[ARCHIVED THREAD] - Solar Power, Wind Power, Hydro Power (Page 1 of 4)
Posted: 5/4/2009 9:29:01 AM EDT
|
Anyone here use any of these? I've been on a rant for a few months now wondering why the hell we aren't focusing our energy on making green energy more affordable and more of a priority!!??! Why the hell are we putting money into protecting our power supply from Russia, why not put the money into helping people get hooked up with solar, wind or hydro power.
I've been looking into making your own solar panels, it looks doable and not too expensive. Same with wind power. So I'm wondering if anyone here has any of the green energy items and if so how did you do it and how much did it cost? What are some of the pros and cons? |
|
Because it uses more energy (and money) to get energy from Solar and Wind then you get out of it.
I am fine with REAL hydro power, as in dams, but you will never see a large dam built in the US ever again. Nuclear power is as green as you can get. Small footprint, no emissions and little waste. |
|
Quoted:
Anyone here use any of these? I've been on a rant for a few months now wondering why the hell we aren't focusing our energy on making green energy more affordable and more of a priority!!??! Why the hell are we putting money into protecting our power supply from Russia, why not put the money into helping people get hooked up with solar, wind or hydro power. I've been looking into making your own solar panels, it looks doable and not too expensive. Same with wind power. So I'm wondering if anyone here has any of the green energy items and if so how did you do it and how much did it cost? What are some of the pros and cons? Liberals bitch because we don't have enough "green energy".... but then will bitch that wind power kills birds, and hydro power kills fishies. waaaaa. i wish i would have incorporated some form of solar or wind power into the cost of the house when i built. i would expect within the next few years as technology continues to progress in these fields it will really become much more economically feasible for the average homeowner. |
|
I looked into solar panels on my house, rough estimates ranged from $50k-$70k, the price needs to drop by a about a factor of 10 before I could consider it. It's not just the panels themselves, you have to mount them buy inverters etc that help drive the cost up. Not to mention the question of durability such as what would a hail storm due to silicone based panels.
The thin film panels are promising but I haven't seen any commercial/residential applications yet. Thin film should drive down manufacturer costs and make installation easier because they weigh less. For example the installer told me they would have to beef up my roof to install the silicon based panels. There are probably thin film installed out there, but who knows. |
|
Quoted: Because it uses more energy (and money) to get energy from Solar and Wind then you get out of it. I am fine with REAL hydro power, as in dams, but you will never see a large dam built in the US ever again. Nuclear power is as green as you can get. Small footprint, no emissions and little waste. Word. Secondly solar and wind farms occupy huge swaths of land and generally endanger some cute creature or another. One may guess who the largest opponent of them is. |
|
Quoted:
Because it uses more energy (and money) to get energy from Solar and Wind then you get out of it. I am fine with REAL hydro power, as in dams, but you will never see a large dam built in the US ever again. Nuclear power is as green as you can get. Small footprint, no emissions and little waste. i must be missing something.... how does wind and solar "use more energy" then you get in return? i understand the high cost/ROI factor, but eventually the monetary payback will be there as well. ETA: and I'm all for nuclear power too 
|
|
Quoted:
Anyone here use any of these? I've been on a rant for a few months now wondering why the hell we aren't focusing our energy on making green energy more affordable and more of a priority!!??! Why the hell are we putting money into protecting our power supply from Russia, why not put the money into helping people get hooked up with solar, wind or hydro power. I've been looking into making your own solar panels, it looks doable and not too expensive. Same with wind power. So I'm wondering if anyone here has any of the green energy items and if so how did you do it and how much did it cost? What are some of the pros and cons? Because they aren't that efficient right now and way to much resources go into making/maintaining them. Nuclear power is the most green of all right now, but the hippies don't want it... |
|
Hydro is superior where it can be done, wind is minor, and solar is in the expiermental phase.
The heavy lifting is done by coal, natural gas and nuke in that order. Thinking that we could just abandon coal and gas is pure utopian thought. It would be like saying that gas powered cars should be phased out and replaced with electric beginning tomorrow. Sure, sounds good, but the technology and infastructure isn't there... Note that I'm very PRO alternative energy, but one must look at it with a rational perspective. |
|
I have a good friend who's an electrician. (Owns his own business.)
