How is Solar Energy sustainable?

[X.Onasis]

Not one person can explain why Solar is Sustainable because Solar is not sustainable. If one thing it takes to manufacture Solar is not sustainable than Solar is not Sustainable. Oil must be Sustainable, in order to call Solar Sustainable, you need Oil to make Solar. Is Oil Sustainable.

Ladies and gentlemen: a moron.

 

[X.Onasis]

Listen carefully, Bozo. When we talk of "green energy" "renewable energy" or "sustainable energy", we're talking about an energy source that's not depletable. In other words BY DEFINITION wind energy, solar energy, hydro power in a variety of forms, are all forms of sustainable energy. Their source, and thus the potential to convert that energy to usable power will NEVER be depleted.

Why is that so difficult for you to understand? It doesn't have anything to do with price, cost, risk of investment, production materials or infrastructure that's needed for it to be useful. If you want to make that argument, you'll have to do so in terms that are clearly far beyond your ability to articulate.

You didn't start this thread to challenge me or to expect me to demonstrate my experience, you started this thread because you made a fool of yourself on the other one, got spanked properly, and hoped this time others would come to your rescue. Well they didn't. Once again you're caught with your pants down doing your crybaby act, with nothing but a red ass to show for your silly effort. I constructed solar homes. You can't construct a complete sentence except by pure chance, let alone a coherent thought.

I'm done with you. Go ahead give me your last limp-wristed insult. Make it good.

 

[elektra]

Not one person can explain why Solar is Sustainable because Solar is not sustainable. If one thing it takes to manufacture Solar is not sustainable than Solar is not Sustainable. Oil must be Sustainable, in order to call Solar Sustainable, you need Oil to make Solar. Is Oil Sustainable.

Ladies and gentlemen: a moron.

Nice that you have defined yourself and demonstrated the term "dumbstruck".

That is the best you can do, in the thread I created for you, technically you can't come up with anything?

 

[elektra]

Listen carefully, Bozo. When we talk of "green energy" "renewable energy" or "sustainable energy", we're talking about an energy source that's not depletable. In other words BY DEFINITION wind energy, solar energy, hydro power in a variety of forms, are all forms of sustainable energy. Their source, and thus the potential to convert that energy to usable power will NEVER be depleted.

Why is that so difficult for you to understand? It doesn't have anything to do with price, cost, risk of investment, production materials or infrastructure that's needed for it to be useful. If you want to make that argument, you'll have to do so in terms that are clearly far beyond your ability to articulate.

You didn't start this thread to challenge me or to expect me to demonstrate my experience, you started this thread because you made a fool of yourself on the other one, got spanked properly, and hoped this time others would come to your rescue. Well they didn't. Once again you're caught with your pants down doing your crybaby act, with nothing but a red ass to show for your silly effort. I constructed solar homes. You can't construct a complete sentence except by pure chance, let alone a coherent thought.

I'm done with you. Go ahead give me your last limp-wristed insult. Make it good.

Everything you mentioned destroys the environment, which is not sustainable, period. That is just one tiny aspect of Sustainability that you ignore.

I still see you fail to meet your own standard of presenting "Technical Knowledge".

 

[Uncensored2008]

Solar radiation is an abundant source of energy.

That we lack the technology to effectively harness it at this time doesn't alter the fact that solar is an attractive and sustainable energy source.

 

[elektra]

Solar radiation is an abundant source of energy.

That we lack the technology to effectively harness it at this time doesn't alter the fact that solar is an attractive and sustainable energy source.

That we can not harness the sun's energy does not mean its not sustainable?

What about the amount of land that it requires, can we constantly destroy the environment to sustain solar.

How about water usage, can california increase water usage to sustain solar.

And as technology advances, will not all forms of energy advance as well, do we not have forms of energy that are vastly superior in which if we developed would actually drive down the cost of living.

 

[OnePercenter]

That we can not harness the sun's energy does not mean its not sustainable?

What about the amount of land that it requires, can we constantly destroy the environment to sustain solar.

How about water usage, can california increase water usage to sustain solar.

And as technology advances, will not all forms of energy advance as well, do we not have forms of energy that are vastly superior in which if we developed would actually drive down the cost of living.

That we can not harness the sun's energy does not mean its not sustainable?

I harness the suns energy everyday on my home in Coronado, CA AND my boat. How may RV's on the road today harness the suns energy?

What about the amount of land that it requires, can we constantly destroy the environment to sustain solar.

The footprint is the smallest of any development.

How about water usage, can california increase water usage to sustain solar.

Ever hear of reclaimed water? Goes into the ground to be recycled. Golf courses do it, why not solar farms?

And as technology advances, will not all forms of energy advance as well, do we not have forms of energy that are vastly superior in which if we developed would actually drive down the cost of living.

Depends if their traded on the market. Look at oil.

 

[Uncensored2008]

That we can not harness the sun's energy does not mean its not sustainable?

Correct, the energy source will be here next week, next year, next century. It is sustainable.

