# Solar power will soon be as cheap as coal



## ScienceRocks

*Solar power will soon be as cheap as coal*




> Inside a sprawling single-story office building in Bedford, Massachusetts, in a secret room known as the Growth Hall, the future of solar power is cooking at more than 2,500 °F. Behind closed doors and downturned blinds, custom-built ovens with ambitious names like “Fearless” and “Intrepid” are helping to perfect a new technique of making silicon wafers, the workhorse of today’s solar panels. If all goes well, the new method could cut the cost of solar power by more than 20% in the next few years.
> 
> “This humble wafer will allow solar to be as cheap as coal and will drastically change the way we consume energy,” says Frank van Mierlo, CEO of 1366 Technologies, the company behind the new method of wafer fabrication....



_Read on!_







Solar is about ready to destroy coal!


----------



## Old Rocks

And then there are the ongoing developments in thin film. By 2025, solar is going to be far cheaper than any kind of fossil fuel.


----------



## pwjohn

If solar is so cheap than why are the Germans paying 34 cents per kW hour? 
I'm paying less than a third of that figure.


----------



## Skull Pilot

and it still only works half the time so to be as cheap as coal in reality it would have to be half the cost of coal wouldn't it?


----------



## pwjohn

It only works half the time part of the time, depending on the season.


----------



## Old Rocks

There is another revolution in energy and it's distribution starting this year. That is grid scale batteries. And China is already making major investments and purchases, some from the US, in this technology.


----------



## flacaltenn

Old Rocks said:


> There is another revolution in energy and it's distribution starting this year. That is grid scale batteries. And China is already making major investments and purchases, some from the US, in this technology.



Sure thing there ORocks. We've done the China "grid scale" miracle before. But of course, you've forgotten the picture of the football stadium size installation of toxic waste that costs $500M and only serves to store energy for 6,000 homes for about 4 hours.. You've a scam artist who cant' accept reality because it would destroy your sales pitch.. 

As far as this thread goes. Does "cheaper" include the cost of the PRINCIPAL power station that provides energy all night and during bad weather -- but sits idle with the employees eating donuts when the sun is out? What group of morons is gonna fund the development of REAL power stations when the govt requires you to shut down randomly and at their whim to take a bit of solar electricity?


----------



## JoeMoma

It's good to have options.


----------



## Old Rocks

flacaltenn said:


> Old Rocks said:
> 
> 
> 
> There is another revolution in energy and it's distribution starting this year. That is grid scale batteries. And China is already making major investments and purchases, some from the US, in this technology.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sure thing there ORocks. We've done the China "grid scale" miracle before. But of course, you've forgotten the picture of the football stadium size installation of toxic waste that costs $500M and only serves to store energy for 6,000 homes for about 4 hours.. You've a scam artist who cant' accept reality because it would destroy your sales pitch..
> 
> As far as this thread goes. Does "cheaper" include the cost of the PRINCIPAL power station that provides energy all night and during bad weather -- but sits idle with the employees eating donuts when the sun is out? What group of morons is gonna fund the development of REAL power stations when the govt requires you to shut down randomly and at their whim to take a bit of solar electricity?
Click to expand...

LOL. At the rate the solar installations are going in, there generation will be far more than a bit. And when you can store that power, then why pollute the ground, water, and air by using coal when solar is both cleaner and cheaper. 

Before you say nukes, you get about 800 mW of energy in the form of electricity, and throw away about 2000 mW in the form of waste heat. Entropy strikes again. Where the wind and solar do not generate waste heat that you end up putting into the air or water.


----------



## flacaltenn

Old Rocks said:


> flacaltenn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Old Rocks said:
> 
> 
> 
> There is another revolution in energy and it's distribution starting this year. That is grid scale batteries. And China is already making major investments and purchases, some from the US, in this technology.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sure thing there ORocks. We've done the China "grid scale" miracle before. But of course, you've forgotten the picture of the football stadium size installation of toxic waste that costs $500M and only serves to store energy for 6,000 homes for about 4 hours.. You've a scam artist who cant' accept reality because it would destroy your sales pitch..
> 
> As far as this thread goes. Does "cheaper" include the cost of the PRINCIPAL power station that provides energy all night and during bad weather -- but sits idle with the employees eating donuts when the sun is out? What group of morons is gonna fund the development of REAL power stations when the govt requires you to shut down randomly and at their whim to take a bit of solar electricity?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> LOL. At the rate the solar installations are going in, there generation will be far more than a bit. And when you can store that power, then why pollute the ground, water, and air by using coal when solar is both cleaner and cheaper.
> 
> Before you say nukes, you get about 800 mW of energy in the form of electricity, and throw away about 2000 mW in the form of waste heat. Entropy strikes again. Where the wind and solar do not generate waste heat that you end up putting into the air or water.
Click to expand...


Not impressed by thermal efficiencies of nuke plants. MUCH more impressed that you can power a home for a year on 0.7 ounce of waste.

You cannot store enough solar power to make it a 24/7/365 *alternative* without SEVERE cost and enviro pollution problems. It's not an alternative -- it's an opportunistic "daytime peaker" technology that MIGHT reduce the required peak generation requirement during the day by about 15 to 20% at best.. That's PEAK -- not average daytime load.

You didn't answer my question about whether solar being cheaper includes the waste cost of idling MAIN power plants during peak solar hours? Can you say Homer Simpson sitting on his ass eating donuts and still getting paid?


----------



## Old Rocks

Well, that is your claim. Of course, two years ago, people like you were saying that solar and wind would never be cheaper than coal.


----------



## jimsouth

Matthew said:


> *Solar power will soon be as cheap as coal*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Inside a sprawling single-story office building in Bedford, Massachusetts, in a secret room known as the Growth Hall, the future of solar power is cooking at more than 2,500 °F. Behind closed doors and downturned blinds, custom-built ovens with ambitious names like “Fearless” and “Intrepid” are helping to perfect a new technique of making silicon wafers, the workhorse of today’s solar panels. If all goes well, the new method could cut the cost of solar power by more than 20% in the next few years.
> 
> “This humble wafer will allow solar to be as cheap as coal and will drastically change the way we consume energy,” says Frank van Mierlo, CEO of 1366 Technologies, the company behind the new method of wafer fabrication....
> 
> 
> 
> 
> _Read on!_
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Solar is about ready to destroy coal!
Click to expand...

 So when can we expect the first solar powered steel mills?


----------



## jimsouth

jimsouth said:


> Matthew said:
> 
> 
> 
> *Solar power will soon be as cheap as coal*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Inside a sprawling single-story office building in Bedford, Massachusetts, in a secret room known as the Growth Hall, the future of solar power is cooking at more than 2,500 °F. Behind closed doors and downturned blinds, custom-built ovens with ambitious names like “Fearless” and “Intrepid” are helping to perfect a new technique of making silicon wafers, the workhorse of today’s solar panels. If all goes well, the new method could cut the cost of solar power by more than 20% in the next few years.
> 
> “This humble wafer will allow solar to be as cheap as coal and will drastically change the way we consume energy,” says Frank van Mierlo, CEO of 1366 Technologies, the company behind the new method of wafer fabrication....
> 
> 
> 
> 
> _Read on!_
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Solar is about ready to destroy coal!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So when can we expect the first solar powered steel mills?
Click to expand...

 No one on the planet would like to see clean cheap energy more than me. Short of a miracle, it will take many many years - if ever. To say it will happen over night is like saying Edison could jump from wax cylinder recording to digital recording over night.


----------



## Old Rocks

And who said we can do it overnight? But we can do it in one generation. And, with each year, the price of the renewables comes down.


----------



## jimsouth

Old Rocks said:


> And who said we can do it overnight? But we can do it in one generation. And, with each year, the price of the renewables comes down.


 Do you have any idea how much energy a single steel mill requires?


----------



## Old Rocks

Yes, I have worked in one for the last 16 years as a millwright.

But wind supplies over 12% of the power created in Oregon. That would run several steel mills.


----------



## flacaltenn

Old Rocks said:


> And who said we can do it overnight? But we can do it in one generation. And, with each year, the price of the renewables comes down.




You've had 50 years and BILLIONS and the technology is SO MATURE that companies are competing solely on price now. We are WAAAAY past the wax cylinder stage as JimSouth puts it.. 

I know you've worked in steel.. Ask the Electrical staff how long wind would power the plant.. Was that on Tuesday or Wednesday that wind in Oregon could power a steel mill.. And -- would it make it into the 2nd shift on the same day?


----------



## Old Rocks

Mr. Flacaltenn, perhaps you should look a map of Oregon. Notice that river at the top of the map? And the bodies of water dammed up on that river? You see, when the wind is blowing, we do not have to run as much water through the turbines. And when it is not, we have the water saved up to do that. In that manner, the wind does help power our state, even when the wind is not blowing.

When the grid is extended into the south of our state, we will have a huge amount of wind, solar, and geothermal. And will not only have enough power for all of Oregon, but will help power California, Idaho, and Nevada.


----------



## Wake

I hope this is true.

There is promise in solar energy, and I support using it, but it needs to not be so expensive to start using it. To buy your own solar panels isn't cheap, currently. 

With this potential, and additional research, we could be on to something that is beneficial to all.


----------



## Ringel05

flacaltenn said:


> Old Rocks said:
> 
> 
> 
> And who said we can do it overnight? But we can do it in one generation. And, with each year, the price of the renewables comes down.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You've had 50 years and BILLIONS and the technology is SO MATURE that companies are competing solely on price now. We are WAAAAY past the wax cylinder stage as JimSouth puts it..
> 
> I know you've worked in steel.. Ask the Electrical staff how long wind would power the plant.. Was that on Tuesday or Wednesday that wind in Oregon could power a steel mill.. And -- would it make it into the 2nd shift on the same day?
Click to expand...

Interesting......  Soooo, you have stock in coal, got it.......  Hell why else would you be arguing so vehemently against renewables?
Half of what I'm reading you say is from years or decades ago (technology related), how long did it take this:






To become this;






They're discussing progress in the renewable field and you seem to be going off the deep end.....


----------



## flacaltenn

Ringel05 said:


> flacaltenn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Old Rocks said:
> 
> 
> 
> And who said we can do it overnight? But we can do it in one generation. And, with each year, the price of the renewables comes down.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You've had 50 years and BILLIONS and the technology is SO MATURE that companies are competing solely on price now. We are WAAAAY past the wax cylinder stage as JimSouth puts it..
> 
> I know you've worked in steel.. Ask the Electrical staff how long wind would power the plant.. Was that on Tuesday or Wednesday that wind in Oregon could power a steel mill.. And -- would it make it into the 2nd shift on the same day?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Interesting......  Soooo, you have stock in coal, got it.......  Hell why else would you be arguing so vehemently against renewables?
> Half of what I'm reading you say is from years or decades ago (technology related), how long did it take this:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> To become this;
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> They're discussing progress in the renewable field and you seem to be going off the deep end.....
Click to expand...


Dear Ringel  -- You are on.. You will don your Hi Tech Mickey watch, and I will  be armed only with a 1100 yr old abacus borrowed from Vanderbilt Engineering.

We will resolve values of simple quadratic equations and the loser has to adopt the failed technology as his new Avatar for a month.. Proceeds from the pay per view go to USMB.

I'm a big fan :>) of renewables OFF the grid. Where you can make storable quantities of stuff like desalinized water or hydrogen fuel. Also a big proponent of Geothermal.. But in that case, I want folks to know it's not actually reliably renewable (it peters out) and it is actually a dirty fracking operation.. Solar and wind have been oversold. OFTEN without consideration of their enviro consequences.

Solar is a 6 hr/day PEAKER technology no matter WHAT you do it with it.
Look at the daily production charts of a good windfarm. It's there for an hour gone on Tuesday, Wednes and part of Thur. With either of those, you cannot ADD capacity to the grid without the backup costs of building yet another RELIABLE nat gas plant or water boiler and paying the staff to play bridge whenever the wind decides to blow..

Lemme know WHEN you are available for the big "tap-off"....


----------



## flacaltenn

Ringel -- We are clear for the abacus versus IWatch showdown..  

I checked YouTube and this is the closest I could find..


----------



## kiwiman127

Some people just love that fossil fuel and therefore hate alternative energy, because they are simply folks that let others think for them.
They hate green, gray is their favorite color.


----------



## Ringel05

flacaltenn said:


> Ringel05 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> flacaltenn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Old Rocks said:
> 
> 
> 
> And who said we can do it overnight? But we can do it in one generation. And, with each year, the price of the renewables comes down.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You've had 50 years and BILLIONS and the technology is SO MATURE that companies are competing solely on price now. We are WAAAAY past the wax cylinder stage as JimSouth puts it..
> 
> I know you've worked in steel.. Ask the Electrical staff how long wind would power the plant.. Was that on Tuesday or Wednesday that wind in Oregon could power a steel mill.. And -- would it make it into the 2nd shift on the same day?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Interesting......  Soooo, you have stock in coal, got it.......  Hell why else would you be arguing so vehemently against renewables?
> Half of what I'm reading you say is from years or decades ago (technology related), how long did it take this:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> To become this;
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> They're discussing progress in the renewable field and you seem to be going off the deep end.....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Dear Ringel  -- You are on.. You will don your Hi Tech Mickey watch, and I will  be armed only with a 1100 yr old abacus borrowed from Vanderbilt Engineering.
> 
> We will resolve values of simple quadratic equations and the loser has to adopt the failed technology as his new Avatar for a month.. Proceeds from the pay per view go to USMB.
> 
> I'm a big fan :>) of renewables OFF the grid. Where you can make storable quantities of stuff like desalinized water or hydrogen fuel. Also a big proponent of Geothermal.. But in that case, I want folks to know it's not actually reliably renewable (it peters out) and it is actually a dirty fracking operation.. Solar and wind have been oversold. OFTEN without consideration of their enviro consequences.
> 
> Solar is a 6 hr/day PEAKER technology no matter WHAT you do it with it.
> Look at the daily production charts of a good windfarm. It's there for an hour gone on Tuesday, Wednes and part of Thur. With either of those, you cannot ADD capacity to the grid without the backup costs of building yet another RELIABLE nat gas plant or water boiler and paying the staff to play bridge whenever the wind decides to blow..
> 
> Lemme know WHEN you are available for the big "tap-off"....
Click to expand...

Yeah, kinda what I thought ya wanna be a jerk about it, hell all I was doing was pointing out what you "read like", guess I was correct.  Too bad.


----------



## flacaltenn

Actually Ringel, anyone could DISCUSS my assertions, but more often than not it's more about how folks FEEEEL about these tech topics.

I'm aware of how socially awkward it is to mention actual problems and facts.  But that's what I get paid for in real life (and NOT by the coal companies).

I figure the "alternative energy" crowd gets all the free marketing they need to oversell and misrepresent what they actually have. So let me be awkward.


----------



## Old Rocks

Mr. Flacaltenn, you will be awkward, and mistaken, with or without our permission. 

Horses were put out to pasture, as will be coal, and then natural gas as wind, solar, and geothermal become our major sources of energy.


----------



## there4eyeM

Fresh water?
Floating, solar-powered desalinization plants.

Electricity?
Economizing first (there is no way America 'needs' so much more the electricity consumption than Europe).
Local, safe generation by various, local resources (sun, wind, gravity/hydraulic, geothermal).

Cost?
Since all these pay back and continue to give, they are cheap in the long run, so just make the long run available through easy, low-cost loans.

Down side?
Exxon's profits fall, militarists have fewer excuses for expensive interventions.


----------



## flacaltenn

Old Rocks said:


> Mr. Flacaltenn, you will be awkward, and mistaken, with or without our permission.
> 
> Horses were put out to pasture, as will be coal, and then natural gas as wind, solar, and geothermal become our major sources of energy.



Please tell me then where exactly I am mistaken.. Does PV solar carry a major GRID load for more than 6 hours a day in SOME areas of the country? Is Geothermal NOT a dirty mining operation? Do wind farms NOT go on the blink for days at a time? 

This OP is a prime example of the overselling and the hype..


----------



## there4eyeM

Storage?
Hydrogen.
Solar power?
Over one thousand times more energy than humans use (and much more than that if realistic 'need' were to be considered).
Let's see, six hours times more than a thousand times used power equals, um,
much more than enough! 
Golly!


----------



## flacaltenn

Tracking back the claims in the OP, like the 0.06/KW-hr in Saudi you find ---

ACWA Power Secures 344 Million Loan For Solar PV Project With The Lowest Tariff

ACWA Power announced that it has secured debt financing worth $344 million loan for the project. *The low-cost debt is the fundamental basis for the low tariff of the project.*

Padmanathan further explained that the capital expenditure in a solar PV project includes 50% for the modules (which will be procured from First Solar) and other equipment, 15% for operation & maintenance (O&M), and 35% for debt financing. Debt financing will be secured at a very low cost while the company plans to optimise local resources to keep a check on the O&M costs.



No where are the details of Land Acquisition, Enviro compliance, and cost of idling MAINLINE plants that are REQUIRED to back up the daytime peaking of this solar project.. More of a "financial" innovation than a technical innovation that got this project notoriety...


----------



## bripat9643

Matthew said:


> *Solar power will soon be as cheap as coal*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Inside a sprawling single-story office building in Bedford, Massachusetts, in a secret room known as the Growth Hall, the future of solar power is cooking at more than 2,500 °F. Behind closed doors and downturned blinds, custom-built ovens with ambitious names like “Fearless” and “Intrepid” are helping to perfect a new technique of making silicon wafers, the workhorse of today’s solar panels. If all goes well, the new method could cut the cost of solar power by more than 20% in the next few years.
> 
> “This humble wafer will allow solar to be as cheap as coal and will drastically change the way we consume energy,” says Frank van Mierlo, CEO of 1366 Technologies, the company behind the new method of wafer fabrication....
> 
> 
> 
> 
> _Read on!_
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Solar is about ready to destroy coal!
Click to expand...


How can it be as cheap as coal when every watt of solar power generation requires a watt of fossil fuel backup?


----------



## Political Junky

bripat9643 said:


> Matthew said:
> 
> 
> 
> *Solar power will soon be as cheap as coal*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Inside a sprawling single-story office building in Bedford, Massachusetts, in a secret room known as the Growth Hall, the future of solar power is cooking at more than 2,500 °F. Behind closed doors and downturned blinds, custom-built ovens with ambitious names like “Fearless” and “Intrepid” are helping to perfect a new technique of making silicon wafers, the workhorse of today’s solar panels. If all goes well, the new method could cut the cost of solar power by more than 20% in the next few years.
> 
> “This humble wafer will allow solar to be as cheap as coal and will drastically change the way we consume energy,” says Frank van Mierlo, CEO of 1366 Technologies, the company behind the new method of wafer fabrication....
> 
> 
> 
> 
> _Read on!_
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Solar is about ready to destroy coal!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> How can it be as cheap as coal when every watt of solar power generation requires a watt of fossil fuel backup?
Click to expand...

Link?


----------



## 30 year chrysler mechanic

Matthew said:


> *Solar power will soon be as cheap as coal*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Inside a sprawling single-story office building in Bedford, Massachusetts, in a secret room known as the Growth Hall, the future of solar power is cooking at more than 2,500 °F. Behind closed doors and downturned blinds, custom-built ovens with ambitious names like “Fearless” and “Intrepid” are helping to perfect a new technique of making silicon wafers, the workhorse of today’s solar panels. If all goes well, the new method could cut the cost of solar power by more than 20% in the next few years.
> 
> “This humble wafer will allow solar to be as cheap as coal and will drastically change the way we consume energy,” says Frank van Mierlo, CEO of 1366 Technologies, the company behind the new method of wafer fabrication....
> 
> 
> 
> 
> _Read on!_
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Solar is about ready to destroy coal!
Click to expand...


----------



## NLT

Matthew said:


> *Solar power will soon be as cheap as coal*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Inside a sprawling single-story office building in Bedford, Massachusetts, in a secret room known as the Growth Hall, the future of solar power is cooking at more than 2,500 °F. Behind closed doors and downturned blinds, custom-built ovens with ambitious names like “Fearless” and “Intrepid” are helping to perfect a new technique of making silicon wafers, the workhorse of today’s solar panels. If all goes well, the new method could cut the cost of solar power by more than 20% in the next few years.
> 
> “This humble wafer will allow solar to be as cheap as coal and will drastically change the way we consume energy,” says Frank van Mierlo, CEO of 1366 Technologies, the company behind the new method of wafer fabrication....
> 
> 
> 
> 
> _Read on!_
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Solar is about ready to destroy coal!
Click to expand...

until it gets cloudy


----------



## Delta4Embassy

Matthew said:


> *Solar power will soon be as cheap as coal*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Inside a sprawling single-story office building in Bedford, Massachusetts, in a secret room known as the Growth Hall, the future of solar power is cooking at more than 2,500 °F. Behind closed doors and downturned blinds, custom-built ovens with ambitious names like “Fearless” and “Intrepid” are helping to perfect a new technique of making silicon wafers, the workhorse of today’s solar panels. If all goes well, the new method could cut the cost of solar power by more than 20% in the next few years.
> 
> “This humble wafer will allow solar to be as cheap as coal and will drastically change the way we consume energy,” says Frank van Mierlo, CEO of 1366 Technologies, the company behind the new method of wafer fabrication....
> 
> 
> 
> 
> _Read on!_
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Solar is about ready to destroy coal!
Click to expand...


Oh good. Here I thought governments set energy prices and since our's is bought and beholden by the energy companies they might have something to say about energy prices.


----------



## pwjohn

If solar is so cheap then how come germany has sky high electric rates?..More then triple what I'm paying over here.


----------



## bripat9643

Matthew said:


> *Solar power will soon be as cheap as coal*
> 
> Solar is about ready to destroy coal!



BWAHAHAHAHA!!!!!

That will only be true if Obama succeeds in making coal 5 times more expensive than it was before he ascended the throne.  Obama has already destroyed coal with his preposterous EPA regulations.  Solar has nothing to do with it.


----------



## bripat9643

Old Rocks said:


> flacaltenn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Old Rocks said:
> 
> 
> 
> There is another revolution in energy and it's distribution starting this year. That is grid scale batteries. And China is already making major investments and purchases, some from the US, in this technology.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sure thing there ORocks. We've done the China "grid scale" miracle before. But of course, you've forgotten the picture of the football stadium size installation of toxic waste that costs $500M and only serves to store energy for 6,000 homes for about 4 hours.. You've a scam artist who cant' accept reality because it would destroy your sales pitch..
> 
> As far as this thread goes. Does "cheaper" include the cost of the PRINCIPAL power station that provides energy all night and during bad weather -- but sits idle with the employees eating donuts when the sun is out? What group of morons is gonna fund the development of REAL power stations when the govt requires you to shut down randomly and at their whim to take a bit of solar electricity?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> LOL. At the rate the solar installations are going in, there generation will be far more than a bit. And when you can store that power, then why pollute the ground, water, and air by using coal when solar is both cleaner and cheaper.
> 
> Before you say nukes, you get about 800 mW of energy in the form of electricity, and throw away about 2000 mW in the form of waste heat. Entropy strikes again. Where the wind and solar do not generate waste heat that you end up putting into the air or water.
Click to expand...


Solar will never be cheaper than coal was during the Bush administration.  Of course, Obama is doing everything in his power to make it more expensive than gold.


----------



## bripat9643

Old Rocks said:


> And then there are the ongoing developments in thin film. By 2025, solar is going to be far cheaper than any kind of fossil fuel.



It's hilarious watching the congenitally gullible salivating in public about their impossible fantasies.


----------



## bripat9643

Old Rocks said:


> Well, that is your claim. Of course, two years ago, people like you were saying that solar and wind would never be cheaper than coal.



The EPA is getting ready to make coal more expensive than gold, so I suppose it's possible.


----------



## bripat9643

Ringel05 said:


> flacaltenn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Old Rocks said:
> 
> 
> 
> And who said we can do it overnight? But we can do it in one generation. And, with each year, the price of the renewables comes down.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You've had 50 years and BILLIONS and the technology is SO MATURE that companies are competing solely on price now. We are WAAAAY past the wax cylinder stage as JimSouth puts it..
> 
> I know you've worked in steel.. Ask the Electrical staff how long wind would power the plant.. Was that on Tuesday or Wednesday that wind in Oregon could power a steel mill.. And -- would it make it into the 2nd shift on the same day?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Interesting......  Soooo, you have stock in coal, got it.......  Hell why else would you be arguing so vehemently against renewables?
> Half of what I'm reading you say is from years or decades ago (technology related), how long did it take this:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> To become this;
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> They're discussing progress in the renewable field and you seem to be going off the deep end.....
Click to expand...


It's truly pathetic how the eco-nutburgers fail to understand the fundamental qualitative difference between computer technology, which involves flipping a few bits around, and energy production, which is constrained by the laws of thermodynamics.


----------



## bripat9643

Old Rocks said:


> Mr. Flacaltenn, perhaps you should look a map of Oregon. Notice that river at the top of the map? And the bodies of water dammed up on that river? You see, when the wind is blowing, we do not have to run as much water through the turbines. And when it is not, we have the water saved up to do that. In that manner, the wind does help power our state, even when the wind is not blowing.
> 
> When the grid is extended into the south of our state, we will have a huge amount of wind, solar, and geothermal. And will not only have enough power for all of Oregon, but will help power California, Idaho, and Nevada.



Hmmm, no, the wind does not help to power your state when it isn't blowing.  You have backup hydroelectric.  If you didn't have that, you would have to burn coal or natural gas.

Your fundamental misunderstanding of how the power system works, which you have just demonstrated, shows that no one should bother paying attention to anything you have to say on the subject.


----------



## bripat9643

Old Rocks said:


> Yes, I have worked in one for the last 16 years as a millwright.
> 
> But wind supplies over 12% of the power created in Oregon. That would run several steel mills.



You can't make steel from ore without coal, period.


----------



## bripat9643

kiwiman127 said:


> Some people just love that fossil fuel and therefore hate alternative energy, because they are simply folks that let others think for them.
> They hate green, gray is their favorite color.View attachment 42774



Show us a picture of an American or European city with smog that bad.


----------



## bripat9643

Old Rocks said:


> Mr. Flacaltenn, you will be awkward, and mistaken, with or without our permission.
> 
> Horses were put out to pasture, as will be coal, and then natural gas as wind, solar, and geothermal become our major sources of energy.



Wind and solar will never be our main sources of energy.


----------



## bripat9643

there4eyeM said:


> Storage?
> Hydrogen.
> Solar power?
> Over one thousand times more energy than humans use (and much more than that if realistic 'need' were to be considered).
> Let's see, six hours times more than a thousand times used power equals, um,
> much more than enough!
> Golly!



How much of the Earth are you planning to cover with solar panels?  How many birds are you willing to kill?


----------



## Ringel05

bripat9643 said:


> Ringel05 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> flacaltenn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Old Rocks said:
> 
> 
> 
> And who said we can do it overnight? But we can do it in one generation. And, with each year, the price of the renewables comes down.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You've had 50 years and BILLIONS and the technology is SO MATURE that companies are competing solely on price now. We are WAAAAY past the wax cylinder stage as JimSouth puts it..
> 
> I know you've worked in steel.. Ask the Electrical staff how long wind would power the plant.. Was that on Tuesday or Wednesday that wind in Oregon could power a steel mill.. And -- would it make it into the 2nd shift on the same day?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Interesting......  Soooo, you have stock in coal, got it.......  Hell why else would you be arguing so vehemently against renewables?
> Half of what I'm reading you say is from years or decades ago (technology related), how long did it take this:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> To become this;
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> They're discussing progress in the renewable field and you seem to be going off the deep end.....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It's truly pathetic how the eco-nutburgers fail to understand the fundamental qualitative difference between computer technology, which involves flipping a few bits around, and energy production, which is constrained by the laws of thermodynamics.
Click to expand...

Missing the point?  Looks like it.


----------



## jon_berzerk

or coal will be as expensive as solar

--LOL


----------



## Old Rocks

bripat9643 said:


> kiwiman127 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Some people just love that fossil fuel and therefore hate alternative energy, because they are simply folks that let others think for them.
> They hate green, gray is their favorite color.View attachment 42774
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Show us a picture of an American or European city with smog that bad.
Click to expand...

*Silly little boy, obviously you have not been alive very long. There were a bunch of American cities with extremely unhealthy air when I was a young man. *


A Darkness in Donora | History | Smithsonian


"It was so bad," Jerry Campa, a Donora, Pennsylvania, restaurateur recalls, "that I'd accidentally step off the curb and turn my ankle because I couldn't see my feet." The acrid, yellowish gray blanket that began to smother the Monongahela River mill town in late October 1948 was more suffocating than anything any Donoran had ever seen—or inhaled—in the past. Before a rainstorm washed the ugly soup away five days later, 20 people had died or would soon succumb and nearly 6,000 of the 14,000 population had been sickened.


"Before Donora," declares Marcia Spink, associate director for air programs for the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency's Region III office in Philadelphia, "people thought of smog as a nuisance. It made your shirts dirty. The Donora tragedy was a wake-up call. People realized smog could kill."




Read more: History, Travel, Arts, Science, People, Places | Smithsonian
Give the gift of Smithsonian magazine for only $12! Give the gift of Smithsonian
Follow us: @SmithsonianMag on Twitter


----------



## flacaltenn

Ringel05 said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ringel05 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> flacaltenn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Old Rocks said:
> 
> 
> 
> And who said we can do it overnight? But we can do it in one generation. And, with each year, the price of the renewables comes down.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You've had 50 years and BILLIONS and the technology is SO MATURE that companies are competing solely on price now. We are WAAAAY past the wax cylinder stage as JimSouth puts it..
> 
> I know you've worked in steel.. Ask the Electrical staff how long wind would power the plant.. Was that on Tuesday or Wednesday that wind in Oregon could power a steel mill.. And -- would it make it into the 2nd shift on the same day?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Interesting......  Soooo, you have stock in coal, got it.......  Hell why else would you be arguing so vehemently against renewables?
> Half of what I'm reading you say is from years or decades ago (technology related), how long did it take this:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> To become this;
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> They're discussing progress in the renewable field and you seem to be going off the deep end.....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It's truly pathetic how the eco-nutburgers fail to understand the fundamental qualitative difference between computer technology, which involves flipping a few bits around, and energy production, which is constrained by the laws of thermodynamics.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Missing the point?  Looks like it.
Click to expand...


Point is --- 1000s of products have been obsoleted by portable gadgets. Faxs, answering machines, watches, calculators, cameras, ect -- And the AppleWatch is a repacking of a remote control gadget. PRODUCT INNOVATION is virtually stagnant. MOST new consumer electronics is boring. 

OTH -- Power Generation really hasn't changed much in 100 yrs. Wind is still turning a turbine, Solar is still the photoelectric effect. 

You can OPTIMIZE your way out of the sun being at a useful angle for 6 hours a day or less by motorizing panels to track the sun. STILL leaves about 16 hours of NO POWER. And Wind will only be there on alternate Tuesdays, and Fridays and parts of Sunday.. That's what YOU'RE missing. 

So no matter how big a tantrum the eco-nauts throw -- these 2 things are NOT alternatives to reliable power generation. They are peaker and supplement technologies.. Cannot EXPAND a system capacity with either or both of them..


----------



## bripat9643

Old Rocks said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kiwiman127 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Some people just love that fossil fuel and therefore hate alternative energy, because they are simply folks that let others think for them.
> They hate green, gray is their favorite color.View attachment 42774
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Show us a picture of an American or European city with smog that bad.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *Silly little boy, obviously you have not been alive very long. There were a bunch of American cities with extremely unhealthy air when I was a young man. *
> 
> 
> A Darkness in Donora | History | Smithsonian
> 
> 
> "It was so bad," Jerry Campa, a Donora, Pennsylvania, restaurateur recalls, "that I'd accidentally step off the curb and turn my ankle because I couldn't see my feet." The acrid, yellowish gray blanket that began to smother the Monongahela River mill town in late October 1948 was more suffocating than anything any Donoran had ever seen—or inhaled—in the past. Before a rainstorm washed the ugly soup away five days later, 20 people had died or would soon succumb and nearly 6,000 of the 14,000 population had been sickened.
> 
> 
> "Before Donora," declares Marcia Spink, associate director for air programs for the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency's Region III office in Philadelphia, "people thought of smog as a nuisance. It made your shirts dirty. The Donora tragedy was a wake-up call. People realized smog could kill."
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Read more: History, Travel, Arts, Science, People, Places | Smithsonian
> Give the gift of Smithsonian magazine for only $12! Give the gift of Smithsonian
> Follow us: @SmithsonianMag on Twitter
Click to expand...


In other words, 50 years ago we had a smog problem.  Now you can't photograph detectable smog in any large city in America.  Which shows your concerns about smog are entirely bogus.  The pollution problem has been almost entirely solved.  This country is clean enough.  Further reductions in pollutants only serve to drive up the price of energy, which is the one and only reason Obama is pursuing them.  Only the gullible is fooled by all his blather about pollution.


----------



## Ringel05

flacaltenn said:


> Ringel05 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ringel05 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> flacaltenn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Old Rocks said:
> 
> 
> 
> And who said we can do it overnight? But we can do it in one generation. And, with each year, the price of the renewables comes down.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You've had 50 years and BILLIONS and the technology is SO MATURE that companies are competing solely on price now. We are WAAAAY past the wax cylinder stage as JimSouth puts it..
> 
> I know you've worked in steel.. Ask the Electrical staff how long wind would power the plant.. Was that on Tuesday or Wednesday that wind in Oregon could power a steel mill.. And -- would it make it into the 2nd shift on the same day?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Interesting......  Soooo, you have stock in coal, got it.......  Hell why else would you be arguing so vehemently against renewables?
> Half of what I'm reading you say is from years or decades ago (technology related), how long did it take this:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> To become this;
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> They're discussing progress in the renewable field and you seem to be going off the deep end.....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It's truly pathetic how the eco-nutburgers fail to understand the fundamental qualitative difference between computer technology, which involves flipping a few bits around, and energy production, which is constrained by the laws of thermodynamics.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Missing the point?  Looks like it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Point is --- 1000s of products have been obsoleted by portable gadgets. Faxs, answering machines, watches, calculators, cameras, ect -- And the AppleWatch is a repacking of a remote control gadget. PRODUCT INNOVATION is virtually stagnant. MOST new consumer electronics is boring.
> 
> OTH -- Power Generation really hasn't changed much in 100 yrs. Wind is still turning a turbine, Solar is still the photoelectric effect.
> 
> You can OPTIMIZE your way out of the sun being at a useful angle for 6 hours a day or less by motorizing panels to track the sun. STILL leaves about 16 hours of NO POWER. And Wind will only be there on alternate Tuesdays, and Fridays and parts of Sunday.. That's what YOU'RE missing.
> 
> So no matter how big a tantrum the eco-nauts throw -- these 2 things are NOT alternatives to reliable power generation. They are peaker and supplement technologies.. Cannot EXPAND a system capacity with either or both of them..
Click to expand...

The point was it could take hundreds of years and trillions of dollars to perfect some form of alternative energy.  I'd be more inclined though to try and develop some sort of small, inexpensive (relatively speaking) enclosed system Pelton Wheel technology that once turned on will power a house and itself.  Combine that with solar and wind (where applicable) and you'd probably have more than enough energy.


----------



## bripat9643

Ringel05 said:


> flacaltenn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ringel05 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ringel05 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> flacaltenn said:
> 
> 
> 
> You've had 50 years and BILLIONS and the technology is SO MATURE that companies are competing solely on price now. We are WAAAAY past the wax cylinder stage as JimSouth puts it..
> 
> I know you've worked in steel.. Ask the Electrical staff how long wind would power the plant.. Was that on Tuesday or Wednesday that wind in Oregon could power a steel mill.. And -- would it make it into the 2nd shift on the same day?
> 
> 
> 
> Interesting......  Soooo, you have stock in coal, got it.......  Hell why else would you be arguing so vehemently against renewables?
> Half of what I'm reading you say is from years or decades ago (technology related), how long did it take this:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> To become this;
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> They're discussing progress in the renewable field and you seem to be going off the deep end.....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It's truly pathetic how the eco-nutburgers fail to understand the fundamental qualitative difference between computer technology, which involves flipping a few bits around, and energy production, which is constrained by the laws of thermodynamics.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Missing the point?  Looks like it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Point is --- 1000s of products have been obsoleted by portable gadgets. Faxs, answering machines, watches, calculators, cameras, ect -- And the AppleWatch is a repacking of a remote control gadget. PRODUCT INNOVATION is virtually stagnant. MOST new consumer electronics is boring.
> 
> OTH -- Power Generation really hasn't changed much in 100 yrs. Wind is still turning a turbine, Solar is still the photoelectric effect.
> 
> You can OPTIMIZE your way out of the sun being at a useful angle for 6 hours a day or less by motorizing panels to track the sun. STILL leaves about 16 hours of NO POWER. And Wind will only be there on alternate Tuesdays, and Fridays and parts of Sunday.. That's what YOU'RE missing.
> 
> So no matter how big a tantrum the eco-nauts throw -- these 2 things are NOT alternatives to reliable power generation. They are peaker and supplement technologies.. Cannot EXPAND a system capacity with either or both of them..
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The point was it could take hundreds of years and trillions of dollars to perfect some form of alternative energy.  I'd be more inclined though to try and develop some sort of small, inexpensive (relatively speaking) enclosed system Pelton Wheel technology that once turned on will power a house and itself.  Combine that with solar and wind (where applicable) and you'd probably have more than enough energy.
Click to expand...


