If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(TreeHugger)   In the USA, there are now more workers in solar power than coal miners   (treehugger.com) divider line 304
    More: Spiffy, USA, solar energy, workers  
•       •       •

3685 clicks; posted to Main » on 23 Apr 2013 at 11:11 PM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



304 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | » | Last | Show all
 
2013-04-24 01:03:05 AM  
Forgot to mention that he typically draws his families drinking water from a creek that is florescent orange colored due to all the acid mine drainage present in the water.

/travesty
//should be illegal, but still is the norm.
 
2013-04-24 01:03:32 AM  

MyRandomName: Liberals are against corporate welfare... except for all those instances they are not.

Wind and solar receive over double thehandouts per kW of other sources .


Except in the case of rooftop solar, a majority of those handouts don't go to corporations - they go directly to the taxpayers installing the panels.
 
2013-04-24 01:11:17 AM  
I don't pay to dry my clothes either. suck that, mid-american energy!
t1.gstatic.com
 
2013-04-24 01:13:09 AM  
Oh yeah, Wind energy? Yeah that's solar too. Convection currents.
 
2013-04-24 01:14:55 AM  

Ringshadow: Rambino: A nuclear power plant "lasts" exactly one minute after the workers depart.  They cannot (or at least should not and do not) operate without human oversight 24/7.  A basic PV system is completely fire-and-forget.

As someone who works in nuclear power...
[s21.postimg.org image 341x640]
Run that by me again?
The workers don't leave their posts. Nuclear plants work on rotating shifts. The plants are always manned, 24/7/365. Hell, the control rooms will maintain the plant without human interaction if they could. A lot of the "auto" systems are left "off" so the operators HAVE to interact and know what the hell is going on without the systems caring for itself.
Either way it's a lot longer than "one minute". What you're talking about is "time to boil", usually for coolant water in the fuel pool (or open primary system during a refuel but that's another thing). Time to boil is greatly dependent on when the last refuel is, blah blah blah. It's usually a farkton long time actually, in the number of weeks, as automated systems will run as long as there's some kind of power.
Or are you saying, like, zombie apocalypse..? In which case why are we having this conversation?


I believe the point he was trying to make is that you put solar panels down and then leave. You don't have to have someone around all the time to manage it, it operates automatically. In contrast a nuclear power plant requires 24/7/365 service. There should never BE a time when no one is there. If everyone left, the plant should shut down (and should have been shut down before they left, obviously)

/That was my understanding anyway
//He effectively made a ronco pitch: "Set it and forget it!"
 
2013-04-24 01:19:36 AM  
oldcub:

Unless the building was designed with solar in mind, it can be challenging. Nobody wants to physically attach the solar structures to the roof, potentially causing a leak, or voiding the roof warranty. Roofing companies want to be the ones to install the attachments. Now it may make more sense to re-roof the building first to get the warranty, and because it will be difficult to get to later. Some systems can be ballasted with cmu concrete cap blocks to avoid penetrations, but then may add too much weight and exceed the structural capacity. California and other areas have seismic concerns. Fire-fighter access pathways, skylight, etc.. The solar capacity of a given roof decreases rapidly, reducing the value of the investment.

All valid concerns, but seriously... If you can over time eliminate one of the biggest costs of doing business... Why wouldn't you? Some companies get it... McCormick comes to mind. If you're putting up a new facility, or renovating an old one, it seems like a no-brainer to design that in.

Rambino:

Not being taken advantage of because the utilities hate net metered systems. Undermines their business model completely, and makes them have to think hard about power factors and voltage regulation.

I dearly hope no one is making that BS claim, and if they are they should be called out on it. Grid tie inverters MUST sync in phase and voltage to the grid. Otherwise they'd let all the smoke out. In fact, if there is no feed to the sense terminals the inverters stop altogether, so as to not fry the lineman who thinks the line is dead because it's disconnected upstream.

Power factors and regulation are weak arguments. The regulation is taken care of, and the power will be consumed locally, by the neighbor who doesn't have a grid-tie system. If someone pulls that argument out, call them on it.
 
2013-04-24 01:20:12 AM  
This thread is proof that most "Conservatives" have no idea what the root word of their ideology means.  Why we have to take them seriously is beyond me.
 
2013-04-24 01:21:19 AM  

Rambino: That was kind of the point...   :)   Nukes require operating personnel, and lots of it, and all the time.  Solar does not.

/Also used to work in nuclear, sort of...


Ah, I get what you mean now.. but, dude, my first nuclear job was doing maintenance on a supposed no-maintenance system. So forgive me if I'm slightly leery of your pitch. This is like the thorium reactor people trying to sell the design to me on the basis it's got no waste. Bullshiat. You mean it has no fuel waste. It still will have waste because there will be trash, you target-focused twerps.

/Chosen Frozen
//DC Cook ice crew, lowers, 2006
 
2013-04-24 01:24:28 AM  

Ringshadow: Rambino: That was kind of the point...   :)   Nukes require operating personnel, and lots of it, and all the time.  Solar does not.

/Also used to work in nuclear, sort of...

