The title says a lot. After the billions of dollars spent in the US to subsidize solar over the last decade, even with the largest subsidies and tax gifts ever provided to any energy source by a wide margin, only 0.2% of our electricity comes from rooftop solar. Its not even a blip. At least wind energy can show some real progress and contribution.
And their is great unfairness of the residential solar subsidies. Lower income people can't participate, because they can't afford them without either taking on more debt or getting caught in lease deals that have a host of problems. People who are living in the most energy efficient manner, those is apartment buildings, can't take advantage. The tax gifts and forced sales are gifts to the mostly middle and upper class, and the rest of us get to pay over 1/3 of their power bill. And those same people will complain when they are asked to pay for a percent of grid maintenance they they need to back up their solar systems.
No, solar does not pay for itself. People who install solar, get huge tax gifts, and get to force their sales at retail rates in competition with others plants that sell at wholesale rates, do make THEIR money back, but the taxpayers never will. Prices don't matter in this context, its cost, and cost of solar remains very high. And of course, what every solar fan like to ignore, is the cost of backup up all that solar. Very conveniently ignored.
Actually, it is mostly wind, not solar, that is causing the occasional overcapacity price drops. Solar is still a relatively small percentage of overall generation. Germany's electric prices are still, overall, quite high compared to the US.
The government has always suffered from the inability to stop doing anything. They'll minimally fund an organization that serves no real value just to avoid the pain of dismantling it. Its a lot easier to spend a few million and keep a group of workers trudging along than to actually redirect them or, if need be, lay them off. I wouldn't be surprised if that is a big part of the case here.
REAL DATA AGAIN! German PV capacity factor = 9.5%, which you would get from 0.095 x 24 hrs/day = 2.28 hr/day full load production. This data come from Prof. Bruno Burger of the Fraunhofer Institute for Solar Energy Systems, the same source YOU referred me to.
Again, I never claimed 3.5 hrs/day, I just gave that to you from a solar industry site to be kind, even though I was quite skeptical. It turns out I was absolutely right. And now have show you another source that is in line with my ORIGINAL statement that it was around 2.5 hrs/day.
At this point, you'll either have to realize you made an error, or place your head in the sand. Its your choice.
No, there is not only 2.5 hours of sunshine a day. That is your mistake, you completely don't understand it. Insolataion is about the available energy, per given area, at ground level, of the sun, averaged over time. It is real data and the information used to determine solar output in a given location. It is standard industry practice, proven, and I presented it to you in multiple ways. This page explains it in plain English, I'm not sure how much easier I can try to make it for you.
I tried to even give you a little leeway and let you take the optimistic 3.5 hrs/day avg. for Germany stated in the solar industry sites. But you kept pushing so I went to pdfs the YOU supplied and showed you the REAL numbers. Now you want to dispute those. It clearly explains that output is equivalent to 970 full load hours per year, yet you want to just ignore what is clearly stated and add your own explanation which you extracted from your rear end. I even showed you where you can verify the information by calculating it yourself in various cities.
Sorry, but you are simply on the wrong track. It was clear that you didn't really understand when you tried to go to a weather site and use that information. Now you are trying to wiggle out of it instead of face up to the fact the the REAL NUMBERS back up my initial point.
US has 6 new reactors under construction, plus Watts Bar completion, but of the new, 4 are really active and moving at a slow pace, all future planned reactors have been significantly deferred with no clear start date. China has very rapid construction happening on at least 6 of their new reactors, each well ahead of the US, and siting work for many more, and that does not even include the gas reactor they have started on, something we've only 'talked about' for over a decade.
That is just a snapshot of now and the foreseeable future. If you look back over the last 100 years, USA was kicking their ass. Too bad we are not keeping it up.
Here is more, specific, data This credible article, again from the solar industry, states Germany averages of 3.5 hrs sunlight per day. (see about mid-way down). The solar industry is not going to err on the low side.
or, if you want to check for yourself, you can plug in German cities here and get results for each (it will help you choose the optimal orientation). You'll have a hard time averaging the monthlies and getting much better results, but some cities will be better/worse than others obviously.
Here is more real data. Solar insolence is the primary factor, and solar generation has a linear relationship with it. Solar insolation averaging charts certainly do account for atmospheric impacts including cloud cover. Latitude definitely matters, and its quite clear from any solar insolation chart. Factors that impact real production are actual installation panes, local interferences, etc. Ideal numbers are never reached. Again, here is another clear representation.
Don't link to a page with a bunch of PDFs and tell me to read them. Take the actual information you want to make your point and state it or link to it specifically. Tell me which page states the average you are claiming.
You do understand the link between solar insolation, panel rating methods, and estimation of actual production, correct?