He been taking a ton of training classes in solar and related tech over the last few years. The technology is progressing by leaps and bounds. According to him, the only reason home solar isn't more popular is because so many folks are ignorant of the technology... and, it's ugly. His aunt and uncle have a solar system on their house in upstate NY. The only electric bill they pay is the service connection charge for being hooked into the grid. My GF and I plan on moving to the Southwest when I retire. We will definitely have a solar system, for electricity and hot water. |
|
The pros? The input energy is free. The cost of the energy to manufacture the equipment, transport, and install it is not free.
The cons? Just about everything else, starting with the energy density or flux available from these diffuse sources. Following that is either the uncertain size of the supply, the lack of round the clock availability, or both. If your energy needs are modest, then have at it, no one is stopping you and the .gov will probably give you a tax credit worth the cost of the paperwork to apply. |
|
Quoted:
I looked into solar panels on my house, rough estimates ranged from $50k-$70k, the price needs to drop by a about a factor of 10 before I could consider it. It's not just the panels themselves, you have to mount them buy inverters etc that help drive the cost up. Not to mention the question of durability such as what would a hail storm due to silicone based panels. The thin film panels are promising but I haven't seen any commercial/residential applications yet. Thin film should drive down manufacturer costs and make installation easier because they weigh less. For example the installer told me they would have to beef up my roof to install the silicon based panels. They're probably thin film installed out there, but who knows. After nearly 30 roofs got replaced just in my subdivision alone from hail damage last year... How resilient are these panels from 3/4 inch hail that is being wind blown at 80 mph? |
|
Quoted:
Liberals bitch because we don't have enough "green energy".... but then will bitch that wind power kills birds, and hydro power kills fishies. And solar power kills sunflowers. Fucking envirofascists won't be happy until we are all living in mud thatched huts and squatting in our own filth. Everyone except them, that is. |
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
Because it uses more energy (and money) to get energy from Solar and Wind then you get out of it. I am fine with REAL hydro power, as in dams, but you will never see a large dam built in the US ever again. Nuclear power is as green as you can get. Small footprint, no emissions and little waste. i must be missing something.... how does wind and solar "use more energy" then you get in return? i understand the high cost/ROI factor, but eventually the monetary payback will be there as well. ETA: and I'm all for nuclear power too The theory is that it takes more energy to produce the operating solar panel, than the panel could produce in its entire life. |
|
Quoted:
Because it uses more energy (and money) to get energy from Solar and Wind then you get out of it. I am fine with REAL hydro power, as in dams, but you will never see a large dam built in the US ever again. Nuclear power is as green as you can get. Small footprint, no emissions and little waste. This is false. The energy recuperation times are on the order of a few years, and inorganic PVs have a lifetime much greater than that. Generation II PVs are even better, as they use much less energy to produce. We don't use photovoltaic technology because it is more expensive than burning fossil fuels. There are lots of people and companies who are trying to make PVs cheaper (Obama's plan is to make "normal" energy more expensive than the green energy  ).
