Why does the left demonize affordable energy?

[there4eyeM]

When speaking about 'affordable energy', what is really mystifying is that solar is so often referred to as expensive. Solar is not an expenditure, it is an investment.

 

[Old Rocks]

Solar is rapidly decreasing in cost. Both at utility scale, and at the home cost. As the materials science continues to mature, solar will eventually become the cheapest power available, and any company with a large roof area will supplement their profits with power generated from their roofs.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

You talking about solar photovoltaic? or the new type of linear solar thermal steam generators they're already using to get FREE energy in the form of the typical coal-fired steam turbine?

The BigOil and BigCoal advocates always forget to make the distinction what type of solar power they're talking about. No, I take that back, they always name the most inefficient and most expensive or failed type of solar applications as "the cutting edge in solar".

Have a look at the real cutting edge of solar. Every day of sunshine is a day the power company doesn't have to burn coal or oil to power the towns nearby. In heavily populated sunshine rich areas of the South and Southwest, the company can not be burning coal or oil during peak use times (day) for up to 300 days per year. Talk about improving your electric company's profit margin!

Just mirrors set up in a line, close to the oil tube they're heating to 300 degrees celsius..that's right...celsius..a couple of heat exchangers, some water and a turbine just like the ones in nuclear, coal and oil power plants.

Have a look at the real cutting edge of solar. Every day of sunshine is a day the power company doesn't have to burn coal or oil to power the towns nearby.

That's awesome! What do they do at night or on cloudy days?

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

When speaking about 'affordable energy', what is really mystifying is that solar is so often referred to as expensive. Solar is not an expenditure, it is an investment.

When speaking about 'affordable energy', what is really mystifying is that solar is so often referred to as expensive. Solar is not an expenditure, it is an investment.

How long does it take to earn the investment back?

 

[Old Rocks]

Less time than a coal fired plant, or even natural gas. You see, once in, the energy is pretty much free. No pipelines or rail heads needed. No needed to figure out how to store toxic fly ash. And no external costs that the people living in the area have to bear, like childhood asthma. And the initial costs continue to come down.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Less time than a coal fired plant, or even natural gas. You see, once in, the energy is pretty much free. No pipelines or rail heads needed. No needed to figure ouWhat do they do at night or on cloudy days?t how to store toxic fly ash. And no external costs that the people living in the area have to bear, like childhood asthma. And the initial costs continue to come down.

Less time than a coal fired plant, or even natural gas.

Great news. Profitable energy doesn't need a subsidy.
Not that I don't trust you, but do you have any links that back up this claim?

You see, once in, the energy is pretty much free. No pipelines or rail heads needed.

What do they do at night or on cloudy days?

 

[Andylusion]

When speaking about 'affordable energy', what is really mystifying is that solar is so often referred to as expensive. Solar is not an expenditure, it is an investment.

I have yet to hear from anyone, anywhere, that shows solar panels are a wise investment. I have had numerous examples to the contrary.

Now it might be an investment to an individual, but it's an expense to everyone else.

For example... if I fund the purchase of YOUR solar panel, then to you it's an investment, because you paid little, and get a return.

But to me, it's an expense.

Similarly, the only way a solar panel EVER breaks even, is if government funds it. Yeah, if you get the poor tax payers of this country, to buy your solar panel, that's a great investment for you.

But to everyone else, and the nation as a whole, it's an expense. We all lose, so you can win.

If you removes all subsidies from solar panels, so that you are not screwing all of us, for your benefit, then solar panels no longer are an investment.

The average solar panel will never produce as much power in it's usable life time, as it costs to purchase.

That's exactly why, when the UK government cut subsidies for solar panels, the market crashed. Sales dropped to about 10% of previous sales. Massive crash in the market, when people had to actually pay the real price solar panels.

They are not an investment, unless someone else is paying the bill.

 

[Andylusion]

Solar is rapidly decreasing in cost. Both at utility scale, and at the home cost. As the materials science continues to mature, solar will eventually become the cheapest power available, and any company with a large roof area will supplement their profits with power generated from their roofs.

I doubt it. They will continue to do so, as long as your are stupid enough to pay companies with your taxes, to subsidize those solar panels.

The moment subsidies are ended, I wager the market will end too. And your solar dreams will disappear like fog vapor in the sun.

 

[Andylusion]

Less time than a coal fired plant, or even natural gas. You see, once in, the energy is pretty much free. No pipelines or rail heads needed. No needed to figure out how to store toxic fly ash. And no external costs that the people living in the area have to bear, like childhood asthma. And the initial costs continue to come down.

Not even close to true. A coal power plant can last 100 years. Here in Ohio, we have a coal power plant that has been in operation since 1940.

A solar panel has an average lifespan at best, 20 years. And even then, power output falls consistently. The actual functional use of the solar panel destroys it.

