NationStates Jolt Archive


Conservationists balk at solar energy

RhynoD
21-03-2009, 19:49
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2009/03/21/feinstein-dont-spoil-desert-solar-panels/

So. Turns out renewable resources aren't the answer after all.

I'm going to go ask Merlin the Mystic (who according to the local paper guards the bridge leading to a local cemetery) if in addition to birthdays and bar mitzvah's he can supply energy to the national power grid.
greed and death
21-03-2009, 19:51
If only we can play these various environmental groups off against each other.
Be a fun Cage match Environmentalist fighting Environmentalist.
Skallvia
21-03-2009, 19:52
Wait, we have to protect Desert too? ugh...cant win for losin, lol...
RhynoD
21-03-2009, 19:59
If only we can play these various environmental groups off against each other.
Be a fun Cage match Environmentalist fighting Environmentalist.

"We need to protect deep sea environments from drilling!"
"Oof! Desert environments are damaged by solar and wind plants!"
"Ohf! Nuclear waste is more dangerous even though there's less of it!"

We could make it more interesting by giving them all weapons: little razor-sharp windmills, water balloons filled with toxic waste...trained killer tortoises.
East Central America
21-03-2009, 22:06
or, we could put wind power generators and solar panels on top of buildings, in cities. No one can say that their harming the city environment.
Skallvia
21-03-2009, 22:07
or, we could put wind power generators and solar panels on top of buildings, in cities. No one can say that their harming the city environment.

Wind maybe...Im not sure Highrise buildingsll have the surface area necessary however for Solar...
CthulhuFhtagn
21-03-2009, 22:46
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2009/03/21/feinstein-dont-spoil-desert-solar-panels/

So. Turns out renewable resources aren't the answer after all.

Do your comments ever have anything to actually do with the articles you link?
Skallvia
21-03-2009, 22:47
Do your comments ever have anything to actually do with the articles you link?

I ask that about Fox News all the time, lol...:rolleyes:
Marrakech II
21-03-2009, 23:41
Do your comments ever have anything to actually do with the articles you link?

So you are against consistancy?
Ifreann
21-03-2009, 23:48
Wind maybe...Im not sure Highrise buildingsll have the surface area necessary however for Solar...

Cities generally have a lot of buildings.
Skallvia
21-03-2009, 23:52
Cities generally have a lot of buildings.

They do have alot of Buildings...I suppose it could be done...Either way, I dont see people scrambling to get Solar Panels in Biloxi, so, Meh, lol...
greed and death
21-03-2009, 23:59
They do have alot of Buildings...I suppose it could be done...Either way, I dont see people scrambling to get Solar Panels in Biloxi, so, Meh, lol...

I think the problem is that the top of a building wouldn't generate enough solar energy to meet the building's needs much less anyone else's.
Free Soviets
22-03-2009, 00:09
or, we could put wind power generators and solar panels on top of buildings, in cities. No one can say that their harming the city environment.

and along highways, and unprofitable farmland, and pretty much anywhere else that is already degraded and not being restored to a more natural system.
Ifreann
22-03-2009, 00:15
They do have alot of Buildings...I suppose it could be done...Either way, I dont see people scrambling to get Solar Panels in Biloxi, so, Meh, lol...

In theory the government could rent the roof space and put solar panels there. In practice this would never happen in America.
Skallvia
22-03-2009, 00:17
In theory the government could rent the roof space and put solar panels there. In practice this would never happen in America.

Idk, It does own most of the Banks nowadays, lol :rolleyes:
Dododecapod
22-03-2009, 00:19
I think the problem is that the top of a building wouldn't generate enough solar energy to meet the building's needs much less anyone else's.

No, but it wouldn't be a bad thing anyway, even if it only reduced the amount needed.

The fact is, our civilization runs on cheap, abundent electricity. And we have the capacity to ensure that for many centuries to come as long as we go nuclear. It's the only option we've got that makes sense.
Free Soviets
22-03-2009, 00:20
I think the problem is that the top of a building wouldn't generate enough solar energy to meet the building's needs much less anyone else's.

but if it meets a significant portion of the house's needs, and we use other developed areas for additional solar energy collections, then its pretty easy to see how it'd be done. hell, the chicago museum of science and indutry has a green 'smart home' (which is fucking awesome and i wants it) that gets the majority of its energy from pv film that doesn't even completely cover the roof. in chicago.
Free Soviets
22-03-2009, 00:21
In theory the government could rent the roof space and put solar panels there. In practice this would never happen in America.

or a company, even. we do it with windmills.
greed and death
22-03-2009, 00:21
No, but it wouldn't be a bad thing anyway, even if it only reduced the amount needed.

The fact is, our civilization runs on cheap, abundent electricity. And we have the capacity to ensure that for many centuries to come as long as we go nuclear. It's the only option we've got that makes sense.

Nuclear is nice. just people are scared of the waste.
though poeple who want Nuclear is now 59% of the population
http://www.gallup.com/poll/117025/Support-Nuclear-Energy-Inches-New-High.aspx
Dododecapod
22-03-2009, 00:24
Nuclear is nice. just people are scared of the waste.
though poeple who want Nuclear is now 59% of the population
http://www.gallup.com/poll/117025/Support-Nuclear-Energy-Inches-New-High.aspx

Excellent. Nuclear, cool, clean and green.
New Stalinberg
22-03-2009, 00:26
Whiny environmentalists are too fucking scared of nuclear power, even though there have been only two major accidents, which were both taken care of promptly.

Think of all the research for nuclear power we could have made if we didn't get involved in the clusterfuck that is Iraq.
Free Soviets
22-03-2009, 00:29
Nuclear is nice. just people are scared of the waste.
though poeple who want Nuclear is now 59% of the population
http://www.gallup.com/poll/117025/Support-Nuclear-Energy-Inches-New-High.aspx

i understand where the opposition to nuclear comes from, but given the 'let's just keep using coal instead' solution, we probably should have just gone with it. at least radioactive waste from nuke plants would be subject to monitoring, unlike the even worse radioactive waste from coal, which just sits in heaps and waits for retaining walls to burst.

now if we start using thorium...
Dododecapod
22-03-2009, 00:29
Whiny environmentalists are too fucking scared of nuclear power, even though there have been only two major accidents, which were both taken care of promptly.

Think of all the research for nuclear power we could have made if we didn't get involved in the clusterfuck that is Iraq.

I should also note that both major accidents occurred in Russia, and with primitive reactors (plus a near miss at an experimental reactor in Britain). Modern US or French built reactors have a 100% safety rate.
greed and death
22-03-2009, 00:32
but if it meets a significant portion of the house's needs, and we use other developed areas for additional solar energy collections, then its pretty easy to see how it'd be done. hell, the chicago museum of science and indutry has a green 'smart home' (which is fucking awesome and i wants it) that gets the majority of its energy from pv film that doesn't even completely cover the roof. in chicago.

houses have a larger roof to energy consumption ratio then high rise buildings.

Household with increasing solar and battery technology should have the option to go off the grid in the near future.
That I want, not so much to be environmental but just because I hate paying bills for non physical things.
Svalbardania
22-03-2009, 00:35
*sigh* Of course there should be solar panels on the tops of all buildings, and wind turbines down the sides etc... but as for the desert, these conservationists need to learn to pick their battles. The Mojave is relatively biologically simple, especially when compared to the places people normally draw their energy sources from. This project would see MASSIVE solar power production, resulting in significant net good for the environment and, given that it would see no net decrease to the standard of living of the populace, it WILL ACTUALLY HAPPEN.

Surely the environmental movement can see what most people can, that the important work they advocate has to be done at minimal net harm to human society, otherwise NOTHING will get done. A ginormous solar power production plant in the middle of the desert is a metric ass-load better for the environment than the status quo.

On that note, I reckon most envirnomentalists would be happy with this, it's just a few nutters with no idea what they're talking about getting uppity.
greed and death
22-03-2009, 00:37
i understand where the opposition to nuclear comes from, but given the 'let's just keep using coal instead' solution, we probably should have just gone with it. at least radioactive waste from nuke plants would be subject to monitoring, unlike the even worse radioactive waste from coal, which just sits in heaps and waits for retaining walls to burst.

now if we start using thorium...

I favor dumping the waste in a subduction zone myself. Let it go into the mantle and be done with it.
Ifreann
22-03-2009, 00:45
or a company, even. we do it with windmills.

Yes.
Svalbardania
22-03-2009, 00:51
I favor dumping the waste in a subduction zone myself. Let it go into the mantle and be done with it.

Just out of curiosity, can this method be ensured to be safe? Would the process of subduction not (potentially) cause damage to the containment facilities which the waste is placed in? Or is there an available technique for ensuring safety?

My only problem with nuclear is ensuring the waste is disposed off efficiently and safely, with no impact on the biosphere. I don't want nuclear waste dumped in the ocean or something similar, but if it can be stored completely segregated from any ecological system (ie, if placing it in a subduction zone can ensure no little fishies get a third eye, or if we had a space elevator so that we could launch it off into space (the sun maybe?)) then let's go nuclear.
Shibidab
22-03-2009, 01:00
wait a minute, how the hell can you harm the desert ... there's NOTHING there!This is just nonsense , political nonsense . As soon as one person tries to make a step forward environmentally there will be at least two people to make him step backward . We need to be thinking long term here !!!
Svalbardania
22-03-2009, 01:12
wait a minute, how the hell can you harm the desert ... there's NOTHING there!This is just nonsense , political nonsense . As soon as one person tries to make a step forward environmentally there will be at least two people to make him step backward . We need to be thinking long term here !!!

Well, that's not TOTALLY accurate... in recent years increasing biodiversity has been uncovered in deserts. There are plants, insects, small mammals, and birds a-plenty. That being said, as I said in my earlier post, there is significantly less biological presence in the desert than anywhere else in the world. So while it may adversely affect the lifeforms in the desert, it will be significantly better than trying to get energy from anywhere else, with the possible exception of metropoli.
Free Soviets
22-03-2009, 01:14
wait a minute, how the hell can you harm the desert ... there's NOTHING there!

dam the grand canyon!
greed and death
22-03-2009, 01:17
Just out of curiosity, can this method be ensured to be safe? Would the process of subduction not (potentially) cause damage to the containment facilities which the waste is placed in? Or is there an available technique for ensuring safety?



you seal it in those hundred year barrels. Then let the process of subduction take it into the mantle. Once the barrel breaks it should be below any biospheres and all the movement will be downward.

