Germany's solar experiment collapses. $$$ down the drain.

[Old Rocks]

From where I sit, Lomborg vastly underestimates the economic costs of climate change. However, he is correct on concentrating for the moment of getting ready for consequences. At present, most of our infrastructure is extremely vulnable to the weather events that are already happening due to the increased warming. But we have to address the energy issue. From both conservation and generation standpoints.

Solar is rapidly declining in price, and is becoming increasingly practicle for homeowners in the grid parallel configuration. Windmills are proving practicle, and when we extend the grid into the areas where the most potential exists, will be even more practical.

We do need a new grid that is capable of picking up the 2 kw homeowners solar panels, or the 2 gw nuke plant. And we need to harden it. Right now, it is extremely vulneble to a Carrington Event.

 

[Old Rocks]

Translation: Solar is NOT competitive, and will not be competitive after we remove the subsidies because it is not viable technology yet

so you give subsidies to something that works? It only works if it gets subsidies? And your favorite color is "moon"?

False conclusion. Solar power works, but it is NOT as good a solution as nearly all other power sources, save for like Wind. For the same amount of money, more energy, jobs and profit can be made by making nuclear power plants that are a greater benefit to the people. The power density is greater, requiring less land. The energy production is more stable because it works all the time, not just when the sun is out. The EROEI is greater by many multiples as well as the ROI on the financial investment.

Solar energy may look on the surface to be a good deal but that is only if you do not take into account what it's strengths are and ignore it's glaring weaknesses logistically and economically. There are many other ways of creating a product from applesauce to Zyrtec, but industry survives and grows profitable by finding the best way to produce the most product for the least amount of effort and money. It is referred to, in some industries, as a "Red Queen Race". That means to remain in the same place, you have to run faster and faster. This is true for all industry though, and subsidies do not help any technology or company be better than another. It only falsely hides it's failings and makes it competitive by unfairly giving them an advantage at the expense of others.

I reiterate, solar is 50-75 years off from being able to compete equally with coal, gas, nuclear or hydro. That also means that there will have to be great efficiency jumps in the amount of energy collected per panel to make their land consumption worth while. Or of course such a drastic reduction in manufacture/installation costs that it your ROI is very significant and quickly. You compete with the strongest competitor, not the weakest.

When the subsidies are removed from coal and natural gas, when both have to pay for the down stream health costs, and costs for destroyed aquifers, then we can discuss removing subsidies from solar.

 

[skookerasbil]

Solar energy being anything more than a fringe sector of American energy is a liberal fantasy.

Anybody posting in here will be long in their box before anything competes with fossil fuels in any significant way.

Sorry bubs.........thats just how its gonna be.

 

[tinydancer]

so you give subsidies to something that works? It only works if it gets subsidies? And your favorite color is "moon"?

False conclusion. Solar power works, but it is NOT as good a solution as nearly all other power sources, save for like Wind. For the same amount of money, more energy, jobs and profit can be made by making nuclear power plants that are a greater benefit to the people. The power density is greater, requiring less land. The energy production is more stable because it works all the time, not just when the sun is out. The EROEI is greater by many multiples as well as the ROI on the financial investment.

Solar energy may look on the surface to be a good deal but that is only if you do not take into account what it's strengths are and ignore it's glaring weaknesses logistically and economically. There are many other ways of creating a product from applesauce to Zyrtec, but industry survives and grows profitable by finding the best way to produce the most product for the least amount of effort and money. It is referred to, in some industries, as a "Red Queen Race". That means to remain in the same place, you have to run faster and faster. This is true for all industry though, and subsidies do not help any technology or company be better than another. It only falsely hides it's failings and makes it competitive by unfairly giving them an advantage at the expense of others.

I reiterate, solar is 50-75 years off from being able to compete equally with coal, gas, nuclear or hydro. That also means that there will have to be great efficiency jumps in the amount of energy collected per panel to make their land consumption worth while. Or of course such a drastic reduction in manufacture/installation costs that it your ROI is very significant and quickly. You compete with the strongest competitor, not the weakest.

