Solar power costs 14 times more than a natural gas power plant

[bripat9643]

How does solar produce power when the sun isn't shining? How does wind produce power when the wind isn't blowing? Those issues aren't subject to technical advance. They are insurmountable limits.

There are these amazing things called storage batteries. You should look into them.

How much do you think the solar panels and storage batteries would cost to provide a home with 100% power 24 hours a day?

I know you can buy a travel trailer with built-in solar and batteries if you're serious about going off the grid and not just whining.

When did I ever claim I wanted to go off the grid?

"You," generic.

When I go off the grid I'll buy a natural gas fueled generator.

 

[bripat9643]

Don't forget the cost of mantenence , storage and transference.

Also, hydroelectric dams are highly localized---great idea but we can't build as many as we want. Let alone get the blessings from the nature freaks!

I don't know of anybody advocating for only one source of energy for all purposes, except for fossil fuel advocates. A reasonable plan for energy usage would include a wide range of things. Only an idiot would say this isn't the best time to start developing and using at least the most promising of the possibilities. We will need better sources of energy, but that won't happen if the possibilities are not explored.

You can use any source of energy you want so long as you don't force me to use it, but that's what you AGW cult members want. You want everyone to pay for your boondoggles.

Right. Everybody is really concerned about what kind of energy you, in particular, use. I didn't realize you were so important.

You mean you aren't proposing to make me pay subsidies for Solar and Wind or impose requirements that power companies switch to these sources of power?

The whole AGW scam is designed to control the kind of energy I use. Who are you trying to kid?

Not sure you can afford to, since you're already paying subsidies for petroleum and ethanol, not to mention WalMart.

Ethanol is a leftwing idea. You're the kind responsible for it. We don't pay diddly in subsidies for petroleum, and the oil companies pay hundreds of billions in taxes every year.

The meme that we subsidize WalMart is nothing but a leftwing scam.

 

[Arianrhod]

I don't know of anybody advocating for only one source of energy for all purposes, except for fossil fuel advocates. A reasonable plan for energy usage would include a wide range of things. Only an idiot would say this isn't the best time to start developing and using at least the most promising of the possibilities. We will need better sources of energy, but that won't happen if the possibilities are not explored.

You can use any source of energy you want so long as you don't force me to use it, but that's what you AGW cult members want. You want everyone to pay for your boondoggles.

Right. Everybody is really concerned about what kind of energy you, in particular, use. I didn't realize you were so important.

You mean you aren't proposing to make me pay subsidies for Solar and Wind or impose requirements that power companies switch to these sources of power?

The whole AGW scam is designed to control the kind of energy I use. Who are you trying to kid?

Not sure you can afford to, since you're already paying subsidies for petroleum and ethanol, not to mention WalMart.

Ethanol is a leftwing idea.

It's a farm subsidy idea, and you're paying for it. Don't see you doing anything about it.

 

[bripat9643]

You can use any source of energy you want so long as you don't force me to use it, but that's what you AGW cult members want. You want everyone to pay for your boondoggles.

Right. Everybody is really concerned about what kind of energy you, in particular, use. I didn't realize you were so important.

You mean you aren't proposing to make me pay subsidies for Solar and Wind or impose requirements that power companies switch to these sources of power?

The whole AGW scam is designed to control the kind of energy I use. Who are you trying to kid?

Not sure you can afford to, since you're already paying subsidies for petroleum and ethanol, not to mention WalMart.

Ethanol is a leftwing idea.

It's a farm subsidy idea, and you're paying for it. Don't see you doing anything about it.

It's a leftwing idea to force us to use ethanol. What do you expect me to do about it. In case you haven't noticed, I'm not a member of Congress.

 

[Harry Dresden]

And back in the old days, a "state-of-the-art" digital calculator was the size of a suitcase and cost hundreds of dollars.

If energy production can be improved at the same rate as information technology, then why isn't a gasoline engine 10 million times more efficient than it was 100 years ago?

better question is why are we still using gas engines?....after 100 years you would think we would be using something much better than gas engines.....the first real rotating electric motor that actually developed remarkable mechanical output power was created in 1834....why was this not improved upon in the ensuing 182 years?...

The answer is that you cannot beat fossil fuels for compact storage of energy.

we should be way beyond gas motors....

