care about the environment?
> ...


Interesting... I was left rather awestruck by the titles below the photographs.
An inaugeration mess?
Seems your spelling skills are on the par of your math skills.


----------



## Billy_Bob (Feb 15, 2015)

CultureCitizen said:


> Oh man , not again!!
> Your calculations are wrong because my whole consumption during a day is 3 kwh at most.
> The fridge uses 1.3 kwh THE IN THE WHOLE 24 HOURS THAT MAKE A DAY !!
> That's 1.3 kwh spread throughout 24 hours ( 1 day ) .
> ...



3 Kilowatts is 3,000 watts. IF the fridge runs 3 hours out of the day that draw is 1,000 watts/hr at 120 volts.  The wattage required to operate that device is then 1,000/120=8.3 amps of current draw.  Your 137 watt panel can not sustain the draw.

The average refrigerator requires 900 watts running and 1400 watts start-up..  You simply dont have a clue.

Ohm s Law Calculator


----------



## Billy_Bob (Feb 15, 2015)

CultureCitizen said:


> Billy_Bob said:
> 
> 
> > Synthaholic said:
> ...



Ignore the point and attack the person....  is that you Saul?


----------



## CultureCitizen (Feb 15, 2015)

Billy_Bob said:


> CultureCitizen said:
> 
> 
> > Oh man , not again!!
> ...



Ok , let's get the numbers straight: 
My initial post talked about using a  300 w solar panel to reduce electric consumption. 
Then Elektra posted the kit wich included the rest of the electric equipment.
As per my previous post : The solar panels are ok , but the batteries are what make the technology expensive and not an ecologically sound option.

Now , the number breakdown for the 140kwh per month( I noticed the kit was more expensive than the separate pices)  :
KWH per month : 140
Panels 1000
Inverter 2000
Charge controller 607
Combiner 100
Batteries ( 4 ) 3200
Total 6907

Lifespan : 20 years
Cost per year 345.35
Cost per month 28.7
kwh cost 0.20

So once agin , if you just use the panel to reduce your consumption from the grid it is ok. For off the grid, the batteries still have to get cheaper.


----------



## Synthaholic (Feb 15, 2015)

Billy_Bob said:


> Synthaholic said:
> 
> 
> > Since when do conservatives care about the environment?
> ...


It's funny that you believe that crap you get from the nut jobs.


----------



## Billy_Bob (Feb 15, 2015)

CultureCitizen said:


> Ok , let's get the numbers straight:
> My initial post talked about using a  300 w solar panel to reduce electric consumption.
> Then Elektra posted the kit wich included the rest of the electric equipment.
> As per my previous post : The solar panels are ok , but the batteries are what make the technology expensive and not an ecologically sound option.
> ...



SO;
  You have 3 - 300 watt panels at 12-18 VDC output
   1 - 2,000 watt inverter
   4- 1,500 amp/hr batteries

On a good day you will produce 700 watts of power from your 900 watt rated panels. The internal battery resistance of four parallel linked batteries is 16 ohms at 15 volts with a combined output of 6,000amp hours. Charge time is 6 hours in full sun using a standard charger/battery conditioner.

At 1500 watt draw on your inverter you will draw 235 amps from your batteries which will deplete in 7-9 hours to 45% at which point the inverter will shut down. They could go much monger under lower draw amounts.  it will not power a 220v stove, oven, dryer, water heater,or other item.

This makes a little more sense.. but certainly not worth the expense when grid electricity is 0.04 - 0.12 Cents per kwh.

IF you wanted to increase your productivity of your system I would add a 500 watt wind turbine, which will give charge in cloudy days under windy conditions when your panels are not producing, provided your home owners association or local zoning laws allow it.


----------



## Billy_Bob (Feb 15, 2015)

Synthaholic said:


> Billy_Bob said:
> 
> 
> > Synthaholic said:
> ...



Oh Look a moron posted another shit pellet..


----------



## Billy_Bob (Feb 15, 2015)

My home has 9 of these solar panels and 2-130amp (1500 watt) 24 volt PMA wind turbines.

I have 21,000 amp hours of battery storage.

Three Outback charge controllers for the three sections of batteries and a remote switching device allowing me to change which battery bank I am using remotely. 

I have two 5,000 watt pure sine wave inverters that are coupled allowing me to power 220 volt appliances. 

The 24 volt application allows less amp draw in the inverting by half. 

I can live off grid for months at a time and I have a 6,000 watt 220 Volt gas powered generator for emergency charging or use. 

Grand cost of this system was around 45,000.00 because I installed it myself and can maintain it myself. Cost to recoupment will never be regained but it was good for a write off on my taxes.

Where I live power can be out for weeks at a time, so I pay the charge for the meter and live pretty much off grid. About the only time I consume power is during summer for cooling of the home. Thank God for fiber optics which supplies my internet connection and TV..


----------



## elektra (Feb 15, 2015)

CultureCitizen said:


> Billy_Bob said:
> 
> 
> > CultureCitizen said:
> ...


This is as easy as pie, as Power equals Current times Voltage, p=ie is the formula for power.

A refrigerator that uses 1300 watts uses that as in now, if you can not supply 1300 watts now, that refrigerator is not turning on. Your idea that its spread out over the course of a day is pure hogwash. 

You can not turn on an appliance rated at 500 watts with a solar panel rated at 300 watts. 

You know nothing about electricity and the load on a system. Besides the wattage, you have to supply up to 50 amps, to handle that spike that is created when a motor turns on, its called the electrical code. 

Your mistake has nothing to do with math, you simply do not understand how your home works. 

Now I must get back to my job at hand, which is literally Inductive Reactance,  

I have worked with electricity my entire life, now I use it to to inspect and analyze components in Nuclear Power plants.

Go ahead, make another ridiculous claim.


----------



## elektra (Feb 15, 2015)

Synthaholic said:


> elektra said:
> 
> 
> > Synthaholic said:
> ...


