RE: solar $0.01 a watt? cheaper then coal

RE: solar $0.01 a watt? cheaper then coal (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Casual Banter] >> Off the Grid

Message

farglebargle -> RE: solar $0.01 a watt? cheaper then coal (12/22/2007 11:02:43 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: luckydog1 And sam, I have no doubt that a harbor built for short term use durring a battle didn't last very long, but I do not see why that has any relevance. But what would a storm do to a masive solar array that fuels the entire continents energy? NOTHING -- If the solar array is where it should be... Geostationary orbit.

luckydog1 -> RE: solar $0.01 a watt? cheaper then coal (12/22/2007 11:10:32 AM)
Yawn farg, we already did this thread. The only source you could come up with advocating it stated that there had to be massive goepolitical change on the ground in Americas favor, before it could be secure....

farglebargle -> RE: solar $0.01 a watt? cheaper then coal (12/22/2007 11:16:42 AM)
"there had to be massive goepolitical change on the ground in Americas favor, before it could be secure...." Given the US has invaded a sovereign nation in the middle east, and already changed the geopolitical landscape on a massive scale, why discount doing it again going forward? Everyone wants to say "NO", but as this thread shows, abrupt and disruptive technological breakthroughs rapidly change the current economics. It is now even more do-able than before. All that is lacking is the will to achieve the goals. Take your phone out of your pocket for a demonstration of where the rapid-technological-change can bring us in a few short years. In 50 years our kids and grandkids wouldn't have to worry about electrical power, and we'd be wholly independent of any external energy suppliers. If that level of National Security isn't worthy of the same effort as the 70-years-war, what is?

luckydog1 -> RE: solar $0.01 a watt? cheaper then coal (12/22/2007 11:36:08 AM)
Farg, becuase minor change in one nation is not the same as a new world Geopolitical order for the world run in favor of America. So you are now advocating America Occupy the entire world, and militarize orbit and the Moon? I just really don't see that happening anytime soon, and am rather sure that other actors would try to stop us. The article YOU CITED, feel free to try and find one that actually agrees with you, says that such a system would be very insecure, unless certain absolutly unrealistic things occur. So under your plan, the kids would indeed have to worry a lot about thier electrcity. We need a decentralized system of Power generation, not to put all our egg in in one giant basket. Of course I see how advocating such a ridiculous goal works towards destroying the USA, that show you want to see. Heck, every abused kid and broken up family weakens America, so I see why you want to put pedophiles on buses with kids. You really are amazingly consistent. And like I have said several times, feel free to cite something that agrees with you...

farglebargle -> RE: solar $0.01 a watt? cheaper then coal (12/22/2007 12:01:08 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: luckydog1 Farg, becuase minor change in one nation is not the same as a new world Geopolitical order for the world run in favor of America. So you are now advocating America Occupy the entire world, and militarize orbit and the Moon? If we must have Empire, then let it be COMPETENT EMPIRE, rather than the foolish construct the Neocons have built. quote: Heck, every abused kid and broken up family weakens America, so I see why you want to put pedophiles on buses with kids. You really are amazingly consistent. I notice you neglect to include my numerous statements about how to teach children to treat molesters and abductors -in-the-act as wolves, and kill them at the earliest opportunity. I see you neglect my advice to ARM THOSE YOUTH WHO ARE COMPETENT TO BE ARMED, and teach them to shoot dead anyone who tries to harm them... I cannot understand how you could possibly expect other people to believe your bullshit, given the PERSONAL RESPONSIBILITY message I've always brought to the discussion. We don't need to "Protect The Children" when the Children can protect themselves just fine. It's the pussies who always "Look to Authority" who are at-risk. You wanna protect them? Teach them that THEY are responsible for their safety and security. Stop wasting our tax dollars on pussies to fucking lame to protect themselves... It's the worst kind of welfare... But hey, you want to try defaming me, take your best shot. I stand on my record as an advocate of Freedom and Liberty and a SUPPORTER OF CHILDREN AND FAMILIES. Anyone can tell you're full of shit. At least you're not fabricating defamatory statements and fraudulently attributing them to me like Sanity....