Long term wise I find it safer then the current method which is to find a very still place and store it there. You never know when an area will become unstable, but subduction zones don't simply change.
Ristle
22-03-2009, 01:21
wait a minute, how the hell can you harm the desert ... there's NOTHING there!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k60PUM5haGg
Shibidab
22-03-2009, 01:29
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k60PUM5haGg

why, thank you for this ever so enlightening kids cartoon on desert fauna, i however am not convinced there are enough species to justify the halt of this project from which the entire state will benefit
Shibidab
22-03-2009, 01:31
dam the grand canyon!

its the natural basin of colorado river,isnt it, its the best place for a dam
greed and death
22-03-2009, 01:33
its the natural basin of colorado river,isnt it, its the best place for a dam

We can label it as part of the stimulus package.
Ristle
22-03-2009, 01:35
why, thank you for this ever so enlightening kids cartoon on desert fauna, i however am not convinced there are enough species to justify the halt of this project from which the entire state will benefit
I wasn't attempting to show that there are enough species to justify the halt of the project. Just pointing out that you were wrong you when said there was nothing there. Also, I just like linking to the Magic School Bus. You should always link to the magic school bus if you have the opportunity.
Shibidab
22-03-2009, 01:43
Well, that's not TOTALLY accurate... in recent years increasing biodiversity has been uncovered in deserts. There are plants, insects, small mammals, and birds a-plenty. That being said, as I said in my earlier post, there is significantly less biological presence in the desert than anywhere else in the world. So while it may adversely affect the lifeforms in the desert, it will be significantly better than trying to get energy from anywhere else, with the possible exception of metropoli.

But surely if there is any place on Earth where we can built these solar panel farms with minimum impact to nature and minimum construction costs and perfect solar conditions , these places would be the deserts .Huge projects have already started in Africa and will help regenerate the regions there . This to me seems the best solution to the energy crisis , better than wind farms by far
Svalbardania
22-03-2009, 01:43
I wasn't attempting to show that there are enough species to justify the halt of the project. Just pointing out that you were wrong you when said there was nothing there. Also, I just like linking to the Magic School Bus. You should always link to the magic school bus if you have the opportunity.

Isn't that one of the rules of the internet?
Svalbardania
22-03-2009, 01:49
But surely if there is any place on Earth where we can built these solar panel farms with minimum impact to nature and minimum construction costs and perfect solar conditions , these places would be the deserts .Huge projects have already started in Africa and will help regenerate the regions there . This to me seems the best solution to the energy crisis , better than wind farms by far

Oh, I tend to agree, as I expanded upon in my earlier post. This project should go ahead. Solar technology is constantly improving and evolving, whereas the basic wind turbine idea hasn't changed much since the windmill. Recent technological advances have actually made it possible to put miniature, super thin solar panels inside glass, acting as a tinting mechanism whilst also generating electricity. Glass goes slightly darker (many windows are darkened anyway), power gets made, everyone wins.
Shibidab
22-03-2009, 01:54
Oh, I tend to agree, as I expanded upon in my earlier post. This project should go ahead. Solar technology is constantly improving and evolving, whereas the basic wind turbine idea hasn't changed much since the windmill. Recent technological advances have actually made it possible to put miniature, super thin solar panels inside glass, acting as a tinting mechanism whilst also generating electricity. Glass goes slightly darker (many windows are darkened anyway), power gets made, everyone wins.

could you give me a link to a website about this,please , i have only heard about this and can't find anything on google about it . Thanks. yeah there are many applications . I remember they tried to make a solar powered car and solar powered plane but it is still very expensive and not efficient enough , still i believe solar power helps to save some energy but not enough to power all your needs.
Svalbardania
22-03-2009, 01:59
could you give me a link to a website about this,please , i have only heard about this and can't find anything on google about it . Thanks. yeah there are many applications . I remember they tried to make a solar powered car and solar powered plane but it is still very expensive and not efficient enough , still i believe solar power helps to save some energy but not enough to power all your needs.

I tend to think a combination of all the renewables is necessary. Wind, solar, tidal, the lot. If we can get nuclear safe, then that too, but it is more expensive than the others (if memory serves me correctly, anyway).

As for a link, I saw it on telly, but I'll try and find something for you.

EDIT: This is the best I can do for you, but it's not really showing what I want it to... http://www.brisbanetimes.com.au/news/queensland/power-windows-a-bright-idea/2008/04/09/1207420470306.html
Dododecapod
22-03-2009, 02:36
I tend to think a combination of all the renewables is necessary. Wind, solar, tidal, the lot. If we can get nuclear safe, then that too, but it is more expensive than the others (if memory serves me correctly, anyway).

As for a link, I saw it on telly, but I'll try and find something for you.

EDIT: This is the best I can do for you, but it's not really showing what I want it to... http://www.brisbanetimes.com.au/news/queensland/power-windows-a-bright-idea/2008/04/09/1207420470306.html

Nuclear is safe. And while start up costs for a nuke plant are significantly higher, overall maintenance costs are less than for a wind farm or a major solar installation.

Plus, a single nuke plant can power a small city. Solar and wind are nowhere near as efficient.
greed and death
22-03-2009, 02:39
Nuclear is safe. And while start up costs for a nuke plant are significantly higher, overall maintenance costs are less than for a wind farm or a major solar installation.

Plus, a single nuke plant can power a small city. Solar and wind are nowhere near as efficient.

Not to mention nuclear plants don't require sinking trillions into upgrading the grid.
http://1.bp.blogspot.com/_evnqQdPsjKE/SXOCl6C4lDI/AAAAAAAAALY/J1oiPbnz4W4/s1600-h/solar+vs+wind+vs+nuclear.jpg
CthulhuFhtagn
22-03-2009, 02:58
But surely if there is any place on Earth where we can built these solar panel farms with minimum impact to nature and minimum construction costs and perfect solar conditions , these places would be the deserts .Huge projects have already started in Africa and will help regenerate the regions there . This to me seems the best solution to the energy crisis , better than wind farms by far

Deserts are enormously fragile ecosystems. It is absolutely insipid to build anything there.
Svalbardania
22-03-2009, 02:59
Nuclear is safe. And while start up costs for a nuke plant are significantly higher, overall maintenance costs are less than for a wind farm or a major solar installation.

Plus, a single nuke plant can power a small city. Solar and wind are nowhere near as efficient.

I don't believe the hype most greenies give about the reactors themselves, what I care about is the safe, clean, absolutely-no-chance-whatsoever-not-even-a-little-eeny-weeny-chance-of-contamination disposal of the waste. Which I'm sure IS possible. I just don't like the idea of digging a hole in the ground and hoping it'll be ok, for inevitably the radiation will leak into the soil, then the plants, then the whole ecosystem could be buggered. If we can get rid of the stuff well, let's go nuclear.
CthulhuFhtagn
22-03-2009, 03:05
No, but it wouldn't be a bad thing anyway, even if it only reduced the amount needed.

The fact is, our civilization runs on cheap, abundent electricity. And we have the capacity to ensure that for many centuries to come as long as we go nuclear. It's the only option we've got that makes sense.

If we use breeder reactors, yes. Or if we use fusion reactors, which are ridiculously superior to fission reactors in every way, and they should be up in about forty years. No one ever mentions them, though.
The Cat-Tribe
22-03-2009, 03:09
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2009/03/21/feinstein-dont-spoil-desert-solar-panels/

So. Turns out renewable resources aren't the answer after all.

I'm going to go ask Merlin the Mystic (who according to the local paper guards the bridge leading to a local cemetery) if in addition to birthdays and bar mitzvah's he can supply energy to the national power grid.

*sigh*

Even the Faux News article makes clear this is not about opposition to solar energy or renewable resources in general. From the OP article (http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2009/03/21/feinstein-dont-spoil-desert-solar-panels/):

But Karen Douglas, chairman of the California Energy Commission, said Feinstein's proposal could be a "win-win" for energy and conservation. The governor's office said Douglas was speaking on the administration's behalf.

"The opportunity we see in the Feinstein bill is to jump-start our own efforts to find the best sites for development and to come up with a broader conservation plan that mitigates the impact of the development," Douglas said.

Douglas said that if the national monument lines were drawn without consideration of renewable energy then a conflict was likely, but it's early enough in the planning process that she's confident the state will be able to get more solar and wind projects up and running without hurting the environment.

"We think we can do both," Douglas said. "We think this is an opportunity to accelerate both."

*snip*

Feinstein's spokesman, Gil Duran, said the senator looks forward to working with the governor and the Interior Department on the issue.

"There's plenty of room in America's deserts for the bold expansion of renewable energy projects," Duran said.



Senator Feinstein's objection is to some uses of specific land obtained primarily by donations to the federal government by private conservation groups. linky (http://feinstein.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=NewsRoom.PressReleases&ContentRecord_id=1b2bfd79-5056-8059-769b-efa99ad34933&Region_id=&Issue_id=)
greed and death
22-03-2009, 03:11
*sigh*

Even the Faux News article makes clear this is not about opposition to solar energy or renewable resources in general. From the OP article (http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2009/03/21/feinstein-dont-spoil-desert-solar-panels/):

But Karen Douglas, chairman of the California Energy Commission, said Feinstein's proposal could be a "win-win" for energy and conservation. The governor's office said Douglas was speaking on the administration's behalf.

"The opportunity we see in the Feinstein bill is to jump-start our own efforts to find the best sites for development and to come up with a broader conservation plan that mitigates the impact of the development," Douglas said.

Douglas said that if the national monument lines were drawn without consideration of renewable energy then a conflict was likely, but it's early enough in the planning process that she's confident the state will be able to get more solar and wind projects up and running without hurting the environment.

"We think we can do both," Douglas said. "We think this is an opportunity to accelerate both."

*snip*

Feinstein's spokesman, Gil Duran, said the senator looks forward to working with the governor and the Interior Department on the issue.

"There's plenty of room in America's deserts for the bold expansion of renewable energy projects," Duran said.



Senator Feinstein's objection is to some uses of specific land obtained primarily by donations to the federal government by private conservation groups. linky (http://feinstein.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=NewsRoom.PressReleases&ContentRecord_id=1b2bfd79-5056-8059-769b-efa99ad34933&Region_id=&Issue_id=)

I still get to put the competing environmental groups in a cage match right ?
The Cat-Tribe
22-03-2009, 03:12
I still get to put the competing environmental groups in a cage match right ?

