22 Jun 15
Originally posted by sonhouseI think that is a great link!
Solar is too expensive right now but there is a LOT of research going on looking at other kinds of solar than just silicon and there is a definite trend of solar becoming cheaper year by year.
Look at this series of charts showing the drop in solar over the last 40 odd years:
http://cleantechnica.com/2014/09/04/solar-panel-cost-trends-10-charts/
Th ...[text shortened]... ing hydro power year by year. Hydro is only converting rain water to energy, no rain, no energy.
Even I didn't know the price of solar had gone down that much!
It says:
"...the cost of solar panels today is about 100 times lower than the cost of solar panels in 1977 ..."
And solar is already profitable in some places:
"...the cost of electricity from solar panels is now lower than the cost of retail electricity for most people...."
and it wouldn't be many years before solar will be about as cheap as fossil fuels everywhere:
"...Of course, as you can see in that graph above, the cost of solar is headed towards the wholesale cost of electricity from natural gas… which would actually get utility companies and power plant developers switching to solar in a big way. (The cost of solar power actually varies quite a bit from place to place, and solar has crossed those lines in some locations.)..."
And then, of course, and this is the cherry on the cake, what will happen next is that solar will become cheaper than fossil fuels everywhere; which means at last the stupid rhetoric of "renewables are too expensive" crap ( even thought in many places renewables is already cheaper than fossil fuels and been so for a long time! ) by those prejudiced against renewables will come to an abrupt end. I cannot wait to see what those people will have to say about themselves then!
22 Jun 15
Originally posted by sonhousehttp://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/energy/2010/11/101105-cost-of-solar-energy/
Solar is too expensive right now but there is a LOT of research going on looking at other kinds of solar than just silicon and there is a definite trend of solar becoming cheaper year by year.
Look at this series of charts showing the drop in solar over the last 40 odd years:
http://cleantechnica.com/2014/09/04/solar-panel-cost-trends-10-charts/
Th ...[text shortened]... ing hydro power year by year. Hydro is only converting rain water to energy, no rain, no energy.
I welcome the day when solar is cost effective, but it is not here yet.
22 Jun 15
Originally posted by humyLook at the date the article was written. Compare the price of oil and natural gas from then to now. Even the article I posted is older than the one sonhouse posted. It is only logical to throw all those estimates out the window and start over using present fossil fuel costs.
I think that is a great link!
Even I didn't know the price of solar had gone down that much!
It says:
"...the cost of solar panels today is about 100 times lower than the cost of solar panels in 1977 ..."
And solar is already profitable in some places:
"...the cost of electricity from solar panels is now lower than the cost of retail electricity for ...[text shortened]... to an abrupt end. I cannot wait to see what those people will have to say about themselves then!
22 Jun 15
11 edits
Originally posted by Metal BrainExactly! so the price of solar would be even lower now than what it was then! In fact, that is one reason why there has been a massive expansion in solar development during the oil price fall and despite of it!
Look at the date the article was written.
As for oil prices, they will keep going up and down like they always do; the current lowering of oil price will not last indefinitely, esp if you consider the fact that the world oil reserves will become ever more depleted and this will eventually make the price of oil skyrocket (asp if, hypothetically, we stopped all efforts to go mostly renewable ).
Besides, comparing the electricity production from solar with the price of oil isn't a very relevant comparison because it isn't usually the oil fossil fuel that is used to generate electricity but rather much more often gas and coal. There are some oil-powered electric power stations, yes; but most fossil fuel derived electricity (a little more than 10 times so ) cames from either gas or coal:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_energy_consumption
"...
2012 World electricity generation by fuels
Coal/Peat (40.4% )
Natural Gas (22.5% )
Hydro (16.2% )
Nuclear (10.9% )
Oil (5.0% )
Others (Renew.) (5.0% )
..."
-and even this is ignoring the fact that most oil isn't used to generate electricity but is used for other purposes.
22 Jun 15
Originally posted by humy"Exactly! so the price of solar would be even lower now than what it was then! In fact, that is one reason why there has been a massive expansion in solar development during the oil price fall and despite of it!"