HypnoticDan -> RE: solar $0.01 a watt? cheaper then coal (12/22/2007 4:39:50 PM)
$0.01 is about 100* smaller than the price in the article. They also fail to mention how long you have to be invested before it costs $1/watt. For example, let's say your solar panels generate 100 watts on a sunny day, for which you paid $100. Let us also assume the going rate for electricity in your neighborhood is $0.02 kw/h and that you get 10 solid hours of sunlight every single day. 10hr*100watt = 1kw = $0.02 per diem, so paying off the initial investment will take approximately 5000 days, or 13.7 years. Of course you'll still be losing money because off all the bills from the power company you were still paying. Let's try it another way: say you use 100kw/h per day. that means you'll need (at a minimum) 100kw generating power, for an initial investment of $100k. The amount you save will cost 2000 days to pay off the investment, or 5.5 years. After that you start to make money because you're getting your power for free. Remember, those are best case scenarios. Note that I'm all in favor of solar power but I think there's a long way to go.

bipolarber -> RE: solar $0.01 a watt? cheaper then coal (12/22/2007 5:34:51 PM)
If it has any farther to go, it's in the realm of national commitment. Recently, my wife and I toured a demo home here in Little Rock. It was a new construction that was a co-operative effort between several companies that supply new tech for alternative energy systems. The house was a 3 bedroom, 2 bath, 3 car garage type, with a full basement, and it's own solar power system. Primary power for the house was via it's pV roofing, and its hot water, central heat/air all being electrical. For night time hours, the energy was stored via a set of rechargable lithium batteries located in the crawlspace. Thanks to the advance insulation techniques, the actual need for much in the way of heat/air was minimal. The boast was, this house was as close to $0 in energy costs to operate . In talking to the reps, they had been running the system in the house for a year, and so far, the only time they had needed to switch back to the grid was for two weeks in January, when we had sub zero temps for a week. A yearly power bill of $28.00 was the result. (In other, northern areas, this shortfall could be averted by either having larger storage systems, or larger collection areas, say, the roof of a seperate garage or barn also feeding the sytem.) As a kicker, they had a recharging "dock" built into the garage for an electric car. No need for gas to get around town, no need to pay for your heat, or electricity. Just upkeep. The price was roughly twice what you would pay for a regular grid connected home... but, as the reps said, the price is actually less, after you work in what you'd otherwise be paying for energy over the span of a standard 30 year mortgage.... even with the additional interest to be paid to the bank, thanks to the higher principal. And with state and federal incentives, the savings is pretty substantial. So no, I don't think I'll be swayed by the arguments that solar is a "tinker toy" technology. It's here. It's viable. With mass production, costs will plummet, just as it has for every other tech we've embraced. No pollutants, no radioactive wastes, no excuses. All it takes is the will, and electing leaders who AREN'T in the oil business.

