Do you have adblock enabled?
 
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)   To the left: A realistic & economically sound plan to get everything, in every state, fully powered with renewable energy by 2050. To the right: naysayers explaining why this is impossible   ( treehugger.com) divider line
    More: Obvious, United States, renewable energy, offshore wind, fuel mix disclosure, tree huggers, single source  
•       •       •

7233 clicks; posted to Main » on 07 Mar 2014 at 2:19 PM (3 years ago)   |   Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



319 Comments     (+0 »)
 
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest
 
2014-03-07 01:46:49 PM  
Uh, dude, this is AMERICA!
 
2014-03-07 01:50:38 PM  
I assume by "onshore wind" they're referring to windmills that kill lots of birds and for solar PV and CSP plants, they're talking about places that cook birds.
 
2014-03-07 01:52:46 PM  
Of course it CAN be done, the question is whether or not we have the political will to do so.

We invested well over $1 trillion over 10 years in Iraq and Afghanistan. I think about that every time a see a report about why something can't be done or we don't have the budget or it will take too long, etc...
 
2014-03-07 01:58:26 PM  
And behind the keyboard, someone using a browser mandated by work that doesn't support the pages needed to look at the plan... :/
 
2014-03-07 01:59:21 PM  

vernonFL: Of course it CAN be done, the question is whether or not we have the political will to do so.


As long as extractive energy companies are dropping mad cash on their favorite political candidates, the whole plan is an uphill battle.
 
2014-03-07 02:21:47 PM  
It was posted on treehugger.
 
2014-03-07 02:23:47 PM  
But mah lightbulbs! I ain't usin' no Obama bulbs.
 
2014-03-07 02:23:50 PM  
US Wind Power 2013

A number of states are already getting more than 25% of their total electricity just from wind.
 
2014-03-07 02:25:08 PM  
Nuclear power & Reprocessing.
 
2014-03-07 02:26:12 PM  
After three rounds of "temporarily allowing all scripts" in FF, I got a cross-script security warning. Sorry, I'll have to comment without RFTA (well, without using their interactive map). It's a sacrifice unheard of in Farkdom, I know. Forgive me.
 
2014-03-07 02:26:29 PM  

dj_bigbird: I assume by "onshore wind" they're referring to windmills that kill lots of birds and for solar PV and CSP plants, they're talking about places that cook birds.


Are you saying you're for or against?

/Everyone hates birds, right?
 
2014-03-07 02:26:34 PM  
The reason we can't?

Eco tree hugging granola eaters, saying we can't affect the migration pattern of the no so rare Arizona sand slug or stupid farking birds who run into wind mills.
 
2014-03-07 02:27:00 PM  

Destructor: Nuclear power & Reprocessing.


Too expensive.
 
2014-03-07 02:27:03 PM  

Angry Drunk Bureaucrat: vernonFL: Of course it CAN be done, the question is whether or not we have the political will to do so.

As long as extractive energy companies are dropping mad cash on their favorite political candidates, the whole plan is an uphill battle.


And NIMBY's.  NIMBY's delay any infrastructure project for 2 decades after tripling the price.

At least the Republican Party is honest about wanting to fark the poor.
 
2014-03-07 02:28:34 PM  
Fark headline: "A realistic and economically sound plan"

Article: "Obviously, having a roadmap is not the same thing as having a strategic plan"
 
2014-03-07 02:28:46 PM  
As I've said on fark many times before - almost everything directly in my life is powered by solar power: house, work, car. If I can do that in perpetually cloudy Seattle, anyone can.

My full return on investment will be July 2017 - a little over three years from now. After that, every watt I generate is money in my pocket. Considering most of the equipment is warrantied for another 22 years - I expect to save a load of cash.
 
2014-03-07 02:29:03 PM  

dj_bigbird: I assume by "onshore wind" they're referring to windmills that kill lots of birds and for solar PV and CSP plants, they're talking about places that cook birds.


Also "windows" kill birds, and don't even get me started on the "cats", so obviously those things can't be done either.
Coal and nuclear waste is good for birds.
 
2014-03-07 02:29:12 PM  

Molavian: It was posted on treehugger.


This.

Treehugger.  The RightWingNews.com of the left.
 
2014-03-07 02:29:50 PM  

vernonFL: Of course it CAN be done, the question is whether or not we have the political will to do so.

We invested well over $1 trillion over 10 years in Iraq and Afghanistan. I think about that every time a see a report about why something can't be done or we don't have the budget or it will take too long, etc...


We didn't "invest" a penny in Iraq or Afghanistan. An investment implies we could reasonably inspect a return. Iraq and Afghanistan are money pits and that money ain't ever coming back.

Education and infrastructure are actual investments.
 
2014-03-07 02:30:16 PM  

MrSteve007: As I've said on fark many times before - almost everything directly in my life is powered by solar power: house, work, car. If I can do that in perpetually cloudy Seattle, anyone can.

My full return on investment will be July 2017 - a little over three years from now. After that, every watt I generate is money in my pocket. Considering most of the equipment is warrantied for another 22 years - I expect to save a load of cash.


Yeah but what about Benghazi!
 
2014-03-07 02:30:29 PM  

Angry Drunk Bureaucrat: vernonFL: Of course it CAN be done, the question is whether or not we have the political will to do so.

As long as extractive energy companies are dropping mad cash on their favorite political candidates, the whole plan is an uphill battle.


Sadly, this. Too many people make too much money, and as a result have too much influence, with things the way they are for me to reasonably expect any signifiant change.
 
2014-03-07 02:31:07 PM  
To start with, we need to start plastering the tops of big box stores with utility intertie solar  They get great sunlight, what with no trees nearby.
 
2014-03-07 02:32:22 PM  
Too bad I can't see the actual plans on the infographic - the clicking, it does nothing.

Looking at the little icons, Michigan's plan is >25% solar (sun with little house, sun with bigger building, sun with parallelagram, sun with foldy-thing). I wouldn't want to climb up onto my (pretty steep) roof to shovel snow off solar panels, but maybe that's a viable plan for any sunny days during the non-snowy ~9 months out of the year.

I really don't understand 40% of Michigan's energy coming from land-based wind farms. Michigan is a terrible place for these.

If anyone can read the actual plan, can you see if they actually have a way to make land-based wind farms work in the majority of Michigan?
 
2014-03-07 02:32:28 PM  

AngryDragon: This.Treehugger. The RightWingNews.com of the left.


Really? They're owned by Discovery Communications. Creators of such 'beloved' shows as: "Swamp People" "Moonshiners" "Alaska Gold Miners" "Deadliest Catch" etc.

Not exactly liberal ownership.
 
2014-03-07 02:33:43 PM  
The problem with this plan, even if we had the willpower to enact it, is that it just covers us.  It's not going to matter unless we do something about the other elephants in the room.  We sell dirty coal to China and import their goods, but most energy consumption charts show that as China's problem.  Consumption is going to continue to rise worldwide.  The fact that we are thinking about this as a state issue instead of a global one... yes, it's good to have a plan for each state, but unless we start really working with other countries it's not going to matter.
 
2014-03-07 02:35:02 PM  

dj_bigbird: I assume by "onshore wind" they're referring to windmills that kill lots of birds and for solar PV and CSP plants, they're talking about places that cook birds.


I'm responding to this, but not to you, you're an aggressive troll who posts this in every thread remotely related to renewable energy. (Show me on the doll where ...)

I'm responding in case anyone doesn't know how shameless and wrong your argument is:

plainswindeis.anl.gov

This is a bird-safe wind turbine. Birds look for places to land, the only place is at the top, where the relative speed of the fan blades are slow.

switchboard.nrdc.org

You really care about birds? Then direct your attention to something that will have a bigger effect.
 
2014-03-07 02:35:45 PM  

Ashyukun: And behind the keyboard, someone using a browser mandated by work that doesn't support the pages needed to look at the plan... :/


Their official page is shiat.  It is one of those pages designed for phones, where everything is huge and very little content fits on the screen so you constantly have to scroll.
 
2014-03-07 02:35:55 PM  
Stopped reading after this sentence:

"In 2011, a scientist, a banker, an actor, and a filmmaker, came together to envision a pathway to 100% renewable energy in the US..."

Of course they did. Of  course they did.
 
2014-03-07 02:35:59 PM  
yeah, it's a great idea in THEORY, much like leftism in enough itself.  but such an idealist plan would surely encounter unforeseen obstacles of a difficult nature and is therefore a bad idea.  much like leftism.
 
2014-03-07 02:36:25 PM  
Didn't bother reading the article, but how do we fuel planes? Last I checked you can't really run a jumbo jet on batteries.
 
2014-03-07 02:36:27 PM  
I want this but here is why it is impossible.

Republicans.
 
2014-03-07 02:36:32 PM  
It will work fine if we also come up with a feasible way to store electricity or are happy with constant and unpredictable power outages.
 
2014-03-07 02:36:59 PM  

HoratioGates: The problem with this plan, even if we had the willpower to enact it, is that it just covers us.  It's not going to matter unless we do something about the other elephants in the room.  We sell dirty coal to China and import their goods, but most energy consumption charts show that as China's problem.  Consumption is going to continue to rise worldwide.  The fact that we are thinking about this as a state issue instead of a global one... yes, it's good to have a plan for each state, but unless we start really working with other countries it's not going to matter.


China already has regional cap and trade programs in five provinces and is transitioning to a national carbon tax.
 
2014-03-07 02:37:14 PM  

draypresct: I really don't understand 40% of Michigan's energy coming from land-based wind farms. Michigan is a terrible place for these.

If anyone can read the actual plan, can you see if they actually have a way to make land-based wind farms work in the majority of Michigan?


Geez you really twisted that data into a knot and wrapped yourself a present there didn't you?
 
2014-03-07 02:37:43 PM  
Until Alaska and Texas run out of economically viable oil or oil stops being profitable, there's simply no way you're going to be able to wean them off of that kind of money. Ditto for North Dakota and other fracking hotspots.

This is a lovely and even possibly sound idea for many states, but it does underestimate the most potent factor in the mix: human nature. And specifically, human greed. 'viable' != 'compelling'.
 
2014-03-07 02:37:56 PM  

vernonFL: Of course it CAN be done, the question is whether or not we have the political will to do so.

We invested well over $1 trillion over 10 years in Iraq and Afghanistan. I think about that every time a see a report about why something can't be done or we don't have the budget or it will take too long, etc...


i n v e s t e d ... that's a funny way to spell "burned."
 
2014-03-07 02:39:48 PM  

Hollie Maea: Destructor: Nuclear power & Reprocessing.

Too expensive.


Looking at the levelized cost (most affected by taxes). But looking at the actual cost, transmission distances, land savings in term of power density, and reliability, it becomes hard to beat.

If you really want to leave a tiny ecological foot print, nuclear is the only way to go.
 
2014-03-07 02:42:26 PM  

MrSteve007: As I've said on fark many times before - almost everything directly in my life is powered by solar power: house, work, car. If I can do that in perpetually cloudy Seattle, anyone can.

My full return on investment will be July 2017 - a little over three years from now. After that, every watt I generate is money in my pocket. Considering most of the equipment is warrantied for another 22 years - I expect to save a load of cash.


How do you power things during non-daylight hours? What sort of energy storage do you have?
 
2014-03-07 02:42:49 PM  

draypresct: Too bad I can't see the actual plans on the infographic - the clicking, it does nothing.

Looking at the little icons, Michigan's plan is >25% solar (sun with little house, sun with bigger building, sun with parallelagram, sun with foldy-thing). I wouldn't want to climb up onto my (pretty steep) roof to shovel snow off solar panels, but maybe that's a viable plan for any sunny days during the non-snowy ~9 months out of the year.

I really don't understand 40% of Michigan's energy coming from land-based wind farms. Michigan is a terrible place for these.

If anyone can read the actual plan, can you see if they actually have a way to make land-based wind farms work in the majority of Michigan?


From what I understand the panels end up melting the snow pretty rapidly.

The have quite a few land based wind farms in Michigan already.  One is going up on my dad's land in the Thumb.  He's quite happy about the extra cash, plus his psycho sister is moving because she thinks they cause health effects, and she used to work in nuclear power.

And I literally just got news my energy company approved the 0 interest loan for my ductless heat pump.

Good bye ceiling heat.  May the guy that thought that up spend eternity in hell paying massive electric bills and never having the heat be quite right!
 
2014-03-07 02:43:10 PM  

draypresct: I really don't understand 40% of Michigan's energy coming from land-based wind farms. Michigan is a terrible place for these.


Presumably, they would all be on land, on the east coast of Lake Michigan. Which would admittedly be a prime spot for catching wind. Not sure how they would handle the winters though. I would  hate to be the poor SOB who had to climb up and fix ice damage on one of those things in, say, late January.
 
2014-03-07 02:44:16 PM  

emarche: Stopped reading after this sentence:

"In 2011, a scientist, a banker, an actor, and a filmmaker, came together to envision a pathway to 100% renewable energy in the US..."

Of course they did. Of  course they did.


I know! Exactly what would some fancy pants Stanford Professor doctor guy with degrees Atmospheric Science, Civil Engineering, Economics and Environmental Engineering and who serves on the advisory committee for the US Secretary of Energy, know about something like this? What a crock!
 
2014-03-07 02:44:22 PM  

vernonFL: Of course it CAN be done, the question is whether or not we have the political will to do so.

We invested well over $1 trillion over 10 years in Iraq and Afghanistan. I think about that every time a see a report about why something can't be done or we don't have the budget or it will take too long, etc...


What if we had invested that kind of money after the first Arab Oil Embargo towards energy independence?  We prolly wouldn't care much about Kuwait and Iraq because they didn't have anything we need.    We wouldn't have needed a military presence in the middle east.   Then we could'v said "Osama bin Who?'.
 
2014-03-07 02:44:33 PM  

dj_bigbird: I assume by "onshore wind" they're referring to windmills that kill lots of birds and for solar PV and CSP plants, they're talking about places that cook birds.


Also a place that cooks birds.
3.bp.blogspot.com
 
2014-03-07 02:44:35 PM  

Destructor: Hollie Maea: Destructor: Nuclear power & Reprocessing.

Too expensive.

Looking at the levelized cost (most affected by taxes). But looking at the actual cost, transmission distances, land savings in term of power density, and reliability, it becomes hard to beat.

If you really want to leave a tiny ecological foot print, nuclear is the only way to go.


And enormous hand-waving about liability.
 
2014-03-07 02:45:06 PM  
Destructor: Nuclear power & Reprocessing.

HM: Too expensive.


WAT? Consult with France. They generate 80% of their power with nukes, and reprocess. And make money selling power to Germany, the land of many (wait for it)... windmills!

Nukes are conomically viable now. So called "renewables" WILL NOT be a viable replacement until we come up with an economically competitive way of storing electricity. That's the reality. No amount of wishful progressive thinking will change the reality of the underlying physics....
 
2014-03-07 02:45:54 PM  

Ennuipoet: Uh, dude, this is AMERICA!


Done in one.  'Murcans have no truck with "renewable energy" cuz it's Communism.
 
2014-03-07 02:46:54 PM  

dj_bigbird: I assume by "onshore wind" they're referring to windmills that kill lots of birds and for solar PV and CSP plants, they're talking about places that cook birds.


I think in one report on the number of birds killed at one large solar plant in a one month period was 30, which basically amounts to the death toll from one decent sized colony of feral cats, so just a small program to trap, neuter, and release ferals would more than make up for the impact of the solar plants.
 
2014-03-07 02:47:03 PM  

brap: draypresct: I really don't understand 40% of Michigan's energy coming from land-based wind farms. Michigan is a terrible place for these.

If anyone can read the actual plan, can you see if they actually have a way to make land-based wind farms work in the majority of Michigan?

Geez you really twisted that data into a knot and wrapped yourself a present there didn't you?


Huh?
I live in Michigan.
 
2014-03-07 02:47:43 PM  

Random Anonymous Blackmail: The reason we can't?

Eco tree hugging granola eaters, saying we can't affect the migration pattern of the no so rare Arizona sand slug or stupid farking birds who run into wind mills.


In this instance, the tree huggers are correct. Ecosystems, how do they work?

/ besides, water availability is a more pressing concern
 
2014-03-07 02:47:48 PM  
America is a big country, sublibbo.


/stupid argument also used for lack of/slow broadband connectivy.
 
2014-03-07 02:48:04 PM  

meyerkev: Angry Drunk Bureaucrat: vernonFL: Of course it CAN be done, the question is whether or not we have the political will to do so.

As long as extractive energy companies are dropping mad cash on their favorite political candidates, the whole plan is an uphill battle.

And NIMBY's.  NIMBY's delay any infrastructure project for 2 decades after tripling the price.

At least the Republican Party is honest about wanting to fark the poor.


This. All those renewable power sources are technically feasible. What's impossible is generating the political will among the populace as long as petroleum is cheap, and overcoming entrenched moneyed interests. And nimbys, of course. That chart calls for 35 percent of Georgia's power to come from offshore windmills. Good luck getting that stuff permitted. The same people fighting for green energy will be fighting against "unsightly" wind farms.

On the bright side, we WILL hit peak oil sooner than later (the North American fracking oil/gas production is already in decline), and oil prices will skyrocket, making all this green stuff competitive on price. So it's nice to see that it's allegedly feasible.
 
2014-03-07 02:48:46 PM  

Felgraf: How do you power things during non-daylight hours? What sort of energy storage do you have?


Because of the current incentives in place, I'm grid interactive. So the house draws from the local utility at night (my utility is powered by their own hydro dams and wind plants and pulls a little from a local nuke plant). However both my office and home have battery backup systems (made in the USA by Deka batteries), so if I were to chose, both can be run off grid.
 
2014-03-07 02:48:52 PM  

Prank Call of Cthulhu: Didn't bother reading the article, but how do we fuel planes? Last I checked you can't really run a jumbo jet on batteries.


Algae that shiat kerosine is pretty much doable now. It's the scaling up and economics vs oil that need sorted.

Its time will come
 
2014-03-07 02:48:58 PM  

Begoggle: dj_bigbird: I assume by "onshore wind" they're referring to windmills that kill lots of birds and for solar PV and CSP plants, they're talking about places that cook birds.

Also "windows" kill birds, and don't even get me started on the "cats", so obviously those things can't be done either.
Coal and nuclear waste is good for birds.


That's what I feed mine. Birds are supposed to have opposable thumbs, right?
 
2014-03-07 02:49:33 PM  
As long as no tax payer money is used I'm OK with it.
 
2014-03-07 02:49:38 PM  

meat0918: I want this but here is why it is impossible.

Republicans.


that's a funny way to spell "energy storage"
 
2014-03-07 02:50:25 PM  

Begoggle: dj_bigbird: I assume by "onshore wind" they're referring to windmills that kill lots of birds and for solar PV and CSP plants, they're talking about places that cook birds.

Also "windows" kill birds, and don't even get me started on the "cats", so obviously those things can't be done either.
Coal and nuclear waste is good for birds.


Birds loved acid rain. It got all those inconvenient leaves out of the way, so they could perch on the branches more easily. Also, all the dead fish floating up to the tops of the lakes were easier to grab than the live ones that could swim away.
 
2014-03-07 02:50:28 PM  

HotWingConspiracy: But mah lightbulbs! I ain't usin' no Obama bulbs.


Oh yeah:  They cost a ton of money right now ($25 - $30), but LED flourescent tubes are fantastic.  They draw next to no amperage, last forever, and generate almost no heat.  And none of the mercury dust that the flourescent tubes are rocking.  When the cost comes down, get some of them.

www.yazzoopa.com
 
2014-03-07 02:50:49 PM  

AugieDoggyDaddy: What if we had invested that kind of money after the first Arab Oil Embargo towards energy independence? We prolly wouldn't care much about Kuwait and Iraq because they didn't have anything we need. We wouldn't have needed a military presence in the middle east. Then we could'v said "Osama bin Who?'.


There isn't a lot of oil* being burned to power your computer. It mostly goes to vehicle fuel and industrial/chemical products.

*Yes I'm aware of natural gas power plants.
 
2014-03-07 02:51:26 PM  

Mad_Radhu: dj_bigbird: I assume by "onshore wind" they're referring to windmills that kill lots of birds and for solar PV and CSP plants, they're talking about places that cook birds.

I think in one report on the number of birds killed at one large solar plant in a one month period was 30, which basically amounts to the death toll from one decent sized colony of feral cats, so just a small program to trap, neuter, and release ferals would more than make up for the impact of the solar plants.


Birds run into windmills and die. Far MORE birds run into the sides of buildings and die. Birds are farking stupid, but they breed fast enough that windmill deaths won't affect their numbers.
 
2014-03-07 02:51:38 PM  
I'm curious about the off-shore wind turbines.  They've got 35% of Georgia's power coming from that.  Where are they going to build? With the trade lanes, gray's reef, the fisheries, and barrier island protected areas, there's not a lot of space left.
 
2014-03-07 02:53:01 PM  

bigsteve3OOO: As long as no tax payer money is used I'm OK with it.


YEAH. Taxpayer money should be used only for widening and paving roads. And subsidizing oil exploration.
 
2014-03-07 02:53:29 PM  
Man, I wish someone would develop a way to harness the energy of a potato.   This way this country would not only be fully energy independent, but it would also be able to sell its spare energy to more potato-challenged countries.
 
2014-03-07 02:55:56 PM  

meat0918: From what I understand the panels end up melting the snow pretty rapidly.


Only if you've got a light dusting, I believe. The kind of snow we've had lately would need to be removed by hand.


The have quite a few land based wind farms in Michigan already. One is going up on my dad's land in the Thumb. He's quite happy about the extra cash, plus his psycho sister is moving because she thinks they cause health effects, and she used to work in nuclear power.

