Local solar farm
- Thread starter OVERKILL
- Start date
- Status
http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn70...ml#.VQVEfXyUeSp
http://www.up.ethz.ch/education/term_paper/termpaper_hs07/Farrer_rev_termpaper_hs07.pdf
You have to take a hit of 2-4 decades of emissions (remember methane is 24 CO2 equivalents) before you start being "green"...
Doesn't mean it's not the right thing to do.
http://www.up.ethz.ch/education/term_paper/termpaper_hs07/Farrer_rev_termpaper_hs07.pdf
You have to take a hit of 2-4 decades of emissions (remember methane is 24 CO2 equivalents) before you start being "green"...
Doesn't mean it's not the right thing to do.
Originally Posted By: turtlevette
I know you are too smart to believe what you just posted.
You know there are many poisons generated by coal on TOP of CO2. Science should stand alone and not be perverted by politics. I see smart people on here supporting agendas and their forum buddies to the extent that they post things they don't really believe and know to be untrue. It's just plain dishonest.
Problem with the thought process that you display turtle is that if something's not black, than it HAS to be white.
And that's not how the universe works...everything is on a grey scale.
Acknowledging that is not dishonest...defining everything as either evil or good, black or white, is dishonest.
I know you are too smart to believe what you just posted.
You know there are many poisons generated by coal on TOP of CO2. Science should stand alone and not be perverted by politics. I see smart people on here supporting agendas and their forum buddies to the extent that they post things they don't really believe and know to be untrue. It's just plain dishonest.
Problem with the thought process that you display turtle is that if something's not black, than it HAS to be white.
And that's not how the universe works...everything is on a grey scale.
Acknowledging that is not dishonest...defining everything as either evil or good, black or white, is dishonest.
Originally Posted By: Shannow
http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn70...ml#.VQVEfXyUeSp
http://www.up.ethz.ch/education/term_paper/termpaper_hs07/Farrer_rev_termpaper_hs07.pdf
You have to take a hit of 2-4 decades of emissions (remember methane is 24 CO2 equivalents) before you start being "green"...
Doesn't mean it's not the right thing to do.
A lot of hand waving going on in that paper. It has a political feel calling out names of countries and such. A lot of areas in the US that were flooded were deserts with almost no plant matter.
They neglected to mention that algae feed on decaying matter and that algae create oxygen. But that would be counter to the agenda they set out to prove.
It's like the oil companies claiming the ocean floor leaks more oil on an ongoing basis than they have ever spilled. Lots of hand waving going on in those calcs too. And it's impossible to quantify.
I'm just glad I am not, nor ever will, be anyone's tool.
http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn70...ml#.VQVEfXyUeSp
http://www.up.ethz.ch/education/term_paper/termpaper_hs07/Farrer_rev_termpaper_hs07.pdf
You have to take a hit of 2-4 decades of emissions (remember methane is 24 CO2 equivalents) before you start being "green"...
Doesn't mean it's not the right thing to do.
A lot of hand waving going on in that paper. It has a political feel calling out names of countries and such. A lot of areas in the US that were flooded were deserts with almost no plant matter.
They neglected to mention that algae feed on decaying matter and that algae create oxygen. But that would be counter to the agenda they set out to prove.
It's like the oil companies claiming the ocean floor leaks more oil on an ongoing basis than they have ever spilled. Lots of hand waving going on in those calcs too. And it's impossible to quantify.
I'm just glad I am not, nor ever will, be anyone's tool.
Originally Posted By: turtlevette
Originally Posted By: Shannow
http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn70...ml#.VQVEfXyUeSp
http://www.up.ethz.ch/education/term_paper/termpaper_hs07/Farrer_rev_termpaper_hs07.pdf
You have to take a hit of 2-4 decades of emissions (remember methane is 24 CO2 equivalents) before you start being "green"...
Doesn't mean it's not the right thing to do.
A lot of hand waving going on in that paper. It has a political feel calling out names of countries and such. A lot of areas in the US that were flooded were deserts with almost no plant matter.
They neglected to mention that algae feed on decaying matter and that algae create oxygen. But that would be counter to the agenda they set out to prove.
Try this one...it has pictures.
http://www.up.ethz.ch/education/term_paper/termpaper_hs07/Farrer_rev_termpaper_hs07.pdf
Note measurement...actual measurement.
Originally Posted By: Shannow
http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn70...ml#.VQVEfXyUeSp
http://www.up.ethz.ch/education/term_paper/termpaper_hs07/Farrer_rev_termpaper_hs07.pdf
You have to take a hit of 2-4 decades of emissions (remember methane is 24 CO2 equivalents) before you start being "green"...