Exactly! so the price of solar would be even lower now than what it was then! In fact, that is one reason why there has been a massive expansion in solar development during the oil price fall and despite of it!
As for oil prices, they will keep going up and down like they always do; the current lowering of oil price will not last indefinitely, esp if you con ...[text shortened]... noring the fact that most oil isn't used to generate electricity but is used for other purposes.
Sept. 4th 2014 was not that long ago so solar is not much lower if at all. How long the price of oil will remain this low is not known. OPEC is keeping production high/prices low to keep fracking in the USA declining. Once prices rise (if they rise) fracking in the USA will increase again keeping oil prices from rising further. OPEC could very well do the same thing over again lowering prices.
There are still lots of automobiles that require gasoline and diesel so that demand will stay high for many years even if solar were to reach parity. Your lawn mowers and weed trimmers will need gasoline too. My chainsaw needs gasoline to run and lots of other engines too numerous to mention throughout society. Your optimism is unjustified.
When oil reserves will become ever more depleted is not clear at all. Many people predicted that would be a big problem by now and that has not happened. New technologies have made oil recovery increase greatly and that may continue. Only about 1/3 of oil used to be recoverable and that is changing because of fracking. Some day that could increase to 2/3 for all we know. That would mean the price of oil would not skyrocket for decades.
The benefits of more cost effective renewables in the future will be limited to mostly electricity for a long time. You can spin it anyway you want. CO2 emissions will continue and the world will not be carbon neutral for at least 50 years and that is a kind estimate. Even if solar becomes more cost effective than fossil fuels it will unlikely last long. OPEC will just increase production to lower oil prices so it can compete with solar much like they are doing now to the fracking here in the USA. You don't think Saudi Arabia will just sit on their oil and not sell it do you? Oil exporting is their big money maker and that is true for other countries like Russia, not just OPEC members.
Solar parity will not last and even if it did gasoline and diesel will remain in high demand despite that. Even if people sell their fossil fueled automobiles for electric powered automobiles they will be sold used to somebody who is willing to buy them. It will not end until they reach the junkyard.
22 Jun 15
Originally posted by humyThe only caveat is the power companies would have to go land grabbing big time, since you only get 5 megawatts per acre maximum solar radiation anywhere on Earth, Gobi Desert and such and then 20% of that, 1 megawatt per acre and maybe 1/3 mw on a 24/7 basis so with those numbers, 1000 acres planted with solar would yield about 300 mw. 10,000 acres, 3 gigawatts. 10 MILLION acres, 3 terawatts. You can see where this leads. So the power companies would pretty much be forced to secure rooftops all over the country to get any kind of large amount of energy. 10 million acres is about the total land area of a state like Pennsylvania or more. And all that for only a few terawatts. So going millions of rooftops seems like the way they would proceed. They could I guess put solar in large areas on the ocean or Great Lakes but that would have it's own infrastructure problems. Salt water corrosion in the ocean, getting covered with snow if on the Great lakes.
I think that is a great link!
Even I didn't know the price of solar had gone down that much!
It says:
"...the cost of solar panels today is about 100 times lower than the cost of solar panels in 1977 ..."
And solar is already profitable in some places:
"...the cost of electricity from solar panels is now lower than the cost of retail electricity for ...[text shortened]... to an abrupt end. I cannot wait to see what those people will have to say about themselves then!
Just picking a number out of my hat, say the US has 100,000,000 homes, each with 1000 square feet of roof space available, you are talking 100 billion square feet.
That seems to work out to roughly 600 gigawatts. That is significant but not enough to make us 100% solar.
22 Jun 15
10 edits
Originally posted by sonhouseI am not sure exactly what you mean here by power companies being "forced to secure" rooftops. That makes it sound like it takes a big effort but, I mean, it isn't as if power companies generally would need to buy rooftops! It would be up to each individual customer that owns the rooftop + perhaps some politicians or local officials to merely give permission to put the solar panel on his rooftop which I wouldn't imagine to be a significant obstacle unless the politicians or local officials make some kind of stupid big deal out of it (which, given their frequent stupidity, wouldn't surprise me that much esp given that I have already seen them do this when my severely disabled mother asked if social services could install just a simple relatively cheap shower unit for her, which I personal didn't think was asking for much ).