I think you're right that the thumb is better for land-based wind power than most of the rest of Michigan. But if we're talking about 40% of all Michigan's power, we're probably going to need more wind farms a bit closer to where the majority of the people live, where land-based wind farms tend not to work so well.

And I'm sorry they let someone that crazy work in any capacity in a nuclear power plant. I liked the Fark headline that the cure for wind-farm-based health problems is apparently money.

And I literally just got news my energy company approved the 0 interest loan for my ductless heat pump.Good bye ceiling heat. May the guy that thought that up spend eternity in hell paying massive electric bills and never having the heat be quite right!

Good luck! Hope it works out for you.
 
2014-03-07 02:56:13 PM  

Ambivalence: vernonFL: Of course it CAN be done, the question is whether or not we have the political will to do so.

We invested well over $1 trillion over 10 years in Iraq and Afghanistan. I think about that every time a see a report about why something can't be done or we don't have the budget or it will take too long, etc...

We didn't "invest" a penny in Iraq or Afghanistan. An investment implies we could reasonably inspect a return. Iraq and Afghanistan are money pits and that money ain't ever coming back.

Education and infrastructure are actual investments.


Heh. You got the joke but didnt get the joke.
 
2014-03-07 02:56:18 PM  

mark12A: Destructor: Nuclear power & Reprocessing.

HM: Too expensive.


WAT? Consult with France. They generate 80% of their power with nukes, and reprocess.


The problem is, you can make nuclear power really expensive... That's why I was really annoyed to find "levelized" costs on Wikipedia. Of course its going to be more expensive when you dump tax credits on solar and wind (and play other financial games).

I'd love to see some funds earmarked for research into renewables go into nuclear reprocessing technology, or even the Thorium fuel cycle (which is really neat). That solves a big chunk of the offsite storage problem when you consider spent fuel rods contain 95%+ fuel (plants only burn 4% before the rods are retired).
 
2014-03-07 02:56:32 PM  

DubtodaIll: I'm curious about the off-shore wind turbines.  They've got 35% of Georgia's power coming from that.  Where are they going to build? With the trade lanes, gray's reef, the fisheries, and barrier island protected areas, there's not a lot of space left.


Windmills don't hurt fishing; in fact they help by acting as infrastructure for habitat; sort of a vertical reef. There's TONS of room outside the shipping lanes. You will get a bunch of nimby complaints if they "spoil the view" from Sea Island, but that's something that's going to have to be worked out. Personally, I don't think wind farms are less attractive than sailboats, and everybody just raves about how pretty boats sailing by are. They're way better looking that the container ships you constantly see on the horizon.
 
2014-03-07 02:57:05 PM  

Joe Peanut: Man, I wish someone would develop a way to harness the energy of a potato.   This way this country would not only be fully energy independent, but it would also be able to sell its spare energy to more potato-challenged countries.


That's not going to cut it. A potato doesn't even have enough voltage for a single emotional outburst.
 
2014-03-07 02:57:34 PM  

vernonFL: Of course it CAN be done, the question is whether or not we have the political will to do so.

We invested well over $1 trillion over 10 years in Iraq and Afghanistan. I think about that every time a see a report about why something can't be done or we don't have the budget or it will take too long, etc...


A trillion dollars wouldn't even cover the cost of paperwork. This project would cost hundreds of trillions of dollars, even if it wasn't completely infeasable.
 
2014-03-07 02:57:36 PM  
veedeevadeevoodee

Random Anonymous Blackmail: The reason we can't?

Eco tree hugging granola eaters, saying we can't affect the migration pattern of the no so rare Arizona sand slug or stupid farking birds who run into wind mills.


In this instance, the tree huggers are correct. Ecosystems, how do they work?

/ besides, water availability is a more pressing concern


You don't see them slowing the expansion of sprawling suburbia because of ecosystems so how is this different. The animals will adapt to survive, they have been pretty good at that for a long time.
 
2014-03-07 02:57:49 PM  

fireclown: To start with, we need to start plastering the tops of big box stores with utility intertie solar  They get great sunlight, what with no trees nearby.


I think a lot of climate change policy is misguided, but this always seemed like a no-brainer to me.  Should also be done on shopping malls, and government office buildings.  

MrSteve007: AngryDragon: This.Treehugger. The RightWingNews.com of the left.

Really? They're owned by Discovery Communications. Creators of such 'beloved' shows as: "Swamp People" "Moonshiners" "Alaska Gold Miners" "Deadliest Catch" etc.

Not exactly liberal ownership.


So they can't be liberal because they have tv shows where everyone laughs at conservative backwoods stereotypes?  Sure.
 
2014-03-07 02:58:42 PM  

whistleridge: draypresct: I really don't understand 40% of Michigan's energy coming from land-based wind farms. Michigan is a terrible place for these.

Presumably, they would all be on land, on the east coast of Lake Michigan. Which would admittedly be a prime spot for catching wind. Not sure how they would handle the winters though. I would  hate to be the poor SOB who had to climb up and fix ice damage on one of those things in, say, late January.


Possibly. Also, as another Farker pointed out in this thread, there are wind farms on the thumb. 40% seems pretty high, though, especially if you have to position the wind farms away from the major population centers.
 
2014-03-07 02:59:07 PM  
DNRTA.  But I'm gonna post my opinion anyway.

We could easily switch over to renewal, eco-friendly energy sources now.  The technology exists to do it.
But so much money and interest is tied up in fossil fuels that it will not happen.  Pretty much ever.  Even switching all diesel powered engines over to using vegetable oil would be a huge step in the right direction.  But no.  We have to use the filthy expensive, foriegn supplied, fossil based diesel fuel.

Everyone knows that we humans are killing the environment with our usage of fossil fuels.  But it will never change as it would be entirely too painful on the economy.
 
2014-03-07 02:59:22 PM  

opiumpoopy: Prank Call of Cthulhu: Didn't bother reading the article, but how do we fuel planes? Last I checked you can't really run a jumbo jet on batteries.

Algae that shiat kerosine is pretty much doable now. It's the scaling up and economics vs oil that need sorted.

Its time will come


The US Navy is rapidly transitioning it's fuel stocks over to algae based bio fuels - for both ships and air operations. I believe they're aiming for 50% by 2020. I had the opportunity to talk with their main Pacific Fleet public information officer at an energy conference last year in Hawaii. While the costs are high right now, the military is most concerned about maintaining full operational readiness in the Pacific in case of another oil embargo or fuel shortage. One of the more interesting things they said to me:

"The Pacific Fleet is based in Hawaii - geographically about as far on the planet as you can get from operational oil wells and refineries. In the case of war, wouldn't it make sense for us to be able to supply our own fleet from fuels grown at our home base? If our fuel gets cut off, the Navy will come to a halt and we lose the Pacific. We're making sure that won't happen."

Also, Alaska Airlines is already starting to transition their Hawaii-Mainland flights to Hawaiian grown biofuel right now.
 
2014-03-07 02:59:56 PM  

meyerkev: Angry Drunk Bureaucrat: vernonFL: Of course it CAN be done, the question is whether or not we have the political will to do so.

As long as extractive energy companies are dropping mad cash on their favorite political candidates, the whole plan is an uphill battle.

And NIMBY's.  NIMBY's delay any infrastructure project for 2 decades after tripling the price.

At least the Republican Party is honest about wanting to fark the poor.


Go tell that to the wealthy east coast liberals who block all attempts at solar, wind, and tidal energies because it lowers the value of their mansions.
 
2014-03-07 03:00:09 PM  
www.lunatim.com
 
2014-03-07 03:00:52 PM  

StopLurkListen: You really care about birds? Then direct your attention to something that will have a bigger effect.


{Cats at top of list}

You want it even HARDER to get a Caturday thread greenlit? Jeez.
 
2014-03-07 03:01:53 PM  

Random Anonymous Blackmail: veedeevadeevoodee

Random Anonymous Blackmail: The reason we can't?

Eco tree hugging granola eaters, saying we can't affect the migration pattern of the no so rare Arizona sand slug or stupid farking birds who run into wind mills.


In this instance, the tree huggers are correct. Ecosystems, how do they work?

/ besides, water availability is a more pressing concern


You don't see them slowing the expansion of sprawling suburbia because of ecosystems so how is this different. The animals will adapt to survive, they have been pretty good at that for a long time.


Animals aren't so much adapting as going extinct. We're in the midst of the biggest mass extinction event since that meteor took out the dinosaurs. All human-caused.
 
2014-03-07 03:02:13 PM  

StopLurkListen: dj_bigbird: I assume by "onshore wind" they're referring to windmills that kill lots of birds and for solar PV and CSP plants, they're talking about places that cook birds.

I'm responding to this, but not to you, you're an aggressive troll who posts this in every thread remotely related to renewable energy. (Show me on the doll where ...)

I'm responding in case anyone doesn't know how shameless and wrong your argument is:

[plainswindeis.anl.gov image 357x500]

This is a bird-safe wind turbine. Birds look for places to land, the only place is at the top, where the relative speed of the fan blades are slow.

[switchboard.nrdc.org image 706x462]

You really care about birds? Then direct your attention to something that will have a bigger effect.


I always see those exact ones on the way past Indianapolis.  Pretty incredible looking.
 
2014-03-07 03:03:47 PM  

Closed_Minded_Bastage: StopLurkListen: You really care about birds? Then direct your attention to something that will have a bigger effect.

{Cats at top of list}

You want it even HARDER to get a Caturday thread greenlit? Jeez.


I swear fark is stuck in 2006.
 
2014-03-07 03:04:46 PM  
What about reducing our use of/need for electricity to almost nothing?  Why do we have to see ourselves from outer space?  Because soshulism that's why!
 
2014-03-07 03:04:51 PM  

Closed_Minded_Bastage: StopLurkListen: You really care about birds? Then direct your attention to something that will have a bigger effect.

{Cats at top of list}

You want it even HARDER to get a Caturday thread greenlit? Jeez


Cats do kill birds... But most of those birds are uninteresting. Wind turbines seemingly go out of their way to kill the really cool birds that like to ride thermals, like condors and eagles... (And bats.)

If an eagle drowns in a waste recovery pool by an oil rig, its a federal offense. If it get decapitated by a wind turbine; they get a pass.
 
2014-03-07 03:05:36 PM  
As a Quebecker, I'm firmly against this plan as our economy is almost built entirely on selling you Yanks yummy, maple-flavored hydro-electricity.
 
2014-03-07 03:06:54 PM  
As far as hydro-power, these same Tree Huggers will say "not in my river, it harms the 1 inch long Nofarkinuse Fish". But I like the discussion.
 
2014-03-07 03:07:02 PM  

FLMountainMan: So they can't be liberal because they have tv shows where everyone laughs at conservative backwoods stereotypes?  Sure.


People are not watching those shows primarily to laugh at stereotypes.
 
2014-03-07 03:07:03 PM  
Q: How do you get a Conservative to care about Wild Life and the environment?

A: Tell them you're building a windmill and not an oil pump somewhere.
 
2014-03-07 03:08:37 PM  

mbillips: DubtodaIll: I'm curious about the off-shore wind turbines.  They've got 35% of Georgia's power coming from that.  Where are they going to build? With the trade lanes, gray's reef, the fisheries, and barrier island protected areas, there's not a lot of space left.

Windmills don't hurt fishing; in fact they help by acting as infrastructure for habitat; sort of a vertical reef. There's TONS of room outside the shipping lanes. You will get a bunch of nimby complaints if they "spoil the view" from Sea Island, but that's something that's going to have to be worked out. Personally, I don't think wind farms are less attractive than sailboats, and everybody just raves about how pretty boats sailing by are. They're way better looking that the container ships you constantly see on the horizon.


I suppose the biggest concern I've got is that so much of the GA coast is already protected.  You've got Sappelo, Cumberland, Harris Neck, Wolf Island, Wassaw, and Blackbeard.  Those are all federally protected wildlife refuges.  While I'm sure the Wind-farms don't really have that huge of an impact it's just obvious how overly optimistic this plan is when it doesn't seem to be taking reality in to account.
 
2014-03-07 03:08:41 PM  
I see infographics and grandiose promises (like every proposed project to solve america's ills), but I don't see any specifics or data to back it up.
 
2014-03-07 03:08:48 PM  

Nana's Vibrator: What about reducing our use of/need for electricity to almost nothing?  Why do we have to see ourselves from outer space?  Because soshulism that's why!


Because being on the grid is beneficial for both the government and large companies. For the government, being nice centralized stops insures we able to be kept tabs and so we continue paying taxes. For large companies, it keeps us closer to consumer center #17395
 
2014-03-07 03:09:43 PM  
It's not possible because it wont make pigf*cking wealthy people any wealthier, and is therefore communism and that means Stalin will rise from the grave and shoot helpless puppies on the white house lawn.  Study it out.
 
2014-03-07 03:10:08 PM  

super_grass: I see infographics and grandiose promises (like every proposed project to solve america's ills), but I don't see any specifics or data to back it up.


It's green energy they don't gotta explain shiat.
 
2014-03-07 03:11:17 PM  

super_grass: I see infographics and grandiose promises (like every proposed project to solve america's ills), but I don't see any specifics or data to back it up.


If you scroll all the way to the bottom of each State's plan, it gives a link to all the data at Stanford.

http://www.stanford.edu/group/efmh/jacobson/Articles/I/WWS-50-USStat e- plans.html
 
2014-03-07 03:12:27 PM  

Destructor: Hollie Maea: Destructor: Nuclear power & Reprocessing.

Too expensive.

Looking at the levelized cost (most affected by taxes). But looking at the actual cost, transmission distances, land savings in term of power density, and reliability, it becomes hard to beat.

If you really want to leave a tiny ecological foot print, nuclear is the only way to go.


I have to second him here.  People only detest nuclear power because of the potential danger it poses.  Science has progressed and we're better at refining and containing the uranium/fission reaction now (yes I know it's not perfect, I'm sure you'll cite  Fukushima Daiichi disaster which was hit by a freaking tsunami).   Even if we weren't, I'm sure we could build the plants somewhere devoid of remotely intellegent life, like the deserts or Los Angeles
 
2014-03-07 03:12:35 PM  

bunner: It's not possible because it wont make pigf*cking wealthy people any wealthier, and is therefore communism and that means Stalin will rise from the grave and shoot helpless puppies on the white house lawn.  Study it out, sheeple.


FTFY
 
2014-03-07 03:12:37 PM  

StopLurkListen: dj_bigbird: I assume by "onshore wind" they're referring to windmills that kill lots of birds and for solar PV and CSP plants, they're talking about places that cook birds.

I'm responding to this, but not to you, you're an aggressive troll who posts this in every thread remotely related to renewable energy. (Show me on the doll where ...)

I'm responding in case anyone doesn't know how shameless and wrong your argument is:

[plainswindeis.anl.gov image 357x500]

This is a bird-safe wind turbine. Birds look for places to land, the only place is at the top, where the relative speed of the fan blades are slow.

[switchboard.nrdc.org image 706x462]

You really care about birds? Then direct your attention to something that will have a bigger effect.


I have him marked as "renewable energy troll" in bright GREEN
 
2014-03-07 03:13:21 PM  

Molavian: FTFY


Actually, no.
 
2014-03-07 03:13:32 PM  

dj_bigbird: places that cook birds.


not during lent.
They fry fish during Lent.
 
2014-03-07 03:13:48 PM  

Destructor: Closed_Minded_Bastage: StopLurkListen: You really care about birds? Then direct your attention to something that will have a bigger effect.

{Cats at top of list}

You want it even HARDER to get a Caturday thread greenlit? Jeez

Cats do kill birds... But most of those birds are uninteresting. Wind turbines seemingly go out of their way to kill the really cool birds that like to ride thermals, like condors and eagles... (And bats.)

If an eagle drowns in a waste recovery pool by an oil rig, its a federal offense. If it get decapitated by a wind turbine; they get a pass.


They really need to revise the laws on Bald Eagles. They are a species of least concern now, and in Alaska those things are like pigeons in some towns, and yet just picking a feather up off the ground a federal offense. It doesn't make a lot of sense in light of the current recovery of the species.
 
2014-03-07 03:14:15 PM  

Prank Call of Cthulhu: Didn't bother reading the article, but how do we fuel planes? Last I checked you can't really run a jumbo jet on batteries.


Why, it's as simple as converting all of Malyasia into plam oil plantations, wiping out the oragutangs and local populations in the process.

Actually, give me enough cheap electricty and we'll find a way. Either synthesize fuel from cellulose or direct maser transmission of energy. Just think, the jet of the future will never be hijacked because no pilot will be needed.
 
2014-03-07 03:14:54 PM  

durbnpoisn: Everyone knows that we humans are killing the environment with our usage of fossil fuels.


What exactly is "killing the environment"?  We aren't killing much of anything, from a grand view.  Changing it, surely.  But we began changing the environment the second we descended from the trees.
 
2014-03-07 03:15:02 PM  

Begoggle: StopLurkListen: dj_bigbird: I assume by "onshore wind" they're referring to windmills that kill lots of birds and for solar PV and CSP plants, they're talking about places that cook birds.

I'm responding to this, but not to you, you're an aggressive troll who posts this in every thread remotely related to renewable energy. (Show me on the doll where ...)

I'm responding in case anyone doesn't know how shameless and wrong your argument is:

[plainswindeis.anl.gov image 357x500]

This is a bird-safe wind turbine. Birds look for places to land, the only place is at the top, where the relative speed of the fan blades are slow.

[switchboard.nrdc.org image 706x462]

You really care about birds? Then direct your attention to something that will have a bigger effect.

I have him marked as "renewable energy troll" in bright GREEN


Fark rule #48 always proclaim who you have farkied/ignored any chance you possibly get.
 
2014-03-07 03:15:28 PM  
Unfortunately, nothing will be done about this until the Atlantic is 15' up the steps of the Capitol building.
 
2014-03-07 03:17:07 PM  

dj_bigbird: I assume by "onshore wind" they're referring to windmills that kill lots of birds and for solar PV and CSP plants, they're talking about places that cook birds.


Yes, as opposed to the coal- and oil-burning plants that kill lots of birds, fish, mammals, and people with air pollutants.
 
2014-03-07 03:17:59 PM  
Hemp can fuel astounding amounts of sh*t, you can make stuff out of it and the sort of rat nasty ditch weed you can grow to do it won't be attractive to stoners who've been huffing goat crippling bud for eons because the THC content has nothing to do with the energy you can extract from it.  So let's not grow that stuff, cause The Stalin Zombie and puppies.
 
2014-03-07 03:18:19 PM  
IIRC, even in California there has been significant resistance to building CSP power plants because they would have to cover large areas of the desert with mirrors.
 
2014-03-07 03:18:49 PM  

dj_bigbird: places that cook birds.


Cooked birds are tasty. Do you not know this?
 
2014-03-07 03:19:45 PM  

FLMountainMan: durbnpoisn: Everyone knows that we humans are killing the environment with our usage of fossil fuels.

What exactly is "killing the environment"?  We aren't killing much of anything, from a grand view.  Changing it, surely.  But we began changing the environment the second we descended from the trees.


For me, that was last week, but I'd been drinking.
 
2014-03-07 03:20:05 PM  

MrSteve007: super_grass: I see infographics and grandiose promises (like every proposed project to solve america's ills), but I don't see any specifics or data to back it up.

If you scroll all the way to the bottom of each State's plan, it gives a link to all the data at Stanford.

http://www.stanford.edu/group/efmh/jacobson/Articles/I/WWS-50-USStat e- plans.html


They're just percentages and "it would be great if this were the case" 13 page articles.

Fark headline:

we have everything figured out!

Reality:

having a roadmap is not the same as having a strategic plan for deploying more clean energy projects, or answers for who is going to pay for them, or details about which specific renewable energy project will go where, so it's not a magic bullet for clean energy transition

Freggin bait & switch, and so many people keep falling for it too.
 
2014-03-07 03:20:10 PM  

Destructor: Hollie Maea: Destructor: Nuclear power & Reprocessing.

Too expensive.

Looking at the levelized cost (most affected by taxes). But looking at the actual cost, transmission distances, land savings in term of power density, and reliability, it becomes hard to beat.

If you really want to leave a tiny ecological foot print, nuclear is the only way to go.


Agreed. The hippy/anti-nuke movement needs to go out of style (maybe it did?) Nuclear power offers a clean, feasible and pragmatic alternative to fossil fuel energy sources.
 
2014-03-07 03:20:24 PM  

Robo Beat: Angry Drunk Bureaucrat: vernonFL: Of course it CAN be done, the question is whether or not we have the political will to do so.

As long as extractive energy companies are dropping mad cash on their favorite political candidates, the whole plan is an uphill battle.

Sadly, this. Too many people make too much little money, and as a result have too much little influence, with things the way they are for me to reasonably expect any signifiant change.


FTFY
 
2014-03-07 03:20:48 PM  

Felgraf: MrSteve007: As I've said on fark many times before - almost everything directly in my life is powered by solar power: house, work, car. If I can do that in perpetually cloudy Seattle, anyone can.

My full return on investment will be July 2017 - a little over three years from now. After that, every watt I generate is money in my pocket. Considering most of the equipment is warrantied for another 22 years - I expect to save a load of cash.

How do you power things during non-daylight hours? What sort of energy storage do you have?


Electricity is a grid. You pay based on net usage. You don't have to store anything.
 
2014-03-07 03:21:18 PM  

Cybernetic: IIRC, even in California there has been significant resistance to building CSP power plants because they would have to cover large areas of the desert with mirrors.


If you cover large areas will mirrors, panels or wind turbines, you can't divide that area up into .01 acre lots, plop a box on it and make mad cash.
 