Ah, I get what you mean now.. but, dude, my first nuclear job was doing maintenance on a supposed no-maintenance system. So forgive me if I'm slightly leery of your pitch. This is like the thorium reactor people trying to sell the design to me on the basis it's got no waste. Bullshiat. You mean it has no fuel waste. It still will have waste because there will be trash, you target-focused twerps.

/Chosen Frozen
//DC Cook ice crew, lowers, 2006


Hi Ringy :3

I still want to print your comic. I even know a guy who does damn fine work, and he might give ya a discount on it n.n
 
2013-04-24 01:25:25 AM  
Rambino:

What an odd post.

"Able to run without supervision" is not necessarily the primary reason for selecting a power source.  Nobody said it was.  But it is a darned nice feature.

As to the rest:  Rather than point out all of the individual factual flaws, I will make this observation: Nobody is suggesting that we should immediately replace all generation with today's solar energy. Your "it wouldn't work in a theoretically extreme case therefore it is always bad" argument is inapplicable.


I'm glad you have the technical background to label what an "extreme case" is. Solar makes no sense at any scale, now and into the foreseeable future. Physically, you have separated energy collection to an immensely low density. This will not change. The physical plant for solar will always be physically large and distributed. This means expensive. Until you can grow a crop of solar cells using agriculture tools (hmm..sounds like biofuels. how well does that work?), you will simply not be able to competitively generate power. Panel prices are falling because the governments of the world (US and China) hand out massive subsidies and because there is a huge manufacturing capacity excess. For the money wasted on solar, we could build several nuclear plants per year (2/year in US alone).
 
2013-04-24 01:26:26 AM  
MyRandomName:

Liberals are against corporate welfare... except for all those instances they are not.

Wind and solar receive over double thehandouts per kW of other sources .


Funny thing. Oil is 100 years or so old, and coal at least twice that.

And yet they STILL get orders of magnitude more government subsidies than a very technical, research-driven industry that's only existed for a few decades.

You would think that with profits measured in the billions they might be able to compete in the free market, but they still have their hand out. Go figure.
 
2013-04-24 01:31:02 AM  
js530:
I'm glad you have the technical background to label what an "extreme case" is. Solar makes no sense at any scale, now and into the foreseeable future. Physically, you have separated energy collection to an immensely low density. This will not change. The physical plant for solar will always be physically large and distributed. This means expensive. Until you can grow a crop of solar cells using agriculture tools (hmm..sounds like biofuels. how well does that work?), you will simply not be able to competitively generate power. Panel prices are falling because the governments of the world (US and China) hand out massive subsidies and because there is a huge manufacturing capacity excess. For the money wasted on solar, we could build several nuclear plants per year (2/year in US alone).

Is this some kind of weird game in which you try to pack as many falsehoods and incorrect statements into a paragraph as possible?
 
2013-04-24 01:38:10 AM  

pion: This thread is proof that most "Conservatives" have no idea what the root word of their ideology means.  Why we have to take them seriously is beyond me.



Conservative is a broad term.  Some of us tend to vote that way for fiscal reasons while being conscious of our own carbon footprint.  I would LOVE to have a setup like MrSteve007 has, but would HATE to have those in power dictating to me how I should go about doing so.  Some good ideas and practices tend to be lost through bureaucracy.
 
2013-04-24 01:39:08 AM  

js530: Panel prices are falling because the governments of the world (US and China) hand out massive subsidies and because there is a huge manufacturing capacity excess. For the money wasted on solar, we could build several nuclear plants per year (2/year in US alone).


Fun fact - California alone is now installing more than 1 GW of solar PV capacity a year, and it's growing at a ~25% rate.

Even California broke ground on a nuclear power plant today, since it takes about 8 years to construct, CA will have installed some ~12 GW of solar capacity. Even if you factor in a 30% for solar, solar will still win on output. Never mind the ridiculous amount water consumed by nuclear plants (or spat out, back into the environment as hot water) - or the several tons of high level radioactive waste the nuclear plant will generate each year.

Plus you have the added benefit of less peak loading that needs to be met by peaker plants, and less demand to the grid during mid day and hot summer days.

As others have pointed out, even if you don't give a shiat about nuclear waste, environmental impact, or meltdown dangers - nuclear is a bad financial bet. That's why even with 100% government backed financing, it's damn near impossible to get one built in the USA. They have a long history of not penciling out. I know, I'm still paying in my utility connection fees for several nuclear plants that never even came online, since the demand never appeared and construction costs skyrocketed.

Nuclear power is a financial nightmare.
 
2013-04-24 01:43:39 AM  

2wolves: I imagine there are fewer cave ins also.


Well yeah, a cave-in inside a miner would be really gross.
 
2013-04-24 01:45:31 AM  
So now I suppose we'll have to endure "Solar Power Worker's Daughter" as soon as one of them grows up to be a country singer.
 
2013-04-24 01:50:58 AM  

Hollie Maea: Martian_Astronomer: I used to work in solar R&D, so I'm getting a kick....

