Plentyoffish dating forums are a place to meet singles and get dating advice or share dating experiences etc. Hopefully you will all have fun meeting singles and try out this online dating thing... Remember that we are the largest free online dating service, so you will never have to pay a dime to meet your soulmate.
     
Show ALL Forums  > Science/philosophy  > Solar and Wind Power..      Home login  
 AUTHOR
 Hibernian1960
Joined: 9/13/2008
Msg: 126
view profile
History
Solar and Wind Power..Page 6 of 10    (1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10)
Wonderful, you have a woodlot, your traps for possums, your rugged individualist macho lifestyle, your cute little fictional robot hero.

Good for you. Has there in fact BEEN a "multi-hundred mile radius" evacuation in the USA due to a nuclear reactor incident, EVER?

No.

If solar is so abundant and safe and pure and good, why are you always preaching sacrifice? Why do bad old utility companies not swill at the solar trough? You would think they would JUMP at the chance to pay nothing for fuel, the greedy **stards!

So why don't they?

Hint: It isn't practical.
 Earthpuppy
Joined: 2/9/2008
Msg: 127
view profile
History
Solar and Wind Power..
Posted: 8/7/2011 6:09:05 PM
Nope..just have to read the thread where folks who love nukes try to portray solar in a similar vein. Mostly between Hibernian and me. Sick joke, diversionary thread tactic. In context, Solar is cheaper, cleaner, more ecomically and morally viable at this point, and the cost is quickly recovered, particulary when the social and environmental cost are fully factored in. Hibernian is in a perpetual denail mode, unwilling to accept the full cost accounting of mining, processing, transport, conversion, use, prevention of disaster maintenance, and final disposal issues in particular. It is a convenient disconnect.
 Hibernian1960
Joined: 9/13/2008
Msg: 128
view profile
History
Solar and Wind Power..
Posted: 8/7/2011 6:17:34 PM
"ok, somehow i am lost in translation in here. so now solar cells are hazardous to health? and what's wrong with me not wanting to pay utility bills for the rest of my life? do you work for an electric company or something and afraid to be homeless yourself once people realize that alternative energy can free them from utility bills ? lol."-lookinglifetime

No, my dear, solar cells are not hazardous to health, though some very toxic materials like arsenic can be used to make them. They do degrade over time, so will have to be replaced eventually, that is all. Since sunlight is so diffuse, it will take quite a lot of them to replace what electricity you generally use, which is why Mudpuppy is always preaching sacrifice. Also, you may have noticed that sunshine is rare at night, so you will also need batteries, more expense and more to degrade and eventually require replacement.

I do not work for an electric company but am an advocate of progress and higher standards of living, which puts me in opposition to environmentalists and their pro-poverty agenda.
 Hibernian1960
Joined: 9/13/2008
Msg: 129
view profile
History
Solar and Wind Power..
Posted: 8/7/2011 6:22:12 PM
"It is a convenient disconnect."- Mudpuppy

It is a convenient way for you to avoid the question. You make all these claims, but your own solar solution obliges you to cut wood in the cold as the pioneers did. Let us say that the world IS getting warmer and that you will eventually need air conditioning- where will you be then?

Screwed.

I am not impressed.

Oh, yeah, Wall-E, priceless. Great reference there, you will be a LOOOOOONG time living that one down. Maybe you will cite Godzilla movies to back up your claims of radiotoxicity next- a guy in a rubber dinosaur suit will stomp Fukushima flat, right?
 Earthpuppy
Joined: 2/9/2008
Msg: 130
view profile
History
Solar and Wind Power..
Posted: 8/7/2011 6:49:07 PM
Gandhi noted. “Earth provides enough to satisfy every man's need, but not every man's greed”

If everyone on the planet lived like the obese humans of the first world with their weakness and severe need for comfort, we would need about 3 more planets at the current rate of consumption by the first world weanies. Most in the world would survive the inevitable collapse but for the first world wimps who forgot how to live before the oil and coal and nuke wars and exploitation.