:D

What competing environmental groups? :tongue:
Non Aligned States
22-03-2009, 03:20
Deserts are enormously fragile ecosystems. It is absolutely insipid to build anything there.

Like Las Vegas? Funny, I don't see any conservationists calling for that city to be returned to nature.
Lunatic Goofballs
22-03-2009, 03:22
Like Las Vegas? Funny, I don't see any conservationists calling for that city to be returned to nature.

That's because any conservationist that made such a call would get returned to nature first. :D
Ifreann
22-03-2009, 03:23
Like Las Vegas? Funny, I don't see any conservationists calling for that city to be returned to nature.

I'm sure some of them are thinking it.
Non Aligned States
22-03-2009, 03:24
I don't believe the hype most greenies give about the reactors themselves, what I care about is the safe, clean, absolutely-no-chance-whatsoever-not-even-a-little-eeny-weeny-chance-of-contamination disposal of the waste. Which I'm sure IS possible. I just don't like the idea of digging a hole in the ground and hoping it'll be ok, for inevitably the radiation will leak into the soil, then the plants, then the whole ecosystem could be buggered. If we can get rid of the stuff well, let's go nuclear.

If you dig a deep enough hole, it's perfectly fine. If you put something into the mantle, the only way it ever comes out again is by direct volcanic action, and even then it won't come out in the same state it was put in there. Immense pressure and temperatures after all. What might come out will be hardly any more dangerous than the actual eruption and ash clouds.

The question is whether you can dig that deep a hole.
Svalbardania
22-03-2009, 03:27
If we use breeder reactors, yes. Or if we use fusion reactors, which are ridiculously superior to fission reactors in every way, and they should be up in about forty years. No one ever mentions them, though.

I though they required more energy input than they gave in output? Or have I got my science wrong (entirely plausable situation, that)?
Galloism
22-03-2009, 03:27
The question is whether you can dig that deep a hole.

Just ask some of the posters here, not to exclude myself.
CthulhuFhtagn
22-03-2009, 03:29
I though they required more energy input than they gave in output? Or have I got my science wrong (entirely plausable situation, that)?

Currently, yes. They're currently working on one that will give more energy in output than in input. An actual workable fusion reactor should be up and running by 2050.
CthulhuFhtagn
22-03-2009, 03:30
Like Las Vegas? Funny, I don't see any conservationists calling for that city to be returned to nature.

I have. It's absolutely wrecking the water table.
Lunatic Goofballs
22-03-2009, 03:30
I though they required more energy input than they gave in output? Or have I got my science wrong (entirely plausable situation, that)?

Well, that's the part that'll take 40 years to figure out. ;)

There are theoretical ways to cause nuclear fusion that involve considerably less energy inputted than outputted. Once the system reaches a certain point, it woudl be self-sustaining as long as it had a fuel supply. Unfortunately, there are a few materials snags to work out of those systems.
RhynoD
22-03-2009, 03:32
Do your comments ever have anything to actually do with the articles you link?

Every single time.
Non Aligned States
22-03-2009, 03:33
That's because any conservationist that made such a call would get returned to nature first. :D

I have. It's absolutely wrecking the water table.

Well LG?
RhynoD
22-03-2009, 03:36
you seal it in those hundred year barrels. Then let the process of subduction take it into the mantle. Once the barrel breaks it should be below any biospheres and all the movement will be downward.

Long term wise I find it safer then the current method which is to find a very still place and store it there. You never know when an area will become unstable, but subduction zones don't simply change.

Launch it into space.
Lunatic Goofballs
22-03-2009, 03:36
Well LG?

I guess that's it for him then. :tongue:
Ifreann
22-03-2009, 03:41
Launch it into space.
How environmentally friendly is launching anything into space?
Svalbardania
22-03-2009, 03:44
How environmentally friendly is launching anything into space?

Space elevators!
RhynoD
22-03-2009, 03:44
How environmentally friendly is launching anything into space?

Depends on how much waste is created by the rocket.
Ifreann
22-03-2009, 03:49
Depends on how much waste is created by the rocket.

There isn't exactly a huge variety in rockets used to launch people into space these days. It isn't only really worth it if the greatly increased number of rockets launched into space create more pollution than the nuclear plants don't create.
The South Islands
22-03-2009, 03:55
There isn't exactly a huge variety in rockets used to launch people into space these days. It's only really worth it if the greatly increased number of rockets launched into space create more pollution than the nuclear plants don't create.

Hydrogen fueled rockets (commonly in use today) produce few harmful gasses. Others produce more.

If you compare the dozens of tons of nuclear waste that could be lofted by a single launch, it becomes clear that the pollution produced by the launch pales to the pollution that would be generated if the power was created by fossil fuel based energy forms.

However, the big problem would be the fact that rockets are extremely complex machines that sometimes do not function correctly. Anyone advocating launching waste into space should consider the possibilities of a rocket catastrophically failing during ascent or, god forbid, the payload not reach orbit and scatter its very deadly payload over a huge area upon reentry.
Lunatic Goofballs
22-03-2009, 03:57
Hydrogen fueled rockets (commonly in use today) produce few harmful gasses. Others produce more.

If you compare the dozens of tons of nuclear waste that could be lofted by a single launch, it becomes clear that the pollution produced by the launch pales to the pollution that would be generated if the power was created by fossil fuel based energy forms.

However, the big problem would be the fact that rockets are extremely complex machines that sometimes do not function correctly. Anyone advocating launching waste into space should consider the possibilities of a rocket catastrophically failing during ascent or, god forbid, the payload not reach orbit and scatter its very deadly payload over a huge area upon reentry.

"Mommy? Why is the rain green and glowing?"
Ifreann
22-03-2009, 03:59
"Mommy? Why is the rain green and glowing?"

There was a Dean Koontz novel, I forget the name, but it was basically following one couple in a smallish town somewhere in America living through the apocalypse. The first signs of this apocalypse? Glowing rain that smells like semen.



GLOWING JIZZ RAIN!
Lunatic Goofballs
22-03-2009, 04:03
There was a Dean Koontz novel, I forget the name, but it was basically following one couple in a smallish town somewhere in America living through the apocalypse. The first signs of this apocalypse? Glowing rain that smells like semen.



GLOWING JIZZ RAIN!

I guess they were fucked. :p
Ifreann
22-03-2009, 04:05
I guess they were fucked. :p

You know how people tell kids that when it rains, that's God crying?


Yeah. I'll just leave that comment there.
Dakini
22-03-2009, 06:20
Whiny environmentalists are too fucking scared of nuclear power, even though there have been only two major accidents, which were both taken care of promptly.
I wouldn't call Chernobyl "taken care of". I would call it a "time bomb". They basically just sealed it up in concrete, the material is still there and it's still a hazard.

Now, I'm not saying that this should prevent anyone else from using nuclear power. Chernobyl was an accident which occurred basically due to complete stupidity (i.e. "hey, let's yank the control rods and see what happens...") but it's not really all better.
RhynoD
22-03-2009, 06:46
There isn't exactly a huge variety in rockets used to launch people into space these days. It isn't only really worth it if the greatly increased number of rockets launched into space create more pollution than the nuclear plants don't create.

If we ever get around to making space elevators...
Milks Empire
22-03-2009, 07:28
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2009/03/21/feinstein-dont-spoil-desert-solar-panels/

So. Turns out renewable resources aren't the answer after all.

I'm going to go ask Merlin the Mystic (who according to the local paper guards the bridge leading to a local cemetery) if in addition to birthdays and bar mitzvah's he can supply energy to the national power grid.

Do you have a source not run by Rupert Murdoch?
South Lorenya
22-03-2009, 07:54
Nuclear power is good *IF* they make sure professionals take very good care of the plants. It probably has the potential to be better than windmills/solar/coal/oil/dams/etc., but if they don't have strict safeguards, it's like playing with flamethrowers in a fireworks warehouse. ;(
LEFTHANDEDSUPREMACIST
22-03-2009, 08:34
Environmentalist are a plague on humanity. Their only wish is to keep humanity from technologically evolving. I can not wait until all environmentalist are rounded up and liquidated in FEMA camps. Join the NWO and lets:) rid ourselves of these vermin.
Intangelon
22-03-2009, 08:52
Environmentalist are a plague on humanity. Their only wish is to keep humanity from technologically evolving. I can not wait until all environmentalist are rounded up and liquidated in FEMA camps. Join the NWO and lets:) rid ourselves of these vermin.

Ladies & Gentlemen, give it up for G. Gordon Liddy! Remember kids, you can be just like the Lidster -- just make sure your tinfoil hat is on goooood and tight.
LEFTHANDEDSUPREMACIST
22-03-2009, 10:00
Ladies & Gentlemen, give it up for G. Gordon Liddy! Remember kids, you can be just like the Lidster -- just make sure your tinfoil hat is on goooood and tight.I've got a plastic FEMA coffin with your ssn on it.
East Tofu
22-03-2009, 13:54
or, we could put wind power generators and solar panels on top of buildings, in cities. No one can say that their harming the city environment.

There are those who suggest that wind generators kill birds no matter where you put them.
SaintB
22-03-2009, 13:58
Gah.. humanity never ceases to disgust me.
SaintB
22-03-2009, 14:02
There are those who suggest that wind generators kill birds no matter where you put them.

What needs to be done is all the birds killed by the windmills get gathered up and fed to the homeless. Then its two good things!

Figurativley speaking thats killing two birds with one windmill. Litterally speaking if thats all we manage to get than the plan just backfired.
Lunatic Goofballs
22-03-2009, 14:07
What needs to be done is all the birds killed by the windmills get gathered up and fed to the homeless. Then its two good things!

Figurativley speaking thats killing two birds with one windmill. Litterally speaking if thats all we manage to get than the plan just backfired.

The birds will eventually adapt by either altering their migratory patterns or developing armor. *nod*
SaintB
22-03-2009, 14:09
The birds will eventually adapt by either altering their migratory patterns or developing armor. *nod*

In the meantime its all good!
Lunatic Goofballs
22-03-2009, 14:13
In the meantime its all good!

