Post by: old school on June 25, 2008, 02:30:55 PM
The first one is renewable energy. Things like solar, wind and hydro-electric are sources of power that the individual can use to be self reliant. If the right champions self reliance and smaller infrastructure, why would they be the loudest voice on renewable energy sources? Why wouldn't they be the ones to want to be free from the grid, and in a larger sense, foreign oil? Instead we seem to have this trend of people on the left talking about solar, wind and hydro as if it was thier initiative. I think this is a bit strange because the left's demographic is primarily urban and suburban. It it obviously much less pratical for city dwellers to implement those alternative installations than it is for rural residents.
The other topic that amazes me is high percentage of natural medicine patrons are lefties. My wife is a DOM (Doctor of Oriental Medicine). She practices acupuncture, massage and herbal medicine. She tells me that alot of people that I would define as righties have really strange ideas natural cures. She said that many who come to her for help are on as many as 6 different pharmaceuticals for various health complaints. Things like high cholestoral, headaches and many other common problems. When she tells them, for example, that they can use red yeast rice to control thier high cholestoral in place of meds like lipitor, without the common side effects like leg pain and cramping and weakness, many of them actually say things like: "I will have to talk to my pastor to make sure it is ok" or " I am christian and I am not sure if should be taking anything that is buddist". I seriously don't know how my wife keeps a straight face. If it were me I would have said: "are you kidding lady? its rice! you plant it and it grows out of the dirt". Are pharmaceuticals holy?
Post by: AZRedhawk44 on June 25, 2008, 02:41:42 PM
Contrast the Bush ranch at Crawford Texas, with the Gore house that uses 213,000+ KWh a year.
I can't remember all the points made, but I read an article awhile back contrasting the two homes. The Bush ranch has some sort of centralized heat pump that interfaces with the well and cycles air through the house, saving AC costs. It has a solar system... it doesn't provide 100% of the power, but it ain't bad. There were a few other neat things going on too.
Gore just has oodles of crap, on the city grid, offices and server datacenters in his house.
Post by: MechAg94 on June 25, 2008, 02:43:35 PM
2. Not everyone who is Christian is a "righty". Haven't you ever heard the term "well meaning old lady" or something along those lines? They were referring to a lefist commie.
3. Not all Christian churches are the same. Without knowing more, I can't comment on that angle. I think there are also a lot of Christians who have never read the Bible are not real clear on what it says in the first place.
4. Non-prescription cures have been around for hundreds of years and were often passed on mother to daughter in our own country. My mother is a nurse and she has mentioned a number of basic things she learned from her grandmothers that the doctors she worked with didn't know.
Post by: longeyes on June 25, 2008, 02:44:40 PM
Post by: roo_ster on June 25, 2008, 03:28:46 PM
You might enjoy Rod Dreher's book "Crunchy Cons."
He made the argument that the stuff like you listed, as well as other granola-thingys are conservative.
I don't think he made his case, as I believe the crunchies are making hay out of what are lifestyle choices.
Post by: old school on June 25, 2008, 05:33:05 PM
You make a good point.
Contrast the Bush ranch at Crawford Texas, with the Gore house that uses 213,000+ KWh a year.
I can't remember all the points made, but I read an article awhile back contrasting the two homes. The Bush ranch has some sort of centralized heat pump that interfaces with the well and cycles air through the house, saving AC costs. It has a solar system... it doesn't provide 100% of the power, but it ain't bad. There were a few other neat things going on too.
Gore just has oodles of crap, on the city grid, offices and server datacenters in his house.
Contrast the Bush ranch at Crawford Texas, with the Gore house that uses 213,000+ KWh a year.
I can't remember all the points made, but I read an article awhile back contrasting the two homes. The Bush ranch has some sort of centralized heat pump that interfaces with the well and cycles air through the house, saving AC costs. It has a solar system... it doesn't provide 100% of the power, but it ain't bad. There were a few other neat things going on too.
Gore just has oodles of crap, on the city grid, offices and server datacenters in his house.
That is a prime example and a perfect illustration of the point.
Post by: yesitsloaded on June 25, 2008, 05:42:09 PM
Post by: longeyes on June 25, 2008, 05:45:58 PM
By the way, you don't have to be a Christian Fundamentalist to have doubts about "natural medicine." A lot of it is scientifically ungrounded. That is not to say that I am a proponent of pharming yourself to the max; I'm not.
