Solar Power Destroys Miles and Miles of Desert

[Billy_Bob]

Since when do conservatives care about the environment?

There is a big difference between good stewardship and econutterism.. When we drill for oil we clean up and restore the area habitats. When enviro-wackos and left wits make a mess they blame it on others and leave it for others to clean up..

Case in point are the recent gatherings in DC... can you tell which is Conservatives who are responsible for themselves and liberals who dont give a dam and just want to feel good?

View attachment 36825

It's funny that you believe that crap you get from the nut jobs.

Oh Look a moron posted another shit pellet..

 

[Billy_Bob]

My home has 9 of these solar panels and 2-130amp (1500 watt) 24 volt PMA wind turbines.

I have 21,000 amp hours of battery storage.

Three Outback charge controllers for the three sections of batteries and a remote switching device allowing me to change which battery bank I am using remotely.

I have two 5,000 watt pure sine wave inverters that are coupled allowing me to power 220 volt appliances.

The 24 volt application allows less amp draw in the inverting by half.

I can live off grid for months at a time and I have a 6,000 watt 220 Volt gas powered generator for emergency charging or use.

Grand cost of this system was around 45,000.00 because I installed it myself and can maintain it myself. Cost to recoupment will never be regained but it was good for a write off on my taxes.

Where I live power can be out for weeks at a time, so I pay the charge for the meter and live pretty much off grid. About the only time I consume power is during summer for cooling of the home. Thank God for fiber optics which supplies my internet connection and TV..

 

[elektra]

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.

Liberal math.... this is why America is failing...

Yeah, he's said this a number of times, that he barely uses any power at all. I have to assume he doesn't actually have a refrigerator. Certainly not A/C. Maybe he lives out of his car or something, I'm not sure.

A basic computer home office setup, would use more power than that kit would provide, unless he's running to the library to post this.

I have to assume this guy is a hobbit. Because no average American would use so little power. And if he is a modern day hobbit, that's fine... but his views on energy supply are largely irrelevant to the rest of us in the non-hobbit world.

My fridge uses about 1.3 kwh. I also have a washing machine , but I use it only once per week. All the light bubs are energy saving , I have a led tv which I use on ocasion, a laptop which runs with less than 30 W, and a microwave oven ( another energy hog , which I do use about 3 minutes a day,).

I am outside most of the time, but during one month I was jobless, and my energy consumption barely moved ( I think it wen't up by 25%, mostly because I used the laptop more time ).

I call Bull Shit..
1.3kwh is 1,300 watts per hour at 120 Volts. Your 137 watts 24 volt array can only supply 137/24 = 5.7 Amps @ 24 volts or 1.14 amps @ 121 Volts. In other words your math is severely lacking as is your understanding of how these systems work.

Oh man , not again!!
Your calculations are wrong because my whole consumption during a day is 3 kwh at most.
The fridge uses 1.3 kwh THE IN THE WHOLE 24 HOURS THAT MAKE A DAY !!
That's 1.3 kwh spread throughout 24 hours ( 1 day ) .
This means it uses 0.054 kwh per hour.
Now , do your math again.

This is as easy as pie, as Power equals Current times Voltage, p=ie is the formula for power.

A refrigerator that uses 1300 watts uses that as in now, if you can not supply 1300 watts now, that refrigerator is not turning on. Your idea that its spread out over the course of a day is pure hogwash.

You can not turn on an appliance rated at 500 watts with a solar panel rated at 300 watts.

You know nothing about electricity and the load on a system. Besides the wattage, you have to supply up to 50 amps, to handle that spike that is created when a motor turns on, its called the electrical code.

Your mistake has nothing to do with math, you simply do not understand how your home works.

Now I must get back to my job at hand, which is literally Inductive Reactance,

I have worked with electricity my entire life, now I use it to to inspect and analyze components in Nuclear Power plants.

Go ahead, make another ridiculous claim.

 

[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.

Since when do conservatives care about the environment?

