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.
Oh noes, a photo has been reproduced in what appears to be a legitimate attempt to cite the source from which it was most recently gathered.
Since a link was provided, the standard internet citing system was followed. It may not be the citing system the author would prefer, but they are the only ones that care.
If I were the owner of that copyrighted photo I would care, and would want to know where my payment is for its use. Besides, the TOS here prohibits it.
Quote:
Copyrighted Material - Instead of copying-and-pasting articles, photos, or other material you find on the Internet, you should be posting links to those articles. Posting a snippet from the article and then the link is the appropriate way to post.
Sorry, but hotlinking pictures is not a violation of TOS or copyright laws. Rehosting them on your own site and claiming them as your own, however is. Hotlinking them is in fact part of the purpose of the web and hyperlinking in general. You need to catch up with the times.
You missed the point entirely. I'm no expert on copyright issues, but I do know these practices are forbidden HERE on CD Foruns, by the proprietors, according to their Terms of Service.
There is also a reminder sticky posted at the top of each forum page, linking to the TOS, and reminding everyone of their policy... No copyrighted material. And I understand why , because if I owned that photo, and found out it was posted here, I would already have an invoice for its unauthorized use in the mail to the Chicago offices of Advameg, Inc.
We have enough people and resources in the world that we should be continually looking at all forms of power generation. Let the best technologies all win. And as OpenD stated, we need to do this now and at an accelerated rate as there is a even greater need to replace fossil fuels.
Certain methods will work better in different areas. I don't believe there is one good answer, yet. Maybe never. Should we be looking at better "fuels"- absolutely. I wouldn't shut one method down over another right now. Even though the new plant is not producing the power anticipated, 50% of that potential is certainly better than 0%. And it is better than using coal to generate that power. Tomorrow should we turn off all the coal plants - certainly not. But the more we can reduce the dependence on them the better, IMHO.
Measuring one thing as being better than something else because it does more doesn't always justify doing it.
How many billions were spent for how much power? Money is a finite resource unless you can print your own and that causes other problems except if you also believe that is ok.
I think there is a difference between promising a certain harvest of solar energy at a certain cost then not doing it and saying that at least it is generating 50% of what was claimed but that is better than nothing.
Just because something is more than nothing doesn't mean it was smart or a worthwhile investment. The only reason this plant was developed was because someone else footed the bill and that would be everyone but the people who profited from it. At the rate of what it is costing us for these failures, just how will we continue to afford to fund them? Print more money? Lets not start on other things and what they cost because that is comparing apples to oranges.
The efficiency of solar panels is known. The capacity of the panels is known. Obviously, there was a significant failure somewhere past the knowns and that failure was sold to the taxpayers as golden and money flowed into the coffers of a lot of people. Did they risk any of their own money? Unlikely, it all came from others who were told things that were in all likelihood, wrong.
The failures are adding up and we're not talking hundreds or millions, it is in the billions. At some point all that has to be paid for. No doubt there is a certain segment that thinks none of this matters because we have to do whatever it costs.
The reason the plant is producing only about 50% of what was claimed is a surprise? Please, a blue sky story was sold. The problem is that is wasn't mostly private investments, it was the money of the people that got spent. How about a refund?
The efficiency of solar panels is known. The capacity of the panels is known. Obviously, there was a significant failure somewhere past the knowns and that failure was sold to the taxpayers as golden and money flowed into the coffers of a lot of people. Did they risk any of their own money? Unlikely, it all came from others who were told things that were in all likelihood, wrong.
You've missed the point completely. There were no solar panels involved. It's totally different technology, using heliostat mirrors, similar to these solar towers in use in Spain and other locations.
And it's experimental, a prototype, with a lot of unknowns to solve, and it's at a very early stage of development.
How long have they been experimenting with fusion energy at Livermore Labs and others? How many billions and billions and billions of dollars and how many decades of research have been spent on that technology, which so far can't even produce as much energy as it uses.
So cut us all a break that Ivanpah hasn't reached full potential yet, less than a year after its launch.
Wanna check out some solar PhotoVoltaic (PV) panel development? Here...
Mack - I know I oversimplified it - and yes somewhere someone along the line someone was wrong in their thinking or intentionally did to defraud the government. It isn't like these things were mass produced... As OpenD stated it was experimental and I am not saying at the moment we should go out and build a bunch of these plants. At 50% of promised output, what is the cost per KWH to produce power? AFter buliding it, does it onoly cost 2 cents per KWH instead of 1 cent? Or is it now 20 cents instead of 10. Up here in the lost frontier some areas pay darn near close to $1 per KWH... Granted there isn't enough sun year 'round for large scale solar here. (Unless we get a big battery or other energy storage breakthrough)
So, not including fixed costs that have already been spent. Like so many other large projects that have under produced and now are producing close to designed output, can this be tweaked or not? Was there really more sun hitting the earth in the spot this plant was made or not? (I have no idea) Just because an area as a whole is in drought, doesn't mean the entire area got more sun than it normally does - even though I agree, common sense says that it is the case. I don' t have these answers, if you do, please share. I am always open to changing my opinion based on facts.
So what kind of refund on your profit do you want?
