The Daily Freakout: Solar Energy

[Samson]

Curious minds........................

Read HERE

James Schlesinger and Robert L. Hirsch - Getting Real on Wind and Solar - washingtonpost.com

on the feasibility of wind and solar power. Basically.........its a joke except to provide a very modest amount of our energy use. The enivornmentalist whack jobs like Old Rocks make it seem like its a no-brainer...........cost efficient and sufficient to meet Americas energy needs. Sh!t would be laughable applied in New York City/Metro area where I am. Jerkoffs like Old Rocks live in the middle of nowhere ( Oregon ) where street lights are virtually non-existent

This is the kind of stuff the k00ks hate people knowing about!!!

I'll go back to my last post, which seems to be to tough a question: If solar power's so great, then where are the panels on the White House and the Capitol? Why are there none powering all government military housing?

 

[Ravi]

Curious minds........................

Read HERE

James Schlesinger and Robert L. Hirsch - Getting Real on Wind and Solar - washingtonpost.com

on the feasibility of wind and solar power. Basically.........its a joke except to provide a very modest amount of our energy use. The enivornmentalist whack jobs like Old Rocks make it seem like its a no-brainer...........cost efficient and sufficient to meet Americas energy needs. Sh!t would be laughable applied in New York City/Metro area where I am. Jerkoffs like Old Rocks live in the middle of nowhere ( Oregon ) where street lights are virtually non-existent

This is the kind of stuff the k00ks hate people knowing about!!!

I'll go back to my last post, which seems to be to tough a question: If solar power's so great, then where are the panels on the White House and the Capitol? Why are there none powering all government military housing?

NPR.org Green Marines: Camp Lejeune Buys Into Solar Power

Energy Empowers | Solar energy integrated at Hawaiian military housing

USATODAY.com - Army housing no longer homely

 

[Ravi]

SOLAR ENERGY IS BACK AT THE WHITE HOUSE

 

[Samson]

Curious minds........................

Read HERE

James Schlesinger and Robert L. Hirsch - Getting Real on Wind and Solar - washingtonpost.com

on the feasibility of wind and solar power. Basically.........its a joke except to provide a very modest amount of our energy use. The enivornmentalist whack jobs like Old Rocks make it seem like its a no-brainer...........cost efficient and sufficient to meet Americas energy needs. Sh!t would be laughable applied in New York City/Metro area where I am. Jerkoffs like Old Rocks live in the middle of nowhere ( Oregon ) where street lights are virtually non-existent

This is the kind of stuff the k00ks hate people knowing about!!!

I'll go back to my last post, which seems to be to tough a question: If solar power's so great, then where are the panels on the White House and the Capitol? Why are there none powering all government military housing?

NPR.org Green Marines: Camp Lejeune Buys Into Solar Power

Energy Empowers | Solar energy integrated at Hawaiian military housing

USATODAY.com - Army housing no longer homely

Thanks for the linkys

The last, from USA Today seems to have nothing to do with the thread, but it is interesting....maybe it has some tie in to the second "Energy Empowers" article? If so, then we may note that the initiative to integrate solar NRG into military housing began in the Bush Administration, and Obama has continued the Bush initiative at Camp Lejeune

BOOOOOOOOOOOSH!!!!

 

[Samson]

SOLAR ENERGY IS BACK AT THE WHITE HOUSE

Again, nice linky showing:

With little fanfare, the Bush administration has installed three solarenergy systems on the grounds of the White House.

Has Obama done anything...?? HMMMM???...

 

[editec]

When evaluating the REAL cost of energy one must include the cost of attain that energy (including the cost of making the equipment, or to find the sources of it) as well as the cost of the POLLUTION that using that form of energy.

And it's that second part, the cost of the pollution, where our economics is (I think) missing the real cost of hydrocarbons.

I don't believe exploiting hydrocarbons IS really a cheaper energy source. (easier to find and explot, yes)

I just think that most of their TOTAL costs have as yet not been QUANTIFIED correctly.

What is the cost, for example, of the disaster in the Gulf?

What is the cost, for example, of spewing crap into the air?