Doesn't mean it's not the right thing to do.
A lot of hand waving going on in that paper. It has a political feel calling out names of countries and such. A lot of areas in the US that were flooded were deserts with almost no plant matter.
They neglected to mention that algae feed on decaying matter and that algae create oxygen. But that would be counter to the agenda they set out to prove.
Try this one...it has pictures.
http://www.up.ethz.ch/education/term_paper/termpaper_hs07/Farrer_rev_termpaper_hs07.pdf
Note measurement...actual measurement.
Originally Posted By: Shannow
Originally Posted By: turtlevette
Originally Posted By: Shannow
http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn70...ml#.VQVEfXyUeSp
http://www.up.ethz.ch/education/term_paper/termpaper_hs07/Farrer_rev_termpaper_hs07.pdf
You have to take a hit of 2-4 decades of emissions (remember methane is 24 CO2 equivalents) before you start being "green"...
Doesn't mean it's not the right thing to do.
A lot of hand waving going on in that paper. It has a political feel calling out names of countries and such. A lot of areas in the US that were flooded were deserts with almost no plant matter.
They neglected to mention that algae feed on decaying matter and that algae create oxygen. But that would be counter to the agenda they set out to prove.
Try this one...it has pictures.
http://www.up.ethz.ch/education/term_paper/termpaper_hs07/Farrer_rev_termpaper_hs07.pdf
Note measurement...actual measurement.
Maybe they should capture the CH4 released from the water at the turbine?
The other problem with reservoirs around here atleast, is the high natural mercury concentrations in the water from flooding land.
I think the best solution would be to reduce energy consumption, with simple tech like solar hot water heaters, LED lighting, and home design. Also maybe hold an X prize type competition for a simple single home scale energy storage system. Then 5-10kw of solar panels on a roof with no connection to the grid maybe the cheapest option of all.
Originally Posted By: turtlevette
Originally Posted By: Shannow
http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn70...ml#.VQVEfXyUeSp
http://www.up.ethz.ch/education/term_paper/termpaper_hs07/Farrer_rev_termpaper_hs07.pdf
You have to take a hit of 2-4 decades of emissions (remember methane is 24 CO2 equivalents) before you start being "green"...
Doesn't mean it's not the right thing to do.
A lot of hand waving going on in that paper. It has a political feel calling out names of countries and such. A lot of areas in the US that were flooded were deserts with almost no plant matter.
They neglected to mention that algae feed on decaying matter and that algae create oxygen. But that would be counter to the agenda they set out to prove.
Try this one...it has pictures.
http://www.up.ethz.ch/education/term_paper/termpaper_hs07/Farrer_rev_termpaper_hs07.pdf
Note measurement...actual measurement.
Maybe they should capture the CH4 released from the water at the turbine?
The other problem with reservoirs around here atleast, is the high natural mercury concentrations in the water from flooding land.
I think the best solution would be to reduce energy consumption, with simple tech like solar hot water heaters, LED lighting, and home design. Also maybe hold an X prize type competition for a simple single home scale energy storage system. Then 5-10kw of solar panels on a roof with no connection to the grid maybe the cheapest option of all.
They have all kinds of wind power around me. There are 5 nukes within 100 miles of me. The company running them wants to shut three of them down as they cannot compete with natural gas.
30% of my power comes from wind.
I think the answer is consumer based solar production. As long as you have Net Metering it will pay for itself. No need for a big whole house 10kwh system. Start small and add on. Any power you produce cuts your bill.
30% of my power comes from wind.
I think the answer is consumer based solar production. As long as you have Net Metering it will pay for itself. No need for a big whole house 10kwh system. Start small and add on. Any power you produce cuts your bill.
Originally Posted By: SHOZ
I think the answer is consumer based solar production. As long as you have Net Metering it will pay for itself. No need for a big whole house 10kwh system. Start small and add on. Any power you produce cuts your bill.
Maintenance and solar panel degredation makes this a no-starter. Look into it and do the math. You'll see.
I think the answer is consumer based solar production. As long as you have Net Metering it will pay for itself. No need for a big whole house 10kwh system. Start small and add on. Any power you produce cuts your bill.
Maintenance and solar panel degredation makes this a no-starter. Look into it and do the math. You'll see.
Originally Posted By: Shannow
Try this one...it has pictures.
http://www.up.ethz.ch/education/term_paper/termpaper_hs07/Farrer_rev_termpaper_hs07.pdf
Note measurement...actual measurement.