 

[BULLDOG]

I don't know of anybody advocating for only one source of energy for all purposes, except for fossil fuel advocates. A reasonable plan for energy usage would include a wide range of things. Only an idiot would say this isn't the best time to start developing and using at least the most promising of the possibilities. We will need better sources of energy, but that won't happen if the possibilities are not explored.

You can use any source of energy you want so long as you don't force me to use it, but that's what you AGW cult members want. You want everyone to pay for your boondoggles.

Right. Everybody is really concerned about what kind of energy you, in particular, use. I didn't realize you were so important.

You mean you aren't proposing to make me pay subsidies for Solar and Wind or impose requirements that power companies switch to these sources of power?

The whole AGW scam is designed to control the kind of energy I use. Who are you trying to kid?

Not sure you can afford to, since you're already paying subsidies for petroleum and ethanol, not to mention WalMart.

Ethanol is a leftwing idea. You're the kind responsible for it. We don't pay diddly in subsidies for petroleum, and the oil companies pay hundreds of billions in taxes every year.

The meme that we subsidize WalMart is nothing but a leftwing scam.

No subsidies or special treatment given to oil companies? You are very uninformed, aren't you?

 

[BULLDOG]

Right. Everybody is really concerned about what kind of energy you, in particular, use. I didn't realize you were so important.

You mean you aren't proposing to make me pay subsidies for Solar and Wind or impose requirements that power companies switch to these sources of power?

The whole AGW scam is designed to control the kind of energy I use. Who are you trying to kid?

Not sure you can afford to, since you're already paying subsidies for petroleum and ethanol, not to mention WalMart.

Ethanol is a leftwing idea.

It's a farm subsidy idea, and you're paying for it. Don't see you doing anything about it.

It's a leftwing idea to force us to use ethanol. What do you expect me to do about it. In case you haven't noticed, I'm not a member of Congress.

Poor baby.Everything is a left wing conspiracy to hurt you. How long have you had this Jesus complex?

 

[Arianrhod]

Right. Everybody is really concerned about what kind of energy you, in particular, use. I didn't realize you were so important.

You mean you aren't proposing to make me pay subsidies for Solar and Wind or impose requirements that power companies switch to these sources of power?

The whole AGW scam is designed to control the kind of energy I use. Who are you trying to kid?

Not sure you can afford to, since you're already paying subsidies for petroleum and ethanol, not to mention WalMart.

Ethanol is a leftwing idea.

It's a farm subsidy idea, and you're paying for it. Don't see you doing anything about it.

It's a leftwing idea to force us to use ethanol. What do you expect me to do about it. In case you haven't noticed, I'm not a member of Congress.

You're being forced to use ethanol? Then you're the first person I know who's had that particular gun to his head. Also didn't realize the the Iowa Corn Growers were a "leftwing" organization. I'm going to ask you to prove that.

What do I expect you to do about it? At least give it as much WhineTime as you are solar.

 

[Arianrhod]

You mean you aren't proposing to make me pay subsidies for Solar and Wind or impose requirements that power companies switch to these sources of power?

The whole AGW scam is designed to control the kind of energy I use. Who are you trying to kid?

Not sure you can afford to, since you're already paying subsidies for petroleum and ethanol, not to mention WalMart.

Ethanol is a leftwing idea.

It's a farm subsidy idea, and you're paying for it. Don't see you doing anything about it.

It's a leftwing idea to force us to use ethanol. What do you expect me to do about it. In case you haven't noticed, I'm not a member of Congress.

Poor baby.Everything is a left wing conspiracy to hurt you. How long have you had this Jesus complex?

Ever since someone pointed out that the kid in his avatar is a proponent of the Dutch footie team and not a blond, blue-eyed all-Aryan 'murican and he realized he can't change the avatar because everyone on USMB will know why.

 

[MaryL]

Anyone who thinks solar power will ever compete economically with fossil fuels should read this article. Those who know better should also read it.