We can't quantify those costs very accurately, and mostly we don't want to quantify those costs AT ALL.

There's NO FREE lunch when it comes to producing or tapping energy, folks.

This is exactly the sh!t Im always talking about.............the lefty k00ks always talk about "costs" in abstracts. Its the only way for them to advance their ultimate goal of sticking it to the capitalist. Conservatives..........you'll notice..........talk about costs in real terms. Why? Because they have to...........they live in the real world. Have enormous levels of responsiblity. Cant afford to dabble in this makey uppey "what if" world that is something that is perpetual for the k00ks. Conservatives have uppermost in their minds REAL costs: costs in terms of net job loss by going to a green economy. Costs in terms of impact on the budgets of regular middle class Americans. Those costs dont matter to the k00ks.........it's their idealistic world or bust.

I'll give a perfect analogy using another example of the pronounced level of impractical in the thinking of the typical liberal..................

A few years back, there was a tragic accident on the I-95 corridor. A big rig slammed into two vans that had pulled over on the shoulder of the highway..............wiped out the whole family. Tragic? Indeed...............heartbreaking in fact. But what happened after that? Several liberal groups began to lobby for an immediate expansion effort of widening the highway to reduce the chances of that kind of accident occurring again. Would have cost the taxpayers of Ct. tens of millions. Now...........need I elaborate on the level of stupid with that kind of idea. Liberal k00ks lack a filter................its called the reason and common sense filter. It is most notably lacking in the whole energy debate. These same people never see any problems with rasing taxes. Raising taxes to them is a zero sum game. Increasing unemployment payments to 90 weeks.........or 120............or 180..........or 250. Whatever??!!!!!!!Again.......its a filter thing people..........just no ability to think on the margin. If it sounds good.............DO IT!!!!


All this talk of a green economy is awesome...........but its about 50 years pre-mature. You dont apply 1950's technology to the 21st century.

So there is no REAL cost associated with the BP oil leak?

And there is no REAL costs associated with air pollution?

And recognizing that there are REAL costs associated with those things makes me a LEFTIE?

Interesting, POV, there, lad.

Dumber than a box of rocks, but interesting.

 

[editec]

When evaluating the REAL cost of energy one must include the cost of attain that energy (including the cost of making the equipment, or to find the sources of it) as well as the cost of the POLLUTION that using that form of energy.

And it's that second part, the cost of the pollution, where our economics is (I think) missing the real cost of hydrocarbons.

I don't believe exploiting hydrocarbons IS really a cheaper energy source. (easier to find and explot, yes)

I just think that most of their TOTAL costs have as yet not been QUANTIFIED correctly.

What is the cost, for example, of the disaster in the Gulf?

What is the cost, for example, of spewing crap into the air?

We can't quantify those costs very accurately, and mostly we don't want to quantify those costs AT ALL.

There's NO FREE lunch when it comes to producing or tapping energy, folks.

This is exactly the sh!t Im always talking about.............the lefty k00ks always talk about "costs" in abstracts. Its the only way for them to advance their ultimate goal of sticking it to the capitalist. Conservatives..........you'll notice..........talk about costs in real terms. Why? Because they have to...........they live in the real world. Have enormous levels of responsiblity. Cant afford to dabble in this makey uppey "what if" world that is something that is perpetual for the k00ks. Conservatives have uppermost in their minds REAL costs: costs in terms of net job loss by going to a green economy. Costs in terms of impact on the budgets of regular middle class Americans. Those costs dont matter to the k00ks.........it's their idealistic world or bust.

I'll give a perfect analogy using another example of the pronounced level of impractical in the thinking of the typical liberal..................

A few years back, there was a tragic accident on the I-95 corridor. A big rig slammed into two vans that had pulled over on the shoulder of the highway..............wiped out the whole family. Tragic? Indeed...............heartbreaking in fact. But what happened after that? Several liberal groups began to lobby for an immediate expansion effort of widening the highway to reduce the chances of that kind of accident occurring again. Would have cost the taxpayers of Ct. tens of millions. Now...........need I elaborate on the level of stupid with that kind of idea. Liberal k00ks lack a filter................its called the reason and common sense filter. It is most notably lacking in the whole energy debate. These same people never see any problems with rasing taxes. Raising taxes to them is a zero sum game. Increasing unemployment payments to 90 weeks.........or 120............or 180..........or 250. Whatever??!!!!!!!Again.......its a filter thing people..........just no ability to think on the margin. If it sounds good.............DO IT!!!!


