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  
•       •       •

7171 clicks; posted to Main » on 07 Mar 2014 at 2:19 PM (2 years ago)   |   Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



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

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | » | Last | Show all
 
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.
 
Displayed 50 of 319 comments

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

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
On Twitter






In Other Media


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

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

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

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report