Since when did Democrats? Last I checked the Big Detroit car companies were ran by Democrats, lets say back in the 50's and 60's, I saw what the Democrats did back then, they literally dumped toxic waste in the River Rouge, killing everything down stream, meaning all the fish in Lake Erie. Nixon put an end to that creating the EPA.

Democrats care about politics, nothing more.

 

[CultureCitizen]

it will not power a 220v stove, oven, dryer, water heater,or other item.

This makes a little more sense.. but certainly not worth the expense when grid electricity is 0.04 - 0.12 Cents per kwh.

IF you wanted to increase your productivity of your system I would add a 500 watt wind turbine, which will give charge in cloudy days under windy conditions when your panels are not producing, provided your home owners association or local zoning laws allow it.

I am getting invoiced at 0.13 per kwh. I don't know which part of the US ( or elsewhere ) gets lower than that. I have not heard of the 0.04 rate in a very long time ( unless you have your own industrial coal supply and generator , but that's not an option for residential use ).

I have no problem with buying the inverter or the solar panels , they last long enough . The batteries will only last for 5 or 6 years and they usually contain toxic materials. So I think they are a complementary technology to reduce energy consumption from other sources while the technology for storing electricity improves.

At 0.35 cents per kwh the technology seems good as is for residents of Hawaii ( but still I would hate to fill the planet with toxic waste from the batteries).

EIA - Electricity Data

 

[elektra]

it will not power a 220v stove, oven, dryer, water heater,or other item.

This makes a little more sense.. but certainly not worth the expense when grid electricity is 0.04 - 0.12 Cents per kwh.

IF you wanted to increase your productivity of your system I would add a 500 watt wind turbine, which will give charge in cloudy days under windy conditions when your panels are not producing, provided your home owners association or local zoning laws allow it.

I am getting invoiced at 0.13 per kwh. I don't know which part of the US ( or elsewhere ) gets lower than that. I have not heard of the 0.04 rate in a very long time ( unless you have your own industrial coal supply and generator , but that's not an option for residential use ).

I have no problem with buying the inverter or the solar panels , they last long enough . The batteries will only last for 5 or 6 years and they usually contain toxic materials. So I think they are a complementary technology to reduce energy consumption from other sources while the technology for storing electricity improves.

At 0.35 cents per kwh the technology seems good as is for residents of Hawaii ( but still I would hate to fill the planet with toxic waste from the batteries).

EIA - Electricity Data

But toxic waste from solar panel manufacture is okay?

 

[CultureCitizen]

But toxic waste from solar panel manufacture is okay?

Elektra, not completely ok, but panels last for 20 years ( somehow you seem to insist that they only last for 10 years), but the manufacturers output waranty is for 20. Why would they risk with such a claim ?
Batteries last at most 6 years. So they have to be replaced 3 times faster.

The place that manufactures the panel also counts. European panels are a lot greener than chinese.

Solar Panel Recycling and Total Energy Use The Energy Collective

Solar cell recycling is in its infancy but will surely grow as more panels start getting discarded.

"According to spokesperson Melanie Friedman, the company estimates that 90 percent of the material recovered from solar panels can be recycled into useful products."

As Solar Power Advances Disposal Will Become an Issue - Earth911.com
90% is good enough for me.
---------------------------------------------
Edit
---------------------------------------------
And although solar panels are not completely eco friendly , there are worse alternatives:

Have you ever heard of canadian tar sands ? I would take someone so concerned with the environment will be horrorized by the follwoing image:

 

[elektra]

But toxic waste from solar panel manufacture is okay?

Elektra, not completely ok, but panels last for 20 years ( somehow you seem to insist that they only last for 10 years), but the manufacturers output waranty is for 20. Why would they risk with such a claim ?
Batteries last at most 6 years. So they have to be replaced 3 times faster.

The place that manufactures the panel also counts. European panels are a lot greener than chinese.

Solar Panel Recycling and Total Energy Use The Energy Collective

Solar cell recycling is in its infancy but will surely grow as more panels start getting discarded.

