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.
The scale and cost of building enough Solar and Wind infrastructure to deal with our world's rapidly growing electrical power demands would be staggering. It's not even worth contemplating. And at the end of the day -- despite all the "boogie-man" stigma -- nuclear power is still the safest power option in existence. It kills and/or harms far fewer people than even solar and wind.
Trouble is, every other renewable source just isn't big enough. Every fossil fuel source will eventually run out. It's the only decent long term option we've got at this point.
The scale and cost of building enough Solar and Wind infrastructure to deal with our world's rapidly growing electrical power demands would be staggering. It's not even worth contemplating. And at the end of the day -- despite all the "boogie-man" stigma -- nuclear power is still the safest power option in existence. It kills and/or harms far fewer people than even solar and wind.
Trouble is, every other renewable source just isn't big enough. Every fossil fuel source will eventually run out. It's the only decent long term option we've got at this point.
The Washington Times? Heritage? Honest and unbiased source? Sure when hell freezes over.
You are not aware of Fukushima, Japan or Chernobyl?
Nothing in the present format of nuclear power is saleable for cause.
Renewable has now turned the corner in a number of places and will dominate the new sources. All over but the shouting. It does not have the capability to fully displace fossil but it will still dominate.
I would think you are in the class that has it made in the present environment. Only better situation than yours would be someone living in the sticks on Haleakala.
The mass market however is the sun belt suburban roof top with more than enough sun energy available to make zero cost solar PV feasible. ie a roof top solar array can cost effectively pump as many kwhs into the utility system as it takes out. The cost of such systems late last year was about $3.50 per watt. That is about twice the utility cost of $1.77.
Every home in our township was approached by a company marketing 20-year lease contracts. Only one family in our town bit on that hook. Their net-metering system is the only home in our town with PVs actually on their roof, the only 'roof-top' setup I guess. Everyone else with solar power is off-grid or some variation of grid-tied, but not net-metering. The net-metering home still loses power every time the grid goes down.
I got quotes from two installers for net-metering systems. Off-grid turned out to be significantly less than net-metering.
Quote:
... Things like the panels and even much of the electronics are roughly equivalent. So why does roof top cost twice as much? Because the providers are spending about $1.50 for client acquisition and profit. And that cost at the moment is increasing partially offsetting the savings on hardware.
Every certified installer in this state is an equipment dealer. They only handle components that they sell. The collection of components they put into a system is 4X the price of a same size system bought online.
Separate from labor costs. [and electricians are forbidden from touching solar power systems, only certified installers can work on them. So only equipment dealers can do installs].
Quote:
.... So we have a bare knuckles war between the utilities and the roof top solar guys in the heart land of the best solar terrritory.
Everywhere but maybe the PNW is good solar territory.
The Washington Times? Heritage? Honest and unbiased source? Sure when hell freezes over.
You are not aware of Fukushima, Japan or Chernobyl?
Nothing in the present format of nuclear power is saleable for cause.
Renewable has now turned the corner in a number of places and will dominate the new sources. All over but the shouting. It does not have the capability to fully displace fossil but it will still dominate.
Ha. Prove it. Whats the KWH per hour for renewables vs fossil?
I'm all for them but at this time, besides not having the capacitance to store solar, their cost, without subsidy, isn't viable.
The scale and cost of building enough Solar and Wind infrastructure to deal with our world's rapidly growing electrical power demands would be staggering. It's not even worth contemplating. And at the end of the day -- despite all the "boogie-man" stigma -- nuclear power is still the safest power option in existence. It kills and/or harms far fewer people than even solar and wind.
Since we continue to manufacture Nuclear Reactors every year, I must assume that eventually the public will come around to common sense.
Your review hints that you didn't actually read the article. It says nothing about the "naivete and inefficiency" of wind and solar. It suggests that they shouldn't be subsidized so much, as these subsidies have some unfortunate consequences.
I read the article in depth as well as others I referenced. My convictions in this area are informed and quite deep. The article doesn't use the words "naive" or "inefficient." Those are my own words.
Ha. Prove it. Whats the KWH per hour for renewables vs fossil?
I'm all for them but at this time, besides not having the capacitance to store solar, their cost, without subsidy, isn't viable.
NV Energy recently reported signing a PPA for the 100 MW output of First Solar’s Playa Solar 2 installation at $0.0387/kWh after paying at $0.046/kWh for the output of SunPower’s 100 MW Boulder Solar installation last year. The utility bought utility-scale solar power for an average of $0.1377 per kWh for solar generation over the course of 2014.
There is reality. Before and after.
Impractical?
An airplane just flew around the world nonstop with nothing but solar and wind power.
I don't think impractical is the right word. The sun and the wind are the 2 most reliable energy sources of all, and neither will ever be depleted.
And neither solar nor wind technology is in their infancies any longer. Both are young, but they're up and walking, and will only become better, faster and more implemented with every advancement. There will be many, many advancements to come in both.
Where do you think smog and air pollution comes from?
free radical hydrocarbons, O3, NOx, water vapor to make the chemistry work, particulates to act as a reaction surface, and UV to pump the chemical reactions.
Absent from the list is CO2. Chemically stable and not reactive.
Yet, there is a lot of smog in developing countries and even a bit still in America. Lower emissions and you lower pollution and mitigate adding more greenhouse gases. Therefore, lowering co2 also lowers immediate effects of air pollution like smog. Understand what is going on?
Where do I think smog and air pollution comes from?
Smog from the incomplete combustion of carbonaceous substances and the fixing of nitrogen as part of combustion. Air pollution? many sources. I lot of them natural.
Your assertion that reducing co2 emissions leads directly to reducing air pollution doesn't necessarily hold.
CO2 emissions is a result of economic activity. Reduce economic activity and you reduce the extra available for clean burning technology. Clean burning tech is very expensive. Dirty tech is cheap.
Your answer implied that CO2 was a player in smog. It isn't, not directly. A weed eater is far more polluting than a late model car on a per-hour of utilization basis. Even though the car burns far more fuel than the weed eater does in the same amount of time.
CO2 emissions is a result of economic activity. Reduce economic activity and you reduce the extra available for clean burning technology. Clean burning tech is very expensive. Dirty tech is cheap.
Your answer implied that CO2 was a player in smog. It isn't, not directly. A weed eater is far more polluting than a late model car on a per-hour of utilization basis. Even though the car burns far more fuel than the weed eater does in the same amount of time.
You nailed it. The Kyoto transfer payment mechanism, really the key itme in that treaty taxes economic activity to pay to rulers of countries, for the benefit of Swiss bank accounts and armaments, of countries with little or no economic activity.
I repped this post.
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.