What about the amount of land that it requires, can we constantly destroy the environment to sustain solar.

I already acknowledged that we lack the technology to truly harvest this energy, but that doesn't alter the fact that the energy is there. We humans ALWAYS figure out a way to use things, eventually.

How about water usage, can california increase water usage to sustain solar.

And as technology advances, will not all forms of energy advance as well, do we not have forms of energy that are vastly superior in which if we developed would actually drive down the cost of living.

I'm not sure what one has to do with the other. The solar farms in California are a farce, a scam to put taxpayer money into the pocket of Obama's cronies. Obama is a crook, he is robbing the nation to enrich his buddies and himself.

This still does not change the fact that solar is a power source of great potential.

 

[Uncensored2008]

That we can not harness the sun's energy does not mean its not sustainable?

I harness the suns energy everyday on my home in Coronado, CA AND my boat. How may RV's on the road today harness the suns energy?

Not entirely true.

You have Solar Panels that were paid for mostly by tax payers and will never generate enough current to pay for their manufacturing cost, You have them only because you did not have to pay the majority of the cost of them.

What about the amount of land that it requires, can we constantly destroy the environment to sustain solar.

The footprint is the smallest of any development.

Utter bullshit,

If you're going to flat out lie, you should be ignored.

How about water usage, can california increase water usage to sustain solar.

Ever hear of reclaimed water? Goes into the ground to be recycled. Golf courses do it, why not solar farms?

And as technology advances, will not all forms of energy advance as well, do we not have forms of energy that are vastly superior in which if we developed would actually drive down the cost of living.

Depends if their traded on the market. Look at oil.

My hope is the popularity of solar leads to innovations that make it actually viable.

I have solar on my house as well, but I realize that I would have never bought it if taxpayers had not footed 99% of the costs.

 

[OnePercenter]

That we can not harness the sun's energy does not mean its not sustainable?

I harness the suns energy everyday on my home in Coronado, CA AND my boat. How may RV's on the road today harness the suns energy?

Not entirely true.

You have Solar Panels that were paid for mostly by tax payers and will never generate enough current to pay for their manufacturing cost, You have them only because you did not have to pay the majority of the cost of them.

What about the amount of land that it requires, can we constantly destroy the environment to sustain solar.

The footprint is the smallest of any development.

Utter bullshit,

If you're going to flat out lie, you should be ignored.

How about water usage, can california increase water usage to sustain solar.

Ever hear of reclaimed water? Goes into the ground to be recycled. Golf courses do it, why not solar farms?

And as technology advances, will not all forms of energy advance as well, do we not have forms of energy that are vastly superior in which if we developed would actually drive down the cost of living.

Depends if their traded on the market. Look at oil.

My hope is the popularity of solar leads to innovations that make it actually viable.

I have solar on my house as well, but I realize that I would have never bought it if taxpayers had not footed 99% of the costs.

Fair question. Total cost was $21K. With cost savings and excess credit of $1k/mo, payoff is 21 months with a 25 year warranty. Do the math.

The footprint base of a solar array is much less than a building.

Using tax-based funds to fund your solar array is good use of the taxes you've paid. Who would have thunk you'd have a return on paid taxes, besides infrastructure and tax-based services.

 

[elektra]

That we can not harness the sun's energy does not mean its not sustainable?

What about the amount of land that it requires, can we constantly destroy the environment to sustain solar.

How about water usage, can california increase water usage to sustain solar.

And as technology advances, will not all forms of energy advance as well, do we not have forms of energy that are vastly superior in which if we developed would actually drive down the cost of living.

That we can not harness the sun's energy does not mean its not sustainable?

I harness the suns energy everyday on my home in Coronado, CA AND my boat. How may RV's on the road today harness the suns energy?

What about the amount of land that it requires, can we constantly destroy the environment to sustain solar.

The footprint is the smallest of any development.

How about water usage, can california increase water usage to sustain solar.

Ever hear of reclaimed water? Goes into the ground to be recycled. Golf courses do it, why not solar farms?

And as technology advances, will not all forms of energy advance as well, do we not have forms of energy that are vastly superior in which if we developed would actually drive down the cost of living.

Depends if their traded on the market. Look at oil.

So, you harness the Sun's energy, how about some pics, specs, technical information, the name, stuff like that. So we can get technical. Your biggest use of energy, is water. Which Solar does not pump.

The footprint is the smallest? Do you have any idea of the amount of land Solar is covering, it is measured in miles, to replace one nuclear power plant you would need a 100 square mile solar panel field. We have covered at least that much land in california yet Solar accounts for less than 1% of out total electricity usage in california.

Reclaimed water, could be used to grow food, if distilled, purified, you can use it to clean solar panels, so you are going to reclaim water, pump it to the desert, pump it with what, Fossil Fuel? Solar can not pump water, and how much will it cost? Billions?

Your ideology exists in a vacuum of intelligence.

 

[elektra]

That we can not harness the sun's energy does not mean its not sustainable?