No, I'm not clicking on any more. It's a term paper by a student. In the conclusion she admonishes 2 established scientists for having the wrong numbers. That's shannow kind of arrogance.
It's a term paper for school not a real paper being presented at a conference. Do you understand that? Or do you hope no one noticed? The more you persist in this the more you get the reputation for being a spinster. You know, taking something grey and trying to convince people it's black or white.
Try this one...it has pictures.
http://www.up.ethz.ch/education/term_paper/termpaper_hs07/Farrer_rev_termpaper_hs07.pdf
Note measurement...actual measurement.
No, I'm not clicking on any more. It's a term paper by a student. In the conclusion she admonishes 2 established scientists for having the wrong numbers. That's shannow kind of arrogance.
It's a term paper for school not a real paper being presented at a conference. Do you understand that? Or do you hope no one noticed? The more you persist in this the more you get the reputation for being a spinster. You know, taking something grey and trying to convince people it's black or white.
Originally Posted By: SHOZ
Nonsense. I can get for a $1500 a plug in 1000w solar setup . It would pay for itself in 5 years without credits. Set it on the ground south side of my house. What's the maintenance?
Nonsense, you won't get nett metering...at least not for long...as I stated before, they (in Oz) skewed the market by offering 15 times the wholesale, and more than double the retail, and now are offering 6c (1.5 times wholesale), and about to make everyone move their panels off true North to match the evening peak.
Soon, due to stability, they will be requiring advanced inverters to provide frequency control locally (will require some of the panel's capacity being held in reserve to provide some additional grunt during a ride through), downstream fault detection/trip (having solar generation downstream of fault protection devices increases the local levels of a fault).
As I pointed out previously, you can only have so much unscheduled, non dispatchable generation in a system before stability becomes an issue.
For those early adopters on double the retail feed in tarrif, they have to pay income tax on their earning over their usage...and soon, revenue from solar will all be taxable as income.
Nonsense. I can get for a $1500 a plug in 1000w solar setup . It would pay for itself in 5 years without credits. Set it on the ground south side of my house. What's the maintenance?
Nonsense, you won't get nett metering...at least not for long...as I stated before, they (in Oz) skewed the market by offering 15 times the wholesale, and more than double the retail, and now are offering 6c (1.5 times wholesale), and about to make everyone move their panels off true North to match the evening peak.
Soon, due to stability, they will be requiring advanced inverters to provide frequency control locally (will require some of the panel's capacity being held in reserve to provide some additional grunt during a ride through), downstream fault detection/trip (having solar generation downstream of fault protection devices increases the local levels of a fault).
As I pointed out previously, you can only have so much unscheduled, non dispatchable generation in a system before stability becomes an issue.
For those early adopters on double the retail feed in tarrif, they have to pay income tax on their earning over their usage...and soon, revenue from solar will all be taxable as income.
We already have Net Metering here in Illinois. I talked to the coop who delivers the power. Basically until I use some juice from the power company I only am responsible for the standard meter hook up fee.
Anything produced is used at my home or surplus is back fed into the grid. if there is no draw on the grid, there is no change. If I were to ever make more than I use for the month, then I get about half of retail for the kwhs produced. Around $.06 per kwh.
Anything produced is used at my home or surplus is back fed into the grid. if there is no draw on the grid, there is no change. If I were to ever make more than I use for the month, then I get about half of retail for the kwhs produced. Around $.06 per kwh.
yep, as I said, there's incentives for early adopters...here it was more than double the retail tarriff.
And as people get in, they change the rules, a group of people who based their investment decisions on 40c/KWHr suddenly found that they were getting 4c, two year in...wrecking theit whole investment strategy.
Those whose contracts stayed at 40c(or 60 for the early ones) are charged income tax, and have pension cuts if on pensions due to the income.
Yep, when they are trying to incentivise you in, they will...and nett metering is one...
When it becomes burdonsome on the grid, your install costs will triple, your benefits will be wholesale offset, and the tax man will want a piece...just saying what's happening elsewhere.
And as people get in, they change the rules, a group of people who based their investment decisions on 40c/KWHr suddenly found that they were getting 4c, two year in...wrecking theit whole investment strategy.
Those whose contracts stayed at 40c(or 60 for the early ones) are charged income tax, and have pension cuts if on pensions due to the income.
Yep, when they are trying to incentivise you in, they will...and nett metering is one...