A Solar Power Plant vs. A Natural Gas Power Plant: Capital Cost – Apples to Apples

Conclusion

This back-of-the-envelope analysis suggests that a solar (PV) power plant that could deliver that same results as a gas-fired power plant would cost about 14 times the gas-fired option to build. It is worth noting that the solar option cost excludes any subsidies, investment tax credits, etc, that could narrow the range, but it is obvious from this little exercise that until solar technology improves dramatically, there is little chance that it will replace natural gas as the “go-to” option for new power plants.​

You are kidding, right? Solar is free, get solar panels (costs big bucks), stick em' on the roof, powers up you house. And the local power company gives you a credit for the surplus. Must be why low income housing units are covered with solar panels now. Because they look pretty and aren't cost effective.

 

[westwall]

And back in the old days, a digital calculator was the size of a suitcase and cost hundreds of dollars.

Once the efficiency reaches 100%, you can't make a solar panel any smaller for a given power output. You also can't reduce the cost of building storage like the kind envisaged in the article, and that's probably the cheapest form of storage there is. Generators are already at almost 100% efficiency.

Gas powered generators are less than 40% efficient. They might run at near or at times more than 100% of their rated capacity,but that is a totally unrelated measurement.

The heat engine is 40% efficient. The generator is close to 100% efficient. No generator can ever run at more than 100% efficiency.

What I find amazing is the current iteration of Formula 1 race engines have attained 50% thermal efficiency. That's better than any hybrid passenger car out there by a country mile.

Do you have some documentation on that?

I learned in thermodynamics that the maximum thermal efficiency of the internal combustion engine is about 40%.

Here you go. It took them three years to go from 35% to 50% TE. This computed as 45% with the ICE component with the extra 5% coming from the KERS.


Engine Technology International - March 2016

http://forums.autosport.com/topic/2...eves-50-thermal-efficiency-on-2016-f1-engine/

 

[westwall]

Its great for off grid!

This is why conservatives should support it. The technology will get better and cheaper if you do.

Trump can't win. The homo-women and cuckservatives have imported too many mexicans. You have to secede.

The technology will never be cheap enough to replace natural gas.

We don't know that. Currently it is true, but as technology improves it may no longer be true.

 

[Kondor3]

...Cost is of no concern, when we are talking saving the planet.

Of course cost is a concern.

But, the thing is, once you absorb the front-end load, you're done, except for maintenance costs, and it renews, every time the sun comes up.

" It COSTS money because it SAVES money. "

 

[bripat9643]

You mean you aren't proposing to make me pay subsidies for Solar and Wind or impose requirements that power companies switch to these sources of power?

The whole AGW scam is designed to control the kind of energy I use. Who are you trying to kid?

Not sure you can afford to, since you're already paying subsidies for petroleum and ethanol, not to mention WalMart.

Ethanol is a leftwing idea.

It's a farm subsidy idea, and you're paying for it. Don't see you doing anything about it.

It's a leftwing idea to force us to use ethanol. What do you expect me to do about it. In case you haven't noticed, I'm not a member of Congress.

You're being forced to use ethanol? Then you're the first person I know who's had that particular gun to his head. Also didn't realize the the Iowa Corn Growers were a "leftwing" organization. I'm going to ask you to prove that.

What do I expect you to do about it? At least give it as much WhineTime as you are solar.

Let me get this straight: you're seriously telling me that the federal government doesn't force us to use ethanol? Seriously?

The Democrat party is a leftwing organization, and it originally passed the ethanol mandate.

 

[bripat9643]

You mean you aren't proposing to make me pay subsidies for Solar and Wind or impose requirements that power companies switch to these sources of power?

The whole AGW scam is designed to control the kind of energy I use. Who are you trying to kid?

Not sure you can afford to, since you're already paying subsidies for petroleum and ethanol, not to mention WalMart.

Ethanol is a leftwing idea.

It's a farm subsidy idea, and you're paying for it. Don't see you doing anything about it.

It's a leftwing idea to force us to use ethanol. What do you expect me to do about it. In case you haven't noticed, I'm not a member of Congress.

Poor baby.Everything is a left wing conspiracy to hurt you. How long have you had this Jesus complex?

All left wingers are trying to destroy America. That simply isn't deniable.

 

[Arianrhod]

Not sure you can afford to, since you're already paying subsidies for petroleum and ethanol, not to mention WalMart.

Ethanol is a leftwing idea.

It's a farm subsidy idea, and you're paying for it. Don't see you doing anything about it.