Right now, solar thermal is pretty cost effective, and I suspect we'll see more plants built, but this takes time and investments. |
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
Anyone here use any of these? I've been on a rant for a few months now wondering why the hell we aren't focusing our energy on making green energy more affordable and more of a priority!!??! Why the hell are we putting money into protecting our power supply from Russia, why not put the money into helping people get hooked up with solar, wind or hydro power. I've been looking into making your own solar panels, it looks doable and not too expensive. Same with wind power. So I'm wondering if anyone here has any of the green energy items and if so how did you do it and how much did it cost? What are some of the pros and cons? Liberals bitch because we don't have enough "green energy".... but then will bitch that wind power kills birds, and hydro power kills fishies. waaaaa. i wish i would have incorporated some form of solar or wind power into the cost of the house when i built. i would expect within the next few years as technology continues to progress in these fields it will really become much more economically feasible for the average homeowner. This has been done in CA and the payback is not bad because the utilities are forced to buy the excess power back at certain or even market rates. However, without he NET metering laws in place the payback is pretty bad. Texas has no net metering laws and the utilites like it that way Now waiting for the smart grid white nights to come along...... |
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Anyone here use any of these? I've been on a rant for a few months now wondering why the hell we aren't focusing our energy on making green energy more affordable and more of a priority!!??! Why the hell are we putting money into protecting our power supply from Russia, why not put the money into helping people get hooked up with solar, wind or hydro power. I've been looking into making your own solar panels, it looks doable and not too expensive. Same with wind power. So I'm wondering if anyone here has any of the green energy items and if so how did you do it and how much did it cost? What are some of the pros and cons? Liberals bitch because we don't have enough "green energy".... but then will bitch that wind power kills birds, and hydro power kills fishies. waaaaa. i wish i would have incorporated some form of solar or wind power into the cost of the house when i built. i would expect within the next few years as technology continues to progress in these fields it will really become much more economically feasible for the average homeowner. This has been done in CA and the payback is not bad because the utilities are forced to buy the excess power back at certain or even market rates. However, without he NET metering laws in place the payback is pretty bad. Texas has no net metering laws and the utilites like it that way Now waiting for the smart grid white nights to come along...... I know that Iowa is a "buy back" state, but also know that the utility company won't buy it for the same rate you pay for it.  However for me i would just like to be able to tell my local utiliy to get f#$%d and have the independence.
|
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
Because it uses more energy (and money) to get energy from Solar and Wind then you get out of it. I am fine with REAL hydro power, as in dams, but you will never see a large dam built in the US ever again. Nuclear power is as green as you can get. Small footprint, no emissions and little waste. i must be missing something.... how does wind and solar "use more energy" then you get in return? i understand the high cost/ROI factor, but eventually the monetary payback will be there as well. ETA: and I'm all for nuclear power too That high cost / ROI is hiding lots of numbers. As said before many of these "green" things you are already paying for with your taxes and not seeing a return. Manufacturing of not only the parts but the infrastructure you need to put in to get the energy. (and any associated environmental damage these parts and factories may create) Solar and wind are both INCONSISTANT sources of energy. many if not all places that have solar and wind either have to have fossil or other consistent forms of energy to maintain service. If not that they have to shut down service to some areas to continue service for others. Maintainance is a royal pain, and expensive. Most common solar panels are only moderately efficient, and that is in LAB conditions where they rate them. |
|
Quoted:
I have a good friend who's an electrician. (Owns his own business.) He been taking a ton of training classes in solar and related tech over the last few years. The technology is progressing by leaps and bounds. According to him, the only reason home solar isn't more popular is because so many folks are ignorant of the technology... and, it's ugly. His aunt and uncle have a solar system on their house in upstate NY. The only electric bill they pay is the service connection charge for being hooked into the grid. My GF and I plan on moving to the Southwest when I retire. We will definitely have a solar system, for electricity and hot water. Do you have any idea how much it cost his Aunt & Uncle to set that up? I just read on one website that the panels can withstand 2" hail at 72mph. |
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
I looked into solar panels on my house, rough estimates ranged from $50k-$70k, the price needs to drop by a about a factor of 10 before I could consider it. It's not just the panels themselves, you have to mount them buy inverters etc that help drive the cost up. Not to mention the question of durability such as what would a hail storm due to silicone based panels. The thin film panels are promising but I haven't seen any commercial/residential applications yet. Thin film should drive down manufacturer costs and make installation easier because they weigh less. For example the installer told me they would have to beef up my roof to install the silicon based panels. They're probably thin film installed out there, but who knows. After nearly 30 roofs got replaced just in my subdivision alone from hail damage last year... How resilient are these panels from 3/4 inch hail that is being wind blown at 80 mph? That's really the unknown, most of the solar I know about are in CA, AZ, NV etc where the weather is less likely to destroy the panels. My roof was just totaled due to hail, so it is a concern. However, with the supposed cost advantage of the thin film panels it would be easy and cheap to replace, at least that's the argument. |
|
Quoted:
Note that I'm very PRO alternative energy, but one must look at it with a rational perspective. [sarcasm] So you mean that current alternative energy output, being doubled (currently it is 1% of energy output now) will not gain us enery dependency as the messiah has proclaimed? [sarcasm] |
|
Also, if you want to get all TEOTWAWKI on this, solar especially is risky, say if there was a massive volcanic event that dimmed the amount of solar radiation reaching the surface.