Since when did Democrats? Last I checked the Big Detroit car companies were ran by Democrats, lets say back in the 50's and 60's, I saw what the Democrats did back then, they literally dumped toxic waste in the River Rouge, killing everything down stream, meaning all the fish in Lake Erie. Nixon put an end to that creating the EPA. 

Democrats care about politics, nothing more.


----------



## CultureCitizen (Feb 15, 2015)

Billy_Bob said:


> it will not power a 220v stove, oven, dryer, water heater,or other item.
> 
> This makes a little more sense.. but certainly not worth the expense when grid electricity is 0.04 - 0.12 Cents per kwh.
> 
> IF you wanted to increase your productivity of your system I would add a 500 watt wind turbine, which will give charge in cloudy days under windy conditions when your panels are not producing, provided your home owners association or local zoning laws allow it.


I am getting invoiced at 0.13 per kwh. I don't know which part of the US ( or elsewhere ) gets lower than that. I have not heard of the 0.04 rate in a very long time ( unless you have your own industrial coal supply and generator , but that's not an option for residential use ). 

I have no problem with buying the inverter or the solar panels , they last long enough . The batteries will only last for 5 or 6 years and they usually contain toxic materials. So I think they are a complementary technology to reduce energy consumption from other sources while the technology for storing electricity improves.

At 0.35 cents per kwh the technology seems good as is for residents of Hawaii ( but still I would hate to fill the planet with toxic waste from the batteries).

EIA - Electricity Data


----------



## elektra (Feb 15, 2015)

CultureCitizen said:


> Billy_Bob said:
> 
> 
> > it will not power a 220v stove, oven, dryer, water heater,or other item.
> ...


But toxic waste from solar panel manufacture is okay?


----------



## CultureCitizen (Feb 15, 2015)

elektra said:


> But toxic waste from solar panel manufacture is okay?


Elektra, not completely ok, but panels last for 20 years ( somehow you seem to insist that they only last for 10 years), but the manufacturers output waranty is for 20. Why would they risk with such a claim ?
Batteries last at most 6 years. So they have to be replaced 3 times faster.

The place that manufactures the panel also counts. European panels are a lot greener than chinese.

Solar Panel Recycling and Total Energy Use The Energy Collective

Solar cell recycling is in its infancy but will surely grow as more panels start getting discarded.

"According to spokesperson Melanie Friedman, the company estimates that 90 percent of the material recovered from solar panels can be recycled into useful products."

As Solar Power Advances Disposal Will Become an Issue - Earth911.com
90% is good enough for me.
---------------------------------------------
Edit
---------------------------------------------
And although solar panels are not completely eco friendly , there are worse alternatives:

Have you ever heard of canadian tar sands ? I would take someone so concerned with the environment will be horrorized by the follwoing image:


----------



## elektra (Feb 15, 2015)

CultureCitizen said:


> elektra said:
> 
> 
> > But toxic waste from solar panel manufacture is okay?
> ...


Now account for the amount of power, energy required in each step of the manufacture. 

A 20 year warranty from company that will not last 10 years is not much of a warranty. 

And of course this thread, my OP is about commercial/industrial sized Solar, not residential which is all you advocates seem to want to talk about. Its Apple and Oranges, no comparison. 

Batteries, imagine the market created, by law, overnight, mandating everybody by a battery, I bet people become millionaires, even the people whose companies go bankrupt, and the battery companies have been going bankrupt.

Solar cell recycling is extremely toxic, uses extremes amount of energy, energy that a Solar Power Plant can not provide. At least that is what the industry reports. I can link, in time, I am sure I kept a copy of the page in my files on this subject, its hard to find, seems with Google all the results that appear first are advertising or political propaganda, so there is a lot of clutter to wade through before one can even get to something that is not second hand political fiction, that somehow was based on a tiny fact.

20 years for a panel? Maybe on a home when there is very little use, but the more you use it the more it burns out, the less efficient, many of the components are failing before 10 years, a lot of the companies are going bankrupt as well. 

Either way, buy a panel today to lock yourself into an Obsolete Technology, I hear tomorrow there is going to be a Solar breakthrough. Seems awfully stupid to buy into something that is Obsolete forever, as long as you own your home. Of course if you live where it is a necessity, or your rich and can afford the luxury of extremely expensive electricity, that is your prerogative. But you do increase the burden on our water resources as well as you increase the consumption of Fossil Fuels and Crude Oil. 

Solar, an expensive way to power a home, Solar is no way to power a Country. At best, that is reckless.


----------



## CultureCitizen (Feb 15, 2015)

elektra said:


> A 20 year warranty from company that will not last 10 years is not much of a warranty.
> 
> And of course this thread, my OP is about commercial/industrial sized Solar, not residential which is all you advocates seem to want to talk about. Its Apple and Oranges, no comparison.


There are studies about energy return by each source. 

1.3 Biodiesel
1.3 Ethanol corn
1.6 Solar collector
1.9 Solar flat plate
3.0 Bitumen tar sands
5.0 Ethanol sugarcane
5.0 Shale oil
6.8 Photovoltaic
8.0 Oil discoveries
10.0 Natural gas 2005
10.0 Nuclear (with diffusion enrichment)
12.0 Oil imports 2007
14.5 Oil and gas 2005
18.0 Oil imports 2005
18.0 Wind
20.0 Oil production
30.0 Oil and gas 1970
35.0 Oil imports 1990
50-75[9][10] Nuclear (with centrifuge enrichment)
80.0 Coal
100.0 Hydro
Photovoltaic is better than most of the currently available options, including shale oil. 
The big winners are wind, hydro, coal and nuclear.

Energy returned on energy invested - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia


----------



## Synthaholic (Feb 15, 2015)

CultureCitizen said:


> I am getting invoiced at 0.13 per kwh. I don't know which part of the US ( or elsewhere ) gets lower than that. I have not heard of the 0.04 rate in a very long time ( unless you have your own industrial coal supply and generator , but that's not an option for residential use ).