2014-03-07 03:21:20 PM  

bunner: Molavian: FTFY

Actually, no.


No?
 
2014-03-07 03:21:24 PM  
Yeah, I've seen this report and read a couple similar ones over the last 5-10 years.  It's...optimistic; to say the least.
 
2014-03-07 03:21:41 PM  

Dacker: Destructor: Hollie Maea: Destructor: Nuclear power & Reprocessing.

Too expensive.

Looking at the levelized cost (most affected by taxes). But looking at the actual cost, transmission distances, land savings in term of power density, and reliability, it becomes hard to beat.

If you really want to leave a tiny ecological foot print, nuclear is the only way to go.

Agreed. The hippy/anti-nuke movement needs to go out of style (maybe it did?) Nuclear power offers a clean, feasible and pragmatic alternative to fossil fuel energy sources.


Not without massive subsidies it doesn't.  It requires tax payer money.  And lots of it.
 
2014-03-07 03:22:27 PM  

super_grass: Reality:

having a roadmap is not the same as having a strategic plan for deploying more clean energy projects, or answers for who is going to pay for them get stinking rich off of them.

 
2014-03-07 03:23:14 PM  

super_grass: They're just percentages and "it would be great if this were the case" 13 page articles.


Really? This Washington State plan is 49 pages long, includes geographic siting locations, links to previous studies backing up location specific capacity factors of the renewables, data on load-balancing, etc. It's pretty much a roadmap of exactly how to power everything with renewable energy. What else do you want?

http://www.stanford.edu/group/efmh/jacobson/Articles/I/WashStateWWS. pd f
 
2014-03-07 03:24:38 PM  
I like hemp.
 
2014-03-07 03:24:57 PM  

Molavian: bunner: Molavian: FTFY

Actually, no.

No?


I think "sheeple" is sort of of played out.  You can never educate people by calling them catchy names, but sarcasm can be effective.
 
2014-03-07 03:25:03 PM  

bunner: super_grass: Reality:

having a roadmap is not the same as having a strategic plan for deploying more clean energy projects, or answers for who is going to pay for them get stinking rich off of them.


We already know.

It's the Chinese (who makes most of the PV cells, hardware, and advanced materials), and GE (who get juicy federal contracts and massive tax breaks).
 
2014-03-07 03:25:41 PM  

MrSteve007: super_grass: They're just percentages and "it would be great if this were the case" 13 page articles.

Really? This Washington State plan is 49 pages long, includes geographic siting locations, links to previous studies backing up location specific capacity factors of the renewables, data on load-balancing, etc. It's pretty much a roadmap of exactly how to power everything with renewable energy. What else do you want?

http://www.stanford.edu/group/efmh/jacobson/Articles/I/WashStateWWS. pd f


The other 49 49 page papers?
 
2014-03-07 03:26:29 PM  
I'm in Minnesota right now, where tidal, hydroelectric, & geothermal aren't feasible.

Nights are long in the winter, so any form of solar isn't an option either for more than half of the day.

That pretty much leaves wind.  What happens on days without wind?
 
2014-03-07 03:27:07 PM  

Dacker: Destructor: Hollie Maea: Destructor: Nuclear power & Reprocessing.

Too expensive.

Looking at the levelized cost (most affected by taxes). But looking at the actual cost, transmission distances, land savings in term of power density, and reliability, it becomes hard to beat.

If you really want to leave a tiny ecological foot print, nuclear is the only way to go.

Agreed. The hippy/anti-nuke movement needs to go out of style (maybe it did?) Nuclear power offers a clean, feasible and pragmatic alternative to fossil fuel energy sources.


Nuclear power uses fossil fuel. There's only so much mineable uranium out there. The known uranium reserves are more long-lasting than oil reserves, but it's not the sort of near-infinite fuel source that the sun is. Plus, we still haven't figured out what to do with the waste.
 
2014-03-07 03:27:07 PM  

Incontinent_dog_and_monkey_rodeo: US Wind Power 2013

A number of states are already getting more than 25% of their total electricity just from wind.


2. 2 states are. By your context, I can correctly say "a number of states are getting near 100% of their total electricity just from wind" since 0 is technically a number. I'm all for renewable energy, just don't spin shiat so it sounds better than what it actually is.
 
2014-03-07 03:27:19 PM  

bunner: Molavian: bunner: Molavian: FTFY

Actually, no.

No?

I think "sheeple" is sort of of played out.  You can never educate people by calling them catchy names, but sarcasm can be effective.


i184.photobucket.com
 
2014-03-07 03:27:35 PM  

super_grass: We already know.


www.davidbordwell.net
                         "Well, OK then!"
 
2014-03-07 03:30:20 PM  
Those folks pushing this plan should stop answering the door, hire food tasters and bodyguards, and get facial plastic surgery.

Also, thorium reactors are a very safe nuclear technology that could get the ball rolling as we bring the more diverse sources online.
 
2014-03-07 03:30:36 PM  
To state that this is a realistic, economically feasible plan is ludicrous.

From the article:

Obviously, having a roadmap is not the same as having a strategic plan for deploying more clean energy projects, or answers for who is going to pay for them, or details about which specific renewable energy project will go where, so it's not a magic bullet for clean energy transition, but it does hint at the possibilities for moving forward on this important issue.

All they have is some pretty %s next to some buckets, without any idea of how much it would cost, how long it would take, who would pay, or what the infrastructure impact would be.  They could have just stuck 100% next to solar for each state and called it a day.

It really shouldn't surprise me that there is nothing of any substance here though, since:

In 2011, a scientist, a banker, an actor, and a filmmaker, came together to envision a pathway to 100% renewable energy in the US.

So a bunch of people with no expertise say that the thing they wanted is possible, somehow, with no details?  Wow, sign me up!
 
2014-03-07 03:30:59 PM  

dj_bigbird: I assume by "onshore wind" they're referring to windmills that kill lots of birds and for solar PV and CSP plants, they're talking about places that cook birds.


Human activities which kill birds.
 
2014-03-07 03:31:02 PM  
How about a barrel of reconsideration?

newsroom.aaa.com
 
2014-03-07 03:31:47 PM  
If by sound economic plan you mean "we think this may work but we aren't sure how" then sure.

FTA:   Obviously, having a roadmap is not the same as having a strategic plan for deploying more clean energy projects, or answers for who is going to pay for them, or details about which specific renewable energy project will go where
 
2014-03-07 03:32:26 PM  

mbillips: Nuclear power uses fossil fuel.


Um, no.

There's only so much mineable uranium out there. The known uranium reserves are more long-lasting than oil reserves, but it's not the sort of near-infinite fuel source that the sun is. Plus, we still haven't figured out what to do with the waste.

This is a better point, but it still doesn't make radioisotopes a fossil fuel.
 
2014-03-07 03:33:07 PM  

Random Anonymous Blackmail: The reason we can't?

Eco tree hugging granola eaters, saying we can't affect the migration pattern of the no so rare Arizona sand slug or stupid farking birds who run into wind mills.


That's a goot one...you make me have the laughing.
 
2014-03-07 03:33:37 PM  

parkke0108: Human activities which kill birds.


What is "opening a barbecue restaurant", Alex?
 
2014-03-07 03:34:22 PM  

justtray: Felgraf: MrSteve007: As I've said on fark many times before - almost everything directly in my life is powered by solar power: house, work, car. If I can do that in perpetually cloudy Seattle, anyone can.

My full return on investment will be July 2017 - a little over three years from now. After that, every watt I generate is money in my pocket. Considering most of the equipment is warrantied for another 22 years - I expect to save a load of cash.

How do you power things during non-daylight hours? What sort of energy storage do you have?

Electricity is a grid. You pay based on net usage. You don't have to store anything.


Right, that's what I meant. So, for some people (like, say, large apartments where there are MANY people over a small surface area), thinks like grid-connectivity and base-line power loads will still be necessary: It'snot going to be *entirely* solar. His initial comment made it sound like "No one should need power utilities."
 
2014-03-07 03:34:34 PM  

jshine: I'm in Minnesota right now, where tidal, hydroelectric, & geothermal aren't feasible.

Nights are long in the winter, so any form of solar isn't an option either for more than half of the day.

That pretty much leaves wind.  What happens on days without wind?


You burn wood to stay warm and cook your food.    You can't watch TV or use the internet so you take up knitting and handi-crafts for fun.
 
2014-03-07 03:35:32 PM  

CruJones: If by sound economic plan you mean "we think this may work but we aren't sure how" then sure.

FTA:   Obviously, having a roadmap is not the same as having a strategic plan for deploying more clean energy projects, or answers for who is going to pay for them, or details about which specific renewable energy project will go where


I have no idea how feasible (either technologically or politically) any of their ideas are (and they may not really have any idea about that themselves), but I have to give them some credit for actually proposing a solution, instead of just making more noise about the problem. At the very least, it provides a starting point for a discussion.
 
2014-03-07 03:35:35 PM  
 
2014-03-07 03:35:54 PM  

Anayalator: How about a barrel of reconsideration?

[newsroom.aaa.com image 610x333]


People say that we can stop using fossil fuels and stop using oil altogether, but most don't realize that we still need oil for the asphalt, plastics, fertilizers, and advanced materials to build all that capital and infrastructure in the first place.
 
2014-03-07 03:36:06 PM  

bigsteve3OOO: Not without massive subsidies it doesn't. It requires tax payer money. And lots of it.

They're all expensive.


Wind and Solar have the Blessings of the powers-that-be, so they're subsidized 9 different ways from Sunday. You have to look at all power generation modes in terms of power density over time. It also doesn't help that the regulatory risk (as in government dragging their feet) of building a nuclear plant drives off commercial investors.
 
2014-03-07 03:36:15 PM  

mbillips: Nuclear power uses fossil fuel. There's only so much mineable uranium out there. The known uranium reserves are more long-lasting than oil reserves, but it's not the sort of near-infinite fuel source that the sun is. Plus, we still haven't figured out what to do with the waste.


We know exactly what to do with the waste. There are three great options. None are politically feasible for reasons of NIMBY and military nonsense.

Somehow, you think solar, wind, and other renewables will be free from those same obstacles, despite all evidence to the contrary.
 
2014-03-07 03:37:22 PM  
Pretty stupid. I looked at Idaho for instance...

"Plan pays for itself in as little as 17 years from air pollution and climate cost savings alone"

So Idaho currently is paying tens of billions of dollars in air pollution and climate costs?

Morons.
 
2014-03-07 03:38:31 PM  
Here's the facts -

If you shut off the grid, it. 1630.  Period.  Electricity  - ~IS~ -  the modern world.

The greedy bastards making money off of boiling old dinosaurs and burning black rocks are going to make sure that they are legislated to operate at disgusting profits all the way to "we're out of that sh*t" and the grid goes *honk*.

When that happens, they're just as screwed as we are.  Your move, umptillionaires.
 
2014-03-07 03:40:24 PM  
The IEA estimates that the world needs to invest $36 trillion into the clean economy between now and 2050 in order to keep the planet below 3.6 degrees Fahrenheit (2oC). So $1 trillion per year. Which sounds like a lot. But this $36T investment would result in $100T in fuel savings over the same time frame. That's a very good investment.
 
2014-03-07 03:40:50 PM  

FLMountainMan: durbnpoisn: Everyone knows that we humans are killing the environment with our usage of fossil fuels.

What exactly is "killing the environment"?  We aren't killing much of anything, from a grand view.  Changing it, surely.  But we began changing the environment the second we descended from the trees.


I can provide my reasoning for that as follows...

The long term carbon cycle is being disrupted.

Carbon, in it's gas form, is necessary to keep the atmosphere stable, and the earth warm enough for us to enjoy life.  But too much of it will cause a greenhouse effect.  Not as catastrophic as Venus, say.  But bad enough to change the environment into something quite unlike what we can survive in.

Ever since life has existed on the planet, the plants and animals keep that carbon locked up and safe from getting too much into the atmosphere.  When those living things die, the are compressed into limestone, coal, oil beds, etc...  At some later point in time, the carbon ends up feeding volcanoes and gets thrown back into the atmosphere, starting the cycle over again.

This balance is rather delicate, and works fine most of the time.  Once in a while, the system overbalances, and we get that runaway greenhouse effect.  The last time it happened, it took like 65,000 years to stabalize again.

We are currently overbalancing that cycle.  By digging up the carbon, and burning it into the atmosphere WAY before the cycle is ready for it.

I'm sure there are some smart folks out there that could explain that better than I just did.  But that's the basic jist of it.
 
2014-03-07 03:40:50 PM  

super_grass: Anayalator: How about a barrel of reconsideration?

[newsroom.aaa.com image 610x333]

People say that we can stop using fossil fuels and stop using oil altogether, but most don't realize that we still need oil for the asphalt, plastics, fertilizers, and advanced materials to build all that capital and infrastructure in the first place.


We got enough scrap plastic to pave Utah.  And that's just in the Pacific garbage patch.  Ceramics, anyone?
 
2014-03-07 03:41:52 PM  

Destructor: bigsteve3OOO: Not without massive subsidies it doesn't. It requires tax payer money. And lots of it.

They're all expensive.

Wind and Solar have the Blessings of the powers-that-be, so they're subsidized 9 different ways from Sunday. You have to look at all power generation modes in terms of power density over time. It also doesn't help that the regulatory risk (as in government dragging their feet) of building a nuclear plant drives off commercial investors.


Uh, so are Oil and Coal. They are HEAVILY subsidized.
Especially in the whole"Not really paying nearly as much for their external costs" bit.
 
2014-03-07 03:42:59 PM  

Cybernetic: mbillips: Nuclear power uses fossil fuel.

Um, no.

There's only so much mineable uranium out there. The known uranium reserves are more long-lasting than oil reserves, but it's not the sort of near-infinite fuel source that the sun is. Plus, we still haven't figured out what to do with the waste.

This is a better point, but it still doesn't make radioisotopes a fossil fuel.


I believe the point was mining, transportation, and possibly refinement requires fossil fuels.  Could be wrong
 
2014-03-07 03:43:16 PM  

Dacker: Agreed. The hippy/anti-nuke movement needs to go out of style (maybe it did?) Nuclear power offers a clean, feasible and pragmatic alternative to fossil fuel energy sources.


http://www.ucsusa.org/nuclear_power/nuclear-power-and-our-energy-cho ic es/nuclear-power-costs/

Expensive as all hell and completely impractical for the long term? Sign me up!
 
2014-03-07 03:43:52 PM  
It's all just wishful thinking. I can only talk about my own state West Virginia. They have 2/3 of our energy coming from solar. We have 200 cloudy days a year and incredibly mountainous terrain making most ground unsuitable for solar. I'm looking out my window right  now on a bright sunny day at 3:30 local time and easily 2/3 of the landscape is in shadow. Unless they are proposing some serious mountain top leveling, the terrain just doesn't allow it. I've actually looked up solar panels and gotten estimates on what I would produce and it's essentially negligible. I am even one of those fortunate few with a south facing home and due to the mountains on either side I lose sun by about 3 oclock in the summer, though I usually do get partially shaded sun fairly early around 830 or so, but it is filtered through trees. For direct non-filtered sun, my house gets about 5 hours a day in the summer and as I said, I'm a south facing home. My old house was on the north side of a mountain and literally never got direct sunlight.
 
2014-03-07 03:44:08 PM  

Cybernetic: There's only so much mineable uranium out there. The known uranium reserves are more long-lasting than oil reserves, but it's not the sort of near-infinite fuel source that the sun is. Plus, we still haven't figured out what to do with the waste.

This is a better point, but it still doesn't make radioisotopes a fossil fuel.


Look into reprocessing. You take spent nuclear fuel from a reactor, extract 1% of the short term, nasty radioactive stuff from it, and use the remaining fuel over again. Rinse and repeat. That greatly expands the efficiency of useable fuel and also reduces the need to store long term nuclear waste (because you're using it productively instead of storing it).

If you're worried about nuclear proliferation (which doesn't seem to be a big a deal any more since the countries we're worried about acquiring nuclear weapons, have or are close to doing so), take a look at the Thorium Fuel Cycle. Thousands of years of clean, reliable, nuclear energy at mankind's disposal, within our grasp.
 
2014-03-07 03:44:22 PM  

Felgraf: Destructor: bigsteve3OOO: Not without massive subsidies it doesn't. It requires tax payer money. And lots of it.

They're all expensive.

Wind and Solar have the Blessings of the powers-that-be, so they're subsidized 9 different ways from Sunday. You have to look at all power generation modes in terms of power density over time. It also doesn't help that the regulatory risk (as in government dragging their feet) of building a nuclear plant drives off commercial investors.

Uh, so are Oil and Coal. They are HEAVILY subsidized.
Especially in the whole"Not really paying nearly as much for their external costs" bit.


Umm, no. First of all, there are quite high fuel taxes. Is that a subsidy? Does the government pay you to buy oil? No, but it pays you a lot of use solar panels, and the government gives out hundreds of millions to solar companies, even when they fail.

Think the government can afford $50,000 for every person in the country to throw up solar panels, buy electric cars?
 
2014-03-07 03:45:27 PM  

bunner: super_grass: Anayalator: How about a barrel of reconsideration?

[newsroom.aaa.com image 610x333]

People say that we can stop using fossil fuels and stop using oil altogether, but most don't realize that we still need oil for the asphalt, plastics, fertilizers, and advanced materials to build all that capital and infrastructure in the first place.

We got enough scrap plastic to pave Utah.  And that's just in the Pacific garbage patch.  Ceramics, anyone?


That still leaves everything else. And you can't recycle all plastics, not have I seen any technology that can recycle the crap in that garbage patch.

I swear to god the green energy crowd is just as bad as the nuclear fusion people when it comes to feasibility.
 
2014-03-07 03:45:42 PM  

Felgraf: Destructor: bigsteve3OOO: Not without massive subsidies it doesn't. It requires tax payer money. And lots of it.

They're all expensive.

Wind and Solar have the Blessings of the powers-that-be, so they're subsidized 9 different ways from Sunday. You have to look at all power generation modes in terms of power density over time. It also doesn't help that the regulatory risk (as in government dragging their feet) of building a nuclear plant drives off commercial investors.

Uh, so are Oil and Coal. They are HEAVILY subsidized.
Especially in the whole"Not really paying nearly as much for their external costs" bit.


No no so much.  They are way under taxed compared to other business.  They don't get a check every year like solar, wind and nukes do.  They also benefit from regulations that prevent competition to they have that.  Actual money paid to them though... no not so much.
 
2014-03-07 03:45:46 PM  
So Texas, with it's booming population, is going to need 35% less power in 40 years?  That's what this proposes.  And 50% comes from wind, not solar?  And NC gets 50% from offshore wind?  The coastline isn't that long.

New view from the Kitty Hawk:

www.countryliving.com
 
2014-03-07 03:46:24 PM  

Dusk-You-n-Me: The IEA estimates that the world needs to invest $36 trillion into the clean economy between now and 2050 in order to keep the planet below 3.6 degrees Fahrenheit (2oC). So $1 trillion per year. Which sounds like a lot. But this $36T investment would result in $100T in fuel savings over the same time frame. That's a very good investment.


no, no no.

But this $36T investment would result in $100T in fuel savings lower revenues, and correspondingly lower campaign donations over the same time frame.

Aaaah, better.
 
2014-03-07 03:48:05 PM  

FLMountainMan: fireclown: To start with, we need to start plastering the tops of big box stores with utility intertie solar  They get great sunlight, what with no trees nearby.

I think a lot of climate change policy is misguided, but this always seemed like a no-brainer to me.  Should also be done on shopping malls, and government office buildings.  

MrSteve007: AngryDragon: This.Treehugger. The RightWingNews.com of the left.

Really? They're owned by Discovery Communications. Creators of such 'beloved' shows as: "Swamp People" "Moonshiners" "Alaska Gold Miners" "Deadliest Catch" etc.

Not exactly liberal ownership.

So they can't be liberal because they have tv shows where everyone laughs at conservative backwoods stereotypes?  Sure.


This isn't really a climate change thing to me.  It's just that there's only so much coal and natural gas.  And uranium for that matter.
 
2014-03-07 03:48:09 PM  
wind turbines would have saved new orleans from katrina!!!
 
2014-03-07 03:49:33 PM  

Destructor: Look into reprocessing. You take spent nuclear fuel from a reactor, extract 1% of the short term, nasty radioactive stuff from it, and use the remaining fuel over again. Rinse and repeat. That greatly expands the efficiency of useable fuel and also reduces the need to store long term nuclear waste (because you're using it productively instead of storing it).

If you're worried about nuclear proliferation (which doesn't seem to be a big a deal any more since the countries we're worried about acquiring nuclear weapons, have or are close to doing so), take a look at the Thorium Fuel Cycle. Thousands of years of clean, reliable, nuclear energy at mankind's disposal, within our grasp.


Fuel costs for nuclear are already the lowest among contemporary energy sources. Waste removal/storage is nothing compared to the cost of building, maintaining and eventually decommissioning a plant. It's an expensive process that doesn't change the economics of the fuel, and doesn't have any impact on whether you can get investment for the plant to begin with.

The issue with nuclear is not it's safety or the waste, the issue is you can't get anyone excited to invest in something high risk that takes 20+ years to pay off. (High risk from an investment stand-point, not meltdown, just to be clear.)
 
2014-03-07 03:50:13 PM  

fireclown: This isn't really a climate change thing to me.  It's just that there's only so much coal and natural gas


It should be. No one has internalized the fact that we're going to have to leave 80% of known fossil fuel reserves in the ground.
 
2014-03-07 03:50:54 PM  

Cybernetic: CruJones: If by sound economic plan you mean "we think this may work but we aren't sure how" then sure.