You're talking about a perpetual motion machine.  They violate the laws of thermodynamics, which means they are impossible.


----------



## bripat9643

Ringel05 said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ringel05 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> flacaltenn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Old Rocks said:
> 
> 
> 
> And who said we can do it overnight? But we can do it in one generation. And, with each year, the price of the renewables comes down.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You've had 50 years and BILLIONS and the technology is SO MATURE that companies are competing solely on price now. We are WAAAAY past the wax cylinder stage as JimSouth puts it..
> 
> I know you've worked in steel.. Ask the Electrical staff how long wind would power the plant.. Was that on Tuesday or Wednesday that wind in Oregon could power a steel mill.. And -- would it make it into the 2nd shift on the same day?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Interesting......  Soooo, you have stock in coal, got it.......  Hell why else would you be arguing so vehemently against renewables?
> Half of what I'm reading you say is from years or decades ago (technology related), how long did it take this:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> To become this;
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> They're discussing progress in the renewable field and you seem to be going off the deep end.....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It's truly pathetic how the eco-nutburgers fail to understand the fundamental qualitative difference between computer technology, which involves flipping a few bits around, and energy production, which is constrained by the laws of thermodynamics.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Missing the point?  Looks like it.
Click to expand...


No, you are missing the point.  No physical barriers prevent computing power from increasing by orders of magnitude.  The laws of thermodynamics prevent wind and solar power from increasing by orders of magnitude.  At most you are going to squeeze a few more percent out of them.  Then you have the problem that neither one of them are reliable.  Can you depend on either to keep your house warm on a still day in the dead of winter?  No?  All it takes is a couple of days without power and you are frozen dead.


----------



## Ringel05

bripat9643 said:


> Ringel05 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> flacaltenn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ringel05 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ringel05 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Interesting......  Soooo, you have stock in coal, got it.......  Hell why else would you be arguing so vehemently against renewables?
> Half of what I'm reading you say is from years or decades ago (technology related), how long did it take this:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> To become this;
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> They're discussing progress in the renewable field and you seem to be going off the deep end.....
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It's truly pathetic how the eco-nutburgers fail to understand the fundamental qualitative difference between computer technology, which involves flipping a few bits around, and energy production, which is constrained by the laws of thermodynamics.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Missing the point?  Looks like it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Point is --- 1000s of products have been obsoleted by portable gadgets. Faxs, answering machines, watches, calculators, cameras, ect -- And the AppleWatch is a repacking of a remote control gadget. PRODUCT INNOVATION is virtually stagnant. MOST new consumer electronics is boring.
> 
> OTH -- Power Generation really hasn't changed much in 100 yrs. Wind is still turning a turbine, Solar is still the photoelectric effect.
> 
> You can OPTIMIZE your way out of the sun being at a useful angle for 6 hours a day or less by motorizing panels to track the sun. STILL leaves about 16 hours of NO POWER. And Wind will only be there on alternate Tuesdays, and Fridays and parts of Sunday.. That's what YOU'RE missing.
> 
> So no matter how big a tantrum the eco-nauts throw -- these 2 things are NOT alternatives to reliable power generation. They are peaker and supplement technologies.. Cannot EXPAND a system capacity with either or both of them..
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The point was it could take hundreds of years and trillions of dollars to perfect some form of alternative energy.  I'd be more inclined though to try and develop some sort of small, inexpensive (relatively speaking) enclosed system Pelton Wheel technology that once turned on will power a house and itself.  Combine that with solar and wind (where applicable) and you'd probably have more than enough energy.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You're talking about a perpetual motion machine.  They violate the laws of thermodynamics, which means they are impossible.
Click to expand...

No it's not a perpetual motion machine as I think you're envisioning it.  They already exist, they're just large and expensive or relatively cheap and based on water flow from a river or stream (for individual usage).  It's an enclosed system (self feeding) water turbine that I'm talking about.


----------



## Ringel05

bripat9643 said:


> Ringel05 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ringel05 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> flacaltenn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Old Rocks said:
> 
> 
> 
> And who said we can do it overnight? But we can do it in one generation. And, with each year, the price of the renewables comes down.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You've had 50 years and BILLIONS and the technology is SO MATURE that companies are competing solely on price now. We are WAAAAY past the wax cylinder stage as JimSouth puts it..
> 
> I know you've worked in steel.. Ask the Electrical staff how long wind would power the plant.. Was that on Tuesday or Wednesday that wind in Oregon could power a steel mill.. And -- would it make it into the 2nd shift on the same day?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Interesting......  Soooo, you have stock in coal, got it.......  Hell why else would you be arguing so vehemently against renewables?
> Half of what I'm reading you say is from years or decades ago (technology related), how long did it take this:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> To become this;
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> They're discussing progress in the renewable field and you seem to be going off the deep end.....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It's truly pathetic how the eco-nutburgers fail to understand the fundamental qualitative difference between computer technology, which involves flipping a few bits around, and energy production, which is constrained by the laws of thermodynamics.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Missing the point?  Looks like it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, you are missing the point.  No physical barriers prevent comuting power from increasing by orders of magnitude.  The laws of thermodynamics prevent wind and solar power from increasing by orders of magnitude.  At most you are going to squeeze a few more percent out of them.  Then you have the problem that neither one of them are reliable.  Can you depend on either to keep your house warm on a still day in the dead of winter?  No?  All it takes is a couple of days without power and you are frozen dead.
Click to expand...

Based on what we know and today's technology I agree with you.  What is missing is viable "storage capacity".  
Heck when it comes to low cost cooling I learned a hard lesson this summer down here in the desert.  Swamp coolers are great till it gets over 100 degrees, they only drop temps ten degrees on average.......  That's when window units come into play.......


----------



## bripat9643

Ringel05 said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ringel05 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> flacaltenn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ringel05 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> It's truly pathetic how the eco-nutburgers fail to understand the fundamental qualitative difference between computer technology, which involves flipping a few bits around, and energy production, which is constrained by the laws of thermodynamics.
> 
> 
> 
> Missing the point?  Looks like it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Point is --- 1000s of products have been obsoleted by portable gadgets. Faxs, answering machines, watches, calculators, cameras, ect -- And the AppleWatch is a repacking of a remote control gadget. PRODUCT INNOVATION is virtually stagnant. MOST new consumer electronics is boring.
> 
> OTH -- Power Generation really hasn't changed much in 100 yrs. Wind is still turning a turbine, Solar is still the photoelectric effect.
> 
> You can OPTIMIZE your way out of the sun being at a useful angle for 6 hours a day or less by motorizing panels to track the sun. STILL leaves about 16 hours of NO POWER. And Wind will only be there on alternate Tuesdays, and Fridays and parts of Sunday.. That's what YOU'RE missing.
> 
> So no matter how big a tantrum the eco-nauts throw -- these 2 things are NOT alternatives to reliable power generation. They are peaker and supplement technologies.. Cannot EXPAND a system capacity with either or both of them..
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The point was it could take hundreds of years and trillions of dollars to perfect some form of alternative energy.  I'd be more inclined though to try and develop some sort of small, inexpensive (relatively speaking) enclosed system Pelton Wheel technology that once turned on will power a house and itself.  Combine that with solar and wind (where applicable) and you'd probably have more than enough energy.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You're talking about a perpetual motion machine.  They violate the laws of thermodynamics, which means they are impossible.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No it's not a perpetual motion machine as I think you're envisioning it.  They already exist, they're just large and expensive or relatively cheap and based on water flow from a river or stream (for individual usage).  It's an enclosed system (self feeding) water turbine that I'm talking about.
Click to expand...


How many home owners have flowing water on their property?


----------



## bripat9643

Ringel05 said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ringel05 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ringel05 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> flacaltenn said:
> 
> 
> 
> You've had 50 years and BILLIONS and the technology is SO MATURE that companies are competing solely on price now. We are WAAAAY past the wax cylinder stage as JimSouth puts it..
> 
> I know you've worked in steel.. Ask the Electrical staff how long wind would power the plant.. Was that on Tuesday or Wednesday that wind in Oregon could power a steel mill.. And -- would it make it into the 2nd shift on the same day?
> 
> 
> 
> Interesting......  Soooo, you have stock in coal, got it.......  Hell why else would you be arguing so vehemently against renewables?
> Half of what I'm reading you say is from years or decades ago (technology related), how long did it take this:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> To become this;
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> They're discussing progress in the renewable field and you seem to be going off the deep end.....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It's truly pathetic how the eco-nutburgers fail to understand the fundamental qualitative difference between computer technology, which involves flipping a few bits around, and energy production, which is constrained by the laws of thermodynamics.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Missing the point?  Looks like it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, you are missing the point.  No physical barriers prevent comuting power from increasing by orders of magnitude.  The laws of thermodynamics prevent wind and solar power from increasing by orders of magnitude.  At most you are going to squeeze a few more percent out of them.  Then you have the problem that neither one of them are reliable.  Can you depend on either to keep your house warm on a still day in the dead of winter?  No?  All it takes is a couple of days without power and you are frozen dead.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Based on what we know and today's technology I agree with you.  What is missing is viable "storage capacity".
> Heck when it comes to low cost cooling I learned a hard lesson this summer down here in the desert.  Swamp coolers are great till it gets over 100 degrees, they only drop temps ten degrees on average.......  That's when window units come into play.......
Click to expand...


Here in Florida central air is standard.


----------



## Ringel05

Oh and down here in the upper desert we get sun about 80% of the time, the cloudiest weather is in July and August (the monsoon season), solar energy is very effective at reducing heating and cooling costs.


----------



## bripat9643

Ringel05 said:


> Oh and down here in the upper desert we get sun about 80% of the time, the cloudiest weather is in July and August (the monsoon season), solar energy is very effective at reducing heating and cooling costs.



That doesn't work in Florida because it rains a lot during the summer and the humidity is 100%


----------



## Ringel05

bripat9643 said:


> Ringel05 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ringel05 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> flacaltenn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ringel05 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Missing the point?  Looks like it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Point is --- 1000s of products have been obsoleted by portable gadgets. Faxs, answering machines, watches, calculators, cameras, ect -- And the AppleWatch is a repacking of a remote control gadget. PRODUCT INNOVATION is virtually stagnant. MOST new consumer electronics is boring.
> 
> OTH -- Power Generation really hasn't changed much in 100 yrs. Wind is still turning a turbine, Solar is still the photoelectric effect.
> 
> You can OPTIMIZE your way out of the sun being at a useful angle for 6 hours a day or less by motorizing panels to track the sun. STILL leaves about 16 hours of NO POWER. And Wind will only be there on alternate Tuesdays, and Fridays and parts of Sunday.. That's what YOU'RE missing.
> 
> So no matter how big a tantrum the eco-nauts throw -- these 2 things are NOT alternatives to reliable power generation. They are peaker and supplement technologies.. Cannot EXPAND a system capacity with either or both of them..
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The point was it could take hundreds of years and trillions of dollars to perfect some form of alternative energy.  I'd be more inclined though to try and develop some sort of small, inexpensive (relatively speaking) enclosed system Pelton Wheel technology that once turned on will power a house and itself.  Combine that with solar and wind (where applicable) and you'd probably have more than enough energy.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You're talking about a perpetual motion machine.  They violate the laws of thermodynamics, which means they are impossible.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No it's not a perpetual motion machine as I think you're envisioning it.  They already exist, they're just large and expensive or relatively cheap and based on water flow from a river or stream (for individual usage).  It's an enclosed system (self feeding) water turbine that I'm talking about.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> How many home owners have flowing water on their property?
Click to expand...

Did you miss "enclosed, self feeding"?  They do exist but they are the size of a small shed and cost around 20K just for the unit.


----------



## Ringel05

bripat9643 said:


> Ringel05 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Oh and down here in the upper desert we get sun about 80% of the time, the cloudiest weather is in July and August (the monsoon season), solar energy is very effective at reducing heating and cooling costs.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That doesn't work in Florida because it rains a lot during the summer and the humidity is 100%
Click to expand...

Exactly, there is no one solution for everyone.  Heck even during our monsoons the humidity gets up to 70%, swamp coolers are only effective if the humidity is below 35%.


