Rockerfellers join socialist cult

Maybe if you live in Minnesota...

1024px-PVeff%28rev140923%29.jpg


Comparison
Main article: Photovoltaics
Energy conversion efficiency is measured by dividing the electrical output by the incident light power. Factors influencing output include spectral distribution, spatial distribution of power, temperature, and resistive load. IEC standard 61215 is used to compare the performance of cells and is designed around standard (terrestrial, temperate) temperature and conditions (STC): irradiance of 1 kW/m2, a spectral distribution close to solar radiation through AM (airmass) of 1.5 and a cell temperature 25 °C. The resistive load is varied until the peak or maximum power point (MPP) is achieved. The power at this point is recorded as Watt-peak (Wp). The same standard is used for measuring the power and efficiency of PV modules.

Air mass affects output. In space, where there is no atmosphere, the spectrum of the sun is relatively unfiltered. However, on earth, air filters the incoming light, changing the solar spectrum. The filtering effect ranges from Air Mass 0 (AM0) in space, to approximately Air Mass 1.5 on Earth. Multiplying the spectral differences by the quantum efficiency of the solar cell in question yields the efficiency. Terrestrial efficiencies typically are greater than space efficiencies. For example, a silicon solar cell in space might have an efficiency of 14% at AM0, but 16% on earth at AM 1.5. Note, however, that incident photons in space carry considerably more energy, so the solar cell might produce considerably more power in space, despite the lower efficiency as indicated by reduced percentage of the total incident energy captured.

Solar cell efficiencies vary from 6% for amorphous silicon-based solar cells to 44.0% with multiple-junction production cells and 44.4% with multiple dies assembled into a hybrid package.[11][12] Solar cell energy conversion efficiencies for commercially available multicrystalline Si solar cells are around 14-19%.[13] The highest efficiency cells have not always been the most economical — for example a 30% efficient multijunction cell based on exotic materials such as gallium arsenide or indium selenide produced at low volume might well cost one hundred times as much as an 8% efficient amorphous silicon cell in mass production, while delivering only about four times the output.

However, there is a way to "boost" solar power. By increasing the light intensity, typically photogenerated carriers are increased, increasing efficiency by up to 15%. These so-called "concentrator systems" have only begun to become cost-competitive as a result of the development of high efficiency GaAs cells. The increase in intensity is typically accomplished by using concentrating optics. A typical concentrator system may use a light intensity 6-400 times the sun, and increase the efficiency of a one sun GaAs cell from 31% at AM 1.5 to 35%.

A common method used to express economic costs is to calculate a price per delivered kilowatt-hour (kWh). The solar cell efficiency in combination with the available irradiation has a major influence on the costs, but generally speaking the overall system efficiency is important. Commercially available solar cells (as of 2006) reached system efficiencies between 5 and 19%.

Crystalline silicon devices are approaching the theoretical limiting efficiency of 29.4%[14] In 2014, efficiency of 25.6% was achieved in crystalline cells that place both positive and negative contacts on the back of the cell and that cover the wafer's the front and back with thin films of silicon.[15]
 
The Rockefeller offspring have been in the Socialist camp for a long time now, moron. It's typical for the offspring of self made millionaires to be socialists. After all, they have no real talents or abilities themselves. They don't understand the business of making money, so they put their trust in government.

So, you believe they've been socialists all along. That's not what the OP is saying. It's contending that shifting their investments from fossil fuels to renewables makes them socialists.

"It's typical for the offspring of self-made millionaires to be socialists"? Really? Do you have some evidence or is that statement as anally derived as it sounds?
 
Green technology is not a Ponzi Scheme. That the government subsidizes it doesn't make it a Ponzi Scheme. "Uneconomic" is not the same thing as "Ponzi Scheme." And that it is uneconomic now does not mean it will be so indefinitely.

Billions of private capital have gone into Green tech. Lots of very smart people are investing in it.

I don't know if it will be successful, and I don't think foundations should be divesting their dirty energy over it, but to dismiss of out of hand demonstrates a misunderstanding of what is happening in the market place.




So long as the government rewards failure with taxpayer money it is a Ponzi scheme (robbing peter to pay Paul). There is no penalty for failure which in turn limits true original thought and research and development. There is no incentive to do anything new and extraordinary.

That's why, after 40 plus years of development, PV modules are little better than when I first installed them on my house. When I first installed them my efficiency was around 11%. Now if you pay a goodly amount you can up that to 13%. I'm sorry but that is pathetic. Theoretical maximum is 24% and they are nowhere near that. And, based on past performance, they will never get there.

That's not a Ponzi Scheme. Calling it a Football Game is as accurate as calling it a Ponzi Scheme.

And I have no idea where you get this idea that there is no penalty for failure. There is penalty of failure. We fund venture capital that invests in green tech. Like most venture, it fails and the investment gets wiped out.




None of those who invested in Solyndra or a whole host of other green companies lost their money. Instead they asked their relatives (in the case of Pelosi) or their friends and the government came to their rescue with taxpayer loan guarantee's. It wasn't meant to be a Ponzi scheme, but that's how it ended up.
 
The Rockefeller offspring have been in the Socialist camp for a long time now, moron. It's typical for the offspring of self made millionaires to be socialists. After all, they have no real talents or abilities themselves. They don't understand the business of making money, so they put their trust in government.

So, you believe they've been socialists all along. That's not what the OP is saying. It's contending that shifting their investments from fossil fuels to renewables makes them socialists.

"It's typical for the offspring of self-made millionaires to be socialists"? Really? Do you have some evidence or is that statement as anally derived as it sounds?

Give me an example of one who isn't. Hilton? Nope. Vanderbilt? Nope.
 
Green technology is not a Ponzi Scheme. That the government subsidizes it doesn't make it a Ponzi Scheme. "Uneconomic" is not the same thing as "Ponzi Scheme." And that it is uneconomic now does not mean it will be so indefinitely.

Billions of private capital have gone into Green tech. Lots of very smart people are investing in it.

I don't know if it will be successful, and I don't think foundations should be divesting their dirty energy over it, but to dismiss of out of hand demonstrates a misunderstanding of what is happening in the market place.




So long as the government rewards failure with taxpayer money it is a Ponzi scheme (robbing peter to pay Paul). There is no penalty for failure which in turn limits true original thought and research and development. There is no incentive to do anything new and extraordinary.

That's why, after 40 plus years of development, PV modules are little better than when I first installed them on my house. When I first installed them my efficiency was around 11%. Now if you pay a goodly amount you can up that to 13%. I'm sorry but that is pathetic. Theoretical maximum is 24% and they are nowhere near that. And, based on past performance, they will never get there.

That's not a Ponzi Scheme. Calling it a Football Game is as accurate as calling it a Ponzi Scheme.

And I have no idea where you get this idea that there is no penalty for failure. There is penalty of failure. We fund venture capital that invests in green tech. Like most venture, it fails and the investment gets wiped out.




None of those who invested in Solyndra or a whole host of other green companies lost their money. Instead they asked their relatives (in the case of Pelosi) or their friends and the government came to their rescue with taxpayer loan guarantee's. It wasn't meant to be a Ponzi scheme, but that's how it ended up.

That's the danger of forming an opinion and basing your knowledge of an entire industry on one highly politicized event.

And no, that's still not a Ponzi Scheme.
 
Green technology is not a Ponzi Scheme. That the government subsidizes it doesn't make it a Ponzi Scheme. "Uneconomic" is not the same thing as "Ponzi Scheme." And that it is uneconomic now does not mean it will be so indefinitely.

Billions of private capital have gone into Green tech. Lots of very smart people are investing in it.

I don't know if it will be successful, and I don't think foundations should be divesting their dirty energy over it, but to dismiss of out of hand demonstrates a misunderstanding of what is happening in the market place.




So long as the government rewards failure with taxpayer money it is a Ponzi scheme (robbing peter to pay Paul). There is no penalty for failure which in turn limits true original thought and research and development. There is no incentive to do anything new and extraordinary.

That's why, after 40 plus years of development, PV modules are little better than when I first installed them on my house. When I first installed them my efficiency was around 11%. Now if you pay a goodly amount you can up that to 13%. I'm sorry but that is pathetic. Theoretical maximum is 24% and they are nowhere near that. And, based on past performance, they will never get there.

As usual Walleyes has his 'facts' completely wrong.