FTA:   Obviously, having a roadmap is not the same as having a strategic plan for deploying more clean energy projects, or answers for who is going to pay for them, or details about which specific renewable energy project will go where

I have no idea how feasible (either technologically or politically) any of their ideas are (and they may not really have any idea about that themselves), but I have to give them some credit for actually proposing a solution, instead of just making more noise about the problem. At the very least, it provides a starting point for a discussion.


And I'm all for the discussion, but calling it feasible and economically sound simply loses any credibility immediately.
 
2014-03-07 03:51:17 PM  

Sticky Hands: Dusk-You-n-Me: The IEA estimates that the world needs to invest $36 trillion into the clean economy between now and 2050 in order to keep the planet below 3.6 degrees Fahrenheit (2oC). So $1 trillion per year. Which sounds like a lot. But this $36T investment would result in $100T in fuel savings over the same time frame. That's a very good investment.

no, no no.

But this $36T investment would result in $100T in fuel savings lower revenues, and correspondingly lower campaign donations over the same time frame.

Aaaah, better.


If there was the slightest truth to those numbers the still suck.  2050-2014= 36 years     100t/36years=2.8t per year  36t/2.8=12.8 year ROI.  Any business would laugh you out of the room.
 
2014-03-07 03:51:40 PM  

Felgraf: justtray: Felgraf: MrSteve007: As I've said on fark many times before - almost everything directly in my life is powered by solar power: house, work, car. If I can do that in perpetually cloudy Seattle, anyone can.

My full return on investment will be July 2017 - a little over three years from now. After that, every watt I generate is money in my pocket. Considering most of the equipment is warrantied for another 22 years - I expect to save a load of cash.

How do you power things during non-daylight hours? What sort of energy storage do you have?

Electricity is a grid. You pay based on net usage. You don't have to store anything.

Right, that's what I meant. So, for some people (like, say, large apartments where there are MANY people over a small surface area), thinks like grid-connectivity and base-line power loads will still be necessary: It'snot going to be *entirely* solar. His initial comment made it sound like "No one should need power utilities."


He weasel words a lot.  Unless you want a serious downgrade on your standard of living, going 100% renewable is impossible unless near 100% efficient solar panels are created and we cover the entire surface of the earth with them.

I'll just leave this here:

http://www.straightdope.com/columns/read/3000/followup-why-dont-we-d it ch-nukes-em-and-em-coal
 
2014-03-07 03:54:09 PM  
Learn to evolve and adapt to the dangers faster, little animals. Survival of the fittest right? If God cared, he'd protect them with magical force-fields.
 
2014-03-07 03:54:35 PM  

bigsteve3OOO: If there was the slightest truth to those numbers the still suck.


+2C is going to suck worse. Anything above that is going to catastrophically suck. And cost more than $36T to deal with. They estimate every year we wait adds $500B to the tab.
 
2014-03-07 03:54:44 PM  

emarche: Stopped reading after this sentence:

"In 2011, a scientist, a banker, an actor, and a filmmaker, came together to envision a pathway to 100% renewable energy in the US..."

Of course they did. Of  course they did.


Yeah,the scientist is there to tell how to do it, the banker is there to tell how to pay for it, the actor and filmmaker are there to tell us where to park our cars.  What's next, a performance artist and country music singer lay out a detailed  plan for future drug research.
 
2014-03-07 03:55:14 PM  

bigsteve3OOO: Sticky Hands: Dusk-You-n-Me: The IEA estimates that the world needs to invest $36 trillion into the clean economy between now and 2050 in order to keep the planet below 3.6 degrees Fahrenheit (2oC). So $1 trillion per year. Which sounds like a lot. But this $36T investment would result in $100T in fuel savings over the same time frame. That's a very good investment.

no, no no.

But this $36T investment would result in $100T in fuel savings lower revenues, and correspondingly lower campaign donations over the same time frame.

Aaaah, better.

If there was the slightest truth to those numbers the still suck.  2050-2014= 36 years     100t/36years=2.8t per year  36t/2.8=12.8 year ROI.  Any business would laugh you out of the room.


Long term that's an excellent return.  DJIA's is less than 10% long term.
 
2014-03-07 03:56:30 PM  

meyerkev: Angry Drunk Bureaucrat: vernonFL: Of course it CAN be done, the question is whether or not we have the political will to do so.

As long as extractive energy companies are dropping mad cash on their favorite political candidates, the whole plan is an uphill battle.

And NIMBY's.  NIMBY's delay any infrastructure project for 2 decades after tripling the price.

At least the Republican Party is honest about wanting to fark the poor.


The poor usually do a fine job of farking themselves.
 
2014-03-07 03:57:04 PM  

super_grass: That still leaves everything else. And you can't recycle all plastics, not have I seen any technology that can recycle the crap in that garbage patch.


So harvest all that crap and WORK on it, science.  That's what science is for.  Making new things and then mopping up the mess.  Please spare me your "crowd" filing system.
 
2014-03-07 03:57:20 PM  

super_grass: bunner: super_grass: Anayalator: How about a barrel of reconsideration?

[newsroom.aaa.com image 610x333]

People say that we can stop using fossil fuels and stop using oil altogether, but most don't realize that we still need oil for the asphalt, plastics, fertilizers, and advanced materials to build all that capital and infrastructure in the first place.

We got enough scrap plastic to pave Utah.  And that's just in the Pacific garbage patch.  Ceramics, anyone?

That still leaves everything else. And you can't recycle all plastics, not have I seen any technology that can recycle the crap in that garbage patch.

I swear to god the green energy crowd is just as bad as the nuclear fusion people when it comes to feasibility.


What would you guess would be the impact of ceasing oil production for fuel? I guessing it would be quite dramatic. It's more about sustainability than elimination. I've read (don't remember where) that even with the current level of fossil fuel consumption, the earth could sustain clean air if there was substantial forested acreage.
 
2014-03-07 03:58:19 PM  
If the plan calls for more hydroelectric dams, forget it.  They won't get built because they destroy huge valleys.
If the plan calls for wind turbines, forget it.  They are now know as "bird choppers" and are a serious threat to endangered birds in some areas.
If the plan calls for nuclear power, forget it.  ZOMG RADIATION!  NIMBY!

I'm not saying they don't have a good plan.  I'm just pointing out the first three stumbling blocks that came to mind.
 
2014-03-07 03:59:12 PM  

GORDON: The poor usually do a fine job of farking themselves.


Mostly by supporting and utter make believe two party system that promises not to bend them over the kitchen counter this time.
 
2014-03-07 03:59:23 PM  

ReverendJynxed: Learn to evolve and adapt to the dangers faster, little animals.


Climate is changing too fast for evolution. About 10,000X too fast.
 
2014-03-07 04:00:17 PM  

Pants full of macaroni!!: Ennuipoet: Uh, dude, this is AMERICA!

Done in one.  'Murcans have no truck with "renewable energy" cuz it's Communism.


I DARE you to produce one web page as reference that, unironically, is written by an American who is against renewable energy because of communism.
 
2014-03-07 04:00:27 PM  

meat0918: I want this but here is why it is impossible.

Republicansality.



FTFY
 
2014-03-07 04:01:41 PM  
I used the compact flourescent ones, partly because in the Winter, you've got to wait a few minutes for them to "warm up". Until then, they give off a faint, purple glow.
 
2014-03-07 04:01:44 PM  
they forgot the natural gas from your mom.
 
2014-03-07 04:01:47 PM  

Dusk-You-n-Me: ReverendJynxed: Learn to evolve and adapt to the dangers faster, little animals.

Climate is changing too fast for evolution. About 10,000X too fast.


So, survival of the fittest is only the rule if we protect the species who can't deal?  Bonus, we're sending ourselves into extinction with our "superior" survival capabilities.
 
2014-03-07 04:02:02 PM  

bunner: super_grass: That still leaves everything else. And you can't recycle all plastics, not have I seen any technology that can recycle the crap in that garbage patch.

So harvest all that crap and WORK on it, science.  That's what science is for.  Making new things and then mopping up the mess.  Please spare me your "crowd" filing system.


This is just an appeal to probability, at least solar and wind have been making inroads with efficiency and cost. There's literally zero advancements in the ocean plastic particle harvesting sector.
 
2014-03-07 04:02:19 PM  
I'm all for alternative eco-friendly energy sources, but I'm not part of the group that believes they can provide 100% of the energy needed for everybody.  Wind and solar are too variable to provide a constant flow of power right now.  Hydroelectric is too dependent on precipitation as we can see by the droughts affecting reservoir levels that can barely provide water to the municipalities.  Offshore tidal power will run into the problems of shipping lanes, recreational areas, and then other environmental groups protesting about the harm it will do to some sort of fish, coral, plant species.

I'd really like to see them try and get some sort of new reservoir built these days and look at the cost of it.  Not just the physical cost of building the damn and other structures, but also the environmental cost of removing all of the trees and the habitats that will be destroyed by the new lake.  Oh, let's not forget the spawning patterns of fish that are affected by the now controlled outflow.

Where exactly are they going to build these windfarms?  I think it said 68% of the power would be from wind here in Iowa.  While there are already quite a few windfarms here I doubt the farmers are going to be willing to give up that much of their farmland, NIMBY again.

There's going to be a need for the reliable, steady current stream that can be provided by the conventional, scalable power plants we have today.  Or, are we going to have to have large scale battery backups at every house and business.  You know, those batteries that are made with all sorts of environmentally unfriendly things.
 
2014-03-07 04:03:04 PM  

OgreMagi: If the plan calls for more hydroelectric dams, forget it.  They won't get built because they destroy huge valleys.
If the plan calls for wind turbines, forget it.  They are now know as "bird choppers" and are a serious threat to endangered birds in some areas.
If the plan calls for nuclear power, forget it.  ZOMG RADIATION!  NIMBY!

I'm not saying they don't have a good plan.  I'm just pointing out the first three stumbling blocks that came to mind.


almost all the exploitable hydroelectric sites in the developed world have been exploited. Wind turbines have issues beyond just being "bird choppers" and nuke plants....well they do have some PR problems.
 
2014-03-07 04:03:51 PM  

Prank Call of Cthulhu: Didn't bother reading the article, but how do we fuel planes? Last I checked you can't really run a jumbo jet on batteries.


Admittedly, it's tough to think of a way to fly big jets without using good old-fashioned hydrocarbons. And it's not like jet fuel is a totally negligible part of our energy budget, now or in the foreseeable future. The more important point is that literally everything else  does have a workaround.

Regardless of whose plan we follow, if we can get to a point where all the energy I use until I step onto the plane itself is from renewable sources, I'd say that's good enough. Campfires are ridiculously bad for the environment on an efficiency and particulate basis, but I don't feel like I'm committing ecological genocide if I just make a few of them a year.
 
2014-03-07 04:04:02 PM  

bunner: So, survival of the fittest is only the rule if we protect the species who can't deal?  Bonus, we're sending ourselves into extinction with our "superior" survival capabilities.


I don't know what this means, but it is true the climate is changing too fast for evolution to keep up. Adapting is another matter, though that has its own special set of problems, not the least of which is financial, since that's the tree everyone is seeing while ignoring the forest.
 
2014-03-07 04:04:09 PM  

Random Anonymous Blackmail: veedeevadeevoodee

Random Anonymous Blackmail: The reason we can't?

Eco tree hugging granola eaters, saying we can't affect the migration pattern of the no so rare Arizona sand slug or stupid farking birds who run into wind mills.


In this instance, the tree huggers are correct. Ecosystems, how do they work?

/ besides, water availability is a more pressing concern


You don't see them slowing the expansion of sprawling suburbia because of ecosystems so how is this different. The animals will adapt to survive, they have been pretty good at that for a long time.


Actually, slowing down unnecessary urban growth would be kewl. Developers would throw a tantrum, probably ... too bad, so sad.

Also, most avian life that migrates does so at night. Paint the big pinwheels with UV paint and light em up.
 
2014-03-07 04:04:11 PM  

GORDON: Pants full of macaroni!!: Ennuipoet: Uh, dude, this is AMERICA!

Done in one.  'Murcans have no truck with "renewable energy" cuz it's Communism.

I DARE you to produce one web page as reference that, unironically, is written by an American who is against renewable energy because of communism.


I dare you to find me three rednecks who aren't convinced that if the rich stop getting richer, we'll all be shoveling pigsh*t in a Siberian gulag.
 
2014-03-07 04:04:28 PM  

HoratioGates: The problem with this plan, even if we had the willpower to enact it, is that it just covers us.  It's not going to matter unless we do something about the other elephants in the room.  We sell dirty coal to China and import their goods, but most energy consumption charts show that as China's problem.  Consumption is going to continue to rise worldwide.  The fact that we are thinking about this as a state issue instead of a global one... yes, it's good to have a plan for each state, but unless we start really working with other countries it's not going to matter.


The chinese have no morals, so good luck with getting them into any kind of plan.
 
2014-03-07 04:07:15 PM  

super_grass: This is just an appeal to probability, at least solar and wind have been making inroads with efficiency and cost. There's literally zero advancements in the ocean plastic particle harvesting sector.


So far.  Science has mostly BEEN an appeal to probability.  But you have a valid point.  All of our technological advances have come from people saying "piss on it, that's just silly", nodding balefully and then heading out for a beer.
 
2014-03-07 04:08:26 PM  
Gotta Nuke the next OPEC summit meeting for any of this to be implemented.
 
2014-03-07 04:09:40 PM  
And, if for no other good reason, let's put in on barges and tow it to shore because IT'S A MESS!  THEN look at what can or can't be done with it.
 
2014-03-07 04:10:15 PM  
No nuclear?
 
2014-03-07 04:10:36 PM  

Incontinent_dog_and_monkey_rodeo: US Wind Power 2013

A number of states are already getting more than 25% of their total electricity just from wind.



Uhm, you are misinterpreting that graph in your link. You seem to think that it presents  the amount of electricity  usedin each state which is generated from wind power.  However it presents the amount of electricity  generatedin each state which is generated by wind power.

So while from your perspective it looks like Iowa is generating a helluva lot of electricity from wind power.... But in actuality Iowa generates so little of its own electricity inside the statethat the small amount generated by wind is a big percentage.  To give you a visual image 3 ounces is 25% of a 12 ounce Coke. A large percentage of a small amount is still....a small amount.  Iowa just buys almost all their electricity from other states.

Sorry if I took the wind out of your sails.
 
2014-03-07 04:11:04 PM  
Well, get rid of the NIMBY jackholes and the asshole corporations that just want to keep making money with fossil fules, and it can probably get done.

Luckily, one of the NIMBY jackholes who was a Senator passed away a few years ago:

img2u.info

It's not always concern over the seagulls that causes opposition to off-shore wind turbines, sometimes it's the privileged assholes who are too good for all the socialists policies they like to impose on everybody else - who are upset because their beachfront property's ocean view will have ugly things in it.
 
2014-03-07 04:14:43 PM  

vernonFL: Of course it CAN be done, the question is whether or not we have the political will to do so.

We invested well over $1 trillion over 10 years in Iraq and Afghanistan. I think about that every time a see a report about why something can't be done or we don't have the budget or it will take too long, etc...


It actually can't be done.   They forgot to include the maintenance costs of all these facilities over a period of 40 years, damage repair and etc.   When you forget that shiat your sim-town goes sim-down.
 
2014-03-07 04:15:29 PM  

Shazam999: He weasel words a lot. Unless you want a serious downgrade on your standard of living, going 100% renewable is impossible unless near 100% efficient solar panels are created and we cover the entire surface of the earth with them.


My house - 100% electrically powered, including heat and water heat. I keep the interior temperature at 76 in the winter and 70 in the summer. I have a home-server that runs most hours of the day, washer, dryer, dishwasher, 60 inch TV, LED lighting, and a air heat exchanger pumping fresh air throughout the day and pretty much every modern convenience - including an electric car plugged in at night. As I've pointed out previously, I'm currently tied into the grid to sell excess power but I have a decent sized battery bank to keep the place operational off-grid - if I so chose. The house is outside Seattle - one of the least sunny places in the lower 48 states.

fbcdn-sphotos-b-a.akamaihd.net

My energy bills over the past 3-years:
scontent-a-lax.xx.fbcdn.net

You were saying how this doesn't work? Or how you have to lower your living standards?
 
2014-03-07 04:15:43 PM  

vernonFL: Of course it CAN be done, the question is whether or not we have the political will to do so.

We invested well over $1 trillion over 10 years in Iraq and Afghanistan. I think about that every time a see a report about why something can't be done or we don't have the budget or it will take too long, etc...


You're concerned about that $1 trillion over 10yrs but not the extra $1 trillion We've spent per year for the last 6 yrs?

When I start building in the next 18months I'm installing a couple windmills to feed back into the grid.
 
2014-03-07 04:16:25 PM  

bunner: super_grass: This is just an appeal to probability, at least solar and wind have been making inroads with efficiency and cost. There's literally zero advancements in the ocean plastic particle harvesting sector.

So far.  Science has mostly BEEN an appeal to probability.  But you have a valid point.  All of our technological advances have come from people saying "piss on it, that's just silly", nodding balefully and then heading out for a beer.


You have no idea how scientific progress advances, do you? Realistically there's very little incentive for anyone to go after your "wouldn't that be nice" pie in the sky fantasies unless there's some real intellectual or financial gains that can be gained from it.

So why don't you start then? That garbage patch isn't actually a patch, it's just an area several times the size of Texas with grain sized plastic particles suspend in water. Find a way to collect it and re-process it with economic feasibility, good luck!
 
2014-03-07 04:18:51 PM  

MrSteve007: My house - 100% electrically powered, including heat and water heat


Not to be nosey (maybe just a little), but how many watts are in that array?  And have you considered a water heater?
 
2014-03-07 04:19:30 PM  

bunner: GORDON: Pants full of macaroni!!: Ennuipoet: Uh, dude, this is AMERICA!

Done in one.  'Murcans have no truck with "renewable energy" cuz it's Communism.

I DARE you to produce one web page as reference that, unironically, is written by an American who is against renewable energy because of communism.

I dare you to find me three rednecks who aren't convinced that if the rich stop getting richer, we'll all be shoveling pigsh*t in a Siberian gulag.


Why would you want the rich to stop getting richer? Do liberals really believe people get rich by taking from the poor? There is a finite amount of wealth in the world?

Why do you keep electing filthy rich liberal politicians then?
 
2014-03-07 04:19:42 PM  

MrSteve007: Shazam999: He weasel words a lot. Unless you want a serious downgrade on your standard of living, going 100% renewable is impossible unless near 100% efficient solar panels are created and we cover the entire surface of the earth with them.

My house - 100% electrically powered, including heat and water heat. I keep the interior temperature at 76 in the winter and 70 in the summer. I have a home-server that runs most hours of the day, washer, dryer, dishwasher, 60 inch TV, LED lighting, and a air heat exchanger pumping fresh air throughout the day and pretty much every modern convenience - including an electric car plugged in at night. As I've pointed out previously, I'm currently tied into the grid to sell excess power but I have a decent sized battery bank to keep the place operational off-grid - if I so chose. The house is outside Seattle - one of the least sunny places in the lower 48 states.

[fbcdn-sphotos-b-a.akamaihd.net image 850x466]

My energy bills over the past 3-years:
[scontent-a-lax.xx.fbcdn.net image 850x527]

You were saying how this doesn't work? Or how you have to lower your living standards?


Sigh.  Read the article.  It's not just about you.  It needs to scale. Currently it does not scale.  Yeah I too can plop some farking solar panels on my house and call it a day but YOUR LIFE is more than just the stuff in that picture.  For fark's sake I can't believe I have to explain it to you but you seem to be the naive sort.
 
2014-03-07 04:19:51 PM  

super_grass: You have no idea how scientific progress advances, do you? Realistically there's very little incentive for anyone to go after your "wouldn't that be nice" pie in the sky fantasies unless there's some real intellectual or financial gains that can be gained from it.


That's how privately funded research works, yes.
 
2014-03-07 04:20:04 PM  
We should be looking into more gasifiers so we can gain fuel and chew through our waste. Hell, the way we consume in this country, it's almost perpetual energy.
 
2014-03-07 04:20:25 PM  

MrSteve007: My house - 100% electrically powered, including heat and water heat. I keep the interior temperature at 76 in the winter and 70 in the summer. I have a home-server that runs most hours of the day, washer, dryer, dishwasher, 60 inch TV, LED lighting, and a air heat exchanger pumping fresh air throughout the day and pretty much every modern convenience - including an electric car plugged in at night. As I've pointed out previously, I'm currently tied into the grid to sell excess power but I have a decent sized battery bank to keep the place operational off-grid - if I so chose. The house is outside Seattle - one of the least sunny places in the lower 48 states.


What aren't you telling us? You aren't running all that off those two little banks of panels. Although I MIGHT be convinced that you're running at a net profit assuming that the local electric utility is forced to pay more to buy back your power than you buy it from them in the first place. I still have a hard time believing that you're saving money in the long run if you factor in your capital costs.
 
2014-03-07 04:21:23 PM  

super_grass: You have no idea how scientific progress advances, do you?


I know how people who go to this website to endlessly harangue and piss from an ostensibly great height for the benefit of the people they're trying to palm off dime store condescension as intellectual acuity work.
 
2014-03-07 04:25:33 PM  

bunner: Dusk-You-n-Me: ReverendJynxed: Learn to evolve and adapt to the dangers faster, little animals.

Climate is changing too fast for evolution. About 10,000X too fast.

So, survival of the fittest is only the rule if we protect the species who can't deal?  Bonus, we're sending ourselves into extinction with our "superior" survival capabilities.


I'm sure the dinos thought the same thing when they drowned in the floods.
You wanna flash-fry the animals, chop them up, or save them for the slow roast?
 