Post by: old school on June 25, 2008, 07:08:52 PM
The Left is not about renewable energy; it is about de-industrializing America and cutting this nation down to size. I'd call it Romanticism run amok but it's really more toxic and more dangerous than that. If you want "hazmat" problems step into the minds of many people on the Left today.
By the way, you don't have to be a Christian Fundamentalist to have doubts about "natural medicine." A lot of it is scientifically ungrounded. That is not to say that I am a proponent of pharming yourself to the max; I'm not.
By the way, you don't have to be a Christian Fundamentalist to have doubts about "natural medicine." A lot of it is scientifically ungrounded. That is not to say that I am a proponent of pharming yourself to the max; I'm not.
It would be silly to think of renewable energy as de-industrializing america. It has the capability to do just the opposite. If we consider alternative energy devices like solar panels, wind turbines and hydroelectric generators as a replacement for some of the oil that we purchase from foreign sources, we can pay americans for the labor of engineering, producing and installing these products as opposed shipping out ever shrinking dollars off to the middle east and south america. These jobs will be good long term stable jobs too because the technology around these devices is constantly evolving which means maintenance and upgrades will also produce a source of work for people in that industry.
As far as doubt about natural medicine goes. The term natural medicine is a huge umbrella. And yes, there is some serious quackery out there. It definately makes it harder for the legitimate practitioners having those kooks out there. However, there are alot of self appointed experts out there that seem to think that their PHD qualifies them to debunk everything that they don't understand. There is a site called skepdic dot com that is an absolute cesspool of arogant ignorance. That guy basically thinks that anything that was not in his college text book in 1974 is bunk. So, that door swings both ways.
Post by: Headless Thompson Gunner on June 25, 2008, 07:20:27 PM
Access to energy is almost a form of freedom and political power. Energy allows you to do what you want, when you want, how you want (travel, produce, prosper, etc). Ya think the Left is going to stand for that?
I'll bet you a beer that the moment any of the alternative forms of energy becomes viable on a large scale, without government mandates or handouts, the left will invent some phony reason to hate it like they hated oil and coal.
Post by: longeyes on June 25, 2008, 07:20:47 PM
Post by: Headless Thompson Gunner on June 25, 2008, 07:23:19 PM
The Left is not about renewable energy; it is about de-industrializing America and cutting this nation down to size. I'd call it Romanticism run amok but it's really more toxic and more dangerous than that. If you want "hazmat" problems step into the minds of many people on the Left today.
By the way, you don't have to be a Christian Fundamentalist to have doubts about "natural medicine." A lot of it is scientifically ungrounded. That is not to say that I am a proponent of pharming yourself to the max; I'm not.
By the way, you don't have to be a Christian Fundamentalist to have doubts about "natural medicine." A lot of it is scientifically ungrounded. That is not to say that I am a proponent of pharming yourself to the max; I'm not.
It would be silly to think of renewable energy as de-industrializing america. It has the capability to do just the opposite.
I'll say it again. The moment any alternative energy source becomes viable in the mainstream it'll be treated just like the current mainstream energy sources. The Left will try to limit your ability to access it and benefit from it.
Post by: old school on June 25, 2008, 08:44:01 PM
Quote
The moment any alternative energy source becomes viable in the mainstream it'll be treated just like the current mainstream energy sources. The Left will try to limit your ability to access it and benefit from it.
I offer this perspective on this one. The people that have the most to lose from renewable energy are the companies that supply you the energy comodities that you are currently dependant on. These people just happen to the be the richest and most powerful people in the world. Just understand that anyone who has the ultimate golden goose will do anything to protect it.
Before you whip out the old standard liberal left socailist conspiracy, look to see who it really is that has you over the "barrel" (pun intended). Oil companies are actively and aggressively buying solar panel and battery/technology companies at an alarming rate. They tell us that they are doing it because they care about the future of mankind (insert inspiring violin music here). The reality is that they are doing two things: 1) they are hedging their bet and investing. 2) They are buying up the competitive threat to their business model.
Oil companies are buying companies and then suppressing new techology to slow down the progress and even taken products of their new aquisitions off of the american market. The next thing that people need to be careful of is where they get their information regarding the capabilities and performance of renewable energy sources like solar electric. Oil companies fund studies and front massive counter intellegence and propaganda campaigns to mislead consumers about the feasibility of renewable energy.