I would not want to get reliant on a power source that mother nature could render useless or close to it with 1 natural disaster. |
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Because it uses more energy (and money) to get energy from Solar and Wind then you get out of it. I am fine with REAL hydro power, as in dams, but you will never see a large dam built in the US ever again. Nuclear power is as green as you can get. Small footprint, no emissions and little waste. i must be missing something.... how does wind and solar "use more energy" then you get in return? i understand the high cost/ROI factor, but eventually the monetary payback will be there as well. ETA: and I'm all for nuclear power too Solar and wind are both INCONSISTANT sources of energy. many if not all places that have solar and wind either have to have fossil or other consistent forms of energy to maintain service. If not that they have to shut down service to some areas to continue service for others. Yep, I went to a presentation run by a utility company a while back, and they estimated that wind turbines in this region, on average, are only operating about 60% of the time, the rest of the time it's not windy enough. Natural gas or other baseload power has to be built anyway in order to back up the intermittent renewables, which makes the whole thing excessively expensive. |
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
Because it uses more energy (and money) to get energy from Solar and Wind then you get out of it. I am fine with REAL hydro power, as in dams, but you will never see a large dam built in the US ever again. Nuclear power is as green as you can get. Small footprint, no emissions and little waste. i must be missing something.... how does wind and solar "use more energy" then you get in return? i understand the high cost/ROI factor, but eventually the monetary payback will be there as well. He is wrong. There is a payback time, but it isn't that long, and wind power is cheap though intermittent. Quoted:
Because they aren't that efficient right now and way to much resources go into making/maintaining them. Nuclear power is the most green of all right now, but the hippies don't want it... They are efficient enough. Like the engineer says below, input energy is free. Cost per watt needs to drop, more than anything. Quoted:
Hydro is superior where it can be done, wind is minor, and solar is in the expiermental phase. The heavy lifting is done by coal, natural gas and nuke in that order. Thinking that we could just abandon coal and gas is pure utopian thought. It would be like saying that gas powered cars should be phased out and replaced with electric beginning tomorrow. Sure, sounds good, but the technology and infastructure isn't there... Note that I'm very PRO alternative energy, but one must look at it with a rational perspective. I can't find anything here to disagree with. Quoted:
The pros? The input energy is free. The cost of the energy to manufacture the equipment, transport, and install it is not free. The cons? Just about everything else, starting with the energy density or flux available from these diffuse sources. Following that is either the uncertain size of the supply, the lack of round the clock availability, or both. If your energy needs are modest, then have at it, no one is stopping you and the .gov will probably give you a tax credit worth the cost of the paperwork to apply. I would like to see a study that quantifies the advantages in having PVs at the point of consumption. That should mean that you need 10% less total generation capacity because you aren't losign anything in transmission. |
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Because it uses more energy (and money) to get energy from Solar and Wind then you get out of it. I am fine with REAL hydro power, as in dams, but you will never see a large dam built in the US ever again. Nuclear power is as green as you can get. Small footprint, no emissions and little waste. i must be missing something.... how does wind and solar "use more energy" then you get in return? i understand the high cost/ROI factor, but eventually the monetary payback will be there as well. He is wrong. There is a payback time, but it isn't that long, and wind power is cheap though intermittent. I would like to see a study that quantifies the advantages in having PVs at the point of consumption. That should mean that you need 10% less total generation capacity because you aren't losign anything in transmission. Really, I would like to see how much energy the factories that produce all the parts for a windmill use (plus the energy used to transport the parts to the site, put it up, connect it, etc.) Versus the amount of energy that the windmill will produce. |