2014-03-07 04:26:19 PM  
Shazam999:

Sigh.  Read the article.  It's not just about you.  It needs to scale. Currently it does not scale.  Yeah I too can plop some farking solar panels on my house and call it a day but YOUR LIFE is more than just the stuff in that picture.  For fark's sake I can't believe I have to explain it to you but you seem to be the naive sort.

It does not scale? Wind turbines are scaling like crazy. Photovoltaics are so cheap we're ready to start a trade war to stop China giving them away.

No, we can't all put PVs on our roof tomorrow and be hugging trees by sundown, but saying the suggested technologies don't scale over a 3 decade time frame is just wrong. With natural gas generation to bridge us until then, the technologies can easily scale. All it would really take is an escalating tax on carbon emissions and the free market would take care of it. No magic involved (as opposed to nuclear, a very mature technology which magically has to get billions of dollars cheaper to pencil out).
 
2014-03-07 04:27:01 PM  

bunner: super_grass: You have no idea how scientific progress advances, do you?

I know how people who go to this website to endlessly harangue and piss from an ostensibly great height for the benefit of the people they're trying to palm off dime store condescension as intellectual acuity work.


So many big words from someone whose response to infeasible goals is "well just fix it - somehow!"

If you want to go all in at least make the fantasy more appealing. How about blimps that harvest static electricity from the atmosphere to fuel power the grid 24/7? Don't worry, science will eventually take care of it.
 
2014-03-07 04:27:30 PM  

ReverendJynxed: You wanna flash-fry the animals, chop them up, or save them for the slow roast?


I wanna leave them the hell alone, by and large.  But if losing a few here and there before they can adapt to windmills means I don't have to move in with them, I'm pretty much fine with that.
 
2014-03-07 04:27:34 PM  

kasmel: The issue with nuclear is not it's safety or the waste, the issue is you can't get anyone excited to invest in something high risk that takes 20+ years to pay off. (High risk from an investment stand-point, not meltdown, just to be clear.)


Those risks can be mitigated by politicians not jerking around. If you could get a firm commitment and a firm plan with some kind of protection against delaying-tactic lawsuits, investors would flock towards a sure money maker. Why wouldn't they? But this requires commitment and willpower from congress... And that's a resource that is in very short supply.

MrSteve007: You were saying how this doesn't work? Or how you have to lower your living standards?


Rooftop solar or backyard wind turbines are awesome. What geek technophile wouldn't love this? How cool. But most of humanity lives in dense urban areas. And the solution you have just doesn't scale.
 
2014-03-07 04:28:20 PM  

MrSteve007: Shazam999: He weasel words a lot. Unless you want a serious downgrade on your standard of living, going 100% renewable is impossible unless near 100% efficient solar panels are created and we cover the entire surface of the earth with them.

My house - 100% electrically powered, including heat and water heat. I keep the interior temperature at 76 in the winter and 70 in the summer. I have a home-server that runs most hours of the day, washer, dryer, dishwasher, 60 inch TV, LED lighting, and a air heat exchanger pumping fresh air throughout the day and pretty much every modern convenience - including an electric car plugged in at night. As I've pointed out previously, I'm currently tied into the grid to sell excess power but I have a decent sized battery bank to keep the place operational off-grid - if I so chose. The house is outside Seattle - one of the least sunny places in the lower 48 states.

[fbcdn-sphotos-b-a.akamaihd.net image 850x466]

My energy bills over the past 3-years:
[scontent-a-lax.xx.fbcdn.net image 850x527]

You were saying how this doesn't work? Or how you have to lower your living standards?


I see you have 20 panels in your array. How many watt panels are they?
 
2014-03-07 04:30:08 PM  

Shazam999: Sigh. Read the article. It's not just about you. It needs to scale. Currently it does not scale. Yeah I too can plop some farking solar panels on my house and call it a day but YOUR LIFE is more than just the stuff in that picture. For fark's sake I can't believe I have to explain it to you but you seem to be the naive sort.

You're right - I forgot my workplace (not quite net-zero yet):
scontent-b-lax.xx.fbcdn.net

And my parent's vacation home (generated 3x's the power it consumes):
scontent-a-lax.xx.fbcdn.net

And while I don't have a picture of it yet (just put the finishing touches on it this week) my sailboat now has a 125 watt thin-film panel that zips into the top of the cockpit cover that will power the electronics + inverter onboard. This will be my home & office over the summer, telecommuting to work.
scontent-b-lax.xx.fbcdn.net

I currently have a space 200 watt panel for a future project. I think I'll make a completely off-grid workbench in my shop with a group 27 battery and 500 watt inverter. I'll use it to power the worklights + charge all of my cordless tools.
fbcdn-sphotos-f-a.akamaihd.net

Other than having to work with and purchase from companies that haven't gone to renewables, it's pretty safe to say that about 95% of everything in my life is directly powered by the sun. And what really cheeses naysayers off is that most all of it will pay itself off within a couple years from now - while they keep cutting checks for thousands of dollar a year to their local utilities.
 
2014-03-07 04:31:35 PM  

super_grass: So many big words from someone whose response to infeasible goals is "well just fix it - somehow!"


Your strawman is aflame, your projector is broken, you've just proved precisely what I accused you of and I don't know what Wal Mart you bought your Unimpeachable Posture Of Authority™ from, but I hope you saved the receipt, $cience boy.  Click your counter. This is me clicking mine.  :  ) Word to your sainted mother.
 
2014-03-07 04:31:38 PM  

Voiceofreason01: MrSteve007: My house - 100% electrically powered, including heat and water heat. I keep the interior temperature at 76 in the winter and 70 in the summer. I have a home-server that runs most hours of the day, washer, dryer, dishwasher, 60 inch TV, LED lighting, and a air heat exchanger pumping fresh air throughout the day and pretty much every modern convenience - including an electric car plugged in at night. As I've pointed out previously, I'm currently tied into the grid to sell excess power but I have a decent sized battery bank to keep the place operational off-grid - if I so chose. The house is outside Seattle - one of the least sunny places in the lower 48 states.

What aren't you telling us? You aren't running all that off those two little banks of panels. Although I MIGHT be convinced that you're running at a net profit assuming that the local electric utility is forced to pay more to buy back your power than you buy it from them in the first place. I still have a hard time believing that you're saving money in the long run if you factor in your capital costs.


If he installed it himself, it's easy to believe he's getting a reasonable payback. Otherwise it usually does take incentives to get the payback down (my PV's have an 8 year payback to me, but a 17 year payback after incentives; their warranty service life is 20 years). And Washington is an easy climate - temperate without summer humidity.
 
2014-03-07 04:31:39 PM  

fireclown: super_grass: You have no idea how scientific progress advances, do you? Realistically there's very little incentive for anyone to go after your "wouldn't that be nice" pie in the sky fantasies unless there's some real intellectual or financial gains that can be gained from it.

That's how privately funded research works, yes.


Buahahaha.  That's how all research works. Yes.  Find me a scientist that doesn't look for the next "hot" or "sexy" topic NIH can't wait to fund this year (using NIH as my non-private funding source because I'm a neuropharmacologist by trade).  I and every other scientist I've ever known jumps on what's hot in order to stay funded, which is the only way to stay employed.  For us it was the bath salts craze.  My old PI wrote up a grant application for testing the cognitive disruptions produced by mephedrone after that guy ate someone's face.  In academia, you get funded or you find another career path.
 
2014-03-07 04:32:21 PM  

MrSteve007: And what really cheeses naysayers off is that most all of it will pay itself off within a couple years from now


No, what's really cheesing them off is that they're subsidizing it.
 
2014-03-07 04:33:11 PM  

MrSteve007: Shazam999: Sigh. Read the article. It's not just about you. It needs to scale. Currently it does not scale. Yeah I too can plop some farking solar panels on my house and call it a day but YOUR LIFE is more than just the stuff in that picture. For fark's sake I can't believe I have to explain it to you but you seem to be the naive sort.
You're right - I forgot my workplace (not quite net-zero yet):
[scontent-b-lax.xx.fbcdn.net image 850x680]

And my parent's vacation home (generated 3x's the power it consumes):
[scontent-a-lax.xx.fbcdn.net image 719x539]

And while I don't have a picture of it yet (just put the finishing touches on it this week) my sailboat now has a 125 watt thin-film panel that zips into the top of the cockpit cover that will power the electronics + inverter onboard. This will be my home & office over the summer, telecommuting to work.
[scontent-b-lax.xx.fbcdn.net image 720x405]

I currently have a space 200 watt panel for a future project. I think I'll make a completely off-grid workbench in my shop with a group 27 battery and 500 watt inverter. I'll use it to power the worklights + charge all of my cordless tools.
[fbcdn-sphotos-f-a.akamaihd.net image 405x720]

Other than having to work with and purchase from companies that haven't gone to renewables, it's pretty safe to say that about 95% of everything in my life is directly powered by the sun. And what really cheeses naysayers off is that most all of it will pay itself off within a couple years from now - while they keep cutting checks for thousands of dollar a year to their local utilities.


I love your stuff, but how does the bulk of humanity afford that?
 
2014-03-07 04:34:37 PM  

MrSteve007: Shazam999: Sigh. Read the article. It's not just about you. It needs to scale. Currently it does not scale. Yeah I too can plop some farking solar panels on my house and call it a day but YOUR LIFE is more than just the stuff in that picture. For fark's sake I can't believe I have to explain it to you but you seem to be the naive sort.
You're right - I forgot my workplace (not quite net-zero yet):


And my parent's vacation home (generated 3x's the power it consumes):


And while I don't have a picture of it yet (just put the finishing touches on it this week) my sailboat now has a 125 watt thin-film panel that zips into the top of the cockpit cover that will power the electronics + inverter onboard. This will be my home & office over the summer, telecommuting to work.


I currently have a space 200 watt panel for a future project. I think I'll make a completely off-grid workbench in my shop with a group 27 battery and 500 watt inverter. I'll use it to power the worklights + charge all of my cordless tools.


Other than having to work with and purchase from companies that haven't gone to renewables, it's pretty safe to say that about 95% of everything in my life is directly powered by the sun. And what really cheeses naysayers off is that most all of it will pay itself off within a couple years from now - while they keep cutting checks for thousands of dollar a year to their local utilities.


Did you design these systems? Pretty awesome work.
 
2014-03-07 04:34:59 PM  

meyerkev: Angry Drunk Bureaucrat: vernonFL: Of course it CAN be done, the question is whether or not we have the political will to do so.

As long as extractive energy companies are dropping mad cash on their favorite political candidates, the whole plan is an uphill battle.

And NIMBY's.  NIMBY's delay any infrastructure project for 2 decades after tripling the price.

At least the Republican Party is honest about wanting to fark the poor.


Hooray for honesty!
They can put anything they want in my 1/4 acre.  hell I'd beg 'em to do it too.
AND then there's this gem-

bunner: super_grass: You have no idea how scientific progress advances, do you?

I know how people who go to this website to endlessly harangue and piss from an ostensibly great height for the benefit of the people they're trying to palm off dime store condescension as intellectual acuity work.


That's just beautiful man, beautiful.  I don't see much of that kind of high minded acrimony any more and even if your invective is aimed at me (for example) I'd have to appreciate it.  So much better than the usual "you suck dude"
Bravo - *golf clap*

Someone want to send the police over to bunner's house for a wellness check?
 
kgf
2014-03-07 04:35:11 PM  

MrSteve007: As I've said on fark many times before - almost everything directly in my life is powered by solar power: house, work, car. If I can do that in perpetually cloudy Seattle, anyone can.

My full return on investment will be July 2017 - a little over three years from now. After that, every watt I generate is money in my pocket. Considering most of the equipment is warrantied for another 22 years - I expect to save a load of cash.


I find your claim difficult to believe, unless electric costs in Seattle are astronomical.  I've looked into this more than once over the years, and it keeps coming back to a payback period of about 20 years, which is just about how long a solar panel lasts.  As soon as it breaks even you have to replace the panels.

If the payback period was only 3 - 5 years, everybody with half a brain would be doing it, and if you can show me how to do it, I will begin the process of installing panels the next day.
 
2014-03-07 04:36:07 PM  

bunner: super_grass: So many big words from someone whose response to infeasible goals is "well just fix it - somehow!"

Your strawman is aflame, your projector is broken, you've just proved precisely what I accused you of and I don't know what Wal Mart you bought your Unimpeachable Posture Of Authority™ from, but I hope you saved the receipt, $cience boy.  Click your counter. This is me clicking mine.  :  ) Word to your sainted mother.


Uh huh. Despite you internet tantrum we both know that your little fantasy ain't happening anytime soon, and not because of someone telling you "no" either.
 
2014-03-07 04:40:55 PM  

kgf: MrSteve007: As I've said on fark many times before - almost everything directly in my life is powered by solar power: house, work, car. If I can do that in perpetually cloudy Seattle, anyone can.

My full return on investment will be July 2017 - a little over three years from now. After that, every watt I generate is money in my pocket. Considering most of the equipment is warrantied for another 22 years - I expect to save a load of cash.

I find your claim difficult to believe, unless electric costs in Seattle are astronomical.  I've looked into this more than once over the years, and it keeps coming back to a payback period of about 20 years, which is just about how long a solar panel lasts.  As soon as it breaks even you have to replace the panels.

If the payback period was only 3 - 5 years, everybody with half a brain would be doing it, and if you can show me how to do it, I will begin the process of installing panels the next day.


It's probably something you have to invest heavily in to see a quicker return on. I'm talking about a system that can carry 100% of your household load most not
 
2014-03-07 04:42:03 PM  

Surpheon: If he installed it himself, it's easy to believe he's getting a reasonable payback. Otherwise it usually does take incentives to get the payback down (my PV's have an 8 year payback to me, but a 17 year payback after incentives; their warranty service life is 20 years). And Washington is an easy climate - temperate without summer humidity.


ah....I think that's what I was forgetting that kept the math from adding up. Seattle weather. Here it's not unknown for it to be above 90F for days or weeks at a time(even overnight) in the summer or below freezing for similar periods of time over the winter.
 
2014-03-07 04:42:20 PM  

kgf: MrSteve007: As I've said on fark many times before - almost everything directly in my life is powered by solar power: house, work, car. If I can do that in perpetually cloudy Seattle, anyone can.

My full return on investment will be July 2017 - a little over three years from now. After that, every watt I generate is money in my pocket. Considering most of the equipment is warrantied for another 22 years - I expect to save a load of cash.

I find your claim difficult to believe, unless electric costs in Seattle are astronomical.  I've looked into this more than once over the years, and it keeps coming back to a payback period of about 20 years, which is just about how long a solar panel lasts.  As soon as it breaks even you have to replace the panels.

If the payback period was only 3 - 5 years, everybody with half a brain would be doing it, and if you can show me how to do it, I will begin the process of installing panels the next day.


The tax incentives (in Oregon at least) really rely on how much tax liability you already have.

I'd love them, but financially it just doesn't make sense right now, even with the incentives.  That, and my house is situated almost exactly the wrong way to get the minimum required exposure for the incentives from the electric company.  They won't know exactly until they come out and do an estimate.

Also, the guys I've talked too recently only do the good old (with improvements) 1950's style rigid panel.  I thought there had been some serious technological and materials improvements, and there have been some, but apparently the American market demands the oldie but goodie panels.
 
2014-03-07 04:43:41 PM  

MrSteve007: Shazam999: Sigh. Read the article. It's not just about you. It needs to scale. Currently it does not scale. Yeah I too can plop some farking solar panels on my house and call it a day but YOUR LIFE is more than just the stuff in that picture. For fark's sake I can't believe I have to explain it to you but you seem to be the naive sort.
You're right - I forgot my workplace (not quite net-zero yet):
[scontent-b-lax.xx.fbcdn.net image 850x680]

And my parent's vacation home (generated 3x's the power it consumes):
[scontent-a-lax.xx.fbcdn.net image 719x539]

And while I don't have a picture of it yet (just put the finishing touches on it this week) my sailboat now has a 125 watt thin-film panel that zips into the top of the cockpit cover that will power the electronics + inverter onboard. This will be my home & office over the summer, telecommuting to work.
[scontent-b-lax.xx.fbcdn.net image 720x405]

I currently have a space 200 watt panel for a future project. I think I'll make a completely off-grid workbench in my shop with a group 27 battery and 500 watt inverter. I'll use it to power the worklights + charge all of my cordless tools.
[fbcdn-sphotos-f-a.akamaihd.net image 405x720]

Other than having to work with and purchase from companies that haven't gone to renewables, it's pretty safe to say that about 95% of everything in my life is directly powered by the sun. And what really cheeses naysayers off is that most all of it will pay itself off within a couple years from now - while they keep cutting checks for thousands of dollar a year to their local utilities.


Honestly I can't believe just how dumb you really are.  But hey that's great, you've never really seemed all that bright to me.
 
2014-03-07 04:44:01 PM  
Thunderpipes:

I usually don't bother responding to you since I put you on ignore for your Woolworth's Version Rush Limbaugh malartkye, but, what the hell.

Do liberals really believe people get rich by taking from the poor?

No.  Anybody with a brain, useless political posture notwithstanding, thinks they get rich by making everybody else do their work and pay their taxes.

There is a finite amount of wealth in the world?

Yes.  Oddly.
 
2014-03-07 04:44:50 PM  
The reason I asked how many watts steve's panels were was to calculate what that 20 panel array could produce in an ideal year. most residential solar panels are between 190 and 240 watts. Giving Steve the benefit of the doubt, he bought 300 watt panels. This means his array (without allowing for degradation or the host of other things that diminish an arrays output) can produce a whopping 6,000 KwH per year of electricity. Not sure what his cost of electricity is there but guessing on the very high side it is $.22/Kwh so his array is producing $110/month.
 
2014-03-07 04:46:06 PM  

Yellow Beard: The reason I asked how many watts steve's panels were was to calculate what that 20 panel array could produce in an ideal year. most residential solar panels are between 190 and 240 watts. Giving Steve the benefit of the doubt, he bought 300 watt panels. This means his array (without allowing for degradation or the host of other things that diminish an arrays output) can produce a whopping 6,000 KwH per year of electricity. Not sure what his cost of electricity is there but guessing on the very high side it is $.22/Kwh so his array is producing $110/month.


I hate to answer for him, but I think he also replaced all his appliances with super smart energy saving ones.
 
2014-03-07 04:46:33 PM  
MrSteve007: [renewable energy porn]

So how do you get the truck out of your yard? And don't give me any pie-in-the-sky bullshiat about hinge technology, that doesn't scale and you know it.

/there, I taught  that guy a thing or two
 
2014-03-07 04:47:13 PM  

Voiceofreason01: What aren't you telling us? You aren't running all that off those two little banks of panels. Although I MIGHT be convinced that you're running at a net profit assuming that the local electric utility is forced to pay more to buy back your power than you buy it from them in the first place. I still have a hard time believing that you're saving money in the long run if you factor in your capital costs.


You're right that everything isn't completely powered by the rooftop array, today. When I sized it, it was before I bought the Nissan Leaf EV. It was sized to power all the household loads. I spent a few years making the house ultra-efficient. High effieincy ductless heat-pump, heat-pump water heater, R-60 insulation in the attic, R-40 below, air sealed, LED lighting, etc. Some of the benefits of having thermal imagers and blower - doors at work.  Now that I have the EV, I need to double the array to safely be back within net-zero energy.

Pre-solar loads:
fbcdn-sphotos-b-a.akamaihd.net

My first check from my utility for my solar power:
fbcdn-sphotos-c-a.akamaihd.net

Household loads, with an EV, if I were to double the array. (This is also similar pattern with the current array and without an EV)
scontent-a-lax.xx.fbcdn.net
 
2014-03-07 04:47:30 PM  

Shazam999: MrSteve007: Shazam999: Sigh. Read the article. It's not just about you. It needs to scale. Currently it does not scale. Yeah I too can plop some farking solar panels on my house and call it a day but YOUR LIFE is more than just the stuff in that picture. For fark's sake I can't believe I have to explain it to you but you seem to be the naive sort.
You're right - I forgot my workplace (not quite net-zero yet):
[scontent-b-lax.xx.fbcdn.net image 850x680]

And my parent's vacation home (generated 3x's the power it consumes):
[scontent-a-lax.xx.fbcdn.net image 719x539]

And while I don't have a picture of it yet (just put the finishing touches on it this week) my sailboat now has a 125 watt thin-film panel that zips into the top of the cockpit cover that will power the electronics + inverter onboard. This will be my home & office over the summer, telecommuting to work.
[scontent-b-lax.xx.fbcdn.net image 720x405]

I currently have a space 200 watt panel for a future project. I think I'll make a completely off-grid workbench in my shop with a group 27 battery and 500 watt inverter. I'll use it to power the worklights + charge all of my cordless tools.
[fbcdn-sphotos-f-a.akamaihd.net image 405x720]

Other than having to work with and purchase from companies that haven't gone to renewables, it's pretty safe to say that about 95% of everything in my life is directly powered by the sun. And what really cheeses naysayers off is that most all of it will pay itself off within a couple years from now - while they keep cutting checks for thousands of dollar a year to their local utilities.

Honestly I can't believe just how dumb you really are.  But hey that's great, you've never really seemed all that bright to me.


Solar power progress is closer to the electronics than say the cars. What is true five years ago is not going to be true now.

www.energybandgap.com

/and just like with electronics, wait for a product cycle or two for them to work out the kinks
 
2014-03-07 04:47:33 PM  

dj_bigbird: I assume by "onshore wind" they're referring to windmills that kill lots of birds and for solar PV and CSP plants, they're talking about places that cook birds.


Going for the high score right out of the gate, I see.
 