This is an apples to watermelon comparrison to say that they only way we can survive is to expliot the world unsustainably or else. Apples have much more, and healthier, water sustainable nutrients per pound than watermelons and the people who end up looking like them. Plus to co-opt the old right wing paradigm, watermelons only appear to be green on the outside, but are red on the inside, via corporate socialism via amazing amounts of subsidies and taxpayer funding in every step of the way via nuke poopers and their victims.

Never said that solar would be equal to the waste, inefficiency, social costs, and greeed built into nukes, but that it was the most socially and economically realistic alternative to the status quo that refuses to let go of the illusion that 7 billion folks can live anywhere near what standard of waste and consumption whe have set before the world. The world cannot survive with 7 billion watermellon people. Wall-E was that clever extrapolation that is lost on the watermellon people to this day.
 Hibernian1960
Joined: 9/13/2008
Msg: 131
view profile
History
Solar and Wind Power..
Posted: 8/7/2011 7:00:16 PM
And still no answer to my question- amazing.

Yet I shall ask again, knowing how slowly thought penetrates the degraded brain of the environmentalist, "Why is all this 'free' energy going to waste?"

Greedy first world utility companies like Enron should be happy to no longer pay fuel bills and live in a solar paradise, raking in huge gobs of cash and looking like heros to greenie types.

Why DON'T they replace all their conventional power plants with solar ASAP, instead of going BANKRUPT like Enron and LUZ International?

http://articles.latimes.com/keyword/luz-international-ltd
 Earthpuppy
Joined: 2/9/2008
Msg: 132
view profile
History
Solar and Wind Power..
Posted: 8/8/2011 3:28:18 PM
Love the concept, but think it could be improved with " branches and leaves" to increase the efficiency.
http://news.discovery.com/tech/wind-power-without-the-blades.html
 RichenLosAngeles
Joined: 11/14/2010
Msg: 133
Solar and Wind Power..
Posted: 8/8/2011 5:02:30 PM
Puppy - I'm stuck. Apples won't grow here but watermelons will. Should I head for the high country?
 RichenLosAngeles
Joined: 11/14/2010
Msg: 134
Solar and Wind Power..
Posted: 8/8/2011 6:17:12 PM
Paul, you have a good eye for melons. I do see some beautiful ones, but if bothers me when they are hard, I want the ones that yield to the touch.
 Earthpuppy
Joined: 2/9/2008
Msg: 135
view profile
History
Solar and Wind Power..
Posted: 8/8/2011 6:41:42 PM
Thunk test guys... Not popular for first dates, but if you are truly talking about melons, it's a great way to find ripe fruit or playful partners for ripe times. Solar powered meters...thunk. Just to try to stay on topic just a bit.

And Sighs... When food travels 1500 miles per bite, has more pesticides and less nutrition than ever, local food dating is pretty appealing. The locavore movement is growing and healthy. Can't hurt to eat locally when possible.
 RichenLosAngeles
Joined: 11/14/2010
Msg: 136
Solar and Wind Power..
Posted: 8/9/2011 12:27:42 PM
I have a question for the experts.
Since many people live in population centers, with big buildings and hundreds or thousands of residents per unit, how would solar power be used there? I could see cells feeding batteries, but given the limited roof space and number of occupants, isn't it a challenge to make something approaching a solution?
Also, I have a reality story about electric vehicles, but I warn you, you won't like it.
 FrankNStein902
Joined: 12/26/2009
Msg: 137
Solar and Wind Power..
Posted: 8/9/2011 1:15:34 PM
Since many people live in population centers, with big buildings and hundreds or thousands of residents per unit, how would solar power be used there?...

The most common usage is the space is leased by a solar power company who in turn sells the power back to the utility at a fixed cost.





...I could see cells feeding batteries, but given the limited roof space and number of occupants, isn't it a challenge to make something approaching a solution?

With the cost of storage and the return it is just best to use your solar to sell back to the power company to offset your cost.

Smaller residential applications can utilize some storage, but still it makes the most economic sense to just capture it and sell it.






so we don't use so much space, but the only way that solar power can even be slightly efficient is in a suburban area, which they despise...........

That is 100% incorrect.

Roof Top of suburban buildings offer a great opportunity to harvest energy and offset your buildings operational costs.

