Solar power will soon be as cheap as coal

[bripat9643]

And who said we can do it overnight? But we can do it in one generation. And, with each year, the price of the renewables comes down.

You've had 50 years and BILLIONS and the technology is SO MATURE that companies are competing solely on price now. We are WAAAAY past the wax cylinder stage as JimSouth puts it..

I know you've worked in steel.. Ask the Electrical staff how long wind would power the plant.. Was that on Tuesday or Wednesday that wind in Oregon could power a steel mill.. And -- would it make it into the 2nd shift on the same day?

Interesting...... Soooo, you have stock in coal, got it....... Hell why else would you be arguing so vehemently against renewables?
Half of what I'm reading you say is from years or decades ago (technology related), how long did it take this:

To become this;

They're discussing progress in the renewable field and you seem to be going off the deep end.....

It's truly pathetic how the eco-nutburgers fail to understand the fundamental qualitative difference between computer technology, which involves flipping a few bits around, and energy production, which is constrained by the laws of thermodynamics.

 

[bripat9643]

Mr. Flacaltenn, perhaps you should look a map of Oregon. Notice that river at the top of the map? And the bodies of water dammed up on that river? You see, when the wind is blowing, we do not have to run as much water through the turbines. And when it is not, we have the water saved up to do that. In that manner, the wind does help power our state, even when the wind is not blowing.

When the grid is extended into the south of our state, we will have a huge amount of wind, solar, and geothermal. And will not only have enough power for all of Oregon, but will help power California, Idaho, and Nevada.

Hmmm, no, the wind does not help to power your state when it isn't blowing. You have backup hydroelectric. If you didn't have that, you would have to burn coal or natural gas.

Your fundamental misunderstanding of how the power system works, which you have just demonstrated, shows that no one should bother paying attention to anything you have to say on the subject.

 

[bripat9643]

Yes, I have worked in one for the last 16 years as a millwright.

But wind supplies over 12% of the power created in Oregon. That would run several steel mills.

You can't make steel from ore without coal, period.

 

[bripat9643]

Some people just love that fossil fuel and therefore hate alternative energy, because they are simply folks that let others think for them.
They hate green, gray is their favorite color.View attachment 42774

Show us a picture of an American or European city with smog that bad.

 

[bripat9643]

Mr. Flacaltenn, you will be awkward, and mistaken, with or without our permission.

Horses were put out to pasture, as will be coal, and then natural gas as wind, solar, and geothermal become our major sources of energy.

Wind and solar will never be our main sources of energy.

 

[bripat9643]

Storage?
Hydrogen.
Solar power?
Over one thousand times more energy than humans use (and much more than that if realistic 'need' were to be considered).
Let's see, six hours times more than a thousand times used power equals, um,
much more than enough!
Golly!

How much of the Earth are you planning to cover with solar panels? How many birds are you willing to kill?

 

[Ringel05]

And who said we can do it overnight? But we can do it in one generation. And, with each year, the price of the renewables comes down.

You've had 50 years and BILLIONS and the technology is SO MATURE that companies are competing solely on price now. We are WAAAAY past the wax cylinder stage as JimSouth puts it..

I know you've worked in steel.. Ask the Electrical staff how long wind would power the plant.. Was that on Tuesday or Wednesday that wind in Oregon could power a steel mill.. And -- would it make it into the 2nd shift on the same day?

Interesting...... Soooo, you have stock in coal, got it....... Hell why else would you be arguing so vehemently against renewables?
Half of what I'm reading you say is from years or decades ago (technology related), how long did it take this:

To become this;

They're discussing progress in the renewable field and you seem to be going off the deep end.....

It's truly pathetic how the eco-nutburgers fail to understand the fundamental qualitative difference between computer technology, which involves flipping a few bits around, and energy production, which is constrained by the laws of thermodynamics.

Missing the point? Looks like it.

 

[jon_berzerk]

or coal will be as expensive as solar

--LOL

 

[Old Rocks]

Some people just love that fossil fuel and therefore hate alternative energy, because they are simply folks that let others think for them.
They hate green, gray is their favorite color.View attachment 42774

Show us a picture of an American or European city with smog that bad.

Silly little boy, obviously you have not been alive very long. There were a bunch of American cities with extremely unhealthy air when I was a young man.