2014-03-07 04:50:02 PM  
Q: What policy mechanisms can be implemented to promote this plan?
A: The following policy mechanisms are options which can be implemented or revised in each state: 1) Renewable Portfolio Standards (RPS) (also called Renewable Electricity Standards, RES); 2) feed- in tariffs (FITs) and output subsidies; 3) investment incentives (direct or indirect payments by governments to energy producers to build energy infrastructure and for research), including loan guarantees; 4) municipal financing for residential energy - efficiency retrofits and solar installations, and/or purchase incentives and rebates for electric vehicles; 5) a revenue - neutral pollution tax (a tax on polluting energy sources, with the revenue transferred directly to non - polluting energy sources); 6) a straight pollution tax (e.g., a carbon tax); 7) a non-economic policy program reducing demand by improving the efficiency of end use energy or substituting low-energy activities and technologies for high-energy ones;8) a command-and-control policy option of mandated emission limits for technologies; 9) cap-and-trade; and, 10)community renewable energy programs.


Yep. As I figured. Another human utopia that can only be achieved through central control achieved through a monopoly on legal violence.

No need to get to the technical problems, it fails right there. Anything which requires forcing other people isn't viable. If their plan worked technically and economically all they would call for is removal of current crony capitalist systems instead of simply imposing their own.
 
2014-03-07 04:55:39 PM  

MrSteve007: Now that I have the EV, I need to double the array to safely be back within net-zero energy.


so you're getting paid pretty well to sell the power back and your biggest load(the car) is charged on cheap off-peak power. Not all the practical but a neat set up anyway.
 
2014-03-07 04:57:36 PM  

super_grass: Despite you internet tantrum.


Actually, that's not my name.

super_grass: we both know


Who's this "we" motherf*cker?  :  )

super_grass: your little fantasy


2.bp.blogspot.com

Are you starting to see where it's easy to write you off as some condescending prick and not the dispenser of great truths®?  Or are you just gonna wind up and spit out more of the same and count this as another hit on your troll line?  Cause it ain't my ass that's hanging out here.  I'm curious about people like you that come to web forums to peacock around about how smart everybody else isn't.  It's an odd thing to need to do.
 
2014-03-07 04:57:56 PM  

generallyso: Joe Peanut: Man, I wish someone would develop a way to harness the energy of a potato.   This way this country would not only be fully energy independent, but it would also be able to sell its spare energy to more potato-challenged countries.

That's not going to cut it. A potato doesn't even have enough voltage for a single emotional outburst.


What are you talking about, potatoes fueled the Irish for a hundred years, until that whole monoculture thing caught up with them.
 
2014-03-07 04:59:08 PM  
 
2014-03-07 05:00:11 PM  
dj_bigbird: ...they're talking about places that cook birds.
static6.businessinsider.com
Good. Cook 'em.
 
2014-03-07 05:00:55 PM  

Prank Call of Cthulhu: Didn't bother reading the article, but how do we fuel planes? Last I checked you can't really run a jumbo jet on batteries.


The whole idea behind all this is not the total elimination of the use of fossil fuels, just a reduction in their use and a smarter way to use the fuel we do use. It's the difference between driving a huge pickup truck that gets 13 miles a gallon and a hybrid or other vehicle that gets 40 miles a gallon. Both of them will get you to work, pick the kids up and take the groceries home, but one uses less fuel and emits less pollution. Planes today are also being made much more fuel efficient, wit composite materials, plastics and better engine designs.

Consider the 747, state of the art in the early 1970s. it's fuel efficiency today is still only 91 passenger miles per US gallon of fuel.
The A380 gets 78 passenger miles on the same amount of fuel. A smarter, more fuel efficient and less polluting way to get done what needs to get done.

See, the earth can take some pollution and CO2 and all that... it heals quite well when given the chance. The problem is that our species is overloading the system to where the planet can;t handle it, like force feeding with a rubber tube. Eventually we get stuff like climate change, rising sea levels, and other badness. We're doing the same thing with the oceans by overfishing to the point of extinction and pollution... leave the system alone for long enough or at least reduce the stress on it, and it will repair and replenish itself.

Our species just has to concentrate on wasting less of what we use now and using what we do use better, no living in caves and eating rocks necessary.
 
2014-03-07 05:02:27 PM  

doublesecretprobation: yeah, it's a great idea in THEORY, much like leftism in enough itself.  but such an idealist plan would surely encounter unforeseen obstacles of a difficult nature and is therefore a bad idea.  much like leftism.


Of course leftism is a bad idea. That's why the South is still racially segregated, birth control is illegal and gay marriage will never happen.
 
2014-03-07 05:03:04 PM  

kgf: MrSteve007: As I've said on fark many times before - almost everything directly in my life is powered by solar power: house, work, car. If I can do that in perpetually cloudy Seattle, anyone can.

My full return on investment will be July 2017 - a little over three years from now. After that, every watt I generate is money in my pocket. Considering most of the equipment is warrantied for another 22 years - I expect to save a load of cash.

I find your claim difficult to believe, unless electric costs in Seattle are astronomical.  I've looked into this more than once over the years, and it keeps coming back to a payback period of about 20 years, which is just about how long a solar panel lasts. As soon as it breaks even you have to replace the panels.

If the payback period was only 3 - 5 years, everybody with half a brain would be doing it, and if you can show me how to do it, I will begin the process of installing panels the next day.


You sure?  this seems to indicate the average manufacturer's warranty is 25 years:

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2013/10/131022091622.htm
 
2014-03-07 05:05:06 PM  

bunner: super_grass: Despite you internet tantrum.

Actually, that's not my name.

super_grass: we both know

Who's this "we" motherf*cker?  :  )

super_grass: your little fantasy

[2.bp.blogspot.com image 350x432]

Are you starting to see where it's easy to write you off as some condescending prick and not the dispenser of great truths®?  Or are you just gonna wind up and spit out more of the same and count this as another hit on your troll line?  Cause it ain't my ass that's hanging out here.  I'm curious about people like you that come to web forums to peacock around about how smart everybody else isn't.  It's an odd thing to need to do.


1-media-cdn.foolz.us

Your thrashing's just sad now. Just admit that you made a stupid assumption about R&D and move on.
 
2014-03-07 05:05:43 PM  

MrSteve007: super_grass: I see infographics and grandiose promises (like every proposed project to solve america's ills), but I don't see any specifics or data to back it up.

If you scroll all the way to the bottom of each State's plan, it gives a link to all the data at Stanford.

http://www.stanford.edu/group/efmh/jacobson/Articles/I/WWS-50-USStat e- plans.html


Thanks for the link.

I gotta say, I admire anyone willing to put their data out for everyone to view. That's gutsy. Bravo.

Short version:
The problem is, many of the decisions that were made seem arbitrary, and all the ones I've found so far were in a direction to inflate the renewable numbers. If there's a document or source that explains their justifications behind their assumptions (I've detailed a few odd ones below), I'd love to see it.


Longer version:
Looking at their spreadsheets, focusing on Michigan (a random choice based on the fact that I live here), and tracing their 40% figure for onshore wind through all the spreadsheets, the ultimate source of this figure is . . . e397 on table 2, where it is simply stated that 40% of the 2050 energy demand will be met by offshore wind. No source for this data, no information on how it's derived. Similarly, scrolling down to the next two states in alphabetical order, they show MN (60%) and MS (5%) estimates without any attribution. The MS number is especially puzzling, since their own spreadsheets and sources show no capacity for on-shore wind farms in MS.

Capacity data:
They declare that their information on available onshore wind is from NREL data, but their data do not match the NREL data.
                     NREL                                                                    Stanford
Michigan       7.85%, 169,221                                                            23.81%, 523,374
Minnesota     44.83%, 1,679,480                                                       55.29% 2,170,610
Mississippi     0.00%, 0                                                                      0.00%, 0
Numbers are available % of land in state, potential generation

They inflate the available % of state by assuming that a maximum of 30% of the state can be excluded from wind generation (column K, L, Resource availability NREL worksheet), which gives them higher potential generation numbers than NREL. Then they apparently extrapolate beyond this capacity, based on some unstated further assumptions (note MS has 0% capacity, but 5% of their energy from onshore wind).
 
2014-03-07 05:05:48 PM  

meat0918: I love your stuff, but how does the bulk of humanity afford that?

meat0918: The tax incentives (in Oregon at least) really rely on how much tax liability you already have.I'd love them, but financially it just doesn't make sense right now, even with the incentives.

kgf: I find your claim difficult to believe, unless electric costs in Seattle are astronomical. I've looked into this more than once over the years, and it keeps coming back to a payback period of about 20 years, which is just about how long a solar panel lasts. As soon as it breaks even you have to replace the panels.If the payback period was only 3 - 5 years, everybody with half a brain would be doing it, and if you can show me how to do it, I will begin the process of installing panels the next day.

When I refinanced my house to a 15-year mortgage, I took out $20,000 and threw in $5,000 of my own cash into installing the 3.8KW array. Normally it would only require $20k up front, but I wanted all the bells and whistles: I wanted battery bank, external generator tie, and a new breaker panel to replace my 40-year-old one and a sub-panel for 110v loads:
fbcdn-sphotos-b-a.akamaihd.net

-Fixed costs for that was $25,000 ($25,000)
-30% came back on my taxes as a credit that year: $7,500 (17,500)
-I get $1,250 - $1,500 a year for my feed in tariff: $1,250 ($16,250)
-I save $250 on electricity bills: $250 ($16,000)

When you factor in the feed in-tariff + annual energy rate increases of 5-10% + reduced utility bills - the ROI is between 6.5 and 9 years. I installed the array in 2012.

Had I gone for a bare-bones, batteryless array without a generator tie, using foreign made panels or fancy new electrical panel, I could have easily done it for $19k, before incentives. Prices of installs have come down a bit since then. I'd imagine a similar barebones 3.8KW array today would cost about 17k.
 
2014-03-07 05:06:32 PM  

MrSteve007: My first check from my utility for my solar power:


This is the main reason you're making money out of it.  The utility is paying you more per kWh you produce than Joe Schmoe is paying to power his house.

I realize that these are incentives to get people to go green, and to encourage buying local, but as soon as those incentives go out the door, converting your house will stop being profitable.

Don't get me wrong, it's still a laudable endeavour, and something we should all try to do, but most of us won't be making money out of it.
 
2014-03-07 05:07:44 PM  
To everybody who has dragged "libtard!  rethuglican" pseudo-political malarkey into this - you are the problem.  You are the log in the road.
 
2014-03-07 05:09:08 PM  
give me all the \PBR and chicken wings, and i'll power the world with my farts
 
2014-03-07 05:10:10 PM  

super_grass: Your thrashing's just sad now. Just admit that you made a stupid assumption about R&D and move on.


So, no, you can't.  Dime store troll from the shoes up.  Check.  Your projector is now overheating, btw.  OH YOUR THRASHING!  *snort*   :  )
 
2014-03-07 05:11:13 PM  

draypresct: Longer version:
Looking at their spreadsheets, focusing on Michigan (a random choice based on the fact that I live here), and tracing their 40% figure for onshore wind through all the spreadsheets, the ultimate source of this figure is . . . e397 on table 2, where it is simply stated that 40% of the 2050 energy demand will be met by offshore wind. No source for this data, no information on how it's derived. Similarly, scrolling down to the next two states in alphabetical order, they show MN (60%) and MS (5%) estimates without any attribution. The MS number is especially puzzling, since their own spreadsheets and sources show no capacity for on-shore wind farms in MS.


I thought that those numbers were suspiciously frequently multiples of 5%. Good job finding it.
 
2014-03-07 05:11:24 PM  

Destructor: MrSteve007: And what really cheeses naysayers off is that most all of it will pay itself off within a couple years from now

No, what's really cheesing them off is that they're subsidizing it.


As opposed to the oil, coal, and nuclear subsidies, which are much larger than those for solar?
 
2014-03-07 05:11:47 PM  

Destructor: Nuclear power & Reprocessing.


This.


Anything else and you're just blowing smoke out your ...
 
2014-03-07 05:14:58 PM  

bunner: super_grass: Your thrashing's just sad now. Just admit that you made a stupid assumption about R&D and move on.

So, no, you can't.  Dime store troll from the shoes up.  Check.  Your projector is now overheating, btw.  OH YOUR THRASHING!  *snort*   :  )


Whatever you're on, either stop taking it or cut the dose. Anyway, I'll withhold feeding you with attention until you either admit you're wrong or stop responding to problems with platitudes.

I'll wait.
 
2014-03-07 05:15:17 PM  

Flab: MrSteve007: My first check from my utility for my solar power:

This is the main reason you're making money out of it.  The utility is paying you more per kWh you produce than Joe Schmoe is paying to power his house.

I realize that these are incentives to get people to go green, and to encourage buying local, but as soon as those incentives go out the door, converting your house will stop being profitable.

Don't get me wrong, it's still a laudable endeavour, and something we should all try to do, but most of us won't be making money out of it.

I'm not the only one who's done the math. Rooftop solar power is quite profitable, today.
i0.wp.com

http://cleantechnica.com/2014/02/03/much-can-solar-panels-save/

Also, if I factor in the value of getting rid of my ~$3,000 a year gasoline bill to power my car with solar electricity, my ROI gets really, really sweet.

Right now, for me, the brass tacks shows that save $3,000 a year on fuel, $250 on electricity, and $1,250 on an incentive. I have nearly $5,000 more a year, in my pocket, because I've gone solar powered.
 
2014-03-07 05:15:48 PM  

draypresct: MrSteve007: super_grass: I see infographics and grandiose promises (like every proposed project to solve america's ills), but I don't see any specifics or data to back it up.

If you scroll all the way to the bottom of each State's plan, it gives a link to all the data at Stanford.

http://www.stanford.edu/group/efmh/jacobson/Articles/I/WWS-50-USStat e- plans.html

Thanks for the link.

I gotta say, I admire anyone willing to put their data out for everyone to view. That's gutsy. Bravo.

Short version:
The problem is, many of the decisions that were made seem arbitrary, and all the ones I've found so far were in a direction to inflate the renewable numbers. If there's a document or source that explains their justifications behind their assumptions (I've detailed a few odd ones below), I'd love to see it.


Longer version:
Looking at their spreadsheets, focusing on Michigan (a random choice based on the fact that I live here), and tracing their 40% figure for onshore wind through all the spreadsheets, the ultimate source of this figure is . . . e397 on table 2, where it is simply stated that 40% of the 2050 energy demand will be met by offshore wind. No source for this data, no information on how it's derived. Similarly, scrolling down to the next two states in alphabetical order, they show MN (60%) and MS (5%) estimates without any attribution. The MS number is especially puzzling, since their own spreadsheets and sources show no capacity for on-shore wind farms in MS.

Capacity data:
They declare that their information on available onshore wind is from NREL data, but their data do not match the NREL data.
                     NREL                                                                    Stanford
Michigan       7.85%, 169,221                                                            23.81%, 523,374
Minnesota     44.83%, 1,679,480                                                       55.29% 2,170,610
Mississippi     0.00%, 0                                 ...


Glancing at the wind data for Kansas(where I'm from) it looks like they may be looking at installed capacity v. actual usage. As an example using simple numbers: if Kansas has 1 10mw wind turbine installed and uses 100mw of power then by their calculations 10% of Kansas' power comes from wind. The problem with this system is that installed capacity does not equal actual capacity and it's further complicated because the major power utilities in Kansas exist(or trade significant amount of power) across State lines. So while their numbers were no doubt easy to calculate they are effectively meaningless.
 
2014-03-07 05:16:56 PM  
"In 2011, a scientist, a banker, an actorEd Begley Jr., and a filmmaker, came together to envision a pathway to 100% renewable energy in the US..."

Who are the other 3?
 
2014-03-07 05:18:00 PM  

PunGent: kgf: MrSteve007: As I've said on fark many times before - almost everything directly in my life is powered by solar power: house, work, car. If I can do that in perpetually cloudy Seattle, anyone can.

My full return on investment will be July 2017 - a little over three years from now. After that, every watt I generate is money in my pocket. Considering most of the equipment is warrantied for another 22 years - I expect to save a load of cash.

I find your claim difficult to believe, unless electric costs in Seattle are astronomical.  I've looked into this more than once over the years, and it keeps coming back to a payback period of about 20 years, which is just about how long a solar panel lasts. As soon as it breaks even you have to replace the panels.

If the payback period was only 3 - 5 years, everybody with half a brain would be doing it, and if you can show me how to do it, I will begin the process of installing panels the next day.

You sure?  this seems to indicate the average manufacturer's warranty is 25 years:

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2013/10/131022091622.htm


It should also be noted that the panels tend to keep on going like Grandma's TV well after their warranty is up. Of course, simple payback ignores the time value of money (but folks usually neglect escalation of electrical costs, so call it a wash).
 
2014-03-07 05:18:47 PM  

PunGent: Destructor: MrSteve007: And what really cheeses naysayers off is that most all of it will pay itself off within a couple years from now

No, what's really cheesing them off is that they're subsidizing it.

As opposed to the oil, coal, and nuclear subsidies, which are much larger than those for solar?


It's larger in total, but smaller per watt.
 
2014-03-07 05:19:10 PM  

super_grass: Whatever you're on, either stop taking it or cut the dose.


You're a sad sad little bitty man, aren't you?  Wrong?  About what?  Your assumptions?  That's your job.  Come on, reel me in with a crack about my mother.  For science!   This is better than anything on TeeVee, atm.  I mean you got it bad.

super_grass: Anyway, I'll withhold feeding you with attention


Oh don't tease!  Is there a fee involved?
 
2014-03-07 05:22:22 PM  

semiotix: Prank Call of Cthulhu: Didn't bother reading the article, but how do we fuel planes? Last I checked you can't really run a jumbo jet on batteries.

Admittedly, it's tough to think of a way to fly big jets without using good old-fashioned hydrocarbons. And it's not like jet fuel is a totally negligible part of our energy budget, now or in the foreseeable future. The more important point is that literally everything else  does have a workaround.

Regardless of whose plan we follow, if we can get to a point where all the energy I use until I step onto the plane itself is from renewable sources, I'd say that's good enough. Campfires are ridiculously bad for the environment on an efficiency and particulate basis, but I don't feel like I'm committing ecological genocide if I just make a few of them a year.


This.  The plan in the article may well be crap, but that doesn't mean we shouldn't invest in alternate energy where it makes sense...windmills in windy areas, solar in sunny areas...and cut subsidies to established sectors like coal and oil to level the playing field.

Pity it won't happen though.
 
2014-03-07 05:22:28 PM  

MrSteve007: Flab: MrSteve007: My first check from my utility for my solar power:

This is the main reason you're making money out of it.  The utility is paying you more per kWh you produce than Joe Schmoe is paying to power his house.

I realize that these are incentives to get people to go green, and to encourage buying local, but as soon as those incentives go out the door, converting your house will stop being profitable.

Don't get me wrong, it's still a laudable endeavour, and something we should all try to do, but most of us won't be making money out of it.
I'm not the only one who's done the math. Rooftop solar power is quite profitable, today.
[i0.wp.com image 850x575]

http://cleantechnica.com/2014/02/03/much-can-solar-panels-save/

Also, if I factor in the value of getting rid of my ~$3,000 a year gasoline bill to power my car with solar electricity, my ROI gets really, really sweet.

Right now, for me, the brass tacks shows that save $3,000 a year on fuel, $250 on electricity, and $1,250 on an incentive. I have nearly $5,000 more a year, in my pocket, because I've gone solar powered.


Not economic if you don't factor in the tax subsidies and tax reductions.  If your neighbor and me did not fund your experiment it would cost 50% more.  Do it by yourself completely and get back to me.
 
2014-03-07 05:23:32 PM  

Flab: I realize that these are incentives to get people to go green, and to encourage buying local, but as soon as those incentives go out the door, converting your house will stop being profitable.


That's the issue... once there are enough of these systems they will be considered as mainstream and standard as the electrical systems being installed in new construction houses today. The prices for said systems will come down even more, and they will become just another expense when upgrading an old electrical system or installing a new one.

When you replace the electrics in an old house, are you looking for a profit in doing so, or are you doing it so that the place doesn't catch fire and can handle the new stuff you want to use?

The key here is users... remember when flat panel tvs were tens of thousands of dollars (in 2000 a 50" plasma was $20,000+)? Now that 50" lcd can be purchased for less than $490.

Think bigger. Think future.
 
2014-03-07 05:24:05 PM  

jshine: I'm in Minnesota right now, where tidal, hydroelectric, & geothermal aren't feasible.


Seriously?  five seconds on Google.

http://strandlund.com/
 
2014-03-07 05:25:15 PM  

Voiceofreason01: Glancing at the wind data for Kansas(where I'm from) it looks like they may be looking at installed capacity v. actual usage. As an example using simple numbers: if Kansas has 1 10mw wind turbine installed and uses 100mw of power then by their calculations 10% of Kansas' power comes from wind. The problem with this system is that installed capacity does not equal actual capacity and it's further complicated because the major power utilities in Kansas exist(or trade significant amount of power) across State lines. So while their numbers were no doubt easy to calculate they are effectively meaningless.


The study's FAQ:
http://www.stanford.edu/group/efmh/jacobson/Articles/I/FAQsUSStates. pd f

Q: How can the plans ensure reliable electric power?
A: To ensure that the renewable energy supply will match demand and to smooth out the
variability of these renewable resources, several strategies will be deployed, including:
(1) combining wind, water and solar (WWS) resources as a bundled set of resources
rather than separate resources and using hydroelectric power plus stored concentrated
solar power, to balance much of the remaining load; (2) interconnecting geographically dispersed
variable WWS resources (e.g., solar, wind, wave) to smooth out the variability
of these resources; (3) using demand-response management to shift times of demand to
better match the availability of WWS power, (4) over-sizing WWS peak generation
capacity to minimize the times when available WWS power is less than demand and
provide power to produce district heat for cities and hydrogen for transportation when
WWS power exceeds demand, (5) storing energy at the site of generation or use, (6)
storing energy in electric-vehicle batteries, and (7) integrating weather forecasts into
system operation.
 