Correct, the energy source will be here next week, next year, next century. It is sustainable.

What about the amount of land that it requires, can we constantly destroy the environment to sustain solar.

I already acknowledged that we lack the technology to truly harvest this energy, but that doesn't alter the fact that the energy is there. We humans ALWAYS figure out a way to use things, eventually.

How about water usage, can california increase water usage to sustain solar.

And as technology advances, will not all forms of energy advance as well, do we not have forms of energy that are vastly superior in which if we developed would actually drive down the cost of living.

I'm not sure what one has to do with the other. The solar farms in California are a farce, a scam to put taxpayer money into the pocket of Obama's cronies. Obama is a crook, he is robbing the nation to enrich his buddies and himself.

This still does not change the fact that solar is a power source of great potential.

Land use alone is staggering, we can not cover an entire state with Solar panels, Solar literally is a boon to chemical companies, mines, and oil companies.

Covering 100's of square miles of land with Solar has increased consumption of toxic chemicals produced by Corporations like Dow Chemical.

It is all so staggering, literally impossible to dig up all the facts.

How about all that Cadmium used, extremely dangerous to life. How much will escape into the atmosphere, how much has poisoned the earth simply due to increased Solar use?

I think there are a lot of questions that should be asked before we invest so heavily into Solar, but that ship has already sailed, my guess that price tag is already over 1$ Trillion dollars world wide.

Easy money for the rich and powerful who control government.

 

[n0spam4me]

Bottom line here is that the modern life-style is NOT sustainable!

Ideally a solar panel factory would be powered by solar panels and so the whole thing would constitute a sustainable technology, HOWEVER, given that the solar panel factory must be supplied with raw material, mined from the earth, it becomes sort of a moot point.

The problem here is that even if it doesn't happen in my life-time, its bound to happen ( unless of course the earth magically produces underground deposits of Petrol ) that is the depletion of natural resources to the point that the current life-style is simply NOT possible. ( bummer! )

Some pundits have predicted mega-cities that dwarf present LA sprawl and would have a Billion people driving cars on the freeways & consuming fuel, electricity & natural gas at a rate certainly diminished from the present per/capita consumption, but unfortunately .... given ANY rate of consumption at all, the idea of having a Billion people living the "good life" that is having whatever they wanted whenever they wanted it, cell phones for all, TVs computers, smart appliances ..... oh the future is so bright, and SO WRONG!
We can't do it!

Get used to it, your Children & GrandChildren will NOT have it better than You do right now.

 

[n0spam4me]

Solar can not pump water,

PROVE IT!

 

[Old Rocks]

24V Submersible Deep DC Solar Well Water Pump, Solar, battery, alternate energy

• $129.90
• Buy It Now
• Free shipping
• 109 watching
  
  Solar Powered Water Pumps eBay
  
  Ol' Elektra pulls the sillyest stuff out of her asshole.

 

[elektra]

Solar can not pump water,

PROVE IT!

Done!

On the Conservative side, it will take 48,000 GWh, which is a physical impossibility for Solar

How much energy does California use to move water Big Picture Agriculture

Blogger Dan Brekke summarizes the 2005 California Energy Commission report, “California’s Water – Energy Relationship” in a pie chart here, which would suggest that the amount of electricity used to move water in California is 4.2 percent of its total electrical use, or 48,000 GWh. This is too low, however, because irrigation is put into a separate category and I’d think it should be included as “moving water”, too. Also, more recent studies and papers since the 2005 California Energy Commission’s paper say that the Commission’s estimates were too low; and, that earlier studies overall have been using assumptions which have been too conservative.

 

[Old Rocks]

Really? Impossible, how so? That 48,000 Gw is spread over what time?

 

[elektra]

24V Submersible Deep DC Solar Well Water Pump, Solar, battery, alternate energy

• $129.90
• Buy It Now
• Free shipping
• 109 watching
  
  Solar Powered Water Pumps eBay
  
  Ol' Elektra pulls the sillyest stuff out of her asshole.

Idiot, that can not pump the water a house needs, which is 6 gpm. That pump is rated at 1.6 gpm and can only be a 100' deep, useless.
Further, we need to pump water to all those solar panels, that pump is a toy, it would never be used for industrial solar farms. That is which we speak, but the simple-minds think only of the simple.

From your link Old Crock

Flow Rate: 1.6 GPM Max. Submersion Depth: 100 ft

 

[Old Rocks]

Solar power in California - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia

California has the technical potential to install 76,000 MW of rooftop solar panels, which would generate 106,411 GWh/year, about 41% of the total electricity used in California in 2012.

Just what is possible from rooftops. So, yes, solar can well provide for all the water pumping in California.

 

[elektra]

Really? Impossible, how so? That 48,000 Gw is spread over what time?

You left out the "h", which stands for hour, Gwh. How many Solar farms will it take to produce 48,000 GWH!

Again, stupidity from those who support Solar. You can not come up with one fact, all you can do is offer ridiculous questions.