samboct -> RE: solar $0.01 a watt? cheaper then coal (12/22/2007 7:19:43 PM)
Dan $1 a watt is installed cost- and really it's closer to $2 a watt because you have to put the cell into a module, and that doubles the price in practice these days. The cost per watt is the installation cost- not the cost at the meter. Basically if you want to buy a coal fired plant, it costs $2 per watt, or a 1 MW plant costs $2M. The installed cost of solar is now the same- and there is no fuel cost. The reason the installed cost is critical is that most municipalities have to go to their taxpayer base for money to build a plant-and the taxpayer is notorious for saying, give me what's going to cost the least -RIGHT NOW. Well, if a natural gas plant has the lowest installed cost, that's often what the municipalities go with- regardless of the fuel cost over time. Yes, it's silly- don't ask me- I didn't set up the system. But this is why solar at $1/watt can readily compete with anything else. Giving the devil his due however, the coal plant will be online 24/7, while the solar plant really needs some overcapacity due to clouds- often what's available is about 40% of rated capacity. In an ideal world, most of the power would come from solar- with natural gas, oil, and coal kicking in when needed. Lucky- don't know why you're on a kick about a massive solar installation- it's a dumb idea. Yes, I saw the Scientific American article- if we wait till 2050- we're going to be a third world country. The advantage of solar is that it's so easy to set up a distributed network- akin to computers. You don't want massive central installations- you want smaller installations closer to where the power is needed. Also- what happens if there's a cloud over the central solar panel? The country goes into a brownout? This also takes care of the massive tornado that wipes out the solar farm- but really, our track record with terrestrial installations is better than marine. And there's some new technology coming down the pike that should help with siting problems as well as improving efficiency- use heliostats and concentrator cells. By the way- the Mulberry was designed to last decades- it was touted as being built for postwar use as well. Fargie- sorry-but power in orbit is also a red herring- better to use the available terrestrial technology rather than wait on a the space effort which would take longer- and might not work any better. The only way to get a geostationary orbit is that it's very high up- something like 35k km or so. This dissipates the power terrifically. (OK, just thought of a dodge- use a space tether as a powerline- i.e. carbon nanotubes. Problem- we have no idea how to build something like that right now.) In LEO (about 20 klicks) you'd need about 60 birds for coverage and they only last about 5 years. Elliptical orbits might work too, but I don't know how many you'd need. Also bear in mind that if anybody decided to take out your satellites, you run out of power for a while- and they'd be a relatively easy and vulnerable target. It's also very hard to get electronics to last up there- the radiation is brutal. Digital memory doesn't work for long. If in a GEO orbit, turning off the array might not matter- but in any other orbit, you better be able to switch it on and off reliably- or you might cook something like Texas. (On second thought- cooking Texas mightn't be much of a problem.) Sam

luckydog1 -> RE: solar $0.01 a watt? cheaper then coal (12/22/2007 9:00:22 PM)
No farg you are an advocate for children who are capable of carrying, using and making judgements on who to kill. And famillies that are able to watch thier kids every second of the day, which is exactly zero. You do have that fantasy of shooting someone in the face, you keep refering to. And lets be honest, you are the number one second guesser of people using force on these boards, and you would do the same damn thing to any child that did shoot an adult. I haven't seen you make a single statement of supporting actuall families on these boards ever, and people are free to make the call on that themselves. You care nothing about a blind kid, or disabled kid, as they are not competent to shoot to kill in a crowded room, right?

luckydog1 -> RE: solar $0.01 a watt? cheaper then coal (12/22/2007 9:15:21 PM)
Well Sam, I keep bringing up the cited proposed Solar system, because that is the only proposal Any Solar advocate has put forth to discuss, aside from the Dumb ass Solar Sattalite plan. In my first post of this thread, I advocated putting Solar Panels on every roof in America, as well as a mix of a variety of distributed low impact power Generation. I think using Solar as a large scale generation system is a poor idea, because it gets cloudy and the sun sets requiring massive batteries, which are an ecological nightmare, despite what Bipolar barber says. There are places where setting up a station makes sense, there are also places where Tidal and Wave generation make sense. Solar is great as a way of lowering the grid usage of power for each building. Also doesn't it take a huge amount of power to make a Solar panel as well as oil? I know they are working on improving the stats of those, but they really are only green at the usage point, not in manufacture, or perhaps they have been improved to the point that is no longer true, I hope so. Regarding the Mulberry, perhaps you have not noticed, but everything touted by the Government/millitary isn't allways 100% true. It seems to me at a glance that we have harbors all over the world that have been used for centuries with out being destroyed by a storm, despite the fact you can cite one that was.