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Because it uses more energy (and money) to get energy from Solar and Wind then you get out of it. I am fine with REAL hydro power, as in dams, but you will never see a large dam built in the US ever again. Nuclear power is as green as you can get. Small footprint, no emissions and little waste. i must be missing something.... how does wind and solar "use more energy" then you get in return? i understand the high cost/ROI factor, but eventually the monetary payback will be there as well. ETA: and I'm all for nuclear power too That high cost / ROI is hiding lots of numbers. As said before many of these "green" things you are already paying for with your taxes and not seeing a return. Manufacturing of not only the parts but the infrastructure you need to put in to get the energy. (and any associated environmental damage these parts and factories may create) Solar and wind are both INCONSISTANT sources of energy. many if not all places that have solar and wind either have to have fossil or other consistent forms of energy to maintain service. If not that they have to shut down service to some areas to continue service for others. Maintainance is a royal pain, and expensive. Most common solar panels are only moderately efficient, and that is in LAB conditions where they rate them. Good explanation, thanks. I think that is a valid point on a large scale operation, especially when infrastructure and maintenance costs are factored in as you say. My views are more geared towards small scale individual use, where those factors are not nearly as critical. Yes they are inconsistant - if it's cloudy, no solar, if it's windy, no turbine. But a good coombination of both combined with monitoring and adjusting your power consumption could, i think, make it a worthwhile investment. |
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Anyone here use any of these? I've been on a rant for a few months now wondering why the hell we aren't focusing our energy on making green energy more affordable and more of a priority!!??! Why the hell are we putting money into protecting our power supply from Russia, why not put the money into helping people get hooked up with solar, wind or hydro power. I've been looking into making your own solar panels, it looks doable and not too expensive. Same with wind power. So I'm wondering if anyone here has any of the green energy items and if so how did you do it and how much did it cost? What are some of the pros and cons? Liberals bitch because we don't have enough "green energy".... but then will bitch that wind power kills birds, and hydro power kills fishies. waaaaa. i wish i would have incorporated some form of solar or wind power into the cost of the house when i built. i would expect within the next few years as technology continues to progress in these fields it will really become much more economically feasible for the average homeowner. This has been done in CA and the payback is not bad because the utilities are forced to buy the excess power back at certain or even market rates. However, without he NET metering laws in place the payback is pretty bad. Texas has no net metering laws and the utilites like it that way Now waiting for the smart grid white nights to come along...... I know that Iowa is a "buy back" state, but also know that the utility company won't buy it for the same rate you pay for it. However for me i would just like to be able to tell my local utiliy to get f#$%d and have the independence.Go here and see the wattage used by various household products. http://www.grahams.com.au/Calculator-Power-Home.html Don't forget that lights and electronics are minor users, yet the most common users we think of. Water heaters, ovens/stoves, pretty much anything that creates heat are energy hogs. With a very expensive alternative energy (creation & storage) setup, you might be able to live off the grid if you never wanted anything hot/heated/cooked again. Until then, your power company is there to deliver the goods. |
|
Diane Feinstein has already blocked plans to place any solar/wind generator "farms" in the California deserts. I don't know where these new solar & wind farms are going to be placed, we already have liberal lawmakers copping the NIMBY attitudes in opposing them. As for residential solar, my wife & I have had serious negotiations with a local solar installer; they use the newer, light-weight panels that won't require any roof reinforcements. BUT, the intense desert heat does degrade the panels over time, and hail storms will damage them (we are subject to one or two per year, especially where we live on the west end of the valley at the base of the mountain range). COST is the major obstacle for us right now: $35K-$40K for a complete system (panels, inverters, batteries, cut-in breaker panel, installation, etc...). Right now it would take us 12-15 years to recoup that expenditure, if electrical rates remain similar to now. BUT, we want to be out of this home in 5-7 years, preparing for retirement & moving to another region. So why would we pay all that money just for someone else to enjoy the fruits of our labor (insert Dem/Obongo joke here)? Or have to worry about damage during hail or other unusual weather? However, when we retire & move onto our retirement "compound," it WILL be completely solar & wind-powered, with propane generator backup, and be completely OFF THE GRID (cell phones for telecom; lots of different Interwebs access options like via cellular company Air Cards or satellite internet providers; DirecTV for TV; septic & well; etc...). I don't want another utility bill when we retire, and I don't mind doing maintenance on our own provider equipment (or calling for service to be done on it). |
|
Quoted:
I wish the money that has been dumped into wind turbines here had gone into several nuclear plants! It is silly how much is being shoved into windmills that produce only 38% of the time. Nukes have financing issues. That's the biggest reason that they aren't built. |
|
To be truly self sufficient solar panels, would be used to supply the house during the day, as well as crack hydrogen from water. The hydrogen could be stored and used to power a fuel cell or micro turbine when solar wasn't available. You could also install a battery system, but I'm not a fan of battery systems because they're expensive and have a fairly short shelf life.