"According to spokesperson Melanie Friedman, the company estimates that 90 percent of the material recovered from solar panels can be recycled into useful products."

As Solar Power Advances Disposal Will Become an Issue - Earth911.com
90% is good enough for me.

Now account for the amount of power, energy required in each step of the manufacture.

A 20 year warranty from company that will not last 10 years is not much of a warranty.

And of course this thread, my OP is about commercial/industrial sized Solar, not residential which is all you advocates seem to want to talk about. Its Apple and Oranges, no comparison.

Batteries, imagine the market created, by law, overnight, mandating everybody by a battery, I bet people become millionaires, even the people whose companies go bankrupt, and the battery companies have been going bankrupt.

Solar cell recycling is extremely toxic, uses extremes amount of energy, energy that a Solar Power Plant can not provide. At least that is what the industry reports. I can link, in time, I am sure I kept a copy of the page in my files on this subject, its hard to find, seems with Google all the results that appear first are advertising or political propaganda, so there is a lot of clutter to wade through before one can even get to something that is not second hand political fiction, that somehow was based on a tiny fact.

20 years for a panel? Maybe on a home when there is very little use, but the more you use it the more it burns out, the less efficient, many of the components are failing before 10 years, a lot of the companies are going bankrupt as well.

Either way, buy a panel today to lock yourself into an Obsolete Technology, I hear tomorrow there is going to be a Solar breakthrough. Seems awfully stupid to buy into something that is Obsolete forever, as long as you own your home. Of course if you live where it is a necessity, or your rich and can afford the luxury of extremely expensive electricity, that is your prerogative. But you do increase the burden on our water resources as well as you increase the consumption of Fossil Fuels and Crude Oil.

Solar, an expensive way to power a home, Solar is no way to power a Country. At best, that is reckless.

 

[CultureCitizen]

A 20 year warranty from company that will not last 10 years is not much of a warranty.

And of course this thread, my OP is about commercial/industrial sized Solar, not residential which is all you advocates seem to want to talk about. Its Apple and Oranges, no comparison.

There are studies about energy return by each source.

1.3 Biodiesel
1.3 Ethanol corn
1.6 Solar collector
1.9 Solar flat plate
3.0 Bitumen tar sands
5.0 Ethanol sugarcane
5.0 Shale oil
6.8 Photovoltaic
8.0 Oil discoveries
10.0 Natural gas 2005
10.0 Nuclear (with diffusion enrichment)
12.0 Oil imports 2007
14.5 Oil and gas 2005
18.0 Oil imports 2005
18.0 Wind
20.0 Oil production
30.0 Oil and gas 1970
35.0 Oil imports 1990
50-75[9][10] Nuclear (with centrifuge enrichment)
80.0 Coal
100.0 Hydro
Photovoltaic is better than most of the currently available options, including shale oil.
The big winners are wind, hydro, coal and nuclear.

Energy returned on energy invested - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia

 

[Synthaholic]

I am getting invoiced at 0.13 per kwh. I don't know which part of the US ( or elsewhere ) gets lower than that. I have not heard of the 0.04 rate in a very long time ( unless you have your own industrial coal supply and generator , but that's not an option for residential use ).

I believe Tennessee is around $0.06.

Correction: it's gone up to an average of $0.10. Industrial rate is $0.07.

 

[elektra]

A 20 year warranty from company that will not last 10 years is not much of a warranty.

And of course this thread, my OP is about commercial/industrial sized Solar, not residential which is all you advocates seem to want to talk about. Its Apple and Oranges, no comparison.

There are studies about energy return by each source.

1.3 Biodiesel
1.3 Ethanol corn
1.6 Solar collector
1.9 Solar flat plate
3.0 Bitumen tar sands
5.0 Ethanol sugarcane
5.0 Shale oil
6.8 Photovoltaic
8.0 Oil discoveries
10.0 Natural gas 2005
10.0 Nuclear (with diffusion enrichment)
12.0 Oil imports 2007
14.5 Oil and gas 2005
18.0 Oil imports 2005
18.0 Wind
20.0 Oil production
30.0 Oil and gas 1970
35.0 Oil imports 1990
50-75[9][10] Nuclear (with centrifuge enrichment)
80.0 Coal
100.0 Hydro
Photovoltaic is better than most of the currently available options, including shale oil.
The big winners are wind, hydro, coal and nuclear.

