Skip to comments.
Here is what the acolytes of solar power don't want you to know...
self
| July 15, 2003
| Boot Hill
Posted on 07/15/2003 3:16:56 AM PDT by Boot Hill
click here to read article
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-20, 21-40, 41-60, 61-80 ... 281-287 next last
1
posted on
07/15/2003 3:16:57 AM PDT
by
Boot Hill
To: SierraWasp; Carry_Okie
SierraWasp says: "...
the alternative energy dreamers [that] believe the laws of physics and economics are a bunch of crappola."
Your comment from another thread motivated me to post this.
--Boot Hill
2
posted on
07/15/2003 3:22:19 AM PDT
by
Boot Hill
To: All
We Replaced Patrick Leahy's Brains With Folger's Crystals. Let's See If Anyone Notices!
|
|
Donate Here By Secure Server
Or mail checks to FreeRepublic , LLC PO BOX 9771 FRESNO, CA 93794
or you can use
PayPal at Jimrob@psnw.com
|
STOP BY AND BUMP THE FUNDRAISER THREAD- It is in the breaking news sidebar!
|
3
posted on
07/15/2003 3:23:12 AM PDT
by
Support Free Republic
(Your support keeps Free Republic going strong!)
To: Boot Hill
Based on the above efficiency data, we would need to cover the entire state of New Mexico with solar cells just to generate this amount of energy! I can think of worse things to do with New Mexico (just kidding)
To: PeaceBeWithYou
PeaceBeWithYou asks: "
Got a source or a link?"
Well I didn't when you first asked this on the other thread, but now I do! Thanks for the suggestion.
--Boot Hill
5
posted on
07/15/2003 3:27:50 AM PDT
by
Boot Hill
To: Boot Hill
Oh, also this is based on the model of using solar power to generate electric power via photocells. Some of which is going to be used again for heat in such things as electric furnaces and toasters. Better to collect the radiation as heat in the first place, for those applications.
I'm not an eco freak, but I perceive there certainly are ways that solar can help America's energy situation.
To: The Red Zone
The Red Zone says: "...
I perceive there certainly are ways that solar can help America's energy situation."
I agree that there are some limited ways solar energy can be put to use. However, it is currently being sold (and funded by your tax dollars) as a serious competitor, alternative and compliment to conventional electrical generation. That's what I've got serious problems with and why I posted this thread. Conservatives need the info at their finger tips to discredit the disciples of solar electric power.
--Boot Hill
7
posted on
07/15/2003 3:41:55 AM PDT
by
Boot Hill
To: The Red Zone
It's not going to be a base load, but it certainly can help.
We had a solar water heater for about 12 years, worked wondefully until it broke down.
With proper location (i.e. not Seattle) and usage of lenses (reduction in area of cells needed) one should be able to generate power economically at SOME point.
I'm sure a rooftop installation in Arizona will help with the AC costs, but as large scale power installations, not yet.
Of course I still want to loft solar satellites and beam the power back to earth, but that is even further away.
All grammar/spelling errors are solely the responsibility of my cat.
8
posted on
07/15/2003 3:47:55 AM PDT
by
Saturnalia
(My name is Matt Foley and I live in a VAN down by the RIVER.)
To: Boot Hill
Even several years ago, there are self-cleaning systems to eliminate the dirt/dust issues.
It's interesting you ignored the case studies pages at one of the sites you are sourcing.
You seem to be picking and choosing your source info, and you make blanket statements that are not sourced, to support your desired conclusion, rather looking at how alternative energy sources can be viable in a number of situations.
http://www.oja-services.nl/iea-pvps/cases/index.htm http://www.solarhouse.com
9
posted on
07/15/2003 3:53:32 AM PDT
by
visualops
(C'mon FReepers, donate donate donate!)
To: Boot Hill
I'd like to see a dollar for dollar amortized estimate for photovoltaic vs. the most expensive fossil fuel. It looks from your figures like it is probably a rip, but quantified how much of a rip? I would have no clue.
