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 incentive to invest in solar, which takes many years to break even (even with a roof thrown in which my friend did) has a limited demand given many on LI are simply buying their time to move elsewhere.
Solar is far more attractive in places people see themselves living for 20+ years.
Every other person I speak with wants to move off LI. And there are renovations all across my neighborhood of people improving their home's value to put on the market in 3-6 months.
Now if I live in Virginia or TX or AZ, solar would sound great.
The incentive to invest in solar, which takes many years to break even (even with a roof thrown in which my friend did) has a limited demand given many on LI are simply buying their time to move elsewhere.
Solar is far more attractive in places people see themselves living for 20+ years.
Every other person I speak with wants to move off LI. And there are renovations all across my neighborhood of people improving their home's value to put on the market in 3-6 months.
Now if I live in Virginia or TX or AZ, solar would sound great.
I see solar going up all over the place here it’s kinda crazy actually. The problem with AZ and FL is they use way more electricity on average and therefore need far more panels, making it more expensive and In many cases not worth it. Here are electric is expensive enough and average consumption less so for many the payment can be significantly less than the cost of your average electric bill. It’s much harder to hit that formula in some other states
For the reason that it's both visionary and unreliable.
I agree. Yes, I know this is a LI based discussion, and I live in western NY. But just for a little perspective, regarding solar, here in the Rochester area, we haven't had any appreciable "sunshine" in well over a month. We've been blanketed under a cloud cover for that period of time.
For times like this, what's the "back up plan"..........thermal underwear and a second sweater? How will we cook our meals? And what about potential damage to our homes, if the inside temperatures are allowed to get down to freezing, or below? How about water, what do we do if our pipes freeze?
I agree. Yes, I know this is a LI based discussion, and I live in western NY. But just for a little perspective, regarding solar, here in the Rochester area, we haven't had any appreciable "sunshine" in well over a month. We've been blanketed under a cloud cover for that period of time.
For times like this, what's the "back up plan"..........thermal underwear and a second sweater? How will we cook our meals? And what about potential damage to our homes, if the inside temperatures are allowed to get down to freezing, or below? How about water, what do we do if our pipes freeze?
Well on a home owner level (for solar) you are almost always still hooked up to the grid so it dosent affect you at all if there is little or no sun. But on a mass power generation level (like a solar plant)? Yep it makes no sense at all, when the plant can’t generate power the back up is 90% of the time good old fossil fuels. Only place huge solar plants are feasible are in the desert and even those have had issues.
For times like this, what's the "back up plan"..........thermal underwear and a second sweater? How will we cook our meals? And what about potential damage to our homes, if the inside temperatures are allowed to get down to freezing, or below? How about water, what do we do if our pipes freeze?
Well, we all have to sacrifice and "suck-it-up." </sarcasm>
Well, we all have to sacrifice and "suck-it-up." </sarcasm>
Yeah, but will the "fat cats in DC" be going without, along with their constituents?? Seems like those self centered fools are concentrating on taking us back to the 1800s. I wonder if Russia and China are going to join us in this grand scheme???
Yeah, but will the "fat cats in DC" be going without, along with their constituents?? Seems like those self centered fools are concentrating on taking us back to the 1800s. I wonder if Russia and China are going to join us in this grand scheme???
</even greater sarcasm>..............
Of course Xi Jinping and Vladimir Putin will adopt spartan lifestyles, for the "good of the earth."
Okay...I have read, with interest, publications that are proponents of both solar and wind. On the surface, both look promising: the thought of gathering low cost electricity with little impact to the environment is attractive.
Unfortunately, however, it seems as though renewable sources must be supplemented by gas or nuclear; why is this so, if both wind and solar are (purportedly) rock solid options?
Here are some reasons.
1) Renewable sources are variable in their delivery. Solar doesn't work when it's dark (or the panels covered with snow), and wind doesn't work when it isn't windy. So, you need other sources. Batteries just aren't a viable option on a large scale. They're heavy, expensive, have to be replaced periodically, and require rare metals mined by slaves in the worst part of the world - and we don't even have enough of those metals on the planet to go full electric. So you have to use fossil fuels, or, preferably, nuclear, as a baseline power source.
2) Neither solar nor wind reliably deliver power at anywhere close to their rated specifications. Even if they did, they require massive amounts of land and constant, reliable sunlight such as that found in the southwest US to deliver enough to offset conventional methods.
3) Delivery of power from renewables to their intended use location involves long, heavy wires, which substantially degrade the wattage being delivered over distance. So you lose a lot of the power you generate just moving it from point A to point B.
4) Solar and wind themselves are costly to build, and, again, use rare metals. They also have limited lifespans and have to be replaced, as they degrade over time. The third world is currently used as a giant dump for western renewables that have lost efficiency.
5) Solar and wind are not without their environmental problems, whether that be in taking up large amounts of land with panels, mining operations for materials to build and service and replace the equipment, destruction of bird and sea life with windmills, etc.
People concerned about the environment who have done the research will tell you that nuclear is the only way of out this mess. This is a fairly good and unbiased read if you're interested:
1) Renewable sources are variable in their delivery. Solar doesn't work when it's dark (or the panels covered with snow), and wind doesn't work when it isn't windy. So, you need other sources. Batteries just aren't a viable option on a large scale. They're heavy, expensive, have to be replaced periodically, and require rare metals mined by slaves in the worst part of the world - and we don't even have enough of those metals on the planet to go full electric. So you have to use fossil fuels, or, preferably, nuclear, as a baseline power source.
2) Neither solar nor wind reliably deliver power at anywhere close to their rated specifications. Even if they did, they require massive amounts of land and constant, reliable sunlight such as that found in the southwest US to deliver enough to offset conventional methods.
3) Delivery of power from renewables to their intended use location involves long, heavy wires, which substantially degrade the wattage being delivered over distance. So you lose a lot of the power you generate just moving it from point A to point B.
4) Solar and wind themselves are costly to build, and, again, use rare metals. They also have limited lifespans and have to be replaced, as they degrade over time. The third world is currently used as a giant dump for western renewables that have lost efficiency.
5) Solar and wind are not without their environmental problems, whether that be in taking up large amounts of land with panels, mining operations for materials to build and service and replace the equipment, destruction of bird and sea life with windmills, etc.
People concerned about the environment who have done the research will tell you that nuclear is the only way of out this mess. This is a fairly good and unbiased read if you're interested:
Batteries don't make electricity!!! They store electricity made by other means....
I would guess that what he's trying to say is that batteries won't solve the storage or movement problems from sunny or windy areas to other areas.
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.