When it becomes burdonsome on the grid, your install costs will triple, your benefits will be wholesale offset, and the tax man will want a piece...just saying what's happening elsewhere.
Well it's what it is. I don't think they will change the rules. It's been like this about 5 years since they deregulated the whole works.
Now the producers, suppliers and delivery is all done by different companies. It is why the nuke operators are crying in their beer as they now are the highest cost suppliers. Part of that breakup, which they wanted, is tied to the Net Metering.
Now the producers, suppliers and delivery is all done by different companies. It is why the nuke operators are crying in their beer as they now are the highest cost suppliers. Part of that breakup, which they wanted, is tied to the Net Metering.
Originally Posted By: SHOZ
Nonsense. I can get for a $1500 a plug in 1000w solar setup . It would pay for itself in 5 years without credits. Set it on the ground south side of my house. What's the maintenance?
[censored]. Total cost is about $8,000/kw which includes installation and metering. I will give you the benefit of the doubt and say you can do it for $5000/KWH installed.
In Cali you get 1200 times the installed KWH per year. In Illinois you are lucky to get 1000 times.
So in 1 year at 12 cents/kw you will get $120 worth of electricity/year. Panels degrade at 1%/year. You are likely not gonna have this system for 15 years so your net is (120 x 15) -5000 = - $3200 lossper KWH installed. This is unrealistic though
Using your numbers you would be up $300/KWH assuming zero problems and a cost of $1500/KW. Do the math and use your brain instead of the solar peddlers. I have seen 2 real life examples. Its not working out.
Nonsense. I can get for a $1500 a plug in 1000w solar setup . It would pay for itself in 5 years without credits. Set it on the ground south side of my house. What's the maintenance?
[censored]. Total cost is about $8,000/kw which includes installation and metering. I will give you the benefit of the doubt and say you can do it for $5000/KWH installed.
In Cali you get 1200 times the installed KWH per year. In Illinois you are lucky to get 1000 times.
So in 1 year at 12 cents/kw you will get $120 worth of electricity/year. Panels degrade at 1%/year. You are likely not gonna have this system for 15 years so your net is (120 x 15) -5000 = - $3200 lossper KWH installed. This is unrealistic though
Using your numbers you would be up $300/KWH assuming zero problems and a cost of $1500/KW. Do the math and use your brain instead of the solar peddlers. I have seen 2 real life examples. Its not working out.
Originally Posted By: Bladecutter
Solar, wind, and hydro should be used in conjunction with nuclear, nat gas, oil, and coal.
Why?
Because one day, we will have raped the earth, and there won't be any coal, nat gas, oil, and nuclear fuel left, and if we wait until that point to build wind, solar, and hydro, we will have to pay many factors more to build those types of power plants.
Can you deny this simple truth?
BC.
You really think humans are going to continue on for hundreds of years on the current path? Of course not you point out how much better solar panels are. In 50-100 years we're either going to have super intelligent computers doing things we can't currently imagine or the population will be a less than a couple billion because of some cataclysm.
It's foolish to even propose you'll be able to use up all hydrocarbons. Two of the most abundant things on the planet. You can simply make more.
When solar panels cost what shingles do everyone will have them on their roof.
Solar, wind, and hydro should be used in conjunction with nuclear, nat gas, oil, and coal.
Why?
Because one day, we will have raped the earth, and there won't be any coal, nat gas, oil, and nuclear fuel left, and if we wait until that point to build wind, solar, and hydro, we will have to pay many factors more to build those types of power plants.
Can you deny this simple truth?
BC.
You really think humans are going to continue on for hundreds of years on the current path? Of course not you point out how much better solar panels are. In 50-100 years we're either going to have super intelligent computers doing things we can't currently imagine or the population will be a less than a couple billion because of some cataclysm.
It's foolish to even propose you'll be able to use up all hydrocarbons. Two of the most abundant things on the planet. You can simply make more.
When solar panels cost what shingles do everyone will have them on their roof.
Last edited:
Originally Posted By: SHOZ
Go one ebay. 4-250w panels and an inverter is for under $1500. And will only get cheaper. Free shipping too.
So you will be able to hook them up and, supply the gear to allow it to tie into the grid? Do you have any idea how much that will cost and what is involved with that. You need a grid-tie inverter you will need someone certified to do the tie-in. The electricity must give permission to hook in after seeing your setup.
My point is the installed cost is not $1500 kw and again as I said you are assuming no maintenance degredation or anything bad happening in 15 years. But have at it. you spending your money is good for the economy. And may actually pump some kw's into the system....thanks.