Maybe I am doing this wrong, but I look at this with a broad brush and not very granular. And if you don't want our money funding energy than we need to stop giving the oil and gas companies money/tax breaks too.
The government has to subsidize some of this - otherwise no one will take the risk. Yep, some will fail, others won't. Kinda like my stock portfolio, I hope to always have more winners than losers and for a larger amount, but I don't expect every investment to pay off. Think of it this way, someone invents a process that you get more energy out than you put in - wouldn't that be worth a whole host of failures? What's the cost for clean air and water?
Disclaimer: I don't think that we are close to some miracle energy solution. I do think that continuing to look at all ways to produce power are a good investment in the long haul. I don't see the world ditching fossil fuels in even the medium term either.
Here is what I'm trying to say Dakster. I get it, I am a huge proponent of renewable energy solutions despite what some try to twist into something else. I see a difference between all the rosey pictures and demanding that anything other than cheerleading is bashing or anti green.
Haste makes waste and that is true today, including with renewables. The failures in the renewable industry wouldn't be such a big deal if they weren't repeating themselves. Why do we have a roof full of solar panels one the sunny side of a hill where extremely wealthy people live getting tax credits when a mile or less away people have a hard time paying their electricity bill? People buying a $100,000 electric car get tax credits when there are people who can barely afford to pay the toll to drive over a bridge to go to work and somehow those tax credits are helping anyone but someone who least needs the help? It makes no sense.
How about half a billion dollars to build a ride lane (and millions to study it) on a bridge because it is the green thing to do when the bridge has already been built. Hello?
I don't think it is the governments role to put taxpayer money as risk when it comes to renewables, it's job is to create an environment that rewards innovation but does not remove risk. When government removes risk, it fosters irresponsible schemes or have we all forgotten Solyndra and the host of other dark room deals?
The whole idea of private business is risk. When the government subsidizes something like Solyndra the risk transfers from the people that own the company to taxpayers so how is the company taking a risk?
If the government gives billions to a company sure they will take risks, so would anyone. What happens though is that well designed and implemented plans that minimize risk go out the window because who really cares if things don't work out, taxpayers are left holding the bag.
Risk is part of business and if a business such as we're talking about can't find the investments to move forward, that should be the first sign that something is wrong.
This wasn't some research project, it was a business. It wasn't some unknown never done before endeavor that would break into new territory for which there would be some substantial benefit across a fledgling industry, the factors surrounding the performance of the plant were known. The data was a sham and sold to a do anything mindset that was hungry for any shining example of success after a list of failures. Add another to that list because getting 50% of what was promised is a failure to provide the other 50%. Again, this isn't some new technology, it was just scaled up.
Had this been a current build out of a fossil fuel power plant, there would be people right on this forum screaming bloody murder.
Do we need to foster the business environments that support renewable harvest energy systems? You bet. Do we need to do it fast? Hold on, not so fast that we risk tax payer billions because the plans aren't well though through or are just do something schemes.
There is a huge difference between creating a positive business environment that rewards innovation and invention as opposed to handouts. Reduce the "red tape", provide benefits based on results instead of promises, create trade regulations that allow for equipment acquisition at favorable terms, support training programs to support the industry instead of shoveling money into the pockets of the few who seem to avoid any risk or accountability for failure.
Business as a concept isn't stupid. Part of the process of business is to reward risk when it is successful and in that way, the best solutions, the best products become the standard and create value. Remove risk through government funding and you end up with the lowest quality solutions and products, not the best.
Fund research by all means. Remove risk from business just because it promises something because of renewable energy? No way. If they can do what they promise, the market will reward them, the way it should be.
Oh noes, a photo has been reproduced in what appears to be a legitimate attempt to cite the source from which it was most recently gathered.
Since a link was provided, the standard internet citing system was followed. It may not be the citing system the author would prefer, but they are the only ones that care.
No it wasn't. I've had several of my posts deleted when I posted an actual link to the photo (vs a link to the article).
Quote:
Originally Posted by Merc63
Normally you and I are on the same side, but not on this.
Sorry, but hotlinking pictures is not a violation of TOS or copyright laws. Rehosting them on your own site and claiming them as your own, however is. Hotlinking them is in fact part of the purpose of the web and hyperlinking in general. You need to catch up with the times.
I've had several of my posts edited/deleted due to posting a picture. The reason given? Hotlinking/copyright infringement.
You've missed the point completely. There were no solar panels involved. It's totally different technology, using heliostat mirrors, similar to these solar towers in use in Spain and other locations.
And it's experimental, a prototype, with a lot of unknowns to solve, and it's at a very early stage of development.
How long have they been experimenting with fusion energy at Livermore Labs and others? How many billions and billions and billions of dollars and how many decades of research have been spent on that technology, which so far can't even produce as much energy as it uses.
So cut us all a break that Ivanpah hasn't reached full potential yet, less than a year after its launch.
Wanna check out some solar PhotoVoltaic (PV) panel development? Here...
Except Ivanpah isn't an experiment, or they built three for better statistics California's pilot "power tower" generator was Solar One. Then they added some more panels and other technology onto it making Solar Two The Guzzler: Edison demolishes Daggett solar tower
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.
California's pilot "power tower" generator was Solar One. Then they added some more panels and other technology onto it making Solar Two 