All this talk of a green economy is awesome...........but its about 50 years pre-mature. You dont apply 1950's technology to the 21st century.

So there are no REAL costs associated with the BP oil leak?

And there are not REAL costs associated with spewing pollutants into the atmosphere?

Interesting POV, lad.

 

[Ravi]

I'll go back to my last post, which seems to be to tough a question: If solar power's so great, then where are the panels on the White House and the Capitol? Why are there none powering all government military housing?

NPR.org Green Marines: Camp Lejeune Buys Into Solar Power

Energy Empowers | Solar energy integrated at Hawaiian military housing

USATODAY.com - Army housing no longer homely

Thanks for the linkys

The last, from USA Today seems to have nothing to do with the thread, but it is interesting....maybe it has some tie in to the second "Energy Empowers" article? If so, then we may note that the initiative to integrate solar NRG into military housing began in the Bush Administration, and Obama has continued the Bush initiative at Camp Lejeune

BOOOOOOOOOOOSH!!!!

From the last link:

They will also be greener, making using of new, thin solar panels that will make the Army housing here the largest solar-powered community in the world, Actus says.

Too bad you have reading issues.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Because it takes skilled labor to install and connect solar panels, and anyone can put up a roof. You have to wire the panels together and connect them to your house wiring, which requires that you use a licensed electrician in most jurisdictions.

I don't know what you are smoking, but a licensed electrician doesn't have to install solar panels. An electrician has to wire the connections for a new home if you want a certificate of occupancy. Just like an electrician would be required for traditional wiring into the grid.

So the answer to octonerd's question that you gave was incorrect.

As a matter of fact you can install your own solar panels as long as you can pass your city's permitting requirements...if they exist.

Connecting them to your home wiring does, which is what I said. Maybe the problem here is that you cannot read. Even if all the electrician does is verify that you have everything hooked up correctly, he still has to be there.

You are saying this is an additional cost in new home construction...having the electrician. It is not. All new construction needs an electrician no matter what the source of energy.

No, I am, saying it is an additional cost in upgrading an existing home. You and I are talking about different things if you are talking about new homes, though I would still point out that it is more expensive because it requires skilled labor, while regular roofing can be done by anyone.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

When evaluating the REAL cost of energy one must include the cost of attain that energy (including the cost of making the equipment, or to find the sources of it) as well as the cost of the POLLUTION that using that form of energy.

And it's that second part, the cost of the pollution, where our economics is (I think) missing the real cost of hydrocarbons.

I don't believe exploiting hydrocarbons IS really a cheaper energy source. (easier to find and explot, yes)

I just think that most of their TOTAL costs have as yet not been QUANTIFIED correctly.

What is the cost, for example, of the disaster in the Gulf?

What is the cost, for example, of spewing crap into the air?

We can't quantify those costs very accurately, and mostly we don't want to quantify those costs AT ALL.

There's NO FREE lunch when it comes to producing or tapping energy, folks.

At this point in time the manufacture of green energy requires the use of hydrocarbon based energy. It also requires the mining of specialized materials in previously untouched areas. That drives up the real cost of the replacements also.

Just saying.

 

[Old Rocks]

None of you have ever done any type of construction work have you?

You need to pull permits first. Then you have to assess whether putting 500 pounds or more of panels on your roof requires structural modifications to handle the extra weight. And the building inspector will probably require it anyway.

If you have to raise the angle of the panels to one steeper than the roof angle then you have to factor in the extra supports needed for wind resistance.

Installation costs will vary by region but they will not be cheap. The prices I posted before were for an installed system in my area. Everything I have looked into tells me the cost of an installed solar system is $7 - $9 per watt.

Yes, I have worked construction. And if you hired me to put in the panels, it would cost you what you state.