If you do not have the capital to invest in the infrastructure there are companies that will pay you a % to use your space and they take care of all the equipment.


 Earthpuppy
Joined: 2/9/2008
Msg: 138
view profile
History
Solar and Wind Power..
Posted: 8/9/2011 2:06:19 PM
There are many innovations that have not been fully explored as yet. There is also the vast availability of negawatts, conservation and efficiency efforts that could cut our consumption in half with existing technology. Half of what we use in the US is wasted.

Deploying solar on urban rooftops and via windows could substantially deal with peak loads when solar is most abundant.
http://energyselfreliantstates.org/category/tags/rooftop

MIT and others are working on technology to retrofit the vast walls of glass in cities to become power producers while cutting down heating and cooling costs.

Just throwing all the onsite power generated into the grid is a bit wasteful due to loss in transmission. The key would be to utilize the power as it peaks onsite, during peak demand. Second article in link above.
 RichenLosAngeles
Joined: 11/14/2010
Msg: 139
Solar and Wind Power..
Posted: 8/10/2011 8:59:06 PM
This is about alternative vehicles:
I work for a large food company that owns over 20,000 vehicles in North America. The company, wanting to be green and sustainable, purchased some electric trucks. They cost just under 200K each, but have about 75K in giveback dollars. We got about a dozen as our first order.
They hired engineers to build the charging stations, high-voltage, and set them up in their own area. They couldn't connect the chargers because the power company wouldn't authorize the transformer upgrade to satisfy the demand. That went back and forth for a few months. Then the city inspectors said they had to rearrange the breaker panels.
The maker of the trucks found a few flaws, and recalled the trucks, to replace the control computer(15K) and reroute some problematic wiring.
The drivers will need training to operate these, because it's not like a normal truck, you don't jump in and turn the key and go. The drivers have not been trained because the California DMV has not accepted the registration data and issued license plates.
Anyway, we have had these beautiful trucks for several months, and not made 1 delivery yet.
My company wants to make Los Angeles as ground-zero for alternative fuel vehicles. They have plans for gas-engine conversion to battery/gas , conversion of gas vehicle to propane, and more electrics in smaller bodies.
It's going to be interesting.
 wvwaterfall
Joined: 1/17/2007
Msg: 140
view profile
History
Solar and Wind Power..
Posted: 8/11/2011 6:22:10 PM

I do not work for an electric company but am an advocate of progress and higher standards of living, which puts me in opposition to environmentalists and their pro-poverty agenda.


Please name one environmentalist who advocates a pro-poverty agenda.

Every environmentalist I know advocates higher standards of living, as you do, only I suspect they define their standards differently.

For me, a higher standard of living includes being a responsible steward of the only planet we have to call home. It includes better living conditions for all humans, not just me, my friends and family. It includes doing all I can to assure that future generations will also have the opportunity to live sustainable high quality lives.

I don't know anyone, environmentalist or not, who is pro-poverty. I also don't know anyone who is pro-pollution, pro-mass extinction, or pro-cancer, genetic mutation, and depletion of all known finite energy sources without alternative options, even though if I chose to interpret their perspectives inaccurately, as you did, I might make such an erroneous claim.

Dave
 swingarm1966
Joined: 3/27/2011
Msg: 141
Solar and Wind Power..
Posted: 8/11/2011 6:48:16 PM
No i think you must be anti central banking/fractional reserve fiat currency to make the change you would like to see Wvwaterfall. At the very least remove the power of the commercial corporate banks to no longer be able to create currency through fictional debt instruments they create out of thin air with compound interest payable on there repayment. These banks have nothing of value but your signature to enslave society.
 Hibernian1960
Joined: 9/13/2008
Msg: 142
view profile
History
Solar and Wind Power..
Posted: 8/11/2011 11:40:39 PM
"Please name one environmentalist who advocates a pro-poverty agenda."- wvwaterfall

Well, if you consider, dirtdog an environmentalist, he will do. He is always harping on how much power we Americans are using, advocating less consumption, etc.

He seems to advocate that all of us adopt his lifestyle of chopping wood and so on, never mind that if he breaks his fool leg he will freeze in short order OR become a burden upon his neighbors.

