Solar Power Destroys Miles and Miles of Desert

[Andylusion]

Because Solar's share of $36 Trillion is 9,000 Invapahs. Now lets add the destruction of land that Wind will be responsible for.

Apple alone will destroy 5 sq. miles of the Carrizo Plains.

Where did you get that figure from?
That's about twice the GDP of the USA and enough to buy 80 solar cells per capita plus wiring plus batteries .

It is a thread I created but I got the idea from a post in one of Matthew's threads, not sure if he made it or crick or old crock or even you, but someone linked to the report so I thought it would make a nice thread.

36 Trillion for Clean Energy IEA reports. US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum
IEA - International Energy Agency - affordable clean energy for all iea.org

Working together to ensure reliable, affordable and clean energy

Yes, you dumb fuck, 36 trillion for the whole world spread over about 35 years. We will spend that on energy infrastructure during that period in any case. And that report was not just about government spending, but included private firms, like the money Apple is putting up.

So the cost is $ 72 trillion with the infrastructure.

Apple just destroyed 5 sq. mi. of the Carrizo Plain. The desert is too expensive without an additional $36 trillion, for that total of 72$ trillion.

Apple is rich, like I said, Solar is an expensive luxury, Apple gets beat up over extreme profits and then bought off the Obama administration. Good Political move by Apple, nothing more.

Carrizo Plain Marks 10 Years as Colorful National Monument

What exactly did Apple buy off Obama?

 

[elektra]

Because Solar's share of $36 Trillion is 9,000 Invapahs. Now lets add the destruction of land that Wind will be responsible for.

Apple alone will destroy 5 sq. miles of the Carrizo Plains.

Where did you get that figure from?
That's about twice the GDP of the USA and enough to buy 80 solar cells per capita plus wiring plus batteries .

It is a thread I created but I got the idea from a post in one of Matthew's threads, not sure if he made it or crick or old crock or even you, but someone linked to the report so I thought it would make a nice thread.

36 Trillion for Clean Energy IEA reports. US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum
IEA - International Energy Agency - affordable clean energy for all iea.org

Working together to ensure reliable, affordable and clean energy

Yes, you dumb fuck, 36 trillion for the whole world spread over about 35 years. We will spend that on energy infrastructure during that period in any case. And that report was not just about government spending, but included private firms, like the money Apple is putting up.

So the cost is $ 72 trillion with the infrastructure.

Apple just destroyed 5 sq. mi. of the Carrizo Plain. The desert is too expensive without an additional $36 trillion, for that total of 72$ trillion.

Apple is rich, like I said, Solar is an expensive luxury, Apple gets beat up over extreme profits and then bought off the Obama administration. Good Political move by Apple, nothing more.

Carrizo Plain Marks 10 Years as Colorful National Monument

What exactly did Apple buy off Obama?

Do you mean, how? They donated to solar, after bad press about their profits.

 

[Billy_Bob]

It ain't a matter if a study states Solar makes the energy it needs to turn sand into solar panels or some rare earth metal, that means nothing.

Then your word counts more than any study ?
Or what kind of proof would you need ?
During its usefull life a solar panel will generate 16,000 kwh
The equivalent is 450 gallons of gasoline.
Do you really think a single panel requires 450 gallones of gasoline to be created ?
If so , with current oil/ energy prices, the panel would have to cost at least 600 USD.

Yes, my word is better than a study.
What is the subsidized price? And a panel does cost at least 600$.

I thought you made the claim that Solar could provide the energy to make a Solar Panel, that I said is impossible and will always be impossible. You need Fossil Fuels to make any kind of Solar Panel.

Solar at best powers homes, never the Heavy Industry used to create a Solar Panel.

Somehow you think its efficient for every single house to have its own power plant?

Jaja. Your word is better than any study ? Ok then you like to live in your own reallity.