Depending on the quality of the panel, verses how hot, or cold, or how much the panel is used, will affect how much degradation happens. In other words, if you have the panel out someplace with less sunlight, then it will last longer... which is great except it is also not producing much power.

Regardless, every single year, the amount of power produced by your solar panels will drop between 0.5% and 1% a year.

By the time a solar panel reaches 80% of it's electrical production, you will need to have them replaced, or risk damaging the electronic control systems.

Typically that's 15 to 20 years at best. It's not free. And it doesn't last forever. It's like all those Prius owners who thought they could avoid all those gas prices for free, only to have the battery die, and spend $15,000 on a new battery pack. Left-wing is constantly proposing myths.

By the way, that's all assuming nothing else happens. Rodent bites a panel, and the panel is shorted and dead. Your manufacturer warranty doesn't cover that. Hail, and storm damage is also not covered. You the owner are expected to out-door proof the panels.

That includes the wiring and the control systems. One muchy from a chipmunk, and your system is done until you pay for a replacement.

 

[Old Rocks]

Andy, do they pay you to lie?

The Real Lifespan of Solar Panels - Energy Informative

What will happen to my solar panels after 25 years?
The truth is we don`t really know – there`s not really a lot of data to look at since photovoltaics is a relatively new technology (the vast majority of all solar panels are less than 10 years old).
However, from what we are seeing so far, we have reason to be excited. Here are a couple of interesting reports:

• A 33W solar panel (Arco Solar 16-2000) actually outperformed it’s original factory specifications 30 years after it was manufactured.[2]
• World`s first modern solar panel still works after 60 years.[3]
• Kyocera has reported several solar power installations that continue to operate reliably and generate electricity even though they are nearly 30 years old.[4]

The technology has improved, the solar panels on today`s market are more robust and durable.

This is where it gets really interesting. What does all of this actually mean? The lifespan of a modern solar panel is far longer than the 20 years that we use to calculate costs and earnings. This basically translates into more money in your pocket.

I would bet that a solar panel installed today would be up and running (and still generating a good amount of electricity) 30 – 40 years down the line.

 

[Old Rocks]

Ripe-for-retirement capacity varies by region and scenario

• The relative economic competitiveness of coal-fired generators was determined by comparing them to an average existing and new natural gas plant, with and without a carbon price of $20 per ton of CO2; and to new wind facilities with and without the federal production tax credit (PTC).
  
  CHART: Results of Ripe for Retirement Scenarios
  
  
• Most ripe-for-retirement capacity is concentrated in the Southeast and Midwest when compared with existing natural gas plants without a carbon price.
• In this natural gas scenario, Michigan, Florida, Alabama, Georgia, and Indiana top the list with the most ripe-for-retirement capacity, and 44 percent of the total is owned and operated by just five power companies, including Southern Company, Tennessee Valley Authority, Duke Energy, DTE Energy, and CMS Energy.
• Comparing coal generators to new wind facilities with tax credits in place moved several states with strong wind energy resources higher up in the rankings. In this scenario, Texas, Michigan, Alabama, Georgia, and Oklahoma top the list.
• For detailed information about each scenario, please see the tables below.

Ripe for Retirement: An Economic Analysis of the U.S. Coal Fleet — 2013 Update

Time to close them down and move on to more efficient and clean generation.

 

[Andylusion]

Ripe-for-retirement capacity varies by region and scenario

• The relative economic competitiveness of coal-fired generators was determined by comparing them to an average existing and new natural gas plant, with and without a carbon price of $20 per ton of CO2; and to new wind facilities with and without the federal production tax credit (PTC).
  
  CHART: Results of Ripe for Retirement Scenarios
  
  
• Most ripe-for-retirement capacity is concentrated in the Southeast and Midwest when compared with existing natural gas plants without a carbon price.
• In this natural gas scenario, Michigan, Florida, Alabama, Georgia, and Indiana top the list with the most ripe-for-retirement capacity, and 44 percent of the total is owned and operated by just five power companies, including Southern Company, Tennessee Valley Authority, Duke Energy, DTE Energy, and CMS Energy.
• Comparing coal generators to new wind facilities with tax credits in place moved several states with strong wind energy resources higher up in the rankings. In this scenario, Texas, Michigan, Alabama, Georgia, and Oklahoma top the list.
• For detailed information about each scenario, please see the tables below.

Ripe for Retirement: An Economic Analysis of the U.S. Coal Fleet — 2013 Update

Time to close them down and move on to more efficient and clean generation.

The chart is hilarious. It makes my point perfectly.

It says very clearly at the bottom of the chart, that the amount of "ripe-for-retirement" depends on the existence or absence of carbon prices, and tax-credits for wind power.

Well gee there's a shock. So a coal plant is more ready to retire IF the government jacks up costs on coal with carbon prices, and gives tax credits for wind power.

Well crap. That's just brilliant. Give that man a diploma. If you punish one source of power, and reward another, the chances of the first being closed is higher. No freakin duh.