When I ask him HOW the reduced standard of living resulting is supposed to benefit anybody, the fool compares me to a watermelon instead of answering the question at all.

This is 100% accurate, as inspection of the thread will readily disclose.

If solar power were a viable alternative, it would be pressed into service yesterday- it is not, and this is why environmentalists endorse it, whilst engineers do not.

Simple.

And let me leave you with a quote:

"...if nuclear energy were clean, safe, economic, assured of ample fuel, and socially benign per se, it would still be unattractive because of the political implications of the kind of energy economy it would lock us into."- Amory Lovins in 1977

So how do you know if what you are being sold regarding nuclear power by your high priests of the GREEN Mafia is true, when they would cheerfully say the same were it not?

And it is not, as you will find should you dig diligently- for I used to be as GULLIBLE as the pair of you.

Returning to the topic:

http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/a2982e50-1a95-11e0-b100-00144feab49a.html
 Hibernian1960
Joined: 9/13/2008
Msg: 143
view profile
History
Solar and Wind Power..
Posted: 8/11/2011 11:47:22 PM
"I have a question for the experts.
Since many people live in population centers, with big buildings and hundreds or thousands of residents per unit, how would solar power be used there? I could see cells feeding batteries, but given the limited roof space and number of occupants, isn't it a challenge to make something approaching a solution?
Also, I have a reality story about electric vehicles, but I warn you, you won't like it."- SighsMatters

Do tell!

It would be presumptuous of me to style myself an expert, but I did do a few elementary calculations of this sort earlier in the thread, the example being Manhattan, a small but populous borough of the city of New York.

Solar energy is diffuse and highly unreliable, indeed, the MOST reliable thing about it is its noticeable absence at NIGHT, when electric lighting is most useful- as the kids say these days, "DUH".
 Hibernian1960
Joined: 9/13/2008
Msg: 144
view profile
History
Solar and Wind Power..
Posted: 8/11/2011 11:55:49 PM
"This is about alternative vehicles:
I work for a large food company that owns over 20,000 vehicles in North America. The company, wanting to be green and sustainable, purchased some electric trucks. They cost just under 200K each, but have about 75K in giveback dollars. We got about a dozen as our first order.
They hired engineers to build the charging stations, high-voltage, and set them up in their own area. They couldn't connect the chargers because the power company wouldn't authorize the transformer upgrade to satisfy the demand. That went back and forth for a few months. Then the city inspectors said they had to rearrange the breaker panels.
The maker of the trucks found a few flaws, and recalled the trucks, to replace the control computer(15K) and reroute some problematic wiring.
The drivers will need training to operate these, because it's not like a normal truck, you don't jump in and turn the key and go. The drivers have not been trained because the California DMV has not accepted the registration data and issued license plates.
Anyway, we have had these beautiful trucks for several months, and not made 1 delivery yet.
My company wants to make Los Angeles as ground-zero for alternative fuel vehicles. They have plans for gas-engine conversion to battery/gas , conversion of gas vehicle to propane, and more electrics in smaller bodies.
It's going to be interesting."-SighsMatters

There are liable to be these sorts of growing pains with any new development in technology. Your company got a huge subsidy at the expense of taxpayers- so much for "free enterprise". Dirtdog is always harping about nuclear subsidies- in the unlikely event he is totally accurate about these claims, the subsidy per obtained watt is STILL superior to solar. At least you are "conserving" your shiny new trucks by not using them, think of it that way...
 Earthpuppy
Joined: 2/9/2008
Msg: 145
view profile
History
Solar and Wind Power..
Posted: 8/12/2011 1:01:11 AM
wvwaterfall/Dave.
You will find that there is no reasoning with people who deny that there are severe dangers with nuclear power, that vast areas have been contaminated, that it cannot exist in the free market without all the layers of subsidies, and that our old fleet of Chevy Vega reactors are accidents waiting to happen.

These guys call solar undependable because the sun don't shine at night, not having heard of batteries apparently, and they equate extreme inefficiency and waste with some sort of sacred right as obese americans. The world will leave us behind as we fight off the transition to safe, renewable energy. Theirs is the pro-poverty agenda as we bankrupt from our oil wars and nuke subsidies.