No , a 300 watt panel costs less than $300 without subsidy
http://www.wholesalesolar.com/products.folder/module-folder/Astronergy/CHSM6612P-300.html
Large Solar Panels
Yes, I think that for some sunny zones it is more efficient, because they avoid the transmission and distribution costs and losses.

A 300 watt panel will not deliver 300 watts, at best 240 watts. I am going to reference every thing from your link. I think you did not read all the information on the panel you have chosen. In the info/FAQ it explains you will not get 300 watts from a panel, that is its laboratory tested best output that you quoted. Perfect conditions, meaning maximum sun at the perfect temperature.

http://www.wholesalesolar.com/Information-SolarFolder/solar-panel-efficiency.html

A solar panel, which is rated at 17 volts will put out less than its rated power when used in a battery system. That’s because the working voltage will be between 12 and 15 volts. Because wattage (or power) is the product of volts multiplied by the amps, the module output will be reduced. For example, a 50-watt solar panel working at 13.0 volts will products 39.0 watts (13.0 volts x 3.0 amps = 39.0 watts). This is important to remember when sizing a PV system.

Next is the specs from the datasheet. NOCT is normal operating temperature, why is that stated? Simply because the Panel never operates at that normal temperature outside the testing laboratory. If we take into account the loss simply for hooking it up, as said above, the rated output of the panel, installed drops down to 160 watts, maybe less taking into account which temperature it will operate at any given location.

You can turn on one 100 watt lightbulb at a cost of well over 1300$, I imagine it would cost another 500$ to install, then of course it will have to be added to my homeowner insurance policy. I am thinking roof damage is a real concern.

http://pdf.wholesalesolar.com/module pdf folder/CHSM6612P-305_Specs.pdf

Rated output (Pmpp) at NOCT 209.5 Wp

So in stating the price, we only look at the panel? No inverter, no wire, no batteries.

http://www.wholesalesolar.com/products.folder/systems-folder/OffGridPackages.html

Off-grid Solar Cabins / Starter Kits
Cabin Off-grid AC Kit 1 280 36 1890100 $1,290

.

You are challenging me, as to my knowledge, yet it is me that has to read the link you provide, I am assuming you did not read everything instead of ignoring the technical stuff. If you have not researched yourself and educated yourself on the simple basics of Solar what do you know of what I speak, when I state Solar can never pump water, or power the industry that is needed to sustain Solar.

You have hit the nail pretty good. You did miss however the charge controllers and the idle usage of stored energy at night and when the wind is not blowing or intermittent.

I built repeater systems for off grid mountain top powering. The average unit consisted of 14-300w panels, 3-130amp PMA wind mills, 14-2,200CCA deep cycle batteries, 3-thermal enclosures, 4 charge controllers, 2- 5000w pure sine wave inverters (coupled for 220vac), associated wiring, lightening arresters, dump loads, enclosure heaters and in some instances auto switching and a back up set of inverters. the average cost is around 50,000.00 and 70,000.00 US dollars installed. (dont forget the yearly maintenance required, and the EPA document for batteries)

The system will produce 20 amps continuous output @ 220vac and can last 3 days without wind or solar input. This particular system can power the average home (2000kwh) including an electric stove or dryer.

Siting is the problem. Winds on a ridge line are constant and thus the wind mills will produce the majority of the power. in a valley location more emphasis is required on panels and tall towers for the wind generators. factoring charge times and amperage draws, transmission losses, siting concerns for direct sun or wind zones, zoning laws and those same eco-nuts who do not want these in their own yards or near them....

A whole lot of math is required to size one of these systems. What is the average daily usage, (storage requirements for off grid systems is 5-7 days) thus you must factor in ability to gain full charge in limited time spans. Heck of a lot of math for the average person to do.

 

[CultureCitizen]

Solar for a home is going to cost at least 20k, its not going to last much over 10 years, and will be obsolete as soon as you install. Further when you need to replace your roof or ever have a leak the cost to fix your roof will be incredible.