----------



## bripat9643

Ringel05 said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ringel05 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ringel05 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> flacaltenn said:
> 
> 
> 
> Point is --- 1000s of products have been obsoleted by portable gadgets. Faxs, answering machines, watches, calculators, cameras, ect -- And the AppleWatch is a repacking of a remote control gadget. PRODUCT INNOVATION is virtually stagnant. MOST new consumer electronics is boring.
> 
> OTH -- Power Generation really hasn't changed much in 100 yrs. Wind is still turning a turbine, Solar is still the photoelectric effect.
> 
> You can OPTIMIZE your way out of the sun being at a useful angle for 6 hours a day or less by motorizing panels to track the sun. STILL leaves about 16 hours of NO POWER. And Wind will only be there on alternate Tuesdays, and Fridays and parts of Sunday.. That's what YOU'RE missing.
> 
> So no matter how big a tantrum the eco-nauts throw -- these 2 things are NOT alternatives to reliable power generation. They are peaker and supplement technologies.. Cannot EXPAND a system capacity with either or both of them..
> 
> 
> 
> The point was it could take hundreds of years and trillions of dollars to perfect some form of alternative energy.  I'd be more inclined though to try and develop some sort of small, inexpensive (relatively speaking) enclosed system Pelton Wheel technology that once turned on will power a house and itself.  Combine that with solar and wind (where applicable) and you'd probably have more than enough energy.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You're talking about a perpetual motion machine.  They violate the laws of thermodynamics, which means they are impossible.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No it's not a perpetual motion machine as I think you're envisioning it.  They already exist, they're just large and expensive or relatively cheap and based on water flow from a river or stream (for individual usage).  It's an enclosed system (self feeding) water turbine that I'm talking about.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> How many home owners have flowing water on their property?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Did you miss "enclosed, self feeding"?  They do exist but they are the size of a small shed and cost around 20K just for the unit.
Click to expand...


"Self feeding?"  Where does the water come from?  I thought you said you weren't talking about a perpetual motion machine.  If you don't have flowing water on your property, you have no source of power.


----------



## Ringel05

bripat9643 said:


> Ringel05 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ringel05 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ringel05 said:
> 
> 
> 
> The point was it could take hundreds of years and trillions of dollars to perfect some form of alternative energy.  I'd be more inclined though to try and develop some sort of small, inexpensive (relatively speaking) enclosed system Pelton Wheel technology that once turned on will power a house and itself.  Combine that with solar and wind (where applicable) and you'd probably have more than enough energy.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You're talking about a perpetual motion machine.  They violate the laws of thermodynamics, which means they are impossible.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No it's not a perpetual motion machine as I think you're envisioning it.  They already exist, they're just large and expensive or relatively cheap and based on water flow from a river or stream (for individual usage).  It's an enclosed system (self feeding) water turbine that I'm talking about.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> How many home owners have flowing water on their property?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Did you miss "enclosed, self feeding"?  They do exist but they are the size of a small shed and cost around 20K just for the unit.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> "Self feeding?"  Where does the water come from?  I thought you said you weren't talking about a perpetual motion machine.  If you don't have flowing water on your property, you have no source of power.
Click to expand...

Think!!  It would be a reservoir tank at a specific height with two pumps, one to return the water up to the tank and one to high pressure pump the water at the Pelton Wheel generating enough power to run an entire household and the pump itself.
Matter of fact if you have enough drop you wouldn't need the high pressure pump, just keep reducing the feed line size till it gets down to a needle jet.  Have 2 or three units side by side to increase energy production.


----------



## frigidweirdo

Matthew said:


> *Solar power will soon be as cheap as coal*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Inside a sprawling single-story office building in Bedford, Massachusetts, in a secret room known as the Growth Hall, the future of solar power is cooking at more than 2,500 °F. Behind closed doors and downturned blinds, custom-built ovens with ambitious names like “Fearless” and “Intrepid” are helping to perfect a new technique of making silicon wafers, the workhorse of today’s solar panels. If all goes well, the new method could cut the cost of solar power by more than 20% in the next few years.
> 
> “This humble wafer will allow solar to be as cheap as coal and will drastically change the way we consume energy,” says Frank van Mierlo, CEO of 1366 Technologies, the company behind the new method of wafer fabrication....
> 
> 
> 
> 
> _Read on!_
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Solar is about ready to destroy coal!
Click to expand...



This is good news, hopefully the house of the future will be a house with solar panels on the top.


----------



## Ringel05

frigidweirdo said:


> Matthew said:
> 
> 
> 
> *Solar power will soon be as cheap as coal*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Inside a sprawling single-story office building in Bedford, Massachusetts, in a secret room known as the Growth Hall, the future of solar power is cooking at more than 2,500 °F. Behind closed doors and downturned blinds, custom-built ovens with ambitious names like “Fearless” and “Intrepid” are helping to perfect a new technique of making silicon wafers, the workhorse of today’s solar panels. If all goes well, the new method could cut the cost of solar power by more than 20% in the next few years.
> 
> “This humble wafer will allow solar to be as cheap as coal and will drastically change the way we consume energy,” says Frank van Mierlo, CEO of 1366 Technologies, the company behind the new method of wafer fabrication....
> 
> 
> 
> 
> _Read on!_
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Solar is about ready to destroy coal!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> This is good news, hopefully the house of the future will be a house with solar panels on the top.
Click to expand...

It would be region specific, what's still lacking is an efficient, cheap storage system for the collected energy to be used when the there is no sun.
One still has to consider ROI, in the southwest one's ROI would most likely be realized in 6 months, in the northwest 10 years.......


----------



## MisterBeale

flacaltenn said:


> Old Rocks said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> flacaltenn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Old Rocks said:
> 
> 
> 
> There is another revolution in energy and it's distribution starting this year. That is grid scale batteries. And China is already making major investments and purchases, some from the US, in this technology.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sure thing there ORocks. We've done the China "grid scale" miracle before. But of course, you've forgotten the picture of the football stadium size installation of toxic waste that costs $500M and only serves to store energy for 6,000 homes for about 4 hours.. You've a scam artist who cant' accept reality because it would destroy your sales pitch..
> 
> As far as this thread goes. Does "cheaper" include the cost of the PRINCIPAL power station that provides energy all night and during bad weather -- but sits idle with the employees eating donuts when the sun is out? What group of morons is gonna fund the development of REAL power stations when the govt requires you to shut down randomly and at their whim to take a bit of solar electricity?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> LOL. At the rate the solar installations are going in, there generation will be far more than a bit. And when you can store that power, then why pollute the ground, water, and air by using coal when solar is both cleaner and cheaper.
> 
> Before you say nukes, you get about 800 mW of energy in the form of electricity, and throw away about 2000 mW in the form of waste heat. Entropy strikes again. Where the wind and solar do not generate waste heat that you end up putting into the air or water.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Not impressed by thermal efficiencies of nuke plants. MUCH more impressed that you can power a home for a year on 0.7 ounce of waste.
> 
> You cannot store enough solar power to make it a 24/7/365 *alternative* without SEVERE cost and enviro pollution problems. It's not an alternative -- it's an opportunistic "daytime peaker" technology that MIGHT reduce the required peak generation requirement during the day by about 15 to 20% at best.. That's PEAK -- not average daytime load.
> 
> You didn't answer my question about whether solar being cheaper includes the waste cost of idling MAIN power plants during peak solar hours? Can you say Homer Simpson sitting on his ass eating donuts and still getting paid?
Click to expand...


This reminds me of the class lecture.

The teacher is lecturing and asks the class the very simple and straight forward question, "And of course class, as you know, the biggest drawback with solar power, is it requires one big thing to work. . . Anyone?"  "Yes, you in the back?"

Picking on a student in the back. . . .

"Giant government subsidies."



Because, as we all know, if coal wasn't so heavily taxed and regulated, and if solar wasn't so heavily subsidized and encouraged with grants and payoffs, there is no way solar would ever, in a hundred years, be competitive with coal on an open and free market.


----------



## frigidweirdo

Ringel05 said:


> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Matthew said:
> 
> 
> 
> *Solar power will soon be as cheap as coal*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Inside a sprawling single-story office building in Bedford, Massachusetts, in a secret room known as the Growth Hall, the future of solar power is cooking at more than 2,500 °F. Behind closed doors and downturned blinds, custom-built ovens with ambitious names like “Fearless” and “Intrepid” are helping to perfect a new technique of making silicon wafers, the workhorse of today’s solar panels. If all goes well, the new method could cut the cost of solar power by more than 20% in the next few years.
> 
> “This humble wafer will allow solar to be as cheap as coal and will drastically change the way we consume energy,” says Frank van Mierlo, CEO of 1366 Technologies, the company behind the new method of wafer fabrication....
> 
> 
> 
> 
> _Read on!_
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Solar is about ready to destroy coal!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> This is good news, hopefully the house of the future will be a house with solar panels on the top.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It would be region specific, what's still lacking is an efficient, cheap storage system for the collected energy to be used when the there is no sun.
> One still has to consider ROI, in the southwest one's ROI would most likely be realized in 6 months, in the northwest 10 years.......
Click to expand...


Of course. I live in a very low sun place, cloudy most of the time, like now. 

I think there is a system for storing the energy. I know it's be hard to find right now, but it was in the news a few months ago. I think this will take off within the next 20 years or so.


----------



## frigidweirdo

MisterBeale said:


> This reminds me of the class lecture.
> 
> The teacher is lecturing and asks the class the very simple and straight forward question, "And of course class, as you know, the biggest drawback with solar power, is it requires one big thing to work. . . Anyone?"  "Yes, you in the back?"
> 
> Picking on a student in the back. . . .
> 
> "Giant government subsidies."
> 
> 
> 
> Because, as we all know, if coal wasn't so heavily taxed and regulated, and if solar wasn't so heavily subsidized and encouraged with grants and payoffs, there is no way solar would ever, in a hundred years, be competitive with coal on an open and free market.



The point with subsidies is that you're looking to the future. 

People demand that stuff works before people spend money on it. But it won't work unless people spend money on it. 

Often the govt is the one that does risky research, that may or may not work, then business, like Pharma companies, will then cherry pick what works and then sell it for a massive fortune claiming that capitalism did all the hard work and the govt is useless.

Funny huh?

Without the govt solar would not take off. However with the govt it MIGHT take off in a way that makes it cheaper than other forms of fuel and is better for the planet, our health and so on. 

So, instead of spending billions on healthcare in the future, we're spending it on stuff now.


----------



## bripat9643

Ringel05 said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ringel05 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ringel05 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> You're talking about a perpetual motion machine.  They violate the laws of thermodynamics, which means they are impossible.
> 
> 
> 
> No it's not a perpetual motion machine as I think you're envisioning it.  They already exist, they're just large and expensive or relatively cheap and based on water flow from a river or stream (for individual usage).  It's an enclosed system (self feeding) water turbine that I'm talking about.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> How many home owners have flowing water on their property?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Did you miss "enclosed, self feeding"?  They do exist but they are the size of a small shed and cost around 20K just for the unit.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> "Self feeding?"  Where does the water come from?  I thought you said you weren't talking about a perpetual motion machine.  If you don't have flowing water on your property, you have no source of power.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Think!!  It would be a reservoir tank at a specific height with two pumps, one to return the water up to the tank and one to high pressure pump the water at the Pelton Wheel generating enough power to run an entire household and the pump itself.
> Matter of fact if you have enough drop you wouldn't need the high pressure pump, just keep reducing the feed line size till it gets down to a needle jet.  Have 2 or three units side by side to increase energy production.
Click to expand...


You just described a perpetual motion machine.


----------



## bripat9643

frigidweirdo said:


> MisterBeale said:
> 
> 
> 
> This reminds me of the class lecture.
> 
> The teacher is lecturing and asks the class the very simple and straight forward question, "And of course class, as you know, the biggest drawback with solar power, is it requires one big thing to work. . . Anyone?"  "Yes, you in the back?"
> 
> Picking on a student in the back. . . .
> 
> "Giant government subsidies."
> 
> 
> 
> Because, as we all know, if coal wasn't so heavily taxed and regulated, and if solar wasn't so heavily subsidized and encouraged with grants and payoffs, there is no way solar would ever, in a hundred years, be competitive with coal on an open and free market.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The point with subsidies is that you're looking to the future.
> 
> People demand that stuff works before people spend money on it. But it won't work unless people spend money on it.
> 
> Often the govt is the one that does risky research, that may or may not work, then business, like Pharma companies, will then cherry pick what works and then sell it for a massive fortune claiming that capitalism did all the hard work and the govt is useless.
> 
> Funny huh?
> 
> Without the govt solar would not take off. However with the govt it MIGHT take off in a way that makes it cheaper than other forms of fuel and is better for the planet, our health and so on.
> 
> So, instead of spending billions on healthcare in the future, we're spending it on stuff now.
Click to expand...


According to your theory, nothing ever got invented before the government subsidized it.    For some reason, things didn't work out that way.