farglebargle -> RE: solar $0.01 a watt? cheaper then coal (12/22/2007 9:16:02 PM)
quote: No farg you are an advocate for children who are capable of carrying, using and making judgements on who to kill. And famillies that are able to watch thier kids every second of the day, which is exactly zero. If you're EVACUATING IN AN EMERGENCY, and you're NOT watching your kids who cannot take care of themselves.... Well, there are some people who just shouldn't breed. Of course, not knowing what evolutionary traits will be best selected in the future, it's so hard to figure out which ones they are... I would suggest that not watching your kids when you're getting on a bus to bug-out might be a good indicator, though. quote: You care nothing about a blind kid, or disabled kid, as they are not competent to shoot to kill in a crowded room, right? Maybe it's the "Special Needs" kids who need to be segregated, and especially protected?

luckydog1 -> RE: solar $0.01 a watt? cheaper then coal (12/22/2007 9:26:10 PM)
Or perhaps the parents got hurt in the emergency Farg. Or the kids are at school, when the Emergency occurs? Those kinds of People just shouldn't breed, right, so expose thier kids to extra danger? So exactly who shouldn't breed? People who ever le tthier kids out of sight? People who send thier kids to school? Perhaps parents who work? People who could get hurt?, they just shouldn't have kids right? Lets see that would include.....everyone, so you are advocating taking everyone out of the Gene poool....You live in some dimwit paper word Farg, its hillarious. Let em die, who the hell cares, they should live in Fargies fantasy world where nothing goes wrong or outside of Plan, or fuck em and let em die...You are indeed such a supporter of Children and Families. But really Farg if you had the slightest bit of integrity to your ramblings, you would be furious that the Government was evacuating people in the first place, not quibbling over the details of how it is organised, or can you cite me a specific enumeration from the Constitution where the Gov is allowed to evacuate anyone in an emergency?

farglebargle -> RE: solar $0.01 a watt? cheaper then coal (12/22/2007 9:36:25 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: luckydog1 Or perhaps the parents got hurt in the emergency Farg. Or the kids are at school, when the Emergency occurs? If the kids are at school, don't the School Officials have responsibility for them? You're really reaching in the "exceptional cases" you need to invoke to justify a dumb strategy. The fact that you need to reach so far should tell you something about the soundness of the reasoning behind it. quote: Those kinds of People just shouldn't breed, right, so expose thier kids to extra danger? So exactly who shouldn't breed? Did you miss the part about "it's so hard to know what traits will be best selected for in the future?" I know you felt compelled to display your knee-jerk reaction to my suggestion that PARENTS SHOULD BE RESPONSIBLE FOR THEIR CHILDREN WHO CANNOT CARE FOR THEMSELVES. I don't know why anyone would disagree with that policy, but for some reason, you believe The State is best able to care for kids, and not their families.... To me, that smacks of "From each according to their abilities, to each according to their needs", but I'm sure you see it differently... quote: But really Farg if you had the slightest bit of integrity to your ramblings, you would be furious that the Government was evacuating people in the first place, not quibbling over the details of how it is organised, or can you cite me a specific enumeration from the Constitution where the Gov is allowed to evacuate anyone in an emergency? It's perfectly reasonable for STATE and LOCAL government to do whatever is permitted to them in an emergency. State Constitutions vary, so it's hard to discuss details of how, say The State of New York plans to handle an emergency vs. The State of Texas. I have no problem with COUNTY officials grabbing LOCAL SCHOOL BUSES and using them however required in an emergency. Only a dunderhead would dispute that. The entire point is to DECENTRALIZE AND DISTRIBUTE disaster recover and response to FAMILIES AND NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATIONS. Once the locals secure their own street, or evacuate themselves, the State Authorities can deal with the larger issues, like how to get fuel to the cellular sites before the on-hand stocks deplete and they lose 90% of their telecom assets.... Of course, if they're dicking around conducting background checks, they won't have the manpower or time to worry about the "Bigger Picture", will they? I expect the plan it to outsource the processing to some company with connections to the Administration... In fact, cutting them a check to remain able to do the job ( supposedly ) ever year might be the point of the entire exercise... "How do we help our friends loot the US Treasury?" is the question asked when this idea was dreamed up.