I believe Tennessee is around $0.06.

Correction: it's gone up to an average of $0.10.  Industrial rate is $0.07.


----------



## elektra (Feb 15, 2015)

CultureCitizen said:


> elektra said:
> 
> 
> > A 20 year warranty from company that will not last 10 years is not much of a warranty.
> ...



Cut/Paste from Wikipedia? Well, I say if I can destroy one in a few seconds, wikipedia and your post is weak at best. NASA and now you fail with a wikipedia post.

The Dangers Of Relying On Hydroelectric Power Brazil s Lesson

*The Dangers Of Relying On Hydroelectric Power: Brazil's Lesson*

*The reason wasn't a natural disaster or a terrorist attack. But it was still a national emergency.

She headed back to give directions to a government body charged with ensuring adequate supplies of electricity for the world's sixth-largest economy, which needs all the power it can get.  

Summer rains, which usually start in December, had been late and light, and the amount of water in reservoirs at the nation’s major hydroelectric dams had reached critically low levels.

Newspapers had already been screaming in headlines that Brazil would have to ration electricity as it had threatened to do in 2001, the last time water at dams had reached such critical levels. Back then, the government told consumers that they would be fined and could have their power cut off if they consumed too much electricity. Panicked Brazilians rushed to buy compact fluorescent light bulbs to replace their inefficient incandescent bulbs. 

Brazil gets up to 80 percent of its electricity from hydroelectric dams, which produce no emissions. That makes it one of the greenest countries in the world in terms of environmentally friendly energy generation, but it also leaves it vulnerable to the vagaries of nature. Since 2001, the country has built new thermoelectric power plants, which are supposed to be turned on to take up any slack in the system when hydropower fails. But those plants use expensive fossil fuels and emit huge amounts of greenhouse gases, defeating one of the main reasons to build dams in the first place.  
*


----------



## Synthaholic (Feb 15, 2015)

Great interactive map:

The Price Of Electricity In Your State Planet Money NPR

Idaho is lowest at $0.08, Hawaii is highest at $0.33.


----------



## elektra (Feb 16, 2015)

Synthaholic said:


> Great interactive map:
> 
> The Price Of Electricity In Your State Planet Money NPR
> 
> Idaho is lowest at $0.08, Hawaii is highest at $0.33.


Californians pay $0.31 kwh, Idaho 0.12 kwh.

NPR is a bit off.


----------



## CultureCitizen (Feb 16, 2015)

Well Elektra,
  I will admit the following :
1. Photovoltaic is not the most reliable source of energy, nor the cheapest.
2. Solar thermal is even less efficient, but is friendlier in ecological terms because it requires only mirrors which last longer.
3. Wind is even cheaper, but is also unreliable.
4. Hydro is even cheaper , but since we are in a period of climate change ( anthropogenic or not ) we can't relly too much on it .
The other alternatives are gas, shale gas , which probably is getting subsidy from shale oil, shale oil , regular oil tar sands, carbon and nuclear.
How do you propose exactly that the US gets its energy without degrading the ecosystem?


----------



## elektra (Feb 16, 2015)

elektra said:


> Synthaholic said:
> 
> 
> > Great interactive map:
> ...





CultureCitizen said:


> Well Elektra,
> I will admit the following :
> 1. Photovoltaic is not the most reliable source of energy, nor the cheapest.
> 2. Solar thermal is even less efficient, but is friendlier in ecological terms because it requires only mirrors which last longer.
> ...


The least impact is Nuclear Power, Coal can be more or less saved for the future, but I believe we will always need coke, which comes from coal, coke which is used for steel production. 

Nuclear power, Obama seems to support nuclear power, at least the transfer of the technology to China and India. Advanced technology, like for lithium reactors, of course Obama wants to divert all our lithium to batteries so to me that seems like a very huge waste of massive amounts of energy.

The bottom line, everything uses energy, Solar Thermal requires the hot desert and lots of water, Solar thermal still uses glass, which is very energy intensive.

Wind Turbines, require a 1000 tons of concrete as the base, nothing uses more energy than producing cement/concrete. Further Wind Turbines need fiberglass, lots of fiberglass, dare I say wind turbines increased the use of fiberglass like the world has never seen. The single greatest use of fiberglass. Once we investigate what it takes to make fiberglass, we find we need Boron, an Element that is in short supply, which is used in Nuclear Power plants, and a neutron absorber. There are chemicals to consider, crazy stuff that only comes from Oil, like propene. Can propene be replaced with a substance from plants? I do not know, but that does not matter, it comes from Oil today. Fiberglass is just one part of Wind Turbines. What kills me is all those copper windings sitting in a field, not spinning, or spinning at a slow speed, in comparison to hooking that same generator up to a source of steam. 

The best use of our natural resources is to use them, not simply increase the production of lets say, electrical generators, by 100,000'xs, to produce the same electricity that one of those electrical generators did in the past. 

Geothermal, bad anyway you look at it, extremely toxic, pipe corroding, fracking, constant drilling just like an oil well, a custom plant design for each separate source, no model T here. Each source is unique.

I work on Nuclear power plants, I have been to the Salton Sea and worked on Geothermal plants, I have worked on CoGen plants as well. My company has inspected Solar Plants I have not, I have co-workers from other companies that have inspected Wind Turbines. 

I got an Arsenic burn to my Butt while working at the Salton Sea. One gallon of brine weighs 10 lbs, (2 lbs more than water). That extra two pounds is mostly Arsenic and a whole lot of other toxic radioactive stuff. When I say Geothermal is toxic, it is. But every source is unique, the chemistry, heat, everything is different. Each requires a separate solution. 

