Solar is now ‘Cheapest Electricity in History’, confirms IEA

[elektra]

LOFL!
What an idiotic argument.
Solar does rely on other energy to produce it, but increasingly that will Be Renewables, most likely solar itself.
That's why they call it 'renewable.'
What a desperate and lost post.


Edit: Note the Wetwall "disagree" feedback below.
Note the idiot/science illiterate could never actually explain that disagreement.

Solar power will make polysilicon? Nuclear power can not, so how in the hell will solar!

The only person here who is a complete Moron is yourself. Without a teaspoon of knowledge or brains you spew out pure bullshit.

 

[elektra]

NOT responsive to my last post which Busted your idiotic 'coal' floater that solar would increase coal use instead of reduce it.
YOU LOST.

No one said it would replace ie, petrochemicals either, but we're not talking about that.
LOL you DISINGENOUS ****.

`

You dodged the fact I posted. Tell us how electricity alone will produce the heat used to make polysilcon.

 

[elektra]

LOFL!
What an idiotic argument.
Solar does rely on other energy to produce it, but increasingly that will Be Renewables, most likely solar itself.
That's why they call it 'renewable.'
What a desperate and lost post.


Edit: Note the Wetwall "disagree" feedback below.
Note the idiot/science illiterate could never actually explain that disagreement.

You think only electricity is used to make polysicon?

You are that dumb!

 

[elektra]

Ooops.
It's cleaner AND it's cheaper.

`

How is solar cheaper when the democrats state it will cost $100 trillion dollars.

 

[Old Rocks]

If it is so cheap why is the hardware and instillation so damned expensive?

I have not noted the hardware being that expensive. Installation? Well, like anything else, do it yourself, if you have the skills, and save a bundle.

 

[Old Rocks]

So ... highly speculative values ... under optimum conditions ...

Hydro can't be calculated using this method ... the facilities have nearly unlimited life spans ... Hoover Dam will last another 1,000 years ...

The dams, maybe. The water behind them?

 

[surada]

Good. Since solar provides the least expensive electricity, there is no point in continuing subsidies for it. People will be willing to invest their own money in the modality.

Saudi Arabia has whole villages and islands off grid since 1982.

In an effort to diversify the energy mix of Saudi Arabia’s residential sector, the Electricity and Cogeneration Regularity Authority introduced regulations in August 2017, allowing households to use solar energy to generate their own electricity.

Saudi Arabia’s Residential Solar Energy Use and Prospects - KAPSARC

In an effort to diversify the energy mix of Saudi Arabia’s residential sector, the Electricity and Cogeneration Regularity Authority introduced regulations in August 2017, allowing households to use solar energy to generate their own electricity.

www.kapsarc.org

 

[Polishprince]

Saudi Arabia has whole villages and islands off grid since 1982.

In an effort to diversify the energy mix of Saudi Arabia’s residential sector, the Electricity and Cogeneration Regularity Authority introduced regulations in August 2017, allowing households to use solar energy to generate their own electricity.

Saudi Arabia’s Residential Solar Energy Use and Prospects - KAPSARC

In an effort to diversify the energy mix of Saudi Arabia’s residential sector, the Electricity and Cogeneration Regularity Authority introduced regulations in August 2017, allowing households to use solar energy to generate their own electricity.

www.kapsarc.org

Saudi Arabia is a very sunny place, solar energy is a lot more viable there than most. Although it still doesn't help out at night.

 

[surada]

Saudi Arabia is a very sunny place, solar energy is a lot more viable there than most. Although it still doesn't help out at night.

I installed solar is coastal South Carolina. Never ran out of hot water and cut my utility bill in half.

 

[elektra]

You again are changing the subject.
and again with the 3:1 Barrage posting KNOWING YOU LOST AND TRYING TO COVER IT UP/BURY IT.

elektra is not a debater He's e a TROLL/SPAMMER/BURY-EM-WITH-BS Artist throughout.
The worse he lost, the more responses he makes to try and cover it.
Just a loudmouth child.

Perfect for USMB RW page-view commercial biz.
But worse even than the other Junior MAGAts.


`

Monkey see monkey do, I state you are dodging, you take my comment and use it as your own.

How pathetic you are. I respond to all your crap. Just cause I find it fun to present facts when you post pure stupidity.

I get it, you think you are the best at flaming and trolling, which is all you can do.

All idiocy simply shines a spotlight on your stupidity.

 

[elektra]

NOT responsive to my last post which Busted your idiotic 'coal' floater that solar would increase coal use instead of reduce it.
YOU LOST.

No one said it would replace ie, petrochemicals either, but we're not talking about that.
LOL you DISINGENOUS ****.