To: Saturnalia
Saturnalia says: "...
one should be able to generate [solar] power economically at SOME point."
It can't be done economically with solar. That's the whole point of the thread article. The example you cite of a solar water heater is a good case in point. Compare the real cost (absent any tax subsidies) of that installation over its limited (as you found out) lifetime and compare it to simply buying the electricity and you'll find that the latter is cheaper.
--Boot Hill
To: Boot Hill
I have only two words to say. Listen. Methyl Hydrate.
12
posted on
07/15/2003 3:56:30 AM PDT
by
djf
To: visualops
and you make blanket statements that are not sourced Footnotes, we don't need no steekin footnotes!
Doubtless Boot's main point is valid, that solar is way oversold (and too bad it won't work to cover Washington state with photocells, we have to pick on poor New Mexico), but as an engineer I hope to see something I can verify.
To: Boot Hill
Well at least from the power producer standpoint the truth is out on wind energy production, which I am certain has the same government subsidy as other forms of alternative energy. Wind can only be a backup or "alternative" due to its inefficiencies. It doesn't blow all the time. Seems to me it is 35 percent inefficient right out of the box at the point the wind blows, then throw in all the little stuff that the utopians want to overlook, and you have a horribly inefficient system that no one could would or should invest in if it wasn't being paid for by OPM. OPM is a myth, it is never just OPM it's everyones dollars, including the wealth and health of the government the people and the nation itself, and we let congress spend it like there is no tomorrow, and with precious little oversight, all at the whim of folks who think science is making stink bombs in high school.
14
posted on
07/15/2003 4:05:46 AM PDT
by
wita
(truthspeaks@freerepublic.com)
To: Boot Hill
Compare the real cost (absent any tax subsidies) of that installation over its limited (as you found out) lifetime and compare it to simply buying the electricity and you'll find that the latter is cheaper. Apples and oranges. Saturnalia is referring to solar thermal. It sounds like what happened is that the pipes simply clogged up. In a custom installation that would be a costly thing to fix. But if that could be mass produced efficiently that would be another story. I wouldn't necessarily mind having a solar assist to my home heating needs if it would cut my gas bill and didn't bankrupt me to fix. Gas is sky high.
To: djf
Methyl Hydrate. CH3H, methane? At today's gas prices?
To: Boot Hill
Great Post! The "Not yet" Crowd doesn't understand that the inherent economics mean "not ever", but they will continue to hold on to their irrational beleif that it is somehow good for the environement to waste our resources trying to make this happen.
17
posted on
07/15/2003 4:07:46 AM PDT
by
Rodney King
(No, we can't all just get along.)
To: visualops
visualops says: "
It's interesting you ignored the case studies..."
Every case study I've ever read fell into one of two categories. Either they failed to present sufficient information to be able to make a rational analysis of the cost effectiveness or the else the information demonstrated clearly that the installation was not cost effective. The physics and economics have demonstrated repeatedly that solar power is simply not cost competitive with conventional power plants.
--Boot Hill
To: Boot Hill
Your facts are essentially correct, but you have so many unmentioned assumptions that they undercut your premise.
You do not mention, for example, that the cost of solar power is not constant, and in fact, has been dropping like a rock. Solar power has dropped from several hundred dollars an installed peak watt to just a few dollars an installed peak watt today.
In areas of the country where air conditioning is important (such as the Southwest) there is no need for a storage system when the power is hooked into the grid, because peak power usage occurs at about the same time as peak power consumption.
The area required by solar power to power the nation is irrelevant because solar cells on roofs don't take up additional land, and because no one is saying that all power has to come from solar cells.
Finally, this is a case where the market will decide for us. As solar power becomes cheaper, the practical applications will expand, and it will naturally take up whatever percentage of power production that makes sense.
To: The Red Zone
ch3oh wood alcohol - methanol
?
20
posted on
07/15/2003 4:11:46 AM PDT
by
glock rocks
(Remember... only YOU can prevent fundraisers. become a monthly donor.)
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-20, 21-40, 41-60, 61-80 ... 281-287 next last
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.
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson