ScienceRocks
Democrat all the way!
- Banned
- #1
When will Solar panels be able to compete with the grid? When will it cross the line where it may become a better deal.
I'd say 2017?
I'd say 2017?
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Amazingly enough, the economics of energy production are not standardized across the globe.
Solar is already viable and practical in countries like Cyprus, Malta, Israel and Spain - less so in Finland, Scotland or much of Norway.
Likewise, the use of tidal, nuclear and wind energy is practical and efficient in some countries; whereas it never will be practical and efficient in others.
What we do know is that these four sources of energy combined will be the likely sources of electricity during the next 50 years, and it is unlikely there will be any coal used outside China and a handful of other countries within 10 years.
When will Solar panels be able to compete with the grid? When will it cross the line where it may become a better deal.
I'd say 2017?
Even without direct government financial support?
Even without direct government financial support?
Do coal or nuclear ever receive government financial support?
As a utility, energy production in almost every developed nation receives various forms of subsidies or assistance; either by way of investment capital to fund the construction of damns or nuclear stations, as grants for research or feed-in subsidies to assist newer forms of energy production.
I'm not sure where you live, but it's faierly good odds that coal and nulear have received more financial support during the past 20 years from your government that renewables have.
Solar might be practical in remote regions, especially those nearer the equator. But, in America, solar electricity being practical is no where in sight.
Even without direct government financial support?
Do coal or nuclear ever receive government financial support?
As a utility, energy production in almost every developed nation receives various forms of subsidies or assistance; either by way of investment capital to fund the construction of damns or nuclear stations, as grants for research or feed-in subsidies to assist newer forms of energy production.
I'm not sure where you live, but it's faierly good odds that coal and nulear have received more financial support during the past 20 years from your government that renewables have.
Mr H,
You are almost certainly right in the case of Illinois, but then we are also comparing a mature technology with a technology which is only now reaching its peak. Naturally, new technologies require more R&D and feed-in subsidies as they develop.
Tidal is expensive right now, but I don't think many people question that 20 years from now, some countries will be producing most of their electricity that way.
If someone comes up with a new replacement for the internal combustion engine tomorrow, that might need grants, too. Doesn't mean it is ultimately not the cheapest or best option.
Nuclear has benefited from some government subsidies in the form of research, but not coal. .
The myth:
Nuclear has benefited from some government subsidies in the form of research, but not coal. .
The reality:
In June 2010, the U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA) said $557 billion was spent to subsidize fossil fuels globally in 2008, compared to $43 billion in support of renewable energy. In a July 2011 EIA report on federal fossil fuel subsidies, coal was estimated to have tax expenditures (provisions in the federal tax code that reduce the tax liability of firms) with an estimated value of $561 million in FY 2010, down from $3.3 billion in FY 2007.
Federal coal subsidies - SourceWatch
Do you have the cojones to admit your error?
Let's see.
Sorry, but I can't find that claim anywhere on the EIA website. The only place we find it is on "SourceWatch.org," a left-wing propaganda site.
Your claim is obvious horseshit.
And here it is on the EIA website, for those who don't know how to use search engines.
Federal subsidies for coal increased 44 percent from $943 million to $1,358 million.
Federal subsidies for oil and natural gas increased 40 percent from $2,010 million to $2,820 million.
Federal subsidies for nuclear energy increased 46 percent from $1,714 million to $2,499 million.
Institute for Energy Research | EIA Releases New Subsidy Report: Subsidies for Renewables Increase 186 Percent
It already exists. Your masters continue to suppress battery technologies.Mr H,
You are almost certainly right in the case of Illinois, but then we are also comparing a mature technology with a technology which is only now reaching its peak. Naturally, new technologies require more R&D and feed-in subsidies as they develop.
Tidal is expensive right now, but I don't think many people question that 20 years from now, some countries will be producing most of their electricity that way.
If someone comes up with a new replacement for the internal combustion engine tomorrow, that might need grants, too. Doesn't mean it is ultimately not the cheapest or best option.
Solar might be practical in remote regions, especially those nearer the equator. But, in America, solar electricity being practical is no where in sight.
Right.
Because there isn't enough sun in Arizona to produce electricity from solar.