The ggggp post (enough g's?) was talking about how towns were running on renewables NOW, and I responded that NOW, there is an unsubsidized 100 year payback.
And I replied people going off the grid have payback periods substantially less than 100. I even included a link to a study that concluded it was less than 25 years. Now that might include incentives or subsidies but even if they paid half of the cost that would still be under 50 year, and they don't pay than much.
Don't get me wrong - I WANT solar to come down in fab cost and be feasible. But that doesn't mean I'm going to look at the economic picture and squint just to lie to myself and declare that it's feasible now.
Have you done an economic analysis? I have and so have those who have gone off the grid. It's hard enough to get a mortgage lender to approve the mortgage having done the analysis, if a lender will approve one it will be much harder without an analysis.
The costs are overstated, and, really all you have is some anecdotal evidence and you aren't considering the benefits side of the equation at all.
Life is one cost, are you saying life isn't worth it? If so then why won't people lower their living standards, after all it's not worth it. As for the benefits it wasn't my aim to consider them, my aim was to show that even those who don't use coal are made to pay for it's usage.
1. Artic ice is actually thicker and wider this year, so the inuit are fine for now.
That was then, this is now. PV panel prices have gone up significantly since that study.
According to "Tech Review" because of new silicon production fabs prices could drop by 50% by 2010.
His installed cost for materials alone was just over $10/watt.
Did he check for incentives, subsidies, or tax credits? DSIRE, Database of State Incentives for Renewables & Efficiency, is a database of what each state offers in the US.
Space heaters, whether electric or gas, aren't very efficient.
For heating, you want heat pumps. Air, water, earth, whatever is near. You get at least triple the heat out compared to the electricity you put in.
You left out where I said "Radiant floor heating is more efficient", and it's not an either or situation. One person in NYC heats his home, when it needs it as it's super insulated, using radiant floor heating. The heat source is underground, geothermal. A heat pump transfers heat from the geothermal system to a liquid agent, I don't recall what's used, which is then circulated in tubes embedded in the floors. Each room has it's own thermostat so they can all be heated independently, zone controlled. One room can be 65, another 68, and a third 72 degrees F. Or a room can have it's temperature set to different temps depending on the tyme of day. For instance the bedroom can be 65 at night, then just before getting out of bed the temp can rise to 68, then when the house is empty it can go down again before warming up in the evening.
The simple fact of the matter is that while man might dump 8 gigatons of carbon into the environment, the biosphere is churning through nearly one hundred times the amount.
solar and wind on the other hand is hopeless at supplying base load. BASE LOAD you tree huggers. learn what it is.
And research is being done on storage, in "A Solar Grand Plan" Sciam says solar power can provide 69% of the US's energy needs by 2050. TFA goes over some of the research on storage. Base Load? Geothermal is a base load.
Citation please. Heck, I'll provide one. MIT's "Tech Review" says "Solar power cost about $4 a watt in the early 2000s". That's less than half of what you say.
Sure there is, one is called Global Warming. And the Inuit in the Arctic Circle are paying for it, with their lives. Southeast Asia will pay for it when ocean level rise. People in Appalachia are paying for it. Try again.
To put the project in perspective Kiluea pumps out around 700,000 tons a year, and Pinatubo put out more CO2 in '91 than the entire output of all mankinds exisistence.
What kind of engineer? Sanitation enginneer? That's just utterly rediculous.
I have no idea, he's not my friend. He's the friend of the person I replied to.
No spud, you don't run electric space heaters, dryers and stoves off solar. The first thing you do is get rid of all the overconsumptive stuff.
Space heaters, whether electric or gas, aren't very efficient. Radiant floor heating is more efficient. Solar dryers are the most efficient as well, the oldtime version is the cloths line. And Solar cookers are quite good. As for overconsumption, when designing for off the grid living, the first thing that's usually focused on is conservation, people reduce what's needed and then what is needed energy efficient models are used.
