Re: Sierra Club Radio
f.barnes
> http://sierraclub.typepad.com/sierra_club_radio/
>
> Sierra Club Radio is a weekly half hour program produced by Sierra
> Club staff and hosted by Orli Cotel. Each week you'll hear in-depth
> interviews with politicians, authors, celebrities, artists, and
> activists inspired by nature.
>
> "How can you buy or sell the sky, the warmth of the land? The idea is strange to us. If we do not own the freshness of the air and the sparkle of the water, how can you buy them? Every part of this earth is sacred to my people. Every shining pine needle, every sandy shore, every mist in the dark woods, every clearing and humming insect is holy in the memory and experience of my people. The sap which courses through the trees carries the memories of the red man."
> (Chief Seattle, 1854)
Since 1996, leaders of the Sierra Club have refused to admit that
immigration driven, rapid U.S. population growth causes massive
environmental problems. And they have refused to acknowledge the need
to reduce U.S. immigration levels in order to stabilize the U.S.
population and protect our natural resources. Their refusal to do what
common sense says is best for the environment was a mystery for nearly
a decade.
Then, on Oct. 27, 2004, the Los Angeles Times revealed the answer:
David Gelbaum, a super rich donor, had demanded this position from the
Sierra Club in return for huge donations! Kenneth Weiss, author of the
LA Times article that broke the story, quoted what David Gelbaum said
to Sierra Club Executive Director Carl Pope:
[The Sierra Club, along with the SPLC and the ACLU, are examples of
formerly good organizations gone bad. They have all three been taken
over by the fanatical extremist pro-illegal advocates amongst them.
It's sad. They all three showed such promise, but now each of them is
doing more harm to this country than good.]
Ed The Liar
> On May 29, 9:56 am, Gray <savagegrayc...@friends.gsl> wrote:
>
> >http://sierraclub.typepad.com/sierra_club_radio/
>
> > Sierra Club Radio is a weekly half hour program produced by Sierra
> > Club staff and hosted by Orli Cotel. Each week you'll hear in-depth
> > interviews with politicians, authors, celebrities, artists, and
> > activists inspired by nature.
>
> > "How can you buy or sell the sky, the warmth of the land? The idea is strange to us. If we do not own the freshness of the air and the sparkle of the water, how can you buy them? Every part of this earth is sacred to my people. Every shining pine needle, every sandy shore, every mist in the dark woods, every clearing and humming insect is holy in the memory and experience of my people. The sap which courses through the trees carries the memories of the red man."
> > (Chief Seattle, 1854)
>
> http://www.susps.org/
>
> Since 1996, leaders of the Sierra Club have refused to admit that
> immigration driven, rapid U.S. population growth causes massive
> environmental problems.
Of course immigrants are to blame for all our problems (even Hitler
knew that), and our reliance on Muslim oil for our SUVs has nothing to
do with it. Pollution equals prosperity. It's my right to shit
where you eat, if I can make a dollar doing it. You shouldn't mind
the erosion of the environment around you, as long as you have a job
with the corporation.
Ouroboros Rex
Immigration is not relevant to this topic. Total world population is.
SUSPS is apparently a sham organization.
>
>
> [The Sierra Club, along with the SPLC and the ACLU, are examples of
> formerly good organizations gone bad. They have all three been taken
> over by the fanatical extremist pro-illegal advocates amongst them.
> It's sad. They all three showed such promise, but now each of them is
> doing more harm to this country than good.]
Made-up right wing crap.
Peter Franks
> http://sierraclub.typepad.com/sierra_club_radio/
>
> Sierra Club Radio is a weekly half hour program produced by Sierra
> Club staff and hosted by Orli Cotel. Each week you'll hear in-depth
> interviews with politicians, authors, celebrities, artists, and
> activists inspired by nature.
>
> "How can you buy or sell the sky, the warmth of the land? The idea is
>
> strange to us. If we do not own the freshness of the air and the sparkle
> of the water, how can you buy them? Every part of this earth is sacred
> to my people. Every shining pine needle, every sandy shore, every mist
> in the dark woods, every clearing and humming insect is holy in the
> memory and experience of my people. The sap which courses through the
> trees carries the memories of the red man."
>
> (Chief Seattle, 1854)
Is the white man included in that list of "every part of this earth is
sacred"?
Ouroboros Rex
Hmm, why do you ask?
Peter Franks
Is the answer to my question dependent on why I'm asking?
Ouroboros Rex
Just curious as to your singling out whites specifically. Why?
Peter Franks
No particular reason; substitute "human" if you desire.
f.barnes
And the amount of oil we burn in this country is not relevant to
global climate; if we didn't burn it someone else would.
>
>
> > [The Sierra Club, along with the SPLC and the ACLU, are examples of
> > formerly good organizations gone bad. They have all three been taken
> > over by the fanatical extremist pro-illegal advocates amongst them.
> > It's sad. They all three showed such promise, but now each of them is
> > doing more harm to this country than good.]
>
> Made-up right wing crap.- Hide quoted text -
No One
> On May 29, 11:54 am, "Ouroboros Rex" <i...@casual.com> wrote:
>> Immigration is not relevant to this topic. Total world population is.
>> SUSPS is apparently a sham organization.
>>
>
> And the amount of oil we burn in this country is not relevant to
> global climate; if we didn't burn it someone else would.
Not true. People do not burn oil for the sake of burning oil.
What will happen if we burn less oil is
1. The revenue stream to the Middle East will drop and our import
versus export balance will improve.
2. Oil prices will go down or at least not increase as
fast as otherwise.
3. If we reduce our oil consumption by using more efficient
technologies, our economy will be at less of a disadvantage
relative to countries that have invested in energy efficiency
when oil prices shoot up.
4. If we introduce new energy-efficient technologies, we can
sell that to the rest of the world. We end up with some profits
and the price of oil is pushed down as demand drops.
SaPeIsMa
"No One" <no...@nospam.pacbell.net> wrote in message
news:87k53zt...@nospam.pacbell.net...
> "f.barnes" <fre...@centurytel.net> writes:
>
>> On May 29, 11:54 am, "Ouroboros Rex" <i...@casual.com> wrote:
>
>>> Immigration is not relevant to this topic. Total world population is.
>>> SUSPS is apparently a sham organization.
>>>
>>
>> And the amount of oil we burn in this country is not relevant to
>> global climate; if we didn't burn it someone else would.
>
> Not true. People do not burn oil for the sake of burning oil.
> What will happen if we burn less oil is
>
> 1. The revenue stream to the Middle East will drop and our import
> versus export balance will improve.
>
Not when all the stuff we produce when burning that oil is not produced and
the revenue disappears.
> 2. Oil prices will go down or at least not increase as
> fast as otherwise.
>
Seee above
> 3. If we reduce our oil consumption by using more efficient
> technologies, our economy will be at less of a disadvantage
> relative to countries that have invested in energy efficiency
> when oil prices shoot up.
>
Too bad those so-called "more efficient technologies" do NOT YET exist
So therefore switching to them will INCREASE costs and cause price increases
in other areas
See food costs because corn is used (INefficiently) to produce fuel
> 4. If we introduce new energy-efficient technologies, we can
> sell that to the rest of the world. We end up with some profits
> and the price of oil is pushed down as demand drops.
Since these "new energy-efficient technologies" do NOT YET exist, you are
talking through your hat
Bert Hyman
<no...@nospam.pacbell.net> wrote:
> What will happen if we burn less oil is
>
> 1. The revenue stream to the Middle East will drop and our import
> versus export balance will improve.
>
You might want to look into where the US actually buys its oil.
--
Bert Hyman St. Paul, MN be...@iphouse.com
Matt
> Innews:87k53zt...@nospam.pacbell.netNo One
>
> <no...@nospam.pacbell.net> wrote:
> > What will happen if we burn less oil is
>
> > 1. The revenue stream to the Middle East will drop and our import
> > versus export balance will improve.
>
> You might want to look into where the US actually buys its oil.
Canada mostly. Although oil is, technically, a fungible resource, so
we do not
honestly know where it comes from.
Matt
Peter Franks
> "f.barnes" <fre...@centurytel.net> writes:
>
>> On May 29, 11:54 am, "Ouroboros Rex" <i...@casual.com> wrote:
>
>>> Immigration is not relevant to this topic. Total world population is.
>>> SUSPS is apparently a sham organization.
>>>
>> And the amount of oil we burn in this country is not relevant to
>> global climate; if we didn't burn it someone else would.
>
> Not true. People do not burn oil for the sake of burning oil.
> What will happen if we burn less oil is
>
> 1. The revenue stream to the Middle East will drop and our import
> versus export balance will improve.
>
> 2. Oil prices will go down or at least not increase as
> fast as otherwise.
>
> 3. If we reduce our oil consumption by using more efficient
> technologies, our economy will be at less of a disadvantage
> relative to countries that have invested in energy efficiency
> when oil prices shoot up.
You mean LESS efficient...
Your "more efficient" technologies cost MORE money and are LESS efficient.
