Solar energy

Confounding

Gold Member
Jan 31, 2016
7,073
1,551
280
Do those of you that trash the idea of solar energy really believe that this developing technology can/will never be something useful that can be used on a large scale? They get better at harnessing solar energy every year. Think about this for a moment. The energy we get from fossil fuel originally came from the sun. It started out as sunlight that was eaten by plants that got eaten by other creatures that died and eventually became what we use as fuel. Do you really think harnessing direct sunlight doesn't have the potential to be more efficient than burning the millions of years old goop from life that collected the same sunlight all those years ago?
 
It's not he concept I criticize. I criticize the reason it seems we have government subsidizing it. The global warming hoax is the reason.

If and when it becomes a viable alternative, fine.

However, the cost of building and maintaining the panels, which obviously get worn out and have to be replaced, does not create an effective cost savings over using fossil fuels in the long run.

From what I have read, geo-thermal energy is expensive to establish, but once established it does not take serious maintenance or need replacement over 20 years or so. Drill deep ass holes, run some pipes down, fill them with water, when steam blasts out harness the power, and repeat. I don't even see why the steam has to be released. Let it condense and re-use it.

Perhaps it's because it's TOO efficient, or maybe what I read is bullshit too.

I dunno, but I do know the global warming hoax is bullshit, and as an extension "green energy" is basically psilocybin.

 
Do those of you that trash the idea of solar energy really believe that this developing technology can/will never be something useful that can be used on a large scale? They get better at harnessing solar energy every year. Think about this for a moment. The energy we get from fossil fuel originally came from the sun. It started out as sunlight that was eaten by plants that got eaten by other creatures that died and eventually became what we use as fuel. Do you really think harnessing direct sunlight doesn't have the potential to be more efficient than burning the millions of years old goop from life that collected the same sunlight all those years ago?
I have solar because I like offsetting my outrageous electrical bill.

But I don't have to worry about supplying millions of homes with power on a cloudy day.

What this means is my power company must build and maintain enough power plants as if solar never existed, yet sell very little electricity most of the year.
 
  • Thread starter
  • Banned
  • #4
It's not he concept I criticize. I criticize the reason it seems we have government subsidizing it. The global warming hoax is the reason.

If and when it becomes a viable alternative, fine.

However, the cost of building and maintaining the panels, which obviously get worn out and have to be replaced, does not create an effective cost savings over using fossil fuels in the long run.

From what I have read, geo-thermal energy is expensive to establish, but once established it does not take serious maintenance or need replacement over 20 years or so. Drill deep ass holes, run some pipes down, fill them with water, when steam blasts out harness the power, and repeat. I don't even see why the steam has to be released. Let it condense and re-use it.

Perhaps it's because it's TOO efficient, or maybe what I read is bullshit too.

I dunno, but I do know the global warming hoax is bullshit, and as an extension "green energy" is basically psilocybin.

Global warming aside, is it really so bad to subsidize the development of energy sources that you seem to believe could possibly be very efficient in the future? It's an investment, one I really don't take issue with. I get frustrated when politics gets in the way of the development of science and technology.
 
  • Thread starter
  • Banned
  • #5
Do those of you that trash the idea of solar energy really believe that this developing technology can/will never be something useful that can be used on a large scale? They get better at harnessing solar energy every year. Think about this for a moment. The energy we get from fossil fuel originally came from the sun. It started out as sunlight that was eaten by plants that got eaten by other creatures that died and eventually became what we use as fuel. Do you really think harnessing direct sunlight doesn't have the potential to be more efficient than burning the millions of years old goop from life that collected the same sunlight all those years ago?
I have solar because I like offsetting my outrageous electrical bill.

But I don't have to worry about supplying millions of homes with power on a cloudy day.

What this means is my power company must build and maintain enough power plants as if solar never existed, yet sell very little electricity most of the year.

I'm no solar engineer, but it seems to me that it's really only a matter of time until we figure out how to effectively store solar energy.
 