Go one ebay. 4-250w panels and an inverter is for under $1500. And will only get cheaper. Free shipping too.
So you will be able to hook them up and, supply the gear to allow it to tie into the grid? Do you have any idea how much that will cost and what is involved with that. You need a grid-tie inverter you will need someone certified to do the tie-in. The electricity must give permission to hook in after seeing your setup.
My point is the installed cost is not $1500 kw and again as I said you are assuming no maintenance degredation or anything bad happening in 15 years. But have at it. you spending your money is good for the economy. And may actually pump some kw's into the system....thanks.
Originally Posted By: hatt
You really think humans are going to continue on for hundreds of years on the current path? Of course not you point out how much better solar panels are. In 50-100 years we're either going to have super intelligent computers doing things we can't currently imagine or the population will be a less than a couple billion because of some cataclysm.
It's foolish to even propose you'll be able to use up all hydrocarbons. Two of the most abundant things on the planet. You can simply make more.
When solar panels cost what shingles do everyone will have them on their roof.
We have been consuming hydrocarbons at an increasing rate for a very long time.
The use of today's popular hydrocarbons increases in one location on the planet while it decreases in in a few others, but, the use of those products still release toxins into the atmosphere, and environment.
While I'm not a tree hugging greenie, even I know that as we continue to deforest large parts of the planet, the environment will have a harder and harder time processing all of the various pollutants that we pump into the atmosphere. We also poison the oceans, killing off wildlife, and we pollute our own ground water, and force more and more people to live in sprawling areas as our population grows in areas that were not intended to support as much life as has moved in.
So yes, we will most likely cause some form of calamity, but in 50 years, I'll either be in the ground, or I'll be 90 years old. While I'm not going to have any kids in this lifetime, my 3 sisters all have kids, and I'd rather them not be dead and buried too, in 50 years.
No form of energy production is without some form of toll to something.
Hydro causes damage to the environment when you create the dam, and then send considerably colder water downstream of the dam.
Wind causes damage to the migratory path of flying creatures.
Solar can be taken out by weather.
Coal requires you to first destroy the planet when you rip it out of the ground, and then poison the air when it is burned, and then additionally poisons the ground and water when it rains.
Oil and natural gas is very similar to coal, depending on how you access the stuff in the ground. Fracking isn't the greatest of ideas. And you can't clean the water after it has been forced into the ground in order to release the oil/gas.
Nuclear isn't the best for procuring the fuel, nor disposing of the waste, and let's not even go into details of what happens if you have a major accident at the plant.
Pick your poison.
Literally.
BC.
You really think humans are going to continue on for hundreds of years on the current path? Of course not you point out how much better solar panels are. In 50-100 years we're either going to have super intelligent computers doing things we can't currently imagine or the population will be a less than a couple billion because of some cataclysm.
It's foolish to even propose you'll be able to use up all hydrocarbons. Two of the most abundant things on the planet. You can simply make more.
When solar panels cost what shingles do everyone will have them on their roof.
We have been consuming hydrocarbons at an increasing rate for a very long time.
The use of today's popular hydrocarbons increases in one location on the planet while it decreases in in a few others, but, the use of those products still release toxins into the atmosphere, and environment.
While I'm not a tree hugging greenie, even I know that as we continue to deforest large parts of the planet, the environment will have a harder and harder time processing all of the various pollutants that we pump into the atmosphere. We also poison the oceans, killing off wildlife, and we pollute our own ground water, and force more and more people to live in sprawling areas as our population grows in areas that were not intended to support as much life as has moved in.
So yes, we will most likely cause some form of calamity, but in 50 years, I'll either be in the ground, or I'll be 90 years old. While I'm not going to have any kids in this lifetime, my 3 sisters all have kids, and I'd rather them not be dead and buried too, in 50 years.
No form of energy production is without some form of toll to something.
Hydro causes damage to the environment when you create the dam, and then send considerably colder water downstream of the dam.
Wind causes damage to the migratory path of flying creatures.
Solar can be taken out by weather.
Coal requires you to first destroy the planet when you rip it out of the ground, and then poison the air when it is burned, and then additionally poisons the ground and water when it rains.
Oil and natural gas is very similar to coal, depending on how you access the stuff in the ground. Fracking isn't the greatest of ideas. And you can't clean the water after it has been forced into the ground in order to release the oil/gas.
Nuclear isn't the best for procuring the fuel, nor disposing of the waste, and let's not even go into details of what happens if you have a major accident at the plant.
Pick your poison.
Literally.
BC.
- Status