If they employ these methods, their risk should reduce significantly, as well as repo costs, and therefore be reflected in nice big loan rate drops. OTOH, if it enables a person who otherwise would not qualify for a loan to get one, it could be argued as a 'good thing'. I personally shudder at this level of what feels invasive.
You can't calculate the numbers taking horus of sunlight between two days and averaging, because cloud cover is a key element as well as latitude. So, once again, you are demonstrating you really don't know what forms the basis for the points you are arguing. Here is a nice picture that clearly shows the relative solar insolance between Germany and the USA. It is based on actual real world data, and is indisputable. These are the data used for solar energy calculations. You don't use 'hours of sunlight" alone because the sun intensity curve differs from region to region based on latitude and cloud cover. The fact that you did not realize that well known critical basis should be enough, but I bet you'll keep spouting stuff based on your anecdotal assumptions rather than proven methods and knowledge. Even the solar fanboys would shake their heads at your argument.
If you don't want to use a password manager, create each password with a base word that is not written down, then add characters to each password that are written down. For instance, the base word could be "boxcar". Then, actual passwords might be boxcar357a, just write down the 357a. Or some variation of this approach.
That's the first thing I saw. "generates 12KW" and the big red BS flag pops up. They do, deeper in the PR, say something about 2KWh per day electrical. But one look at this thing and I can't see how it can come close to cost of production of normal solar panels rolling off a production line, nor make up for the difference with its supposed synergistic design.
I doubt many of these ever "see the light of day". At best, some third world niche.
Most solar plants do not track, those systems add cost and maintenance requirements. I am talking about what is presently installed, planned and generating the bulk of power.
The best locations have an average of 5.5 full sun hours/day, no more, Germany averages about 2.5 full sun/hours day. China is quite big, and averages somewhere in between.
Well, don't forget that solar doesn't even operate at 100% many days. In winter in Germany, you are lucky to get 15% capacity factor. You can make excuses for solar not being available for the full day or night, but it doesn't even fill in the daily peak.
solar thermal is tremendously expensive, not very reliable in itself, and an irrelevant percentage of total generation.
You can't transmit power efficiently over multiple time zones.
If one fourth makes you feel better, fine, it doesn't really change the overall picture. Actual numbers in Germany don't look that good though, but their solar conditions are not exactly great. And, as far as China is concerned, their new nuke units are sized between 1.2 and 1.6 GW each.
BTW, when I said 'ignorance' in my previous post, I wasn't calling your ignorant. Just generalizing that most people are not aware if this important distinction. My apologies if it came across that way.
We are bad in math aren't we? 25GW solar is equivalent to 5GW nuclear? Pfffttt....
Actually, that is under optimal solar conditions. In the real world, its been closer to 3 or 4 GW nuclear. You need to learn the different between capacity and actual generation. It is this specific ignorance that so much of the renewables PR plays to. Spend some time understanding why it only makes sense to represent actual electrical generation in GWh over time, and not GW. In theory, I can have a 1 GW capacity generator powered by a single AAA battery, but it would would only generate that amount for a incredibly short time.
As to your question about a plant shutting down. When you have multiple baseload plants, be they nuclear or other, only one out of say 60 or so, shuts down at any given time, this can be easily made up for by the other plants that are on-line. But, for solar, ALL THE PLANTS shut down every night, all at the same time. That is the difference. I only need to back up about 10% of my baseload with reserve, I need to back up 100% of my solar.
So, you totally missed my point. In the context of global warming, which was my frame, what is the total contribution to the problem and, as a percent of that, what is the path toward improvement with clean air technologies? Your statements do nothing to address those most important questions.
China is not just cities, there are wide expanses of area where the air is quite clean.A lot of east coast US emissions are blow out over the Atlantic instead of collecting in low lying urban areas, but that shouldn't give us a pass.
So, I agree 100% that China has serious pollution problems in their largest cities. But overall, what progress are they making TODAY in correcting the trend. What path are they putting themselves on? What is the total carbon contribution per KWhr? per capita? You want to ignore those items and focus on localized air pollution. That is not a global warming concern, but certainly is a local health concern.
Slashdot Mirror
No, it is shifting the cost from the end user to the taxpayer.
The title says a lot. After the billions of dollars spent in the US to subsidize solar over the last decade, even with the largest subsidies and tax gifts ever provided to any energy source by a wide margin, only 0.2% of our electricity comes from rooftop solar. Its not even a blip. At least wind energy can show some real progress and contribution.
And their is great unfairness of the residential solar subsidies. Lower income people can't participate, because they can't afford them without either taking on more debt or getting caught in lease deals that have a host of problems. People who are living in the most energy efficient manner, those is apartment buildings, can't take advantage. The tax gifts and forced sales are gifts to the mostly middle and upper class, and the rest of us get to pay over 1/3 of their power bill. And those same people will complain when they are asked to pay for a percent of grid maintenance they they need to back up their solar systems.