The fact of the matter is that right now there is no alternative energy technology that competes with coal. If there were, people would be using that.
That's because the coal industry passes on the external costs of coal to everyone including those who don't use coal, and because of the subsidies coal gets. If coal had to carry it's own weight alternative and renewable sources of energy could hold their own.
if sequestered under the sea it would be even more stable than the gas at one atmosphere in air case.
However CO2 reacts with water to form acid. Because of this the world's oceans are acidifying. This acidification creates more problems, for instance it eats coral reefs and the shell of shellfish, and who know how many fish can't live in acidic environs?
I thought of this at first, but Lake Nyos was a crater lake that flooded an adjacent valley with CO2. I doubt that these caverns have the same possibility to allow the CO2 to flow down hill and "pool" in to an area below sea level.
Maybe so but the CO2 would still in the atmosphere and anyone near it would still die, unless they had oxygen tanks.
Coal + sequestration is still *significantly* cheaper than solar and will be for the next 20 years at least.
That's because coal is subsidized and external costs are passed on the everyone, whether they use coal or not. If coal plants had to make it on their own and pay for their Externalities electricity costs would be a lot higher. Heck, even the Nuclear Power Industry uses coal's external costs as a selling point.
And dont mention Hydro.
The greenies hate that because it destroys habitats.:)
Where on earth are you getting this data? Please provide at least some reference to any accumulation of people that is self sufficient on solar and wind. Unless of course you are playing loose with definitions and "renewable technologies" includes geothermal, trash-to-steam, etc.
While I agree about cities being self sufficient in renewable energy, the only place I can think of is Iceland and to a degree Hawaii using geothermal as they are, but there are plenty of people who's house is energy sufficient, Off Gridders. Daily more and more people are going off the grid. Oh and geothermal is just as renewable as solar and wind.
I have a coworker that is very interested in living off grid, and is also an engineer, and cheap to boot. As much as he wanted solar, he couldn't afford it. Why? The payback period (without subsidies) is 100 years! Even with a 50% subsidy, it is 50 years, which still exceeds the life of the panels (which are NOT "emissions free" to manufacture).
So if we wanted to power say, California, which as of 2006 has 36,457,549 [census.gov] people we would need something around (36,457,549/4=28044 so 28044*4=) 112,177 wind turbines. That is stupid ridiculous!
Yea it's stupid to decentralize power generation when you can concentrate all that power into a few hands instead. Fact is is a farmer can have wind turbines on the farm while still growing food, and they will supplement farmers' income. Wind farms can also be located offshore. Then there's solar and geothermal. Tidal power can even be used.
Wind power 'feels good' but when you start running the numbers it gets dumb real quick.
In what way? If wind were given the same subsidies as nuclear power the math would change. As it is now nuclear power is a form of corporate welfare.
You have to love that it's "environmentalists" that are bringing lawsuits against owners of these turbines? What does someone like me do, who considers himself to be an environmentalist at heart, but doesn't buy into the insanity of the modern environmental movement?
I think most environmentalists support wind generators. About the only ones that don't are NIMBYs, and they aren't enviros anyway, like those opposing wind farms offshore in places like Cape Hatteras and Cape Cod.
your other arguments seam to be wind power can't make this country self sufficient (agreed.) But their are not enough known nuclear material in the US to be self sufficient in nuclear, so it definitely can't (currently) solve the US energy problems either (unless were willing and able to kick South Africa's ass next.)
Wind can provide provide the US with a lot of energy. And an article in Sciam, "A Solar Grand Plan says that by 2050 solar can provide 69% of the US's energy needs. And while I don't like nuclear power, there's no need to go to Africa, Canada has some rich uranium deposits. According to the World Nuclear Association Canada mines more uranium than any other country.
But thats where putting them on buildings sounds smart. IE supplement the power as close to the demand, and knock down one of the big problems of big buildings (they channel wind) at the same time.
I don't know if you saw it but one of the proposals for a new World Trade Center had a wind generator in between two buildings with other proposals also including wind power.