2014-03-07 05:25:48 PM  

CujoQuarrel: Destructor: Nuclear power & Reprocessing.

This.


Anything else and you're just blowing smoke out your ...


Nuclear plants are just too expensive. It's not hippies doing sit ins that are stopping nuclear, it's the costs. Nuclear costs more per kW to build AND more per kW to operate than even photovoltaic. And natural gas blows the hell out of both nuclear and photovoltaic.

No one who can do basic math and likes money (which describes most businesses with enough money to make a go of reactor construction) is building a nuclear reactor outside of a Navy vessel anytime soon.

http://www.eia.gov/forecasts/capitalcost/
 
2014-03-07 05:28:29 PM  

bunner: When that happens, they're just as screwed as we are.  Your move, umptillionaires.


Close, but not quite. When that happens, their (at least somewhat) distant descendants are screwed -- and the umptillionaires don't care about them any more than they care about you or I.

As far as they're concerned, it's all about the now, and about accumulating as much wealth as possible, making sure to return the minimum possible to the system (and especially, to taxes).
 
2014-03-07 05:29:29 PM  

bigsteve3OOO: Not economic if you don't factor in the tax subsidies and tax reductions. If your neighbor and me did not fund your experiment it would cost 50% more. Do it by yourself completely and get back to me.


For the feed-in-tariff I can half agree with you on that (if you'd like, I can go into very specific detail why this isn't the case for my location), but in terms of the federal tax credit, all it does is reduce what I pay in income tax, for one year.

Is that really other people subsidizing me or is that the government letting me pay less income tax, once? If so, would you argue the same for the mortgage interest tax deduction, tax incentives for marriage or children? Because that's me subsidizing other homeowners, kids and married people.
 
2014-03-07 05:30:13 PM  

MrSteve007: I'm not the only one who's done the math. Rooftop solar power is quite profitable, today.


Keyword: today.

Because of incentives.  The minute those incentives disappear, they will stop being as profitable. (And in my particular case, with electricity being only $0.05 a kWh, with no possibility to sell surplus back to Hydro-Quebec, not profitable at all)

And I still think it's a good idea.  The Sun is there, as the Fark saying goes, for free.  It is stupid not to take advantage of it and rely on dinosaur alcohol.
 
2014-03-07 05:31:32 PM  

MrSteve007: meat0918: I love your stuff, but how does the bulk of humanity afford that?
meat0918: The tax incentives (in Oregon at least) really rely on how much tax liability you already have.I'd love them, but financially it just doesn't make sense right now, even with the incentives.
kgf: I find your claim difficult to believe, unless electric costs in Seattle are astronomical. I've looked into this more than once over the years, and it keeps coming back to a payback period of about 20 years, which is just about how long a solar panel lasts. As soon as it breaks even you have to replace the panels.If the payback period was only 3 - 5 years, everybody with half a brain would be doing it, and if you can show me how to do it, I will begin the process of installing panels the next day.
When I refinanced my house to a 15-year mortgage, I took out $20,000 and threw in $5,000 of my own cash into installing the 3.8KW array. Normally it would only require $20k up front, but I wanted all the bells and whistles: I wanted battery bank, external generator tie, and a new breaker panel to replace my 40-year-old one and a sub-panel for 110v loads:
[fbcdn-sphotos-b-a.akamaihd.net image 720x1278]

-Fixed costs for that was $25,000 ($25,000)
-30% came back on my taxes as a credit that year: $7,500 (17,500)
-I get $1,250 - $1,500 a year for my feed in tariff: $1,250 ($16,250)
-I save $250 on electricity bills: $250 ($16,000)

When you factor in the feed in-tariff + annual energy rate increases of 5-10% + reduced utility bills - the ROI is between 6.5 and 9 years. I installed the array in 2012.

Had I gone for a bare-bones, batteryless array without a generator tie, using foreign made panels or fancy new electrical panel, I could have easily done it for $19k, before incentives. Prices of installs have come down a bit since then. I'd imagine a similar barebones 3.8KW array today would cost about 17k.


I didn't check what part of the country you're in. Where I live, power costs have been falling semi-steadily for the last 20 years: in 1995 power cost me 16 cents per kwh. in 2014, it costs 8 cents. The electricity itself has gotten far cheaper (right now it's about 4 cents - the rest of the cost is grid maintenance and administrative costs, which has only declined slightly in the same 20 years)

It's pretty clear to me that costs right now are about as cheap as they can ever be, making it less attractive (especially in a high-density suburb) to look at alternate sources, but this *is* a really good time to trim consumption; the AC units I have today are almost twice as efficient as the ones I had then, and most of my appliances are a lot more efficient. Lighting alone, changing to a few CFL's and LED's for the lights that never get turned off, is huge savings.

It's really a strange time - 15 years ago, we were looking at becoming a huge LNG importer as the price was winding up and consumption was going up. Then the whole fracking thing comes along, and now natural gas is so abundant it is nearly worthless. I'm hesitant to assume some other bizarre twist won't come along in another 10 years, but it's hard for me to see right now how electrical prices will face any upward pressure any time very soon.

That said, I'm a little jealous of your setup. Even though my paycheck comes from making power, I still don't like actually having to personally spend money on it :)
 
2014-03-07 05:32:12 PM  

gweilo8888: bunner: When that happens, they're just as screwed as we are.  Your move, umptillionaires.

Close, but not quite. When that happens, their (at least somewhat) distant descendants are screwed -- and the umptillionaires don't care about them any more than they care about you or I.

As far as they're concerned, it's all about the now, and about accumulating as much wealth as possible, making sure to return the minimum possible to the system (and especially, to taxes).


Point.  *sigh*  :  \
 
2014-03-07 05:32:15 PM  
jshine:
That pretty much leaves wind.  What happens on days without wind?

Days without wind in the United States?
There is no such animal.
Not even a minute.

It's not like every village currently has a nuke plant.  How do they make do?
 
2014-03-07 05:34:27 PM  
To the right: naysayers explaining why this is impossible (treehugger.com)

Because greens like the fools that visit that site go full whargarble every time anyone tries to build hydroelectric and Limousin libs block attempts to build wind-farms within eye-shot of their beach homes (that are supposedly underwater due to gw).
 
2014-03-07 05:35:09 PM  

PunGent: As opposed to the oil, coal, and nuclear subsidies, which are much larger than those for solar?


Oil and coal are subsidized? By who? The Ethanol lobby?

Solar and Wind are heavily subsidized. In terms of energy production over the lifetime of the plant, I'll wager the single greatest cost to nuclear is regulatory brinksmanship.

Check out MrSteve007's awesome tax credit that we're paying for... Sweet!

MrSteve007: -30% came back on my taxes as a credit that year: $7,500 (17,500)

 
2014-03-07 05:37:00 PM  

Flab: Because of incentives. The minute those incentives disappear, they will stop being as profitable. (And in my particular case, with electricity being only $0.05 a kWh, with no possibility to sell surplus back to Hydro-Quebec, not profitable at all)

That's quite a cheap rate! Here in hydro powered Seattle, we're edging between $0.09 and $0.012 a kWh. For my clients in Hawaii, they pay $0.36 a kWh. For them, it makes sense to go solar without a single cent of inventive. Many of their neighborhood utility feeds are now surpassing 120% solar penetration levels.

http://www.bizjournals.com/pacific/blog/morning_call/2014/03/hawaiia n- electric-sends-new-rules-to.html

http://www.honolulumagazine.com/Honolulu-Magazine/February-2014/Hawa ii s-Solar-Energy-Revolution/
 
2014-03-07 05:37:13 PM  

rewind2846: When you replace the electrics in an old house, are you looking for a profit in doing so, or are you doing it so that the place doesn't catch fire and can handle the new stuff you want to use?


Agreed.   When I had my house built, 8 years ago, I paid for extra insulation in the attic and walls.   Not because I thought the investment would pay for itself in reduced heating and cooling costs, but because I didn't want to "heat the entire neighborhood" as I unfortunately had to do in my previous place.

However, one of Steve's arguments is that they pay for themselves.  I'm just saying, that may be the case today, but it won't always be the case.  Or at least not as fast as today.
 
2014-03-07 05:37:14 PM  

MisterTweak: It's really a strange time - 15 years ago, we were looking at becoming a huge LNG importer as the price was winding up and consumption was going up. Then the whole fracking thing comes along, and now natural gas is so abundant it is nearly worthless. I'm hesitant to assume some other bizarre twist won't come along in another 10 years, but it's hard for me to see right now how electrical prices will face any upward pressure any time very soon.


There are efforts afoot to 'turn around' some LNG import ports so we can start exporting the stuff.

Fracking has held down electrical prices now, but it's a temporary lull. We probably have a good 30 year bridge to get to a sustainable basis (and 'negawatts'/efficiency is a big part of that). But not definitely - water problems or grid issues exacerbated by extreme weather could drive electricity prices through the roof in a matter of years. It's not all about the plant with an intensely centralized system like we have now.

But it sounds like you're also in an odd place. Most folks have seen prices drop a bit off the spike of a few years back to a plateau, not the extreme drop you seem to have lucked into (electricity is a bit more of a local cost than a commodity like oil or something - you're luckier than most).

http://www.eia.gov/forecasts/steo/report/electricity.cfm
 
2014-03-07 05:40:03 PM  

Destructor: PunGent: As opposed to the oil, coal, and nuclear subsidies, which are much larger than those for solar?

Oil and coal are subsidized? By who? The Ethanol lobby?

Solar and Wind are heavily subsidized. In terms of energy production over the lifetime of the plant, I'll wager the single greatest cost to nuclear is regulatory brinksmanship.

Check out MrSteve007's awesome tax credit that we're paying for... Sweet!

MrSteve007: -30% came back on my taxes as a credit that year: $7,500 (17,500)


Isn't it a bit late in the thread for trolling? It's mostly old guys left here, why don't you try something a bit fresher on the politics thread?
 
2014-03-07 05:44:46 PM  

MrSteve007: For my clients in Hawaii, they pay $0.36 a kWh. For them, it makes sense to go solar without a single cent of inventive. Many of their neighborhood utility feeds are now surpassing 120% solar penetration levels.


I remember a thread a while back about that.  It also helps that their peak hours are during the day.  Here, our peak hours are 5am-9am and 5pm-8pm in January, when the sun is down, so solar panels don't help as much anyway.
 
2014-03-07 05:46:08 PM  

dj_bigbird: I assume by "onshore wind" they're referring to windmills that kill lots of birds and for solar PV and CSP plants, they're talking about places that cook birds.


Yes, those several thousand poor birds that die every year. It almost as many as the billion birds eaten by cats every year.
 
2014-03-07 05:46:31 PM  

MrSteve007: bigsteve3OOO: Not economic if you don't factor in the tax subsidies and tax reductions. If your neighbor and me did not fund your experiment it would cost 50% more. Do it by yourself completely and get back to me.

For the feed-in-tariff I can half agree with you on that (if you'd like, I can go into very specific detail why this isn't the case for my location), but in terms of the federal tax credit, all it does is reduce what I pay in income tax, for one year.

Is that really other people subsidizing me or is that the government letting me pay less income tax, once? If so, would you argue the same for the mortgage interest tax deduction, tax incentives for marriage or children? Because that's me subsidizing other homeowners, kids and married people.


We agree 100%!  No tax incentives to force behavior.  Be it corporate or individual.  If it makes sense then you should do it.  Taxes should not modify your decision.
 
2014-03-07 05:48:36 PM  

Surpheon: Isn't it a bit late in the thread for trolling? It's mostly old guys left here, why don't you try something a bit fresher on the politics thread?


Hey, that's the way it goes. At first people say renewables don't work and cost too much to install. Then someone comes in with proof that it does work and is financially feasible for the common person. The next move is to attack the incentives, now that they found regular joes can install renewable energy themselves.

Then comes the proof that some areas of the country can be powered with renewables, without any incentives, and it makes financial sense.Then the argument moves to "How will the poor utilities survive against people making their own power" and they'll cast doom & gloom over the whole idea.

Curiously, in the past year the gears of the disinformation machine has now moved to trying to protect corporate utilities by repealing net-metering laws on a state-by-state basis and try to implement a monthly fee for people to tie into the grid with rooftop solar power.

The plan to cut off solar installs -
http://www.greentechmedia.com/articles/read/stealth-business-lobbyis t- plans-2014-offensive-against-solar-net-metering
 
2014-03-07 05:54:19 PM  
Flab:
However, one of Steve's arguments is that they pay for themselves.  I'm just saying, that may be the case today, but it won't always be the case.  Or at least not as fast as today.

That is the interesting quirk about these systems... when Joe Houseowner is replacing or upgrading the systems in his house, is he looking to make a profit from it?  Usually there is no profit from a standard installation... why must there be a profit from an installation using renewable energy sources? Why must it "pay for itself" when a regular install never ever will?

Even if there were no subsidies whatsoever, the fact that the houseowner (usually) no longer has to pay the power company (as much of) their blood money puts them ahead. That's a bonafide win.
 
2014-03-07 05:54:59 PM  

MrSteve007: Flab: MrSteve007: My first check from my utility for my solar power:

This is the main reason you're making money out of it.  The utility is paying you more per kWh you produce than Joe Schmoe is paying to power his house.

I realize that these are incentives to get people to go green, and to encourage buying local, but as soon as those incentives go out the door, converting your house will stop being profitable.

Don't get me wrong, it's still a laudable endeavour, and something we should all try to do, but most of us won't be making money out of it.
I'm not the only one who's done the math. Rooftop solar power is quite profitable, today.
[i0.wp.com image 850x575]

http://cleantechnica.com/2014/02/03/much-can-solar-panels-save/

Also, if I factor in the value of getting rid of my ~$3,000 a year gasoline bill to power my car with solar electricity, my ROI gets really, really sweet.

Right now, for me, the brass tacks shows that save $3,000 a year on fuel, $250 on electricity, and $1,250 on an incentive. I have nearly $5,000 more a year, in my pocket, because I've gone solar powered.


Savings over 20 years.. 20K.  Cost of enough panels to power my house 40k-50k.  Back to burning tires for me.
 
2014-03-07 06:01:23 PM  

MrSteve007: Surpheon: Isn't it a bit late in the thread for trolling? It's mostly old guys left here, why don't you try something a bit fresher on the politics thread?

Hey, that's the way it goes. At first people say renewables don't work and cost too much to install. Then someone comes in with proof that it does work and is financially feasible for the common person. The next move is to attack the incentives, now that they found regular joes can install renewable energy themselves


Troll calling. What, no picture? I'm insulted. The predictable and inevitable last resort in any battle.

Never, at any point in time did I disparage anyone here. Did I not say that I thought that MrSteve007's setup was sweet? Did I not intimate that I like it (I do). The only thing I had to do was defend this ribbing:

And what really cheeses naysayers off is that most all of it will pay itself off within a couple years from now

I explained what cheesed them off (IMHO, but that go without saying).

Elsewhere in this thread, I've defended a position regarding cost in nuclear. You've produced the EIA report which shows nuclear is more expensive. I'll respond to that now: It does. So maybe it is. I posted a link that says maybe it isn't. So maybe it isn't.
 
2014-03-07 06:12:21 PM  
It must work if the gubment has to dump tons of money into green companies that go bankrupt and funnel campaign funds back to politicians.   YAAY.

//blah blah blah ... oil companies...   subsidies... blah blah blah.. shut their asses off also.//
 
2014-03-07 06:14:51 PM  

Surpheon: MisterTweak: It's really a strange time - 15 years ago, we were looking at becoming a huge LNG importer as the price was winding up and consumption was going up. Then the whole fracking thing comes along, and now natural gas is so abundant it is nearly worthless. I'm hesitant to assume some other bizarre twist won't come along in another 10 years, but it's hard for me to see right now how electrical prices will face any upward pressure any time very soon.

There are efforts afoot to 'turn around' some LNG import ports so we can start exporting the stuff.

Fracking has held down electrical prices now, but it's a temporary lull. We probably have a good 30 year bridge to get to a sustainable basis (and 'negawatts'/efficiency is a big part of that). But not definitely - water problems or grid issues exacerbated by extreme weather could drive electricity prices through the roof in a matter of years. It's not all about the plant with an intensely centralized system like we have now.

But it sounds like you're also in an odd place. Most folks have seen prices drop a bit off the spike of a few years back to a plateau, not the extreme drop you seem to have lucked into (electricity is a bit more of a local cost than a commodity like oil or something - you're luckier than most).

http://www.eia.gov/forecasts/steo/report/electricity.cfm


Texas is weird (I know, big shock there) - some cities have even cheaper prices, a few are a little more expensive. But there is an absolute "floor" (mostly driven by what it costs to maintain the grid) and I think we're pretty close to it now. There's lots of room to go up, not much to go down.

I'm not too thrilled about the move to export LNG. Right now, companies can invest in power-hungry projects with high confidence that costs will be predictable for the next 20 years (low, held down by a huge supply of cheap fuel) - but if we let US prices get driven by big importers of LNG (nuclear-averse Japan and the EU), we lose a big economic advantage.

American consumers often forget that the interest of the oil companies in "drill here, drill now" isn't tied to their interest to sell it back locally at a discounted price - it sells to whoever will pay the very top dollar.
 
2014-03-07 06:15:24 PM  
The strongest argument against?  How often do predictions like this actually come to pass in the time frame suggested?
 
2014-03-07 06:30:23 PM  

Ambivalence: vernonFL: Of course it CAN be done, the question is whether or not we have the political will to do so.

We invested well over $1 trillion over 10 years in Iraq and Afghanistan. I think about that every time a see a report about why something can't be done or we don't have the budget or it will take too long, etc...

We didn't "invest" a penny in Iraq or Afghanistan. An investment implies we could reasonably inspect a return. Iraq and Afghanistan are money pits and that money ain't ever coming back.

Education and infrastructure are actual investments.


Actually both types are. We pour more money into education than private schools do, and they get a better product. Public education has become a money pit as well, thanks to current policies. Our kids should be able to graduate with all the needed classes by the time they are 15, and by 18 they should have enough college credits for a Bachelor's degree in a year or two.
 
2014-03-07 06:32:36 PM  

MrSteve007: meat0918: I love your stuff, but how does the bulk of humanity afford that?
meat0918: The tax incentives (in Oregon at least) really rely on how much tax liability you already have.I'd love them, but financially it just doesn't make sense right now, even with the incentives.
kgf: I find your claim difficult to believe, unless electric costs in Seattle are astronomical. I've looked into this more than once over the years, and it keeps coming back to a payback period of about 20 years, which is just about how long a solar panel lasts. As soon as it breaks even you have to replace the panels.If the payback period was only 3 - 5 years, everybody with half a brain would be doing it, and if you can show me how to do it, I will begin the process of installing panels the next day.
When I refinanced my house to a 15-year mortgage, I took out $20,000 and threw in $5,000 of my own cash into installing the 3.8KW array. Normally it would only require $20k up front, but I wanted all the bells and whistles: I wanted battery bank, external generator tie, and a new breaker panel to replace my 40-year-old one and a sub-panel for 110v loads:
[fbcdn-sphotos-b-a.akamaihd.net image 720x1278]

-Fixed costs for that was $25,000 ($25,000)
-30% came back on my taxes as a credit that year: $7,500 (17,500)
-I get $1,250 - $1,500 a year for my feed in tariff: $1,250 ($16,250)
-I save $250 on electricity bills: $250 ($16,000)

When you factor in the feed in-tariff + annual energy rate increases of 5-10% + reduced utility bills - the ROI is between 6.5 and 9 years. I installed the array in 2012.

Had I gone for a bare-bones, batteryless array without a generator tie, using foreign made panels or fancy new electrical panel, I could have easily done it for $19k, before incentives. Prices of installs have come down a bit since then. I'd imagine a similar barebones 3.8KW array today would cost about 17k.


Aren't you listening? This is totally unfeasible and is not supposed to work! OMG!

/sarcasm
 
2014-03-07 06:37:26 PM  
MrSteve007: pics
MrSteve007: pics
MrSteve007: graphs and a check

thats pretty cool, though it would be cooler if you lived about 1200 miles south!  ;-)

we prob only have about 7 more years in our house so i do not think solar would pay for itself in that time.
 
2014-03-07 06:41:48 PM  
As a tax payer, I am much happier to pay Steve a little bit to generate solar power than to pay you to use power that emits CO2.

And yes, that stuff comes with with a big cost.
 
2014-03-07 06:56:52 PM  

Destructor: Hollie Maea: Destructor: Nuclear power & Reprocessing.

Too expensive.

Looking at the levelized cost (most affected by taxes). But looking at the actual cost, transmission distances, land savings in term of power density, and reliability, it becomes hard to beat.

If you really want to leave a tiny ecological foot print, nuclear is the only way to go.


Except for that little problem with accidents, natural disasters, spent fuel storage and whatnot.
Nuclear is some pretty scary shiat.
 
2014-03-07 07:01:42 PM  
These threads are fun for watching fossil fuel shills suddenly care about birds.
www.capetownskies.com
 
2014-03-07 07:05:38 PM  

kgf: I've looked into this more than once over the years, and it keeps coming back to a payback period of about 20 years, which is just about how long a solar panel lasts.


What if I could save the world and I could break even doing it?