But, for most home owners, if they do most of the work themselves, the cost is far lower, and they can have a 5 kw system for $10,000 or less.

No, the weight you quote is for silicon systems, and they are still expensive. The thin film systems are far lighter, and getting more so every day.

Right now, as we post, there is work going on that will boost the thin film effieciency from about 11% to 40% or better. That will make the slope of the roof less a factor. And drive down the price by a factor of four or better.

A thin film 100 watt panel weighs 45 pounds.

A 6000 watt system would require 60 100 watt panels.

Total weight on my roof. 2700 pounds. There is not a building inspector around that would not require restructuring the roof so as to hold that much weight.

DuPont DA100-A1 : Solar Panels Direct, Powered by Nature!

Well, you have a point if you are going to put on a large installation. Of course, as with any problem, that cat can be skinned.

Solar Roof Solutions | Energy Efficient | Commercial | Residential | Custom Bilt Metals

 

[Old Rocks]

This is a fascintating thread in the way it reveals the thinking of many of the people on this board. From those like Kookybill, rejecting the whole idea without the slightest knowledge of the technology or it's potential, to those that oppose it on the political grounds, in that it is normally associated with 'liberal environmentalists'.

Then we have the hard headed number crunchers, that right now reject this technology because it cannot show an immediate cost return. In spite of the fact that the cost curve on this power is downward, while that of fossil fuels are ever upward. Even without the externalized costs of fossil fuels.

Then those that are cautiously interested. Those are the people that count. They are not going to pay for something that does not have a return in a reasonable time, but they are not going to reject a new technology on the basis of someone's political perceptions or luddite leanings.

In the last five years, I have seen the costs of solar drop by a factor of five, efficiencies jump from a top of 14% to 24%. In the next five, we will see an even greater increase in efficiency, and a drop of a factor of 3.

All of us have solar in our future, whether as individual installations, or installations by our utilities. The major question is whether we will manufacturing it ourselves, or buying from others.

 

[Mr. Shaman]

When evaluating the REAL cost of energy one must include the cost of attain that energy (including the cost of making the equipment, or to find the sources of it) as well as the cost of the POLLUTION that using that form of energy.

And it's that second part, the cost of the pollution, where our economics is (I think) missing the real cost of hydrocarbons.

I don't believe exploiting hydrocarbons IS really a cheaper energy source. (easier to find and explot, yes)

I just think that most of their TOTAL costs have as yet not been QUANTIFIED correctly.

What is the cost, for example, of the disaster in the Gulf?

What is the cost, for example, of spewing crap into the air?

We can't quantify those costs very accurately, and mostly we don't want to quantify those costs AT ALL.

There's NO FREE lunch when it comes to producing or tapping energy, folks.

Conservatives have uppermost in their minds REAL costs: costs in terms of net job loss by going to a green economy.

....And, GORGING themselves on a future that never changes.

Ah, yes....the magic o' $ame ol', $ame ol'......no risk/thinking/variation/innovation required (more-often-referred-to as a fixed-game).

​

 

[Mr. Shaman]

You do not have to have a licensed electrician to do all the work. It does have to pass electrical inspection, and a licensed electrician has to do the final hookups.

None of you have ever done any type of construction work have you?

You need to pull permits first. Then you have to assess whether putting 500 pounds or more of panels on your roof requires structural modifications to handle the extra weight. And the building inspector will probably require it anyway.

If you have to raise the angle of the panels to one steeper than the roof angle then you have to factor in the extra supports needed for wind resistance.

Installation costs will vary by region but they will not be cheap. The prices I posted before were for an installed system in my area. Everything I have looked into tells me the cost of an installed solar system is $7 - $9 per watt.

Yes, I have worked construction. And if you hired me to put in the panels, it would cost you what you state.

But, for most home owners, if they do most of the work themselves, the cost is far lower, and they can have a 5 kw system for $10,000 or less.

No, the weight you quote is for silicon systems, and they are still expensive. The thin film systems are far lighter, and getting more so every day.

Right now, as we post, there is work going on that will boost the thin film effieciency from about 11% to 40% or better. That will make the slope of the roof less a factor. And drive down the price by a factor of four or better.

