U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > U.S. Forums > Colorado
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 05-12-2012, 11:04 PM
 
9,816 posts, read 19,017,909 times
Reputation: 7537

Advertisements

People have been talking up solar for decades and other than limited applications, it has never delivered. A part of Spain's fiscal collapse right now is due to a bunch of looney investments in solar.

It's also very dirty technology as you need to mine extensively for rare earth elements to produce these panels.

It's another "green" technology that in reality is not "green" and certainly isn't clean or efficient.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 05-13-2012, 04:34 PM
 
Location: Pueblo - Colorado's Second City
12,102 posts, read 20,348,297 times
Reputation: 4131
Quote:
Originally Posted by wanneroo View Post
People have been talking up solar for decades and other than limited applications, it has never delivered. A part of Spain's fiscal collapse right now is due to a bunch of looney investments in solar.
The problem with your analysis is you cant look at the past and say information technology did not work then so it will not work in the future. The reason is information technology advances at a exponential rate so technologies that were not feasible just a few years ago will be feasible in the next few years. The study by MIT proves that as by 2020 the cost per kilowatt hour will be only .06 for solar while it will be .15 for fossil fuels. That is why you see more solar projects going on line in Colorado, like the one in Alamosa, and more in the planning stage, like the one east of Pueblo.

Here is a graph on how solar has advanced since 1975. It will continue to advance at a faster rate and by the mid 2020's be really cheap compared to fossil fuels. Colorado, with all its sunlight, is perfect to take advantage of the advancing technology and that is why I am a advocate for us to try to get more solar companies to move here.



Quote:
Originally Posted by wanneroo View Post
It's also very dirty technology as you need to mine extensively for rare earth elements to produce these panels.

It's another "green" technology that in reality is not "green" and certainly isn't clean or efficient.
The interesting thing is the earth gets more energy from the sun in 1 hour then society uses thus solar has the potential to be a major energy source in less then 8 years. That is not really that far away.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-13-2012, 05:30 PM
 
Location: Colorado Springs, CO
2,221 posts, read 4,651,785 times
Reputation: 1681
Your problem Josseppie (OK, one of very, very many) is that you can't seem to differentiate between the growth of information technology, and the growth of other technologies. They are not the same. NOT THE SAME. One does not beget the other. Either you know that and are being deceptive, or you are full of it. I vote for the latter.

The study by MIT "proves"...NOTHING. It's an opinion piece, and a good deal of it already has been rendered invalid.

Either way, your conclusions qualify as pseudo-scientific comedy. You keep trying to cobble together your adventures in wiki searches as advanced knowledge. Beyond the quasi-literate rambling you continue to spew, your understanding of the technology apppears...well...utterly lacking. You don't know a what from a watt. You did better when you put your thoughts in terms of Star Trek fantasies...
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-13-2012, 05:59 PM
 
Location: Pueblo - Colorado's Second City
12,102 posts, read 20,348,297 times
Reputation: 4131
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bob from down south View Post
Your problem Josseppie (OK, one of very, very many) is that you can't seem to differentiate between the growth of information technology, and the growth of other technologies. They are not the same. NOT THE SAME. One does not beget the other. Either you know that and are being deceptive, or you are full of it. I vote for the latter.

The study by MIT "proves"...NOTHING. It's an opinion piece, and a good deal of it already has been rendered invalid.
Solar technology is a form of information technology. The graph shows solar advances at a exponintal rate because of that.

As far as the MIT study. It is a formal study not a editorial. If you have data that proves it wrong I would love to see the link so I can read it.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-13-2012, 06:10 PM
 
20,304 posts, read 37,790,850 times
Reputation: 18081
The graph shows only the growth in the production of panels.

It does not show the reduction in cost per KW, it does not show the increase in the rate of panel efficiency. I doubt very much if charts on these two aspects would be anywhere near exponential.
__________________
- Please follow our TOS.
- Any Questions about City-Data? See the FAQ list.
- Want some detailed instructions on using the site? See The Guide for plain english explanation.
- Realtors are welcome here but do see our Realtor Advice to avoid infractions.
- Thank you and enjoy City-Data.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-13-2012, 06:19 PM
 
Location: Colorado Springs, CO
2,221 posts, read 4,651,785 times
Reputation: 1681
Quote:
Originally Posted by Josseppie View Post
Solar technology is a form of information technology. The graph shows solar advances at a exponintal rate because of that.
No, solar power production is NOT a form of IT. Truly, you just don't know what you don't know. You're like a dog watching TV here. Just keep barking...maybe some other dogs might hear you and start barking too. But the cacophony of all that barking will NOT pass as science...it's just howling at the moon.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-13-2012, 07:00 PM
 
Location: Pueblo - Colorado's Second City
12,102 posts, read 20,348,297 times
Reputation: 4131
This article does a better job of explaining both of your concerns them I could.