> 4. If we introduce new energy-efficient technologies, we can
> sell that to the rest of the world. We end up with some profits
> and the price of oil is pushed down as demand drops.
You might want to check your math there. These so-called "new
energy-efficient technologies" are NOT LESS EXPENSIVE than current
technologies. Unless the "rest of the world" is ok w/ the idea of
spending more $$ while cheaper alternatives exists, you plan is an
exercise in failure.
Eric Gisin
Like all religions, you have your myths: Chief Seattle's speech is a hoax,
claiming there were buffalo on the west coast: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chief_Seattle
"Gray" <savageg...@friends.gsl> wrote in message
news:fptv15dlmvtp792u2...@4ax.com...
columbiaaccidentinvestigation
Seattle's speech is a hoax,
> claiming there were buffalo on the west coast:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chief_Seattle"
laughing dude you are a joke...
What A. Fool
wrote:
We probably know where every barrel comes from, include
Mexico, Alaska and South America to bring the percentage up
to about 80 or 90.
SaPeIsMa
"Eric Gisin" <gi...@uniserve.com> wrote in message
news:gvpugi$mqa$1...@news.eternal-september.org...
> Sierra Club luddites use hi-tech to spread their Gaian religion. What's
> with "guns"?
>
> Like all religions, you have your myths: Chief Seattle's speech is a hoax,
> claiming there were buffalo on the west coast:
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chief_Seattle
>
What are you talking about
I've seen them surfing of the coast of Portland
James
"Ouroboros Rex" <i...@casual.com> wrote in message
news:gvp40...@news3.newsguy.com...
No One
Oil is a commodity. If we reduce demand, the prices fall everywhere
and less money flows into the Middle East.
No One
> No One wrote:
>> "f.barnes" <fre...@centurytel.net> writes:
>>
>>> On May 29, 11:54 am, "Ouroboros Rex" <i...@casual.com> wrote:
>>
>>>> Immigration is not relevant to this topic. Total world population is.
>>>> SUSPS is apparently a sham organization.
>>>>
>>> And the amount of oil we burn in this country is not relevant to
>>> global climate; if we didn't burn it someone else would.
>>
>> Not true. People do not burn oil for the sake of burning oil.
>> What will happen if we burn less oil is
>>
>> 1. The revenue stream to the Middle East will drop and our import
>> versus export balance will improve.
>>
>> 2. Oil prices will go down or at least not increase as
>> fast as otherwise.
>>
>> 3. If we reduce our oil consumption by using more efficient
>> technologies, our economy will be at less of a disadvantage
>> relative to countries that have invested in energy efficiency
>> when oil prices shoot up.
>
> You mean LESS efficient...
>
> Your "more efficient" technologies cost MORE money and are LESS efficient.
Capital costs are sometimes a bit higher and you get more than that
back in fuel savings. If you go for best possible, costs can be
high until we get further along on the learning curve.
In some cases, the "more efficient" technologies cost less.
>> 4. If we introduce new energy-efficient technologies, we can
>> sell that to the rest of the world. We end up with some profits
>> and the price of oil is pushed down as demand drops.
>
> You might want to check your math there. These so-called "new
> energy-efficient technologies" are NOT LESS EXPENSIVE than current
> technologies. Unless the "rest of the world" is ok w/ the idea of
> spending more $$ while cheaper alternatives exists, you plan is an
> exercise in failure.
You might want to check yours. Look at the cost of solar cells and
how those have been dropping each year.
Eric Gisin
> Peter Franks <no...@none.com> writes:
>>> 4. If we introduce new energy-efficient technologies, we can
>>> sell that to the rest of the world. We end up with some profits
>>> and the price of oil is pushed down as demand drops.
>>
>> You might want to check your math there. These so-called "new
>> energy-efficient technologies" are NOT LESS EXPENSIVE than current
>> technologies. Unless the "rest of the world" is ok w/ the idea of
>> spending more $$ while cheaper alternatives exists, you plan is an
>> exercise in failure.
>
> You might want to check yours. Look at the cost of solar cells and
> how those have been dropping each year.
Solar PV cells have to be free to be competitive.
Germany is paying 7 times market prices for PV electricity.
http://www.hudson.org/index.cfm?fuseaction=publication_details&id=6163
No One
Solar cells are dropping in cost every year because of on-going
research and development. That trend is expected to continue.
SaPeIsMa
At least that's your theory
Too bad it's not true for your claim
>>> 4. If we introduce new energy-efficient technologies, we can
>>> sell that to the rest of the world. We end up with some profits
>>> and the price of oil is pushed down as demand drops.
>>
>> You might want to check your math there. These so-called "new
>> energy-efficient technologies" are NOT LESS EXPENSIVE than current
>> technologies. Unless the "rest of the world" is ok w/ the idea of
>> spending more $$ while cheaper alternatives exists, you plan is an
>> exercise in failure.
>
> You might want to check yours. Look at the cost of solar cells and
> how those have been dropping each year.
Still more expensive to install and operate and suffering from great
limitations
Your ignorance is only surpassed by your.... ignorance
If it was as efficient as you claim, it would NOT have to be supported by
government funding to be used in the marketplace.
Which is why your nonsense is just that.
A lot of THEORETICAL BLUE-SKY projection not related to the real world.
Too bad your conflate theory and fact.
SaPeIsMa
And WHEN the cost is less, than using oil, you will have a position to stand
on
Until then, it's just BLUE-SKY FANTASY.
What A. Fool
wrote:
Not completely, solar PV is not and will not be profitable for
grid power at any time, but it is economically useful for a lot of
applications and locations.
People living in remote locations can really benefit from
having even a couple hundred watts with battery storage to
run some small device without hauling fuel many miles.
There are simply hundreds of useful applications that
make sense, and will get better as better batteries become
available.
Those who want to really stop or make big reductions
in fossil fuel use will make life style changes that use more
natural lighting and space heating at time of day when it
is available, and that can reduce electric demand a lot.
Obviously solar PV is not just a quick economical
option, but it obviously has many uses, else production
and sales would not have been growing at 50 percent
a year.
No One
No, you are simply uninformed - why do you think VCs are funding
companies producing solar cells in Silicon Valley? To lose money?
Read <http://www.industryweek.com/articles/new_low_cost_solar_panels_ready_for_mass_production_14932.aspx>
for starters:
Colorado State University's method for manufacturing low-cost,
high-efficiency solar panels is nearing mass production. AVA Solar
Inc. will start production by the end of next year on the
technology developed by mechanical engineering Professor
W.S. Sampath at Colorado State. The new 200-megawatt factory is
expected to employ up to 500 people. Based on the average
household usage, 200 megawatts will power 40,000 U.S. homes.
Produced at less than $1 per watt, the panels will dramatically
reduce the cost of generating solar electricity and could power
homes and businesses around the globe with clean energy for
roughly the same cost as traditionally generated electricity.
Sampath has developed a continuous, automated manufacturing
process for solar panels using glass coating with a cadmium
telluride thin film instead of the standard high-cost crystalline
silicon. Because the process produces high efficiency devices
(ranging from 11% to 13%) at a very high rate and yield, it can be
done much more cheaply than with existing technologies. The cost
to the consumer could be as low as $2 per watt, about half the
current cost of solar panels. In addition, this solar technology
need not be tied to a grid, so it can be affordably installed and
operated in nearly any location.
Or <http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SMnx5tFrDDc> for a video of what
a company in Silicon Valley is doing right now.
No One
> On Sat, 30 May 2009 06:12:22 -0500, "SaPeIsMa" <SaPe...@HotMail.com>
> wrote:
>
>
> Not completely, solar PV is not and will not be profitable for
> grid power at any time, but it is economically useful for a lot of
> applications and locations.
"Any time" is more than likely not true given the R&D going on right
now.
No One
> "No One" <no...@nospam.pacbell.net> wrote in message
> news:874ov3q...@nospam.pacbell.net...
>> Peter Franks <no...@none.com> writes:
>>
>> In some cases, the "more efficient" technologies cost less.
>>
>
> At least that's your theory
> Too bad it's not true for your claim
It is true.
>
>>>> 4. If we introduce new energy-efficient technologies, we can
>>>> sell that to the rest of the world. We end up with some profits
>>>> and the price of oil is pushed down as demand drops.
>>>
>>> You might want to check your math there. These so-called "new
>>> energy-efficient technologies" are NOT LESS EXPENSIVE than current
>>> technologies. Unless the "rest of the world" is ok w/ the idea of
>>> spending more $$ while cheaper alternatives exists, you plan is an
>>> exercise in failure.
>>
>> You might want to check yours. Look at the cost of solar cells and
>> how those have been dropping each year.
>
> Still more expensive to install and operate and suffering from great
> limitations
So? Since the costs are dropping each year, just wait a bit.
> Your ignorance is only surpassed by your.... ignorance
You are a complete and utter idiot.
> If it was as efficient as you claim, it would NOT have to be supported
> by government funding to be used in the marketplace.
I said the costs were dropping each year, not that we were already there.
> Which is why your nonsense is just that.
> A lot of THEORETICAL BLUE-SKY projection not related to the real world.