----------



## Ringel05

bripat9643 said:


> Ringel05 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ringel05 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ringel05 said:
> 
> 
> 
> No it's not a perpetual motion machine as I think you're envisioning it.  They already exist, they're just large and expensive or relatively cheap and based on water flow from a river or stream (for individual usage).  It's an enclosed system (self feeding) water turbine that I'm talking about.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> How many home owners have flowing water on their property?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Did you miss "enclosed, self feeding"?  They do exist but they are the size of a small shed and cost around 20K just for the unit.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> "Self feeding?"  Where does the water come from?  I thought you said you weren't talking about a perpetual motion machine.  If you don't have flowing water on your property, you have no source of power.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Think!!  It would be a reservoir tank at a specific height with two pumps, one to return the water up to the tank and one to high pressure pump the water at the Pelton Wheel generating enough power to run an entire household and the pump itself.
> Matter of fact if you have enough drop you wouldn't need the high pressure pump, just keep reducing the feed line size till it gets down to a needle jet.  Have 2 or three units side by side to increase energy production.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You just described a perpetual motion machine.
Click to expand...

Not what a perpetual motion machine was described to me but that was many decades ago.
So, what about my idea would not work (I'm not an engineer or a physicist).


----------



## bripat9643

Ringel05 said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ringel05 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ringel05 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> How many home owners have flowing water on their property?
> 
> 
> 
> Did you miss "enclosed, self feeding"?  They do exist but they are the size of a small shed and cost around 20K just for the unit.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> "Self feeding?"  Where does the water come from?  I thought you said you weren't talking about a perpetual motion machine.  If you don't have flowing water on your property, you have no source of power.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Think!!  It would be a reservoir tank at a specific height with two pumps, one to return the water up to the tank and one to high pressure pump the water at the Pelton Wheel generating enough power to run an entire household and the pump itself.
> Matter of fact if you have enough drop you wouldn't need the high pressure pump, just keep reducing the feed line size till it gets down to a needle jet.  Have 2 or three units side by side to increase energy production.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You just described a perpetual motion machine.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Not what a perpetual motion machine was described to me but that was many decades ago.
> So, what about my idea would not work (I'm not an engineer or a physicist).
Click to expand...


Where does the power to run it come from?


----------



## Ringel05

bripat9643 said:


> Ringel05 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ringel05 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ringel05 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Did you miss "enclosed, self feeding"?  They do exist but they are the size of a small shed and cost around 20K just for the unit.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> "Self feeding?"  Where does the water come from?  I thought you said you weren't talking about a perpetual motion machine.  If you don't have flowing water on your property, you have no source of power.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Think!!  It would be a reservoir tank at a specific height with two pumps, one to return the water up to the tank and one to high pressure pump the water at the Pelton Wheel generating enough power to run an entire household and the pump itself.
> Matter of fact if you have enough drop you wouldn't need the high pressure pump, just keep reducing the feed line size till it gets down to a needle jet.  Have 2 or three units side by side to increase energy production.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You just described a perpetual motion machine.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Not what a perpetual motion machine was described to me but that was many decades ago.
> So, what about my idea would not work (I'm not an engineer or a physicist).
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Where does the power to run it come from?
Click to expand...

No it's not a perpetual motion machine based on one difference, the energy is created from the flow of water through impellers like in a dam but in this instance instead of allowing the water to escape downstream it's "pumped" back to the reservoir and to continue the flow.  The energy created is theoretically enough to not only run the pump(s) but to also run a typical sized house. 
A perpetual motion machine does not create it's own energy (or not enough to make it viable, any stored energy in it quickly runs out), that's the difference.


----------



## Weatherman2020

Matthew said:


> *Solar power will soon be as cheap as coal*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Inside a sprawling single-story office building in Bedford, Massachusetts, in a secret room known as the Growth Hall, the future of solar power is cooking at more than 2,500 °F. Behind closed doors and downturned blinds, custom-built ovens with ambitious names like “Fearless” and “Intrepid” are helping to perfect a new technique of making silicon wafers, the workhorse of today’s solar panels. If all goes well, the new method could cut the cost of solar power by more than 20% in the next few years.
> 
> “This humble wafer will allow solar to be as cheap as coal and will drastically change the way we consume energy,” says Frank van Mierlo, CEO of 1366 Technologies, the company behind the new method of wafer fabrication....
> 
> 
> 
> 
> _Read on!_
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Solar is about ready to destroy coal!
Click to expand...

Here in Leftard California Democrats are crushing solar into nonexistance. Next year net metering ends and they have already killed all financial incentives.  Democrats are currently working on a bill to charge people using solar because "they aren't paying their fair share".


----------



## flacaltenn

Ringel05 said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ringel05 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ringel05 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> flacaltenn said:
> 
> 
> 
> You've had 50 years and BILLIONS and the technology is SO MATURE that companies are competing solely on price now. We are WAAAAY past the wax cylinder stage as JimSouth puts it..
> 
> I know you've worked in steel.. Ask the Electrical staff how long wind would power the plant.. Was that on Tuesday or Wednesday that wind in Oregon could power a steel mill.. And -- would it make it into the 2nd shift on the same day?
> 
> 
> 
> Interesting......  Soooo, you have stock in coal, got it.......  Hell why else would you be arguing so vehemently against renewables?
> Half of what I'm reading you say is from years or decades ago (technology related), how long did it take this:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> To become this;
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> They're discussing progress in the renewable field and you seem to be going off the deep end.....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It's truly pathetic how the eco-nutburgers fail to understand the fundamental qualitative difference between computer technology, which involves flipping a few bits around, and energy production, which is constrained by the laws of thermodynamics.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Missing the point?  Looks like it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, you are missing the point.  No physical barriers prevent comuting power from increasing by orders of magnitude.  The laws of thermodynamics prevent wind and solar power from increasing by orders of magnitude.  At most you are going to squeeze a few more percent out of them.  Then you have the problem that neither one of them are reliable.  Can you depend on either to keep your house warm on a still day in the dead of winter?  No?  All it takes is a couple of days without power and you are frozen dead.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Based on what we know and today's technology I agree with you.  What is missing is viable "storage capacity".
> Heck when it comes to low cost cooling I learned a hard lesson this summer down here in the desert.  Swamp coolers are great till it gets over 100 degrees, they only drop temps ten degrees on average.......  That's when window units come into play.......
Click to expand...



Storage systems are the key to using wind/solar. If you look back at those windmills that every farm used to have, they were not generating electricity, they were pumping water mechanically. A job that you don't really care if it's active all the time -- as long as it gets done.. 

So --- the BEST uses for wind/solar are pretty much the same. Don't try to shoehorn onto the general grid but find applications where the WORK ITSELF is the storage mechanism.. 

Plenty of choices there. Water desalinization, ethanol and other bio-fuel production, Hydrogen fuel production, water storage systems, pre-heaters for boilers, etc..


----------



## flacaltenn

Weatherman2020 said:


> Matthew said:
> 
> 
> 
> *Solar power will soon be as cheap as coal*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Inside a sprawling single-story office building in Bedford, Massachusetts, in a secret room known as the Growth Hall, the future of solar power is cooking at more than 2,500 °F. Behind closed doors and downturned blinds, custom-built ovens with ambitious names like “Fearless” and “Intrepid” are helping to perfect a new technique of making silicon wafers, the workhorse of today’s solar panels. If all goes well, the new method could cut the cost of solar power by more than 20% in the next few years.
> 
> “This humble wafer will allow solar to be as cheap as coal and will drastically change the way we consume energy,” says Frank van Mierlo, CEO of 1366 Technologies, the company behind the new method of wafer fabrication....
> 
> 
> 
> 
> _Read on!_
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Solar is about ready to destroy coal!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Here in Leftard California Democrats are crushing solar into nonexistance. Next year net metering ends and they have already killed all financial incentives.  Democrats are currently working on a bill to charge people using solar because "they aren't paying their fair share".
Click to expand...


The energy folks were telling them for years that you needed to pay for idling other power sources and managing the Grid.  Leftists didn't understand the economics of excusing folks from all those other REAL costs of operation. As usual -- Cali gets smart way too late in the game.


----------



## flacaltenn

Ringel05 said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ringel05 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ringel05 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> How many home owners have flowing water on their property?
> 
> 
> 
> Did you miss "enclosed, self feeding"?  They do exist but they are the size of a small shed and cost around 20K just for the unit.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> "Self feeding?"  Where does the water come from?  I thought you said you weren't talking about a perpetual motion machine.  If you don't have flowing water on your property, you have no source of power.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Think!!  It would be a reservoir tank at a specific height with two pumps, one to return the water up to the tank and one to high pressure pump the water at the Pelton Wheel generating enough power to run an entire household and the pump itself.
> Matter of fact if you have enough drop you wouldn't need the high pressure pump, just keep reducing the feed line size till it gets down to a needle jet.  Have 2 or three units side by side to increase energy production.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You just described a perpetual motion machine.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Not what a perpetual motion machine was described to me but that was many decades ago.
> So, what about my idea would not work (I'm not an engineer or a physicist).
Click to expand...


There ARE systems like you describe. They are flywheel type energy storage units. There were some concepts about using them in cars to recover braking energy before the electric car boom. They have short storage periods. Matter of hours. Not the 16 hours for solar. Or the everyotherday of wind.. 

Germany experiented with pumped hydro --- A LOT. Tore up pristine mountain sides to run pipes and wires and create storage pools.. The losses in a system like that are HUGE. And would only pay if you had EXCESS to store. In the case of wind -- 1/2 the days -- nothing happens. And the days of "excess" are about 20 or 30 a year..


----------



## 30 year chrysler mechanic

spectro lab a boeing company  build the 3 wavelength panel 38% efficiency. may be obsolete  if  black light power's (sun cell )
is  all  its  promised. a  lot  of  money  poured  into blp last year  by  some  of  america's  richest  men.


----------



## Old Rocks

bripat9643 said:


> Old Rocks said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kiwiman127 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Some people just love that fossil fuel and therefore hate alternative energy, because they are simply folks that let others think for them.
> They hate green, gray is their favorite color.View attachment 42774
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Show us a picture of an American or European city with smog that bad.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *Silly little boy, obviously you have not been alive very long. There were a bunch of American cities with extremely unhealthy air when I was a young man. *
> 
> 
> A Darkness in Donora | History | Smithsonian
> 
> 
> "It was so bad," Jerry Campa, a Donora, Pennsylvania, restaurateur recalls, "that I'd accidentally step off the curb and turn my ankle because I couldn't see my feet." The acrid, yellowish gray blanket that began to smother the Monongahela River mill town in late October 1948 was more suffocating than anything any Donoran had ever seen—or inhaled—in the past. Before a rainstorm washed the ugly soup away five days later, 20 people had died or would soon succumb and nearly 6,000 of the 14,000 population had been sickened.
> 
> 
> "Before Donora," declares Marcia Spink, associate director for air programs for the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency's Region III office in Philadelphia, "people thought of smog as a nuisance. It made your shirts dirty. The Donora tragedy was a wake-up call. People realized smog could kill."
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Read more: History, Travel, Arts, Science, People, Places | Smithsonian
> Give the gift of Smithsonian magazine for only $12! Give the gift of Smithsonian
> Follow us: @SmithsonianMag on Twitter
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> In other words, 50 years ago we had a smog problem.  Now you can't photograph detectable smog in any large city in America.  Which shows your concerns about smog are entirely bogus.  The pollution problem has been almost entirely solved.  This country is clean enough.  Further reductions in pollutants only serve to drive up the price of energy, which is the one and only reason Obama is pursuing them.  Only the gullible is fooled by all his blather about pollution.
Click to expand...

BriPat, sometimes you are totally a stupid ass. Drove by the Valmy coal fired generators in Nevada a month ago. The air was yellow with the pollution from that plant. Yes, the air was cleaned up in our cities. We move the generation plants away from the cities, we developed a program of sellable pollution credits. And we cleaned up our autos to the point that it takes over 80 of them to put out the pollution that one used to put out. All over the objections of people like you.


----------



## Old Rocks

30 year chrysler mechanic said:


> spectro lab a boeing company  build the 3 wavelength panel 38% efficiency. may be obsolete  if  black light power's (sun cell )
> is  all  its  promised. a  lot  of  money  poured  into blp last year  by  some  of  america's  richest  men.


Please link to that kind of information for the rest of us.


