Solar Power Destroys Miles and Miles of Desert

[elektra]

Why are we still talking about solar energy when it's a bad investment?

Why is 5.5gw of the stuff being installed every year between house hold and solar farms? This is only second to natural gas! How can that be a bad investment?

Cause it gives us nothing in return and will cost another 9 trillion dollars.

 

[Judicial review]

Why are we still talking about solar energy when it's a bad investment?

Why is 5.5gw of the stuff being installed every year between house hold and solar farms? This is only second to natural gas! How can that be a bad investment?

The cost to instal on ones house is average $25,000 to $35,000 depending on Sq ft. When the cost gets down to $10,000 or the cost of a normal roof with no subsidies, then we'll talk. I know about subsidy's cover about 50%. However, I'm not going to wait 7-10 years to get my money back, when I'll only stay in my house likely for 15 years then move.

You also have to consider cloud cover and area and regions. Most people will only get 4-5 hours of sun light in a day. It's a bad investment in may parts of the world.

 

[CultureCitizen]

Do you get paid to support wind and solar?

So funny, so many people just can not accept the truth. You guys consume extreme amounts of oil to build the world's largest solar plants and act like solar grows magically on trees.

Solar is a huge step backwards, nothing consumes more.

Ok Elektra,
I gave you the numbers. It is not a huge plant what I am proposing but rather a do it yourself solution. I've gone through the numbers several times, and honestly I don't feel ready to make the jump just yet. Investing so much for a break-even is not particularly exciting. But it's not the panels what are stopping me , it's the storage technology : it's expensive and not particularly ecologic.
I'm optimistic I am certain that within 5 or 10 years I will be able to become energy independent.

 

[elektra]

In an economy with no industry, where we are dependent on imports for everything, all we need is to keep our lights on. Our economy will be draining the Baby Boomers life savings through health care, after that we will have nothing.

The end of the usa.

 

[CultureCitizen]

Solar must destroy the Earth to save the Earth?

No , only half a million kilometers of desert is needed to cover current and future energy needs of the whole planet up to 2030.

Land Art Generator Initiative

Come on.... Are you bonkers?

That entire site is a joke. You want me to detail how crazy that is, line by line?

A household can cover most of its energy needs with 60 m2 of solar panels ( 2 electric cars, + house appliances ).
No desert has to be destroyed. The problem are the batteries : they pollute a lot and they are very inefficient.
I guess I'll have to wait until we have graphene batteries.

 

[Old Rocks]

Yeah and that's why China is soon to be the world's largest user of renewable energy.
Here's a link I posted in another one of tour anti-Green threads.
China Is Besting the U.S. on Renewable Energy - US News
I don't think China is that concerned with Global Warming.
You are such a small thinker, you really don't have the ability to look at the Big Picture. Countries around the world are investing in renewable energy because it's smart thinking for the future, we never have enough energy. If all hell breaks loose in the Middle East an energy crunch occurs. If you have alternative energy resources you are sure the hell better off than those who have all their eggs in one basket.
Energy experts from around the world know this, thus the growth of renewable energy. This has nothing to do with Global Warming. It has everything to do with energy.

You are worried about China "trumping" us in Green Energy while they build the most modern nuclear power infrastructure in the World, you are worried about Green Energy when in a few years China will be the World's largest exporter of Nuclear Power.

Your idea destroys America, literally.

"Your idea destroys America, literally."

Do you have anything from experts not connected to the fossil fuel sector to back that comment up?

Even "W" an oil man agrees or I agree with him.
In 2007, President Bush signed the Energy Independence and Security Act (EISA), which responded to his “Twenty in Ten” challenge to expand alternative fuels and improve vehicle fuel economy. Although the President’s proposed alternative fuel standard would have gone further and faster than this legislation, EISA represents a major step forward in expanding the production of renewable fuels, reducing our dependence on oil, and confronting global climate change.
Energy for America s Future

Solar construction needs the largest amount of fossil fuel of any industry. It is about making people ric. Of course an oil man like bush supports anything that increases the use of oil.

Bush is greedy bastard except when it comes to solar?

A bit naive you are. Bush is a red flag.

Ol' Booby, are you ever going to try to provide a credible link to your nonsense claims? Or just continue to impress us all as to what a babbling idiot you are. Solar and wind will continue to increase their share of the energy provided in this nation, and around the world. And fools like you will be able to do nothing about that.

 

[Old Rocks]

Solar must destroy the Earth to save the Earth?

No , only half a million kilometers of desert is needed to cover current and future energy needs of the whole planet up to 2030.

Land Art Generator Initiative

Come on.... Are you bonkers?

That entire site is a joke. You want me to detail how crazy that is, line by line?

A household can cover most of its energy needs with 60 m2 of solar panels ( 2 electric cars, + house appliances ).
No desert has to be destroyed. The problem are the batteries : they pollute a lot and they are very inefficient.
I guess I'll have to wait until we have graphene batteries.