What's your game Elektra ?
First you post a link for an off grid kit which includes anels, inverters, charge controllers and batteries for a cost of $1,290, and then you claim it will cost at least 20K.
WTF?
Even using this numbers AND assuming the panels will last ONLY 10 years ( in spite of the fact that it say 20 year limited warranty on power output.) you get : 4,320 kwh during the kit's lifetime, you get 0.29 cents per kwh.
Now, the biggest cost here are batteries, and I wouldn't go offgrid just because of them : they are expensive and not ecologicaly sound.
So once again , solar is ok , but batteries still need to be improved a lot.

 

[Synthaholic]

Solar Power Destroys Miles and Miles of Desert

How do you destroy a desert?

 

[elektra]

Solar for a home is going to cost at least 20k, its not going to last much over 10 years, and will be obsolete as soon as you install. Further when you need to replace your roof or ever have a leak the cost to fix your roof will be incredible.

What's your game Elektra ?
First you post a link for an off grid kit which includes anels, inverters, charge controllers and batteries for a cost of $1,290, and then you claim it will cost at least 20K.
WTF?
Even using this numbers AND assuming the panels will last ONLY 10 years ( in spite of the fact that it say 20 year limited warranty on power output.) you get : 4,320 kwh during the kit's lifetime, you get 0.29 cents per kwh.
Now, the biggest cost here are batteries, and I wouldn't go offgrid just because of them : they are expensive and not ecologicaly sound.
So once again , solar is ok , but batteries still need to be improved a lot.

It was your link, not mine. You referenced one panel without the equipment that it takes to operate. I used your link, your one panel, and the cost of a one panel system from your link, of course 132 watts will not operate a house, so from your link I posted the price that you ignored.

That is my game, using your link to show you have zero understanding of your own source.

 

[elektra]

Solar Power Destroys Miles and Miles of Desert

How do you destroy a desert?

It begins with ignorance, need an example?

 

[Synthaholic]

Solar Power Destroys Miles and Miles of Desert

How do you destroy a desert?

It begins with ignorance, need an example?

Do they disturb the tumbleweeds and the sand?

You conservatives are a bunch of enviro-whackos!

 

[CultureCitizen]

It was your link, not mine. You referenced one panel without the equipment that it takes to operate. I used your link, your one panel, and the cost of a one panel system from your link, of course 132 watts will not operate a house, so from your link I posted the price that you ignored.

That is my game, using your link to show you have zero understanding of your own source.

My house operates with that amount of electricity... the invoice from the electric company says I use 3 kwh per day ( I'll actually have to increase my consumption to use take full advantage of such a kit).
So yes , it is enough to run a household if coupled with a solar watter heater.

 

[elektra]

Solar Power Destroys Miles and Miles of Desert

How do you destroy a desert?

It begins with ignorance, need an example?

Do they disturb the tumbleweeds and the sand?

You conservatives are a bunch of enviro-whackos!

Yes, they do destroy tumble weeds, which should suggest to you that stuff actually grows in what you erroneously refer to, as sand.

And you think you are the smart one.

 

[CultureCitizen]

Solar Power Destroys Miles and Miles of Desert

How do you destroy a desert?

It begins with ignorance, need an example?

Do they disturb the tumbleweeds and the sand?

You conservatives are a bunch of enviro-whackos!

She probably thinks fracking is the most environmentally and health friendly option for any ecosystem.

 

[elektra]

It was your link, not mine. You referenced one panel without the equipment that it takes to operate. I used your link, your one panel, and the cost of a one panel system from your link, of course 132 watts will not operate a house, so from your link I posted the price that you ignored.

That is my game, using your link to show you have zero understanding of your own source.

My house operates with that amount of electricity... the invoice from the electric company says I use 3 kwh per day ( I'll actually have to increase my consumption to use take full advantage of such a kit).
So yes , it is enough to run a household if coupled with a solar watter heater.

Liar, one solar panel putting out less than 200 watts can run your house? Yea, if you use an ice chest to keep your food cold. A refrigerator uses 600 watts.