Energy is life, Energy is power, Energy is your standard of living, if we are not fat with Energy, we are poor as a society. If we can not produce excess at all times, we are starving, we can not react to an emergency. If we are not fat with Energy our standard of living goes down.

Fat is healthy for a nation, when it comes to Energy.


----------



## orogenicman (Feb 16, 2015)

elektra said:


> Matthew said:
> 
> 
> > lol,
> ...



The only way to produce anything in the desert is via irrigation by diverting rivers or ground water withdrwal.  So if anyone has destroyed the desert in California, it's the farmers.  But you don't have a problem with that, do you, Elektra.  I mean, not really, right?


----------



## elektra (Feb 16, 2015)

orogenicman said:


> The only way to produce anything in the desert is via irrigation by diverting rivers or ground water withdrwal.  So if anyone has destroyed the desert in California, it's the farmers.  But you don't have a problem with that, do you, Elektra.  I mean, not really, right?


burp


----------



## orogenicman (Feb 16, 2015)

elektra said:


> orogenicman said:
> 
> 
> > The only way to produce anything in the desert is via irrigation by diverting rivers or ground water withdrwal.  So if anyone has destroyed the desert in California, it's the farmers.  But you don't have a problem with that, do you, Elektra.  I mean, not really, right?
> ...



Right.  Thanks for proving my point.


----------



## elektra (Feb 16, 2015)

orogenicman said:


> elektra said:
> 
> 
> > burp
> ...


excuse me


----------



## jc456 (Feb 16, 2015)

CultureCitizen said:


> elektra said:
> 
> 
> > It is a thread I created but I got the idea from a post in one of Matthew's threads, not sure if he made it or crick or old crock or even you, but someone linked to the report so I thought it would make a nice thread.
> ...


 link:  Green Energy Holding FAILURE OF GREEN ENERGY IN EUROPE


----------



## jc456 (Feb 16, 2015)

Andylusion said:


> Old Rocks said:
> 
> 
> > And were we to cover the industrial and commercial roofs within the cities with solar, a large percentage of the cities power would be self supplied.
> ...


 this!!!


----------



## jc456 (Feb 16, 2015)

Old Rocks said:


> Oncor proposes giant leap for grid batteries Dallas Morning News
> 
> Oncor, which runs Texas’ largest power line network, is willing to bet battery technology is ready for wide-scale deployment across the grid.
> 
> ...


so basically nothing of evidence until three years out? Yet today there is no evidence to support batteries that can do what is needed.  Not to say, Universities aren't using our youth to develop newer better batteries.  Just is no evidence to suggest it is near at all.  One should have the next step available before shutting down existing plants. But why does the left care about their citizens? They don't.


----------



## CultureCitizen (Feb 16, 2015)

elektra said:


> You know nothing about electricity and the load on a system. Besides the wattage, you have to supply up to 50 amps, to handle that spike that is created when a motor turns on, its called the electrical code.
> 
> Your mistake has nothing to do with math, you simply do not understand how your home works.


Sory , but my refrigerator doesn't use 500 watts each time it turns on.


elektra said:


> I work on Nuclear power plants, I have been to the Salton Sea and worked on Geothermal plants, I have worked on CoGen plants as well. My company has inspected Solar Plants I have not, I have co-workers from other companies that have inspected Wind Turbines.



Nuclear is a mixed blessing. Arguably it has done more harm to humans than any other form of energy ( not in the US though).


----------



## CultureCitizen (Feb 16, 2015)

elektra said:


> Your mistake has nothing to do with math, you simply do not understand how your home works.



Oh, I do, I suggested a panel to complement the energy provided by the electric company . You were the one that insisted on calculating the costs of an off-grid home (which I will agree, is something in which I have no experience).Even with the complete solar kit yields 0.24 USD per kwh ($8000, for a 140 kwh per month kit that includes  solar panels that only last for 10 years).

And as I said, that is not an option for me because of the battery costs (30% of the kit ) and externalities ( toxic waste from batteries ).
Regardless, the energy obtained during the kits lifetime (20 years with the panel replacement) equals 1,000 gallons of gasoline.


----------



## elektra (Feb 17, 2015)

CultureCitizen said:


> elektra said:
> 
> 
> > You know nothing about electricity and the load on a system. Besides the wattage, you have to supply up to 50 amps, to handle that spike that is created when a motor turns on, its called the electrical code.
> ...


"but my refrigerator doesn't use 500 watts each time it turns on."

Correct, it is in reference to one hour. Just like the 1 solar panel you think can run 1 refrigerator. 

A 500 watt refrigerator needs a 1500 watt source, to turn on, once on it will use 500 watts, a hour.

The Solar Panel you linked to, the 300 watt panel, puts out only 205 watts according to specs. Factory max. is not the same as real world installed. You need 8 panels just to turn on the refrigerator, of course a 500 watt refrigerator is smaller than average, much smaller. Ever here of a reactive load, a reactive load takes three times the rated power, to start. Power is measured in watts.

According to code, you need a minimum of 6000 watts to power a house. If I am correct in thinking all one needs is one 50 amp circuit.

As far as your other post goes, right, I could go back and get your post, but I think your foot is about as far down your throat as you can handle.

http://pdf.wholesalesolar.com/module pdf folder/CHSM6612P-305_Specs.pdf


----------



## jc456 (Feb 17, 2015)

elektra said:


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


well actually new homes have been installing 100 amp service for years upon years. Just to run a vacuum requires 1500 watts.


----------



## elektra (Feb 17, 2015)

jc456 said:


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


I figured as such, last house I touched had a 50 amp service, di-pole wiring.


----------



## jc456 (Feb 17, 2015)

elektra said:


> jc456 said:
> 
> 
> > elektra said:
> ...


two years ago I updated my service on my cottage to 100 amps.


----------



## Syriusly (Feb 17, 2015)

elektra said:


> Matthew said:
> 
> 
> > lol,
> ...



Using the desert is using the desert.