When the subsidies are removed from coal and natural gas, when both have to pay for the down stream health costs, and costs for destroyed aquifers, then we can discuss removing subsidies from solar.

Tell me about the success in southern Ontario.

Let's talk real. I'm good to go. How about you?

 

[ScienceRocks]

"Liberals" if you had to choose one or the other, what one would you put your money on? Solar or wind.

 

[skookerasbil]

"Liberals" if you had to choose one or the other, what one would you put your money on? Solar or wind.

LMAO.....the type of question that really fucks up a liberal!!!


Dont forget........the modern day liberal can never provide an answer to two questions
no matter what you are talking, but especially applies to the future of energy......

1) At what cost?

2) As compared to what?


When a liberal is forced to answer these 2 questions, they invariably get pwned.


So they invariably avoid answering them.

 

[bripat9643]

Why do some take pride and glee in failures to replace fossil fuel?

Because they are total fucking frauds.

I always delight in con artists getting exposed for what they are.

 

[bripat9643]

That is because you are not including the costs that fossil fuels impose on health care systems and the environment. When you include those costs fossil fuels cost 2 times more than renewables

Absolute horseshit. The cost that fossil fuels impose on the health care system is zero.

Anything from "thinkprogress" is automatically assumed to be commie propaganda.

 

[bripat9643]

Why do some take pride and glee in failures to replace fossil fuel?

Last time I asked that question, I got some harangue about tax dollars.

But this here's Germany.

So, I re-posit- Why do you freakin assholes take such pleasure in the failures of something that has such great potential?

It doesn't have great potential, dipshit. It's a joke. It's virtually a perpetual motion machine. It's a scam that only fools believe in.

 

[bripat9643]

Anyone watch the Jerry Lewis Telethon? Ever donate and then the next year think to yourself, "boy was that a waste of $$$. $$$ down the drain because they haven't yet come up with a cure?

No you don't. We know it takes research and research costs $$$.

Contributing the the Jerry Lewis telethon is totally voluntary. Taxes are extracted from my hide at gunpoint.

No is surprised that you don't see the difference.

 

[ScienceRocks]

I've done some research and discovered THAT photovoltaic SOLAR IS A JOKE even compared to wind power. The biggest solar farms are all besides one in China are smaller then 100 mw. Solar power - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Compared to WIND
Wind power - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Wind power now has the capacity to generate 430 TWh annually, which is about 2.5% of worldwide electricity usage
File:GlobalWindPowerCumulativeCapacity.png - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Theres 44,733 MW of electricy made in China from wind power
Theres 40,180 MW of electricy made in US from wind power


Solar made in the US in 2010 2,152.5 MW! Solar power in the United States - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Solar made in Germany in 2011 solar PV industry installed 7.5 GW (7,500 mw)in 2011. Solar power in Germany - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Wind seems to be a much more rebused energy maker and doesn't destroy the environment like solar. Solar is dieing everywhere it is tried!

 

[ScienceRocks]

It may NOT be money wise a good idea, but it sure would be kind of cool. Heres the idea lets beat the rest of the world and make the BIGGEST FUCKING OFFSHORE WIND FARM ON EARTH with 50 gw! We could put it 50 miles from the coast of Alaska where it's VERY WINDY! No one would see it, but it would show europe that we can do it in deeper water then they can. haha! List of offshore wind farms - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Sit back as the king! While Europe shits its pants.

Another cool idea is to put a giant wind turbine on top of Mount hood standing a thousand feet tall! 800 feet diameter blades! That would make a lot of fucking power.

What does Oldrocks feel about this?