If we place a $10 sur-tax on milk, and subsidize orange juice by 50%.... more dairy farms will be "ripe for retirement" too. Brilliant.

The reason coal is ripe for retirement, has absolutely nothing to do with market forces, or science. It has nothing to do with somehow solar panels being a more 'efficient' means of power production. Not by a long shot.

The only reason, is because government is actively trying to punish coal, and reward solar. If those influences were removed, no such "ripe-for-retirement" would be taking place.

 

[Old Rocks]

No, government is not 'punishing' coal. They are responding to a very real situation in which burning fossil fuel is creating an uncertain future for all of us. Just the rise in sea level in this century is going to cost the world trillions of dollars in infrastructure. And the price of wind and solar continues to decline, while that of coal continues to increase.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

No, government is not 'punishing' coal. They are responding to a very real situation in which burning fossil fuel is creating an uncertain future for all of us. Just the rise in sea level in this century is going to cost the world trillions of dollars in infrastructure. And the price of wind and solar continues to decline, while that of coal continues to increase.

And the price of wind and solar continues to decline

Why are German electricity prices rising?
They're building so much wind and solar, their prices should be plummeting.

 

[Andylusion]

No, government is not 'punishing' coal. They are responding to a very real situation in which burning fossil fuel is creating an uncertain future for all of us. Just the rise in sea level in this century is going to cost the world trillions of dollars in infrastructure. And the price of wind and solar continues to decline, while that of coal continues to increase.

When you place a cost on a specific marketable product, you are punishing that product. It does not matter that you have a bunch of rationalizations, the fact is the only reason wind power has a any market, is because you are punishing coal, while rewarding wind. You eliminate the punishment and the reward, and wind is nothing.

See in the real world, if you produce something that has value, you don't need to harm the other options to make your option profitable. Nor do you need someone to subsidize your product to make it competitive.

Now I get it, you believe there is some CO2 boogeyman that is going to wipe out the planet. It's a valid opinion, one I don't believe are supported by any facts.

However, that doesn't change the fact that solar power doesn't replace conventional power. It never has, and won't any time in the foreseeable future.

Why Germany’s nuclear phaseout is leading to more coal burning

When Germany started shutting down their nuclear plants, they didn't replace that power generation with any renewable of any kind. Contrary to popular belief, Germany replaced it's lost nuclear power with.... foriegn nuclear power. Germany went from being a convention power generating exporter, to a "green-energy" importer.... and is importing power from nuclear power plants.

And the gap is made up by increasing use of coal. So much for the green-energy Utopia.

 

[hauke]

your "affordable Energy " isn t affordable.

it destroys the Planetary ecosystem. it destroys the very thing you need to live.

obviouesly you do not understand that.

its "affordable" because your not paying the price it costs.

 

[westwall]

your "affordable Energy " isn t affordable.

it destroys the Planetary ecosystem. it destroys the very thing you need to live.

obviouesly you do not understand that.

its "affordable" because your not paying the price it costs.

The problem with this statement is that you can't show the slightest bit of evidence to support it. Here's the deal, computer models ARE NOT SCIENCE! They are science fiction. YOU need to learn the difference.

 

[hauke]

the evidence you demand is the destruction of the planetary ecosystem.
by the time the evidence is good enough for you, its too late, your dead im dead and everyone else is dead.

im fine with less evidence.

 

[westwall]

the evidence you demand is the destruction of the planetary ecosystem.
by the time the evidence is good enough for you, its too late, your dead im dead and everyone else is dead.

im fine with less evidence.

No, you're fine with NO evidence. There's a difference. I, on the other hand, can look back at the paleo climatological record and see, quite plainly, that when the planet has been warmer, it has been better for all life. The ONLY people who think otherwise are climatologists pushing a political agenda. The science, and actual historical fact support me. Not you.

 

[hauke]

Thanks you just admited that theres Human caused global warming.

now discussing the consequences becomes practical.

Evidences are : its getting warmer globaly. measured with thermometers world wide scince 1880.

Man is the cause of higher CO2 levels : burning of fossile fuels + deforestation. measured co2 levels have been rising , measured scince about 1900.

Consequences : not possible to predict accurately as CO2 levels rise beyond anything in fossile records. possibility that earth turns into a Venus style greenhouse planet ? unknown. not possible to calculate.

hey lets just wait and see if the earth turns in another Venus killing everything on earth ! thats a great idea.

should it acctually happen you will concede i was right !.

uh your not you will be dead.

and if not who cares we all just move to the canadian rockys as the midwest turns into a shallow inland sea and the canadian tundra into a shallow sea. and that bangladesh and New York and all those other costal plaines sink underwater .. who cares.

the point is that if theres a risk of this kind, you should be able to prove it cannot happen, not that i have to prove it will happen.

can you prove that there is no climate catastrophe ?
can you prove what its limits will be ?

prove that theres no risk no danger to your behavior or stop it.