A desert planted with cotton is as destroyed as 'pristine' desert' as is a desert with a solar plant.

You are against wind power and against solar power- and I have yet to see you oppose any 'traditional' power source.

Why?


----------



## jc456 (Feb 17, 2015)

because it isn't my program. and that renewables isn't working.


----------



## CultureCitizen (Feb 17, 2015)

Syriusly said:


> elektra said:
> 
> 
> > Matthew said:
> ...


I think she favours 3+ generation nuclear reactors... personally stockpiling nuclare wastes makes me kind of unconfortable , nuclear safety improvements notwithstanding.

Somewhere I saw a TED talk of a scientist promoting nuclear ... he made a rather compelling speech , might be worth searching for it.


----------



## ScienceRocks (Feb 17, 2015)

CultureCitizen said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> > elektra said:
> ...



Why not firing the waste into the sun?


----------



## Kosh (Feb 17, 2015)

Syriusly said:


> elektra said:
> 
> 
> > Matthew said:
> ...



See how the far left goes against their environmental buddies on such issues..

Goes to show the whole "destroying the environment" mantra of the far left is selective..

Destroying the environment is destroying the environment, so this another far left talking point shot down.

See how dangerous this religion is..


----------



## Kosh (Feb 17, 2015)

CultureCitizen said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> > elektra said:
> ...



Anything that has a half life of 5000 year stored in containers that are predicted to last 120 years should be nervous..


----------



## Syriusly (Feb 17, 2015)

CultureCitizen said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> > elektra said:
> ...



I think we should consider any electrical generation system and decide which ones to use. I am not specifically anti-nuclear- I think there are real issues to be concerned about regarding nuclear but it shouldn't be off the table.


----------



## IlarMeilyr (Feb 17, 2015)

elektra said:


> California's desert is fast becoming a Solar Wasteland, what was once pristine desert habitat is being replaced with Industrial Scale Solar.
> 
> Thanks to Obama and the State Government of California.
> 
> ...



If this keeps up, pretty soon --

the desert will be a desert.


----------



## koshergrl (Feb 17, 2015)

Kosh said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> > elektra said:
> ...


 
only the gubmint is allowed to use/abuse/waste/develop resources.


----------



## IlarMeilyr (Feb 17, 2015)

Kosh said:


> CultureCitizen said:
> 
> 
> > Syriusly said:
> ...



Why should radioactive materials be nervous again?


----------



## Syriusly (Feb 17, 2015)

Matthew said:


> CultureCitizen said:
> 
> 
> > Syriusly said:
> ...



Well I am not an expert on such things but off the top of my head:

a) spent nuclear rods are incredibly dense and heavy- and launching items into space is extraordinarily expensive - about $6,000 per lb.
b) rockets sometimes explode while being launched- not something you really want happening with radioactive waste.


----------



## CultureCitizen (Feb 17, 2015)

Matthew said:


> Why not firing the waste into the sun?


That would take an awfull amount of energy.


----------



## elektra (Feb 17, 2015)

Syriusly said:


> elektra said:
> 
> 
> > Matthew said:
> ...


Because Wind and Solar are weak sources of Electricity, kind of like making a copy of copy. To equal 1 nuclear power plant, Solar will have to cover over a 1000 square miles of land. It is just a literal impossibility to increase Solar and Wind to 1% of of the energy we need. I see the biggest structures in the World that provide us the least amount of power. The greatest investment in the World's history is being forced upon us. The World's most expensive investment. With the least return. 

It seems like common sense to me, that using something as big as a Wind Turbine to produce a fraction of energy is wasteful, it literally consumes more Oil. It takes more Oil to build these massive "renewable" forms of energy. 

When you run out of oil you can not build more, Solar and Wind need to be built everyday, forever, we can never ever stop.

Wind Turbines consume Oil for maintenance, 5-55 gal drums of high quaility lubricants every year. 

Solar Panels need to be cleaned, with purified water. 1,000's of square miles will require billions of gallons of water. The environmental impact statements attest to this fact.

Destroyed is destroyed, do we need to grow cotton in Arizona, their number one cash crop? Or should we grow fresh produce, the climate is good for growing things, and we have plenty of sewage waste for fertilizer.

I like nature, it is a shame that we are destroying it, Nixon had to create the EPA to stop polluters, now the government is taking all we saved and destroying it. 

The payoff, Obama will become the richest president in history, paid giving speeches.

The payoff now is to politicians and their political campaigns. Oregon's Governor resigned specifically over receiving bribes from Green Energy lobbyists. 

$36 trillion and more of greed and power is what I see.


----------



## Syriusly (Feb 17, 2015)

elektra said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> > elektra said:
> ...



Then make that argument rather than making bogus arguments about concern for wind turbine safety or desert destruction.

That is a valid discussion to have.


----------



## elektra (Feb 17, 2015)

CultureCitizen said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> > elektra said:
> ...


Nuclear waste does not scare me, we can recycle it, France does. Thus far we have created a tiny bit of waste. Its all over the USA, I have yet to hear one story about there being a problem with waste.


----------



## Syriusly (Feb 17, 2015)

elektra said:


> CultureCitizen said:
> 
> 
> > Syriusly said:
> ...



Start a thread on nuclear power- you appear to know about it- give us your best argument, including the most promising strategies that are being used to address the storage and disposal of nuclear waste.


----------



## elektra (Feb 17, 2015)

Syriusly said:


> elektra said:
> 
> 
> > Syriusly said:
> ...


Do you only see one thread when you read the topics? I have made that argument, this OP is specific to miles and miles of destroyed land. I can not post more than 1 topic? 

The argument here, is not "bogus". We are destroying public land, land literally given to corporations the government picks. I could use some free land, but I am not rich so no free land for me. 

You think 1000's of miles of destruction of the desert is a great idea, to save the earth? We must kill the animals and destroy the land to save the Earth? 

yes many things I reply to, off topic, that does not mean I have not addressed everything that I have stated. I have a lot of threads I have started.


