Posted on 02/27/2005 5:11:21 PM PST by NormsRevenge
Thanks; Max power point control is not very new; it's just a bit more work. It makes a difference if you have to loft the thing into orbit. Heck, I don't even adjust for time of day or season. Lazy. Ahrnold's doin' steroids again if he thinks solar makes sense for on grid.
D.
So it's hard for me to see their value except in niche situations where other power sources aren't available.
The public should think about this. If it costs a barrel of oil to produce a barrel of oil, what's the point?
Political payoffs to investors in a captive market, obviously.
Maybe BP is onto something after all?
If BP had an ounce of sense, it would get out of the windmill and solar panel business and get into nuke construction. Instead, it wants to portray itself as the green company that temporarily produces oil while it pursues renewables.
Maybe in a post-Kyoto world that is a viable business strategy, but I can't see it working 50 years from now.
Nor do I.
If BP had an ounce of sense, it would get out of the windmill and solar panel business and get into nuke construction. Instead, it wants to portray itself as the green company that temporarily produces oil while it pursues renewables.
There you go again, letting economic logic confuse you when it is political logic that is at work here. The behavior fits my model perfectly:
Nuclear power plant construction produces energy, therefore BP has no interest in that. Forcing people to spin wheels with bogus "energy conservation" while using more energy from their artificially constrained petrochemical sources fits the corrupt model perfectly. So does recycling, which burns up more diesel, fresh water, than it saves in reduced production costs.
You will note that BP has NO interest in true renewables, such as locally generated biomass from wood, no matter how dire the need. That fits the model too. The major stockholders (such as the British royals) want us using more energy while using government to constrain supply. It's a guaranteed profit, which is entirely logical after all.
Biomass won't make a dent, especially when India and China become real economies.
It doesn't mean that it shouldn't be pursued; every little bit helps. It's just that if you want to turn the second largest oil company in the world into a niche renewable company when the era of oil passes, they're on a path to do that.
If you knew how much energy there is in 190 million acres of overstocked National Forests, you wouldn't be saying that.
That's not going to happen of course. Energy will become more expensive which means that biomass will become more profitable as will the tar sands of Canada. The coal that Clinton took off the market will have to be revisited.
But the only technology that can possibly be ramped up enough to meet our demands is nuclear.
I'll leave the door open for some breakthrough in fusion which would change everything, but if we're not building nuke plants like crazy 35 years from now, we've made the political decision to go back to the 1800s in terms of lifestyle.
I've seen that stated from time to time, but I've never seen a credible source to back up the claim. If you've got one, I'd love to have it to post to these threads about solar fraud.
--Boot Hill
I was repeating the comments of a speaker at an energy seminar I attended a few months ago and I don't know his source.
Even assuming the French study is correct, solar is one of the least efficient sources of energy. At best, it will produce about 2.5 times the energy required to manufacture it, plus it's not an "on demand" source of power. Compare that to oil which produces 80 times the energy consumed to bring it to market.
I agree with you, to a point. However, in a monopoly situation, the rules are different. For capitalism to be a "good thing", there must either be competition or regulation to temper the ambitions of any one company. Particularly in the utility business, which is by definition selling basic needs to customers, the profit motive should be held in tight control.
There are plenty of industries in which to make a healthy profit. I think there are also those which, by their nature as monopolies coupled with the high importance of their product to the basic needs of their customers, should be regulated to a modest profit. If an investor wants to make a killing, it shouldn't be in a utility company, IMO.
Evergreen, Daystar up on California solar power planFYI, Evergreen Solar Inc. is 2% owned by Dimensional Fund Advisors.NEW YORK (Dow Jones/AP) -- The stocks of Evergreen Solar Inc. and Daystar Technologies Inc. were boosted this week by a proposal from California Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger to boost the use of solar power in the state.
Evergreen's share rose $1.28, or 22 percent, to close at $7.20 on the Nasdaq Stock Market. The closing price was also a 52-week high, besting the previous 52-week high of $5.98 set Monday when shares rose 7.8 percent.
Daystar's shares rose $1.90, or 34 percent, to $7.55 on the Nasdaq. It traded as high as $7.66, besting the 52-week high of $6.10 set Feb. 10. On Monday, shares rose 9.3 percent.
On Monday, Schwarzenegger threw his support behind a proposed tax credit program to encourage the installation of solar energy systems for residential and commercial sites. The goal is to create 1 million solar roofs by 2018.
I saw the orig thred article on Rough & Tumble yesterday and almost posted it. Nothing is more subject to ridicule that big bombastic, grandiouse claims and genuflecting, followed by little watered down pissy proposals. Futhermore, nothing is more damaging to a politician than becoming the butt of ridicule!!!
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.