I still do, so so am I.  Man, conservatives sure do hate solar. The mouth breathers on the local paper forums would love nothing more than to have me living under a bridge just so they could revel in how horrible solar is.

Which is kind of strange, since solar represents one of the easiest ways for one to give "the man" the finger and still be able to have nice things.  You would think that conservatives would be all over that.  But they are so terrified that the granola eaters would say "I told you so".


To me it depends on the solar. Those 10-20 year panels? Meh. Solar Thermal? Cheaper and sustainable. Problem is.... still not enough power to substitute coal/NG/nuclear.
 
2013-04-24 01:52:02 AM  

Hollie Maea: js530:
I'm glad you have the technical background to label what an "extreme case" is. Solar makes no sense at any scale, now and into the foreseeable future. Physically, you have separated energy collection to an immensely low density. This will not change. The physical plant for solar will always be physically large and distributed. This means expensive. Until you can grow a crop of solar cells using agriculture tools (hmm..sounds like biofuels. how well does that work?), you will simply not be able to competitively generate power. Panel prices are falling because the governments of the world (US and China) hand out massive subsidies and because there is a huge manufacturing capacity excess. For the money wasted on solar, we could build several nuclear plants per year (2/year in US alone).

Is this some kind of weird game in which you try to pack as many falsehoods and incorrect statements into a paragraph as possible?


Yeah...  I kind of felt like sideways-head-dog reading that.  After the second line I gave up trying to formulate a response.
 
2013-04-24 01:52:08 AM  
js530:

I'm glad you have the technical background to label what an "extreme case" is. Solar makes no sense at any scale, now and into the foreseeable future. Physically, you have separated energy collection to an immensely low density. This will not change. The physical plant for solar will always be physically large and distributed. This means expensive. Until you can grow a crop of solar cells using agriculture tools (hmm..sounds like biofuels. how well does that work?), you will simply not be able to competitively generate power. Panel prices are falling because the governments of the world (US and China) hand out massive subsidies and because there is a huge manufacturing capacity excess. For the money wasted on solar, we could build several nuclear plants per year (2/year in US alone).

I've traveled a bit in the world where most people live, and well... You're full of crap.

Solar is extremely useful. Sometimes it's the only option.

An example: Nepal.

Nepal is a tiny, postage-stamp sized country that has hydroelectric potential second only to Brazil. They spent 15 years in a Maoist insurgency (that actually turned out pretty well) but even China is leery of investing 100M for a dam, much less $1B for a nuke plant.

There are villages in the hills all along it's many rivers that have 150kV power lines running overhead, but they have no power. Someone would have to haul a few tons of transformer 1/2 mile up the hill to provide them with electricity.

But one thing the Maoists did do right was to provide for solar panels and batteries for each village. Now kids can read after the sun goes down.
Isn't that a romance that gets repeated in the US, how Lincoln read by candlelight? Yeah, well, this is as close as it gets.
 
2013-04-24 01:52:25 AM  

Hector Remarkable: So now I suppose we'll have to endure "Solar Power Worker's Daughter" as soon as one of them grows up to be a country singer.


Please refrain dissing on a great movie. If nothing else Levon Helm was awesome!!!
 
2013-04-24 01:52:36 AM  

MrSteve007: js530: Panel prices are falling because the governments of the world (US and China) hand out massive subsidies and because there is a huge manufacturing capacity excess. For the money wasted on solar, we could build several nuclear plants per year (2/year in US alone).

Fun fact - California alone is now installing more than 1 GW of solar PV capacity a year, and it's growing at a ~25% rate.

Even California broke ground on a nuclear power plant today, since it takes about 8 years to construct, CA will have installed some ~12 GW of solar capacity. Even if you factor in a 30% for solar, solar will still win on output. Never mind the ridiculous amount water consumed by nuclear plants (or spat out, back into the environment as hot water) - or the several tons of high level radioactive waste the nuclear plant will generate each year.

Plus you have the added benefit of less peak loading that needs to be met by peaker plants, and less demand to the grid during mid day and hot summer days.

As others have pointed out, even if you don't give a shiat about nuclear waste, environmental impact, or meltdown dangers - nuclear is a bad financial bet. That's why even with 100% government backed financing, it's damn near impossible to get one built in the USA. They have a long history of not penciling out. I know, I'm still paying in my utility connection fees for several nuclear plants that never even came online, since the demand never appeared and construction costs skyrocketed.

Nuclear power is a financial nightmare.


Funny, Texas doesn't seem to have an issue there (yet).
 
2013-04-24 01:54:09 AM  
Treehugger also had an article recently showing that ALL (net?) new capacity added in the last year was solar power.

I'm not sure how that was calculated but you'd expect there to be a big leap as solar power and other energy sources start to climb the s-shaped curve that coal, then oil and finally natural gas have climbed before them. We have reached the end of the beginning and are now at the stage where the curve will turn sharply upwards.