Japan is learning the hard way, how expensive investing in the wrong path can be and will be bearing the costs for the unforeseeable future.
"Japan will reduce its level of reliance on nuclear power generation with the aim of becoming a society that is not dependent on nuclear power." Prime Minister Naoto Kan. PM Kan is also pledging 10 Million solar homes by 2010 in response to their most recent nuclear disaster.
 wvwaterfall
Joined: 1/17/2007
Msg: 146
view profile
History
Solar and Wind Power..
Posted: 8/12/2011 6:00:25 AM

Well, if you consider, dirtdog an environmentalist, he will do. He is always harping on how much power we Americans are using, advocating less consumption, etc.


So you equate efficiency with poverty, and punctuate your flawed logic with pointless name calling.

Using less energy has nothing to do with poverty, other than minimizing the risk of future poverty by saving money that could be put to good use elsewhere.

I've shared this before, but I use a quarter the amount of electricity the previous owners of my home did, with no drop in comfort. The simplest example is the refrigerator I bought eight years ago to replace the one that came with the house. All I did was walk into Sears and compare energy labels on the thirty or so models of the same size as the one I was replacing, buying the most efficient one available. My power bill dropped ten dollars a month, which over eight years amounts to nearly $1000 in savings, more than paying for the purchase of the fridge. Essentially, that fridge is paying me money. How does that equate to poverty? How has my quality of life diminished?

The same can be done with vehicles, lighting, heating/cooling, and any appliance. That's exactly what Amory Lovins advocates in his books and speeches, and eloquently makes the case for better quality of life for all if we simply applied that logic to our energy use. Read "Natural Capitalism" for an excellent book laying out the case for economic and social advantages associated with sustainable practices on the micro and macro scale.

My primary point is that just because you assume increased efficiency will somehow result in poverty doesn't mean those who advocate efficiency advocate poverty. It would be far easier to make the case that continued energy inefficiency will result in poverty. And yet those of us who advocate minimizing waste periodically hear the same whacky accusations you throw out here.

I know better than to think you'll change your mind. I simply challenge your flawed logic for the benefit of others weighing the relative merits of the points being made here.

Dave
 wvwaterfall
Joined: 1/17/2007
Msg: 147
view profile
History
Solar and Wind Power..
Posted: 8/12/2011 12:37:33 PM
Paul, on this issue we certainly agree. I bought my more efficient fridge only when the old one died. I bought my prius when my old car wore out.
I'm certainly not a perfect environmentalist, nor do I advocate that anyone else be one, but I do include environmental and energy impacts into most of my decision making. Sometimes it's the top priority, sometimes not, but I do acknowledge both my responsibility and the personal advantages of acting as sustainably as I can.
 wvwaterfall
Joined: 1/17/2007
Msg: 148
view profile
History
Solar and Wind Power..
Posted: 8/12/2011 2:39:43 PM
We stray off topic, Paul, but what battery issue? Mine has nearly eight years life so far and 181,000 miles and still going strong, and in the unlikely event it needs to be replaced I can pick one up from a wrecked prius on eBay and pop it in.

The water on the roof trick is a good one. Evaporation takes a lot of heat with it.

Back on topic, intuitively I recognize that ultimately we'll need to meet all of our energy needs from renewable sources, so anything we do to accelerate that transition is a good thing.

But that transition will take decades. Whether there is a role for nuclear during the transition I really don't know the answer to. We're going to have to make some compromises in the immediate future. Anyone who thinks a single energy source will meet all of our needs is guilty of overly simplistic thinking.
 Hibernian1960
Joined: 9/13/2008
Msg: 149
view profile
History
Solar and Wind Power..
Posted: 8/18/2011 4:37:18 PM
"So you equate efficiency with poverty, and punctuate your flawed logic with pointless name calling.

Using less energy has nothing to do with poverty, other than minimizing the risk of future poverty by saving money that could be put to good use elsewhere.