So smart you are.

 

[elektra]

Solar Power Destroys Miles and Miles of Desert

How do you destroy a desert?

It begins with ignorance, need an example?

Do they disturb the tumbleweeds and the sand?

You conservatives are a bunch of enviro-whackos!

She probably thinks fracking is the most environmentally and health friendly option for any ecosystem.

Geothermal fracks yet you call geothermal green?

 

[elektra]

Solar Power Destroys Miles and Miles of Desert

How do you destroy a desert?

It begins with ignorance, need an example?

Do they disturb the tumbleweeds and the sand?

You conservatives are a bunch of enviro-whackos!

She probably thinks fracking is the most environmentally and health friendly option for any ecosystem.

Nobody touched this thread all day, I get a message from you, and another fool at the same time, both of you thanking and rating one another, is the other your lover or your second account? I can see why you would want it to appear as if you have help.

 

[Old Rocks]

And were we to cover the industrial and commercial roofs within the cities with solar, a large percentage of the cities power would be self supplied.

That's simply not true unless you are in Arizona and similar places with little weather, and high sunlight energy.

Even so, currently solar panels just barely make enough power to meet or exceed the power used in their creation, and the costs per kWh, is still a hundred times higher than conventional power.

We'll know Solar Panels have finally arrived when the solar panel factories disconnect from the power grid, and can run exclusively on the power generated by their own product. Until that happens, I wager the idea of solar powered cities is still a long way off.

Of course you never know. A break through could happen right around the corner. But thus far, drastic increases in PV efficiency has come at massively highers prices. New Cadmium telluride photovoltaics, with high 40% efficiency, come with steep price tags, making them impractical for all but aerospace applications.

I doubt we'll be seeing cities covered in panels any time soon. Just my opinion.

Well Andy, why don't you try backing your opinion with some basic research?

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/11/24/b...-win-on-price-vs-conventional-fuels.html?_r=0

And, also in Oklahoma, American Electric Power ended up tripling the amount of wind power it had originally sought after seeing how low the bids came in last year.

“Wind was on sale — it was a Blue Light Special,” said Jay Godfrey, managing director of renewable energy for the company. He noted that Oklahoma, unlike many states, did not require utilities to buy power from renewable sources.

“We were doing it because it made sense for our ratepayers,” he said.

According to a study by the investment banking firm Lazard, the cost of utility-scale solar energy is as low as 5.6 cents a kilowatt-hour, and wind is as low as 1.4 cents. In comparison, natural gas comes at 6.1 cents a kilowatt-hour on the low end and coal at 6.6 cents. Without subsidies, the firm’s analysis shows, solar costs about 7.2 cents a kilowatt-hour at the low end, with wind at 3.7 cents.

Wind already cheaper than dirty coal, and solar very close to the price of dirty coal. And that is without subsidies, but with coal getting depletion allowances, which is a form of subsidy.

 

[elektra]

And were we to cover the industrial and commercial roofs within the cities with solar, a large percentage of the cities power would be self supplied.

That's simply not true unless you are in Arizona and similar places with little weather, and high sunlight energy.

Even so, currently solar panels just barely make enough power to meet or exceed the power used in their creation, and the costs per kWh, is still a hundred times higher than conventional power.

We'll know Solar Panels have finally arrived when the solar panel factories disconnect from the power grid, and can run exclusively on the power generated by their own product. Until that happens, I wager the idea of solar powered cities is still a long way off.

Of course you never know. A break through could happen right around the corner. But thus far, drastic increases in PV efficiency has come at massively highers prices. New Cadmium telluride photovoltaics, with high 40% efficiency, come with steep price tags, making them impractical for all but aerospace applications.

I doubt we'll be seeing cities covered in panels any time soon. Just my opinion.

Well Andy, why don't you try backing your opinion with some basic research?