----------



## elektra (Feb 17, 2015)

Syriusly said:


> Start a thread on nuclear power- you appear to know about it- give us your best argument, including the most promising strategies that are being used to address the storage and disposal of nuclear waste.


I already started a thread on nuclear power, I do not need another.

We do not need a strategy to store spent nuclear fuel, we have stored spent nuclear fuel for the last 60 years with zero problems. I know, I work in the Nuclear power industry, right now I am inspecting a CANDU reactor. At this particular plant I have stood next to new fuel before being put in the reactor. At other reactors like Three Mile Island I literally stood 20' away from spent nuclear fuel. Looked straight at it, through a pool of boronated, water.

Long term, we should be recycling the spent nuclear fuel, we only use a fraction of its power, we can use more of its power, better reactor design and recycling in breeder reactors.


----------



## Andylusion (Feb 20, 2015)

Syriusly said:


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



Government routinely creates problems, and then claims that the problems it created, can't be solved.

Well yes, if YOU are creating a problem, then the problem can't be solved that YOU created.

So nuclear waste.

The government under the original worst president in US history, Jimmy Carter, signed a law that banned the reprocessing of spent nuclear fuel.  Dear Jimmy banned reprocessing of nuclear fuel, under the rational that spent nuclear fuel ends up with a small amount of plutonium.   Plutonium can be used to make nuclear bombs.  Therefore, we can not reprocess fuel rods, because someone could get the plutonium.

At least that's the 'logic' from the government under Carter.

Weapons grade plutonium, is very different from reactor grade plutonium, or even fuel grade plutonium.  Nevertheless, is can in fact be used to make a nuclear bomb.  Of course all fuel rods in theory could.

Regardless, this ban on reprocessing has created millions of tons of "nuclear waste" that could in fact be used.   We could very easily reprocess those fuel rods into perfectly useable fuel, and burn them.     But we can't because of some illogical law.

There are a number of highly successful, tested and working, alternative nuclear plant technologies that can use, and burn spent fuel rods.  Some of them produce virtually no high level waste at all.

We also could be building power plants that produce no spent fuel rods to begin with.    However, both these power plant technologies, and those which burn existing spent fuel rods, both require that reprocessing be legal.

For example Thorium fuel cycle plants, require that a fuel reprocessing system be actually on the site next to the reactor.   No reprocessing, no Thorium nuclear power plant.  So instead we're stuck with radioactive fuel rod "waste".

Additionally, many of these new Nuclear Technologies require fuel that is enriched much higher than the typical 5% enrichment of conventional plants.   Some require 20% enrichment, which is prohibited under the Nuclear Non-proliferation Treaty.

Again, in theory, you could use 20% enriched Uranium to make a bomb.... but you could also use 10% or 5%.

The bottom line is, government has put in place regulations and controls that have created a problem with nuclear waste.   Without those controls and regulations, we could easily be making power with those completely usable fuel rods.

Many of these alternative power plant designs are inherently far safer than the conventional power plants typically found here in the US.   The only reason we're stuck with out dated 1970s nuclear power, is because are government in a ridiculous fit of fear, passed a bunch of laws that screwed us over for decades now.

There were actually a significant number, if not a dozen or more, projects to make new advanced nuclear power that create very little 'waste' that was safer, and less risky, and could burn 'spent fuel rods' and such.   All of them were abandoned because of the regulations passed by government.

Once again, if Governments isn't screwing something up, it is because they haven't done anything yet.


----------



## Andylusion (Feb 20, 2015)

elektra said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> > Start a thread on nuclear power- you appear to know about it- give us your best argument, including the most promising strategies that are being used to address the storage and disposal of nuclear waste.
> ...



Years ago, I read about a reactor they they had built in another country, where the after the reactor was shut off, you could remove the fuel rod by hand in a matter of days.

I can't for the life of me find anything referring to that now.   You don't happen to have heard of that anywhere?  It was an experimental reactor, not a commercial.

I assume it was a low power core, and they said the rods still emitted low level radiation.   They didn't actually remove the rods by hand, but only that you could.

You ever heard of anything like that?   I read about it years ago, but I can't find article at all now.


----------



## westwall (Feb 20, 2015)

Matthew said:


> lol,
> 
> a DESERT IS A FUCKING WASTE LAND. Most of the desert solar is built on isn't useable.
> 
> I've come to the conclusion that both parties in this country are full of people that are truly sick in the head.





It is?  You need to get out more, sport!  Here's what you want to destroy.  Yes, dry lake beds are featureless.  But the rest of the desert is beautiful and THIS is what they want to cover up.


----------



## Syriusly (Feb 21, 2015)

elektra said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> > elektra said:
> ...



I think you could probably make a decent argument about the cost benefit analysis of nuclear versus solar- but that is not what you are doing here. 

When you in the same post complain both that 'pristine' desert is being destroyed- and that that desert could be used to grow cotton- you are contradicting yourself- and just appearing to be partisan against solar. 

I enjoy the desert- but the desert is destroyed as much when it is used for cotton production as when it is used for solar energy. 

And as far as 'destroying 1,000 of miles of desert'- every energy production uses resources. Hydroelectric 'destroys' thousands of miles of habitat. The question always is whether the overall cost is worth it or not.


----------



## Synthaholic (Feb 21, 2015)

westwall said:


> Matthew said:
> 
> 
> > lol,
> ...


Yeah, nobody lives there.  Nobody is going to have dangerous fracking chemicals near where their kids go to school.  No one has to worry about earthquakes.  No one has to worry about their water supply getting poisoned.


----------



## mamooth (Feb 21, 2015)

westwall said:


> It is?  You need to get out more, sport!  Here's what you want to destroy.  Yes, dry lake beds are featureless.  But the rest of the desert is beautiful and THIS is what they want to cover up.