> Too bad your conflate theory and fact.
See the URLs I posted a few minutes ago. You are simply yet another
uniformed idiot.
SaPeIsMa
I'll wait for the time that "any time" becomes "NOW"
Until then, I'll let YOU support with YOUR taxes and fight to make sure that
MY taxes are used for something more useful..
SaPeIsMa
"What A. Fool" <Wh...@fool.ami> wrote in message
news:80c2259lfadergqgr...@4ax.com...
Yup
Like cute little lights along a walkway
But they don't work that well in the cold and dark of winter
> People living in remote locations can really benefit from
> having even a couple hundred watts with battery storage to
> run some small device without hauling fuel many miles.
>
They just have to haul SP and batteries instead
And let's not forget that batteries lose efficiency over time and with
temperature
> There are simply hundreds of useful applications that
> make sense, and will get better as better batteries become
> available.
>
But they are NOT mainstream applications that use massive amounts of energy,
that generate the revenues that pay for our lifestyle..
> Those who want to really stop or make big reductions
> in fossil fuel use will make life style changes that use more
> natural lighting and space heating at time of day when it
> is available, and that can reduce electric demand a lot.
>
After you alphonse
I'll let you spend YOUR money and NOT MINE so that you can do EXACTLY THAT
When you want to pay for it with MY MONEY, then you had better be ready
to justify the expense.
> Obviously solar PV is not just a quick economical
> option, but it obviously has many uses, else production
> and sales would not have been growing at 50 percent
> a year.
>
Too bad that these "uses" are rather limited and DO NOT support the main
argument presented..
SaPeIsMa
To make money obviously for an INDUSTRY that they anticipate will be HEAVILY
SUBSIDIZED by taxes.
We subsidize them and they make the profit
That's just STUPID....
SaPeIsMa
> "SaPeIsMa" <SaPe...@HotMail.com> writes:
>
>> "No One" <no...@nospam.pacbell.net> wrote in message
>> news:874ov3q...@nospam.pacbell.net...
>>> Peter Franks <no...@none.com> writes:
>>>
>>> In some cases, the "more efficient" technologies cost less.
>>>
>>
>> At least that's your theory
>> Too bad it's not true for your claim
>
> It is true.
>>
>>>>> 4. If we introduce new energy-efficient technologies, we can
>>>>> sell that to the rest of the world. We end up with some profits
>>>>> and the price of oil is pushed down as demand drops.
>>>>
>>>> You might want to check your math there. These so-called "new
>>>> energy-efficient technologies" are NOT LESS EXPENSIVE than current
>>>> technologies. Unless the "rest of the world" is ok w/ the idea of
>>>> spending more $$ while cheaper alternatives exists, you plan is an
>>>> exercise in failure.
>>>
>>> You might want to check yours. Look at the cost of solar cells and
>>> how those have been dropping each year.
>>
>> Still more expensive to install and operate and suffering from great
>> limitations
>
> So? Since the costs are dropping each year, just wait a bit.
>
Yup
I'll wait till the costs are BELOW current costs
>> Your ignorance is only surpassed by your.... ignorance
>
> You are a complete and utter idiot.
>
At least I can think my way out of a paper bag
You can't even do it when the bag is open at both ends.
>> If it was as efficient as you claim, it would NOT have to be supported
>> by government funding to be used in the marketplace.
>
> I said the costs were dropping each year, not that we were already there.
>
Since we're not "already there", you're basically selling bullshit..
>> Which is why your nonsense is just that.
>> A lot of THEORETICAL BLUE-SKY projection not related to the real
>> world.
>> Too bad your conflate theory and fact.
>
> See the URLs I posted a few minutes ago. You are simply yet another
> uniformed idiot.
You just admitted we're not there
So according to you, I'm an idiot because I don't buy into THEORETICAL
BLUE-SKY bullshit that YOU admit is STILL NOT THERE ?
Riiiiiiight...
lorad
> On May 29, 9:56 am, Gray <savagegrayc...@friends.gsl> wrote:
>
> >http://sierraclub.typepad.com/sierra_club_radio/
>
> > Sierra Club Radio is a weekly half hour program produced by Sierra
> > Club staff and hosted by Orli Cotel. Each week you'll hear in-depth
> > interviews with politicians, authors, celebrities, artists, and
> > activists inspired by nature.
>
> > "How can you buy or sell the sky, the warmth of the land? The idea is strange to us. If we do not own the freshness of the air and the sparkle of the water, how can you buy them? Every part of this earth is sacred to my people. Every shining pine needle, every sandy shore, every mist in the dark woods, every clearing and humming insect is holy in the memory and experience of my people. The sap which courses through the trees carries the memories of the red man."
> > (Chief Seattle, 1854)
>
> http://www.susps.org/
>
> Since 1996, leaders of the Sierra Club have refused to admit that
> immigration driven, rapid U.S. population growth causes massive
> environmental problems. And they have refused to acknowledge the need
> to reduce U.S. immigration levels in order to stabilize the U.S.
> population and protect our natural resources. Their refusal to do what
> common sense says is best for the environment was a mystery for nearly
> a decade.
>
> Then, on Oct. 27, 2004, the Los Angeles Times revealed the answer:
> David Gelbaum, a super rich donor, had demanded this position from the
> Sierra Club in return for huge donations! Kenneth Weiss, author of the
> LA Times article that broke the story, quoted what David Gelbaum said
> to Sierra Club Executive Director Carl Pope:
>
> formerly good organizations gone bad. They have all three been taken
> over by the fanatical extremist pro-illegal advocates amongst them.
> It's sad. They all three showed such promise, but now each of them is
> doing more harm to this country than good.]
To make thing even more ironic, a recent news report stated that
2/3rds of all US National Parks are now marijuana growing areas for
mexican drug gangs.
I have always been a supporter of American wilderness efforts and will
remain so.
(I am for the "American Common Good" )
But the co-option of wilderness conservation by alternative liberal
agendas is not in the common good.
What A. Fool
wrote:
Yes, I should have also specified "everyplace", because
I presently pay 6 cents /KWH, and I suspect PV with batteries
will always be at least twice that.
The power company has been selling large industry at
2 cents /KWH, so you know PV can't touch that, and that
must be a measure of cost for baseline generation.
r_c_...@hushmail.com
There must be a typo or something in here. $1 to $2 per watt? Around
here, the cost is 11.5 cents per kilowatt hour, and I know that there
are areas of the country where the cost is less.
Paying 20 times as much for 1000 times less doesn't sound like a
bargain. There must be something I'm missing, perhaps in the
translation from "watt" to "kilowatt hour".
What A. Fool
No typo, per "watt" installed above is the cost of the
panels, but a "system" needs batteries, a charge controller
and an inverter, so a system that has maximum power
input of 1000 watts while the sun shines might cost $5,000
to $8000 complete with labor, do-it-yourself will have a
cost advantage.
But that system may only input to the batteries
about 3000 to 5000 watt hours per day depending on
location and if the panels are guided to always face
the sun, and that would be 3 KWH to 5 KWH per day,
at 10 cents /KWH would be 50 cents per day payback,
so it may take 10,000 days to pay for itself. although
if grid power is NOT available, it could have a value
of even 50 cents per KWH, meaning it would only
take 2000 days to pay for itself, that is about 6 years.
5 KWH per day is not much, like I used 1,000
KWH last month but I have electric heat that I had
to use a little and I have an electric water heater,
with PV, I would want a solar water heater, which
I could build for one-tenth the cost of PV, and I
would have passive solar heat also.
For young people, solar will payback several
times it's cost, but it has to be installed properly,
and likely most installers consider their labor to
be worth more than I think.
This is why there could be a lot of jobs in solar
energy, but it seems not many contractors or
home designers can figure out the details to
make it work, and may promise more than
can be realized from it.
r_c_...@hushmail.com
Ah, okay; that makes sense.
>
> But that system may only input to the batteries
> about 3000 to 5000 watt hours per day depending on
> location and if the panels are guided to always face
> the sun, and that would be 3 KWH to 5 KWH per day,
> at 10 cents /KWH would be 50 cents per day payback,
> so it may take 10,000 days to pay for itself. although
> if grid power is NOT available, it could have a value
> of even 50 cents per KWH, meaning it would only
> take 2000 days to pay for itself, that is about 6 years.
>
5 Kwh isn't a lot, as you point out below, but it would put a dent
into the 25 Kwh or so this household uses per day. And if it really
is at 10 cents per Kwh, that's a savings (here).
A 27 year payback isn't enticing for an older guy like me, but maybe
the technology will continue to get better.
> 5 KWH per day is not much, like I used 1,000
> KWH last month but I have electric heat that I had
> to use a little and I have an electric water heater,
> with PV, I would want a solar water heater, which
> I could build for one-tenth the cost of PV, and I
> would have passive solar heat also.
>
Passive solar heat and solar water heating make a lot of sense,
especially compared to the commercial electric versions of same. The
heat here (both for the house and water heater) uses natural gas,
which usually is cheaper than electric, but still costs a bunch in
both cash and limited natural resources.