I don't have a thing against solar energy


been using it for years

th
 
Global warming aside, is it really so bad to subsidize the development of energy sources that you seem to believe could possibly be very efficient in the future? It's an investment, one I really don't take issue with. I get frustrated when politics gets in the way of the development of science and technology.

I agree with you in part, but when politics becomes the reason government subsidizes science, you end up with people who develop a solution and have to invent a problem (that can not be solved with all the money ever printed, or that ever will be printed). That is the case with "green energy". The concept was promoted by people who hate capitalism and fossil fuels. If they were so certain about their ideas, they would invest their own billions into these industries. Instead they're invested in fundraising and PR campaigns that guilt people into donation to their fundraising organizations.

A good friend of mine is a PhD in Chemistry and a professor at an esteemed university. When she tells me that the entire "green energy" concept is a fool's errand and confirms what I've believed after I finally researched issue myself, I tend to believe her.

I was once an obnoxious environmentalist myself and actually took the time to analyze and read about the counter arguments I faced when "the nazis" would confront me.

Turns out that these "nazis" were right, and if anyone was promoting fascism it was liberal asswipes like my 19 year old know-it-all self.


 
It's not he concept I criticize. I criticize the reason it seems we have government subsidizing it.

Meanwhile government subsidies of nuclear power that was supposed to have paid for itself decades ago......

It's part of the government's job to subsidize public projects that are too big to be done privately --- building the roads, for instance. The railroads before that. Or to pull one from further past, the telegraph infrastructure, which begat the telephone system, which was then adapted for electrical service.
 
It's not he concept I criticize. I criticize the reason it seems we have government subsidizing it. The global warming hoax is the reason.

If and when it becomes a viable alternative, fine.

However, the cost of building and maintaining the panels, which obviously get worn out and have to be replaced, does not create an effective cost savings over using fossil fuels in the long run.

From what I have read, geo-thermal energy is expensive to establish, but once established it does not take serious maintenance or need replacement over 20 years or so. Drill deep ass holes, run some pipes down, fill them with water, when steam blasts out harness the power, and repeat. I don't even see why the steam has to be released. Let it condense and re-use it.

Perhaps it's because it's TOO efficient, or maybe what I read is bullshit too.

I dunno, but I do know the global warming hoax is bullshit, and as an extension "green energy" is basically psilocybin.
Geothermal is a complete failure. It is the most expensive way to produce electricity due to the maintenance required. It is not simply "steam" that comes up from the earth. It is salts, heavy metals, toxins, radioactive toxins. The biggest geothermal plants in the USA are at the Salton Sea. They constantly drill new holes, just like drilling for oil. As soon as you open a geothermal well you let off the pressure, like opening a tea kettle. If you inject water into the well, same thing, you cool it and need to find another source. Either way, water is a valuable resource we need not waste on geothermal. There are threads here on the geothermal fields. Not one person can argue that they are sustainable nor efficient and least of all, a solution for our future.
 
I'm no solar engineer, but it seems to me that it's really only a matter of time until we figure out how to effectively store solar energy.
ha, ha, solar power can not supply us with a fraction of the energy we need, so why would you ever store it?

Uhhhhmmmmm..... for what we call "night time". Why do we use batteries? How do you start your car?

I've got stored power in this laptop as well as in my UPS units for when the grid goes down.. Some of my neighbors aren't even on the grid.
 
Do those of you that trash the idea of solar energy really believe that this developing technology can/will never be something useful that can be used on a large scale? They get better at harnessing solar energy every year. Think about this for a moment. The energy we get from fossil fuel originally came from the sun. It started out as sunlight that was eaten by plants that got eaten by other creatures that died and eventually became what we use as fuel. Do you really think harnessing direct sunlight doesn't have the potential to be more efficient than burning the millions of years old goop from life that collected the same sunlight all those years ago?


I think that we are already on the verge of major developments in solar. This is just one of them. The energy co-ops in Germany using many sources of energy, solar, biomass, wind, ect. is another.
 

Forum List

Back
Top