What would it mean if you could produce your own electricity for your home. What would it mean if you could charge your electric car with you own home produced electricity and drive all day without paying anyone a dime for fuel? What would happen to the oil companies? Put the right vs. left and partisan agenda aside and look at what that could mean for your own life. I don't know how it looks to you, but that kind of independence and freedom sure looks good to me.
Post by: Firethorn on June 26, 2008, 04:04:40 AM
By the way, you don't have to be a Christian Fundamentalist to have doubts about "natural medicine." A lot of it is scientifically ungrounded. That is not to say that I am a proponent of pharming yourself to the max; I'm not.
I think that it was more a wtf that eating some yeast was an issue to take up with a pastor; the majority of christians today don't hold any dietary restrictions from their religion. Even then, yeast shouldn't trigger any problems - except on a relatively few days a year. After all, anytime you're drinking wine, beer, or eating bread you're eating yeast products.
It wouldn't have been a wtf if they'd said 'I want to talk to my doctor about this'.
Oh, and the 'Right' supports green energy, pollution reduction, etc... Just as soon as it makes economic sense. Then it'd no longer be 'alternate' and be a primary generation source.
Quote from: old school
Before you whip out the old standard liberal left socailist conspiracy, look to see who it really is that has you over the "barrel" (pun intended). Oil companies are actively and aggressively buying solar panel and battery/technology companies at an alarming rate. They tell us that they are doing it because they care about the future of mankind (insert inspiring violin music here). The reality is that they are doing two things: 1) they are hedging their bet and investing. 2) They are buying up the competitive threat to their business model.
1. Diversification is a smart idea for them; oil isn't going to last forever, use the big profits now to become an 'energy' company and stay around when oil peaks or plunges. It wasn't that long ago that many oil companies went bankrupt due to low oil prices.2. How are solar panels a threat to an oil company? Solar panels don't produce asphalt, plastic, or enough power per area to power a car even if it covers the car*
3. I wouldn't say that their buying battery tech is going to mean them sitting on the patents. Too much money available by marketing them. Not to mention the now absolutely huge portable electronic industry. Don't forget that there's about six different competing chemistries at the moment.
Quote
What would it mean if you could produce your own electricity for your home. What would it mean if you could charge your electric car with you own home produced electricity and drive all day without paying anyone a dime for fuel? What would happen to the oil companies? Put the right vs. left and partisan agenda aside and look at what that could mean for your own life. I don't know how it looks to you, but that kind of independence and freedom sure looks good to me.
1. Already possible, just not normally economic
2. More difficult, like #1, grid power is generally cheaper. Turbine would probably be better than solar panels if you want to charge your EV at night. SP->HomeBat->CarBat just isn't financially or energy efficient. Swapping a multi-hundred pound battery pack would be difficult for many. Then there's the whole expense of maintaining two battery banks.
3. The oil companies would still make a decent living providing oil to lubricate the motors and shafts, plastic precursers, tar and such for road construction and maintenance, long range travel, etc... Besides, they've bought solar companies and such, remember? They're the ones selling you the solar panels you put on the roof.
4. Looks good to me as well, but I'm also aware that I can maintain far more in the way of fiscal assets right now by buying my power as I need it.
*Exception for the special purpose vehicles used down in australia for the race- using solar panels 2X as efficient and 100X as expensive as regular ones, barely enough power to push a light human at 25mph, no cargo space, in one of the sunniest places in the world.
Post by: Headless Thompson Gunner on June 26, 2008, 08:13:36 AM
What would it mean if you could produce your own electricity for your home. What would it mean if you could charge your electric car with you own home produced electricity and drive all day without paying anyone a dime for fuel? What would happen to the oil companies? Put the right vs. left and partisan agenda aside and look at what that could mean for your own life. I don't know how it looks to you, but that kind of independence and freedom sure looks good to me.
Mark my words, even if the technology is available someday, peasants like you won't be able to use it freely. There will surely be some sort of financial or bureaucratic restrictions put in place. This isn't a Left vs Right thing, this isn't a Fat-Cat Oil Barons protecting their empires conspiracy. It's simply a matter of government and control.Cheap and easy energy for all is a bad thing if you're the type who likes to control how other people live their lives. It doesn't matter where that cheap energy comes from. Those people will despise any form of cheap easy energy, whether from mainstream sources (oil or coal), or from alternative sources that are viable today (nuclear), or from sources that aren't viable today but might be some day in the future (solar).