About time. But each new energy source moves more swiftly (as R&D and scaling-up times shrink rapidly). The USA was still burning mostly wood in 1848 (the UK, Belgium, bits of France and Germany wer already well into the Industrial Revolution but the US and the British lion cubs were just waking up). Kerosene was invented in 1846 by Dr. Abraham Gesner in the small coal fields of Albert Co., New Brunswick, Canada. It is still used as a fuel in jets and rockets. Gesner went on to work as a geologist in the oil fields of Pennsylvania, the leading US producer of oil at the time.

For large-scale power production, big mirrors are still more important than small solar panels.

I'm guessing that the Pennsylvania is big in production because Pittsburg and Philadelphia have re-tooled as post-modern post-coal and iron manufacturing centers, while the U of Penn is probably a center of R&D.

It's PPPs. No, not Public Private Partnerships. Well, yes, it's that, too. But Pittsburgh, Philadelphia and Penn State are probably the places to look for your answer.
 
2013-04-24 01:55:15 AM  

People_are_Idiots: Hollie Maea: Martian_Astronomer: I used to work in solar R&D, so I'm getting a kick....

I still do, so so am I.  Man, conservatives sure do hate solar. The mouth breathers on the local paper forums would love nothing more than to have me living under a bridge just so they could revel in how horrible solar is.

Which is kind of strange, since solar represents one of the easiest ways for one to give "the man" the finger and still be able to have nice things.  You would think that conservatives would be all over that.  But they are so terrified that the granola eaters would say "I told you so".

To me it depends on the solar. Those 10-20 year panels? Meh. Solar Thermal? Cheaper and sustainable. Problem is.... still not enough power to substitute coal/NG/nuclear.


10-20 year panels?  Where are you shopping?  Today's panels come with 25-year warranties.  WARRANTY. That means that on average they last a whole lot longer than 25 years...

I am hard pressed to think of any PV solar panel, ever, failing after 10-20 years (subject to baseballs).  The badly manufactured ones fail pretty quickly--after that they are good for a few decades.

And not enough power?  That's just because we haven't installed enough of them yet.  Give us time.
 
2013-04-24 01:57:38 AM  

Rambino: catpuncher: Now compare the amount of energy the two produce.

And then compare how much a cat poops to how far you can ride a unicorn fart.

Your meaningless comparison is meaningless.


You mean the actual good produced is meaningless?  Not a surprising statement from somebody in the solar industry, actually.  Barring a technological breakthrough, solar power is still just a highly publicized pipe dream being foisted upon a largely unaware public.  But hey, subsidized jobs!  Woo hoo solar power!
 
2013-04-24 02:00:49 AM  

Girion47: incrdbil: Dow Jones and the Temple of Doom: Do they even mine anymore? I thought they just blew the tops of off mountains are ruined entire forest ecosystems and rural communities?

Mountain top removal is not the 'strip mining' of old. Forests are not devasttaed, and rural communities benefit, do not suffer from it.  And yes, conventional mining still occurs.

fark you it isn't.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/10/11/inez-coal-slurry-spill-to_n _7 57900.html



Huffington post? Really? Thats like getting racie based information information from the Aryan Brotherhood
 
2013-04-24 02:01:41 AM  
And which one of them is doing work that supplies a significant portion of Americas energy needs?
 
2013-04-24 02:02:21 AM  
catpuncher:

Rambino: catpuncher: Now compare the amount of energy the two produce.

And then compare how much a cat poops to how far you can ride a unicorn fart.

Your meaningless comparison is meaningless.

You mean the actual good produced is meaningless? Not a surprising statement from somebody in the solar industry, actually. Barring a technological breakthrough, solar power is still just a highly publicized pipe dream being foisted upon a largely unaware public. But hey, subsidized jobs! Woo hoo solar power!


Is the industry showing a profit?

Then it's on par with oil.

Is it growing?

Then it's doing better than oil.

Discuss.
 
2013-04-24 02:02:49 AM  

Summercat: Hi Ringy :3

I still want to print your comic. I even know a guy who does damn fine work, and he might give ya a discount on it n.n


Come at me bro! I'm considering redoing the whole thing this summer, regimenting the panels and text lines, refining the phrasing, and adding a section about radiation vs contamination. I'm considering going to Kickstarter or something over it, actually.

js530:
I'm glad you have the technical background to label what an "extreme case" is. Solar makes no sense at any scale, now and into the foreseeable future. Physically, you have separated energy collection to an immensely low density. This will not change. The physical plant for solar will always be physically large and distributed. This means expensive. Until you can grow a crop of solar cells using agriculture tools (hmm..sounds like biofuels. how well does that work?), you will simply not be able to competitively generate power. Panel prices are falling because the governments of the world (US and China) hand out massive subsidies and because there is a huge manufacturing capacity excess. For the money wasted on solar, we could build several nuclear plants per year (2/year in US alone).

Vogtle 3 and 4 say hi thar!

msnbcmedia.msn.com

Once Vogtle 3 and 4 close breakers (probably less than five years) you'll likely see a wave of reactors starting construction, same design.

/the hangup with STP is STP's design is not approved, AFAIK
//STP is an ABWR, Vogtle is AP1000 (and approved by the NRC)
 
2013-04-24 02:03:01 AM  

brantgoose: For large-scale power production, big mirrors are still more important than small solar panels.