You say that now, but you'll change your tune when bulletproof pigeons descend upon us! :eek:
SaintB
22-03-2009, 14:15
You say that now, but you'll change your tune when bulletproof pigeons descend upon us! :eek:

Pssh, thats gonna take about 100 million years and I'm sure we'll have something better than bullets to throw at 'em. Besides I'm not concerned with 100 million years from now
The_pantless_hero
22-03-2009, 15:55
"It would destroy the entire Mojave Desert ecosystem," said David Myers, executive director of The Wildlands Conservancy.
I would think adding more shade would help.
The_pantless_hero
22-03-2009, 15:59
Nuclear power is good *IF* they make sure professionals take very good care of the plants. It probably has the potential to be better than windmills/solar/coal/oil/dams/etc., but if they don't have strict safeguards, it's like playing with flamethrowers in a fireworks warehouse. ;(

Nuclear plant locations are limited. You need a large plot of land close to a constant water source (if I'm not mistaken which I may be). Most of those are taken up by cities and towns. We should just line all buildings with solar panels.
Ashmoria
22-03-2009, 16:10
Nuclear plant locations are limited. You need a large plot of land close to a constant water source (if I'm not mistaken which I may be). Most of those are taken up by cities and towns. We should just line all buildings with solar panels.
nope

you are behind the times.

los alamos national labs is developing a nuclear powerplant the size of a van that can power 20,000 homes.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2008/nov/09/miniature-nuclear-reactors-los-alamos
Intestinal fluids
22-03-2009, 16:13
Solar power research has been a complete waste of time and valuable resources and has resulted in government subsidized welfare for environmentalists for 5 decades. The amount of money that has gone into solar power development in my lifetime is simply staggering, and we are no closer to creating a system that even pays pays for itself let alone helping the solution, then we were decades and decades ago. Enough is enough.

When you see a field of solar panels somewhere, you may think, oh look an electricity farm. In fact what you should really be saying is, oh look a Government subsidies farm!
greed and death
22-03-2009, 16:17
nope

you are behind the times.

los alamos national labs is developing a nuclear powerplant the size of a van that can power 20,000 homes.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2008/nov/09/miniature-nuclear-reactors-los-alamos

I wonder how much one of those will cost.
SaintB
22-03-2009, 16:19
I wonder how much one of those will cost.

$25,000,000 according to the article.
Ashmoria
22-03-2009, 16:21
I wonder how much one of those will cost.
today they suggest $25million with a 10 year life before it has to be recharged (however that will work)

what the price is after inflation and lawsuits are figured in is anybody's guess.
Non Aligned States
22-03-2009, 16:27
today they suggest $25million with a 10 year life before it has to be recharged (however that will work)

what the price is after inflation and lawsuits are figured in is anybody's guess.

The article also talks about how impossible it is to steal without nation level resources. I bet this person never had to contend with the kind of thieves we have around here. People have successfully stolen not only statues, but live power small scale substations. Sure a lot of people got fried trying to steal bits and bobs from the substations, but the cleverer ones just brought in a heavy crane and made off with the whole thing.

I'd give the thieves maybe six months to figure out how to steal it, with maybe four months of irradiating themselves and the local area in their attempts to loot it.
Ashmoria
22-03-2009, 16:31
The article also talks about how impossible it is to steal without nation level resources. I bet this person never had to contend with the kind of thieves we have around here. People have successfully stolen not only statues, but live power small scale substations. Sure a lot of people got fried trying to steal bits and bobs from the substations, but the cleverer ones just brought in a heavy crane and made off with the whole thing.

I'd give the thieves maybe six months to figure out how to steal it, with maybe four months of irradiating themselves and the local area in their attempts to loot it.
yeah i think they must have meant SAFELY stolen.

any fool can steal it and kill themselves.

although it probably will be heavier than what can be dragged off in the back of a pickup truck.
The_pantless_hero
22-03-2009, 16:35
nope

you are behind the times.

los alamos national labs is developing a nuclear powerplant the size of a van that can power 20,000 homes.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2008/nov/09/miniature-nuclear-reactors-los-alamos

So I am behind the times based on research that hasn't even reached the production phase? Lolwhat? I would propose you are behind the times with a year and a half old article on it.
Ashmoria
22-03-2009, 16:37
So I am behind the times based on research that hasn't even reached the production phase? Lolwhat? I would propose you are behind the times with a year and a half old article on it.
yes you are.
Chumblywumbly
22-03-2009, 16:45
When you see a field of solar panels somewhere, you may think, oh look an electricity farm. In fact what you should really be saying is, oh look a Government subsidies farm!
Along with every other power plant.

It's not as if the coal/gas/nuclear industry researched and built the infrastructure all by themselves, out of their own pocket.
Non Aligned States
22-03-2009, 16:48
yeah i think they must have meant SAFELY stolen.

any fool can steal it and kill themselves.

although it probably will be heavier than what can be dragged off in the back of a pickup truck.

The units are designed to be transportable. At the very least, it would take a heavy lorry, well within the capacity of the thieves who made off with the substation here.

In either case, I doubt they'd give up trying to steal it after a mere few hundred deaths from idiots cracking it open with crowbars and blowtorches, not with that kind of price tag.
greed and death
22-03-2009, 16:49
The units are designed to be transportable. At the very least, it would take a heavy lorry, well within the capacity of the thieves who made off with the substation here.

In either case, I doubt they'd give up trying to steal it after a mere few hundred deaths from idiots cracking it open with crowbars and blowtorches, not with that kind of price tag.

i doubt anyone sinking millions of dollars into the power unit would forgo having some security for it.
The_pantless_hero
22-03-2009, 16:50
Solar power research has been a complete waste of time and valuable resources and has resulted in government subsidized welfare for environmentalists for 5 decades. The amount of money that has gone into solar power development in my lifetime is simply staggering, and we are no closer to creating a system that even pays pays for itself let alone helping the solution, then we were decades and decades ago. Enough is enough.

Wrong on all counts. Solar, wind, and other constant energy sources (I would say renewable but that includes ethanol and these arn't so much renewable as they are just there) have received a pittance compared to what has gone into ethanol, oil, coal, and nuclear. Also, solar, with what little money given to it, has hit some major milestones such as increasing the efficiency of a standard cell several times (http://www.unsw.edu.au/news/pad/articles/2008/nov/Solar_record.html), finding a way to produce a solar cell that is flexible and equally efficient (http://www.technologyreview.com/energy/21467/), and a film that turns any glass surface into a solar panel (http://www.independent.co.uk/news/science/new-windows-double-as-solar-panels-865592.html).
South Lorenya
22-03-2009, 17:25
Even having merely adequate security qualifies for the "flamethrowers among fireworks" clasification. Trust me, unless an idiot is appointed as the plant's manager, they'll have more than enough security.
Intestinal fluids
22-03-2009, 17:26
Wrong on all counts. Solar, wind, and other constant energy sources (I would say renewable but that includes ethanol and these arn't so much renewable as they are just there) have received a pittance compared to what has gone into ethanol, oil, coal, and nuclear.

Yes because it has repeatedly been shown to be a failed technology. Decade after decade after decade after decade. Its time to stop the environmental welfare program. If these environmentalists think they have such earth shattering and wonderful ideas, then let them pitch their plan to private industry and private money (HAHA fat chance) and let them subsidize their lifestyles not the taxpayer.

Also, solar, with what little money given to it, has hit some major milestones such as increasing the efficiency of a standard cell several times (http://www.unsw.edu.au/news/pad/articles/2008/nov/Solar_record.html), finding a way to produce a solar cell that is flexible and equally efficient (http://www.technologyreview.com/energy/21467/), and a film that turns any glass surface into a solar panel (http://www.independent.co.uk/news/science/new-windows-double-as-solar-panels-865592.html).

Wow reads just like the press releases from the early 70s that trumpeted discovery "X" that would revolutionize solar technology and make it economical in the next 10 years. And eerily familiar to the press releases from the 1980s that touted discovery "Y" that would revolutionize solar technology and make it economically viable in under 10 years. Ill give you one guess what happened in 1990s and the early 2000s. Same song, different younger audience with a shorter memory all drinking the same grape koolaid. Promises of new technology are important to the charade to keep the next generation of welfare flowing.
Chumblywumbly
22-03-2009, 17:35
Yes because it has repeatedly been shown to be a failed technology. Decade after decade after decade after decade.
How?

Its time to stop the environmental welfare program.
And, presumably, the nuclear/gas/coal 'welfare program'?

If these environmentalists think they have such earth shattering and wonderful ideas, then let them pitch their plan to private industry and private money...
They have done, with great success.

Green technology and renewable power are now incredibly profitable businesses.

Same song, different younger audience with a shorter memory all drinking the same grape koolaid. Promises of new technology are important to the charade to keep the next generation of welfare flowing.
Again, the only way nuclear/coal/gas power was made viable was through massive government investment. Renewable energy hasn't had nearly the amount of money thrown at it that other power sources have, and still have. Are you also willing to cut off all subsidies to the other power outlets?
East Tofu
22-03-2009, 17:40
And, presumably, the nuclear/gas/coal 'welfare program'?


Despite the extreme costs associated with building a nuclear plant in the US, which has largely to do with fighting environmentalists in court to get a permit (a very expensive proposition), it's actually an economic success that requires no welfare program.

The initial nuclear programs were military in nature - reactors to produce weapon material and reactors to drive military vessels. That was a huge "welfare" program, but it had little benefit to civilian programs.

Gas and coal are economically self-sustaining, until they start to run out.

Did you notice that when the economy tanked, the price of oil, gas, and coal plummeted. All of a sudden, green tech tanked - no one wants a hybrid now (their sales evaporated here).

Economics should drive the replacement, not government policy.

Oh, and I believe that the British had a welfare program for wind power for several hundred years, called The Royal Navy.
Chumblywumbly
22-03-2009, 17:48
Despite the extreme costs associated with building a nuclear plant in the US, which has largely to do with fighting environmentalists in court to get a permit (a very expensive proposition), it's actually an economic success that requires no welfare program.
Ehhhh, no.

Have a look at the Energy Policy Act of 2005 (http://www.icfi.com/Markets/Energy/Energy-Act/nuclear-power.pdf) (.pdf):

The Secretary of Energy is authorized to provide a loan guarantee of up to 80% of the project cost of advanced nuclear energy facilities. The Secretary’s ability to authorize loan guarantees is contingent on Congress appropriating funds for this purpose.