There are simply too many people in the political arena that think they should be able to tell you how to live your life. The vast majority of those people are on the far Left, but since you don't like to look at things in terms of left vs right, you can simply ignore who it is that wants to control your life and focus instead on what they're trying to do.
Post by: old school on June 26, 2008, 10:11:08 AM
Quote
Mark my words, even if the technology is available someday, peasants like you won't be able to use it freely. There will surely be some sort of financial or bureaucratic restrictions put in place. This isn't a Left vs Right thing, this isn't a Fat-Cat Oil Barons protecting their empires conspiracy. It's simply a matter of government and control.
Ok, no need to Mark your words.
The reality is that Solar Electric Energy systems are available and in use today. They are in use by everyday people with everyday incomes. And, as long as you are not over mortgaged or in poverty, you can have one too.
In fact,you can buy a system for a < 2000 square foot house that will power everything for about 25k. Most people who cannot pay cash can finance these systems with a home improvement loan. The system will pay for itself in energy production in 15 to 20 years at the current cost of electricity in most areas. After the system pays for itself, you are getting free electricity for the rest of the systems life span.
The government is not working against you in any capacity in regards to home renewable energy systems at this point. In fact, the federal and state governments actually have incentive package tax write offs available for people people who install them.
Post by: old school on June 26, 2008, 11:01:51 AM
Oh, and the 'Right' supports green energy, pollution reduction, etc... Just as soon as it makes economic sense. Then it'd no longer be 'alternate' and be a primary generation source.
1. Diversification is a smart idea for them; oil isn't going to last forever, use the big profits now to become an 'energy' company and stay around when oil peaks or plunges. It wasn't that long ago that many oil companies went bankrupt due to low oil prices.
2. How are solar panels a threat to an oil company? Solar panels don't produce asphalt, plastic, or enough power per area to power a car even if it covers the car*
3. I wouldn't say that their buying battery tech is going to mean them sitting on the patents. Too much money available by marketing them. Not to mention the now absolutely huge portable electronic industry. Don't forget that there's about six different competing chemistries at the moment.
Quote
What would it mean if you could produce your own electricity for your home. What would it mean if you could charge your electric car with you own home produced electricity and drive all day without paying anyone a dime for fuel? What would happen to the oil companies? Put the right vs. left and partisan agenda aside and look at what that could mean for your own life. I don't know how it looks to you, but that kind of independence and freedom sure looks good to me.
1. Already possible, just not normally economic
2. More difficult, like #1, grid power is generally cheaper. Turbine would probably be better than solar panels if you want to charge your EV at night. SP->HomeBat->CarBat just isn't financially or energy efficient. Swapping a multi-hundred pound battery pack would be difficult for many. Then there's the whole expense of maintaining two battery banks.
3. The oil companies would still make a decent living providing oil to lubricate the motors and shafts, plastic precursers, tar and such for road construction and maintenance, long range travel, etc... Besides, they've bought solar companies and such, remember? They're the ones selling you the solar panels you put on the roof.
4. Looks good to me as well, but I'm also aware that I can maintain far more in the way of fiscal assets right now by buying my power as I need it.
*Exception for the special purpose vehicles used down in australia for the race- using solar panels 2X as efficient and 100X as expensive as regular ones, barely enough power to push a light human at 25mph, no cargo space, in one of the sunniest places in the world.
I agree with most everything you have said here. However, I will point out that the oil industries are absolutely suppressing new battery technology in regards to technologies that are relevant for electric cars.
And, don't even consider what would happen to the oil industry in general if they lost the ability to sell oil as a fuel. Plastics, lubricants and other by products are nice sources of additional income for them but, make no mistake, the money in oil as a fuel source. Those other industries are a mere small fraction of thier income.
I would also offer that alternative energies are by definition alternate because they are not mainstream. Not because they are not worthy or ready to be mainstream. There is a really great project going on in the Nevada desert right now that I will be watching with interest. It is a full scale high end solar electric power plant.
Here is a link to the plants website:
http://www.nevadasolarone.net
For anyone else who wants an excellent website that covers renewable energy in a scientific and responsible way check out:
http://www.renewableenergyworld.com/rea/news/story?id=43336
Post by: old school on June 26, 2008, 11:27:56 AM
http://www.technologyreview.com/Energy/21006/
Mc Mcain's 300m reward.
I don't know if it is sincere or just a campaign ploy but I will take progress any way I can get it. This election could be a great opportunity for the republicans to show they are just as, or more committed to progress than the democrats.