... So the power companies would pretty much be forced to secure rooftops all over the country to get any kind of large amount of energy. ....
22 Jun 15
10 edits
Originally posted by Metal Brainif or when (and it is actually clearly "when", not "if", but, just for the sake of augment, never mind that for now ) renewables generally become cheaper than fossil fuels, what would your reason be for rejecting renewables then?
"Exactly! so the price of solar would be even lower now than what it was then! In fact, that is one reason why there has been a massive expansion in solar development during the oil price fall and despite of it!"
Sept. 4th 2014 was not that long ago so solar is not much lower if at all. How long the price of oil will remain this low is not known. OPEC ...[text shortened]... sold used to somebody who is willing to buy them. It will not end until they reach the junkyard.
Or would you say you will support renewables in that eventuality?
You still haven't told us:
How would, like you implied, say, me putting a solar panel on my roof will cause, as you said, "poverty" and "hunger"?
What exactly is the causal chain of events that will go from me putting a solar panel on my roof and someone going hungry?
Exactly WHO will go hungry and why i.e. how does putting a solar panel on my roof take food out of someones mouth?
Does paying to put a big lightning rod on my roof cause the same thing? -if not, what causes the difference in cause and effect?
-obviously, we all know why you will not tell us.
22 Jun 15
Originally posted by humySubsidies require taxation and people are burdened with enough taxation. Forcing taxpayers to pay extra for solar will make poor people poorer. If you read the article from the link I provided you will see that solar is very hard to estimate accurate costs and returns and that is why estimates vary so greatly. Banks are unlikely to grant loans for that reason. They obviously have very little confidence solar can pay for itself in the long term at this time. I hope that will change some day, but I do not think that will happen anytime soon.
if or when (and it is actually clearly "when", not "if", but, just for the sake of augment, never mind that for now ) renewables generally become cheaper than fossil fuels, what would your reason be for rejecting renewables then?
Or would you say you will support renewables in that eventuality?
You still haven't told us:
How would, like you implied, say, ...[text shortened]... causes the difference in cause and effect?
-obviously, we all know why you will not tell us.
People with a lot of money to invest avoid solar like the plague. They are not convinced so I am not either.
Did you invest in solar panels and put them on your rooftop? If you will not do it why would anybody here take that risk? Talk is cheap. Are you doing anything more than talk about it? If not you are full of BS.
22 Jun 15
6 edits
Originally posted by Metal BrainWhat if I put a solar panel on my roof WITHOUT subsidies i.e. paying the FULL price for it?
Subsidies require taxation ....
How then would that cause hunger?
And then, without any subsidy, when over a ~5 year period I make a net saving in money from my electric bill from having it installed on my roof, what would your objection against it be then?
Not only will it not cause hunger but it will still pay for itself.
In addition, if it is subsidized for poor people i.e. putting solar panels on the roofs of houses of poor people, it will economically benefit them by reducing their electric bill thus make them have less hunger. Why not simply tax only the rich for this subsidy so that even the poor people that cannot have panels on their roofs are not taxed or made less well off for it? How then would that make the poor hungry?
When solar becomes so cheap that its cheaper than any fossil fuel, what would your rejection be against solar be then?
Or would you have no rejection?
Forcing taxpayers to pay extra for solar will make poor people poorer.
even if, like it usually is at least in the UK where I am, the poor are not the one's earning enough money to legally made to pay income tax i.e. the poor are generally not the taxpayers? Even if it is the well-off that are made to be the taxpayers? How so?
23 Jun 15
Originally posted by humy"What if I put a solar panel on my roof WITHOUT subsidies i.e. paying the FULL price for it?"
What if I put a solar panel on my roof WITHOUT subsidies i.e. paying the FULL price for it?
How then would that cause hunger?
And then, without any subsidy, when over a ~5 year period I make a net saving in money from my electric bill from having it installed on my roof, what would your objection against it be then?
Not only will it not cause hunger but it w ...[text shortened]... nerally not the taxpayers? Even if it is the well-off that are made to be the taxpayers? How so?