A Darkness in Donora | History | Smithsonian


"It was so bad," Jerry Campa, a Donora, Pennsylvania, restaurateur recalls, "that I'd accidentally step off the curb and turn my ankle because I couldn't see my feet." The acrid, yellowish gray blanket that began to smother the Monongahela River mill town in late October 1948 was more suffocating than anything any Donoran had ever seen—or inhaled—in the past. Before a rainstorm washed the ugly soup away five days later, 20 people had died or would soon succumb and nearly 6,000 of the 14,000 population had been sickened.


"Before Donora," declares Marcia Spink, associate director for air programs for the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency's Region III office in Philadelphia, "people thought of smog as a nuisance. It made your shirts dirty. The Donora tragedy was a wake-up call. People realized smog could kill."




Read more: History, Travel, Arts, Science, People, Places | Smithsonian
Give the gift of Smithsonian magazine for only $12! Give the gift of Smithsonian
Follow us: @SmithsonianMag on Twitter

 

[flacaltenn]

And who said we can do it overnight? But we can do it in one generation. And, with each year, the price of the renewables comes down.

You've had 50 years and BILLIONS and the technology is SO MATURE that companies are competing solely on price now. We are WAAAAY past the wax cylinder stage as JimSouth puts it..

I know you've worked in steel.. Ask the Electrical staff how long wind would power the plant.. Was that on Tuesday or Wednesday that wind in Oregon could power a steel mill.. And -- would it make it into the 2nd shift on the same day?

Interesting...... Soooo, you have stock in coal, got it....... Hell why else would you be arguing so vehemently against renewables?
Half of what I'm reading you say is from years or decades ago (technology related), how long did it take this:

To become this;

They're discussing progress in the renewable field and you seem to be going off the deep end.....

It's truly pathetic how the eco-nutburgers fail to understand the fundamental qualitative difference between computer technology, which involves flipping a few bits around, and energy production, which is constrained by the laws of thermodynamics.

Missing the point? Looks like it.

Point is --- 1000s of products have been obsoleted by portable gadgets. Faxs, answering machines, watches, calculators, cameras, ect -- And the AppleWatch is a repacking of a remote control gadget. PRODUCT INNOVATION is virtually stagnant. MOST new consumer electronics is boring.

OTH -- Power Generation really hasn't changed much in 100 yrs. Wind is still turning a turbine, Solar is still the photoelectric effect.

You can OPTIMIZE your way out of the sun being at a useful angle for 6 hours a day or less by motorizing panels to track the sun. STILL leaves about 16 hours of NO POWER. And Wind will only be there on alternate Tuesdays, and Fridays and parts of Sunday.. That's what YOU'RE missing.

So no matter how big a tantrum the eco-nauts throw -- these 2 things are NOT alternatives to reliable power generation. They are peaker and supplement technologies.. Cannot EXPAND a system capacity with either or both of them..

 

[bripat9643]

Some people just love that fossil fuel and therefore hate alternative energy, because they are simply folks that let others think for them.
They hate green, gray is their favorite color.View attachment 42774

Show us a picture of an American or European city with smog that bad.

Silly little boy, obviously you have not been alive very long. There were a bunch of American cities with extremely unhealthy air when I was a young man.


A Darkness in Donora | History | Smithsonian


"It was so bad," Jerry Campa, a Donora, Pennsylvania, restaurateur recalls, "that I'd accidentally step off the curb and turn my ankle because I couldn't see my feet." The acrid, yellowish gray blanket that began to smother the Monongahela River mill town in late October 1948 was more suffocating than anything any Donoran had ever seen—or inhaled—in the past. Before a rainstorm washed the ugly soup away five days later, 20 people had died or would soon succumb and nearly 6,000 of the 14,000 population had been sickened.


"Before Donora," declares Marcia Spink, associate director for air programs for the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency's Region III office in Philadelphia, "people thought of smog as a nuisance. It made your shirts dirty. The Donora tragedy was a wake-up call. People realized smog could kill."




Read more: History, Travel, Arts, Science, People, Places | Smithsonian
Give the gift of Smithsonian magazine for only $12! Give the gift of Smithsonian
Follow us: @SmithsonianMag on Twitter

In other words, 50 years ago we had a smog problem. Now you can't photograph detectable smog in any large city in America. Which shows your concerns about smog are entirely bogus. The pollution problem has been almost entirely solved. This country is clean enough. Further reductions in pollutants only serve to drive up the price of energy, which is the one and only reason Obama is pursuing them. Only the gullible is fooled by all his blather about pollution.

 

[Ringel05]

And who said we can do it overnight? But we can do it in one generation. And, with each year, the price of the renewables comes down.