SunPower claims new solar cell efficiency record of 24.2 percent

Although we’ve seen sunlight to electricity conversion efficiencies of over 40 percent with multi-junction solar cells in lab environments, most mass-produced cells can only boast a conversion rate of around 15 percent. Now SunPower Corp., a Silicon Valley-based manufacturer of high-efficiency solar cells, solar panels and solar power systems, has claimed a new world record solar cell efficiency of 24.2 percent.

Solar cell efficiency is the rate at which the cells capture and convert sunlight into energy. The 24.2 percent efficiency record for large-scale silicon wafers was confirmed by the U.S. Department of Energy’s National Renewable Energy Lab (NREL) on a full-scale prototype produced at theSunPower Corp.’s manufacturing plant in the Philippines.
 
The Rockefeller offspring have been in the Socialist camp for a long time now, moron. It's typical for the offspring of self made millionaires to be socialists. After all, they have no real talents or abilities themselves. They don't understand the business of making money, so they put their trust in government.

So, you believe they've been socialists all along. That's not what the OP is saying. It's contending that shifting their investments from fossil fuels to renewables makes them socialists.

"It's typical for the offspring of self-made millionaires to be socialists"? Really? Do you have some evidence or is that statement as anally derived as it sounds?

Give me an example of one who isn't. Hilton? Nope. Vanderbilt? Nope.

That's bullshit. You gave us a principle. Defend your principle. Show us why all swans are white.
 
As usual Walleyes has his 'facts' completely wrong.

SunPower claims new solar cell efficiency record of 24.2 percent

Although we’ve seen sunlight to electricity conversion efficiencies of over 40 percent with multi-junction solar cells in lab environments, most mass-produced cells can only boast a conversion rate of around 15 percent. Now SunPower Corp., a Silicon Valley-based manufacturer of high-efficiency solar cells, solar panels and solar power systems, has claimed a new world record solar cell efficiency of 24.2 percent.

Solar cell efficiency is the rate at which the cells capture and convert sunlight into energy. The 24.2 percent efficiency record for large-scale silicon wafers was confirmed by the U.S. Department of Energy’s National Renewable Energy Lab (NREL) on a full-scale prototype produced at theSunPower Corp.’s manufacturing plant in the Philippines.

And the date of that article is 24 June 2010
 
So you believe the Rockefellers are knowingly participating in Ponzi scheme. Or do you believe they've been taken in by one put together by climate scientists and liberals? Are they crooks or stupid?

I think at this point it is fair to say that Westwall has absolutely no idea what his point is, why it would make sense, or why anyone would bother to listen to it.
 
The Rockefeller offspring have been in the Socialist camp for a long time now, moron. It's typical for the offspring of self made millionaires to be socialists. After all, they have no real talents or abilities themselves. They don't understand the business of making money, so they put their trust in government.

I'm going to assume this post is satire.
 
I'm wondering how this shift in investment makes the Rockefellers socialists, as the OP claims.

My thread title was meant ironically, much like BriPat's post above.

My point being that people like the Rockefellers define conservatism and capitalism. They have made their money from investments and shares for generations, they have worked hard to maintain the status quo, to work with major corporations and politicians to ensure that capital flowed through their investments and into their own pockets. I don't say that this is good or bad; it's simply a fact.

Obviously everyone knows this; just as everyone knows that when investors divest themselves of some stocks and buy others, it is because that is where they see long term gain. No one is going to invest in order to lose money. No one is going to invest to become part of some nonsensical conspiracy. No one is going to invest in an industry they don't believe will be around in five years' time.

The fact that climate sceptics need to understand is that even if you choose to ignore ALL the science and ALL the governments and ALL the industries and ALL the organsations who understand the realities of climate change - the market is going to be very difficult to ignore. The smart money will always follow the facts.
 
The Rockefeller offspring have been in the Socialist camp for a long time now, moron. It's typical for the offspring of self made millionaires to be socialists. After all, they have no real talents or abilities themselves. They don't understand the business of making money, so they put their trust in government.

I'm going to assume this post is satire.

Unfortunately it's not. Bripart also thinks Sweden is a "communist fascist" state.
 
I do recall BriPat telling me that dictionaries were socialist.

I still think that may be the single funniest thing I have ever seen posted on a discussion forum.
 

Forum List

Back
Top