In short, as cool as we all would like wind power generation to be, it just falls way too short in the aforemention critical statistic. If you've seen the wind farm outside of San Fran, you know how big they can get. The nuke plant between SD & LA (iirc) is but a postage stamp compared to that windfarm and it probably has about twice the power output.
However the US has enough potential wind power to electrify the US. On top of that, whereas the land a nuclear power plant uses is only good for that, wind gennies on farms can supplement a farmer's income, ie they can still grow food on it. Right now wind is the fastest growing energy source in the world.
Slashdot Mirror
The ggggp post (enough g's?) was talking about how towns were running on renewables NOW, and I responded that NOW, there is an unsubsidized 100 year payback.
And I replied people going off the grid have payback periods substantially less than 100. I even included a link to a study that concluded it was less than 25 years. Now that might include incentives or subsidies but even if they paid half of the cost that would still be under 50 year, and they don't pay than much.
Don't get me wrong - I WANT solar to come down in fab cost and be feasible. But that doesn't mean I'm going to look at the economic picture and squint just to lie to myself and declare that it's feasible now.
Have you done an economic analysis? I have and so have those who have gone off the grid. It's hard enough to get a mortgage lender to approve the mortgage having done the analysis, if a lender will approve one it will be much harder without an analysis.
FalconThe costs are overstated, and, really all you have is some anecdotal evidence and you aren't considering the benefits side of the equation at all.
Life is one cost, are you saying life isn't worth it? If so then why won't people lower their living standards, after all it's not worth it. As for the benefits it wasn't my aim to consider them, my aim was to show that even those who don't use coal are made to pay for it's usage.
1. Artic ice is actually thicker and wider this year, so the inuit are fine for now.
Oh really, that would surprise those scientists who have said the ice covering the Arctic Sea ice coverage has shrunken for the fifth year. Do you know more than they do? Scientist now say the Arctic will be ice free by 2030, decades before the models forecast. "Global Warming Is Rapidly Raising Sea Levels, Studies Warn". "Sea Level Rise During Past 40 Years Determined from Satellite and in Situ Observations". And Inuit's would either laugh or cry if you were to tell them they were fine. Oh and if it's not so bad then why is the government considering putting the polar bears on the endangered species list? But I guess you know more than the scientists, Inuits, and polar bears do, or more likely you're a troll.
I can't go on anymore with such nonsense.
FalconThat was then, this is now. PV panel prices have gone up significantly since that study.
According to "Tech Review" because of new silicon production fabs prices could drop by 50% by 2010.
His installed cost for materials alone was just over $10/watt.
Did he check for incentives, subsidies, or tax credits? DSIRE, Database of State Incentives for Renewables & Efficiency, is a database of what each state offers in the US.
FalconFor heating, you want heat pumps. Air, water, earth, whatever is near. You get at least triple the heat out compared to the electricity you put in.
You left out where I said "Radiant floor heating is more efficient", and it's not an either or situation. One person in NYC heats his home, when it needs it as it's super insulated, using radiant floor heating. The heat source is underground, geothermal. A heat pump transfers heat from the geothermal system to a liquid agent, I don't recall what's used, which is then circulated in tubes embedded in the floors. Each room has it's own thermostat so they can all be heated independently, zone controlled. One room can be 65, another 68, and a third 72 degrees F. Or a room can have it's temperature set to different temps depending on the tyme of day. For instance the bedroom can be 65 at night, then just before getting out of bed the temp can rise to 68, then when the house is empty it can go down again before warming up in the evening.
Falconstrange as it may seem I'm beginning to wonder if instead of recycling my newspapers I should sequester their carbon - send them to the dump ....
No, buried in a dumb that newspaper will create methane which is 20 times more potent as a greenhouse gas as CO2 is.
FalconAL Gore has no need for a new commission, his family's a large investor in Oxy, Occidental Petroleum.
