U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Green Living
 [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 02-10-2013, 05:26 PM
 
Location: DC
6,495 posts, read 6,406,493 times
Reputation: 3095

Advertisements

I know...
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 02-10-2013, 05:45 PM
 
28,906 posts, read 46,507,460 times
Reputation: 45983
Well, the critical path is acquiring and installing solar technology. Until THAT becomes affordable, or at least can amortize over a handful of years, then it's kind of a pipe dream.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-10-2013, 07:39 PM
 
Location: Minnesota
5,147 posts, read 6,305,557 times
Reputation: 1561
I'm totally pro-solar. When Winter Storm Nemo struck the east coast, and once again hundreds of thousands were without power and probably heat, my mental reaction was "this is all due to centralized power generation". We have this Soviet-Style power model of big power plants and lots and lots of aboveground wires. As weather becomes more extreme, people better get the lead out and install some independent residential power. Because the power companies are living on borrowed time. They cannot supply continuity of service. Its been a clearly demonstrated fact through one cataclysm after another. Some commentators like to pretend its due to degradation of infrastructure. No it is not. It is due to time passing by a model that just grew and grew to meet ever escalating demands. And now that so much in the economy is totally dependent, the system can only deliver under fairly ideal circumstances. Continuing to build more redundancy into this outmoded system is just doubling down. There needs to be a sustained effort to get as much off the grid as possible. That will address the environmental harm of this model, but it also will reduce the work emergency crews have to do. They are failing time after time, and that's due to the fact that power corporations built something beyond what they can support.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-11-2013, 04:59 AM
 
39,111 posts, read 40,441,950 times
Reputation: 16012
Quote:
Originally Posted by Beenhere4ever View Post
I'm totally pro-solar. When Winter Storm Nemo struck the east coast, and once again hundreds of thousands were without power and probably heat, my mental reaction was "this is all due to centralized power generation". We have this Soviet-Style power model of big power plants and lots and lots of aboveground wires. As weather becomes more extreme, people better get the lead out and install some independent residential power. Because the power companies are living on borrowed time. They cannot supply continuity of service. Its been a clearly demonstrated fact through one cataclysm after another. Some commentators like to pretend its due to degradation of infrastructure. No it is not. It is due to time passing by a model that just grew and grew to meet ever escalating demands. And now that so much in the economy is totally dependent, the system can only deliver under fairly ideal circumstances. Continuing to build more redundancy into this outmoded system is just doubling down. There needs to be a sustained effort to get as much off the grid as possible. That will address the environmental harm of this model, but it also will reduce the work emergency crews have to do. They are failing time after time, and that's due to the fact that power corporations built something beyond what they can support.
Solar panels are susceptible to storm damage too and worse case is they become non functional and non repairable which is worse than some downed power lines. I'm not so sure a distributed system is ideal becsue now you have so many points of failure. That will help prevent sytem wide issues but now you have created multiple local issues.

As far as heat goes if you want guaranteed heat consider a coal if you live in the Northeast or wood burning stove. I have two fireplaces in my house that I rarely use but they are there if I need them. A coal fired cookstove with hot water jacket is in the the future as it's both very functional and looks cool, plus I already have a least winters worth of fuel to fire it from my boiler which becomes useless once I run out gas for the generator as it requires electric.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-11-2013, 07:01 AM
 
Location: Minnysoda
8,554 posts, read 8,470,407 times
Reputation: 5137
Subsidies for solar and wind are at the taxpayers’ expense. Once a developer gets them they hook some poor saps with a high dollar PPA meaning utilities agree to purchase clean energy at a significantly higher rate for a set number of years. The clean energy initially costs two to four times as much as conventional electricity, at least in the beginning.
This practice of utilizing federal subsidies and then passing on costs to ratepayers is nothing short of a ripoff. ON top of that no one wants to the dirty side of clean solar.

The dirty side of clean solar energy
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-11-2013, 08:08 AM
 
Location: Minnesota
5,147 posts, read 6,305,557 times
Reputation: 1561
Yeh, that's right, don't encourage people to get off grid. Leave them on grid where disasters can create millions of dollars of loss, then declare a disaster and pay the millions/billions for each one. By the way, the mineral rights law hand over huge amounts of American assets to companies for pennies. That's such a great deal for the owners which are the citizens of the United States.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-11-2013, 09:14 AM
 
Location: DC
6,495 posts, read 6,406,493 times
Reputation: 3095
Quote:
Originally Posted by my54ford View Post
Subsidies for solar and wind are at the taxpayers’ expense. Once a developer gets them they hook some poor saps with a high dollar PPA meaning utilities agree to purchase clean energy at a significantly higher rate for a set number of years. The clean energy initially costs two to four times as much as conventional electricity, at least in the beginning.
This practice of utilizing federal subsidies and then passing on costs to ratepayers is nothing short of a ripoff. ON top of that no one wants to the dirty side of clean solar.

The dirty side of clean solar energy
A lot of solar is sold on a net metering basis, where the producer gets credit for the retail price of electricity. That may seem high, but in many cases is well less than the cost of replacement power delivered to the load. Keep in mind that solar is produced during the day, often within city load pockets, and doesn't use scarce transmission or distribution resources. If you consider peak power prices, congestion charges and debottlenecking, the price of solar is often way lower than its value. The retail price of electricity for residential customers is a rolled in overall system average that doesn't properly price the commodity.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-11-2013, 09:34 AM
 
Location: Minnesota
5,147 posts, read 6,305,557 times
Reputation: 1561
The sun is the source of every other kind of power. Using its radiant energy is cutting out the middleman. The building of the national highway system is what created the massive industry that now provides most energy. It was supposed to be for "national defense" and has not fulfilled that alleged mission once. But it did create rich families like the Bushes. And dragged us into endless war in the Middle East (making Pentagon budgets another form of subsidy). So all the polemic against the native energy of the sun is one more case of hatred of the future. We can't go back, but a lot of people think somehow we can't go forward, either. They doom all the more reasonable people into being dragged into the future unprepared.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-11-2013, 02:57 PM
 
1,278 posts, read 1,056,090 times
Reputation: 836
Quote:
Originally Posted by Phil P View Post
No hydrogen to helium fusion is the least expensive, cleanest, most reliable, most sustainable, least polluting, safest, and simply all around best energy source IF and only IF it is possible to do it and we figure it out.
What for... the fusion generator is safely banked 150 million kM from earth and transmits it's power to us continuously. Problem solved, well except for a storage solution.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-11-2013, 02:58 PM
 
1,278 posts, read 1,056,090 times
Reputation: 836
Quote:
Originally Posted by my54ford View Post
Nobody on this board will be alive to see it
I will... I'm seeing it very soon.
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:

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 > General Forums > Green Living
Follow City-Data.com founder on our Forum or

All times are GMT -6.

© 2005-2019, Advameg, Inc. | Please obey Forum Rules | Terms of Use and Privacy Policy

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