/that's assuming your figuring is even close to right
 
2014-03-07 07:12:49 PM  

Jimmysolson: Except for that little problem with accidents, natural disasters, spent fuel storage and whatnot.
Nuclear is some pretty scary shiat.


I would love for solar and wind to be the big solution. But, IMHO, it's just not practical, even with massive public financing.

There is no denying nuclear power is risky. Just don't compare a new plant using 4th generation tech to some old piece of junk poorly operated, managed, or placed.

There is risk with every other form of power generation out there, including wind.

This is (probably) not one of those risks...

imgs.xkcd.com
 
2014-03-07 07:15:31 PM  
Not sure if they are taking this into account, but the major problem is how much you have to oversize the power sources. Minnesota has 60% onshore wind and 19% offshore wind (on a lake???). But the wind doesn't always blow. And when it doesn't blow you lost 79 percent of your power. And if this is at night, you lost another 20% of your power. Leaving you with essentially ZERO power production.
Obviously you cannot get solar power at night, so you have to have the ability to get at least 100% of your power needs from non-solar sources. The same for wind when it doesn't blow, etc. You cannot get rid of fossil fuel production because it is the ONLY 100% reliable source (not including maintenance.)
 
2014-03-07 07:30:12 PM  
Sure, it can be done. Finding businesses willing to pay for it versus their shareholder profits is entirely another story.

Trying to push all the costs directly onto consumers who are already broke as hell doesn't generally equal a stable and well-thought plan.

We need FDR-level of infrastructure and investment into clean and renewable energy, so it can become a feasible reality. Otherwise, we can expect to keep guzzling down the oil from the Saudi's nether regions.
 
2014-03-07 08:03:16 PM  

sufferpuppet: Savings over 20 years.. 20K. Cost of enough panels to power my house 40k-50k. Back to burning tires for me.


$5 x 20 years = $100,000.
 
2014-03-07 08:16:05 PM  

vernonFL: We invested

wasted well over $1 trillion over 10 years in Iraq and Afghanistan. I think about that every time a see a report about why something can't be done or we don't have the budget or it will take too long, etc...

FTFM.
 
2014-03-07 08:20:00 PM  

Jimmysolson: Destructor: Hollie Maea: Destructor: Nuclear power & Reprocessing.

Too expensive.

Looking at the levelized cost (most affected by taxes). But looking at the actual cost, transmission distances, land savings in term of power density, and reliability, it becomes hard to beat.

If you really want to leave a tiny ecological foot print, nuclear is the only way to go.

Except for that little problem with accidents, natural disasters, spent fuel storage and whatnot.
Nuclear is some pretty scary shiat.


Scarier than Natural Gas?   http://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/comm/reports/safety/AllPSI.html?nocache=7 7 26#_ngdistrib  ?  Just how many deaths attributed to `radiation events' from the inception of Nuclear Navy/U.S. Commercial nuclear power, until present?

The Integral Fast Reactor was developed and perfected at Argonne West (Idaho National Labs) at a cost to the taxpayer of 20 Billion (1984-1994) - cut short of completion by 2 yrs owing to Kerry in the Senate (appeasing greens) and Clinton (looking to be a `budget cutter' as the Contract with America rabble was on the way to the House). The reprocessing of spent fuel demonstration wasn't completed; all high level spent fuel/as well as depleted Uranium stocks can be reused - until nothing remains but an easily vitrified (`glass beads') product with a `dangerous half-life of only 300yrs.  The IFR was a passive safety design - via the physics of the process itself - no human intervention required to shut it down (too hot, too many thermal neutrons escape the core, fission can't be sustained). This was demonstrated a couple of months before Chernobyl.  The IFR had both the external cooling & electricity cut-off and the staff just sat and watched.  Then they went to lunch.
http://www.ne.anl.gov/About/hn/logos-winter02-psr.shtml   The IFR was no science project, GE still has reactor design (PRISM) based on IFR specs ready to go.

Breeders are renewables (just not passive in the process of renewal) and are zero emission.  Keep in mind, every time the Columbia River starts to dry up, the System has to buy additional electricity from coal fired plants.  Sun doesn't shine/wind don't blow?  Yeah, Nat. Gas is the ticket, right?  Keep developing all zero emission means - I just mean ALL zero emission generation.

Oh, just thought it would be interesting to point out, as you'll never see it in the MSM.  What happened at Tohoku's  Onagawa Nuclear facility (closest 3 reactors to the epicenter of quake)?  IAEA inspected in 2012.  Conclusion?  Not much (locals washed out of their homes took up residence the plant's staff gym for weeks afterwards):   http://www.iaea.org/newscenter/focus/actionplan/reports/onagawa0413.p d f
 
2014-03-07 08:22:05 PM  

10 sec rule applies to pudding too: Not sure if they are taking this into account, but the major problem is how much you have to oversize the power sources. Minnesota has 60% onshore wind and 19% offshore wind (on a lake???). But the wind doesn't always blow. And when it doesn't blow you lost 79 percent of your power. And if this is at night, you lost another 20% of your power. Leaving you with essentially ZERO power production.
Obviously you cannot get solar power at night, so you have to have the ability to get at least 100% of your power needs from non-solar sources. The same for wind when it doesn't blow, etc. You cannot get rid of fossil fuel production because it is the ONLY 100% reliable source (not including maintenance.)


Get this: what if we built the solar and wind and only used the fossil fuel as a backup on the rare occasions when nothing else would work?

Alternatively, we could just burn all the fossil fuels now and then when they are gone just throw up our hands and give up.
 
2014-03-07 08:29:27 PM  
OK, I looked at Virginia and can someone explain this statement on the page to me:

Using WWS electricity for everything, instead of burning fuel, and improving efficiency means you need much less energy

Then they inexplicably show a 40% drop in energy demand.  What demand are they referring to?  If you improve the efficiency of cars (via electric cars) while still using fossil fuels to generate electricity, then you're also using less energy.  If you're just increasing the efficiency of the power plant, then the actual demand hasn't gone down, you're just providing it in a more efficient manner.

So I guess I'm asking "you need much less energy" to do what?  Where are they getting that 40% drop from, and wouldn't it apply regardless of what's providing the power?  That seems to be a huge part of their calculation, I'm just wondering where it's coming from.
 
2014-03-07 08:53:13 PM  
Surpheon:  We probably have a good 30 year bridge to get to a sustainable basis

Said people forty years ago.
 
2014-03-07 08:53:35 PM  

Hollie Maea: 10 sec rule applies to pudding too: Not sure if they are taking this into account, but the major problem is how much you have to oversize the power sources. Minnesota has 60% onshore wind and 19% offshore wind (on a lake???). But the wind doesn't always blow. And when it doesn't blow you lost 79 percent of your power. And if this is at night, you lost another 20% of your power. Leaving you with essentially ZERO power production.
Obviously you cannot get solar power at night, so you have to have the ability to get at least 100% of your power needs from non-solar sources. The same for wind when it doesn't blow, etc. You cannot get rid of fossil fuel production because it is the ONLY 100% reliable source (not including maintenance.)

Get this: what if we built the solar and wind and only used the fossil fuel as a backup on the rare occasions when nothing else would work?

Alternatively, we could just burn all the fossil fuels now and then when they are gone just throw up our hands and give up.


Yeah, but decentralizing power means that people might not do what rich people say.
 
2014-03-07 08:57:15 PM  

FLMountainMan: Surpheon:  We probably have a good 30 year bridge to get to a sustainable basis

Said people forty years ago.


No...let me FTFY. Forty years ago people were saying we have a good 30 year bridge to get to sustainable fusion. Big difference. Huge.
 
2014-03-07 09:00:38 PM  

lewismarktwo: Yeah, but decentralizing power means that people might not do what rich people say.


Somewhat more critically:

1) FWIH, most of the cost of bringing you power is infrastructure.  So requiring people to buy power back from you at the non-wholesale cost is really stupid.
2) There's also some serious problems with powering the grid off of 10's of thousands of uncontrolled, randomly going up and down power sources.  Like 2003 blackout problems*.  And "Electrical Engineers already drink too much/fark that math" problems.

*This is not to be read as saying that solar power causes blackouts, but that random uncontrolled power spikes and dips cause blackouts.
 
2014-03-07 09:14:54 PM  

HST's Dead Carcass: Aren't you listening? This is totally unfeasible and is not supposed to work! OMG! ...


It doesn't. A 3.8Kw panel is too small to power a water heater, stove, clothes dryer, or heat in even the tiniest of homes, much less everything else you have.

All modern houses are built with 22Kw service for this exact reason.
 
2014-03-07 09:26:50 PM  

Crazy Lee: Jimmysolson: Destructor: Hollie Maea: Destructor: Nuclear power & Reprocessing.

Too expensive.

Looking at the levelized cost (most affected by taxes). But looking at the actual cost, transmission distances, land savings in term of power density, and reliability, it becomes hard to beat.

If you really want to leave a tiny ecological foot print, nuclear is the only way to go.

Except for that little problem with accidents, natural disasters, spent fuel storage and whatnot.
Nuclear is some pretty scary shiat.

Scarier than Natural Gas?   http://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/comm/reports/safety/AllPSI.html?nocache=7 7 26#_ngdistrib  ?  Just how many deaths attributed to `radiation events' from the inception of Nuclear Navy/U.S. Commercial nuclear power, until present?

The Integral Fast Reactor was developed and perfected at Argonne West (Idaho National Labs) at a cost to the taxpayer of 20 Billion (1984-1994) - cut short of completion by 2 yrs owing to Kerry in the Senate (appeasing greens) and Clinton (looking to be a `budget cutter' as the Contract with America rabble was on the way to the House). The reprocessing of spent fuel demonstration wasn't completed; all high level spent fuel/as well as depleted Uranium stocks can be reused - until nothing remains but an easily vitrified (`glass beads') product with a `dangerous half-life of only 300yrs.  The IFR was a passive safety design - via the physics of the process itself - no human intervention required to shut it down (too hot, too many thermal neutrons escape the core, fission can't be sustained). This was demonstrated a couple of months before Chernobyl.  The IFR had both the external cooling & electricity cut-off and the staff just sat and watched.  Then they went to lunch.
http://www.ne.anl.gov/About/hn/logos-winter02-psr.shtml   The IFR was no science project, GE still has reactor design (PRISM) based on IFR specs ready to go.

Breeders are renewables (just not passive in the process of renewal) and are zero emissio ...


Perhaps I should have said, nuclear is some pretty scary shiat to those of us who don't know much about it.
I'd guess there are a lot of us.
 
2014-03-07 09:31:19 PM  

MrSteve007: My first check from my utility for my solar power:
[fbcdn-sphotos-c-a.akamaihd.net image 720x684]

That's great and all, but very few people will ever get paid $.56 per kilowatt hour when the electric company sells it for .09 per kilo.

And I really want to know what you use for heat, cooking, and hot water.

I really want to know how you charge a car with a 3.8kw panel when all the chargers I see are at least 7 kw all by themselves.

 
2014-03-07 09:41:46 PM  

Dwindle: HST's Dead Carcass: Aren't you listening? This is totally unfeasible and is not supposed to work! OMG! ...

It doesn't. A 3.8Kw panel is too small to power a water heater, stove, clothes dryer, or heat in even the tiniest of homes, much less everything else you have.

All modern houses are built with 22Kw service for this exact reason.


Way to be behind the times. Heat pump water heater: 700 watts. Mini-split heat pump: 250-1,200 watts (variable). Condensing dryer: 700 watts. LED lighting, 300 watts (if every light was left on). Even if you ran all of these loads at once, you're still way below 3.8 KW.

Most of these loads are off at night or on lower levels while at work during the day. When you average out total production and total consumption, they end up being about equal.
 
2014-03-07 09:42:37 PM  

People_are_Idiots: We pour more money into education than private schools do, and they get a better product.


Fail and more fail. I'd have a "better product" too if I were able to pick the ingredients, something private schools always do. Ever heard of anyone being turned away from a public school? No, you haven't, and that's because we figured out a long time ago that every citizen child gets the chance to go, and that means EVERY.

There's also a lists of costs that public schools have that private schools don't, such as security, crime prevention, surveillance patrols, counseling and sometimes treatment for everything from learning disabilities to drug abuse to mental, emotional and physical abuse and handicaps to hunger, and all of it must be dealt with along with issues most private school students (and you, apparently) could never imagine.

All that costs money. A private school they can always turn your child's application down, no reason necessary, and they can keep those things out.

When you pick the ingredients, you get the cake you want. When someone shoves you into the kitchen and says "make something", you work with what's there. So you can take your "better product" (as if children were "things" to be made in a factory) and shove it up your ass, sideways.
 
2014-03-07 09:43:57 PM  

Dwindle: MrSteve007: My first check from my utility for my solar power:
[fbcdn-sphotos-c-a.akamaihd.net image 720x684]

That's great and all, but very few people will ever get paid $.56 per kilowatt hour when the electric company sells it for .09 per kilo.

And I really want to know what you use for heat, cooking, and hot water.

I really want to know how you charge a car with a 3.8kw panel when all the chargers I see are at least 7 kw all by themselves.


When at home, I only charge from 110v with the stock 1.2 KW built in charger that plugs into outlets..
 
2014-03-07 09:48:00 PM  

PunGent: As opposed to the oil, coal, and nuclear subsidies, which are much larger than those for solar?


The subsidies for solar are larger than all three combined.
The guy is getting paid $.56 for what the electric company is selling for $.10.
No power plant on Earth has a subsidy like that.
 
2014-03-07 09:56:20 PM  

Lsherm: Then they inexplicably show a 40% drop in energy demand.  What demand are they referring to?


From American manufacturing demand, or lack thereof.
 
2014-03-07 10:10:04 PM  
MrSteve007:

Way to be behind the times. Heat pump water heater: 700 watts. Mini-split heat pump: 250-1,200 watts (variable). Condensing dryer: 700 watts. LED lighting, 300 watts (if every light was left on). Even if you ran all of these loads at once, you're still way below 3.8 KW.

I don't know of a heat pump water heater that runs on anything less that 1800 watts. Most are over 3500, and thats for a 50 gallon, which is about as small as people ever use.
A mini split heater at 1500 watts would put out less than 6,000 btu, not even enough to heat a large bedroom.
I have no idea what a 700 watt condensate dryer is, because I can't find one online.

What you cook with?
 
2014-03-07 11:07:01 PM  
We lost 12 years not re-tooling for hydrogen.
 
2014-03-07 11:24:09 PM  

MrSteve007: As I've said on fark many times before - almost everything directly in my life is powered by solar power: house, work, car. If I can do that in perpetually cloudy Seattle, anyone can.

My full return on investment will be July 2017 - a little over three years from now. After that, every watt I generate is money in my pocket. Considering most of the equipment is warrantied for another 22 years - I expect to save a load of cash.


Got some links to the stuff you use? I'm looking to do that (or at least supply as much of my own power as possible) when we get our house. But I have no idea where to start. 

/off to the east of you.
 
2014-03-07 11:25:33 PM  

meyerkev: lewismarktwo: Yeah, but decentralizing power means that people might not do what rich people say.

Somewhat more critically:

1) FWIH, most of the cost of bringing you power is infrastructure.  So requiring people to buy power back from you at the non-wholesale cost is really stupid.
2) There's also some serious problems with powering the grid off of 10's of thousands of uncontrolled, randomly going up and down power sources.  Like 2003 blackout problems*.  And "Electrical Engineers already drink too much/fark that math" problems.

*This is not to be read as saying that solar power causes blackouts, but that random uncontrolled power spikes and dips cause blackouts.


Ultimately, solar will be what saves the grid. People always talk about how doomed the grid is if there is intermittent generation. But this is just as true for loads as well. If there is a big change in the loads, the grid has to react to that. So we use small but agile generators to react. Generally natural gas.

But there is nothing quicker than a solar panel. There is no technical reason why a solar panel has to be full pen all the time. A solar panel has an inverter that can output anything up to full power. In fact, it can even output reduce power if it is built for that. So in the future, solar panels (with micro inverters on each module) and high speed communications will give the grid just what it needs. The ultimate balancing system.

From a technical standpoint, this could happen today. The barriers are economic and policy related. Since solar panels are still barely cost effective, they keep them wide open all the time. With current penetration levels, that's fine. As prices keep going down, we'll get more flexibility. And policy makers can assign values to things like grid stabilization services, reactive power, etc. The communication systems are being developed anyway, and all of those inverter features are pretty trivial to implement.

So don't believe the hype about solar bringing doom to the grid. The opposite is true.
 
2014-03-08 02:02:14 AM  

Dwindle: MrSteve007:

Way to be behind the times. Heat pump water heater: 700 watts. Mini-split heat pump: 250-1,200 watts (variable). Condensing dryer: 700 watts. LED lighting, 300 watts (if every light was left on). Even if you ran all of these loads at once, you're still way below 3.8 KW.

I don't know of a heat pump water heater that runs on anything less that 1800 watts. Most are over 3500, and thats for a 50 gallon, which is about as small as people ever use.
A mini split heater at 1500 watts would put out less than 6,000 btu, not even enough to heat a large bedroom.
I have no idea what a 700 watt condensate dryer is, because I can't find one online.

What you cook with?


As a bachelor, I typically cook with a microwave or crockpot. Although I do have a stovetop and oven, which is little used.

 50 gallon GE Geospring, in heat pump only mode: 550 watts.
http://www.geappliances.com/heat-pump-hot-water-heater/water-heater- fa q.htm

Fujitsu 9,600 btu mini-split, in heating mode: 3.7 amps at 220v: about 800 watts, at full blast. Mine typically uses much less, since it's inverter controlled variable speed.
http://www.fujitsugeneral.com/wallmountedRLS2_specs.htm

in an energy efficient home, 1-ton of heating per 1,000 sq.ft. is more than enough. I've found 9,600 btu to be more than sufficient in a 960 sq.ft. home in mild Western WA State. Like I said, time for you to update your info on energy efficiency.
 
2014-03-08 12:33:41 PM  

rewind2846: People_are_Idiots: We pour more money into education than private schools do, and they get a better product.

Fail and more fail. I'd have a "better product" too if I were able to pick the ingredients, something private schools always do. Ever heard of anyone being turned away from a public school? No, you haven't, and that's because we figured out a long time ago that every citizen child gets the chance to go, and that means EVERY.

There's also a lists of costs that public schools have that private schools don't, such as security, crime prevention, surveillance patrols, counseling and sometimes treatment for everything from learning disabilities to drug abuse to mental, emotional and physical abuse and handicaps to hunger, and all of it must be dealt with along with issues most private school students (and you, apparently) could never imagine.

All that costs money. A private school they can always turn your child's application down, no reason necessary, and they can keep those things out.

When you pick the ingredients, you get the cake you want. When someone shoves you into the kitchen and says "make something", you work with what's there. So you can take your "better product" (as if children were "things" to be made in a factory) and shove it up your ass, sideways.


Like how you picked how much you quoted. The Japanese are under a similar "private school" mentality by cramming all they can by the time they are in 8th grade to graduate with as much knowledge as a 12th grader here. As far as "kids in a factory," Kids are a product that need to learn at the least basic skills by the time they are in 8th. Depending where you live, that can be from 50% to 80%.
 
2014-03-08 01:12:14 PM  

People_are_Idiots: The Japanese are under a similar "private school" mentality by cramming all they can by the time they are in 8th grade to graduate with as much knowledge as a 12th grader here. As far as "kids in a factory," Kids are a product that need to learn at the least basic skills by the time they are in 8th. Depending where you live, that can be from 50% to 80%.


1. Children are not a "product", they are human beings. The fact that there are people who feel otherwise is one of the major failings of the system.

2. The Japanese students (for the most part) still don't have to deal with the crap that american students do. With a nearly homogenous culture, language, religion and social structure they ARE a "private school" environment. And while "cramming in knowledge" is fine and dandy, were I hiring someone I would be less interested in what they know and more interested in what they could figure out. Asian school systems are notorious for stifling "outside the box" thinking, reflecting the larger culture in which they reside.

"The nail that sticks up must be hammered down" is a phrase I learned from one of my Japanese friends way back in the 80's, and a lot of their society is still like that today. You do well not just out of a sense of self, but because the community expects it.

3. Japanese are actually WILLING to spend money on things like schools, infrastructure, trains and other things that benefit the public good, unlike the United States where it's all about "ME". That also contributes to their ability to teach their children.  There, like a good chunk of Europe, it does indeed "take a village to raise a child".
 
2014-03-08 01:43:49 PM  

People_are_Idiots: The Japanese are under a similar "private school" mentality by cramming all they can by the time they are in 8th grade to graduate with as much knowledge as a 12th grader here.


One more thing... Japanese public schools are funded much differently than schools here, with half the funding coming from the federal government, and the other half coming from the local prefecture (analogous to state). Schools also get HUGE discounts on equipment and supplies and even building materials from local companies because those companies realize that the students will be working for them someday, unlike here where price gouging on contracts between private companies and school districts is fairly common. They also fund their schools in their national budget FIRST, as a priority, before defense and other spending.

There's also pretty much one set of standards for public education for the whole country, unlike the US where each state, each city, each county, and each school district just HAS to set up their own standards in their own kingdom according to their own ideology. There are posts on FARK about this all the time, with the bible-thumping crazies in the south wanting to teach kids that Jesus rode dinosaurs and that the earth is only 6,000 years old and that fossils were placed in the ground to test peoples faith... in PUBLIC schools, in 2014.
If government tried to impose one set of standards even across a state, people would sh*t themselves. Across the entire country, and there might be civil war.

Can't really compare the two systems. Theirs is mostly "US", where ours is mostly "ME". Makes a big difference.
 
Displayed 319 of 319 comments

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
On Twitter





Top Commented
Javascript is required to view headlines in widget.

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