FalconThe simple fact of the matter is that while man might dump 8 gigatons of carbon into the environment, the biosphere is churning through nearly one hundred times the amount.
Citation please.
Falconi think the whole CO2 debate is nonsense anyway
SO all those scientists are wrong?
CO2 sequesturing should be a cheap alternative given CO2 is heavier than air. once it's in the ground it'll stay there
Oh really? Tell that to those living around Lake Nyos and Lake Monoun.
solar and wind on the other hand is hopeless at supplying base load. BASE LOAD you tree huggers. learn what it is.
And research is being done on storage, in "A Solar Grand Plan" Sciam says solar power can provide 69% of the US's energy needs by 2050. TFA goes over some of the research on storage. Base Load? Geothermal is a base load.
FalconCitation please. Heck, I'll provide one. MIT's "Tech Review" says "Solar power cost about $4 a watt in the early 2000s". That's less than half of what you say.
FalconSure there is, one is called Global Warming. And the Inuit in the Arctic Circle are paying for it, with their lives. Southeast Asia will pay for it when ocean level rise. People in Appalachia are paying for it. Try again.
FalconTo put the project in perspective Kiluea pumps out around 700,000 tons a year, and Pinatubo put out more CO2 in '91 than the entire output of all mankinds exisistence.
Citation please.
FalconPerhaps you replied to the wrong post.
What kind of engineer? Sanitation enginneer? That's just utterly rediculous.
I have no idea, he's not my friend. He's the friend of the person I replied to.
No spud, you don't run electric space heaters, dryers and stoves off solar. The first thing you do is get rid of all the overconsumptive stuff.
Space heaters, whether electric or gas, aren't very efficient. Radiant floor heating is more efficient. Solar dryers are the most efficient as well, the oldtime version is the cloths line. And Solar cookers are quite good. As for overconsumption, when designing for off the grid living, the first thing that's usually focused on is conservation, people reduce what's needed and then what is needed energy efficient models are used.
FalconThe fact of the matter is that right now there is no alternative energy technology that competes with coal. If there were, people would be using that.
That's because the coal industry passes on the external costs of coal to everyone including those who don't use coal, and because of the subsidies coal gets. If coal had to carry it's own weight alternative and renewable sources of energy could hold their own.
FalconThe arguments against sequestration are (so far as I've seen) just as bogus as the anti-nuclear waste disposal arguments.
Oh really? And if the arguments against nuclear waste disposal are bogus I suppose you wouldn't mind the waste being disposed of in your back yard.
Falconif sequestered under the sea it would be even more stable than the gas at one atmosphere in air case.
However CO2 reacts with water to form acid. Because of this the world's oceans are acidifying. This acidification creates more problems, for instance it eats coral reefs and the shell of shellfish, and who know how many fish can't live in acidic environs?
FalconI thought of this at first, but Lake Nyos was a crater lake that flooded an adjacent valley with CO2. I doubt that these caverns have the same possibility to allow the CO2 to flow down hill and "pool" in to an area below sea level.
Maybe so but the CO2 would still in the atmosphere and anyone near it would still die, unless they had oxygen tanks.
FalconCoal + sequestration is still *significantly* cheaper than solar and will be for the next 20 years at least.
That's because coal is subsidized and external costs are passed on the everyone, whether they use coal or not. If coal plants had to make it on their own and pay for their Externalities electricity costs would be a lot higher. Heck, even the Nuclear Power Industry uses coal's external costs as a selling point.
And dont mention Hydro. :)
The greenies hate that because it destroys habitats.
Some don't like hydro because frequently dams do not live up to their promise or the costs out weight the benefits [pdf]. "World Commission on Dams Report vindicates unjustifiability of large dams".
FalconWhere on earth are you getting this data? Please provide at least some reference to any accumulation of people that is self sufficient on solar and wind. Unless of course you are playing loose with definitions and "renewable technologies" includes geothermal, trash-to-steam, etc.