Going grid parallel is the answer to that.

 

[elektra]

Yeah and that's why China is soon to be the world's largest user of renewable energy.
Here's a link I posted in another one of tour anti-Green threads.
China Is Besting the U.S. on Renewable Energy - US News
I don't think China is that concerned with Global Warming.
You are such a small thinker, you really don't have the ability to look at the Big Picture. Countries around the world are investing in renewable energy because it's smart thinking for the future, we never have enough energy. If all hell breaks loose in the Middle East an energy crunch occurs. If you have alternative energy resources you are sure the hell better off than those who have all their eggs in one basket.
Energy experts from around the world know this, thus the growth of renewable energy. This has nothing to do with Global Warming. It has everything to do with energy.

You are worried about China "trumping" us in Green Energy while they build the most modern nuclear power infrastructure in the World, you are worried about Green Energy when in a few years China will be the World's largest exporter of Nuclear Power.

Your idea destroys America, literally.

"Your idea destroys America, literally."

Do you have anything from experts not connected to the fossil fuel sector to back that comment up?

Even "W" an oil man agrees or I agree with him.
In 2007, President Bush signed the Energy Independence and Security Act (EISA), which responded to his “Twenty in Ten” challenge to expand alternative fuels and improve vehicle fuel economy. Although the President’s proposed alternative fuel standard would have gone further and faster than this legislation, EISA represents a major step forward in expanding the production of renewable fuels, reducing our dependence on oil, and confronting global climate change.
Energy for America s Future

Solar construction needs the largest amount of fossil fuel of any industry. It is about making people ric. Of course an oil man like bush supports anything that increases the use of oil.

Bush is greedy bastard except when it comes to solar?

A bit naive you are. Bush is a red flag.

Ol' Booby, are you ever going to try to provide a credible link to your nonsense claims? Or just continue to impress us all as to what a babbling idiot you are. Solar and wind will continue to increase their share of the energy provided in this nation, and around the world. And fools like you will be able to do nothing about that.

I used your link. The information came from you.

 

[elektra]

9 trillion dollars will be spent to build solar and wind.

 

[Judicial review]

9 trillion dollars will be spent to build solar and wind.

Electra - I have a problem with deserts. You know what it is? They are too damn hot.

 

[Muhammed]

a DESERT IS A FUCKING WASTE LAND.

Exactly. And it's still a desert with or without solar panels.

 

[elektra]

9 trillion dollars will be spent to build solar and wind.

Electra - I have a problem with deserts. You know what it is? They are too damn hot.

Too hot destroys solar panels, literally. That is why they tried the CSP, Ivanpah.

I love the desert, I spent 1 year in the USMC stationed in 29 Palms when I was young, another year not so long ago. The Desert is quiet and clean. Some places barren, but that is not where they want to build Solar because its too far away from the Power Lines.

This is a picture of Ivanpah from 100 miles away, I was over the 10 Freeway, at the Arizona border, give or take. Its that bright spot kind of in the middle of the pic.

 

[Crick]

If Ivanpah was replaced with a fossil fuel burning plant of the same capacity, you'd have seen more than that speck of light, wouldn't you. You'd see a towering plume of exhaust gases and soot. I'll take this one.

 

[elektra]

If Ivanpah was replaced with a fossil fuel burning plant of the same capacity, you'd have seen more than that speck of light, wouldn't you. You'd see a towering plume of exhaust gases and soot. I'll take this one.

No you won't, otherwise we would see your pick. Further we would not need another 100,000 Ivanpah's to equal one Coal plant, like lets say, Cholla. Which is actually in the desert, so a photo would be a great comparison of the two. How about from 1/4 mile away, then you can show a photo from 100 miles away, ha! ha!

Its been a long time since U.S. Coal spewed as much pollution as you are making claims to.

Panoramio - Photo of Cholla Power Plant from I-40

 

[elektra]

If Ivanpah was replaced with a fossil fuel burning plant of the same capacity, you'd have seen more than that speck of light, wouldn't you. You'd see a towering plume of exhaust gases and soot. I'll take this one.

If Ivanpah was replaced with a fossil fuel plant you would see a plume? You know nothing of anything, as you prove. Ivanpah burns natural gas 24/7!

They even got Diesel pumps for that Natural Gas cause apparently Solar can not pump the Natural Gas it uses so we need Diesel pumps.

Ivanpah solar plant wants to burn more natural gas

Bright Source Energy, the company operating the plant, is petitioning the California government, requestiong permission to burn more natural gas and to emit 94,749 more tons of carbon dioxide per year.

 

[CultureCitizen]

Going grid parallel is the answer to that.

Yes , of course , but for some reason I feel that's cheating on the electric company

 

[Andylusion]

Solar must destroy the Earth to save the Earth?

No , only half a million kilometers of desert is needed to cover current and future energy needs of the whole planet up to 2030.

Land Art Generator Initiative

Come on.... Are you bonkers?