Post by: Headless Thompson Gunner on June 26, 2008, 11:47:13 AM
In fact,you can buy a system for a < 2000 square foot house that will power everything for about 25k.
No, I can't. Last time I priced a solar system for my house it would've cost north of $40k, and it wouldn't have worked a third of the year. The efficiency of PV panels just isn't high enough, and much of the country just doesn't get enough sun.Most people who cannot pay cash can finance these systems with a home improvement loan. The system will pay for itself in energy production in 15 to 20 years at the current cost of electricity in most areas. After the system pays for itself, you are getting free electricity for the rest of the systems life span.
Maybe if you live in the deep south or southwest, but probably not anywhere else. By the time you paid off the loan, the system would have lost enough efficiency that you'd probably have to replace it. In most cases, the cost of financing a solar system would exceed the cost of buying power from the grid.The government is not working against you in any capacity in regards to home renewable energy systems at this point. In fact, the federal and state governments actually have incentive package tax write offs available for people people who install them.
That much is true. Anything will become economical if the government foots enough of the bill. But government paying for everyone's solar system isn't a scalable solution. If enough people start using the government to pay for their solar systems, then our tax bills would rise by more than the cost of each of our individual systems. Government paying for everyone's system it would make it cost even more. On a large scale, government subsidized solar systems are even less economical than individually-funded systems, which in most cases are already uneconomical.Solar technology is cool, don't get me wrong. But it just isn't there yet. Perhaps in another decade it will be. Until then, the local power plant is far and away the best choice for electrical power for most people.
Post by: old school on June 26, 2008, 12:23:01 PM
40K is a rip off for a 2000 square foot house. There are a few contractors around here who price like that and as you may have guessed they are pretty lonely. You also have to be pretty active on your research before you buy. The technology is changing pretty rapidly these days and you don't want to be the sucker who buys up the old technology some warehouse is trying to get rid of.
There was an article in the newspaper in the winter about a couple in South Florida who did an install on their winter home in Sarasota. It is a grid tie system. They actually get checks from Florida Power for the energy they sell back to the grid. They also expect a payback period of about 15 years.
The technology that I find really exciting is solar panel shingles. They actually replace regular shingle in a similar mounting fashion. However, they are not nearly as efficient as the silicon panels. Alot of the new nano technology advances may solve that problem soon.
Solar is definately ready now and a pretty good return on investment if you do the research and negotiate a competitive price. However, I do agree that it will be even more impressive in another 10 years.
Post by: longeyes on June 26, 2008, 12:31:08 PM
By the way, those rich energy producers you dislike so much created the greatest industrial nation with the most prosperous people in history. They have nothing to apologize for. I'll take an evil capitalist over a benevolent feudalist any day.
Post by: Headless Thompson Gunner on June 26, 2008, 12:31:19 PM
I would also offer that alternative energies are by definition alternate because they are not mainstream. Not because they are not worthy or ready to be mainstream.
I'm sorry, but with one exception this simply isn't true. If the alternatives could outperform the mainstreams, either in capability or in cost, then people would switch to the alternative. The alternative would supplant the old mainstream, or at the very least they'd vie against the mainstream. Fact is, the alternatives remain alternatives because they don't work well enough yet, except in very limited circumstances.The only alternative energy source that could compete with the mainstream sources right now is nuclear electrical generation. We should be building nuke plants left and right.
Post by: Headless Thompson Gunner on June 26, 2008, 12:44:12 PM
40K is a rip off for a 2000 square foot house. There are a few contractors around here who price like that and as you may have guessed they are pretty lonely. You also have to be pretty active on your research before you buy. The technology is changing pretty rapidly these days and you don't want to be the sucker who buys up the old technology some warehouse is trying to get rid of.
The relevant factors in the cost of a solar electrical system are the power output needed and the amount of sun the location gets. The size of the house doesn't matter at all. So how is it that yo can say that $40k for a 2000 SF house is a ripoff?There was an article in the newspaper in the winter about a couple in South Florida who did an install on their winter home in Sarasota. It is a grid tie system. They actually get checks from Florida Power for the energy they sell back to the grid. They also expect a payback period of about 15 years.
Most of the country isn't located in sunny south Florida. As I said earlier, solar generally doesn't work except in the south.The technology that I find really exciting is solar panel shingles. They actually replace regular shingle in a similar mounting fashion. However, they are not nearly as efficient as the silicon panels. Alot of the new nano technology advances may solve that problem soon.