• Standby support for delays beyond 180 days in the commencement of full operation due to litigation or the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) approval. The support is available for up to 6 reactors. The first two reactors can receive up to US$500 million and the remaining four reactors can receive up to US$250 million apiece, for a total of up to US$2 billion. Covered costs of delay include principal and interest and the incremental cost of purchased power to replace contracted power from the nuclear facility.

• Funding support for construction of advanced new nuclear reactors totalling US$1.18 billion for core nuclear research, development, demonstration, and commercial application activities over the period 2007 through 2009. Of this amount, US$580 million is allocated for the Advanced Fuel Cell Initiative, and US$149.7 million for university nuclear science and engineering support.

• US$420 million was also authorized for the U.S. Department of Energy’s (DOE) civilian nuclear infrastructure and facilities over the period 2007 through 2009.

• Allocates US$1.1 billion for the Fusion Energy Science Program covering the period 2007 through 2009. This funding includes support for U.S. participation in the International Thermonuclear Experimental Reactor.

• Modifies the rules for qualified decommissioning funds by repealing the cost of service requirement for such contributions and permitting the transfer of pre-1984 decommissioning costs to a qualified fund. This provision is estimated to cost US$1.3 billion.

Also, see here (http://www.wired.com/techbiz/startups/news/2007/11/nuclear_economics).

"We really see it as essentially a number of companies are getting in line for a set of significant taxpayer subsidies," said Geoffrey Fettus, a senior attorney with the National Resources Defense Council. "At this point we're years away from commitments from any of these companies to build."

The subsidies that Fettus refers to include a tax credit of up to $125 million total per year, estimated at 1.8 cents per kilowatt hour during the first eight years of operation, for the first 6,000 megawatts of capacity -- the same credit offered for plants that use renewable fuels.

In addition, the law provides support for construction of new nuclear plants costing over $1.18 billion, and an extension until 2025 of the Price-Anderson Act, which mitigates financial and legal risk for nuclear plant accidents.

Despite the incentives, experts point out that new nuclear construction may still be prohibitively expensive.

NRG Energy says its two proposed units, which would produce a total of 2,700 megawatts, or enough to power 2 million homes, would cost $6 billion to build. A conventional natural-gas plant of the same size would cost $2 billion, according to Jeremy Carl, a research fellow and PhD candidate at the Center for Environmental Science and Policy at Stanford University.

"To make money back you've got to charge a pretty high price for your power and it's not clear that the market will support that," Carl said.
East Tofu
22-03-2009, 17:52
Ehhhh, no.

Have a look at the Energy Policy Act of 2005 (http://www.icfi.com/Markets/Energy/Energy-Act/nuclear-power.pdf) (.pdf):



Also, see here (http://www.wired.com/techbiz/startups/news/2007/11/nuclear_economics).

[indent]

You'll notice those are largely related to startup costs, which are largely related to the 20 year window it takes to get a permit for a plant. 20 years of lawsuits.

No matter how many wind or solar plants you build, you'll never be able to supply industrial grade power (residential yes) to drive something like a steel mill or aluminium plant.

Maybe with an orbital solar plant.

Only oil, hydro, coal, gas, and nuclear provide that level of power.
Intestinal fluids
22-03-2009, 17:57
How?

Because it doesnt work. Its that simple. And by work i mean it doesnt produce more power then it costs to build and maintain over the life of the product.


And, presumably, the nuclear/gas/coal 'welfare program'?

Welfare program? Mobil/Exxon is one of the most profitable corporations on the entire planet. They made a profit of 45 Billion last QUARTER (3 months) They dont rely on subsidy farming for their existence. My local gas and electric company posts a profit every year as well, as do the vast majority of energy producers in the country.

They have done, with great success.

Green technology and renewable power are now incredibly profitable businesses.

I agree with you, unfortunately the profit comes of the back of taxpayers thru government subsidies. They arnt making profit from their wonderful product, they are making profit from checks from Uncle Sam who is telling them that its ok, someday it will work, just keep trying.


Again, the only way nuclear/coal/gas power was made viable was through massive government investment. Renewable energy hasn't had nearly the amount of money thrown at it that other power sources have, and still have. Are you also willing to cut off all subsidies to the other power outlets?

The massive government investment in our energy system was primarily in the distribution system. Solar needs this same distribution system as well so your not subtracting any costs from this just because we go solar.
RhynoD
22-03-2009, 17:59
Do you have a source not run by Rupert Murdoch?

The real question is, do I care?
Chumblywumbly
22-03-2009, 17:59
You'll notice those are largely related to startup costs...
Also known as subsidies.

Intestinal fluids is arguing that renewable energy programs can't survve without subsides; well, neither can nuclear, or gas, or coal, or oil. Thus, arguing against renewables on the basis of subsidies seems a little foolish.

No matter how many wind or solar plants you build, you'll never be able to supply industrial grade power (residential yes) to drive something like a steel mill or aluminium plant.
Never? Quite a bold claim.

Care to show how the above is impossible?


Because it doesnt work. Its that simple. And by work i mean it doesnt produce more power then it costs to build and maintain over the life of the product.
That doesn't make any sense.

What are you claiming here? What do you mean by "it doesn't produce more power then it costs".

Welfare program? Mobil/Exxon is one of the most profitable corporations on the entire planet. They made a profit of 45 Billion last QUARTER (3 months) They dont rely on subsidy farming for their existence.
They would if they could (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/6277797.stm).

As I said, all energy concerns are subsidised.

There's arguments against using renewable energies (note the plural), but arguing against them on the basis of subsidies is not a valid one.
The_pantless_hero
22-03-2009, 18:00
Yes because it has repeatedly been shown to be a failed technology.
You realize that "argument" does nothing to counter mine.

Decade after decade after decade after decade.
Are you illiterate or did you not bother to read the rest of my post?

Wow reads just like the press releases from the early 70s that trumpeted discovery "X" that would revolutionize solar technology and make it economical in the next 10 years.
These arn't research announcements or lab discoveries, these are products.

Ill give you one guess what happened in 1990s and the early 2000s.
Increases in the percent efficiency or solar panels? (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solar_cell#Records)

You are dismissing discoveries out of hand just like the dipshit government that is being paid off by oil and coal companies so they don't fund solar and wind energy thus preventing any more technological advances. Technological advances in energy require major money up front which comes from government grants usually. Your argument and reasoning is entirely circular.
The_pantless_hero
22-03-2009, 18:08
Because it doesnt work. Its that simple. And by work i mean it doesnt produce more power then it costs to build and maintain over the life of the product.
You realize nothing works like that right?

Welfare program? Mobil/Exxon is one of the most profitable corporations on the entire planet.
Yet they get billions in subsidies and write-offs. (http://priceofoil.org/2009/02/27/obama-targets-30-billion-oil-and-gas-subsidies/)

They dont rely on subsidy farming for their existence.
Yet you can be damn sure they will spend millions of dollars to prevent the government from not giving them billions of dollars in yearly subsidies.

I agree with you, unfortunately the profit comes of the back of taxpayers thru government subsidies. They arnt making profit from their wonderful product, they are making profit from checks from Uncle Sam who is telling them that its ok, someday it will work, just keep trying.
Ah, here we have it. Intestinal fluids hates scientific development. Because it doesn't work omgrightnowthisverysecond it isn't worth putting money into to develop.

The massive government investment in our energy system was primarily in the distribution system. Solar needs this same distribution system as well so your not subtracting any costs from this just because we go solar.
Bullshit. Even in the proposed wave of nuclear energy the government is going to have to put millions into each plant to make it profitable and even buildable. Distribution is not the problem, it's the upfront investment needed to get everything built and up to speed.
CthulhuFhtagn
22-03-2009, 18:11
There are those who suggest that wind generators kill birds no matter where you put them.

And they're wrong. Wind turbines do not move fast enough to kill birds.
East Tofu
22-03-2009, 18:12
Never? Quite a bold claim.

Care to show how the above is impossible?


The expansion of solar energy systems is limited by the availability of land. Estimates are that about 20 percent of U.S. land area (about 450 million acres) would be required to support a solar energy system that would supply less than one-half (37 quads) of our current energy consumption (80 quads).

Wind takes almost as much, and can only be done efficiently in a few areas of the US (solar has similar restrictions - the Pacific Northwest just doesn't cut it as a solar power area).

Combine that with the original post here, where environmentalists won't give up that massive amount of land, and you can't generate enough to light my house.
The_pantless_hero
22-03-2009, 18:13
Never? Quite a bold claim.

Care to show how the above is impossible?
That ought to be a feat because you have to take into consideration that solar panels don't necessarily take up any room that something else could occupy. Put them on a roof of a building or on a cover over a parking lot or something.

The expansion of solar energy systems is limited by the availability of land.
False. See what I just said.
East Tofu
22-03-2009, 18:14
False. See what I just said.


As noted in the OP, the desert is the best place for a solar panel.
The_pantless_hero
22-03-2009, 18:16
As noted in the OP, the desert is the best place for a solar panel.

That it is, but it doesn't negate my point in the slightest.
Intestinal fluids
22-03-2009, 18:17
Ah, here we have it. Intestinal fluids hates scientific development. Because it doesn't work omgrightnowthisverysecond it isn't worth putting money into to develop.


No im just tired of over a half century of smoke and unfufilled promises being blown up my ass and in my wallet. Sorry if probably twice your lifetime isnt patient enough for you. innovate all you want, thats what private investment is for but after 50 years of failed products, hype like you couldnt believe and nothing to show for it, its time to take the taxpayer off the hook.
Lunatic Goofballs
22-03-2009, 18:18
As noted in the OP, the desert is the best place for a solar panel.

Actually, rooftops, highways and other already developed land that can be multi-tasked is the best place for solar panels. But the desert is a close second.
The_pantless_hero
22-03-2009, 18:19
No im just tired of over a half century of smoke and unfufilled promises being blown up my ass and in my wallet.
So we should give profitable industries like oil more money than we are giving to develop solar energy? Never mind the fact that we have doubled the efficiency of solar cells in 20 years and have created cheaper, flexible panels.
East Tofu
22-03-2009, 18:22
Actually, rooftops, highways and other already developed land that can be multi-tasked is the best place for solar panels. But the desert is a close second.

A rooftop in the Pacific Northwest is essentially useless.

It's not just solar that needs specific land - wind power can't be generated in low wind areas.

Ask the residents of Cape Cod (an excellent location) whether they want wind turbines in their backyard.
The_pantless_hero
22-03-2009, 18:23
A rooftop in the Pacific Northwest is essentially useless.

It's not just solar that needs specific land - wind power can't be generated in low wind areas.

Ask the residents of Cape Cod (an excellent location) whether they want wind turbines in their backyard.

I'm sorry, are we discussing wind? No. We are discussing solar which does not have a specific land requirement (a land recommendation, yes, a requirement, no).
Lunatic Goofballs
22-03-2009, 18:23
A rooftop in the Pacific Northwest is essentially useless.

It's not just solar that needs specific land - wind power can't be generated in low wind areas.

Ask the residents of Cape Cod (an excellent location) whether they want wind turbines in their backyard.

Fuck the residents of Cape Cod.
East Tofu
22-03-2009, 18:24
I'm sorry, are we discussing wind? No. We are discussing solar which does not have a specific land requirement (a land recommendation, yes, a requirement, no).

Solar won't work in places with 80% cloud cover year round. So, specific location, not a recommendation.
East Tofu
22-03-2009, 18:25
Fuck the residents of Cape Cod.

You can take that up with the Kennedys, who have successfully blocked wind turbines there.
Lunatic Goofballs
22-03-2009, 18:25
You can take that up with the Kennedys, who have successfully blocked wind turbines there.

Fuck the Kennedys. Vote for Lenny.
The_pantless_hero
22-03-2009, 18:25
Solar won't work in places with 80% cloud cover year round. So, specific location, not a recommendation.
Perhaps you would like to provide a national analysis to prove that there are an extremely limited number of locations that don't have "80% cloud cover year round."
Lunatic Goofballs
22-03-2009, 18:29
Solar won't work in places with 80% cloud cover year round. So, specific location, not a recommendation.

Perhaps you would like to provide a national analysis to prove that there are an extremely limited number of locations that don't have "80% cloud cover year round."

It's also interesting to point out that infrared photovoltaics which use portions of the em spectrum that virtually ignores cloud cover are making big strides forward. In fact, some of the most efficient panels ever created are actually sandwiches of several different photovoltaic layers each absorbing and converting a different band of the em spectrum.
Intestinal fluids
22-03-2009, 18:29
So we should give profitable industries like oil more money than we are giving to develop solar energy? Never mind the fact that we have doubled the efficiency of solar cells in 20 years and have created cheaper, flexible panels.

No it means solar energy development is a boondoggle and should be dropped just like when a government contract to build planes suddenly triples in cost and takes 5x as long to build for a shittier plane. At some point you have to stop chasing good money after bad.
The_pantless_hero
22-03-2009, 18:30
No it means solar energy development is a boondoggle and should be dropped just like when a government contract to build planes suddenly triples in cost and takes 5x as long to build for a shittier plane. At some point you have to stop chasing good money after bad.
Your argument has no foundation in logic or results.
Lunatic Goofballs
22-03-2009, 18:32
Your argument has no foundation in logic or results. I award you no points and may God have mercy on your soul.

Fixed.
The_pantless_hero
22-03-2009, 18:34
Fixed.
LG saves.
Intestinal fluids
22-03-2009, 18:34
Your argument has no foundation in logic or results.

The logic cant be any simpler. It doesnt work, hasnt ever worked, and there is no reason to believe the current promises are any better then the same scientists and politicians that made the same promises 40 years ago and 30 years ago, and 20 years ago, and 10 years go and that we should spend the money elsewhere.
East Tofu
22-03-2009, 18:35
Perhaps you would like to provide a national analysis to prove that there are an extremely limited number of locations that don't have "80% cloud cover year round."

As you notice, I said the Pacific Northwest was useless. I could add places like Minnesota, Michigan, New York, most of the Northeast.

Sun angle is also critical, as is the duration of a solar day.

Analyses have already been done that show we would have to use 20% of the US land area, in specific optimal locations, just to provide less than half the power we consume (not counting vehicle power). Adding vehicle power requires us to double our production, and we can assume something clean like fuel cells for vehicles (which are only energy storage, not energy production units).

As seen in the OP, Democrats in particular will never give up that critical land. Not for solar, as with Feinstein, and not for wind, as with the Kennedys.
Galloism
22-03-2009, 18:37
As you notice, I said the Pacific Northwest was useless. I could add places like Minnesota, Michigan, New York, most of the Northeast.

Sun angle is also critical, as is the duration of a solar day.

Analyses have already been done that show we would have to use 20% of the US land area, in specific optimal locations, just to provide less than half the power we consume (not counting vehicle power). Adding vehicle power requires us to double our production, and we can assume something clean like fuel cells for vehicles (which are only energy storage, not energy production units).

As seen in the OP, Democrats in particular will never give up that critical land. Not for solar, as with Feinstein, and not for wind, as with the Kennedys.

[Citation Needed]
DrunkenDove
22-03-2009, 18:38
Analyses have already been done that show we would have to use 20% of the US land area, in specific optimal locations, just to provide less than half the power....

I would very much like to see such analyses.
Lunatic Goofballs
22-03-2009, 18:40
As you notice, I said the Pacific Northwest was useless. I could add places like Minnesota, Michigan, New York, most of the Northeast.

Sun angle is also critical, as is the duration of a solar day.

Analyses have already been done that show we would have to use 20% of the US land area, in specific optimal locations, just to provide less than half the power we consume (not counting vehicle power). Adding vehicle power requires us to double our production, and we can assume something clean like fuel cells for vehicles (which are only energy storage, not energy production units).

As seen in the OP, Democrats in particular will never give up that critical land. Not for solar, as with Feinstein, and not for wind, as with the Kennedys.

I'm going to need a source because sources I have seen indicate something completely different:

http://www.ez2c.de/ml/solar_land_area/
South Lorenya
22-03-2009, 18:43
Deserts, by definition, have very little rain (and therefore likely have few clouds). At the same time, they're not really suitable for human life (seeing as water is so scarce), so that desert Feinstein wants to protect would be one of the better places for them; just find a section of it with no threatened species.
Intestinal fluids
22-03-2009, 18:46
Wait till the day an environmentalist tries to switch on his light and nothing happens and then we will really see how much they give a shit about a desert turtle.
Lunatic Goofballs
22-03-2009, 18:48
Wait till the day an environmentalist tries to switch on his light and nothing happens and then we will really see how much they give a shit about a desert turtle.

Hmm.... solar powered turtles...

*begins calculations*
Intestinal fluids
22-03-2009, 19:01
Its just one example, but take what you will from this story.

I live in a very progressive "green" Ivy league college town. Our town library,with its board of directors consisting of environmentally proactive professors, community leaders etc decided to spend $150,000 of taxpayers money to build a solar system on the libraries roof. This installation had the usual trumpets and fanfare of how wonderful solar is and all of the savings it would give to the taxpayers of the town and all the fanfare and all the associated Bullshit. Now fast forward five years, the panels have failed, the company that produced and installed them is bankrupt and the city has a $150,000 roost for birds to shit on.
greed and death
22-03-2009, 19:03
Hmm.... solar powered turtles...

*begins calculations*

But what are they using the solar power for ???
Lunatic Goofballs
22-03-2009, 19:03
Its just one example, but take what you will from this story.

I live in a very progressive "green" Ivy league college town. Our town library,with its board of directors consisting of environmentally proactive professors, community leaders etc decided to spend $150,000 of taxpayers money to build a solar system on the libraries roof. This installation had the usual trumpets and fanfare of how wonderful solar is and all of the savings it would give to the taxpayers of the town and all the fanfare and all the associated Bullshit. Now fast forward five years, the panels have failed, the company that produced and installed them is bankrupt and the city has a $150,000 roost for birds to shit on.

You probably should have included a link.
Lunatic Goofballs
22-03-2009, 19:04
But what are they using the solar power for ???

That's between me and the turtles.
greed and death
22-03-2009, 19:06
That's between me and the turtles.

I suspect terrorism. Better throw you in GITMO just to be safe.
Lunatic Goofballs
22-03-2009, 19:14
I suspect terrorism. Better throw you in GITMO just to be safe.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CRNuivruJaw

:D
RhynoD
22-03-2009, 19:14
So we should give profitable industries like oil more money than we are giving to develop solar energy? Never mind the fact that we have doubled the efficiency of solar cells in 20 years and have created cheaper, flexible panels.

The problem is that doubling means going from 4% to 8% efficiency.
Intestinal fluids
22-03-2009, 19:19
It can be summed up in a single phrase.

Solar: an expensive half a century of broken promises
Ashmoria
22-03-2009, 19:19
The units are designed to be transportable. At the very least, it would take a heavy lorry, well within the capacity of the thieves who made off with the substation here.

In either case, I doubt they'd give up trying to steal it after a mere few hundred deaths from idiots cracking it open with crowbars and blowtorches, not with that kind of price tag.
they stole a whole substation?

wow.
greed and death
22-03-2009, 19:25
they stole a whole substation?

wow.

I got in so much trouble in middle school for that.
greed and death
22-03-2009, 19:37
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CRNuivruJaw

:D

this seems more likely.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zDiR7UxI8Ow
The_pantless_hero
22-03-2009, 19:43
The logic cant be any simpler. It doesnt work, hasnt ever worked, and there is no reason to believe the current promises are any better then the same scientists and politicians that made the same promises 40 years ago and 30 years ago, and 20 years ago, and 10 years go and that we should spend the money elsewhere.
Let's never mind the fact that solar cell efficiency has doubled in 20 years and have now become producible in a flexible film to make them more versatile.
Intestinal fluids
22-03-2009, 19:45
Let's never mind the fact that solar cell efficiency has doubled in 20 years and have now become producible in a flexible film to make them more versatile.

Lets REALLY never mind the fact that its STILL not profitable. Doubling bullshit leaves double the amount of bullshit.
The_pantless_hero
22-03-2009, 19:45
Analyses have already been done that show we would have to use 20% of the US land area, in specific optimal locations, just to provide less than half the power we consume (not counting vehicle power).
If you pay attention to what you said and what I asked, they arn't the same thing. The question was, can you prove that the majority of the US has "80% cloud cover year round." That has exactly ZERO to do with how much land would be required for solar cells to provide nationwide power. Also, your repeated assertions of that continues to ignore the fact that solar panels do not require a dedicated amount of land. A piece of land with a building on it is roughly the equivalent to a piece of land without a building on it as far as solar panel placement is concerned.
The_pantless_hero
22-03-2009, 19:47
Lets REALLY never mind the fact that its STILL not profitable. Doubling bullshit leaves double the amount of bullshit.
Would you like to make a concise point or are you going to jump from one to the other so that you can pretend that your bullshit doesn't keep getting shot down?
The_pantless_hero
22-03-2009, 19:49
The problem is that doubling means going from 4% to 8% efficiency.
Usable efficiency is at 25%. AM0 efficiency has gone from 17% to 30%. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solar_cell#History)
Intestinal fluids
22-03-2009, 19:49
Would you like to make a concise point or are you going to jump from one to the other so that you can pretend that your bullshit doesn't keep getting shot down?

You have shot nothing down unless you can produce some system that the rest of the planet is unaware of to prove me wrong. I cant make my point any clearer. An efficient solar system that can be produced on any scale whatsoever does not exist. Anywhere. Period.
The_pantless_hero
22-03-2009, 19:52
You have shot nothing down unless you can produce some system that the rest of the planet is unaware of to prove me wrong. I cant make my point any clearer. An efficient solar system that can be produced on any scale whatsoever does not exist. Anywhere. Period.
Your argument that
It doesnt work, hasnt ever worked, and there is no reason to believe the current promises are any better then the same scientists and politicians that made the same promises 40 years ago and 30 years ago, and 20 years ago, and 10 years go and that we should spend the money elsewhere.
is inherently countered by the fact that efficiency has doubled in 20 years because for your argument to be valid, then solar cells wouldn't have improved in 20 years, which they have.
Free Soviets
22-03-2009, 19:53
It's also interesting to point out that infrared photovoltaics which use portions of the em spectrum that virtually ignores cloud cover are making big strides forward. In fact, some of the most efficient panels ever created are actually sandwiches of several different photovoltaic layers each absorbing and converting a different band of the em spectrum.

that's what the ones they are using to power the smart home in chicago are using. some layer thing that has good ir capture. nice looking flexible mat-like things, too. looks sorta like a regular flat-top roof, really.
The_pantless_hero
22-03-2009, 19:54
An efficient solar system that can be produced on any scale whatsoever does not exist. Anywhere. Period.
Efficiency of what number?
Lunatic Goofballs
22-03-2009, 19:55
that's what the ones they are using to power the smart home in chicago are using. some layer thing that has good ir capture. nice looking flexible mat-like things, too. looks sorta like a regular flat-top roof, really.

And Idaho stole my idea and is preparing to test road-embedded solar panels in a 45 mile stretch of highway. :(
The_pantless_hero
22-03-2009, 19:57
And Idaho stole my idea and is preparing to test road-embedded solar panels in a 45 mile stretch of highway. :(

I thought it was some sort of heat exchange thing?
greed and death
22-03-2009, 19:58
And Idaho stole my idea and is preparing to test road-embedded solar panels in a 45 mile stretch of highway. :(

Get Neo Art to represent you in a law suit to get royalties off the energy that highway makes.
Intestinal fluids
22-03-2009, 19:59
Efficiency of what number?

The number needed to make the system create more energy then it costs to manufacture and maintain thru the life of the product. Only then will solar make sense. This does not exist despite many decades of promises that it would.
Galloism
22-03-2009, 19:59
Get Neo Art to represent you in a law suit to get royalties off the energy that highway makes.

Can we apply that energy directly to his head?
greed and death
22-03-2009, 20:06
Can we apply that energy directly to his head?

just take the money.
The_pantless_hero
22-03-2009, 20:07
The number needed to make the system create more energy then it costs to manufacture and maintain thru the life of the product.
Does anything work like that?
Intestinal fluids
22-03-2009, 20:09
Your argument that

is inherently countered by the fact that efficiency has doubled in 20 years because for your argument to be valid, then solar cells wouldn't have improved in 20 years, which they have.

Really, so if for every dollar i gave you in 1990 you gave me 4 cents back, at what point should i be impressed when you tell me well hey its 20 years later im now giving you 8 cents back. Can i have another dollar please?
Galloism
22-03-2009, 20:09
just take the money.

Party pooper.
The_pantless_hero
22-03-2009, 20:16
Really, so if for every dollar i gave you in 1990 you gave me 4 cents back, at what point should i be impressed when you tell me well hey its 20 years later im now giving you 8 cents back. Can i have another dollar please?

It's 20 years after 1990? I wouldn't give anyone who can't do math a dollar.

Also
1) What point are you trying to make? That we are stealing money from the sun? Would sun money be really hot?
2) Assuming your "argument" has something to do with energy output compared to energy input (which still doesn't make any god damn sense), you have yet to prove that ANYTHING works like the reason you propose solar should be scrapped for.
3) Try 25 cents vs 8.
greed and death
22-03-2009, 20:21
Party pooper.

The best way to get Neo art to do Pro Bono is hack his computer so it downloads 3 gigs of gay porn every day.
Free Soviets
22-03-2009, 20:24
The number needed to make the system create more energy then it costs to manufacture and maintain thru the life of the product. Only then will solar make sense. This does not exist despite many decades of promises that it would.

been there, done that. you are decades out of date.

Greener Green Energy. Science News, 3/1/2008, Vol. 173, Issue 9
In the 1970s, manufacturing a solar cell required about as much energy as the cell could produce over its 20-year lifetime, so using solar power provided little if any energy gain
...
These improvements in efficiency mean that today's solar panels can "pay back" in only 1 to 3 years the energy needed to make them, the study concludes.
Lunatic Goofballs
22-03-2009, 20:27
The best way to get Neo art to do Pro Bono is hack his computer so it downloads 3 gigs of gay porn every day.

Is that an extortion or a retainer? ;)
greed and death
22-03-2009, 20:28
Is that an extortion or a retainer? ;)

Have to ask him he is the lawyer.
Intestinal fluids
22-03-2009, 20:32
It's 20 years after 1990? I wouldn't give anyone who can't do math a dollar.

You have pretty much destroyed your credibility in this debate when you have been reduced to quibbling over 19 years being referred to as 20.


1) What point are you trying to make? That we are stealing money from the sun? Would sun money be really hot?

What? My argument is that solar supporters are stealing money from taxpayers based on repeated false promises and over decades and decades and that at this point it has turned into a welfare system and not one based on the creation of a functional efficient product.

2) Assuming your "argument" has something to do with energy output compared to energy input (which still doesn't make any god damn sense), you have yet to prove that ANYTHING works like the reason you propose solar should be scrapped for.

How about barrel of oil? Oil is a tremendous profit maker. Entire Countries base most of their domestic income on it. Alaska makes 90% of its income and profits from the oil and gas industry. You know any countries that make 90% of their income on solar energy? LMAO.


3) Try 25 cents vs 8.
Are you saying this with a straight face? Even if this is so, how many dollars would you be willing to give me based on this ratio? And for how many decades?
Free Soviets
22-03-2009, 20:47
Are you saying this with a straight face? Even if this is so, how many dollars would you be willing to give me based on this ratio? And for how many decades?

your metaphor is utterly confused
Intestinal fluids
22-03-2009, 20:54
your metaphor is utterly confused

Thank you for clearing that up for me. Does this mean that solar power is actually efficient and wonderful now?
greed and death
22-03-2009, 20:58
What are you all even talking about now ?? Seriously ?? I think my post with the turtle humping the shoe made more sense.
Conserative Morality
22-03-2009, 21:02
Can we apply that energy directly to his head?

Energy: Apply directly to the forehead! Et cetera, et cetera.
The_pantless_hero
22-03-2009, 21:03
What? My argument is that solar supporters are stealing money from taxpayers based on repeated false promises and over decades and decades and that at this point it has turned into a welfare system and not one based on the creation of a functional efficient product.
Your argument that it isn't a functional product is patently absurd. And you have repeatedly ignored the increases in efficiency since solar's debut. Your argument is moot.

How about barrel of oil?
Is that conjecture or do you have mathematical support?

Are you saying this with a straight face? Even if this is so, how many dollars would you be willing to give me based on this ratio? And for how many decades?
Your attempt at an analogy made no sense in any way, shape or form.
Intestinal fluids
22-03-2009, 21:05
been there, done that. you are decades out of date.

Greener Green Energy. Science News, 3/1/2008, Vol. 173, Issue 9

Complete and utter nonsense. If that was so, there wouldnt be any need for government solar subsidy of any kind period. And if your going to insist this is true, arnt you furious that we are paying taxpayer money with NO return for a venture that has such clear and obvious and currently existing profit potential for private industry? In reality, this is fantasy and your drinking the grape koolaid.
Free Soviets
22-03-2009, 21:09
Thank you for clearing that up for me. Does this mean that solar power is actually efficient and wonderful now?

yes, actually. it could still be better, of course. but it is already nearly competitive with standard power sources (and would blow by them if we started pricing their negative externalities).
Intestinal fluids
22-03-2009, 21:10
yes, actually. it could still be better, of course. but it is already nearly competitive with standard power sources (and would blow by them if we started pricing their negative externalities).

Odd how i heard those virtually identical words 30 years ago isnt it. It was bullshit then and its bullshit now.

Private industry is an amazing and efficient animal. The SECOND private industry can find a way to make a dollar out of any system anywhere it will. Funny how not a single company has found a way to do this with solar power despite its obvious worth and amazingness without a government check in the mail.
Free Soviets
22-03-2009, 21:12
Complete and utter nonsense.

fucking christ, it was a report on a study from science news. i think i'll be trusting that over somebody not citing any sources on the internet
Free Soviets
22-03-2009, 21:14
Odd how i heard those virtually identical words 30 years ago isnt it. It was bullshit then and its bullshit now.

source it.
RhynoD
22-03-2009, 21:19
Usable efficiency is at 25%. AM0 efficiency has gone from 17% to 30%. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solar_cell#History)

Oh good. I haven't been keeping up with it, much. Last I heard was hovering around 10% so there you go.

But it still kills tortoises. Or whatever it was doing to tortoises.
Intestinal fluids
22-03-2009, 21:19
source it.