While I agree about cities being self sufficient in renewable energy, the only place I can think of is Iceland and to a degree Hawaii using geothermal as they are, but there are plenty of people who's house is energy sufficient, Off Gridders. Daily more and more people are going off the grid. Oh and geothermal is just as renewable as solar and wind.
I have a coworker that is very interested in living off grid, and is also an engineer, and cheap to boot. As much as he wanted solar, he couldn't afford it. Why? The payback period (without subsidies) is 100 years! Even with a 50% subsidy, it is 50 years, which still exceeds the life of the panels (which are NOT "emissions free" to manufacture).
I don't know where your friend gets his data from. According a study published by Wiley, "Photovoltaics energy payback times, greenhouse gas emissions and external costs: 2004-early 2005 status" [$30 to buy] payback period is less than 25 years. Some of those who have built their home off the grid, had payback periods of under 15 years, before the warranty of some components expires.
FalconSo if we wanted to power say, California, which as of 2006 has 36,457,549 [census.gov] people we would need something around (36,457,549/4=28044 so 28044*4=) 112,177 wind turbines. That is stupid ridiculous!
Yea it's stupid to decentralize power generation when you can concentrate all that power into a few hands instead. Fact is is a farmer can have wind turbines on the farm while still growing food, and they will supplement farmers' income. Wind farms can also be located offshore. Then there's solar and geothermal. Tidal power can even be used.
Wind power 'feels good' but when you start running the numbers it gets dumb real quick.
In what way? If wind were given the same subsidies as nuclear power the math would change. As it is now nuclear power is a form of corporate welfare.
FalconYou have to love that it's "environmentalists" that are bringing lawsuits against owners of these turbines? What does someone like me do, who considers himself to be an environmentalist at heart, but doesn't buy into the insanity of the modern environmental movement?
I think most environmentalists support wind generators. About the only ones that don't are NIMBYs, and they aren't enviros anyway, like those opposing wind farms offshore in places like Cape Hatteras and Cape Cod.
FalconThose poor birds.
Chirp. Chirp. Chirp. WHACK!
Birds were killed by older wind turbines, which spun fast. New designs have them spinning slowly, so they don't kill a lot of birds.
Falconit's not like low-flying planes have to criss-cross all over those farmers' fields to apply various pesticides and herbicides or anything.
They don't have to fly over farmers' fields.
Falconyour other arguments seam to be wind power can't make this country self sufficient (agreed.) But their are not enough known nuclear material in the US to be self sufficient in nuclear, so it definitely can't (currently) solve the US energy problems either (unless were willing and able to kick South Africa's ass next.)
Wind can provide provide the US with a lot of energy. And an article in Sciam, "A Solar Grand Plan says that by 2050 solar can provide 69% of the US's energy needs. And while I don't like nuclear power, there's no need to go to Africa, Canada has some rich uranium deposits. According to the World Nuclear Association Canada mines more uranium than any other country.
But thats where putting them on buildings sounds smart. IE supplement the power as close to the demand, and knock down one of the big problems of big buildings (they channel wind) at the same time.
I don't know if you saw it but one of the proposals for a new World Trade Center had a wind generator in between two buildings with other proposals also including wind power.
FalconIn short, as cool as we all would like wind power generation to be, it just falls way too short in the aforemention critical statistic. If you've seen the wind farm outside of San Fran, you know how big they can get. The nuke plant between SD & LA (iirc) is but a postage stamp compared to that windfarm and it probably has about twice the power output.
However the US has enough potential wind power to electrify the US. On top of that, whereas the land a nuclear power plant uses is only good for that, wind gennies on farms can supplement a farmer's income, ie they can still grow food on it. Right now wind is the fastest growing energy source in the world.
And what is the average cost of wind power anyway?
According to the American Wind Energy Association's FAQ, "What are the Factors in the Cost of Electricity from Wind Turbines?", wind costs can be under 5 cents per KWH. I don't have an electric bill handy but I think I pay something like 10 cents per KWH.
Falcon