I've shared this before, but I use a quarter the amount of electricity the previous owners of my home did, with no drop in comfort. The simplest example is the refrigerator I bought eight years ago to replace the one that came with the house. All I did was walk into Sears and compare energy labels on the thirty or so models of the same size as the one I was replacing, buying the most efficient one available. My power bill dropped ten dollars a month, which over eight years amounts to nearly $1000 in savings, more than paying for the purchase of the fridge. Essentially, that fridge is paying me money. How does that equate to poverty? How has my quality of life diminished?

The same can be done with vehicles, lighting, heating/cooling, and any appliance. That's exactly what Amory Lovins advocates in his books and speeches, and eloquently makes the case for better quality of life for all if we simply applied that logic to our energy use. Read "Natural Capitalism" for an excellent book laying out the case for economic and social advantages associated with sustainable practices on the micro and macro scale.

My primary point is that just because you assume increased efficiency will somehow result in poverty doesn't mean those who advocate efficiency advocate poverty. It would be far easier to make the case that continued energy inefficiency will result in poverty. And yet those of us who advocate minimizing waste periodically hear the same whacky accusations you throw out here.

I know better than to think you'll change your mind. I simply challenge your flawed logic for the benefit of others weighing the relative merits of the points being made here."

Dave

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

Well, Dave, old buddy, let's look at the record, shall we?

Then perhaps maybe we can see whose logic is "deficient". Industrialized countries both produce and use more energy which tends to go along with being affluent- why? Because energy allows them to produce more goods for consumption. In the 1970s China was relatively poor, now it is the sort of economic powerhouse that the USA used to be- its consumption of energy per capita went UP, not down, look it up if you believe me not. This is just one example.

I am not AGAINST efficiency, any more than I am against Mom and apple pie. My point, as a review of the thread will make clear, is that efficiency does not reduce demand for energy, but has the opposite effect. Advocates of the environmentalist cult , including hushpuppy, want to focus on using less energy PERIOD, and look down their little green noses at people who cannot or will not chop their own wood as he does- never mind that natural gas and nuclear are cleaner, safer, more versatile, AND more reliable. I have not given up on changing their tiny little minds, for I was once as silly as you. There IS hope, after all.

I am content to let others make up their own minds, we are all adults here, or should be.

Now, returning to the TOPIC, Evergreen Solar has filed for bankruptcy:

http://www.eetimes.com/electronics-news/4218812/Solar-cell-maker-files-for-bankruptcy-

All the money American fools put into buying solar panels from this this company WILL be put to good use, in CHINA. I might add that both Dave and Mudpuppy are heavily relying on anecdotal and unverifiable personal experience for their points.

Mudpuppy in particular just gets more and more shrill no matter how often he has proven to be inaccurate, as witness his infamous failure to link vast "dead zones" with nuclear power plants, "Chevy Vega" or not. If indeed as he seems to be trying to imply that these facilities are obsolete in some way, how does he explain that their reliability is much greater than the shiny new solar facilities that have been built?
 Hibernian1960
Joined: 9/13/2008
Msg: 150
view profile
History
Solar and Wind Power..
Posted: 8/18/2011 9:45:42 PM
"These guys call solar undependable because the sun don't shine at night, not having heard of batteries apparently, and they equate extreme inefficiency and waste with some sort of sacred right as obese americans."- Mudpuppy

Let's see, I am trying to think of how many hospitals run on batteries, or factories, or shopping malls, dang, can't think of ONE!

Golf carts yes, economies, not so much.

What will lift the so-called Third World out of POVERTY is MORE power, not less. That is why it is called "empowerment", o Green Oracle of Stubborn Inaccuracy.

Seriously, those in need of understanding of how the electrical generation and distribution grid operates should be aware that typically, electrical power generation must EXACTLY match demand at any given time. Steady power generation, ideal for nuclear because of its inherent reliability, is matched with hydropower or "spinning reserve", turbines operating without the load of turning generators. Real live guys do this 24 hours a day. This produces AC current, stepped up by very efficient transformers in voltage, transmitted to areas where transformers step the voltage down and the current back up according to Ohm's Law, to the end application. No batteries are required, and no freaking woodchopping, either.

Involving batteries and inverters WOULD be wasteful and inefficient by comparison.

Obese? Better a pot belly than a fat head...
Show ALL Forums  > Science/philosophy  > Solar and Wind Power..