Energy returned on energy invested - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia

Cut/Paste from Wikipedia? Well, I say if I can destroy one in a few seconds, wikipedia and your post is weak at best. NASA and now you fail with a wikipedia post.

The Dangers Of Relying On Hydroelectric Power Brazil s Lesson

The Dangers Of Relying On Hydroelectric Power: Brazil's Lesson

The reason wasn't a natural disaster or a terrorist attack. But it was still a national emergency.

She headed back to give directions to a government body charged with ensuring adequate supplies of electricity for the world's sixth-largest economy, which needs all the power it can get.

Summer rains, which usually start in December, had been late and light, and the amount of water in reservoirs at the nation’s major hydroelectric dams had reached critically low levels.

Newspapers had already been screaming in headlines that Brazil would have to ration electricity as it had threatened to do in 2001, the last time water at dams had reached such critical levels. Back then, the government told consumers that they would be fined and could have their power cut off if they consumed too much electricity. Panicked Brazilians rushed to buy compact fluorescent light bulbs to replace their inefficient incandescent bulbs.

Brazil gets up to 80 percent of its electricity from hydroelectric dams, which produce no emissions. That makes it one of the greenest countries in the world in terms of environmentally friendly energy generation, but it also leaves it vulnerable to the vagaries of nature. Since 2001, the country has built new thermoelectric power plants, which are supposed to be turned on to take up any slack in the system when hydropower fails. But those plants use expensive fossil fuels and emit huge amounts of greenhouse gases, defeating one of the main reasons to build dams in the first place.

 

[Synthaholic]

Great interactive map:

The Price Of Electricity In Your State Planet Money NPR

Idaho is lowest at $0.08, Hawaii is highest at $0.33.

 

[elektra]

Great interactive map:

The Price Of Electricity In Your State Planet Money NPR

Idaho is lowest at $0.08, Hawaii is highest at $0.33.

Californians pay $0.31 kwh, Idaho 0.12 kwh.

NPR is a bit off.

 

[CultureCitizen]

Well Elektra,
I will admit the following :
1. Photovoltaic is not the most reliable source of energy, nor the cheapest.
2. Solar thermal is even less efficient, but is friendlier in ecological terms because it requires only mirrors which last longer.
3. Wind is even cheaper, but is also unreliable.
4. Hydro is even cheaper , but since we are in a period of climate change ( anthropogenic or not ) we can't relly too much on it .
The other alternatives are gas, shale gas , which probably is getting subsidy from shale oil, shale oil , regular oil tar sands, carbon and nuclear.
How do you propose exactly that the US gets its energy without degrading the ecosystem?

 

[elektra]

Great interactive map:

The Price Of Electricity In Your State Planet Money NPR

Idaho is lowest at $0.08, Hawaii is highest at $0.33.

Californians pay $0.31. per kwh.. Idaho is 0.12%, depending on which time of year, and how much you use. NPR is way off, actually.

Well Elektra,
I will admit the following :
1. Photovoltaic is not the most reliable source of energy, nor the cheapest.
2. Solar thermal is even less efficient, but is friendlier in ecological terms because it requires only mirrors which last longer.
3. Wind is even cheaper, but is also unreliable.
4. Hydro is even cheaper , but since we are in a period of climate change ( anthropogenic or not ) we can't relly too much on it .
The other alternatives are gas, shale gas , which probably is getting subsidy from shale oil, shale oil , regular oil tar sands, carbon and nuclear.
How do you propose exactly that the US gets its energy without degrading the ecosystem?

The least impact is Nuclear Power, Coal can be more or less saved for the future, but I believe we will always need coke, which comes from coal, coke which is used for steel production.