No, solar does not pay for itself. People who install solar, get huge tax gifts, and get to force their sales at retail rates in competition with others plants that sell at wholesale rates, do make THEIR money back, but the taxpayers never will. Prices don't matter in this context, its cost, and cost of solar remains very high. And of course, what every solar fan like to ignore, is the cost of backup up all that solar. Very conveniently ignored.
Actually, it is mostly wind, not solar, that is causing the occasional overcapacity price drops. Solar is still a relatively small percentage of overall generation. Germany's electric prices are still, overall, quite high compared to the US.
Why do they leave out the most interesting piece of information, which is how much cargo it can carry?
I guess they'll not deliver in stormy weather....how about an RC boat?
The government has always suffered from the inability to stop doing anything. They'll minimally fund an organization that serves no real value just to avoid the pain of dismantling it. Its a lot easier to spend a few million and keep a group of workers trudging along than to actually redirect them or, if need be, lay them off. I wouldn't be surprised if that is a big part of the case here.
Moths are attracted to bright lights, and they have very small brains. I'm seeing some kind of correlation here......
Need ANOTHER source?
http://euanmearns.com/german-p...
REAL DATA AGAIN! German PV capacity factor = 9.5%, which you would get from 0.095 x 24 hrs/day = 2.28 hr/day full load production. This data come from Prof. Bruno Burger of the Fraunhofer Institute for Solar Energy Systems, the same source YOU referred me to.
Again, I never claimed 3.5 hrs/day, I just gave that to you from a solar industry site to be kind, even though I was quite skeptical. It turns out I was absolutely right. And now have show you another source that is in line with my ORIGINAL statement that it was around 2.5 hrs/day.
At this point, you'll either have to realize you made an error, or place your head in the sand. Its your choice.
No, there is not only 2.5 hours of sunshine a day. That is your mistake, you completely don't understand it. Insolataion is about the available energy, per given area, at ground level, of the sun, averaged over time. It is real data and the information used to determine solar output in a given location. It is standard industry practice, proven, and I presented it to you in multiple ways. This page explains it in plain English, I'm not sure how much easier I can try to make it for you.
http://www.solarpanelsplus.com...
I tried to even give you a little leeway and let you take the optimistic 3.5 hrs/day avg. for Germany stated in the solar industry sites. But you kept pushing so I went to pdfs the YOU supplied and showed you the REAL numbers. Now you want to dispute those. It clearly explains that output is equivalent to 970 full load hours per year, yet you want to just ignore what is clearly stated and add your own explanation which you extracted from your rear end. I even showed you where you can verify the information by calculating it yourself in various cities.
Sorry, but you are simply on the wrong track. It was clear that you didn't really understand when you tried to go to a weather site and use that information. Now you are trying to wiggle out of it instead of face up to the fact the the REAL NUMBERS back up my initial point.
Yeah, a simple GPS so you can cut it off when the person is at home would be a much more responsible approach.
US has 6 new reactors under construction, plus Watts Bar completion, but of the new, 4 are really active and moving at a slow pace, all future planned reactors have been significantly deferred with no clear start date. China has very rapid construction happening on at least 6 of their new reactors, each well ahead of the US, and siting work for many more, and that does not even include the gas reactor they have started on, something we've only 'talked about' for over a decade.
That is just a snapshot of now and the foreseeable future. If you look back over the last 100 years, USA was kicking their ass. Too bad we are not keeping it up.
And here is one of your beloved PDFs
http://www.ise.fraunhofer.de/e...
Page 46 clearly states that solar PV in Germany operates at an equivalent of 970 full power hours/year. 970hours/365days = 2.657 hours/day
Why is this so much different than your calculation? Because you can't use the weather charts to indicate solar insolation.
Here is more, specific, data This credible article, again from the solar industry, states Germany averages of 3.5 hrs sunlight per day. (see about mid-way down). The solar industry is not going to err on the low side.
http://mseia.net/solar/faq/
or, if you want to check for yourself, you can plug in German cities here and get results for each (it will help you choose the optimal orientation). You'll have a hard time averaging the monthlies and getting much better results, but some cities will be better/worse than others obviously.
http://solarelectricityhandboo...
Here is more real data. Solar insolence is the primary factor, and solar generation has a linear relationship with it. Solar insolation averaging charts certainly do account for atmospheric impacts including cloud cover. Latitude definitely matters, and its quite clear from any solar insolation chart. Factors that impact real production are actual installation panes, local interferences, etc. Ideal numbers are never reached. Again, here is another clear representation.
http://www.tomshardware.de/fot...