----------



## bripat9643

Old Rocks said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Old Rocks said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kiwiman127 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Some people just love that fossil fuel and therefore hate alternative energy, because they are simply folks that let others think for them.
> They hate green, gray is their favorite color.View attachment 42774
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Show us a picture of an American or European city with smog that bad.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *Silly little boy, obviously you have not been alive very long. There were a bunch of American cities with extremely unhealthy air when I was a young man. *
> 
> 
> A Darkness in Donora | History | Smithsonian
> 
> 
> "It was so bad," Jerry Campa, a Donora, Pennsylvania, restaurateur recalls, "that I'd accidentally step off the curb and turn my ankle because I couldn't see my feet." The acrid, yellowish gray blanket that began to smother the Monongahela River mill town in late October 1948 was more suffocating than anything any Donoran had ever seen—or inhaled—in the past. Before a rainstorm washed the ugly soup away five days later, 20 people had died or would soon succumb and nearly 6,000 of the 14,000 population had been sickened.
> 
> 
> "Before Donora," declares Marcia Spink, associate director for air programs for the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency's Region III office in Philadelphia, "people thought of smog as a nuisance. It made your shirts dirty. The Donora tragedy was a wake-up call. People realized smog could kill."
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Read more: History, Travel, Arts, Science, People, Places | Smithsonian
> Give the gift of Smithsonian magazine for only $12! Give the gift of Smithsonian
> Follow us: @SmithsonianMag on Twitter
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> In other words, 50 years ago we had a smog problem.  Now you can't photograph detectable smog in any large city in America.  Which shows your concerns about smog are entirely bogus.  The pollution problem has been almost entirely solved.  This country is clean enough.  Further reductions in pollutants only serve to drive up the price of energy, which is the one and only reason Obama is pursuing them.  Only the gullible is fooled by all his blather about pollution.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> BriPat, sometimes you are totally a stupid ass. Drove by the Valmy coal fired generators in Nevada a month ago. The air was yellow with the pollution from that plant. Yes, the air was cleaned up in our cities. We move the generation plants away from the cities, we developed a program of sellable pollution credits. And we cleaned up our autos to the point that it takes over 80 of them to put out the pollution that one used to put out. All over the objections of people like you.
Click to expand...


You're a god damned liar.  I have a huge coal fired power plant not more than 5 miles from my house.  The air is as clear as a spring day in the Rocky Mountains.  Pollution credits may work for substances that are easy to remove. The amount of CO2, on the other hand, is inextricably related to the amount of energy produced.  Reduce the CO2, and you reduce the energy produced.

On the one hand you claimed air pollution is a big problem, and on the other you claimed it has been almost entirely cleaned up.

Idiots like you, who know nothing about physics or science or economics, are destroying this country.

AGW is a huge swindle pushed by government minions to expand their power and wealth at the expense of the rest of the population.


----------



## Billy_Bob

The lies purported in this thread about wind being even close to Coal and other fossil fuels is stunning.  Remove the "redistribution" of the left and you find out that coal is 1/100 the cost of all other renewables except hydroelectric power.

The size and amount of the lies are stunning and the people who refuse to look for themselves is even worse.


----------



## Old Rocks

bripat9643 said:


> Old Rocks said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Old Rocks said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kiwiman127 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Some people just love that fossil fuel and therefore hate alternative energy, because they are simply folks that let others think for them.
> They hate green, gray is their favorite color.View attachment 42774
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Show us a picture of an American or European city with smog that bad.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *Silly little boy, obviously you have not been alive very long. There were a bunch of American cities with extremely unhealthy air when I was a young man. *
> 
> 
> A Darkness in Donora | History | Smithsonian
> 
> 
> "It was so bad," Jerry Campa, a Donora, Pennsylvania, restaurateur recalls, "that I'd accidentally step off the curb and turn my ankle because I couldn't see my feet." The acrid, yellowish gray blanket that began to smother the Monongahela River mill town in late October 1948 was more suffocating than anything any Donoran had ever seen—or inhaled—in the past. Before a rainstorm washed the ugly soup away five days later, 20 people had died or would soon succumb and nearly 6,000 of the 14,000 population had been sickened.
> 
> 
> "Before Donora," declares Marcia Spink, associate director for air programs for the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency's Region III office in Philadelphia, "people thought of smog as a nuisance. It made your shirts dirty. The Donora tragedy was a wake-up call. People realized smog could kill."
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Read more: History, Travel, Arts, Science, People, Places | Smithsonian
> Give the gift of Smithsonian magazine for only $12! Give the gift of Smithsonian
> Follow us: @SmithsonianMag on Twitter
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> In other words, 50 years ago we had a smog problem.  Now you can't photograph detectable smog in any large city in America.  Which shows your concerns about smog are entirely bogus.  The pollution problem has been almost entirely solved.  This country is clean enough.  Further reductions in pollutants only serve to drive up the price of energy, which is the one and only reason Obama is pursuing them.  Only the gullible is fooled by all his blather about pollution.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> BriPat, sometimes you are totally a stupid ass. Drove by the Valmy coal fired generators in Nevada a month ago. The air was yellow with the pollution from that plant. Yes, the air was cleaned up in our cities. We move the generation plants away from the cities, we developed a program of sellable pollution credits. And we cleaned up our autos to the point that it takes over 80 of them to put out the pollution that one used to put out. All over the objections of people like you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You're a god damned liar.  I have a huge coal fired power plant not more than 5 miles from my house.  The air is as clear as a spring day in the Rocky Mountains.  Pollution credits may work for substances that are easy to remove. The amount of CO2, on the other hand, is inextricably related to the amount of energy produced.  Reduce the CO2, and you reduce the energy produced.
> 
> On the one hand you claimed air pollution is a big problem, and on the other you claimed it has been almost entirely cleaned up.
> 
> Idiots like you, who know nothing about physics or science or economics, are destroying this country.
> 
> AGW is a huge swindle pushed by government minions to expand their power and wealth at the expense of the rest of the population.
Click to expand...

There are many older plants that are still very dirty. Apparently Valmy is one of them. The only coal fired plant in Oregon at Boardman is also a dirty plant. That will be shut down shortly. The plants on the Navajo Reservation are also dirty plants.

$168 Million Settlement Between Navajo Coal Plant and Environmental Protection Agency

*copy68 Million Settlement Between Navajo Coal Plant and Environmental Protection Agency*
Anne Minard
6/25/15
The Environmental Protection Agency has announced a copy68 million settlement to help remedy pollution from a coal-fired power plant on the Navajo Nation.

The settlement requires owners of the Four Corners Power Plant near Shiprock, New Mexico, to pay an estimated copy60 million in upgrades to the plant’s sulfur dioxide and nitrogen oxide pollution controls. The settlement also sets aside $6.7 million for health and environmental mitigation projects for tribal members and levies a copy.5 million civil penalty. The Four Corners Power Plant settlement is subject to a30-day public commentperiod and final court approval. 


Read more athttp://indiancountrytodaymedianetwo...oal-plant-and-environmental-protection-agency


----------



## Old Rocks

http://environmentamericacenter.org/sites/environment/files/reports/Dirty Power Plants.pdf

The dirtiest U.S. power plants are major sources of global warming pollution on a global scale. • If the 50 most-polluting U.S. power plants were an independent nation, they would be the seventh-largest emitter of carbon dioxide in the world, behind Germany and ahead of South Korea. (See Figure ES-2.) These power plants emitted carbon dioxide pollution equivalent to more than half the emissions of all passenger vehicles in the United States in 2010.

Retiring Dirty and Costly Coal Plants

Coal-fired power plants are the biggest contributors to toxic air and water pollution and the single biggest source of greenhouse gases in the United States—they’re harming us, and our climate. When the Clean Air Act was passed decades ago, coal plants received special treatment that effectively exempted them from controlling their pollution and safely disposing of their waste, a gift that has allowed them to keep operating and profiting at the expense of Americans around the country who are getting sick and dying prematurely from exposure to coal plant pollution.

Coal-fired power plants release nearly 400,000 tons of hazardous air pollutants every year, including more than 40 percent of all man-made mercury emissions in the U.S. They also contribute more than 25% of all carbon dioxide emissions in the United States.

*There are many dirty coal fired plants still operating in the US.*


----------



## 30 year chrysler mechanic

to ringe105   your  hydropower  storage  system / overunity sounds  like negative reservoir / cassion power tower. negative reservoir using solar or wind or wave action or ocean thermal energy to keep water pumped out of circular dam in ocean.  cassion power tower places an open compressed  air  accumulator in base of dam . It  is  possible  that a percentage  of  energy genrated by  water on way down can energize the accumulator to expell  the  water. 2 psi or adding 100 degrees  of heat to air trapped  in  accumulator  is  enough to flow  water  out.  concidered  too  expensive to  build . estimated 100  billion


----------



## bripat9643

Old Rocks said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Old Rocks said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Old Rocks said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Show us a picture of an American or European city with smog that bad.
> 
> 
> 
> *Silly little boy, obviously you have not been alive very long. There were a bunch of American cities with extremely unhealthy air when I was a young man. *
> 
> 
> A Darkness in Donora | History | Smithsonian
> 
> 
> "It was so bad," Jerry Campa, a Donora, Pennsylvania, restaurateur recalls, "that I'd accidentally step off the curb and turn my ankle because I couldn't see my feet." The acrid, yellowish gray blanket that began to smother the Monongahela River mill town in late October 1948 was more suffocating than anything any Donoran had ever seen—or inhaled—in the past. Before a rainstorm washed the ugly soup away five days later, 20 people had died or would soon succumb and nearly 6,000 of the 14,000 population had been sickened.
> 
> 
> "Before Donora," declares Marcia Spink, associate director for air programs for the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency's Region III office in Philadelphia, "people thought of smog as a nuisance. It made your shirts dirty. The Donora tragedy was a wake-up call. People realized smog could kill."
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Read more: History, Travel, Arts, Science, People, Places | Smithsonian
> Give the gift of Smithsonian magazine for only $12! Give the gift of Smithsonian
> Follow us: @SmithsonianMag on Twitter
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> In other words, 50 years ago we had a smog problem.  Now you can't photograph detectable smog in any large city in America.  Which shows your concerns about smog are entirely bogus.  The pollution problem has been almost entirely solved.  This country is clean enough.  Further reductions in pollutants only serve to drive up the price of energy, which is the one and only reason Obama is pursuing them.  Only the gullible is fooled by all his blather about pollution.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> BriPat, sometimes you are totally a stupid ass. Drove by the Valmy coal fired generators in Nevada a month ago. The air was yellow with the pollution from that plant. Yes, the air was cleaned up in our cities. We move the generation plants away from the cities, we developed a program of sellable pollution credits. And we cleaned up our autos to the point that it takes over 80 of them to put out the pollution that one used to put out. All over the objections of people like you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You're a god damned liar.  I have a huge coal fired power plant not more than 5 miles from my house.  The air is as clear as a spring day in the Rocky Mountains.  Pollution credits may work for substances that are easy to remove. The amount of CO2, on the other hand, is inextricably related to the amount of energy produced.  Reduce the CO2, and you reduce the energy produced.
> 
> On the one hand you claimed air pollution is a big problem, and on the other you claimed it has been almost entirely cleaned up.
> 
> Idiots like you, who know nothing about physics or science or economics, are destroying this country.
> 
> AGW is a huge swindle pushed by government minions to expand their power and wealth at the expense of the rest of the population.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> There are many older plants that are still very dirty. Apparently Valmy is one of them. The only coal fired plant in Oregon at Boardman is also a dirty plant. That will be shut down shortly. The plants on the Navajo Reservation are also dirty plants.
> 
> $168 Million Settlement Between Navajo Coal Plant and Environmental Protection Agency
> 
> *copy68 Million Settlement Between Navajo Coal Plant and Environmental Protection Agency*
> Anne Minard
> 6/25/15
> The Environmental Protection Agency has announced a copy68 million settlement to help remedy pollution from a coal-fired power plant on the Navajo Nation.
> 
> The settlement requires owners of the Four Corners Power Plant near Shiprock, New Mexico, to pay an estimated copy60 million in upgrades to the plant’s sulfur dioxide and nitrogen oxide pollution controls. The settlement also sets aside $6.7 million for health and environmental mitigation projects for tribal members and levies a copy.5 million civil penalty. The Four Corners Power Plant settlement is subject to a30-day public commentperiod and final court approval.
> 
> 
> Read more at$168 Million Settlement Between Navajo Coal Plant and Environmental Protection Agency
Click to expand...


Your a buffoon.  

Navajo Power Plant Proposes Closing Unit Due to EPA Edict

The owner of the plant is going to close it rather than comply with new EPA regulations designed specifically to force coal plants to shut down.  Half of the coal plants in the country are going to be shut down because of these new regulations.  It has nothing to do with the plant being "dirty."  It has to meet EPA mandates to operate.  The same goes for the plant in Oregon.

Try telling the whole truth once in a while.