Solar is definately ready now and a pretty good return on investment if you do the research and negotiate a competitive price. However, I do agree that it will be even more impressive in another 10 years.
Except in limited, specific circumstances, solar doesn't work worth a darn. No amount of research or negotiating will get more sun to fall on my home in Indiana. Heck, we don't have any sunny days for 3 months out of the year.Solar is definately ready now and a pretty good return on investment if you do the research and negotiate a competitive price. However, I do agree that it will be even more impressive in another 10 years.
Technology may some day advance to the point where the northern two thirds of the country can get meaningful amounts of power from solar panels. The cells need to become much more efficient, and they need to become much less expensive. The new thin film and roll printing technologies look promising, but we just aren't there yet.
Solar works in specific, isolated circumstances, but it absolutely isn't ready for the mainstream today.
Post by: old school on June 26, 2008, 12:53:25 PM
I would also offer that alternative energies are by definition alternate because they are not mainstream. Not because they are not worthy or ready to be mainstream.
I'm sorry, but with one exception this simply isn't true. If the alternatives could outperform the mainstreams, either in capability or in cost, then people would switch to the alternative. The alternative would supplant the old mainstream, or at the very least they'd vie against the mainstream. Fact is, the alternatives remain alternatives because they don't work well enough yet, except in very limited circumstances.The only alternative energy source that could compete with the mainstream sources right now is nuclear electrical generation. We should be building nuke plants left and right.
It will not be overnight. Change takes time. Alternatives will slowly integrate and then suplant the old fossil fuel technologies. Remember, our entire infrastructure is based on fossil fuel. The first large scale alternatives are just being constructed.
As far as Nuclear goes, that is completely incorrect. Not one single american nuclear powerplant in history has ever paid for itself. They are a fascinating technology but they are far from practical. And, even beyond their economic shortcomings, there is the issue of the radio active waste. There is just no rational argument for the production of nuclear waste. There is just no way to get rid of it. It is the ultimate case of crapping where you live.
Post by: Nick1911 on June 26, 2008, 12:56:17 PM
I would also offer that alternative energies are by definition alternate because they are not mainstream. Not because they are not worthy or ready to be mainstream.
I'm sorry, but with one exception this simply isn't true. If the alternatives could outperform the mainstreams, either in capability or in cost, then people would switch to the alternative. The alternative would supplant the old mainstream, or at the very least they'd vie against the mainstream. Fact is, the alternatives remain alternatives because they don't work well enough yet, except in very limited circumstances.The only alternative energy source that could compete with the mainstream sources right now is nuclear electrical generation. We should be building nuke plants left and right.
It will not be overnight. Change takes time. Alternatives will slowly integrate and then suplant the old fossil fuel technologies. Remember, our entire infrastructure is based on fossil fuel. The first large scale alternatives are just being constructed.
As far as Nuclear goes, that is completely incorrect. Not one single american nuclear powerplant in history has ever paid for itself. They are a fascinating technology but they are far from practical. And, even beyond their economic shortcomings, there is the issue of the radio active waste. There is just no rational argument for the production of nuclear waste. There is just no way to get rid of it. It is the ultimate case of crapping where you live.
Got a source for that?
Post by: BridgeRunner on June 26, 2008, 12:57:57 PM
And, even beyond their economic shortcomings, there is the issue of the radio active waste. There is just no rational argument for the production of nuclear waste. There is just no way to get rid of it. It is the ultimate case of crapping where you live.
And pollution from coal-fired plants isn't? At least I wouldn't have to inhale the nuclear waste.
Post by: old school on June 26, 2008, 01:11:23 PM
40K is a rip off for a 2000 square foot house. There are a few contractors around here who price like that and as you may have guessed they are pretty lonely. You also have to be pretty active on your research before you buy. The technology is changing pretty rapidly these days and you don't want to be the sucker who buys up the old technology some warehouse is trying to get rid of.
The relevant factors in the cost of a solar electrical system are the power output needed and the amount of sun the location gets. The size of the house doesn't matter at all. So how is it that yo can say that $40k for a 2000 SF house is a ripoff?There was an article in the newspaper in the winter about a couple in South Florida who did an install on their winter home in Sarasota. It is a grid tie system. They actually get checks from Florida Power for the energy they sell back to the grid. They also expect a payback period of about 15 years.