You've had 50 years and BILLIONS and the technology is SO MATURE that companies are competing solely on price now. We are WAAAAY past the wax cylinder stage as JimSouth puts it..

I know you've worked in steel.. Ask the Electrical staff how long wind would power the plant.. Was that on Tuesday or Wednesday that wind in Oregon could power a steel mill.. And -- would it make it into the 2nd shift on the same day?

Interesting...... Soooo, you have stock in coal, got it....... Hell why else would you be arguing so vehemently against renewables?
Half of what I'm reading you say is from years or decades ago (technology related), how long did it take this:

To become this;

They're discussing progress in the renewable field and you seem to be going off the deep end.....

It's truly pathetic how the eco-nutburgers fail to understand the fundamental qualitative difference between computer technology, which involves flipping a few bits around, and energy production, which is constrained by the laws of thermodynamics.

Missing the point? Looks like it.

Point is --- 1000s of products have been obsoleted by portable gadgets. Faxs, answering machines, watches, calculators, cameras, ect -- And the AppleWatch is a repacking of a remote control gadget. PRODUCT INNOVATION is virtually stagnant. MOST new consumer electronics is boring.

OTH -- Power Generation really hasn't changed much in 100 yrs. Wind is still turning a turbine, Solar is still the photoelectric effect.

You can OPTIMIZE your way out of the sun being at a useful angle for 6 hours a day or less by motorizing panels to track the sun. STILL leaves about 16 hours of NO POWER. And Wind will only be there on alternate Tuesdays, and Fridays and parts of Sunday.. That's what YOU'RE missing.

So no matter how big a tantrum the eco-nauts throw -- these 2 things are NOT alternatives to reliable power generation. They are peaker and supplement technologies.. Cannot EXPAND a system capacity with either or both of them..

The point was it could take hundreds of years and trillions of dollars to perfect some form of alternative energy. I'd be more inclined though to try and develop some sort of small, inexpensive (relatively speaking) enclosed system Pelton Wheel technology that once turned on will power a house and itself. Combine that with solar and wind (where applicable) and you'd probably have more than enough energy.

 

[bripat9643]

You've had 50 years and BILLIONS and the technology is SO MATURE that companies are competing solely on price now. We are WAAAAY past the wax cylinder stage as JimSouth puts it..

I know you've worked in steel.. Ask the Electrical staff how long wind would power the plant.. Was that on Tuesday or Wednesday that wind in Oregon could power a steel mill.. And -- would it make it into the 2nd shift on the same day?

Interesting...... Soooo, you have stock in coal, got it....... Hell why else would you be arguing so vehemently against renewables?
Half of what I'm reading you say is from years or decades ago (technology related), how long did it take this:

To become this;

They're discussing progress in the renewable field and you seem to be going off the deep end.....

It's truly pathetic how the eco-nutburgers fail to understand the fundamental qualitative difference between computer technology, which involves flipping a few bits around, and energy production, which is constrained by the laws of thermodynamics.

Missing the point? Looks like it.

Point is --- 1000s of products have been obsoleted by portable gadgets. Faxs, answering machines, watches, calculators, cameras, ect -- And the AppleWatch is a repacking of a remote control gadget. PRODUCT INNOVATION is virtually stagnant. MOST new consumer electronics is boring.

OTH -- Power Generation really hasn't changed much in 100 yrs. Wind is still turning a turbine, Solar is still the photoelectric effect.

You can OPTIMIZE your way out of the sun being at a useful angle for 6 hours a day or less by motorizing panels to track the sun. STILL leaves about 16 hours of NO POWER. And Wind will only be there on alternate Tuesdays, and Fridays and parts of Sunday.. That's what YOU'RE missing.

So no matter how big a tantrum the eco-nauts throw -- these 2 things are NOT alternatives to reliable power generation. They are peaker and supplement technologies.. Cannot EXPAND a system capacity with either or both of them..

The point was it could take hundreds of years and trillions of dollars to perfect some form of alternative energy. I'd be more inclined though to try and develop some sort of small, inexpensive (relatively speaking) enclosed system Pelton Wheel technology that once turned on will power a house and itself. Combine that with solar and wind (where applicable) and you'd probably have more than enough energy.

You're talking about a perpetual motion machine. They violate the laws of thermodynamics, which means they are impossible.

 

[bripat9643]

And who said we can do it overnight? But we can do it in one generation. And, with each year, the price of the renewables comes down.