I cant prove a negative, instead you need to produce proof of a system that actually exists and profits on its own merits. And in the event that you can produce a miracle (ill not hold my breath) ill await the explanation as to why we are paying public tax money in subsidies to a system that by your own argument is profitable on its own merits and should be handled by private industry and not footed by taxpayers.
Free Soviets
22-03-2009, 21:21
I cant prove a negative

you made a positive claim. several, in fact. source them.
RhynoD
22-03-2009, 21:22
fucking christ, it was a report on a study from science news. i think i'll be trusting that over somebody not citing any sources on the internet

But it's the internet. You're always wrong, on the internet.
The_pantless_hero
22-03-2009, 21:41
Complete and utter nonsense. If that was so, there wouldnt be any need for government solar subsidy of any kind period.

Arn't you the one pointing out the oil is making billions in profit yet not arguing they should give up their billions in subsidies?

Odd how i heard those virtually identical words 30 years ago isnt it. It was bullshit then and its bullshit now.
.

Maybe you would like to, oh I don't know, cite something 30 years old

I cant prove a negative

Dear sir, I would kindly ask you to stop doing acid.
Intestinal fluids
22-03-2009, 21:44
Your argument that it isn't a functional product is patently absurd.

There is no functional product, if your definition of a functional product is an object that makes money on its own merits without subsidy.

And you have repeatedly ignored the increases in efficiency since solar's debut. Your argument is moot.

I have repeatedly addressed the increases in efficiency and regard what little there is as pissing in the ocean.


Is that conjecture or do you have mathematical support?

Well clearly people that own land that oil is on make a profit when companies decide to draw oil from them. Clearly looking at the profits of Mobil/Exxon they are making insane profits. The ships that send the oil around the globe are making profits, your crude refineries are making profits, your local gas stations are making profits, your local gas and electric distribution systems are making profits. Im at a loss as to what part of the current oil energy system ISNT making profits.
Intestinal fluids
22-03-2009, 21:48
This argument can also be reduced to one sentence.

Please show me the list of solar companies that do not accept government subsidies to make their business model work. The proof is in the pudding as the old saying goes.
Free Soviets
22-03-2009, 21:53
This argument can also be reduced to one sentence.

Please show me the list of solar companies that do not accept government subsidies to make their business model work.

is anyone arguing that there are any? is anyone arguing that there should be any? that seems entirely irrelevant to the issues at hand.

you seem to be very confused.
Intestinal fluids
22-03-2009, 21:57
is anyone arguing that there are any? is anyone arguing that there should be any? that seems entirely irrelevant to the issues at hand.

you seem to be very confused.

What? My entire point is that the industry is a boondoggle and its governmental support should be terminated. The evidence is that after 50 years despite volumes of promises and tens of billions of dollars, they still have not produced an efficient system that does not require massive government subsidy to function. My point cant be any clearer.
Conserative Morality
22-03-2009, 21:59
is anyone arguing that there are any? is anyone arguing that there should be any?

You've essentially just admitted that Solar Energy is too inefficient to be profitable, or even sustain itself without a constant flow of money from other sources...
Free Soviets
22-03-2009, 22:08
What? My entire point is that the industry is a boondoggle and its governmental support should be terminated. The evidence is that after 50 years despite volumes of promises, they still have not produced an efficient system that does not require massive government subsidy to function. My point cant be any clearer.

the fact that something uses, or even requires, subsidizing does not impact whether it works or not. nor does it make it necessarily inefficient. hell, you are demanding that we compare an unsubsidized and fairly recent thing with high initial costs to a heavily subsidized thing whose initial cots are either hidden or already paid. and your only evidence amounts to saying 'nuh-uh!!'

try harder.
Free Soviets
22-03-2009, 22:11
You've essentially just admitted that Solar Energy is too inefficient to be profitable, or even sustain itself without a constant flow of money from other sources...

...or is not yet able to compete with the heavily subsidized 'cheap' power of coal and its unpriced externalities (but probably will fairly soon, given the rate of technological progress). coal gets direct subsidies, indirect subsidies, and the costs of its damage to environments and human health are not directly paid by the consumer. add all of that in and then run the comparison.
Newer Burmecia
22-03-2009, 22:16
You've essentially just admitted that Solar Energy is too inefficient to be profitable, or even sustain itself without a constant flow of money from other sources...
A bit like financial services, I guess. If it is acceptable to prop up a failing financial services sector, with the intention of it not needing aid in the long term, I see no reason why it is inherantly wrong to do the same for solar energy. If we didn't have that logic in the '50s, we wouldn't have nuclear power now.
Intestinal fluids
22-03-2009, 22:17
the fact that something uses, or even requires, subsidizing does not impact whether it works or not.

Of course it does, if the subsidies stop, it shuts down. If it was profitable and didnt need subsidizing, it would continue happily along with no worries subsidies or otherwise.

You remove subsidies from the solar business and they all close. You remove subsidies from Exxon and its not even a speed bump.

hell, you are demanding that we compare an unsubsidized and fairly recent thing with high initial costs to a heavily subsidized thing whose initial cots are either hidden or already paid. and your only evidence amounts to saying 'nuh-uh!!'


What? Solar energy has been subsidized for the last 40 or 50 years. We have only had CARS for 100 years and electricity for not all that much longer then that.

"It was not until October 17, 1973 that solar leapt to prominence in energy research. The Arab Oil Embargo demonstrated the degree to which the Western economy depended upon a cheap and reliable flow of oil. As oil prices nearly doubled over night, leaders became desperate to find a means of reducing this dependence. In addition to increasing automobile fuel economy standards and diversifying energy sources, the U.S. government invested heavily in the solar electric cell that Bell Laboratories had produced with such promise in 1953."

http://www.southface.org/solar/solar-roadmap/solar_how-to/history-of-solar.htm
Free Soviets
22-03-2009, 22:33
Of course it does, if the subsidies stop, it shuts down. If it was profitable and didnt need subsidizing, it would continue happily along with no worries subsidies or otherwise.

You remove subsidies from the solar business and they all close. You remove subsidies from Exxon and its not even a speed bump.

unprofitable =/ not worthwhile to do. and it unquestionably does not mean that it isn't worthwhile to spend money on research and development.

What?

my point is that you aren't comparing fairly. perhaps i was unclear.
The_pantless_hero
22-03-2009, 22:41
There is no functional product, if your definition of a functional product is an object that makes money on its own merits without subsidy.
I appreciate your ability to bullshit up definitions that support your asinine position on the spot.
The_pantless_hero
22-03-2009, 22:45
This argument can also be reduced to one sentence.

Please show me the list of solar companies that do not accept government subsidies to make their business model work. The proof is in the pudding as the old saying goes.
I can trump that. Produce a list of coal, nuclear, and oil companies not taking government subsidies.
Intestinal fluids
22-03-2009, 22:57
I can trump that. Produce a list of coal, nuclear, and oil companies not taking government subsidies.

They dont rely on government subsidies to make their entire business model work.

Exxon accepts 3-5 billionish a year in government subsidies. Their profits are 140 billion a year. When solar has gotten to a point where subsidies are 2% of their business model come back and talk to me. These Government subsidies to Exxon are not even for oil technology, they are for alternative energy research including solar. I would be more then happy if the taxpayers refused to pay these monies to Exxon or anyone else for that matter.

Not that im against alternative energy research,for exmple in things like battery research, we have actually got a return on our investment. Actual better batteries that can make a real difference. Im just of the belief that solar is a dead end project and the real facts continually prove my point.
The_pantless_hero
22-03-2009, 23:16
They dont rely on government subsidies to make their entire business model work.
Not relevant. They get billions in subsidies and would pay millions to keep those coming in.

Im just of the belief that solar is a dead end project and the real facts continually prove my point.

Yeah, imaginary facts and those facts you can spin into oblivion.
Antheonia
23-03-2009, 01:23
The question is whether you can dig that deep a hole.

No, you can't. The deepest borehole ever drilled was the Kola superdeep borehole in Russia at about 12Km depth. Continental crust tends to be 40-50Km thick so that's still a fair way to go, also with a geothermal gradient of about 35 C per Km you're looking at temperatures of 1400-1750 C which is enough to melt the drill string.

Someone also metioned dumping waste at subduction margins. This also wouldn't work as firstly the rate of subduction is too slow to deal with the amount of waste large scale nuclear power would produce. Secondly the containers would be less likely to subduct and more likely to accumulate on the continental margin. Thirdly there are international laws against dumping nuclear waste in the oceans.

Usable efficiency is at 25%. AM0 efficiency has gone from 17% to 30%. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solar_cell#History)

Substantial improvement but still not particularly efficient when compared to other forms of energy production. For the record I am a fan of solar power but it is not a viable alternative by itself. It has the same shortcomings as wind of intermittent power generation and relatively low efficiency which mean that other generation mechanisms would still be needed to provide a base load, either coal/oil/gas, nuclear (preferably fusion if they ever get it to work) or geothermal.
Vetalia
23-03-2009, 01:59
You remove subsidies from the solar business and they all close. You remove subsidies from Exxon and its not even a speed bump.

Pull the US military out of the Middle East and the Straits of Malacca and then we'll see. That's where their subsidies lie. Now, coal on the other hand would probably not survive without subsidies regardless since it's borderline as is.
Non Aligned States
23-03-2009, 02:33
The logic cant be any simpler. It doesnt work, hasnt ever worked, and there is no reason to believe the current promises are any better then the same scientists and politicians that made the same promises 40 years ago and 30 years ago, and 20 years ago, and 10 years go and that we should spend the money elsewhere.

Hence why we don't have flight capable aircraft because of centuries of people trying and failing. Or nuclear power despite years of research that produced no results. Clearly we should also give up fusion research and other nuclear power generation methods since they don't provide the rosy results they promised 40 years ago.

Your "logic" isn't.
greed and death
23-03-2009, 02:35
Pull the US military out of the Middle East and the Straits of Malacca and then we'll see. That's where their subsidies lie. Now, coal on the other hand would probably not survive without subsidies regardless since it's borderline as is.

All that would cause is we would have to agree to stop helping/funding Israel for our oil.
Non Aligned States
23-03-2009, 02:47
Please show me the list of solar companies that do not accept government subsidies to make their business model work. The proof is in the pudding as the old saying goes.

So why don't you show us an oil company that doesn't rely on or take government subsidies either then hmmm?