Most of the country isn't located in sunny south Florida. As I said earlier, solar generally doesn't work except in the south.The technology that I find really exciting is solar panel shingles. They actually replace regular shingle in a similar mounting fashion. However, they are not nearly as efficient as the silicon panels. Alot of the new nano technology advances may solve that problem soon.
Solar is definately ready now and a pretty good return on investment if you do the research and negotiate a competitive price. However, I do agree that it will be even more impressive in another 10 years.
Except in limited, specific circumstances, solar doesn't work worth a darn. No amount of research or negotiating will get more sun to fall on my home in Indiana. Heck, we don't have any sunny days for 3 months out of the year.Solar is definately ready now and a pretty good return on investment if you do the research and negotiate a competitive price. However, I do agree that it will be even more impressive in another 10 years.
Technology may some day advance to the point where the northern two thirds of the country can get meaningful amounts of power from solar panels. The cells need to become much more efficient, and they need to become much less expensive. The new thin film and roll printing technologies look promising, but we just are there yet.
Solar works in specific, isolated circumstances, but it absolutely isn't ready for the mainstream today.
I think the technology you are talking about is few years behind what is actually available now. Also, you can easily estimate the average household energy usage based on square footage. The real energy hog in most homes is the heating and/or air conditioning. Weather extemes can change the formula a lot. But, for the most part, it is pretty standard.
Your great lakes weather is definately not as good as Florida for Solar Electric. However, you do have a lot of good wind up there for turbines. You could use a grid tie inverter hooked up to a couple good turbines and get a good return on investment.
For the record, I have no problem with oil companies or coal mines. They supply it and we buy it. It doesn't get any better than that. I have a problem with them suppressing new technology. But hey, they are oil companies protecting their business model. It is what you should expect from them. My goal is to wake people up.
I want to inspire people to be suspicious of any entity in a position of power. Be it governement or the powerfully wealthy. There is a sentiment on this forum that you have to choose sides between big governement and big business. I say be suspicious and skeptical of both. Neither one of them neccessarily are acting in the individual americans best interest.
Post by: old school on June 26, 2008, 01:18:06 PM
And pollution from coal-fired plants isn't? At least I wouldn't have to inhale the nuclear waste.
There you go. That is the difference between what you believe and what I believe. Your statement tells me that you think you will never have to deal with nuclear waste. You think it will never effect you so you don't care. Bury it someone elses state or at least out of your site and you are good to go.
Post by: BridgeRunner on June 26, 2008, 01:39:23 PM
There you go. That is the difference between what you believe and what I believe. Your statement tells me that you think you will never have to deal with nuclear waste. You think it will never effect you so you don't care. Bury it someone elses state or at least out of your site and you are good to go.
Nope.
I think it will never affect me as much as pollution from coal fired plants affects me and many other people.
You call nuclear power "crapping where you live". Sorry, but waste is a by-product of life. Until the turbines are all in place, and the desert is carpeted with solar panels, there's gonna be waste. And even then, there will be other kinds of waste.
Currently, there are concrete vaults of nuclear waste in temporary storage less than 200 miles away from where I sit. That is fine with me. I would prefer the slight chance of a storage accident and giving up permanently the necessary space for permanent storage over the certainty of ever increasing rates of respiratory problems.
I would rather have a sealed vault of nuclear waste in my backyard than live next door to a coal-fired power plant. However, my city needs more power, and so a new coal plant is going in next year. I can hardly wait.
Post by: old school on June 26, 2008, 01:46:25 PM
Post by: Firethorn on June 26, 2008, 02:53:24 PM
Ask and you shall receive.
Can I please have a nuclear reactor built to replace the coal one currently spewing mercury, arsenic, lead, cadmium, uranium, SO2, NOx, CO, VOC, etc... into the air I breath?
Like Bridewalker said, at least the waste from a nuke plant is contained.
Quote
Not one single american nuclear powerplant in history has ever paid for itself.
As far as I knew, all of the 100 or so currently operating plants paid for themselves a long time ago. Yes, there were some that rather spectacularly didn't - in a time when construction could be shut down by a letter written by a high school dropout.
Quote
They are a fascinating technology but they are far from practical.
The same could be said of Solar - and to a lesser extend wind. Hint: Try stripping out all the subsidization and see what your install costs for a solar system go up to and whether it still pays itself off. I spend $50-$100/month on electricity. More in the winter. That's $900/year in electricity. If the solar system costs $25k, at 7.5% and 40 years my monthly cost to pay the loan off is $164.52. Costing me nearly $100/month!
