Do you think we'll ever make all houses almost completely solar powered? (electric, electricity)
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.
By almost I mean, during the day, also charging a battery for night, also having regular electricity available to use for backup? Or would this never be legal? It's rob electricity companies of money. But the sun is a natural resource that we could use for free electricity.
I also thought should water be free since its essential to life, but then I thought if it was some people would take advantage and use excessive amounts of water that they don't need.
By almost I mean, during the day, also charging a battery for night, also having regular electricity available to use for backup? Or would this never be legal? It's rob electricity companies of money. But the sun is a natural resource that we could use for free electricity.
I also thought should water be free since its essential to life, but then I thought if it was some people would take advantage and use excessive amounts of water that they don't need.
There's not enough sunlight over a typical house to power it every day of the year without a significant reduction in the power consumption. No one has to make full solar against the law--in fact solar has been heavily subsidized by the government up to now to encourage its use. And don't confuse the fact that solar power is present with it being free. It's not free--there's a definite cost to build and maintain solar panels. The same thing goes for water--it's a finite resource that costs money to obtain, transport, and purify.
By almost I mean, during the day, also charging a battery for night, also having regular electricity available to use for backup? Or would this never be legal? It's rob electricity companies of money. But the sun is a natural resource that we could use for free electricity.
Power companies aren't going anywhere. The only way these system will ever become cost competitive is if they are tied to the grid, you put excess power into the grid and take it when you need it. To do that you'll need to help pay for that infrastructure.
Quote:
I also thought should water be free since its essential to life,
You are under the impression it doesn't cost anything to get that water to your house, you just turn the spigot and it magically appears? I have "free" water at my house.... after spending thousands on a well that is going to require thousands in the future.
There's not enough sunlight over a typical house to power it every day of the year without a significant reduction in the power consumption. No one has to make full solar against the law--in fact solar has been heavily subsidized by the government up to now to encourage its use. And don't confuse the fact that solar power is present with it being free. It's not free--there's a definite cost to build and maintain solar panels. The same thing goes for water--it's a finite resource that costs money to obtain, transport, and purify.
Solar and other renewables have only been subsidized in the US since the 1970s to the tune of 50 billion dollars.
Nuclear, oil and gas, and coal which are supposed to be profitable and not subsidized by the gov't have been subsidized to the tune of 650 billion dollars in the US since 1910.
Solar and other renewables have only been subsidized in the US since the 1970s to the tune of 50 billion dollars.
Nuclear, oil and gas, and coal which are supposed to be profitable and not subsidized by the gov't have been subsidized to the tune of 650 billion dollars in the US since 1910.
Irrelevant, what's the subsidy per unit of production?
Then there is that sneaky little maneuver avoiding calling it subsidy by mandating it's use and offloading those costs onto the ratepayer through higher rates.
Irrelevant, what's the subsidy per unit of production?
Then there is that sneaky little maneuver avoiding calling it subsidy by mandating it's use and offloading those costs onto the ratepayer through higher rates.
Solar power production per unit is cheaper then coal at present even without any subsidies.
Subsidies are meant to encourage people to buy the systems and to make dinosaur energy companies switch over.
Solar power production per unit is cheaper then coal at present even without any subsidies.
I'm going to challenge you yet again to produce any reference to solar being cheaper than coal that accounts for the subsidies, green energy credits and everything else involved.
You can start your research here, they don;t even have solar competing with coal in 2040 let alone now. LOL
My lights went from 100 watts to 20
My most used computer went from my desktop (450 watts or so) to 8 (Dell Venue 8 tablet! The new bay trail CPU's by Intel are amazing)
My server room (don't laugh I do have a server room in my house) went from 800 watts....to cloud servers.
That being said...I still use a ton of power. Far more then solar could provide given the number of trees at my house.
It will happen. I plan on being on solar 100% by 2020.
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.