Such perfect irony.

Global warming is wiping out the Joshua Trees.

Joshua trees losing ground to global warming

yet Westwall uses images of Joshua trees (from areas that nobody proposes building solar fields in) to declare we shouldn't be using solar power.


----------



## westwall (Feb 21, 2015)

mamooth said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> > It is?  You need to get out more, sport!  Here's what you want to destroy.  Yes, dry lake beds are featureless.  But the rest of the desert is beautiful and THIS is what they want to cover up.
> ...









Ahhhh, yes.  trot out the typical alarmist claptrap telling us yet again that the sky is falling.  Here's a more balanced look at the issue....

"The California desert's signature tree has gotten a lot of attention lately: the story of this year's record bloom (which I'm proud to say broke right here on KCET.org) has reached a global audience. And the developing narrative is that the unusual bloom can be credited to climate change.

*As someone who's warned of the danger of human-created climate change since the early 1970s, you might expect me to be completely on board with this analysis. I'm not*."


Joshua Tree Bloom Due To Climate Change Not So Fast The Hidden Desert Revisit KCET


----------



## westwall (Feb 21, 2015)

Synthaholic said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> > Matthew said:
> ...








Do you have a point or are you just going to whine and pout?


----------



## Andylusion (Feb 21, 2015)

mamooth said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> > It is?  You need to get out more, sport!  Here's what you want to destroy.  Yes, dry lake beds are featureless.  But the rest of the desert is beautiful and THIS is what they want to cover up.
> ...



You do realize how limited a time frame they are using to make these alarmist claims, right?   6,000 years of climate change globally, and you look back a massive massive time frame of.... 60 years, and claim that proves the end of the world....   I'm not buying it.


----------



## Andylusion (Feb 21, 2015)

Syriusly said:


> elektra said:
> 
> 
> > Syriusly said:
> ...



It isn't comparable.

The highest level of efficient solar generation, only happens in desert areas of high sunlight energy.  In those specific areas, solar can make power, and then you could try and compare it to a nuclear, or any conventional power plant.

The problem is, you can't transmit that power over vast distances.   Even if, and this is a massive "if", you could build enough solar panels to cover the desert, and generate enough power for the entire country, it doesn't matter.    A rough estimate of transmission losses, are about 1.1% per 100 miles.     By the time the power reached New York, the power loss over that distance, would be incredible.

Not to mention, without local power supplies, you have 2,000+ miles of power lines to get the power from Arizona to New York, and one problem at any section, and New York is in the dark?

So while the idea of comparing solar to nuclear is a nifty theoretical excessive, it's a practical non-starter.  There will always be conventional sources of power providing electricity to the masses.   There will never be a time, in which we are not burning coal, gas, and nuclear fuel for power.   Never.

Not unless they make some massive scientific break through.  I'm skeptical of that though.  The entire planet is looking for the holy grail of cheap clean energy, and if it was there to be found, I think someone would have found it by now.


----------



## Synthaholic (Feb 22, 2015)

westwall said:


> Synthaholic said:
> 
> 
> > westwall said:
> ...


That is my point - that if we can build energy infrastructure in the desert instead of near people, then people won't be as adversely affected.

Plus, where's a better place to put solar panels?


----------



## Old Rocks (Feb 22, 2015)

Andylusion said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> > elektra said:
> ...


This is an odd post. First of all, we transmit power from the dams in north central Washington state to San Diego, via huge DC line. So, we already know ways to tranmit huge amounts of power large distances. Second, we have Montana, Wyoming, Nebraska, and several other high wind states closer to New York. 

The breakthroughs in science are already adaquete for supplying a major portion of our power from renewables. Further breakthroughs will result in supplying all of our power from renewables. And people like you will be screeching it cannot be done all the way as we do it.


----------



## Old Rocks (Feb 22, 2015)

Synthaholic said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> > Synthaholic said:
> ...


 Actually, the best place to put solar panels, as they get cheaper and cheaper, is any surface that has good sunlight exposure that is not being used, and is near to where the energy is being used.


----------



## Skull Pilot (Feb 22, 2015)

Synthaholic said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> > Synthaholic said:
> ...



Another one who has no idea what a desert ecosystem is

We already have millions of acres of south and southwest facing rooftops in this country.

You want solar panels put them there where the infrastructure to build and maintain them already exists where they will be easy to tie into the grid and where it won't take trillions of tax payer dollars


----------



## Andylusion (Feb 22, 2015)

Synthaholic said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> > Synthaholic said:
> ...



I was not aware that the eco-nuts actually care that much about people, as much as "biodiversity" and saving the spotted owl.    Eco-nuts tend to only care about people, when they see a way to use that to their own advantage.

If we follow the eco-nut agenda of preventing damage to the Earth....  then we can't put the solar panels anywhere, because no matter where they are put, they will have a negative effect on the "environment" (especially when you deem all human activity as bad).

If on the other hand, you are building your premise that we MUST use solar panels, and therefore we MUST place them somewhere.... well then yeah, the desert would be the best possible location.  I would agree with that.


----------



## Billy_Bob (Feb 22, 2015)

Old Rocks said:


> Andylusion said:
> 
> 
> > Syriusly said:
> ...



Electrical transmission physics do not change from AC to DC. Those lines are AC not DC. Every 300 miles on those lines are what they call step up transformers.  These take the energy sent down the line and its loss, stepping it back up to the correct voltage while consuming some of the power.

The ONLY place DC is used is at grid crossover points where two grids meet. The PHASE must be matched exactly compared to earth ground or you will have a massive explosion. This can only be done by conversion to DC and then modulated to match the opposing grid.

This is one of the problems why wind generators have such a significant loss. Each generator is at a different point in phase cycle and they must all match or you have a huge fireball... Even power plants use phase matching for all of their connected generators.


----------



## Skull Pilot (Feb 22, 2015)

Andylusion said:


> Synthaholic said:
> 
> 
> > westwall said:
> ...