Pretty amazing....what they're doing with plastic, nowdays.

The switch (from silicon, for photovoltaics) wasn't even imagined (probably...from what I remember) a good five-years before it actually happened!! That's why I get the biggest kick, outta people (typically, with a more-"conservative" agenda) who overuse the terms Never & Always!!!

I can't imagine anything more-amusing than watching The Future develop....and VAPORIZING all o' the "conservatives'" Absolutes!!!!

 

[Mr. Shaman]

None of you have ever done any type of construction work have you?

You need to pull permits first. Then you have to assess whether putting 500 pounds or more of panels on your roof requires structural modifications to handle the extra weight. And the building inspector will probably require it anyway.

If you have to raise the angle of the panels to one steeper than the roof angle then you have to factor in the extra supports needed for wind resistance.

Installation costs will vary by region but they will not be cheap. The prices I posted before were for an installed system in my area. Everything I have looked into tells me the cost of an installed solar system is $7 - $9 per watt.

Yes, I have worked construction. And if you hired me to put in the panels, it would cost you what you state.

But, for most home owners, if they do most of the work themselves, the cost is far lower, and they can have a 5 kw system for $10,000 or less.

No, the weight you quote is for silicon systems, and they are still expensive. The thin film systems are far lighter, and getting more so every day.

Right now, as we post, there is work going on that will boost the thin film effieciency from about 11% to 40% or better. That will make the slope of the roof less a factor. And drive down the price by a factor of four or better.

A thin film 100 watt panel weighs 45 pounds.

A 6000 watt system would require 60 100 watt panels.

Total weight on my roof. 2700 pounds. There is not a building inspector around that would not require restructuring the roof so as to hold that much weight.

DuPont DA100-A1 : Solar Panels Direct, Powered by Nature!

Things CHANGE (constantly)....Absolutes evaporate....



Sorry, "conservatives".

EVERYTHING'S temporary......no matter what your Clerics tell you.​

 

[Soggy in NOLA]

TWO BILLION for solar energy!

Proof that Obama hates America: he wants to create jobs: COMMUNISM!

Proof that Obama hates America: he wants to focus on alternative energy and lessen our dependence on oil: THE OIL SPILL IS AN INSIDE JOB!

Lather, rinse, repeat.

A. How about giving us a link to something we can read?

B. So Obama is earmarking $2 billion in pretend money, because we're operating on a $1.5 trillion deficit, to hand out in the form of corporate welfare (which I thought you hated) so that it can be spent on R&D of a technology that is not practical for use nor will be anytime in the near future.

Not to mention that the Boy King ok'd $2 billion in loans to Petrobus for.... wait for it....

R&D for offshore deep water drilling!

Writers note: Petrobus is part owned by one George Soros.

 

[Mr. Shaman]

Curious minds........................

Read HERE

James Schlesinger and Robert L. Hirsch - Getting Real on Wind and Solar - washingtonpost.com

on the feasibility of wind and solar power. Basically.........its a joke except to provide a very modest amount of our energy use.

....At least, that's what Big Oil's/King Coal's Lobbyists keep repeating.

Gee.....it's almost as-if politicians/lobbyists see some merit in playing scientist!!!

​

"Piltz worked under the Clinton and Bush administrations. Each year, he helped write a report to Congress called "Our Changing Planet."

Piltz says he is responsible for editing the report and sending a review draft to the White House.

Asked what happens, Piltz says: "It comes back with a large number of edits, handwritten on the hard copy by the chief-of-staff of the Council on Environmental Quality."

Asked who the chief of staff is, Piltz says, "Phil Cooney."

Piltz says Cooney is not a scientist. "He's a lawyer. He was a lobbyist for the American Petroleum Institute, before going into the White House," he says.

Cooney, the former oil industry lobbyist, became chief-of-staff at the White House Council on Environmental Quality."

 

[Mr. Shaman]

Curious minds........................