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/11/24/b...-win-on-price-vs-conventional-fuels.html?_r=0

And, also in Oklahoma, American Electric Power ended up tripling the amount of wind power it had originally sought after seeing how low the bids came in last year.

“Wind was on sale — it was a Blue Light Special,” said Jay Godfrey, managing director of renewable energy for the company. He noted that Oklahoma, unlike many states, did not require utilities to buy power from renewable sources.

“We were doing it because it made sense for our ratepayers,” he said.

According to a study by the investment banking firm Lazard, the cost of utility-scale solar energy is as low as 5.6 cents a kilowatt-hour, and wind is as low as 1.4 cents. In comparison, natural gas comes at 6.1 cents a kilowatt-hour on the low end and coal at 6.6 cents. Without subsidies, the firm’s analysis shows, solar costs about 7.2 cents a kilowatt-hour at the low end, with wind at 3.7 cents.

Wind already cheaper than dirty coal, and solar very close to the price of dirty coal. And that is without subsidies, but with coal getting depletion allowances, which is a form of subsidy.

Basic research is a New York Times article? Old Crock, it is hard to tell which side you are fighting for? You are against Wind and Solar? Yes? That is why you make yourself an example of stupidity speaking as if you speak for solar and wind.

This is funny stuff, "Basic research starts with the New York Times".

 

[Old Rocks]

Oncor proposes giant leap for grid batteries Dallas Morning News

Oncor, which runs Texas’ largest power line network, is willing to bet battery technology is ready for wide-scale deployment across the grid.

In a move that stands to radically shift the dynamics of the industry, Oncor is set to announce Monday that it is prepared to invest more than $2 billion to store electricity in thousands of batteries across North and West Texas beginning in 2018.

Utility-scale batteries have been a holy grail within the energy sector for years. With enough storage space, surplus electricity can be generated at night, when plants usually sit idle, to be used the next day, when demand is highest. Power outages would become less frequent. Wind and solar power, susceptible to weather conditions, could be built on a larger scale. The only problem has been that the price of batteries has been too high to make economic sense. But if they’re purchased on a large enough scale, that won’t be the case for long, said Oncor CEO Bob Shapard.

“Everyone assumed the price point was five to six years out. We’re getting indications from everyone we’ve talked to they can get us to that price by 2018,” he said in an interview Wednesday.

The Dallas-based transmission company is proposing the installation of 5,000 megawatts of batteries not just in its service area but across Texas’ entire grid. That is the equivalent of four nuclear power plants on a grid with a capacity of about 81,000 megawatts.

Ranging from refrigerator- to dumpster-size, the batteries would be installed behind shopping centers and in neighborhoods. Statewide, Oncor estimates a total price tag of $5.2 billion. A study commissioned by Oncor with the Brattle Group, a Massachusetts consulting firm that provides power market analysis for state regulators, says the project would not raise bills. Revenue from rental of storage space on the batteries, along with a decrease in power prices and transmission costs, should actually decrease the average Texas residential power bill 34 cents to $179.66 a month, the report said.

And another newspaper story from hyper-liberal Texas.

 

[Old Rocks]

And look what all the hyper liberal pinko commies have to say in Oklahoma.

Wind Energy - Oklahoma Department of Commerce

• State Energy Office
  /
• Renewable Energy
  /
• Wind Energy

Oklahoma boasts the 8th best wind resource in the nation it’s easy to see why Oklahoma IS Wind Energy.

Utility Scale Wind Generation
Each of Oklahoma’s utility providers utilizes wind power as part of their generation portfolio. While each utility and cooperative employ wind power by different means, wind is an option for all of Oklahoma’s citizens. For more information about each utility’s wind program, please see the links below:
Oklahoma Gas & Electric:OG E - 404 Page Not Found
Public Service Company of Oklahoma:PSO - WindChoice

Small Wind
Oklahoma’s amazing wind resource not only provides power to our utilities for commercial power generation, but also can be utilized and harnessed on a smaller scale for your home, farm or business. Oklahoma is home to the leading small wind turbine manufacturer, Bergey Windpower, based in Norman. Let the SEO help you determine if a small wind installation is right for you.