I'm guessing that the Pennsylvania is big in production because Pittsburg and Philadelphia have re-tooled as post-modern post-coal and iron manufacturing centers, while the U of Penn is probably a center of R&D.

.

Mirror-based solar thermal facilities (concentrating solar power--CSP) are far more expensive than PV systems, and have been since about 2008 when PV prices started plummeting.  Most big solar facilities that started development as CSP have converted to PV (for cost and also due to permitting challenges).

There are benefits to CSP, but at this point CSP looks to be a very small niche business for the foreseeable future.


As to the solar installations in Pennsylvania: They spiked when New Jersey modified its SREC program to allow out-of-state PJM systems to qualify.  Basically those PA systems are selling to NJ.
 
2013-04-24 02:03:59 AM  

incrdbil: Girion47: incrdbil: Dow Jones and the Temple of Doom: Do they even mine anymore? I thought they just blew the tops of off mountains are ruined entire forest ecosystems and rural communities?

Mountain top removal is not the 'strip mining' of old. Forests are not devasttaed, and rural communities benefit, do not suffer from it.  And yes, conventional mining still occurs.

fark you it isn't.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/10/11/inez-coal-slurry-spill-to_n _7 57900.html


Huffington post? Really? Thats like getting racie based information information from the Aryan Brotherhood


My offer stands. Come and see for yourself....
 
2013-04-24 02:04:44 AM  

fifthhorseman: incrdbil: Dow Jones and the Temple of Doom: Do they even mine anymore? I thought they just blew the tops of off mountains are ruined entire forest ecosystems and rural communities?

Mountain top removal is not the 'strip mining' of old. Forests are not devasttaed, and rural communities benefit, do not suffer from it.  And yes, conventional mining still occurs.

Ahahahahahahahahahaha! *deep breath* Ahahahahahahahahahaha!  Yes I'm sure that the charges are placed to save the trees.  *wipes eyes, blows nose*


New growth is planted, in studied methods to prevent future eroson and promote healthy growth patters--not over dense unhealthy tree planting that was used decades ago.  fill material is used ot create useful land for development--a crucial thing in many mountain areas.  My home now has a new regional hospital, large shopping areas, an industrial park, and new residential areas that would not have existed otherwise--with no ecological harm.

Liberal farktards should get some recent real information.
 
2013-04-24 02:05:42 AM  
oldcub:
Unless the building was designed with solar in mind, it can be challenging. Nobody wants to physically attach the solar structures to the roof, potentially causing a leak, or voiding the roof warranty. Roofing companies want to be the ones to install the attachments. Now it may make more sense to re-roof the building first to get the warranty, and because it will be difficult to get to later. Some systems can be ballasted with cmu concrete cap blocks to avoid penetrations, but then may add too much weight and exceed the structural capacity. California and other areas have seismic concerns. Fire-fighter access pathways, skylight, etc.. The solar capacity of a given roof decreases rapidly, reducing the value of the investment.

I think that you're vastly over stating your case.

Non penetrating systems are available that not only maintain the warantee on the roof but actually enhance it: http://www.solarnation.com/non-penetrating.html

These kinds of systems have been available for years.

They've been designed in cooperation with roofing manufacturers.

That's the way that our economy works. There's a need for this product. Roofing companies want to sell more of their systems and solar companies want to sell more of their systems. Smart companies develop solutions and the knuckle draggers get left behind.
 
2013-04-24 02:07:09 AM  
Nuclear vs Solar:

pbs.twimg.com
 
2013-04-24 02:08:06 AM  

catpuncher: Rambino: catpuncher: Now compare the amount of energy the two produce.

And then compare how much a cat poops to how far you can ride a unicorn fart.

Your meaningless comparison is meaningless.

You mean the actual good produced is meaningless?  Not a surprising statement from somebody in the solar industry, actually.  Barring a technological breakthrough, solar power is still just a highly publicized pipe dream being foisted upon a largely unaware public.  But hey, subsidized jobs!  Woo hoo solar power!


No.  Let me spell it out for you:

First, "How many kWh does a coal plant generate" and "how many kWh does a solar panel generate" are both meaningless questions without further parameters.  Over what period of time?  How much fuel?  What heat rate?  Etc.

Second, the answer to those questions are still meaningless - you failed to state an actual point.  Rhetorical questions filled with vague innuendo do not a valid argument make.

Therefore--skip the innuendo and state your claim.
 
2013-04-24 02:09:05 AM  

Hector Remarkable: So now I suppose we'll have to endure "Solar Power Worker's Daughter" as soon as one of them grows up to be a country singer.


It will be electronica, naturally. And called something like "Solar Child (Xtreme Cell Overcharge remix by DJ F4th3r)". It will feature a single, unchanging, breakbeat for 8 minutes, with a sample of a guy saying 'solar child' now and then. Millions of teenagers will herald it as the best electronic music ever.
 