That entire site is a joke. You want me to detail how crazy that is, line by line?

A household can cover most of its energy needs with 60 m2 of solar panels ( 2 electric cars, + house appliances ).
No desert has to be destroyed. The problem are the batteries : they pollute a lot and they are very inefficient.
I guess I'll have to wait until we have graphene batteries.

60 m² of solar panels? One panel is 1.6 m². 60 / 1.6 = 38 panels.

38 Panels would cost $10.6 Thousand dollars. That does not include power inverter, or batteries, or the charger controller or any wiring, nor housing for equipment, or surge protections, or breakers and disconnects. That can easily add up to another $10 Thousand.

So $20K. I spend about $40 a month on electricity. In 40 years, I'll break even. Perhaps I use little electricity. Let's say $80 a month. That's 20 years to break even. Let's say the government subsidizes the big solar companies, to the tune of 50%. That's 10 years, to break even.

Fail?

So would 60 m² be able to supply all the power I would need? On average... yes. The average household uses 30 kWh a day. 38 panels are rated to provide 200 watts, per panel, at 7.6 kW, assuming about 4 hours of light a day, would be 30 kWh.

The problem is, "rated" power is not the same as practical power. Calculating out how much power you'll get from 'rated' power, is a joke. Rated power is under the most ideal circumstances.

For example... Angle of the panels to the sun. As we all know, ideally the panels should always face directly at the sun. Which almost never happens when you mount them on your roof. That alone eliminates that ideal rated power from ever happening.

What about dust and leaves? My parents house for example has 3 very large trees, that shade most of their yard and roof.

In dusty areas of the country, that dust can kill off 5% to 10% of the power generation.

Here in Ohio, we have white fluffy stuff called snow. You expect everyone to climb on their roof all winter long and clear off the snow?

Then you have losses from wiring. Larger array, more power loss to wiring and inversion. You also have power mismatch losses. Differences in power output per panel, cause and overall loss in production. Larger array, more loss.

So clearly we need significantly more solar panels than the 38 minimum. Yet even then, we still have a problem, because over time, panels lose their power generation. There is a significant 1.5% to 2% loss the first month. Then after that, about 1% power loss per year. In just 8 years, the total power generation will be down 10%.

Pretty soon, you'll be running out of power.

Of course all of this ignores the fact that many... if not most homes, wouldn't have the space for 38 solar panels anyway. My parents home, nor my own, would have enough space for that.

So back to the question: So would 60 m² be able to supply all the power I would need?

Theoretically, in the most ideal situation, yes. In practical reality, not even close.

 

[Andylusion]

Solar must destroy the Earth to save the Earth?

No , only half a million kilometers of desert is needed to cover current and future energy needs of the whole planet up to 2030.

Land Art Generator Initiative

Come on.... Are you bonkers?

That entire site is a joke. You want me to detail how crazy that is, line by line?

A household can cover most of its energy needs with 60 m2 of solar panels ( 2 electric cars, + house appliances ).
No desert has to be destroyed. The problem are the batteries : they pollute a lot and they are very inefficient.
I guess I'll have to wait until we have graphene batteries.

Going grid parallel is the answer to that.

True, but that defeats the purpose. I'm not going to spend $20K on a solar panel setup, only to end up with an electric bill anyway.

If you are going to spend thousands on thousands on thousands of dollars, I'd better not have a power bill every month.

 

[CultureCitizen]

60 m² of solar panels? One panel is 1.6 m². 60 / 1.6 = 38 panels.

38 Panels would cost $10.6 Thousand dollars. That does not include power inverter, or batteries, or the charger controller or any wiring, nor housing for equipment, or surge protections, or breakers and disconnects. That can easily add up to another $10 Thousand.

So $20K. I spend about $50 a month on electricity. In 400 years, I'll break even. Perhaps I use little electricity. Let's say $100 a month. That's 200 years to break even. Let's say the government subsidizes the big solar companies, to the tune of 50%. That's 100 years, to break even.

Fail?

No
http://www.wholesalesolar.com/products.folder/module-folder/Astronergy/CHSM6612P-300.html
Each panel measures almost 2 m2 . Each provides 300 w, and each costs 300 US.
That's $9,000, and as I said that includes the energy to charge two electric cars ( for a daily 45 mile ride each ).
So you'll have to add the equivlent expense for gas ( petrol ).
To cover just my electricity needs 2 of the aforementioned panels are more than enough.

That's $600 ... I pay a lot less than you in electricity $12. 600/12 = 50 months.
Considering batteries and wiring , it would add up a lot more : $1800 = 150 months . = 12.5 years.
And as I said , I don't like current batteries. But I do get to the break-even price

Mind you , last time I checked $50 * 12 months * 200 years = 120,000. I think you made a math mistake.
Fail ?

 

[Mad_Cabbie]

Green energy, the biggest fraud in history, sold on the lie of agw.

The real question is why do you hate it so much?

Answer: because that's how you were told to think.