Education
The wind energy industry is a growing industry in need of skilled and well educated personnel. Opportunities range from engineering to meteorology, to wind turbine technicians to business development and much more. Oklahoma’s universities, community colleges and Career Tech schools have numerous programs to choose from to get you started on this path. Contact the SEO for further information on programs available across the state.

Manufacturing
Oklahoma is recognized for its pro-business environment. Our supply chain is ready to serve the manufacturing needs of the wind industry. With aggressive incentive packages, skilled workforce and competitive cost of doing business, Oklahoma is a great location for businesses. Contact us to find out how we can help you grow in Oklahoma.

 

[Old Rocks]

As Renewable Energy Grows Wind and Solar Pull Ahead of Hydropower StateImpact Texas

Nationally, wind generation has increased from three percent to over 30 percent of total renewable generation since 2003. Texas wind power saw tremendous growth during that time. With the Texas Renewable Portfolio Standard from 1999 and the state’s Emerging Technology Fund from 2005, Texas energy demand met with wind power rose from one percent in 2001 to 10 percent in 2014.

In solar generation, Texas is lagging behind some other sunny Southwestern states, but progress is underway. The city of El Paso doubled its solar power generation capacity in 2014 and will rely heavily on a massive new solar farm (even if it’s in New Mexico). Austin and San Antonio have also become national frontrunners in the use of solar energy.

Perhaps the biggest boost for renewable energy in Texas was a recently completed $7 billion project to connect wind farms of West Texas and the Panhandle to big cities where the power is used. The project has opened huge energy markets, which once relied on nearby power plants, to wind production hundreds of miles away.

Hydropower came to Texas in the 1930’s as part of President Roosevelt’s New Deal economic stimulus. The Lower Colorado River Authority was initially created in 1935 as a quasi-public corporation that qualified to receive New Deal funding from the federal government to build six dams on the Colorado River by 1941. Today, Texas has 23 dams with hydroelectric generators.

Doggone liberal Texans.

 

[elektra]

Oncor proposes giant leap for grid batteries Dallas Morning News

Oncor, which runs Texas’ largest power line network, is willing to bet battery technology is ready for wide-scale deployment across the grid.

In a move that stands to radically shift the dynamics of the industry, Oncor is set to announce Monday that it is prepared to invest more than $2 billion to store electricity in thousands of batteries across North and West Texas beginning in 2018.

Utility-scale batteries have been a holy grail within the energy sector for years. With enough storage space, surplus electricity can be generated at night, when plants usually sit idle, to be used the next day, when demand is highest. Power outages would become less frequent. Wind and solar power, susceptible to weather conditions, could be built on a larger scale. The only problem has been that the price of batteries has been too high to make economic sense. But if they’re purchased on a large enough scale, that won’t be the case for long, said Oncor CEO Bob Shapard.

“Everyone assumed the price point was five to six years out. We’re getting indications from everyone we’ve talked to they can get us to that price by 2018,” he said in an interview Wednesday.

The Dallas-based transmission company is proposing the installation of 5,000 megawatts of batteries not just in its service area but across Texas’ entire grid. That is the equivalent of four nuclear power plants on a grid with a capacity of about 81,000 megawatts.

Ranging from refrigerator- to dumpster-size, the batteries would be installed behind shopping centers and in neighborhoods. Statewide, Oncor estimates a total price tag of $5.2 billion. A study commissioned by Oncor with the Brattle Group, a Massachusetts consulting firm that provides power market analysis for state regulators, says the project would not raise bills. Revenue from rental of storage space on the batteries, along with a decrease in power prices and transmission costs, should actually decrease the average Texas residential power bill 34 cents to $179.66 a month, the report said.

And another newspaper story from hyper-liberal Texas.

ONCOR, they have a tax-free exempt status and are part of bankruptcy proceedings.