2013-04-24 02:09:17 AM  
I'm all for intelligent use of solar power--without subsidies distorting the facts about their usefullness. but the reality is coal is a valuable useful resource thatdoes not need to be restricted by overly stringent regulations; reasonable regulations requiring scrubbers at the lants hwere it is used should be put in place, and solar energy utilized to the small extent it can contribute.  The future is still more nuclear energy, but thats another relaity the enviro-tards wont embrace. Fark 'em all.
 
2013-04-24 02:10:08 AM  

incrdbil: fifthhorseman: incrdbil: Dow Jones and the Temple of Doom: Do they even mine anymore? I thought they just blew the tops of off mountains are ruined entire forest ecosystems and rural communities?

Mountain top removal is not the 'strip mining' of old. Forests are not devasttaed, and rural communities benefit, do not suffer from it.  And yes, conventional mining still occurs.

Ahahahahahahahahahaha! *deep breath* Ahahahahahahahahahaha!  Yes I'm sure that the charges are placed to save the trees.  *wipes eyes, blows nose*

New growth is planted, in studied methods to prevent future eroson and promote healthy growth patters--not over dense unhealthy tree planting that was used decades ago.  fill material is used ot create useful land for development--a crucial thing in many mountain areas.  My home now has a new regional hospital, large shopping areas, an industrial park, and new residential areas that would not have existed otherwise--with no ecological harm.

Liberal farktards should get some recent real information.


"No ecological harm"? What do you call mountains LITERALLY flattened, with the fill going into stream beds to support your shopping malls and tract housing that will subside into the earth that was never meant to support it.
 
2013-04-24 02:13:39 AM  

nmrsnr: bdub77: Further proof that Obama is destroying this country. What happens when the sun runs out of energy, Obama? HUH? WHAT HAPPENS THEN?

[upload.wikimedia.org image 826x758]


One thing I have always wondered about...how can we know the future fusion history of the sun with such certainty, when we have never managed to produce a sustained fusion reaction in the laboratory?  The only features of the stellar life cycle that have actually been observed happening are some of the flashier ones, i.e., supernovae.  Oh, and I guess we can observe some planetary nebulae that have been blown off.  I'm not saying that the basic plan is entirely wrong, I'm just wondering how we can say how long it will take the sun to complete helium or carbon fusion, when the only fusion reactions we have been able to study up close involve deuterium and tritium and are not representative of the bulk of what goes on in stars.
 
2013-04-24 02:13:41 AM  
MrSteve007:Fun fact - California alone is now installing more than 1 GW of solar PV capacity a year, and it's growing at a ~25% rate.

Even California broke ground on a nuclear power plant today, since it takes about 8 years to construct, CA will have installed some ~12 GW of solar capacity. Even if you factor in a 30% for solar, solar will still win on output. Never mind the ridiculous amount water consumed by nuclear plants (or spat out, back into the environment as hot water) - or the several tons of high level radioactive waste the nuclear plant will generate each year.

Plus you have the added benefit of less peak loading that needs to be met by peaker plants, and less demand to the grid during mid day and hot summer days.

As others have pointed out, even if you don't give a shiat about nuclear waste, environmental impact, or meltdown dangers - nuclear is a bad financial bet. That's why even with 100% government backed financing, it's damn near impossible to get one built in the USA. They have a long history of not penciling out. I know, I'm still paying in my utility connection fees for several nuclear plants that never even came online, since the demand never appeared and construction costs skyrocketed.

Nuclear power is a financial nightmare.


Did you seriously just call the second cheapest source of electricity per kwh, including all construction and decommissioning costs, "a financial nightmare" while calling the second most expensive a safer financial bet?  Do you have some sort of source for your fairytales?
 
2013-04-24 02:15:13 AM  

catpuncher: MrSteve007:Fun fact - California alone is now installing more than 1 GW of solar PV capacity a year, and it's growing at a ~25% rate.

Even California broke ground on a nuclear power plant today, since it takes about 8 years to construct, CA will have installed some ~12 GW of solar capacity. Even if you factor in a 30% for solar, solar will still win on output. Never mind the ridiculous amount water consumed by nuclear plants (or spat out, back into the environment as hot water) - or the several tons of high level radioactive waste the nuclear plant will generate each year.

Plus you have the added benefit of less peak loading that needs to be met by peaker plants, and less demand to the grid during mid day and hot summer days.

As others have pointed out, even if you don't give a shiat about nuclear waste, environmental impact, or meltdown dangers - nuclear is a bad financial bet. That's why even with 100% government backed financing, it's damn near impossible to get one built in the USA. They have a long history of not penciling out. I know, I'm still paying in my utility connection fees for several nuclear plants that never even came online, since the demand never appeared and construction costs skyrocketed.

Nuclear power is a financial nightmare.

Did you seriously just call the second cheapest source of electricity per kwh, including all construction and decommissioning costs, "a financial nightmare" while calling the second most expensive a safer financial bet?  Do you have some sort of source for your fairytales?


Its political partisanship

You cannot change the posters mind.
 
