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.
Part of smart investing in renewables is not making the investment BEFORE the bottom drops out.
The salient point is that there was no way to predict what happened, with China dumping their goods on the market at below cost. Nobody did.
Quote:
I bet that is why Warren Buffet wanted nothing to do with the Ivanpah debacle.
Buffet is smart, but he's not psychic. Even he will tell you that.
Quote:
Follow the money, who owns Ivanpah Project. Then who owns BrightSource? If BrightSource is a primary owner of Ivanpah Project then disassociating the owners of BrightSource is hardly valid. What it is, is a smokescreen.
Show us some proof of your assertion and you might possibly have a case, but just making things up doesn't wash. Chevron's investment is as a co-owner of the Coalinga steam plant, but Google has no investment in that project. In a similar fashion Google is a co-owner of Ivanpah, but Chevron has no investment in that project.
Quote:
I think the Ivanpah Project is already a loser and in the end will be revealed as a squandering of taxpayer money that could be much better spent on other projects worthy of such an enormous investment.
You are welcome to your opinion, but I think it is the height of foolishness to write off a project so soon, when it is still in the pilot phase. There have been countless large engineering projects which have initially failed to meet projections and endured early criticism, but which have triumphed in the end.
I know because there never was a time before the advent of coal and oil that was survivable to humans. We were just going extinct left and right before oil and coal came along.
The argument seems to be that because solar can't keep up with the energy production of coal and oil that somehow makes it the inferior energy source. Well, that means solar probably can't support the over population coal and oil can support either. How is that a bad thing that we will have to get our population under control to support solar while simultaneously getting consumption and pollution under control?
Coal and oil are great if you want to over populate the planet. It's like reaching back in time for energy thus effectively raising the dead with it, instead of using the energy the sun supplies you now to support a more sustainable population. Of course, that means we are also reaching back in time for more pollutants, more emissions, etc.
This whole anti-solar shtick is just a recipe to consume and produce and trash the planet in a smaller and smaller slice of time to a larger and larger degree than the planet can recover from.
Last edited by Shankapotomus; 12-07-2014 at 09:17 AM..
I know because there never was a time before the advent of coal and oil that was survivable to humans. We were just going extinct left and right before oil and coal came along.
That statement supports the idea that life before the advent of coal and oil was desirable. So, what is stopping you and those that share your belief system in going back to a lifestyle that was prevalent before the use of coal and oil? There is very little walking the walk and a lot of talking that goes on here but notice how everyone wants nice things like heat, cooling, refrigeration (oh wait, so long as you are allowed only one) and so forth? Coal and oil allow you to sit on the Internet rolling your virtual eyes or is your ISP windmill powered?
The argument seems to be that because solar can't keep up with the energy production of coal and oil that somehow makes it the inferior energy source. Well, that means solar probably can't support the over population coal and oil can support either. How is that a bad thing that we will have to get our population under control to support solar while simultaneously getting consumption and pollution under control?
Just because you don't understand the argument doesn't mean it isn't valid. Now solar power is going to be a population control too? Solar can't sustain itself in manufacturing. Thats a fact.
Do please explain how we're going to control the population to the extend you think it must be done while at the same time controlling consumption and pollution? What grand scheme you do have in mind? Care to share?
Coal and oil are great if you want to over populate the planet. It's like reaching back in time for energy thus effectively raising the dead with it, instead of using the energy the sun supplies you now to support a more sustainable population. Of course, that means we are also reaching back in time for more pollutants, more emissions, etc.
You're in a catch-22. If the population was so much less, then so would consumption and use the of coal and oil.
This whole anti-solar shtick is just a recipe to consume and produce and trash the planet in a smaller and smaller slice of time to a larger and larger degree than the planet can recover from.
There is no anti-solar-sthtick. Solar isn't the end all, solve all solution, not even close, just in imagination. We can't get everyone to put solar on their rooftops even with huge subsidies and tax credits. Just how much money are we supposed to print to get it done?
So, what is stopping you and those that share your belief system in going back to a lifestyle that was prevalent before the use of coal and oil? There is very little walking the walk and a lot of talking...
I do walk the walk. Everything I've typed on this message board to you has been on a tablet powered by a solar panel. And I am working on acquiring my own land where I can implement my full plan of living entirely off grid. It's happening very soon; as soon as early spring of next year.
As for the rest of your reply, I'm not in a catch-22, you are. There would be no danger of over population if the energy demands for an out of control population weren't being met by reaching back in time for more energy than is sustainable through the over use of coal and oil.
And what can't solar power sustain? Doesn't saying "solar can't sustain itself" presuppose a grossly high population created through rabid coal and oil consumption suddenly burdening solar with the inflated energy demands of a coal and oil based society? Don't try to pin the problems coal and oil created on solar; that's not solar powers' problem. As people scale back their consumption, they will place less burden on the energy grid by being required to think about their future energy consumption.
Last edited by Shankapotomus; 12-07-2014 at 03:11 PM..
We can't get everyone to put solar on their rooftops even with huge subsidies and tax credits.
This is the "bandwagon" fallacy at its worst. The popularity of residential solar systems has absolutely nothing to do with the wisdom of installing them.
Quote:
Just how much money are we supposed to print to get it done?
Short answer? As much as it takes.
What is at stake is the future of the planet, and according to the experts it would be far more expensive to just keep drifting the way we are towards a tipping point, and then try to recover from it.
Even China has now done the math on the public health costs, and loss of productivity due to carbon pollution and is making deployment of solar energy a priority.
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.
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.