>
> For young people, solar will payback several
> times it's cost, but it has to be installed properly,
> and likely most installers consider their labor to
> be worth more than I think.
>
Hm; I've run into that situation before. I tend to do most
installations myself.
> This is why there could be a lot of jobs in solar
> energy, but it seems not many contractors or
> home designers can figure out the details to
> make it work, and may promise more than
> can be realized from it.
Interesting idea. Thanks for your reply.
No One
>> No, you are simply uninformed - why do you think VCs are funding
>> companies producing solar cells in Silicon Valley? To lose money?
>
>
> To make money obviously for an INDUSTRY that they anticipate will be
> HEAVILY SUBSIDIZED by taxes.
> We subsidize them and they make the profit
> That's just STUPID....
What's "just stupid" is you. These companies are rapidly driving
down the capital cost per kilowatt. That's why VCs are so interested
in it. And VCs are not interested in anything that would require
a heavy tax subsidy - that's a bad business model given the
government's fiscal problems.
No One
That's why Silicon Valley VCs will makea lot of money and you won't.
They have enough sense to jump in just before the technology is
ready for prime time.
The companies in question are not running on federal subsidies.
No One
> "No One" <no...@nospam.pacbell.net> wrote in message
> news:87fxem8...@nospam.pacbell.net...
>> "SaPeIsMa" <SaPe...@HotMail.com> writes:
>>
>>
>> So? Since the costs are dropping each year, just wait a bit.
> Yup
> I'll wait till the costs are BELOW current costs
So? I told you the costs were dropping.
>>> Your ignorance is only surpassed by your.... ignorance
>>
>> You are a complete and utter idiot.
>>
>
> At least I can think my way out of a paper bag
> You can't even do it when the bag is open at both ends.
Actually , you can't. You an idiot.
>
>>> If it was as efficient as you claim, it would NOT have to be supported
>>> by government funding to be used in the marketplace.
>>
>> I said the costs were dropping each year, not that we were already there.
>>
>
> Since we're not "already there", you're basically selling bullshit..
Liar - I'm pointing out what we've found from 40 years of industrial
experience with microelectronics.
>>
>>> Which is why your nonsense is just that.
>>> A lot of THEORETICAL BLUE-SKY projection not related to the real
>>> world.
>>> Too bad your conflate theory and fact.
>>
>> See the URLs I posted a few minutes ago. You are simply yet another
>> uniformed idiot.
>
> You just admitted we're not there
> So according to you, I'm an idiot because I don't buy into THEORETICAL
> BLUE-SKY bullshit that YOU admit is STILL NOT THERE ?
> Riiiiiiight...
You really are dumb. The costs are dropping each year - and that trend
has been going on since the first photovoltaic cells were introduced.
Everyone working in the field expects the price to continue to drop
and for good reason.
It's hardly my fault that you don't have a clue.
No One
> On Sat, 30 May 2009 07:57:37 -0700, No One <no...@nospam.pacbell.net>
> wrote:
>
>>What A. Fool <Wh...@fool.ami> writes:
>>
>>> On Sat, 30 May 2009 06:12:22 -0500, "SaPeIsMa" <SaPe...@HotMail.com>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>> Not completely, solar PV is not and will not be profitable for
>>> grid power at any time, but it is economically useful for a lot of
>>> applications and locations.
>>
>>"Any time" is more than likely not true given the R&D going on right
>>now.
>
>
> Yes, I should have also specified "everyplace", because
> I presently pay 6 cents /KWH, and I suspect PV with batteries
> will always be at least twice that.
>
Your suspicions are wrong.
> The power company has been selling large industry at
> 2 cents /KWH, so you know PV can't touch that, and that
> must be a measure of cost for baseline generation.
At the current rate of progress, they expect photovoltaic cells
to be competitive in not too many years:
<http://www.semiconductor.net/article/CA6533549.html>.
No One
Nope. $2 per watt refers to the capital costs for producing a watt
of electricity. You then have to amortize that cost over the lifetime
of the installation, including finance charges. Then you can figure
the amount of energy being produced. Your cost will also include
distribution costs and billing costs. Then there are maintenance
costs as well.
$2 per watt corresponds to $2000 per kilowatt. If the facility last
20 years, you can figure on around $300 per year in amortization plus
finance charges. With 8 hours per day, that gives you about 2900
kilowatt hours over a year, or about 10 cents per kilowatt hour.
No One
>
> A 27 year payback isn't enticing for an older guy like me, but maybe
> the technology will continue to get better.
It is improving each year - we are nowhere near the limit.
Bill Ward
A watt is a measure of power, a watt-hour is a unit of energy.
What A. Fool
wrote:
>"SaPeIsMa" <SaPe...@HotMail.com> writes:
What could really help PV would be a total low voltage home,
even though wire size might need to be a little bigger, all the
electronics involved in power supplies for digital devices could
be eliminated, possibly cutting power demand in half for that
part of the load.
I feel kind of guilty for not staying in the solar thermal
business after what I started in the early 1970s, I got side-
tracked by another project, but I still could have developed
lower cost concentrating collectors than have been offered
commercially.
Some concentrated solar thermal and a lot of passive
solar space and water heating is needed to make solar PV
attractive, in fact, the best idea I had was combined solar
concentrated PV with waste solar thermal, and the only
reason I didn't pursue that was two patents for concentrated
solar PV that have now been expired for at least 15 years.
The most impressive solar installation I know of was
a 25 KW concentrated PV and 75 KW thermal waste heat
system built in Florida in the early 1980s.
What A. Fool
wrote:
I read that as supporting what I said, can you point
out where that mentions or infers that a public utility selling
PV could do it at a comparable to say natural gas?
And the grid costs there may no longer be relevant,
at least not in any location not penalized by extreme air
pollution problems like in Los Angeles County along with
explosive population growth.
That link says "end user" and the tone suggested
to me to mean residential on-site PV or small commercial
owner used PV, not grid PV power plants.
And it is only the less than optimal thought out use
of A/C in the affected areas of California that such high
grid costs were ever suffered, in most cities it is fairly
easy to deal with the peak A/C loads now that the
problem of millions of motors starting at the same
time was recognized and remedies worked out.
I feel there is enough demand for PV in remote
locations and in new construction to carry the industry
forward without cost being comparable to established
grid users, I know of people just 10 miles from where
I live in the midwest US that can't get grid power without
spending $15,000 for poles and strung wire.
The only issue for them is deciding what to use
for backup power when the sun doesn't shine for
several days in a row.
What A. Fool
wrote:
>"r_c_...@hushmail.com" <r_c_...@hushmail.com> writes:
Actually, even glass costs about a dollar per square foot,
so maybe the limit is very close.
Where costs and better technology will come is in
batteries, within a couple of years batteries that can be
deep cycled more than 1000 times should be available
at 1/4th to 1/2 the cost at present.
No One
The article stated it would be competitive in a few years. That's why
VCs are now investing in photovoltaic companies: once competitive with
other power sources, they'll have a very nice difficult problem -
producing enough to meet demand, just the sort of problem a company
loves to have.
> That link says "end user" and the tone suggested
> to me to mean residential on-site PV or small commercial
> owner used PV, not grid PV power plants.
They are going to do both.
<http://abclocal.go.com/kgo/story?section=resources/lifestyle_community/green&id=6811789> has one example (a solar-thermal plant).
According to <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Photovoltaics>,
"Topaz Solar Farm is a proposed 550 MW solar photovoltaic
power plant which is to be built northwest of California
Valley in the US at a cost of over $1 billion.[56] Built on
9.5 square miles (25 km2) of ranchland,[57] the project
would utilize thin-film PV panels designed and manufactured
by OptiSolar in Hayward and Sacramento. The project would
deliver approximately 1,100 gigawatt-hours (GW·h) annually
of renewable energy. The project is expected to begin
construction in 2010,[57] begin power delivery in 2011, and
be fully operational by 2013.[58]"
And
"The current market leader in solar panel efficiency (measured
by energy conversion ratio) is SunPower, a San Jose based
company. Sunpower's cells have a conversion ratio of 23.4%,
well above the market average of 12-18%. However, advances
past this efficiency mark are being pursued in academia and
R&D labs with efficiencies of 42% achieved at the University
of Delaware in conjunction with DuPont.[22]"
> And it is only the less than optimal thought out use
> of A/C in the affected areas of California that such high
> grid costs were ever suffered, in most cities it is fairly
> easy to deal with the peak A/C loads now that the
> problem of millions of motors starting at the same
> time was recognized and remedies worked out.
Simply not true. Those affected areas included the region
around San Francisco, where temperatures are moderate compared
to the interior of the state. The peak air conditioning loads
are partly due to installations like "server farms" - huge
racks of computers that generate a lot of heat and that have
to be kept in a specific temperature range to operate.
No One
> On Sat, 30 May 2009 23:38:15 -0700, No One <no...@nospam.pacbell.net>
> wrote:
>
>>"r_c_...@hushmail.com" <r_c_...@hushmail.com> writes:
>>
>>>
>>> A 27 year payback isn't enticing for an older guy like me, but maybe
>>> the technology will continue to get better.
>>
>>It is improving each year - we are nowhere near the limit.
>
>
> Actually, even glass costs about a dollar per square foot,
> so maybe the limit is very close.
<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Photovoltaics>:
"The current market leader in solar panel efficiency (measured
by energy conversion ratio) is SunPower, a San Jose based
company. Sunpower's cells have a conversion ratio of 23.4%,
well above the market average of 12-18%. However, advances past
this efficiency mark are being pursued in academia and R&D labs
with efficiencies of 42% achieved at the University of Delaware
in conjunction with DuPont.[22]"
Let's see going from 23.4% to 42% efficiency means we are "very close"
to a limit?
If you mean buildings, there's a new technology that allows a cheap
die to be used to coat a window (the glass will be there anyway). It
fluoresces, so you get a significant amount of light emitted in various
directions and trapped by total internal reflection so the light
eventually reaches the edges, which is where you put high-efficiency
solar sells. The marginal cost of getting some electricity out of it
is very low - the glass and framing would be there regardless.
> Where costs and better technology will come is in
> batteries, within a couple of years batteries that can be
> deep cycled more than 1000 times should be available
> at 1/4th to 1/2 the cost at present.
There are a lot of things that are improving and it is not just
batteries.
Peter Franks
>>> 4. If we introduce new energy-efficient technologies, we can
>>> sell that to the rest of the world. We end up with some profits
>>> and the price of oil is pushed down as demand drops.
>> You might want to check your math there. These so-called "new
>> energy-efficient technologies" are NOT LESS EXPENSIVE than current
>> technologies. Unless the "rest of the world" is ok w/ the idea of
>> spending more $$ while cheaper alternatives exists, you plan is an
>> exercise in failure.
>
> You might want to check yours. Look at the cost of solar cells and
> how those have been dropping each year.
Oh, I've checked, believe me:
Gas meter: $240
Electric meter: free
PV array: $30,000
No One
Irrevant - the cost of the cells has been dropping each year.
See <http://www.nanosolar.com/products.htm>
<http://www.nanosolar.com/cache/Growing_Market_Solar_Cells.htm>
<http://solarshingles.blogspot.com/2008/04/nanosolar-video-solar-power-for-66pc.html>.
<http://www.engadget.com/2007/12/18/nanosolar-begins-shipping-world-s-lowest-cost-solar-panel/>
<http://money.cnn.com/2008/03/27/smbusiness/hot_thin_roofs.fsb/index.htm>
(With a technology that allows solar cells to be printed onto
various surfaces, they are looking at building the cells into
the shingles that cover your roof, making the marginal cost
low since you need a roof anyway.)
What A. Fool
wrote:
>What A. Fool <Wh...@fool.ami> writes:
>
>> On Sat, 30 May 2009 23:38:15 -0700, No One <no...@nospam.pacbell.net>
>> wrote:
>>
>>>"r_c_...@hushmail.com" <r_c_...@hushmail.com> writes:
>>>
>>>>
>>>> A 27 year payback isn't enticing for an older guy like me, but maybe
>>>> the technology will continue to get better.
>>>
>>>It is improving each year - we are nowhere near the limit.
>>
>>
>> Actually, even glass costs about a dollar per square foot,
>> so maybe the limit is very close.
>
><http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Photovoltaics>:
>
> "The current market leader in solar panel efficiency (measured
> by energy conversion ratio) is SunPower, a San Jose based
> company. Sunpower's cells have a conversion ratio of 23.4%,
> well above the market average of 12-18%. However, advances past
> this efficiency mark are being pursued in academia and R&D labs
> with efficiencies of 42% achieved at the University of Delaware
> in conjunction with DuPont.[22]"
>
>Let's see going from 23.4% to 42% efficiency means we are "very close"
>to a limit?
Cells with that efficiency have to be single crystal
silicon, I think, and it has to be sawed and more expensive
than other materials.
>If you mean buildings, there's a new technology that allows a cheap
>die to be used to coat a window (the glass will be there anyway). It
>fluoresces, so you get a significant amount of light emitted in various
>directions and trapped by total internal reflection so the light
>eventually reaches the edges, which is where you put high-efficiency
>solar sells. The marginal cost of getting some electricity out of it
>is very low - the glass and framing would be there regardless.
>
>> Where costs and better technology will come is in
>> batteries, within a couple of years batteries that can be
>> deep cycled more than 1000 times should be available
>> at 1/4th to 1/2 the cost at present.
>
>There are a lot of things that are improving and it is not just
>batteries.
I want to check out the existing PV grid power plants,
the inverters must be huge, and the batteries will be very
interesting.
No One
The point was that you don't find that you can double your efficiency
when you are close to the limit of what is achievable.
>>If you mean buildings, there's a new technology that allows a cheap
>>die to be used to coat a window (the glass will be there anyway). It
>>fluoresces, so you get a significant amount of light emitted in various
>>directions and trapped by total internal reflection so the light
>>eventually reaches the edges, which is where you put high-efficiency
>>solar sells. The marginal cost of getting some electricity out of it
>>is very low - the glass and framing would be there regardless.
>>
>>> Where costs and better technology will come is in
>>> batteries, within a couple of years batteries that can be
>>> deep cycled more than 1000 times should be available
>>> at 1/4th to 1/2 the cost at present.
>>
>>There are a lot of things that are improving and it is not just
>>batteries.
>
> I want to check out the existing PV grid power plants,
> the inverters must be huge, and the batteries will be very
> interesting.
There are lots of ways of storing energy. Batteries are only one
option. An efficient technique used today in various parts of the
world is to have two reservoirs at different heights. You use
a hydroelectric generator to get electricity out of it and pumps
to move the water back up when you want to store energy.
Peter Franks
> Peter Franks <no...@none.com> writes:
>
>> No One wrote:
>>>>> 4. If we introduce new energy-efficient technologies, we can
>>>>> sell that to the rest of the world. We end up with some profits
>>>>> and the price of oil is pushed down as demand drops.
>>>> You might want to check your math there. These so-called "new
>>>> energy-efficient technologies" are NOT LESS EXPENSIVE than current
>>>> technologies. Unless the "rest of the world" is ok w/ the idea of
>>>> spending more $$ while cheaper alternatives exists, you plan is an
>>>> exercise in failure.
>>> You might want to check yours. Look at the cost of solar cells and
>>> how those have been dropping each year.
>> Oh, I've checked, believe me:
>>
>> Gas meter: $240
>> Electric meter: free
>> PV array: $30,000
>
> Irrevant - the cost of the cells has been dropping each year.
$30 grand is irrelevant to you?
No One
It is irrevant to a discussion regarding technologies under
development that will reduce that $30,000 considerably. What you
dishonestly snipped, a sure sign that you have a weak argument and
know it, was the following:
Bama Brian
Then there's the payback. Putting $30,000 into a long term account at a
reasonable rate of interest, say 5%, would yield $1500 per year. Then
there's battery replacement and maintenance costs, inverter maintenance
costs, cleaning the bird shit off the PV array as well as the dust, tree
pollen, etc.
If someone actually installed the PV array and it produced all of their
electricity, how much would it actually save them? If the answer is
less than that $1500 + the maintenance costs, then a PV array isn't
worthwhile.
--
"Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it."
George Santayana, 1863 - 1952
Cheers,
Bama Brian
Libertarian
Bama Brian
Let us know when such panels or shingles are available at Home Depot, or
Lowes, including instructions, inverters, and long-life batteries.
Solar power is like fusion - always that tantalizing 20 years out.
Scout
Let's put it another way. The entire investment, including all
operating, maintenance costs, and the interest/investment potential of
the initial upfront payment would have to be realized within the 20-25
year life of the array in order to justify the expense. Meanwhile, it
takes 10-12 years typically for a PV array to reach energy neutrality at
100% utilization. IOW, it takes 10-12 for the array to produce as much
energy as it took to produce the array in the first place, assuming you
use 100% of it's potential to produce energy. Then you have to consider
the fabrication pollution which involves a number of heavy metal
pollutants, so it's probably at least as nasty if not more so than say a
coal fired plant.
The following quote would seem to sum up those people who currently
build PV arrays.
Obadiah Stane: Ah, come on. The [PV Array], that's a publicity stunt!
Tony, come on. We built that thing to shut the hippies up!
Tony Stark: It works.
Obadiah Stane: Yeah, as a science project. The [PV] was never cost
affective. We knew that before we built it.
Note minor modifications made to the dialog.
SaPeIsMa
"Bama Brian" <brianNOSP...@att.net> wrote in message
news:WTRUl.18110$%54.1...@nlpi070.nbdc.sbc.com...
BUT, BUT, BUT,
"the prices are dropping.."
"VCs are investing.."
"Your claim is therefore IRRELEVANT..."
Don't you just love his arguments.
SaPeIsMa
> "SaPeIsMa" <SaPe...@HotMail.com> writes:
>
>> "No One" <no...@nospam.pacbell.net> wrote in message
>> news:87fxem8...@nospam.pacbell.net...
>>> "SaPeIsMa" <SaPe...@HotMail.com> writes:
>>>
>>>
>>> So? Since the costs are dropping each year, just wait a bit.
>
>> Yup
>> I'll wait till the costs are BELOW current costs
>
> So? I told you the costs were dropping.
Are the costs BELOW current costs\
YES or NO ?
If yes how far below
If no, how far above
>
>>>> Your ignorance is only surpassed by your.... ignorance
>>>
>>> You are a complete and utter idiot.
>>>
>>
>> At least I can think my way out of a paper bag
>> You can't even do it when the bag is open at both ends.
>
> Actually , you can't. You an idiot.
>
That would be "you're an idiot"
But thanks for the demonstration that even simple syntax is beyond your ken
I'll delay taking financial and technological advice from you till you
mastered basic English
>>
>>>> If it was as efficient as you claim, it would NOT have to be supported
>>>> by government funding to be used in the marketplace.
>>>
>>> I said the costs were dropping each year, not that we were already
>>> there.
>>>
>>
>> Since we're not "already there", you're basically selling bullshit..
>
> Liar - I'm pointing out what we've found from 40 years of industrial
> experience with microelectronics.
>
No lie there sonny
We are NOT there
YOU are basing your claims on PROJECTIONS
If anyone is lying, it's you
>>>
>>>> Which is why your nonsense is just that.
>>>> A lot of THEORETICAL BLUE-SKY projection not related to the real
>>>> world.
>>>> Too bad your conflate theory and fact.
>>>
>>> See the URLs I posted a few minutes ago. You are simply yet another
>>> uniformed idiot.
>>
>> You just admitted we're not there
>> So according to you, I'm an idiot because I don't buy into THEORETICAL
>> BLUE-SKY bullshit that YOU admit is STILL NOT THERE ?
>> Riiiiiiight...
>
> You really are dumb. The costs are dropping each year - and that trend
> has been going on since the first photovoltaic cells were introduced.
> Everyone working in the field expects the price to continue to drop
> and for good reason.
>
> It's hardly my fault that you don't have a clue.
Have the rates dropped BELOW the current equivalent
YES or NO ?
Come back when the answer is "yes"
Scout
Yep, and they also don't ever seem to discuss exactly how you are going
to hook all those "shingle cells" together, make it fault
redundant/tolerant, as well as being able to deal with typical roof
conditions including heat, cold, water, freeze/thaw, impact, dirt, snow,
ice and people walking around on it.
Then comes wiring, you either stick with low voltage which is easy to
wire, but is going to end up using a lot of fairly heavy wire, or you go
into the high voltage electrical code at which point running exterior
wiring is a lot more complex.
No One
> Peter Franks wrote:
>> No One wrote:
>>>>> 4. If we introduce new energy-efficient technologies, we can
>>>>> sell that to the rest of the world. We end up with some profits
>>>>> and the price of oil is pushed down as demand drops.
>>>> You might want to check your math there. These so-called "new
>>>> energy-efficient technologies" are NOT LESS EXPENSIVE than current
>>>> technologies. Unless the "rest of the world" is ok w/ the idea of
>>>> spending more $$ while cheaper alternatives exists, you plan is an
>>>> exercise in failure.
>>>
>>> You might want to check yours. Look at the cost of solar cells and
>>> how those have been dropping each year.
>>
>> Oh, I've checked, believe me:
>>
>> Gas meter: $240
>> Electric meter: free
>> PV array: $30,000
>
> Then there's the payback. Putting $30,000 into a long term account at
> a reasonable rate of interest, say 5%, would yield $1500 per year.
> Then there's battery replacement and maintenance costs, inverter
> maintenance costs, cleaning the bird shit off the PV array as well as
> the dust, tree pollen, etc.
That's the reason people are trying to build photovoltaic devices into the
shingles that cover your roof, so there is a minimal additional installation
cost.
And you don't need your own batteries when you have a utility that
cooperates by letting you sell the excess electricity you generate.
No One
You guys are true idiots, which just might explain why you are
ignoring all the URLs I posted describing the technology.
No One
Why don't you read the URLs I've provided to find the time frame for
when this stuff will be available at places like home depot? Hint:
companies like Nanosolar will have to expand their manufacturing
plants considerably to be able to produce enough for large retailers
like Home Depot. The really hard part - developing the technology - is
progressing very nicely.
> Solar power is like fusion - always that tantalizing 20 years out.
Not true at all. There are solar panels on rooftops all over town
and the number is increasing each year. We are close (but not quite
at) the point where this stuff will be ubiquitous.
No One
Come back when you have something sensible to contribute.
Peter Franks
Talk is cheap. Solar isn't.
When it is, let's talk.
Peter Franks
People are also working on cold fusion.
When you have a practical solution, let me know. In the meantime, it is
wishful thinking and daydreaming to presume: "If we introduce new
energy-efficient technologies, we can sell that to the rest of the
world...."
> And you don't need your own batteries when you have a utility that
> cooperates by letting you sell the excess electricity you generate.
That only works while demand exceeds supply. When those two meet, there
will no longer be "sell[ing] the excess electricity you generate".
No One
It is just "talk". There's a huge amount of R&D going into it and
they are making measurable progress.
Try reading up on it before making a fool of yourself.
No One
Thin film solar cells are real, not fictional devices. The work I
described used a printing technology that could in fact be used to
create shingles with built-in solar cells at low cost.
BTW, low-temperature fusion has been experimentally verified, but it
was a different group in Utah, not those two chemists who reported an
irreproducible result. The successful ons used muons instead of
electrons to create short-lived atoms where the nuclei were close
enough to fuse. With the small number of atoms involved, only a tiny
amount of energy was released. It worked because muons have a mass
a couple of hundred times larger than the elctron mass, making atoms
that contain muons rather than electrons much smaller (about 200 times
smaller). It's an interesting result, but nobody is claiming it is
a viable source of energy.
You really don't seem to know what you are babbling about.
>> And you don't need your own batteries when you have a utility that
>> cooperates by letting you sell the excess electricity you generate.
>
> That only works while demand exceeds supply. When those two meet,
> there will no longer be "sell[ing] the excess electricity you
> generate".
Not true at all - the utilities sometimes store energy for later
use (e.g., to handle peak loads). One way of doing this is to pump
water up hill and then use a hydroelectric genenerator to get
the energy back (with an efficiency of around 70%).
SaPeIsMa
LOL
I'm a Mathematical Engineer who has worked in Systems Analysis for the last
35+ years.
And part of that role was making sure that technology being considered was
"functional" and "applicable"
Tell us.
What exactly is your area of technical expertise ?
SaPeIsMa
Interesting that you couldn't answer simple yes/no questions
Why is that ?
Could it be that it would expose your bullshit for what it is ?
SaPeIsMa
So the technology does not yet exist ?
After all, it's still being developped
Got it...
(Can you say snake oil ?)
>
>> Solar power is like fusion - always that tantalizing 20 years out.
>
> Not true at all. There are solar panels on rooftops all over town
> and the number is increasing each year. We are close (but not quite
> at) the point where this stuff will be ubiquitous.
Well, when you are AT "ubiquitous", you give us a call.
SaPeIsMa
A baby taking one step is also "measurable progress"
But that does not mean it's ready to go for a walk in the park...
No One
> "No One" <no...@nospam.pacbell.net> wrote in message
> news:87ljobk...@nospam.pacbell.net...
>> "SaPeIsMa" <SaPe...@HotMail.com> writes:
>>>
>>> Come back when the answer is "yes"
>>
>> Come back when you have something sensible to contribute.
>
> Interesting that you couldn't answer simple yes/no questions
> Why is that ?
> Could it be that it would expose your bullshit for what it is ?
Interesting that you are ignoring the facts.
SaPeIsMa
What facts are those ?
That the technology, according to you, is "still being developed"
That pretty well answers NO to my questions.
Is that why you removed them ?
You're nothing but a snake-oil salesman
Piss off while you're ahead.
No One
Guess. You are obviously desparate. My guess is that you don't
understand the technology, and are now trying logical fallacies.
Your background sounds totally inadequate for understanding either
physics, manufacturing processes, or what goes on in the semiconductor
industry and related fields.
No One
Hey moron, this is not "snake oil". It is a technology that is
just reaching the point where it will be cost competitive.
The fact that you have been trying to compare serious work with
those code fusion guys is rather telling.
No One
>>>>> Solar power is like fusion - always that tantalizing 20 years out.
>>>>
>>>> Not true at all. There are solar panels on rooftops all over town
>>>> and the number is increasing each year. We are close (but not quite
>>>> at) the point where this stuff will be ubiquitous.
>>>
>>> Talk is cheap. Solar isn't.
>>>
>>> When it is, let's talk.
>>
>> It is just "talk". There's a huge amount of R&D going into it and
>> they are making measurable progress.
>>
>> Try reading up on it before making a fool of yourself.
>>
>
> A baby taking one step is also "measurable progress"
> But that does not mean it's ready to go for a walk in the park...
Wow. You really are an idiot. Did you even look at the URLs? If you
did, could you understand what you read?
What A. Fool
<brianNOSP...@att.net> wrote:
>Peter Franks wrote:
>> No One wrote:
>>>>> 4. If we introduce new energy-efficient technologies, we can
>>>>> sell that to the rest of the world. We end up with some profits
>>>>> and the price of oil is pushed down as demand drops.
>>>> You might want to check your math there. These so-called "new
>>>> energy-efficient technologies" are NOT LESS EXPENSIVE than current
>>>> technologies. Unless the "rest of the world" is ok w/ the idea of
>>>> spending more $$ while cheaper alternatives exists, you plan is an
>>>> exercise in failure.
>>>
>>> You might want to check yours. Look at the cost of solar cells and
>>> how those have been dropping each year.
>>
>> Oh, I've checked, believe me:
>>
>> Gas meter: $240
>> Electric meter: free
>> PV array: $30,000
>
>Then there's the payback. Putting $30,000 into a long term account at a
>reasonable rate of interest, say 5%, would yield $1500 per year. Then
>there's battery replacement and maintenance costs, inverter maintenance
>costs, cleaning the bird shit off the PV array as well as the dust, tree
>pollen, etc.
Right, except don't expect 5 percent, low risk or zero risk
yields are less than 3 percent over the last 8 years.
But your mistake is assuming that the primary reason to
install solar PV might be to save money or even be equal in
cost to grid power.
>If someone actually installed the PV array and it produced all of their
>electricity, how much would it actually save them? If the answer is
>less than that $1500 + the maintenance costs, then a PV array isn't
>worthwhile.
Even if it saved a few dollars more than the investment
return, why would they want to do it?
There has to be other reasons to install solar PV, I will
leave it up to the reader to imagine all the possible reasons
other than just not being able to get grid power.
But there are some people who like to buy and use
new technology as a hobby, especially a hobby that can
provide power when the grid goes down, and especially
when most homes have high efficiency central air furnaces
that will not run without grid equivalent power.
And this is even without considering the issues of
finite amounts of fossil fuel and the AGW issue.
No One
> "No One" <no...@nospam.pacbell.net> wrote in message
> news:87ljob2...@nospam.pacbell.net...
>> "SaPeIsMa" <SaPe...@HotMail.com> writes:
>>
>>> "No One" <no...@nospam.pacbell.net> wrote in message
>>> news:87ljobk...@nospam.pacbell.net...
>>>> "SaPeIsMa" <SaPe...@HotMail.com> writes:
>>>>>
>>>>> Come back when the answer is "yes"
>>>>
>>>> Come back when you have something sensible to contribute.
>>>
>>> Interesting that you couldn't answer simple yes/no questions
>>> Why is that ?
>>> Could it be that it would expose your bullshit for what it is ?
>>
>> Interesting that you are ignoring the facts.
>
> What facts are those ?
> That the technology, according to you, is "still being developed"
> That pretty well answers NO to my questions.
Hey moron, I gave you a list of URLs to articles about the
technology. It is not BS (you are lying about that). The
costs are dropping each year, and are very close to the
point where it will be competitive with other power sources.
We are not near the limit (over 30 years of industrial experience
with microelectronics indicates that the rate of improvement
slows down as you approach the limits of a particular technology,
and that is not happening). According to
<http://www.edn.com/article/CA6644419.html>,
"Gartner Inc has issued its first forecast of the PV
(photovoltaic) solar cell market, estimating the PV market
will grow at a 17% CAGR (compound annual growth rate) between
2008 and 2013 to reach $34 billion revenue in 2013."
You do not get a 17% compound annual growth rate if it is not
real and Gartnet Inc does not report pipe dreams. And you don't
get large companies jumping in when the technology is iffy.
See <http://www.national.com/news/item/0,1735,1344,00.html>
(it is just a press release, but National Semiconductor is a
large, well-established company).
>
> Is that why you removed them ?
>
> You're nothing but a snake-oil salesman
> Piss off while you're ahead.
You are bald-faced liar, not to mention a complete and utter idiot.
SaPeIsMa
The technology is simple
But clearly you don't understand the economics of it
And by the way, I do have a business degree as well
> Your background sounds totally inadequate for understanding either
> physics, manufacturing processes, or what goes on in the semiconductor
> industry and related fields.
>
So again
What is your technical and financial expertise ?
Or do you even have any at all ?
Clearly it's a question you're avoiding
Why is that ?
SaPeIsMa
I understand it probably far better than you...
As I wrote elsewhere
BLUE SKY SNAKE OIL...
SaPeIsMa
In your own words...
"The really hard part -
developing the technology -
is progressing very nicely."
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
In other words, IT'S NOT THERE YET..
As I said, BLUE SKY SNAKE OIL....
> The fact that you have been trying to compare serious work with
> those code fusion guys is rather telling.
I have not mentioned cold fusion
Clearly you are also confused about that as well...
What A. Fool
wrote:
>
>"No One" <no...@nospam.pacbell.net> wrote in message
>news:87fxelp...@nospam.pacbell.net...
>> "SaPeIsMa" <SaPe...@HotMail.com> writes:
>>
>>> "No One" <no...@nospam.pacbell.net> wrote in message
>>> news:87fxem8...@nospam.pacbell.net...
>>>> "SaPeIsMa" <SaPe...@HotMail.com> writes:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> So? Since the costs are dropping each year, just wait a bit.
>>
>>> Yup
>>> I'll wait till the costs are BELOW current costs
>>
>> So? I told you the costs were dropping.
>
>
>Are the costs BELOW current costs\
> YES or NO ?
>If yes how far below
>If no, how far above
Other things make PV cost effective, every day I see two
flashing caution lights before a bridge with a rise that prevents
seeing the traffic light on the other side.
The traffic lights are grid powered, and the two flashing
lights are less than 100 meters from the traffic lights, yet the
flashing lights were changed from grid power to PV about
5 years ago, and have been far more dependable since.
Also, all the river shoreline navigation beacons are
solar powered, grid power here goes down rather often,
most of the time for less than a minute or so, but in the
last year, a 32 hour period and a 3 day period and a
3 hour period.
I don't have solar PV, but I have a deep cycle
battery, a 1,25 amp charge controller and two cars
that I can use to run a light and a 12/120 volt TV
with built in VCR.
I have natural gas stoves that don't need any
electric at all, just think of all the people that lose
power for days at a time in cold weather.
>>>>> Your ignorance is only surpassed by your.... ignorance
>>>>
>>>> You are a complete and utter idiot.
>>>>
>>>
>>> At least I can think my way out of a paper bag
>>> You can't even do it when the bag is open at both ends.
>>
>> Actually , you can't. You an idiot.
>>
>
>That would be "you're an idiot"
>But thanks for the demonstration that even simple syntax is beyond your ken
> I'll delay taking financial and technological advice from you till you
>mastered basic English
That should be "until you have mastered basic English",
or "until you master basic English".
I think "till" means continuation of a thing, while
until means "not until".
>>>>> If it was as efficient as you claim, it would NOT have to be supported
>>>>> by government funding to be used in the marketplace.
>>>>
>>>> I said the costs were dropping each year, not that we were already
>>>> there.
>>>>
>>>
>>> Since we're not "already there", you're basically selling bullshit..
>>
>> Liar - I'm pointing out what we've found from 40 years of industrial
>> experience with microelectronics.
>>
>
>No lie there sonny
>We are NOT there
>YOU are basing your claims on PROJECTIONS
>If anyone is lying, it's you
If he assumes PV will be for everybody, he is wrong,
it will probably never be as problem free as grid power when
it is up, and it is getting harder and harder to find qualified
technicians for minor repairs, they all think they are worth
$50 an hour.
But for many people, PV is a godsend, they would
have to haul fuel almost weekly or have a dedicated
tank truck for generator fuel if they live far from the grid.
>>>>> Which is why your nonsense is just that.
>>>>> A lot of THEORETICAL BLUE-SKY projection not related to the real
>>>>> world.
>>>>> Too bad your conflate theory and fact.
>>>>
>>>> See the URLs I posted a few minutes ago. You are simply yet another
>>>> uniformed idiot.
>>>
>>> You just admitted we're not there
>>> So according to you, I'm an idiot because I don't buy into THEORETICAL
>>> BLUE-SKY bullshit that YOU admit is STILL NOT THERE ?
>>> Riiiiiiight...
>>
>> You really are dumb. The costs are dropping each year - and that trend
>> has been going on since the first photovoltaic cells were introduced.
>> Everyone working in the field expects the price to continue to drop
>> and for good reason.
>>
>> It's hardly my fault that you don't have a clue.
>
>Have the rates dropped BELOW the current equivalent
> YES or NO ?
>
>Come back when the answer is "yes"
They probably never will unless the energy taxes get
really high, I read today that carbon trading in Europe is near
$20 a ton CO2, and my electric bill said the electric I used
emitted 6550 pounds of CO2, that could cost me $65 more
if the taxes are imposed here.
The bill didn't reflect it, but it was a two month bill,
they made a mistake last month and didn't send me
a bill, and I used some electric heat, and bill said I
used about 3 times the usual household, and that
peeves me, as the usual house doesn't have only
electric heat, and burns gas for hot water and maybe
cooking.