`

You dodged the fact I posted. Tell us how electricity alone will produce the heat used to make polysilcon.

 

[elektra]

LOFL!
What an idiotic argument.
Solar does rely on other energy to produce it, but increasingly that will Be Renewables, most likely solar itself.
That's why they call it 'renewable.'
What a desperate and lost post.


Edit: Note the Wetwall "disagree" feedback below.
Note the idiot/science illiterate could never actually explain that disagreement.

Solar power will make polysilicon? Nuclear power can not, so how in the hell will solar!

 

[abu afak]

Solar power will make polysilicon? Nuclear power can not, so how in the hell will solar!

If a TINY Portion of our power needs Fossil Fuels it does not change the huge picture/the other 99.8% of our power that does NOT require it.
And the small part of Solar (silicon crystal smelting) that needs only Fossil Fuels, is also a small portion of the overall energy used in the process until final delivery.
And of course much better than using coal/fossil fuels for Everything/all energy: the/Your idiotic alternative.

And You again Tried/HAD to change the subject.
and again with the 3:1 Barrage posting KNOWING YOU LOST AND TRYING TO COVER IT UP/BURY IT.

elektra is not a debater He's a TROLL/SPAMMER/BURY-EM-WITH-BS Artist throughout.
The worse he lost, the more responses he makes to try and cover it.
Just a loudmouth child.

Perfect for USMB RW page-view commercial biz.
But worse even than the other Junior MAGAts.

`

 

[elektra]

If a TINY Portion of our power needs Fossil Fuels

Perfect for USMB RW page-view commercial biz.
But worse even than the other Junior MAGAts.

You know absolutely nothing about the process, your are caught with your pants down, and thus you bloviate as if you knew all along.

Fine, educate us. Tell us off the top of your head all you know about the manufacture of polysilicon.

 

[abu afak]

You know absolutely nothing about the process, your are caught with your pants down, and thus you bloviate as if you knew all along.

Fine, educate us. Tell us off the top of your head all you know about the manufacture of polysilicon.

1. Repeat post. Answered above Clown boy.
2. And no matter what you 'know' Solar is an improvement over using Coal for Everything and to the large degree it could be used in Polysilicon too.
Only a small part of the mine-to-device energy consumed Requires coal/carbon fuel processing.

3. Now and again, you are left with the rest of the Planet's energy needs/use.
99.8% of which is NOT 'Polysilicon.'
You Lost.
You could not Answer
So found a small exception in the process that does NOT negate it as a better energy source.
3a. ONE day of processing polysilicon for a panel doesn't negate 20 years of energy from it.
(vs Daily use of Coal/other Fossil fuel in non-renewable power plants)

4. YOU ALREADY CONCEDED BY DEFAULT the Greater Point/PLANET, so found SOMETHING/PART OF SOMETHING that needed carbon fuel.
LOL RW backwards guy.
`

 

[elektra]

1. Repeat post. Answered above Clown boy.
2. And no matter what you 'know' Solar is an improvement over using Coal for Everything and to the large degree it could be used in Polysilicon too.
Only a small part of the mine-to-device energy consumed Requires coal/carbon fuel processing.

3. Now and again, you are left with the rest of the Planet's energy needs/use.
99.8% of which is NOT 'Polysilicon.'
You Lost.
You could not Answer
So found a small exception in the process that does NOT negate it as a better energy source.
3a. ONE day of processing polysilicon for a panel doesn't negate 20 years of energy from it.
(vs Daily use of Coal/other Fossil fuel in non-renewable power plants)

4. YOU ALREADY CONCEDED BY DEFAULT the Greater Point/PLANET, so found SOMETHING/PART OF SOMETHING that needed carbon fuel.
LOL RW backwards guy.
`

hahahahahhahaha

answer above? where, which post?
Based on what facts? You just spit out a bunch of bullshit and expect us to move on as if you stated something factual.

You can state whatever you like, however you like, and we all see it as pure bullshit!

1. Nobody in the industry, or the universities, nor even on television calls, this, "silicon crystal smelting".
You know nothing hence you do not know what the process is and how to describe the various steps.

And the small part of Solar (silicon crystal smelting)

2. The process of creating polysilcon is not a small part of solar! It is the major, the most important, part of Solar.
Without Polysilicon thers is no solar and the process of making pure Polysilicon is what uses a tremendous amount
of energy which coal, yes coal, is needed in large quantities for the heat that it produces.
3. The fact that you can not get the terminology correct at the same time underplaying the huge cost and expenditure of
energy required certainly proves you are a know nothing babbling baboon, which is not really fair to baboons which do
exhibit intelligence you in your idiocy never fathom exists.
4. 20 years of energy from an industrial solar farm? That is not proven. First, there is no electricity at night, so we are
already at 10 years of electricity. Cloudy days? To be overly generous and we have 7 years of electricity. Transmission
loss from the extreme distance is 50% hence we are now down to 3.5 years of electricity. Heavy use on an industrial
scale, repairs and replacing solar panels we lose at least another year, 2.5 years of electricity from a project that
promised 20 years.