luckydog1 -> RE: solar $0.01 a watt? cheaper then coal (12/22/2007 10:03:16 PM)
The fact that you ignored 2/3 of my argument...that parents can get hurt or families seperated in an emergency, shows the soundness of your argument. I don't see where I ever advocated that the State should care for all children, as you alledge. Do you read fantasy posts as well as fantasy constitutions? We are discussing trying to keep track of Registered, Convicted Sex offenders as well as other paroles durring an emergency, so they don't melt away after evacuation and to protect the Children and regular citizens. As usuall you a make a lame attempt to switch terms, its your basic mode of debate. See, I think it takes a dunderhead to not understand why a decentralised response to a disater is a bad idea. I think it takes a serious dunderhead to be angry that a different state wants to try to keep track of Paroles and convicted sex offenders in an Emergency evacuation. The people loading buses and checking names on a computer list are not involved in larger state wide response issues, only a dunderhead would not grasp that, nothing would be taken from the larger response. The "They" wouldn't spend any time at all on the background check issue durring the crisis, thats why "They" are setting it up now, before the crisis, which may never occur. This is about people recognizing a real flaw in the response to Katrina and attempting to make sure it doesn't occur again.

farglebargle -> RE: solar $0.01 a watt? cheaper then coal (12/23/2007 5:24:42 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: luckydog1 The fact that you ignored 2/3 of my argument...that parents can get hurt or families seperated in an emergency, shows the soundness of your argument. I didn't ignore it. I said that it's a stretch... The likelihood of the scenario is so low as to be discarded... quote: We are discussing trying to keep track of Registered, Convicted Sex offenders as well as other paroles durring an emergency, so they don't melt away after evacuation and to protect the Children and regular citizens. the Children don't need protection, except in VERY LIMITED CASES where they are unable to care for themselves, AND their family is un-available AND their care hadn't been delegated already to another Legal Entity ( as in a School ). And neither do the regular citizens. And what happens when someone says, "Fuck you, I ain't showing ID, because I'm not your slave and last time I checked this was a Free Country, where Free People don't HAVE TO CARRY PAPERS? Oh, you're going to toss them on the "Detainee" bus? Nice... Without Due Process ( yet again... ) When the Parolee or Offender doesn't check in, you issue a warrant for their arrest... It goes into NCIC, and eventually you pick them up. All this and we still haven't asked, "Why give AT&T any more of our money after they've shown themselves unfit to exist among civilized society, and should be judicially dissolved with as much haste as possible?" Some people just like to Tax and Spend. I'm not one of them. Some people EXPECT to be cared for, like a Slave, or a retard. I'm not one of them. Perhaps it's too much to expect someone conditioned to obedience and who expects The Gubmint to take care of them to understand such concepts as "Watching Your Kids", and "Teaching them to kill molesters and attackers"...

samboct -> RE: solar $0.01 a watt? cheaper then coal (12/23/2007 8:00:17 AM)
Lucky Don't know what you've been reading- but there have been lots of propositions about distributed solar networks. Also- you might find it informative to visit the company's web site that started this post- and there you'll find out that they use aluminum as a substrate rather than silicon, which lowers the cost- and reduces the energy requirements to make it. (Although SRI has proposed a new process for making high quality Si as well.) Remember that technological advances are always a moving target. In the case of mature technology- it's a slow moving target- but in young technology, the target can move quickly indeed. I keep sniping at the tidal and wave power schemes because they have very strenuous siting requirements, and a lousy track record to date. Also- no one has shown that you can really generate enough power to be useful on a larger scale with this technology- hence I consider them a distraction from the real challenge of leaving the fossil fuels in the ground, so they don't fossilize us. (NYTimes front page article today- Italy now suffering from tropical diseases- one of the major effects of global warming.) Bear in mind that overall- my comment is that we need to move away from the Russian collective farm idea of having one type of power generation for the country- and let individual market forces and gov'ts decide what's best for their region. The only rules that everyone has to play by are that the power has to be consistent- i.e. 500k volts in long haul lines everywhere (I'm being arbitrary- I'm just guessing.) and that emission standards are done on a national basis. No fair having the plain states have higher emissions than New England. Also-solar actually has a very good track record- most satellites in orbit are using solar power- and that's a very challenging environment. But I have nothing against biofuels, wind, and even tidal/wave if it can be made to work. I just don't see waiting to bring it online. Sam