So all the hyperbole about using more than usual,
and about emitted CO2, plus changing my due date from
the 12th to the 3rd is not making me feel great, a little more
and I will consider installing a good wood burner in the
kitchen and begin buying PV and solar steam a little at
a time and have useful hobby, while only paying the
meter charges, I sure would not want to be without
access to the grid.
No One
A marketing type (all talk and little technical knowledge) I presume.
>> Your background sounds totally inadequate for understanding either
>> physics, manufacturing processes, or what goes on in the semiconductor
>> industry and related fields.
>
> So again
> What is your technical and financial expertise ?
> Or do you even have any at all ?
> Clearly it's a question you're avoiding
> Why is that ?
A hell of a lot more than you do, but unlike you, I'm not going to try
to brag about it on a usenet group where it is not relevant, and where
people frequently misuse personal information of any kind. Saying
"Clearly it's a question you're avoiding" is a logical fallacy known
as argumentum ex silentio.
What you are also trying is a failed attempt at a logical fallacy
called "argumentum ad verecundiam" where you are trying to set
yourself up as some sort of authority when you actually have
no relevant expertise at all.
Now, I gave you plenty of citations to articles where you could
check the facts. You refuse to. Why is that?
No One
> "No One" <no...@nospam.pacbell.net> wrote in message
> news:878wkb2...@nospam.pacbell.net...
>> "SaPeIsMa" <SaPe...@HotMail.com> writes:
>>>>>>>>>>> Oh, I've checked, believe me:
>>>>>>>> See <http://www.nanosolar.com/products.htm>
>>>>>>>> <http://www.nanosolar.com/cache/Growing_Market_Solar_Cells.htm>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> <http://solarshingles.blogspot.com/2008/04/nanosolar-video-solar-power-for-66pc.html>.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> <http://www.engadget.com/2007/12/18/nanosolar-begins-shipping-world-s-lowest-cost-solar-panel/>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> <http://money.cnn.com/2008/03/27/smbusiness/hot_thin_roofs.fsb/index.htm>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Why don't you read the URLs I've provided to find the time frame for
>>>>>> when this stuff will be available at places like home depot? Hint:
>>>>>> companies like Nanosolar will have to expand their manufacturing
>>>>>> plants considerably to be able to produce enough for large retailers
>>>>>> like Home Depot. The really hard part - developing the
>>>>>> technology -
>>>>>> is
(Note the mid-sentence snipping - standard technique when people are
losing an argument)
>>>> Try reading up on it before making a fool of yourself.
>>>
>>> A baby taking one step is also "measurable progress"
>>> But that does not mean it's ready to go for a walk in the park...
>>
>> Wow. You really are an idiot. Did you even look at the URLs? If you
>> did, could you understand what you read?
>
> I understand it probably far better than you...
From what I can see, you have zero understanding of anything at all
substantive.
> As I wrote elsewhere
> BLUE SKY SNAKE OIL...
And as I said, you are an bald-faced lying idiot.
What A. Fool
wrote:
Unless the reason you install PV is because the grid
goes down all the time.
No One
As I said, you are a bald-faced lying idiot (obviously repeating
yourself because you know nothing whatsoever). The facts are that,
after several decades of research and development, we are practically
at the point where the technology will really take off. That's why
the growth in sales is so high. Startups are already at the point
where they are competitive with fossil fuels. But of course, since
we have just reached that point, it will take a bit to scale the
manufacturing capacity up, and it will take a while to replace
some of the existing infrastructure.
<snip>
No One
Do you live in the third world, where daily power failures are
the norm?
What A. Fool
wrote:
>What A. Fool <Wh...@fool.ami> writes:
>
>> On Mon, 01 Jun 2009 10:56:09 -0700, No One <no...@nospam.pacbell.net>
>> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>That's the reason people are trying to build photovoltaic devices into the
>>>shingles that cover your roof, so there is a minimal additional installation
>>>cost.
>>>
>>>And you don't need your own batteries when you have a utility that
>>>cooperates by letting you sell the excess electricity you generate.
>>
>>
>> Unless the reason you install PV is because the grid
>> goes down all the time.
>
>Do you live in the third world, where daily power failures are
>the norm?
No, the local utility has been adding a new line and doing
a lot of repairs, and there are lots of trees.
But I would need to make a major life style change in
order to use PV, I use electric heat.
Scout
Except that a generator is a far cheaper alternative to provide this
backup.
Scout
IOW, it's not cost effective to do so.
The only reason then to install such systems are as a publicity stunt in
order to look "green" at a massive expense.
Scout
Then why is it still so expensive for so little energy?
....or do you need it's projected to be cost competitive once all the
current research is done?
I've been hearing that one for nearly 30 years....
> The fact that you have been trying to compare serious work with
> those code fusion guys is rather telling.
Not really, because AT THIS TIME they are still both a pipe dream. Once
you actually have a practical, operational and ready to begin widespread
commercial fabrication and installation and competitive prices then and
only then will you have something more than wishful thinking.
Bama Brian
>
> Not true at all. There are solar panels on rooftops all over town
> and the number is increasing each year. We are close (but not quite
> at) the point where this stuff will be ubiquitous.
Where I live, I have yet to see an installed solar array, and not even
an installed solar water heater.
Solar has its best uses in areas where the cloud cover is quite sparse
and you don't get a lot of rain or snow.
Because my house is on the eastern side of a hill, I might get direct
sun for six hours during the winter, with correspondingly more during
the summer. But because of the trees on the eastern side of the house,
I don't get direct sun for any more than four or five hours during any
day. Then there's the heavy cloud cover which supports the fifty-five
inches of rain per year, not counting snow fall.
I suppose I could cut down the trees - but that would make the summers
unbearable. There is a ten degree F increase from my house to downtown,
according to the external thermometers in both my cars.
So if you live in a flat, low rainfall, low cloud cover, no tree area,
solar can be useful. But it's still damned expensive.
--
"Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it."
George Santayana, 1863 - 1952
Cheers,
Bama Brian
Libertarian
Bama Brian
And certainly not the Boston Marathon.
Bama Brian
What we really NEED are a hundred more nuclear plants to bring the cost
of electricity down. Once we have abundant, cheaper electricity, we can
subsidize the manufacturing of solar cells, which as you know, are still
quite expensive to manufacture even in large sheet form.
We can use the nuke plants to power houses such as mine where solar is
unfeasible.
And BTW, it's not just the manufacturing cost of solar cells. If it
were that EZ, iPods would cost $10 or less.
First there's the cost of the solar cell.
So first we pay the manufacturer, then we pay the distributor, we pay
the warehouse, we pay the shipping, we pay the installer.
Then there's the wiring from cell to inverter to battery, the inverters
themselves, the storage batteries, the large vented battery box, the
array frame which holds the cells in proper relationship to the sun, the
heliostat, the control mechanism if a heliostat is not enough, the daily
maintenance to include cleaning the birdshit off the array, etc, etc, ad
nauseum.
And don't even talk to me about roofing a house with solar cells unless
you can show me how a 200 pound man can walk on them without smashing
them into uselessness.
Bama Brian
I was not comparing solar to either 'code' or cold fusion. I was
however, comparing it to nuclear fusion which was twenty years out back
in the '60's and still is twenty years out in 2009.
Americans typically sell their houses every five to ten years. Houses
themselves have life spans. Typically houses are renovated internally
every ten to fifteen years; externally perhaps every thirty years. Now
what did you say will be the payback for any of your URL sites?
What is the breakeven point for the homeowner, even if he has converted
all his appliances to low power, and his bulbs to the currently
fashionable fluorescents? Let's make it E-Z for you.
Please plug in the numbers in the ? fields, below.
a. A family of four, in a 1500 sq ft all-electric, well insulated
house, using current green appliances and bulbs uses: ? KW/yr
b. The family's annual electric bill is: ? $/mo
c. Converting to solar for the stated power in 'a' will cost: ? $
(please don't talk about gummint subsidies - that only spreads the
homeowner's costs to all the taxpayers, whether they own a home or not)
d. If the homeowner must finance the installation, what will be the
costs of the loan, including interest?: $
e. Maintenance costs will be: ? $/yr
f. Life span of solar installation is expected to be: ? yrs
g. Putting the money from 'c + d + e' into an interest-bearing account
at 5% over 'f' years will produce: ? $
h: Subtract 'b - g'
Is 'h' negative? Re-think solar for this house.
(if solar is more expensive than utility electricity for the expected
life of the installation, then the homeowner will be dollars ahead to
stay on the utility power)
i. Subtract '30 - f'.
Is 'i' postitive? Re-think solar for this house.
(if the life span of a solar installation is less than the expected
service life of the house, then multiple installations of solar will be
required)
Bama Brian
And just as soon as the fedgov removes its subsidies of solar power,
many of the startups will collapse. Prices will then skyrocket.
Youdon'tmindifIwaitforthecomingoftheMillenium,doyou?
Thankyousoverymuch.