It's a leftwing idea to force us to use ethanol. What do you expect me to do about it. In case you haven't noticed, I'm not a member of Congress.

You're being forced to use ethanol? Then you're the first person I know who's had that particular gun to his head. Also didn't realize the the Iowa Corn Growers were a "leftwing" organization. I'm going to ask you to prove that.

What do I expect you to do about it? At least give it as much WhineTime as you are solar.

Let me get this straight: you're seriously telling me that the federal government doesn't force us to use ethanol? Seriously?

Quite the contrary. It's your idiotic assumption that there were no farm subsidies until January 20, 2009 that I'm at.

 

[bripat9643]

Once the efficiency reaches 100%, you can't make a solar panel any smaller for a given power output. You also can't reduce the cost of building storage like the kind envisaged in the article, and that's probably the cheapest form of storage there is. Generators are already at almost 100% efficiency.

Gas powered generators are less than 40% efficient. They might run at near or at times more than 100% of their rated capacity,but that is a totally unrelated measurement.

The heat engine is 40% efficient. The generator is close to 100% efficient. No generator can ever run at more than 100% efficiency.

What I find amazing is the current iteration of Formula 1 race engines have attained 50% thermal efficiency. That's better than any hybrid passenger car out there by a country mile.

Do you have some documentation on that?

I learned in thermodynamics that the maximum thermal efficiency of the internal combustion engine is about 40%.

Here you go. It took them three years to go from 35% to 50% TE. This computed as 45% with the ICE component with the extra 5% coming from the KERS.


Engine Technology International - March 2016

Mercedes-AMG achieves 50% thermal efficiency on 2016 F1 engine - The Technical Forum

I haven't read the entire article, but it looks interesting. It seems they are doing something they call "compounding" which mean it may not be a pure Carnot cycle.

 

[bripat9643]

Ethanol is a leftwing idea.

It's a farm subsidy idea, and you're paying for it. Don't see you doing anything about it.

It's a leftwing idea to force us to use ethanol. What do you expect me to do about it. In case you haven't noticed, I'm not a member of Congress.

You're being forced to use ethanol? Then you're the first person I know who's had that particular gun to his head. Also didn't realize the the Iowa Corn Growers were a "leftwing" organization. I'm going to ask you to prove that.

What do I expect you to do about it? At least give it as much WhineTime as you are solar.

Let me get this straight: you're seriously telling me that the federal government doesn't force us to use ethanol? Seriously?

Quite the contrary. It's your idiotic assumption that there were no farm subsidies until January 20, 2009 that I'm at.

Where did I make that assumption?

So answer the question, are you actually claiming the federal government doesn't use force to make us put ethanol in our cars?

 

[bripat9643]

Anyone who thinks solar power will ever compete economically with fossil fuels should read this article. Those who know better should also read it.

A Solar Power Plant vs. A Natural Gas Power Plant: Capital Cost – Apples to Apples

Conclusion

This back-of-the-envelope analysis suggests that a solar (PV) power plant that could deliver that same results as a gas-fired power plant would cost about 14 times the gas-fired option to build. It is worth noting that the solar option cost excludes any subsidies, investment tax credits, etc, that could narrow the range, but it is obvious from this little exercise that until solar technology improves dramatically, there is little chance that it will replace natural gas as the “go-to” option for new power plants.​

You are kidding, right? Solar is free, get solar panels (costs big bucks), stick em' on the roof, powers up you house. And the local power company gives you a credit for the surplus. Must be why low income housing units are covered with solar panels now. Because they look pretty and aren't cost effective.

Solar panels aren't free and neither is energy storage. When you factor the cost of that in, then solar is way more expensive than fossil fuels, even including the price of the fuel

 

[BULLDOG]

Not sure you can afford to, since you're already paying subsidies for petroleum and ethanol, not to mention WalMart.

Ethanol is a leftwing idea.

It's a farm subsidy idea, and you're paying for it. Don't see you doing anything about it.

It's a leftwing idea to force us to use ethanol. What do you expect me to do about it. In case you haven't noticed, I'm not a member of Congress.

Poor baby.Everything is a left wing conspiracy to hurt you. How long have you had this Jesus complex?

All left wingers are trying to destroy America. That simply isn't deniable.

Sure, and they are all trying to get you first.