You've had 50 years and BILLIONS and the technology is SO MATURE that companies are competing solely on price now. We are WAAAAY past the wax cylinder stage as JimSouth puts it..

I know you've worked in steel.. Ask the Electrical staff how long wind would power the plant.. Was that on Tuesday or Wednesday that wind in Oregon could power a steel mill.. And -- would it make it into the 2nd shift on the same day?

Interesting...... Soooo, you have stock in coal, got it....... Hell why else would you be arguing so vehemently against renewables?
Half of what I'm reading you say is from years or decades ago (technology related), how long did it take this:

To become this;

They're discussing progress in the renewable field and you seem to be going off the deep end.....

It's truly pathetic how the eco-nutburgers fail to understand the fundamental qualitative difference between computer technology, which involves flipping a few bits around, and energy production, which is constrained by the laws of thermodynamics.

Missing the point? Looks like it.

No, you are missing the point. No physical barriers prevent computing power from increasing by orders of magnitude. The laws of thermodynamics prevent wind and solar power from increasing by orders of magnitude. At most you are going to squeeze a few more percent out of them. Then you have the problem that neither one of them are reliable. Can you depend on either to keep your house warm on a still day in the dead of winter? No? All it takes is a couple of days without power and you are frozen dead.

 

[Ringel05]

Interesting...... Soooo, you have stock in coal, got it....... Hell why else would you be arguing so vehemently against renewables?
Half of what I'm reading you say is from years or decades ago (technology related), how long did it take this:

To become this;

They're discussing progress in the renewable field and you seem to be going off the deep end.....

It's truly pathetic how the eco-nutburgers fail to understand the fundamental qualitative difference between computer technology, which involves flipping a few bits around, and energy production, which is constrained by the laws of thermodynamics.

Missing the point? Looks like it.

Point is --- 1000s of products have been obsoleted by portable gadgets. Faxs, answering machines, watches, calculators, cameras, ect -- And the AppleWatch is a repacking of a remote control gadget. PRODUCT INNOVATION is virtually stagnant. MOST new consumer electronics is boring.

OTH -- Power Generation really hasn't changed much in 100 yrs. Wind is still turning a turbine, Solar is still the photoelectric effect.

You can OPTIMIZE your way out of the sun being at a useful angle for 6 hours a day or less by motorizing panels to track the sun. STILL leaves about 16 hours of NO POWER. And Wind will only be there on alternate Tuesdays, and Fridays and parts of Sunday.. That's what YOU'RE missing.

So no matter how big a tantrum the eco-nauts throw -- these 2 things are NOT alternatives to reliable power generation. They are peaker and supplement technologies.. Cannot EXPAND a system capacity with either or both of them..

The point was it could take hundreds of years and trillions of dollars to perfect some form of alternative energy. I'd be more inclined though to try and develop some sort of small, inexpensive (relatively speaking) enclosed system Pelton Wheel technology that once turned on will power a house and itself. Combine that with solar and wind (where applicable) and you'd probably have more than enough energy.

You're talking about a perpetual motion machine. They violate the laws of thermodynamics, which means they are impossible.

No it's not a perpetual motion machine as I think you're envisioning it. They already exist, they're just large and expensive or relatively cheap and based on water flow from a river or stream (for individual usage). It's an enclosed system (self feeding) water turbine that I'm talking about.

 

[Ringel05]

And who said we can do it overnight? But we can do it in one generation. And, with each year, the price of the renewables comes down.

You've had 50 years and BILLIONS and the technology is SO MATURE that companies are competing solely on price now. We are WAAAAY past the wax cylinder stage as JimSouth puts it..

I know you've worked in steel.. Ask the Electrical staff how long wind would power the plant.. Was that on Tuesday or Wednesday that wind in Oregon could power a steel mill.. And -- would it make it into the 2nd shift on the same day?

Interesting...... Soooo, you have stock in coal, got it....... Hell why else would you be arguing so vehemently against renewables?
Half of what I'm reading you say is from years or decades ago (technology related), how long did it take this:

To become this;

They're discussing progress in the renewable field and you seem to be going off the deep end.....

It's truly pathetic how the eco-nutburgers fail to understand the fundamental qualitative difference between computer technology, which involves flipping a few bits around, and energy production, which is constrained by the laws of thermodynamics.

Missing the point? Looks like it.