You could also save money and energy by using the solar cells to drive electronics directly thus bypassing the device's switching power supply and the solar panel inverter, essentially using DC distribution. Huge amounts of energy are wasted driving power supplies for cell phones, PC's etc. Talk about coming full circle considering Westinghouse wanted to use DC over 100 years ago. I know at the time AC was better I just find it historically interesting. This is more of a distributed generation scheme and unlikely in the next 5 years. |
|
Quoted:
Really, I would like to see how much energy the factories that produce all the parts for a windmill use (plus the energy used to transport the parts to the site, put it up, connect it, etc.) Versus the amount of energy that the windmill will produce. Then do a google search using the keyword Energy Return On Investment. EROI. |
| I remember the power company back home had an option where you could choose to have your power come from either wind or hydroelectric, but the rate was higher. I don't remember by how much exactly. For a low income household, though the higher rate made it not worthwhile. I think that if you didn't pay for it coming from one of these sources the power was provided from coal, but I could be wrong about that. |
|
On a small scale, I think alternative energy has its place.
For enough energy to supply for the progress of humanity, we need an EXCESS of energy, to allow for growth. Having just enough will stifle the human condition and society will stagnate. Look at countries that don't have adequate electrial supply and look at their society and how they progress. Large scale "social" projects are not worthwhile. |
|
Simply put:
IT'S A GADDAMN HIPPIE/COMMIE THING! STUPID LIBERALS WITH THE ANTICARBONS AND THE TAXES AND THE HIPPIE THING AND THE OBAMAS AND ALASKA ANDS BEARS AND NATIONAL OIL PARKS AND I'LL BURN TIRES AND SPILL OIL AND TAXES AND TERRORISTS AND PIRATES AND NORTH VS SOUTH AND WHO THE FUCK ARE THEY TO TELL ME WHAT TO DO AND I'LL LIGHT CIGARS WITH DOLLAR BILLS IF I WANT TO. Okay, I believe that sums it up and save a lot of posting for a lot of members. |
|
Quoted:
Yes they are inconsistant - if it's cloudy, no solar, if it's windy, no turbine. But a good coombination of both combined with monitoring and adjusting your power consumption could, i think, make it a worthwhile investment. Solar panels still work when it is cloudy. Just not as well. And they work well in cold climates because they are more efficient in cold temperatures. Combining sources is the only way to make them work as a significant source of supply. |
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
Note that I'm very PRO alternative energy, but one must look at it with a rational perspective. [sarcasm] So you mean that current alternative energy output, being doubled (currently it is 1% of energy output now) will not gain us enery dependency as the messiah has proclaimed? [sarcasm] Obama seems to have taxed away my text originally in this post... 