Why is it the best possible location when we already have millions of acres of roof tops that can be used instead of spoiling some of our last wild lands?


----------



## Old Rocks (Feb 22, 2015)

Billy_Bob said:


> Old Rocks said:
> 
> 
> > Andylusion said:
> ...


Now Billy Boob, save yourself some embarressment and do a little research before posting. Memory plays tricks, you thought that all the high power tranmission lines were AC, and I thought the big DC line was from the Grand Coulee to San Diego, and it is from Celilo to LA.




Map of the route of the Pacific Intertie transmission route and stations
The *Pacific DC Intertie* (also called *Path 65*) is an electric power transmission line that transmits electricity from the Pacific Northwest to the Los Angeles area using high voltage direct current (HVDC). The line capacity is 3,100 megawatts, which is enough to serve two to three million Los Angeles households and represents almost half (48.7%) of the Los Angeles Department of Water and Power (LADWP) electrical system's peak capacity.[1]

The intertie originates near the Columbia River at the Celilo Converter Station of Bonneville Power Administration's grid outside The Dalles, Oregon and is connected to the Sylmar Converter Stationnorth of Los Angeles, which is owned by five utility companies and managed by LADWP. The Intertie can transmit power in either direction, but power flows mostly from north to south.

The idea of sending hydroelectric power to Southern California had been proposed as early as the 1930s, but was opposed and scrapped. By 1961, US president John F. Kennedy authorized a large public works project, using new high voltage direct current technology from Sweden. The project was undertaken as a close collaboration between General Electric of the US and ASEA of Sweden. Private California power companies had opposed the project but their technical objections were rebutted byUno Lamm of ASEA at an IEEE meeting in New York in 1963. When completed in 1970 the combined AC and DC transmission system was estimated to save consumers in Los Angeles approximately US $600,000 per day by use of cheaper electric power from projects on the Columbia River.

One advantage of direct current over AC is that DC current penetrates the entire conductor as opposed to AC current which only penetrates to the so-called skin depth. For the same conductor size the effective resistance is greater with AC than DC, so that more power is lost as heat. In general the power losses for HVDC are less than an AC line if the line length is over 500 -600 miles and with advances in conversion technology this distance has been reduced considerably. A DC line is also ideal for connecting together two AC systems that are not synchronized with each other. HVDC lines can help stabilize a power grid against cascading blackouts, since power flow through the line is controllable.

Pacific DC Intertie - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia


----------



## elektra (Feb 23, 2015)

Andylusion said:


> elektra said:
> 
> 
> > Syriusly said:
> ...


never heard of it, sounds something like a candu, heavy water reactor like bruce nuclear or opg, they have another in argentina.


----------



## elektra (Feb 23, 2015)

Syriusly said:


> elektra said:
> 
> 
> > Syriusly said:
> ...



You must have a comprehension problem, I did not say a desert could be used to produce cotton, I responded to somebody stating that the desert is a wasteland. I stated cotton is grown in the desert, that is not me advocating to grow cotton, it is simply a fact that shows that the desert is not a wasteland, hence lets turn the desert into an industrial zone.

You make no distinction between farming and industry, in stating that cotton/artichoke farming destroys the desert the same as covering 1000's of square miles with solar panels. 

And of course I am partisan against solar, it does not work, its nothing but a scam, a huge waste of money that is forced on us, it is politics, wall street, banks, corporations making trillions, while sacking us with extreme taxes and a higher cost of living.


----------



## Old Rocks (Feb 24, 2015)

LOL. Sure, ol' girl.






*Installations Continue to Boom*

There are now over 17,500 MW of cumulative solar electric capacity operating in the U.S., enough to power more than 3.5 million average American homes.
With over 49,000 installations in Q3, nearly 600,000 U.S. homes and buisnesses have now gone solar.  Through Q3, a new solar project has been installed every 3 minutes in 2014.
Growth in Q3 was led by the residential sector, which grew 58% over Q3 2014, and the utility-scale sector, which installed over 800 MW for the 3rd time in 12 months.
*Sorry, old girl, you and the other dingleberries lose.*


----------



## jc456 (Feb 25, 2015)

Old Rocks said:


> LOL. Sure, ol' girl.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


huh?  projection?  the year 2014 is over dude.


----------



## elektra (Mar 2, 2015)

Old Rocks said:


> LOL. Sure, ol' girl.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Can you post the total cost of the solar installed or is that a secret as well.


----------



## Old Rocks (Mar 2, 2015)

Could you post the total cost of all the coal fired plants, the medical costs from the pollution they create, the cost of the land destroyed by mountain top removal and strip mining? How about the cost in human lives from the coal mines, both the disasters and black lung. And then there are at least a couple of rivers poisoned by that industry. Compared to all the costs of coal generation, solar, wind, and geothermal are very cheap.


----------



## jc456 (Mar 3, 2015)

Old Rocks said:


> Could you post the total cost of all the coal fired plants, the medical costs from the pollution they create, the cost of the land destroyed by mountain top removal and strip mining? How about the cost in human lives from the coal mines, both the disasters and black lung. And then there are at least a couple of rivers poisoned by that industry. Compared to all the costs of coal generation, solar, wind, and geothermal are very cheap.


strawman, big time dude!!!


----------



## elektra (Mar 4, 2015)

Old Rocks said:


> Could you post the total cost of all the coal fired plants, the medical costs from the pollution they create, the cost of the land destroyed by mountain top removal and strip mining? How about the cost in human lives from the coal mines, both the disasters and black lung. And then there are at least a couple of rivers poisoned by that industry. Compared to all the costs of coal generation, solar, wind, and geothermal are very cheap.


Yes after you show the total amount if coal consumed by Industrial Solar Manufacture.

How about it old crock, how many tons of coal did solar manufacture consume.

Account for destruction solar manufacture causes.


----------