Solar is an improvement over using Coal for Everything

And again with the lies, Coal was never used for everything and Solar increases the use of Coal, solar does not replace coal.

Solar is not an improvement, when it can do what coal does, manufacture polysilicon and steel, or provide us with electricity 24 hours a day.

How is solar power an improvement if it does not supply industry with power and does not power our homes at night?

 

[abu afak]

hahahahahhahaha
answer above? where, which post?
Based on what facts? You just spit out a bunch of bullshit and expect us to move on as if you stated something factual.

You can state whatever you like, however you like, and we all see it as pure bullshit!


And again with the lies, Coal was never used for everything and Solar increases the use of Coal, solar does not replace coal.

Solar is not an improvement, when it can do what coal does, manufacture polysilicon and steel, or provide us with electricity 24 hours a day.

How is solar power an improvement if it does not supply industry with power and does not power our homes at night?

Even with 2008 technology it was well worth it
The carbon/pollution/energy equation favored Solar after 1-3 years.
2008 - Scientific American.

"...In fact, most of their dirty side derived from the INDIRECT emissions of the coal-burning power plants or other fossil fuels used to generate the electricity for PV manufacturing facilities.​

​

These four types of solar cells pay back the energy involved in their manufacture in one to three years, according to an earlier analysis by the same team. And even the most energy-intensive to produce—monocrystalline silicate cells with the highest energy conversion efficiency of 14%—emit just 55 grams (1.9 ounces) of globe warming pollution per kilowatt-hour—a fraction of the near one kilogram (2.2 pounds) of greenhouse gases emitted by a coal-fired power plant per kilowatt-hour.​

​

Even though thin-film solar PVs employ heavy metals such as cadmium recovered from mining slimes, the overall toxic emissions are "90 to 300 times lower than those from coal power plants," the researchers write in Environmental Science & Technology.​

​

The energy benefits of solar photovoltaics will only improve as the technology continues to boost its efficiency at converting sunlight to electricity or proves to last longer than the 30 years anticipated by manufacturers. "There is no reason for this not to last a lot more than 30 years,"Fthenakis says.​

​

If solar energy begins to power its own production—a so-called PV breeder cycle, in which PV-generated electricity goes to produce more PV cells—the outlook is even sunnier. "I think 30% of the energy consumption in the [manufacturing] facilities is easily met from the land they have available [on] the roof and in the parking lot," Fthenakis says.​

(What I said. Solar powering Solar production)​

​

And, as Fthenakis and colleagues argued in a recent article in Scientific American, if storage technologies such as compressed air improve, then PV could provide the majority of electricity needs in the U.S. "With storage," Fthenakis says, "it is feasible to go to 100%."​

- - - - - - - - - -- - - -

​

Dark Side of Solar Cells Brightens

A life cycle analysis proves that solar cells are cleaner than conventional fossil fuel power generation

www.scientificamerican.com

​

And we now have that storage too and much nearer ' PV breeder solar.'​

Battery Technology has Exploded since the above 2008 article.​

But even then Solar well paid for itself environmentally/financially/pollution-wise after 2-3 Years.​

You have to get some better non-agenda links.​

​

Pull up your pants now BOY.​

I'm dome with your cheap shot One-sided and way Wrong BS.​

You Lost AGAIN!​

​

`​

 

[LAUGHatLEFTISTS]

Not only this, but our 2017 Chev. Bolt has never needed to buy gas or have tune ups/oil changes. It has paid for itself, and with out solar panels we haven never needed to use charging stations.

That’s great! Since I helped pay for both your car and your solar panels its time to pay your fair share and pay me back. Whaddaya say?

 

[LAUGHatLEFTISTS]

Yes, California. Were it a separate nation, it would be the fifth largest economy in the world. Uses lots of electricity and has severe and increasing problems with high winds and fires. Yet still has a super charged economy. And helps support the welfare red states.

Yes. California’s economy is going to last forever and ever!
Detroit would disagree!

 

[Captain Caveman]

A household of 4 needs 5kW of solar powered energy. A 250W panel costs £314.99 and I would need 20. So I would have to outlay £6,300, then plus fitting etc.. to get the cheapest electric

If all that was £10,000 and it saved me £33 per month, that would take 25 years to get my money back. Does the guarantee last that long and don't they degrade over time?

Think I'll give that a miss.