2013-04-24 02:19:27 AM  
I'm looking forward to moving back home (Houston) and taking on the task of retrofitting my townhouse to be as energy efficient as possible. My summer electric bills really take out a bite
 
2013-04-24 02:21:48 AM  
incrdbil:

I'm all for intelligent use of solar power--without subsidies distorting the facts about their usefullness.

By all means... Let's discuss subsidies on energy sources. Starting here:

i34.tinypic.com

China, India, heck, the entire planet is most appreciative of the American taxpayer's subsidy for their cheap oil.
 
2013-04-24 02:32:23 AM  

MrSteve007: I enjoy coming home each night to my comfy house, and plugging in my electric car:
[sphotos-b.xx.fbcdn.net image 720x1278]

After I plug in, I check the output on the rooftop solar panels for the day - this evening it was 23 kWh. I'll always double check the voltage of the house battery bank, which are always topped off. Sometimes I'll pop out and see how much the net-meter spun backwards . . . it worked today to have an excess of 15 kwh. Figuring that my car gets 4 miles to the kWh, and I drive 25 miles, the car will take about 7 kWh to fully recharge. That leaves me with ~8 kWh of excess electricity before morning. With a highly efficient, all electric house, that won't be a problem.

Today will be a fully net-solar powered day. I don't buy any gasoline, and I send back excess power during peak loading times for the grid. Power outages are a thing of the past for me. If I wanted to, I could live without the utility. I'm no longer beholden to a corporation to live a comfortable and modern lifestyle.

I can't wait for the day when I can tie my electric car into my current inverter & battery arrangement. With the LEAF as a 24 kWh back-up battery, backing up my house batteries, it could run my home for about 3 days before I would need to fire up the generator for a few hours to recharge everything.

I enjoy coming home to a fully powered home each night, even during power outages. I never worry about the food going bad in my fridge and freezers during an outage. And my garage door always works.

/solar power rocks
//subby


Just out of curiosity*, and outside the cost of the car, what were your total install costs for that system?  And how big is your house, and where do you live?

/ Genuinely curious.
 
2013-04-24 02:33:01 AM  
catpuncher:
Did you seriously just call the second cheapest source of electricity per kwh, including all construction and decommissioning costs, "a financial nightmare" while calling the second most expensive a safer financial bet?  Do you have some sort of source for your fairytales?


I have a source: Me.

I have personally worked on transactions and projects in both nuclear and solar energy.  I know the market value of a nuclear power plant, and I know the market value of a solar power plant.  I know the financial risks associated with both.  (As well as other sources, for that matter).  This is what I have been doing full time for the past 20 years.  This is what I should be doing right now instead of Farking.

Here is my hyper-specific conclusion on this point:  The proformas for the nukes only make sense when you make a few optimistic assumptions about the future, and they would be completely unfinanceable (in the US) without federal loan guarantees (which they get).  The proformas for solar projects make sense, and get financed, despite some freakishly pessimistic assumptions about the future, and (usually) without federal loan guarantees.

The ongoing capex for a nuke is astounding.  The downside liability risk is astounding.  The failure risk is catastrophic (as in all-or nothing).

Nuclear energy (in its current form) makes sense as a government project, and ONLY as a government project.

Solar energy has the safest risk profile of any energy source - performance risk, liability risk, failure risk.  Ongoing expenses are minimal and predictable.  Solar energy is so safe, financially speaking, that Wall Street is treating solar energy like mortgages and annuities.  No other energy source gets that vote of confidence.  None.
 
2013-04-24 02:34:07 AM  
Ever look up how much coal a coal-fired powerplant burns?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Navajo_Generating_Station
The plant consumes about 8 million tons of low sulfur bituminous coal each year

That's close to 22 tons of coal a day for just one powerplant. We're not going to be giving up on burning coal any time soon.
 
2013-04-24 02:35:07 AM  

Rambino: catpuncher: Rambino: catpuncher: Now compare the amount of energy the two produce.

And then compare how much a cat poops to how far you can ride a unicorn fart.

Your meaningless comparison is meaningless.

You mean the actual good produced is meaningless?  Not a surprising statement from somebody in the solar industry, actually.  Barring a technological breakthrough, solar power is still just a highly publicized pipe dream being foisted upon a largely unaware public.  But hey, subsidized jobs!  Woo hoo solar power!

No.  Let me spell it out for you:

First, "How many kWh does a coal plant generate" and "how many kWh does a solar panel generate" are both meaningless questions without further parameters.  Over what period of time?  How much fuel?  What heat rate?  Etc.

Second, the answer to those questions are still meaningless - you failed to state an actual point.  Rhetorical questions filled with vague innuendo do not a valid argument make.

Therefore--skip the innuendo and state your claim.


The claim is that you must be high.  Nobody said anything about a coal plant vs. a single solar panel.

More solar workers produce a very tiny fraction of the energy that relatively few coal workers can.  That's the point.

It's a highly subsidized infant industry, rife with fraud.  These highly subsidized workers are simply the case in point.

Even in California, levelized costs, which discount the subsidies (making solar look cheaper), estimate solar's costs to almost four times as high.