No, you are missing the point. No physical barriers prevent comuting power from increasing by orders of magnitude. The laws of thermodynamics prevent wind and solar power from increasing by orders of magnitude. At most you are going to squeeze a few more percent out of them. Then you have the problem that neither one of them are reliable. Can you depend on either to keep your house warm on a still day in the dead of winter? No? All it takes is a couple of days without power and you are frozen dead.

Based on what we know and today's technology I agree with you. What is missing is viable "storage capacity".
Heck when it comes to low cost cooling I learned a hard lesson this summer down here in the desert. Swamp coolers are great till it gets over 100 degrees, they only drop temps ten degrees on average....... That's when window units come into play.......

 

[bripat9643]

It's truly pathetic how the eco-nutburgers fail to understand the fundamental qualitative difference between computer technology, which involves flipping a few bits around, and energy production, which is constrained by the laws of thermodynamics.

Missing the point? Looks like it.

Point is --- 1000s of products have been obsoleted by portable gadgets. Faxs, answering machines, watches, calculators, cameras, ect -- And the AppleWatch is a repacking of a remote control gadget. PRODUCT INNOVATION is virtually stagnant. MOST new consumer electronics is boring.

OTH -- Power Generation really hasn't changed much in 100 yrs. Wind is still turning a turbine, Solar is still the photoelectric effect.

You can OPTIMIZE your way out of the sun being at a useful angle for 6 hours a day or less by motorizing panels to track the sun. STILL leaves about 16 hours of NO POWER. And Wind will only be there on alternate Tuesdays, and Fridays and parts of Sunday.. That's what YOU'RE missing.

So no matter how big a tantrum the eco-nauts throw -- these 2 things are NOT alternatives to reliable power generation. They are peaker and supplement technologies.. Cannot EXPAND a system capacity with either or both of them..

The point was it could take hundreds of years and trillions of dollars to perfect some form of alternative energy. I'd be more inclined though to try and develop some sort of small, inexpensive (relatively speaking) enclosed system Pelton Wheel technology that once turned on will power a house and itself. Combine that with solar and wind (where applicable) and you'd probably have more than enough energy.

You're talking about a perpetual motion machine. They violate the laws of thermodynamics, which means they are impossible.

No it's not a perpetual motion machine as I think you're envisioning it. They already exist, they're just large and expensive or relatively cheap and based on water flow from a river or stream (for individual usage). It's an enclosed system (self feeding) water turbine that I'm talking about.

How many home owners have flowing water on their property?

 

[bripat9643]

You've had 50 years and BILLIONS and the technology is SO MATURE that companies are competing solely on price now. We are WAAAAY past the wax cylinder stage as JimSouth puts it..

I know you've worked in steel.. Ask the Electrical staff how long wind would power the plant.. Was that on Tuesday or Wednesday that wind in Oregon could power a steel mill.. And -- would it make it into the 2nd shift on the same day?

Interesting...... Soooo, you have stock in coal, got it....... Hell why else would you be arguing so vehemently against renewables?
Half of what I'm reading you say is from years or decades ago (technology related), how long did it take this:

To become this;

They're discussing progress in the renewable field and you seem to be going off the deep end.....

It's truly pathetic how the eco-nutburgers fail to understand the fundamental qualitative difference between computer technology, which involves flipping a few bits around, and energy production, which is constrained by the laws of thermodynamics.

Missing the point? Looks like it.

No, you are missing the point. No physical barriers prevent comuting power from increasing by orders of magnitude. The laws of thermodynamics prevent wind and solar power from increasing by orders of magnitude. At most you are going to squeeze a few more percent out of them. Then you have the problem that neither one of them are reliable. Can you depend on either to keep your house warm on a still day in the dead of winter? No? All it takes is a couple of days without power and you are frozen dead.

Based on what we know and today's technology I agree with you. What is missing is viable "storage capacity".
Heck when it comes to low cost cooling I learned a hard lesson this summer down here in the desert. Swamp coolers are great till it gets over 100 degrees, they only drop temps ten degrees on average....... That's when window units come into play.......

Here in Florida central air is standard.

 

[Ringel05]

Oh and down here in the upper desert we get sun about 80% of the time, the cloudiest weather is in July and August (the monsoon season), solar energy is very effective at reducing heating and cooling costs.

 

[bripat9643]

Oh and down here in the upper desert we get sun about 80% of the time, the cloudiest weather is in July and August (the monsoon season), solar energy is very effective at reducing heating and cooling costs.

That doesn't work in Florida because it rains a lot during the summer and the humidity is 100%