The link: Ray Kurzweil: Solar Will Power the World in 16 Years | Think Tank | Big Think
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-13-2012, 11:14 PM
 
9,816 posts, read 19,017,909 times
Reputation: 7537
Josseppie, you sound just like the utopian statists, currently led by obama.

If we could only spent billions of taxpayer dollars(solyndra anyone?), in 2025, we will have all this wonderful free power.

It's always a bunch of rainbows, a bunch of costs, a bunch of promises. Just like obama earlier this year with high gas prices thanks to his policies saying not to worry because we will have algae fuel in 2025, so put that in your pipe and smoke it. Algae fuel while it may hold promise is not here and now and may never will be. And in the meantime I have to live and survive without going broke.

Like I said, which you ignored, Spain's huge financial issues are partially caused by huge expenditures on "green" energy, including a lot of solar.

As all these countries have found on "green" energy, the sun doesn't always shine and the wind doesn't always blow, so you still have to have your current energy structure running all of the time.

In regards to Kurzweil, he is a smart guy, but he is no energy expert and he doesn't know anymore than the next guy.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-14-2012, 09:50 AM
 
Location: Pueblo - Colorado's Second City
12,102 posts, read 20,348,297 times
Reputation: 4131
Quote:
Originally Posted by wanneroo View Post

In regards to Kurzweil, he is a smart guy, but he is no energy expert and he doesn't know anymore than the next guy.
Then explain to me where he is wrong as he explains everything using data and mathematical models. Plus he is backed up by a separate study by MIT that shows solar will be 1/2 the cost of fossil fuels by 2020. If this is true then Colorado stands to really gain from this as a study shows the southern part of the state among the best in the nation for solar plants and we can finally get rid of the coal power plants such as the one by downtown Colorado Springs.

Here is a map showing where solar plants should be built. As a side note, and yes from a homer perspective, Pueblo really has a chance to be the center of the new energy economy in the state.



This map shows the national power grid


As you can see a major power line goes through Pueblo and that is why this area is said be a very good place for a solar plant.

This shows the part of Pueblo county being considered for a solar plant



As you can see major transmission lines are already in the area and little addition would be necessary keeping the cost of the project down.

Last edited by Josseppie; 05-14-2012 at 10:23 AM..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-14-2012, 10:51 AM
 
874 posts, read 923,161 times
Reputation: 1013
Quote:
Originally Posted by Josseppie View Post
Then explain to me where he is wrong as he explains everything using data and mathematical models. Plus he is backed up by a separate study by MIT that shows solar will be 1/2 the cost of fossil fuels by 2020. If this is true then Colorado stands to really gain from this as a study shows the southern part of the state among the best in the nation for solar plants and we can finally get rid of the coal power plants such as the one by downtown Colorado Springs.
Please post some crebible links to Kurzweil's refereed papers on his solar power hypothesis including the data that he is using. Also, please post a credible link to the MIT study. Not to a mere summary of the studies from an energy blog, but to the actual studies.

Quote:
Here is a map showing where solar plants should be built. As a side note, and yes from a homer perspective, Pueblo really has a chance to be the center of the new energy economy in the state.
Doesn't the map show that Alamosa should be the center of solar power production?
Quote:
This map shows the national power grid
As you can see a major power line goes through Pueblo and that is why this area is said be a very good place for a solar plant.
Wow. Just wow. Once again your complete lack of attention to detail is apparent. You are showing a map of a conceptual plan for a national power grid. A grid that does not exist as any kind of concrete proposal. If you look at the actual power grid in CO you'll that Pueblo is far less connected that what you fantasize about.
Quote:
This shows the part of Pueblo county being considered for a solar plant

As you can see major transmission lines are already in the area and little addition would be necessary keeping the cost of the project down.
Sorry to say, but have you actually kept track of this proposal? The company that proposed it is dead, and I still don't understand how showing a failed proposal lends and shred of credibility to your argument.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:


Options
X
Data:
Loading data...
Based on 2000-2016 data
Loading data...

123
Hide US histogram

Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > U.S. Forums > Colorado
Follow City-Data.com founder on our Forum or

All times are GMT -6.

2005-2018, Advameg, Inc.

City-Data.com - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35 - Top