Nuclear power, Obama seems to support nuclear power, at least the transfer of the technology to China and India. Advanced technology, like for lithium reactors, of course Obama wants to divert all our lithium to batteries so to me that seems like a very huge waste of massive amounts of energy.

The bottom line, everything uses energy, Solar Thermal requires the hot desert and lots of water, Solar thermal still uses glass, which is very energy intensive.

Wind Turbines, require a 1000 tons of concrete as the base, nothing uses more energy than producing cement/concrete. Further Wind Turbines need fiberglass, lots of fiberglass, dare I say wind turbines increased the use of fiberglass like the world has never seen. The single greatest use of fiberglass. Once we investigate what it takes to make fiberglass, we find we need Boron, an Element that is in short supply, which is used in Nuclear Power plants, and a neutron absorber. There are chemicals to consider, crazy stuff that only comes from Oil, like propene. Can propene be replaced with a substance from plants? I do not know, but that does not matter, it comes from Oil today. Fiberglass is just one part of Wind Turbines. What kills me is all those copper windings sitting in a field, not spinning, or spinning at a slow speed, in comparison to hooking that same generator up to a source of steam.

The best use of our natural resources is to use them, not simply increase the production of lets say, electrical generators, by 100,000'xs, to produce the same electricity that one of those electrical generators did in the past.

Geothermal, bad anyway you look at it, extremely toxic, pipe corroding, fracking, constant drilling just like an oil well, a custom plant design for each separate source, no model T here. Each source is unique.

I work on Nuclear power plants, I have been to the Salton Sea and worked on Geothermal plants, I have worked on CoGen plants as well. My company has inspected Solar Plants I have not, I have co-workers from other companies that have inspected Wind Turbines.

I got an Arsenic burn to my Butt while working at the Salton Sea. One gallon of brine weighs 10 lbs, (2 lbs more than water). That extra two pounds is mostly Arsenic and a whole lot of other toxic radioactive stuff. When I say Geothermal is toxic, it is. But every source is unique, the chemistry, heat, everything is different. Each requires a separate solution.

Energy is life, Energy is power, Energy is your standard of living, if we are not fat with Energy, we are poor as a society. If we can not produce excess at all times, we are starving, we can not react to an emergency. If we are not fat with Energy our standard of living goes down.

Fat is healthy for a nation, when it comes to Energy.

 

[orogenicman]

lol,

a DESERT IS A FUCKING WASTE LAND. Most of the desert solar is built on isn't useable.

I've come to the conclusion that both parties in this country are full of people that are truly sick in the head.

A desert in Arizona produces cotton, A desert in California produces artichokes, there are birds and animals that live there, Butterflies and bugs.

The only way to produce anything in the desert is via irrigation by diverting rivers or ground water withdrwal. So if anyone has destroyed the desert in California, it's the farmers. But you don't have a problem with that, do you, Elektra. I mean, not really, right?

 

[elektra]

The only way to produce anything in the desert is via irrigation by diverting rivers or ground water withdrwal. So if anyone has destroyed the desert in California, it's the farmers. But you don't have a problem with that, do you, Elektra. I mean, not really, right?

burp

 

[orogenicman]

The only way to produce anything in the desert is via irrigation by diverting rivers or ground water withdrwal. So if anyone has destroyed the desert in California, it's the farmers. But you don't have a problem with that, do you, Elektra. I mean, not really, right?

burp

Right. Thanks for proving my point.

 

[elektra]

burp

Right. Thanks for proving my point.

excuse me

 

[jc456]

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

Oh , ok , that makes sense: it is distributed in a 35 years span, so it's like 6% of the gdp per year, and it would be distributed in wind, solar and fusion and subsidies. In the case of solar , given the lifespan of solar cells it would include the replacement costs of the first generation fo cells, it doesn't necesarily mean covering thousand of miles with solar panels.

link: Green Energy Holding FAILURE OF GREEN ENERGY IN EUROPE