 

[Old Rocks]

I've done some research and discovered THAT photovoltaic SOLAR IS A JOKE even compared to wind power. The biggest solar farms are all besides one in China are smaller then 100 mw. Solar power - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Compared to WIND
Wind power - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Wind power now has the capacity to generate 430 TWh annually, which is about 2.5% of worldwide electricity usage
File:GlobalWindPowerCumulativeCapacity.png - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Theres 44,733 MW of electricy made in China from wind power
Theres 40,180 MW of electricy made in US from wind power


Solar made in the US in 2010 2,152.5 MW! Solar power in the United States - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Solar made in Germany in 2011 solar PV industry installed 7.5 GW (7,500 mw)in 2011. Solar power in Germany - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Wind seems to be a much more rebused energy maker and doesn't destroy the environment like solar. Solar is dieing everywhere it is tried!

Solar will not be ready for the big time until the efficiency hits 30% to 40%. Then solar will be a major factor. However, for the home owner with some DIY skills, solar today is a good investment. And the yearly increase in the installations here in the US are a reflection of that.

Never understood the idea of creating big farms in the desert or hilltops. Plenty of warehouse and commercial roofs available, and the grid is already there.

 

[skookerasbil]

Britain and Germany had the solar power fantasy 10 years ago........but now realizes that it is an exercise in futility, never to be realized. Accordingly, recent subsidy cuts are enormous.............

Despite Paul Krugman's Cheerleading, Solar Energy Has A Cloudy Future - Forbes


Even better to get the perspective from Britain from a non-annointed source................

http://grist.org/solar-power/2011-11-01-is-solar-britains-new-sunset-industry/

Indeed.........when its tough paying the bills, nobody wants to invest in total waste.

 

[skookerasbil]

When the inevitable questions of 1) At what cost?..... and...... 2) As compared to what?..........MUST be answered ( something environmentalists NEVER want to answer) most all the green energy schemes fall flat on their face.



Until recently........these questions have not had to be answered. Now that they are having to be answered, green energy is not so popular. Right now, politically no matter where you are in the world, speaking about it is like taking an IED to bed with you.........and the politicians arnt stupid. LOL........which is why Obama didnt talk about climate change ONE SINGLE TIME in his January SOTU speech. He'snot going to go out there with tens of million watching and look like a wingnut.

 

[skookerasbil]

Only k00ks think a government is going to invest in fAiL when they have no money.................

Osborne: UK has run out of money - Telegraph

 

[KissMy]

Ok - I am now thinking wind energy is a failure. Because of its high EROEI I used to think we could get 20% of our power from wind since the wind blows 25% of the time. I figured that most of that 25% would be when there was demand. Boy was I ever wrong. Wind almost never generates power when you need it & only makes power when you don't. Wind energy production is completely out of phase with demand. Texas Wind Energy Fails, Again At 10% installed wind-generation capacity Texas wind capacity is way over built. Likely 7% is all the useful wind capacity we can achieve & it comes at a high price since you still have to build the same amount of Coal & Natural Gas capacity as you would without wind.

 

[skookerasbil]

Been say8ing it for 10 years..........wind and solar are liberal fantasies.

 

[Old Rocks]

Iowa #1 in Nation in Wind Energy Production
Iowa produces 20% of all the electricity generated in the state from wind turbines ranking it first in the nation and second in the world!
Iowa Wind Energy Association

 

[Old Rocks]

An industry with a 40% growth rate is a failure? OK.........

Solar power in the United States - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

As noted in the report, solar power has been expanding rapidly in the past eight years, growing at an average pace of 40% per year. The cost per kilowatt-hour of solar photovoltaic systems has also been dropping, while electricity generated from fossil fuels is becoming more expensive. As a result, the report projects that solar power will reach cost parity with conventional power sources in many U.S. markets by 2015. But to reach the 10% goal, solar photovoltaic companies will also need to streamline installations and make solar power a "plug-and-play" technology, that is, it must be simple and straightforward to buy the components of the system, connect them together, and connect the system to the power grid.[9]