|
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
I wish the money that has been dumped into wind turbines here had gone into several nuclear plants! It is silly how much is being shoved into windmills that produce only 38% of the time. Nukes have financing issues. That's the biggest reason that they aren't built. There are at least 5 plants actually in the early stages of construction right now. GA, Florida and Texas I believe are the states. |
|
Quoted:
Don't forget that lights and electronics are minor users, yet the most common users we think of. Water heaters, ovens/stoves, pretty much anything that creates heat are energy hogs. With a very expensive alternative energy (creation & storage) setup, you might be able to live off the grid if you never wanted anything hot/heated/cooked again. Until then, your power company is there to deliver the goods. That is unrealistic. For one thing, there are solar hot water systems and solar space heating which can heat houses and hot water. Efficiency is also a key, and is cheaper than generation from any source. |
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
I wish the money that has been dumped into wind turbines here had gone into several nuclear plants! It is silly how much is being shoved into windmills that produce only 38% of the time. Nukes have financing issues. That's the biggest reason that they aren't built. There are at least 5 plants actually in the early stages of construction right now. GA, Florida and Texas I believe are the states. I'm all for nukes... but most of them never get past the early stages. |
|
There are home wind turbines that look pretty good and affordable... but I'd like to see their real cost... as in without .gov subsidies. There are home solar that I think look fine. They still seem to be rather expensive and require a lot of maintenance and are fragile. I also would like to see what their real cost is. I wonder what a hurricane would do to both systems as well as various other common weather phenomenon. Nothing is designed to withstand Tornadoes. Most if not all "alternative" energies are less efficient if not negatively efficient then the energy systems they seek to replace. I would love to see our energy generation spread out to every home. It tickles my independent libertarian bone. It would harden us against EMP attacks too. But I don't think the Tech is quite there yet. For the time being I really want to see many many more Nuclear Plants built. You can build one in my back yard... All I ask is a direct line. |
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
Because they aren't that efficient right now and way to much resources go into making/maintaining them. Nuclear power is the most green of all right now, but the hippies don't want it... They are efficient enough. Like the engineer says below, input energy is free. Cost per watt needs to drop, more than anything. You don't think that cost per watt has anything to do with the cost of production and maintenance on the source of power? Yea, it is high because of efficiency. |
|
Quoted:
Simply put: IT'S A GADDAMN HIPPIE/COMMIE THING! STUPID LIBERALS WITH THE ANTICARBONS AND THE TAXES AND THE HIPPIE THING AND THE OBAMAS AND ALASKA ANDS BEARS AND NATIONAL OIL PARKS AND I'LL BURN TIRES AND SPILL OIL AND TAXES AND TERRORISTS AND PIRATES AND NORTH VS SOUTH AND WHO THE FUCK ARE THEY TO TELL ME WHAT TO DO AND I'LL LIGHT CIGARS WITH DOLLAR BILLS IF I WANT TO. Okay, I believe that sums it up and save a lot of posting for a lot of members. Ha. I don't buy into the "go green" concept and really don't believe my carbon footprint will minimize when i die, probably just make more oil in a few thousand years . But I am all for giving ME and MINE the ablility to produce my own and be a little more self suficient. Could care less 'bout what Al Gore says. I just want some homegrown Kw/Hrs!
|
|
Quoted: I wish the money that has been dumped into wind turbines here had gone into several nuclear plants! It is silly how much is being shoved into windmills that produce only 38% of the time. They didn't build them for generating electricity. They are there to get tax savings. |
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
Don't forget that lights and electronics are minor users, yet the most common users we think of. Water heaters, ovens/stoves, pretty much anything that creates heat are energy hogs. With a very expensive alternative energy (creation & storage) setup, you might be able to live off the grid if you never wanted anything hot/heated/cooked again. Until then, your power company is there to deliver the goods. That is unrealistic. For one thing, there are solar hot water systems and solar space heating which can heat houses and hot water. Efficiency is also a key, and is cheaper than generation from any source. True. I have seen solar stoves that can cook entire meals. The only trade off is it isn't a 'right here/right now' thing, takes several hours to do. |
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
I have a good friend who's an electrician. (Owns his own business.) He been taking a ton of training classes in solar and related tech over the last few years. The technology is progressing by leaps and bounds. According to him, the only reason home solar isn't more popular is because so many folks are ignorant of the technology... and, it's ugly. His aunt and uncle have a solar system on their house in upstate NY. The only electric bill they pay is the service connection charge for being hooked into the grid. My GF and I plan on moving to the Southwest when I retire. We will definitely have a solar system, for electricity and hot water. Do you have any idea how much it cost his Aunt & Uncle to set that up? I just read on one website that the panels can withstand 2" hail at 72mph. While I don't know how much their system cost, my buddy told me a system for a medium sized home would probably come in under 50K installed, after tax breaks. However, as the technology is progressing, they prices are dropping. Now, he did tell me that he felt the industry's timeline of 7 years to make back your investment was a bit "optimistic" at this time. However, say 5 years down the road? The efficiency of the technology should be at a point where that's easily doable. Even if it took longer... if you're planning on staying put for 20 or 30 years? It certainly bears looking into. At least IMO. And, for modern systems, maintence and upkeep are minimal, both in terms of effort and cost. |