Read HERE

James Schlesinger and Robert L. Hirsch - Getting Real on Wind and Solar - washingtonpost.com

on the feasibility of wind and solar power. Basically.........its a joke except to provide a very modest amount of our energy use. The enivornmentalist whack jobs like Old Rocks make it seem like its a no-brainer...........cost efficient and sufficient to meet Americas energy needs. Sh!t would be laughable applied in New York City/Metro area where I am. Jerkoffs like Old Rocks live in the middle of nowhere ( Oregon ) where street lights are virtually non-existent

This is the kind of stuff the k00ks hate people knowing about!!!

I'll go back to my last post, which seems to be to tough a question: If solar power's so great, then where are the panels on the White House and the Capitol? Why are there none powering all government military housing?

It took me 45 seconds to find THIShttp://www.greentechmedia.com/articles/read/what-ails-solar-and-wind-not-enough-lobbyists/.



(....No doubt, some o' that haaarrrd work that Lil' Dumbya & "conservatives", in-general, have always whined-about.)​

 

[Mr. Shaman]

SOLAR ENERGY IS BACK AT THE WHITE HOUSE

Again, nice linky showing:

With little fanfare, the Bush administration has installed three solarenergy systems on the grounds of the White House.

"......in a more modest way."

 

[Mr. Shaman]

When evaluating the REAL cost of energy one must include the cost of attain that energy (including the cost of making the equipment, or to find the sources of it) as well as the cost of the POLLUTION that using that form of energy.

And it's that second part, the cost of the pollution, where our economics is (I think) missing the real cost of hydrocarbons.

I don't believe exploiting hydrocarbons IS really a cheaper energy source. (easier to find and explot, yes)

I just think that most of their TOTAL costs have as yet not been QUANTIFIED correctly.

What is the cost, for example, of the disaster in the Gulf?

What is the cost, for example, of spewing crap into the air?

We can't quantify those costs very accurately, and mostly we don't want to quantify those costs AT ALL.

There's NO FREE lunch when it comes to producing or tapping energy, folks.

This is exactly the sh!t Im always talking about.............the lefty k00ks always talk about "costs" in abstracts. Its the only way for them to advance their ultimate goal of sticking it to the capitalist. Conservatives..........you'll notice..........talk about costs in real terms. Why? Because they have to...........they live in the real world. Have enormous levels of responsiblity. Cant afford to dabble in this makey uppey "what if" world that is something that is perpetual for the k00ks. Conservatives have uppermost in their minds REAL costs: costs in terms of net job loss by going to a green economy. Costs in terms of impact on the budgets of regular middle class Americans. Those costs dont matter to the k00ks.........it's their idealistic world or bust.

I'll give a perfect analogy using another example of the pronounced level of impractical in the thinking of the typical liberal..................

A few years back, there was a tragic accident on the I-95 corridor. A big rig slammed into two vans that had pulled over on the shoulder of the highway..............wiped out the whole family. Tragic? Indeed...............heartbreaking in fact. But what happened after that? Several liberal groups began to lobby for an immediate expansion effort of widening the highway to reduce the chances of that kind of accident occurring again. Would have cost the taxpayers of Ct. tens of millions. Now...........need I elaborate on the level of stupid with that kind of idea. Liberal k00ks lack a filter................its called the reason and common sense filter. It is most notably lacking in the whole energy debate. These same people never see any problems with rasing taxes. Raising taxes to them is a zero sum game. Increasing unemployment payments to 90 weeks.........or 120............or 180..........or 250. Whatever??!!!!!!!Again.......its a filter thing people..........just no ability to think on the margin. If it sounds good.............DO IT!!!!


All this talk of a green economy is awesome...........but its about 50 years pre-mature. You dont apply 1950's technology to the 21st century.

So there is no REAL cost associated with the BP oil leak?

And there is no REAL costs associated with air pollution?

And recognizing that there are REAL costs associated with those things makes me a LEFTIE?

ARGH!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

OVER-ACTIVE GRAY-MATTER....THE FIRST-SIGN OF DEMONIC-POSSESSION!!!!!!



(Ya' might wanna consider giving Sister Sarah's exorcist a call.)

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=esSAVnn2ye0]YouTube - Sarah Palin's pastor exorcises witches, condemns Jew Bankers[/ame]​