Replies

It is amazing to me how eager freepers are to attack solar and wind energy. If there is anyone I would expect to appreciate the value of energy independence, to be smart enough to recognize the benefits of distributed power over centralized power(in efficiency, warfare, disasters etc)it would be the conservative right. I might even hope that some would recognize the health benefits of reduced mercury emissions, lack of high power lines (also an emininent domain issue) etc. But alas, because some liberal might like it we must hate it. OMG!?

Everything attempted for calculations herein is based on limited information about the project. The press has such a great history of getting all the facts straight I’m sure that is the ultimate source to judge the project.

You suggest using 12cents per kwh as the cost of electricity there. That maybe what the cost on your bill says, but it is delusional to believe that is the cost to society. You think solar gets tax incentives? Consider the billions that coal gets. http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Federal_coal_subsidies

Then factor in 200,000 deaths per year from respiratory particulate deaths related, and then factor in the mercury poisoning. But hey who gives a #$%^ if we kill more people than the Vietnam war every year, we just want to complain about government and the left. SMH

I’m a numbers type of guy - I work with them everyday, do cost estimates, and ‘pencil out’ whether or not a project is viable.

So frankly, it offends me that do-gooders gloss through that step, when they’re using my money.

I hope you understand that. I don’t ‘hate’ solar. But I have great disdain for the solar pushers. And you just pulled the same old rabbit trick with the 200k deaths claim.

Every. Single. Modern. Device. Has. A. Cost. Since the advent of the automobile, 3.5 million people have died in car deaths. Using your logic, we are complete fools...we should give up our cars and start walking. Obviously we don’t though.

Same with coal power.

Lets pare down the numbers. The EPA says is 13k deaths a year in the US, so again it seems some exaggerated numbers are being used...and you are probably conflating worldwide particulate deaths due to indoor cooking fires with coal. But its 13k, according to the EPA (less than half of the auto deaths btw).

Now in order to accept even the EPA’s claim, I have to ignore the fact that states that have had stricter particulate rules (North Carolina) for a decade showed no reduction in deaths. Also, I have to pretend that no energy is used to manufacture a solar panel (all the while knowing that massive amounts of fossil fuel derived heat is used). Then I have to accept the premise of your argument - that its a two horse race between solar and coal....all the while knowing that coal use is in decline and natural gas use is increasing...and that the real, viable, successor to coal is natural gas.

And then I have to overlook the extreme damage our do-gooders have done to the third world...where they use the World Bank to enforce some of the most expensive power on the planet (solar) on the poorest people in the world - people who would benefit greatly from having a reliable source of power, to the point of extending their lifespans.

And I need to back up some more - your argument is based on a libertarian notion that solar will get you ‘off the grid’. It won’t. It can’t. It is not a constant, reliable source of power. So you always need grid backup - wind and solar both suffer from this, to the point that they offset practically zero fossil fuel generating capacity. I hope you can understand that - every time a power company builds a windmill, it is 100% extra cost, above and beyond their normal costs. There is no offset or reduction on their plant size, no matter how many windmills they have. Its terribly ineffective. There are some exceptions btw. In Portugal they lift water with wind energy and release it later through turbines - a giant non-chemical battery to help make their wind more continuous. A nuke plant in Michigan does the same with water - a genius way to store wasted excess energy created throughout the night. You see - I’ve got an open mind, and I’m fascinated by solutions that really work.

You know what doesn’t work: Government using my money to foist solar projects on an organization whose mission is allegedly to provide medical care to veterans. No mind melt or leap of logic can turn a boondoggle like that into a conservative cause celebre. It is exactly what t appears to be - crony capitalism, Obama style.

One more thing that bugs me about green energy - all the rules are thrown out the window. I mentioned in my initial comment that the fence around this solar field is a zoning violation. It just flat is, no argument can be made that it isn’t. And as a person who has handled dozens of zoning cases, and even been denied a variance for a fence before...it offends me. The panels are ‘for the children’ I suppose, so the rules get tossed out. Remember the Bundy ranch standoff? The entire reason the feds are reducing the number of cattle he can graze is in the name of the environment - a turtle in particular is threatened. It has been for years - I remember a huge portion of FT Irwin was off limits to training, back in the 1990’s, because of this turtle. So for a quarter century at least, decisions have been made in the name of protecting this turtle. And the turtle’s plight must be getting worse - this is why more territory is declared restricted, and it affects Bundy, etc. There is one major exception though. One instance in which the turtle’s needs are trumped. One facility built right in the middle of the turtle’s territory, in which several miles of desert have been completely cleared. Ivanpah.

Animal Farm comes to mind.

I could go on for dozens of pages...this is just a small sample of why solar pushers get it wrong.