luckydog1 -> RE: solar $0.01 a watt? cheaper then coal (12/23/2007 10:25:38 AM)
Aluminum production takes a lot of power and creates ecological damage (strip mines)also, I will take your word that it is less energy intensive than Silicon. But don't you not have to have a mine to get silicon? I have maintained that Solar needs to be PART of the solution all along. Biofuels seem to be a waste of time and effort to me. As they require fresh water ( as you correctly pointed out) and a large area of land. I do agree that Wind and Water based systems have siting requitrements, as does Goethermal, hydro power and Solar. We are basically just quibbling over details now. Though I do not have an automatic disapproval of fosil fuels. They can be used in ways that do not release carbon into the air. And a Natural Gas well is far less damaging to the enviroment than an aluminum mine/ smelting plant.

luckydog1 -> RE: solar $0.01 a watt? cheaper then coal (12/23/2007 10:41:58 AM)
Why is due process involved in an emergency evacuation? If they don't want to get on the Bus, they don't have to. If the locals want to create a system like this, they can go for it. I support the idea. If you read the article you will see that no one has to show ID, just give a name. The dunderhead screaming "fuck you, I am not a slave!!" in front of a bunch of kids durring an evacuation?...Push em put of line and say "Next!" The selfish bastard refuses to move and keeps screaming..., Taze em. They don't have to get on a bus, if they don't want. Yet you expect the state to care for sex offenders, providing free no questions asked rides? Why do you want the state to care for them, yet not take reasonable saftey steps for the Children and infirm?

samboct -> RE: solar $0.01 a watt? cheaper then coal (12/23/2007 11:31:02 AM)
Lucky OK- agree that there's some convergence here. 1) Si is a very common element- SiO2 is sand- you know-the stuff on the beach. Plus none of these applications uses very much of these elements anyhow. All the high quality Si produced today would probably fit in an auditorium. I think the energy arguments against solar cells are red herrings- besides, it'll improve. 2) Biofuels are NOT a waste of time. It's quite probable that we'll continue to need liquid fuels of some kind -even if we do crack the nut of hydrogen storage (separate topic.) Think of a biofuel as another version of using the sun- instead of producing electrical energy, we use the sun to produce chemical energy. Certainly allows use of the existing automotive infrastructure with minimal disruption. Biofuel from corn is silly though- I think we can both agree on that. Regions like the Northeast which have more fresh water than sunlight do well with biofuel production- Arizona sucks. Besides, you might be able to do it from algae or other assorted pond scum. (Politicians?) 3) You can't use fossil fuels without producing CO2- it's the nature of the beast. The best you can do is extract more energy for the CO2 you do release- but there's always going to be a lot of CO2. Bear in mind that carbon is 12/44 of a CO2 molecule- the rest is oxygen from the atmosphere. This means that for each ton of coal you burn- or convert to liquid fuels (which emit far more CO2)- you get close to 3 tons of CO2- that's just simple chemistry. Sam

farglebargle -> RE: solar $0.01 a watt? cheaper then coal (12/23/2007 11:40:58 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: luckydog1 Yet you expect the state to care for sex offenders, providing free no questions asked rides? Why do you want the state to care for them, yet not take reasonable saftey steps for the Children and infirm? The suggested process isn't reasonable. It presumes too much on the technical abilities of the screeners, the screeners' infrastructure, and the duties and rights of Citizens in order to make some wussies feel better about a negligible threat, essentially turning the process of getting on a bus into getting screened at the airport. Think about this... If people supposedly doing Disaster Planning are worried about shit like this, how effective do you think they are going to be overall? They're engaging in Public Relations Stunts -- again. It took what, a week to get water to the Superdome? Or was it just 4 days?

Page: << < prev 1 2 [3] 4 next > >>

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

6.199646E-02