----------



## bripat9643

Old Rocks said:


> http://environmentamericacenter.org/sites/environment/files/reports/Dirty Power Plants.pdf
> 
> The dirtiest U.S. power plants are major sources of global warming pollution on a global scale. • If the 50 most-polluting U.S. power plants were an independent nation, they would be the seventh-largest emitter of carbon dioxide in the world, behind Germany and ahead of South Korea. (See Figure ES-2.) These power plants emitted carbon dioxide pollution equivalent to more than half the emissions of all passenger vehicles in the United States in 2010.
> 
> Retiring Dirty and Costly Coal Plants
> 
> Coal-fired power plants are the biggest contributors to toxic air and water pollution and the single biggest source of greenhouse gases in the United States—they’re harming us, and our climate. When the Clean Air Act was passed decades ago, coal plants received special treatment that effectively exempted them from controlling their pollution and safely disposing of their waste, a gift that has allowed them to keep operating and profiting at the expense of Americans around the country who are getting sick and dying prematurely from exposure to coal plant pollution.
> 
> Coal-fired power plants release nearly 400,000 tons of hazardous air pollutants every year, including more than 40 percent of all man-made mercury emissions in the U.S. They also contribute more than 25% of all carbon dioxide emissions in the United States.
> 
> *There are many dirty coal fired plants still operating in the US.*




CO2 isn't a pollutant, numskull, and power plants emit a small fraction of the pollutants that automobiles emit.  Most of what you call "hazardous waste" is no more hazardous than the stuff you breath out thousands of times a day.  CO2 is "hazardous" only in the vivid imaginations of eco nutburgers and AGW con artists.

The claim that they recieved an "exemption" is also fantastic bullshit.  The EPA has regulations for each kind of pollution source.  Regulations for cars are not appropriate for coal fire power plants.  Calling the different regulations an "exemption" is a propaganda tactic.


----------



## Weatherman2020

Old Rocks said:


> http://environmentamericacenter.org/sites/environment/files/reports/Dirty Power Plants.pdf
> 
> The dirtiest U.S. power plants are major sources of global warming pollution on a global scale. • If the 50 most-polluting U.S. power plants were an independent nation, they would be the seventh-largest emitter of carbon dioxide in the world, behind Germany and ahead of South Korea. (See Figure ES-2.) These power plants emitted carbon dioxide pollution equivalent to more than half the emissions of all passenger vehicles in the United States in 2010.
> 
> Retiring Dirty and Costly Coal Plants
> 
> Coal-fired power plants are the biggest contributors to toxic air and water pollution and the single biggest source of greenhouse gases in the United States—they’re harming us, and our climate. When the Clean Air Act was passed decades ago, coal plants received special treatment that effectively exempted them from controlling their pollution and safely disposing of their waste, a gift that has allowed them to keep operating and profiting at the expense of Americans around the country who are getting sick and dying prematurely from exposure to coal plant pollution.
> 
> Coal-fired power plants release nearly 400,000 tons of hazardous air pollutants every year, including more than 40 percent of all man-made mercury emissions in the U.S. They also contribute more than 25% of all carbon dioxide emissions in the United States.
> 
> *There are many dirty coal fired plants still operating in the US.*


Interesting your source uses South Korea and Germany to compare carbon dioxide emissions.  29% of Germany and 22% of South Korean electricity is generated by nuclear power.  
So time America saved Mother Gia and followed their example and go nuclear.


----------



## waltky

Granny says, "An when it is as cheap as coal...

... Obama'll ban it."


----------



## 30 year chrysler mechanic

Old Rocks said:


> 30 year chrysler mechanic said:
> 
> 
> 
> spectro lab a boeing company  build the 3 wavelength panel 38% efficiency. may be obsolete  if  black light power's (sun cell )
> is  all  its  promised. a  lot  of  money  poured  into blp last year  by  some  of  america's  richest  men.
> 
> 
> 
> Please link to that kind of information for the rest of us.
Click to expand...

i post names  so  you can look it  up. if  i  were  as  skilled as you all with  computers  i  would  have  my  own  web  site. i have  been  kicked  off sites  for  just  listing  the  names  of  fuel  efficient  engines and synthetic fuels.


----------



## 30 year chrysler mechanic

new  technology  being  buried  fast.  graphine cable geothermal . a no moving part heat pump to pull deep geologic heat to surface where traditional steam or organic rankin turbines can produce electricity. can  also  be  used with johnson thermoelectric convertor for a  complete no moving parts power system.


----------



## 30 year chrysler mechanic

30 year chrysler mechanic said:


> Old Rocks said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 30 year chrysler mechanic said:
> 
> 
> 
> spectro lab a boeing company  build the 3 wavelength panel 38% efficiency. may be obsolete  if  black light power's (sun cell )
> is  all  its  promised. a  lot  of  money  poured  into blp last year  by  some  of  america's  richest  men.
> 
> 
> 
> Please link to that kind of information for the rest of us.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> i post names  so  you can look it  up. if  i  were  as  skilled as you all with  computers  i  would  have  my  own  web  site. i have  been  kicked  off sites  for  just  listing  the  names  of  fuel  efficient  engines and synthetic fuels.
Click to expand...

www.gizmag.com/spectrolab-cell-efficiency-world-record/29845/


----------



## 30 year chrysler mechanic

30 year chrysler mechanic said:


> 30 year chrysler mechanic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Old Rocks said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 30 year chrysler mechanic said:
> 
> 
> 
> spectro lab a boeing company  build the 3 wavelength panel 38% efficiency. may be obsolete  if  black light power's (sun cell )
> is  all  its  promised. a  lot  of  money  poured  into blp last year  by  some  of  america's  richest  men.
> 
> 
> 
> Please link to that kind of information for the rest of us.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> i post names  so  you can look it  up. if  i  were  as  skilled as you all with  computers  i  would  have  my  own  web  site. i have  been  kicked  off sites  for  just  listing  the  names  of  fuel  efficient  engines and synthetic fuels.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> www.gizmag.com/spectrolab-cell-efficiency-world-record/29845/
Click to expand...

solar systems  austrailia  deployed spectrolab solar concentrator dish systems= ceased operation in july 2015
why  did it  fail??? efficency 35% www.defenseindustrydaily.com/boeing-solar-subsidiary-wins-australian-contract-02544/


----------



## 30 year chrysler mechanic

Matthew said:


> *Solar power will soon be as cheap as coal*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Inside a sprawling single-story office building in Bedford, Massachusetts, in a secret room known as the Growth Hall, the future of solar power is cooking at more than 2,500 °F. Behind closed doors and downturned blinds, custom-built ovens with ambitious names like “Fearless” and “Intrepid” are helping to perfect a new technique of making silicon wafers, the workhorse of today’s solar panels. If all goes well, the new method could cut the cost of solar power by more than 20% in the next few years.
> 
> “This humble wafer will allow solar to be as cheap as coal and will drastically change the way we consume energy,” says Frank van Mierlo, CEO of 1366 Technologies, the company behind the new method of wafer fabrication....
> 
> 
> 
> 
> _Read on!_
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Solar is about ready to destroy coal!
Click to expand...

did  you see  that  there  are  2 full  spectrum  solar panels being   developed. 1  is  high  efficiency 50% -  70% the   other  is  lower  efficiency  but  much  cheaper to produce .  gallium nitrate  and tungston  doping


----------



## Old Rocks

bripat9643 said:


> Old Rocks said:
> 
> 
> 
> Mr. Flacaltenn, perhaps you should look a map of Oregon. Notice that river at the top of the map? And the bodies of water dammed up on that river? You see, when the wind is blowing, we do not have to run as much water through the turbines. And when it is not, we have the water saved up to do that. In that manner, the wind does help power our state, even when the wind is not blowing.
> 
> When the grid is extended into the south of our state, we will have a huge amount of wind, solar, and geothermal. And will not only have enough power for all of Oregon, but will help power California, Idaho, and Nevada.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hmmm, no, the wind does not help to power your state when it isn't blowing.  You have backup hydroelectric.  If you didn't have that, you would have to burn coal or natural gas.
> 
> Your fundamental misunderstanding of how the power system works, which you have just demonstrated, shows that no one should bother paying attention to anything you have to say on the subject.
Click to expand...

Hey bad finger little corksmoker, 195 countries just paid attention to what the scientists have been saying. And Congress passed the money that our President requested to implement our part of that Treaty. LOL, suck it up, loser!


----------



## Desperado

Solar power *will soon* be as cheap as coal
The Problem here is that the song remains the same.
Call me when Solar power *IS AS* cheap as coal


----------



## Old Rocks

Desperado said:


> Solar power *will soon* be as cheap as coal
> The Problem here is that the song remains the same.
> Call me when Solar power *IS AS* cheap as coal


In Texas, Austin Energy signed a deal this spring for 20 years of output from a solar farm at less than 5 cents a kilowatt-hour. In September, the Grand River Dam Authority in Oklahoma announced its approval of a new agreement to buy power from a new wind farm expected to be completed next year. Grand River estimated the deal would save its customers roughly $50 million from the project.

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.

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

*Cheapest Solar Ever: Austin Energy Gets 1.2 Gigawatts of Solar Bids for Less Than 4 Cents*

*Correction: Khalil Shalabi said was that 1,295 megawatts were priced below the Recurrent solar deal from last year, which was under 5 cents per kilowatt-hour not under 4 cents per kilowatt-hour.*

*A lot more cheap solar is coming for Austin, Texas.*

*The city's utility, Austin Energy, just released new data on developer bids for PV projects as part of a 600-megawatt procurement. The numbers show how far solar prices have come down over the last year -- and will continue to drop.*

*According to Khalil Shalabi, Austin Energy's vice president of resource planning, the utility received offers for 7,976 megawatts of projects after issuing a request for bids in April. Out of those bids, 1,295 megawatts of projects were priced below 4 cents per kilowatt-hour.*

*"The technology is getting better and the prices are decreasing with time," said Shalabi during a presentation in front of the Austin city council last week.*

*Shalabi displayed the chart below showing an "exponentially declining curve" for PV projects in Texas.*

If you continue the curve, you can see that if the cost points continue along this sort of exponentially declining curve. We expect to see prices out in the future that are possibly below $20 a megawatt-hour," he said


Cheapest Solar Ever: Austin Energy Gets 1.2 Gigawatts of Solar Bids for Less Than 4 Cents

*Looks like solar is cheaper than either coal or natural gas.*


----------



## bripat9643

30 year chrysler mechanic said:


> Matthew said:
> 
> 
> 
> *Solar power will soon be as cheap as coal*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Inside a sprawling single-story office building in Bedford, Massachusetts, in a secret room known as the Growth Hall, the future of solar power is cooking at more than 2,500 °F. Behind closed doors and downturned blinds, custom-built ovens with ambitious names like “Fearless” and “Intrepid” are helping to perfect a new technique of making silicon wafers, the workhorse of today’s solar panels. If all goes well, the new method could cut the cost of solar power by more than 20% in the next few years.
> 
> “This humble wafer will allow solar to be as cheap as coal and will drastically change the way we consume energy,” says Frank van Mierlo, CEO of 1366 Technologies, the company behind the new method of wafer fabrication....
> 
> 
> 
> 
> _Read on!_
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Solar is about ready to destroy coal!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> did  you see  that  there  are  2 full  spectrum  solar panels being   developed. 1  is  high  efficiency 50% -  70% the   other  is  lower  efficiency  but  much  cheaper to produce .  gallium nitrate  and tungston  doping
Click to expand...


How much power do they produce at midnight?


----------



## bripat9643

Old Rocks said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Old Rocks said:
> 
> 
> 
> Mr. Flacaltenn, perhaps you should look a map of Oregon. Notice that river at the top of the map? And the bodies of water dammed up on that river? You see, when the wind is blowing, we do not have to run as much water through the turbines. And when it is not, we have the water saved up to do that. In that manner, the wind does help power our state, even when the wind is not blowing.
> 
> When the grid is extended into the south of our state, we will have a huge amount of wind, solar, and geothermal. And will not only have enough power for all of Oregon, but will help power California, Idaho, and Nevada.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hmmm, no, the wind does not help to power your state when it isn't blowing.  You have backup hydroelectric.  If you didn't have that, you would have to burn coal or natural gas.
> 
> Your fundamental misunderstanding of how the power system works, which you have just demonstrated, shows that no one should bother paying attention to anything you have to say on the subject.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Hey bad finger little corksmoker, 195 countries just paid attention to what the scientists have been saying. And Congress passed the money that our President requested to implement our part of that Treaty. LOL, suck it up, loser!
Click to expand...


We all lost, dumbfuck.


----------