That is what I want you to do. Put your money where your mouth is.
Poor people are taxed with inflation. Here in the USA minimum wage has dropped when adjusted for inflation. The income tax is not the only way to expropriate money.
23 Jun 15
10 edits
Originally posted by Metal BrainThen the problem here is poor people being taxed, NOT solar energy, which isn't the problem.
Poor people are taxed .
The obvious solution is to not tax poor people -a solution that doesn't involve gong against a useful energy source. Preventing people from putting solar panels on their roofs won't solve the problem of poor people being taxed.
Rather than banning a useful source of energy, why no simply ban taxing poor people? Then you can have as much of the useful source of energy as you can have without the poor being taxed.
Poor people are sometimes taxed for road building;
so is the intelligent response to that to stop building roads?
or is the intelligent response to stop taxing poor people?
tell us all which do you think is the most intelligent/best response out of the two above and which is the stupid response...
23 Jun 15
Originally posted by humy"Preventing people from putting solar panels on their roofs won't solve the problem of poor people being taxed."
Then the problem here is poor people being taxed, NOT solar energy, which isn't the problem.
The obvious solution is to not tax poor people -a solution that doesn't involve gong against a useful energy source. Preventing people from putting solar panels on their roofs won't solve the problem of poor people being taxed.
Rather than banning a useful source of e ...[text shortened]... k is the most intelligent/best response out of the two above and which is the stupid response...
Nobody is preventing anybody from putting solar panels on their roofs. If you want solar panels on your roof do it, but don't expect people to help you pay for it. Are you going to put solar panels on your roof or are you going to wait until you get a handout?
Poor people are taxed for lots of things. Just because some poor people don't pay income taxes doesn't mean they don't pay lots of other taxes. Poor people buy gasoline here in the USA and there is a tax on gas on it to pay for road building and repairs. They are already paying for it. The intelligent response is to give them what they are already paying for. Your agenda is to force people to help pay for things they do not need.
Are you going to put your money where your mouth is and buy solar panels or are you waiting for a handout?
23 Jun 15
Originally posted by Metal BrainSo you are against subsidies of any kind for any reason, the government should never be involved with business for any reason? They should never have bailed out GM and such and they never should give subsidies or tax breaks for solar or efficient houses?
"Preventing people from putting solar panels on their roofs won't solve the problem of poor people being taxed."
Nobody is preventing anybody from putting solar panels on their roofs. If you want solar panels on your roof do it, but don't expect people to help you pay for it. Are you going to put solar panels on your roof or are you going to wait unti ...[text shortened]... ing to put your money where your mouth is and buy solar panels or are you waiting for a handout?
23 Jun 15
17 edits
Originally posted by Metal BrainIrrelevant: Your stated 'argument' against solar energy was that solar energy causes hunger and poverty because poor people are taxed for solar energy. My rebut to that, which still stands unchallenged by you, is merely pointing out the fact that, even if that is true, then the problem isn't solar energy but poor people being taxed thus the obvious solution is to not tax poor people, not be against solar energy. Thus your 'argument' for being against solar energy has been completely demolished.
"Preventing people from putting solar panels on their roofs won't solve the problem of poor people being taxed."
Nobody is preventing anybody from putting solar panels on their roofs.
Even if you showed absolute irrefutable proof that all poor people are currently always taxed for solar energy, then you can still only rationally be against poor people being taxed (for anything ), NOT be against solar energy. The solution is still, simply. don't tax poor people.
Poor people buy gasoline here in the USA and there is a tax on gas on it to pay for road building and repairs.
and yet you are not against gasoline DESPITE poor people paying tax on it.
So, if you are not against gasoline if poor people are taxed for it, why are you against solar energy if poor people are taxed for it?
Your stated 'argument' against solar energy was that poor people are (or will be ) taxed for it. But by the some 'logic' then, you should be against the gasoline fossil fuel because poor people are taxed for it. And yet you don't argue this against the gasoline fossil fuel, only argue this against solar energy. Can you explain to us this illogic? Can you explain to me this illogic?