Don't link to a page with a bunch of PDFs and tell me to read them. Take the actual information you want to make your point and state it or link to it specifically. Tell me which page states the average you are claiming.
You do understand the link between solar insolation, panel rating methods, and estimation of actual production, correct?
If they employ these methods, their risk should reduce significantly, as well as repo costs, and therefore be reflected in nice big loan rate drops. OTOH, if it enables a person who otherwise would not qualify for a loan to get one, it could be argued as a 'good thing'. I personally shudder at this level of what feels invasive.
You can't calculate the numbers taking horus of sunlight between two days and averaging, because cloud cover is a key element as well as latitude. So, once again, you are demonstrating you really don't know what forms the basis for the points you are arguing. Here is a nice picture that clearly shows the relative solar insolance between Germany and the USA. It is based on actual real world data, and is indisputable. These are the data used for solar energy calculations. You don't use 'hours of sunlight" alone because the sun intensity curve differs from region to region based on latitude and cloud cover. The fact that you did not realize that well known critical basis should be enough, but I bet you'll keep spouting stuff based on your anecdotal assumptions rather than proven methods and knowledge. Even the solar fanboys would shake their heads at your argument.
http://www.nrel.gov/gis/images...
And, even if you could show the average is as high as 3.5 full sun hours/day in Germany, my original point still stands solidly.
You sure don't like the facts, even when presented by the solar industry itself.
http://solarenergy-usa.com/sol...
If you don't want to use a password manager, create each password with a base word that is not written down, then add characters to each password that are written down. For instance, the base word could be "boxcar". Then, actual passwords might be boxcar357a, just write down the 357a. Or some variation of this approach.
That's the first thing I saw. "generates 12KW" and the big red BS flag pops up. They do, deeper in the PR, say something about 2KWh per day electrical. But one look at this thing and I can't see how it can come close to cost of production of normal solar panels rolling off a production line, nor make up for the difference with its supposed synergistic design.
I doubt many of these ever "see the light of day". At best, some third world niche.
Most solar plants do not track, those systems add cost and maintenance requirements. I am talking about what is presently installed, planned and generating the bulk of power.
The best locations have an average of 5.5 full sun hours/day, no more, Germany averages about 2.5 full sun/hours day. China is quite big, and averages somewhere in between.
Well, don't forget that solar doesn't even operate at 100% many days. In winter in Germany, you are lucky to get 15% capacity factor. You can make excuses for solar not being available for the full day or night, but it doesn't even fill in the daily peak.
solar thermal is tremendously expensive, not very reliable in itself, and an irrelevant percentage of total generation.
You can't transmit power efficiently over multiple time zones.
If one fourth makes you feel better, fine, it doesn't really change the overall picture. Actual numbers in Germany don't look that good though, but their solar conditions are not exactly great. And, as far as China is concerned, their new nuke units are sized between 1.2 and 1.6 GW each.
BTW, when I said 'ignorance' in my previous post, I wasn't calling your ignorant. Just generalizing that most people are not aware if this important distinction. My apologies if it came across that way.
We are bad in math aren't we? 25GW solar is equivalent to 5GW nuclear? Pfffttt ....
Actually, that is under optimal solar conditions. In the real world, its been closer to 3 or 4 GW nuclear. You need to learn the different between capacity and actual generation. It is this specific ignorance that so much of the renewables PR plays to. Spend some time understanding why it only makes sense to represent actual electrical generation in GWh over time, and not GW. In theory, I can have a 1 GW capacity generator powered by a single AAA battery, but it would would only generate that amount for a incredibly short time.
As to your question about a plant shutting down. When you have multiple baseload plants, be they nuclear or other, only one out of say 60 or so, shuts down at any given time, this can be easily made up for by the other plants that are on-line. But, for solar, ALL THE PLANTS shut down every night, all at the same time. That is the difference. I only need to back up about 10% of my baseload with reserve, I need to back up 100% of my solar.
So, you totally missed my point. In the context of global warming, which was my frame, what is the total contribution to the problem and, as a percent of that, what is the path toward improvement with clean air technologies? Your statements do nothing to address those most important questions.
China is not just cities, there are wide expanses of area where the air is quite clean.A lot of east coast US emissions are blow out over the Atlantic instead of collecting in low lying urban areas, but that shouldn't give us a pass.
So, I agree 100% that China has serious pollution problems in their largest cities. But overall, what progress are they making TODAY in correcting the trend. What path are they putting themselves on? What is the total carbon contribution per KWhr? per capita? You want to ignore those items and focus on localized air pollution. That is not a global warming concern, but certainly is a local health concern.