Before I'd buy that $25k system you'd have to guarantee that it'd work for 40 years, at no more than 2% interest. Heck, I could do better putting the $25k into the bank, and pay the electricity bill off the interest. Then buy solar panels or a wind turbine if it ever makes sense.
Quote
issue of the radio active waste. There is just no rational argument for the production of nuclear waste. There is just no way to get rid of it. It is the ultimate case of crapping where you live.
Hmmm... How about 'less polluting than coal!'. Getting rid of it: Bury it for 10k years. Unlike Arsenic, Lead, Mercury, or the rest, it'll be significantly less dangerous then.
Or you know, call it by it's alternate name: 'Fuel'. What we're calling 'nuclear waste' right now is still 90% fuel.
The remaining isotopes have shorter halflifes - meaning storage doesn't have to last nearly as long. So, between reprocessing reducing your true 'waste' to 10% of it's previous volume(extending Yucca 10X), and the shortened halflife, most of the problem is gone. That's without getting into some of the new techs that are promising to be able to artificially accelerate the decomposition - I think it was called electron bombardment. Bonus: Turns even the remaining waste into fuel.
You've never seen a coal ash tail, have you?
Post by: old school on June 26, 2008, 04:41:07 PM
Quote
$50-$100/month on electricity. More in the winter. That's $900/year in electricity. If the solar system costs $25k, at 7.5% and 40 years my monthly cost to pay the loan off is $164.52. Costing me nearly $100/month
If that is all the electricity you are using, you can get by with a smaller system.
As far as government subsidising energy goes. Have a look the funding and subsidies for those Nuclear plants you mention. Also Nuclear plants might be closer to economically feasible if done completely by the private sector, but it is just not possible because of the tremendous safety threat that they represent to the public.
Here is a good article about feasibility in general:
http://www.nrdc.org/nuclear/plants/plants.pdf
Here is one example of a corporate welfare Nuclear Powerplant disasters:
http://www.metroactive.com/papers/metro/07.18.96/nuclear-9628.html
Post by: Firethorn on June 26, 2008, 05:19:22 PM
If that is all the electricity you are using, you can get by with a smaller system.
Not likely.
1: I'm in North Dakota
2: I'm currently paying 8 cents or so per kwh.
I've characterized it before as 'I'm going to wait until they've installed solar in 90% of the homes south of the Mason-Dixon line'.
Heck, going by a study done by a english economist - it'd be more economical for me to buy solar power from Nevada. At least that way I'd get power during the winter.
I have looked at a wind turbine - but it'd be better for the whole town to go with it. Bigger turbines are cheaper per kwh.
Quote
As far as government subsidising energy goes. Have a look the funding and subsidies for those Nuclear plants you mention. Also Nuclear plants might be closer to economically feasible if done completely by the private sector, but it is just not possible because of the tremendous safety threat that they represent to the public.
Sure, why not
Per Megawatt hour:
Solar: $24.34
Wind $23.37
'Clean' Coal: $29.81
Nuclear: $1.59
Hydro: $.67
Coal: $.44
NG: $.25
Let's see. Nuclear power receives about a fifteenth of what solar and wind does. About double of Hydro.
Quote
Here is a good article about feasibility in general:
http://www.nrdc.org/nuclear/plants/plants.pdf
http://www.nrdc.org/nuclear/plants/plants.pdf
Nice worst case scenario 'factsheet'
I mean construction costs assume the boondongles of the 70's occur, not that other countries, such as Canada, manage to build nuclear plants much cheaper. Like $2k per kilowatt.
Quote
Here is one example of a corporate welfare Nuclear Powerplant disasters:
http://www.metroactive.com/papers/metro/07.18.96/nuclear-9628.html
http://www.metroactive.com/papers/metro/07.18.96/nuclear-9628.html
Yes, corporate screwups. Let the electric company go bankrupt, have somebody else step in to provide power. On a side note, how badly can you design a website? I have a widescreen lcd now, the article was restricted to a fifth of my screen width.
Germany Subsidizes solar $.74 per kwh.
Post by: Nick1911 on June 26, 2008, 05:27:29 PM
but it is just not possible because of the tremendous safety threat that they represent to the public.
Design has gotten better since the 70's.
Pretty interesting info Firethorn.
Post by: old school on June 26, 2008, 05:29:58 PM
Quote
Nuclear power receives about a fifteenth of what solar and wind does.
Looks like congress got that one right.....