When you mean "semi-permanent", you do mean the estimated 20 year life span of the solar panels, right?  Because 20 years is a long time?  Almost permanent?
 
2013-04-24 02:35:27 AM  

catpuncher: MrSteve007:Fun fact - California alone is now installing more than 1 GW of solar PV capacity a year, and it's growing at a ~25% rate.

Even California broke ground on a nuclear power plant today, since it takes about 8 years to construct, CA will have installed some ~12 GW of solar capacity. Even if you factor in a 30% for solar, solar will still win on output. Never mind the ridiculous amount water consumed by nuclear plants (or spat out, back into the environment as hot water) - or the several tons of high level radioactive waste the nuclear plant will generate each year.

Plus you have the added benefit of less peak loading that needs to be met by peaker plants, and less demand to the grid during mid day and hot summer days.

As others have pointed out, even if you don't give a shiat about nuclear waste, environmental impact, or meltdown dangers - nuclear is a bad financial bet. That's why even with 100% government backed financing, it's damn near impossible to get one built in the USA. They have a long history of not penciling out. I know, I'm still paying in my utility connection fees for several nuclear plants that never even came online, since the demand never appeared and construction costs skyrocketed.

Nuclear power is a financial nightmare.

Did you seriously just call the second cheapest source of electricity per kwh, including all construction and decommissioning costs, "a financial nightmare" while calling the second most expensive a safer financial bet?  Do you have some sort of source for your fairytales?


You're correct that our current nuclear power plants offer very cheap power. But you'd be remiss not to also point out that almost all of our nuclear capacity was built well over 35+ years ago, when construction prices were far cheaper.

Why don't you run some cost per kWh comparisons when building new nuclear capacity. After the financial fiasco that was WPPSS, resulting in the largest public bond default in history, private investment wants nothing to do with nuclear power. Even will full loan guarantees backed by the government, they're hard pressed to get new plants off the ground. Quite a few "Nuclear Renaissance" projects have collapsed recently - both in the US and abroad.
 
2013-04-24 02:39:10 AM  

maxheck: incrdbil:

I'm all for intelligent use of solar power--without subsidies distorting the facts about their usefullness.

By all means... Let's discuss subsidies on energy sources. Starting here:

[i34.tinypic.com image 800x532]

[military stuff]

China, India, heck, the entire planet is most appreciative of the American taxpayer's subsidy for their cheap oil.


Funny you should say that.  I was just talking to some DoD folks about solar the other day.  Most people don't realize, of course, but the US military is/will be one of the biggest sponsors of solar energy.  And not just because of environmental directives (although they take that seriously as well), but because of "energy security."

Mr.Steve has lights during a blackout because of his solar panels. That's the kind of thing that the military takes pretty seriously. And unlike, say, a nuclear power plant or a coal plant, you CAN put a metric butt-load of solar panels on a military base without interfering with operations.

Several people with stars on their shoulders have told me point-blank that as far as they are concerned, solar energy is a matter of national security.
 
2013-04-24 02:44:59 AM  

Rambino: catpuncher:
Did you seriously just call the second cheapest source of electricity per kwh, including all construction and decommissioning costs, "a financial nightmare" while calling the second most expensive a safer financial bet?  Do you have some sort of source for your fairytales?


I have a source: Me.

I have personally worked on transactions and projects in both nuclear and solar energy.  I know the market value of a nuclear power plant, and I know the market value of a solar power plant.  I know the financial risks associated with both.  (As well as other sources, for that matter).  This is what I have been doing full time for the past 20 years.  This is what I should be doing right now instead of Farking.

Here is my hyper-specific conclusion on this point:  The proformas for the nukes only make sense when you make a few optimistic assumptions about the future, and they would be completely unfinanceable (in the US) without federal loan guarantees (which they get).  The proformas for solar projects make sense, and get financed, despite some freakishly pessimistic assumptions about the future, and (usually) without federal loan guarantees.

The ongoing capex for a nuke is astounding.  The downside liability risk is astounding.  The failure risk is catastrophic (as in all-or nothing).

Nuclear energy (in its current form) makes sense as a government project, and ONLY as a government project.

Solar energy has the safest risk profile of any energy source - performance risk, liability risk, failure risk.  Ongoing expenses are minimal and predictable.  Solar energy is so safe, financially speaking, that Wall Street is treating solar energy like mortgages and annuities.  No other energy source gets that vote of confidence.  None.


Oh this is fun.
The State of California disagrees with you.
The US Department of Energy disagrees with you.
And now people who don't have older, inefficient nuclear plants:
Le French and Ze Germans disagree with you.
The Australi... oh fark it.  You get the point.

Actual numbers guys, who have actual numbers of levelized costs all say you're wrong.  I'm really curious as to what your actual "experience" is?  But shiat, you said Wall Street is treating solar energy like mortgages and annuities.  It's clearly iron-clad.
 
2013-04-24 02:45:06 AM  

Befuddled: That's close to 22 tons of coal a day for just one powerplant.


Sorry, that's 21,917 tons of coal a day.
 
Displayed 50 of 304 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
On Twitter





In Other Media


  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report