(09-01-2015 08:14 AM)UCF08 Wrote:  If I may offer some unsolicited advice, I would really prefer you and other more reasonable posters to take the time to point out this bait for what it is. Ignoring it only creates the messageboard as it is now, a few reasonable people of different ideologies talking over a nonsensical mostly conservative echo chamber.

I try to point out hypocrisy when I see it. What I found that helps a lot is to get away from some of the trigger words that generate the off the wall responses. There are a number of words that people key on will dismiss the rest of your statements out of hand because people get emotional about a word or a phrase.

(09-01-2015 05:30 AM)miko33 Wrote:  

(08-31-2015 11:15 PM)UCF08 Wrote:  

(08-31-2015 11:06 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(08-31-2015 03:42 PM)Redwingtom Wrote:  Exactly...the program has lost 780 million but made back 810 million in interest...but...Solyndra!

So when cost of capital and opportunity costs are considered, it is a huge loser.

Well those funds are still being repayed, IIRC that's just a portion of the interest so far.

What you and Redwingtom don't understand is that even if the project ends up a net positive, it's still a big loser when you compare it against the opportunity lost by investing the resources in a different project that yields much more benefit from the get go.

Well...sure...if you're thinking the program was just a monetary one...but it's about combating GW and becoming greener as to where you need to judge it. Our point was only that those using the Solyndra failing as evidence of a waste of money and a reason to ****-can the whole project is ludicrous.

Isn't is still way to early to judge the program on the GW part of it?

(09-01-2015 09:16 AM)Redwingtom Wrote:  

(09-01-2015 05:30 AM)miko33 Wrote:  

(08-31-2015 11:15 PM)UCF08 Wrote:  

(08-31-2015 11:06 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(08-31-2015 03:42 PM)Redwingtom Wrote:  Exactly...the program has lost 780 million but made back 810 million in interest...but...Solyndra!

So when cost of capital and opportunity costs are considered, it is a huge loser.

Well those funds are still being repayed, IIRC that's just a portion of the interest so far.

What you and Redwingtom don't understand is that even if the project ends up a net positive, it's still a big loser when you compare it against the opportunity lost by investing the resources in a different project that yields much more benefit from the get go.

Well...sure...if you're thinking the program was just a monetary one...but it's about combating GW and becoming greener as to where you need to judge it. Our point was only that those using the Solyndra failing as evidence of a waste of money and a reason to ****-can the whole project is ludicrous.

Isn't is still way to early to judge the program on the GW part of it?

I can already tell you that reduced CO2 emissions as a result of solar power will not be measurably different. Same with wind farms. It all sounds wonderful until you look and see how much energy can be generated using these methods. Take that and the footprint needed to actually replace a fossil fuel power plant and... it looks more and more untenable. I'm beating a dead horse here, but again the energy density sucks. There is no other way to put it. It's repackaging pre-industrial technology.

Back to the footprint argument for green power. If your only goal is to reduce CO2, then wind and solar will get you some marginal benefit. But, the loss of habitat due to the amount of land needed plus the need for fossil fuel backups makes these alternatives less palatable.

Unlike wind and solar that primarily supplements existing fossil fuel plants, nuclear power can actually REPLACE these plants because of the significantly higher energy density of uranium vs trying to capture energy from the sun or wind. Now I think the power of the sun will ultimately be what we use in the future; however, it will be in the form of a fusion reactor and not from superheating water or a more efficient PV cell.

The most important argument against traditional green energy like solar and wind is that they require other power sources to provide energy whenever they aren't producing the energy themselves. On particularly sunny and windy days, those sources might suffice, but those aren't guaranteed and when they don't happen, we have to rely on carbon emitting sources (usually oil or natural gas IIRC).

(09-01-2015 11:55 AM)UCF08 Wrote:  The most important argument against traditional green energy like solar and wind is that they require other power sources to provide energy whenever they aren't producing the energy themselves. On particularly sunny and windy days, those sources might suffice, but those aren't guaranteed and when they don't happen, we have to rely on carbon emitting sources (usually oil or natural gas IIRC).

Yes, that is the reality of it. It's quite possible that wind and solar could become viable at some point in the future. It is my belief that as of today they are not because there is no way to capitalize on saving excess power on high production days and utilizing stored energy when the sun and wind is not available. This is why these technologies should not have been mainstreamed to the point that they are today. Without the ability to store energy, it will only be supplemental at best. Dedicating such large footprints of land for an energy source that is supplemental is not a wise use of resources at all. Clearly, quid pro quos were exchanged in order for this to have happened on such a wide scale. The last statement is just my opinion.

Inevitable improvements in solar collection, battery storage, and power transmission will ensure that that future humans get the vast majority of their energy from the sun.

(Read somewhere that the the entire US energy need could be met if we paved the entire State of Georgia into a giant solar panel. Frankly, I was surprised that the area was only as big as the State of Georgia.)

(09-01-2015 06:45 PM)Lord Stanley Wrote:  Inevitable improvements in solar collection, battery storage, and power transmission will ensure that that future humans get the vast majority of their energy from the sun.

(Read somewhere that the the entire US energy need could be met if we paved the entire State of Georgia into a giant solar panel. Frankly, I was surprised that the area was only as big as the State of Georgia.)

It's far less than that, even with current technology only a few hundred square miles in Arizona are needed for that. Unfortunately that's not a real option given the issues you raised in your first comment. But realistically speaking, those are very hard to solve issues.

(09-01-2015 08:50 PM)UCF08 Wrote:  

(09-01-2015 06:45 PM)Lord Stanley Wrote:  Inevitable improvements in solar collection, battery storage, and power transmission will ensure that that future humans get the vast majority of their energy from the sun.

(Read somewhere that the the entire US energy need could be met if we paved the entire State of Georgia into a giant solar panel. Frankly, I was surprised that the area was only as big as the State of Georgia.)

It's far less than that, even with current technology only a few hundred square miles in Arizona are needed for that. Unfortunately that's not a real option given the issues you raised in your first comment. But realistically speaking, those are very hard to solve issues.

You're assuming perfect operation without maintenance as well as peak performance. As such, shifting to solar would require a great deal of surface area to achieve anywhere closer to the quadrillion of BTU's consumed in the US annually.

(09-01-2015 11:08 AM)miko33 Wrote:  Now I think the power of the sun will ultimately be what we use in the future; however, it will be in the form of a fusion reactor and not from superheating water or a more efficient PV cell.

You can consider every power source that we use is ultimately solar energy. Wind power is generated by cycles started by the sun, fossil fuels are releasing energy derived from plants that grew powered by energy from the sun, fission releases energy stored in the form of Uranium and/or other heavy elements generated in the core of a star that was the predecessor to our sun. The notion is a little less compelling for hydro.

(09-01-2015 11:55 AM)UCF08 Wrote:  The most important argument against traditional green energy like solar and wind is that they require other power sources to provide energy whenever they aren't producing the energy themselves. On particularly sunny and windy days, those sources might suffice, but those aren't guaranteed and when they don't happen, we have to rely on carbon emitting sources (usually oil or natural gas IIRC).

I think everyone focuses on cloudy days when talking about solar. Consider how long the day is during the height of winter compared to the dog days of summer (not to mention the angle in the sky during winter, which affects how much radiation reaches the ground when it is sunny). Planning for using solar as a power source involves not just the uncertainty that some days may not produce, but the certainty that many days of the year will not produce significant results.

(09-02-2015 07:19 AM)I45owl Wrote:  

(09-01-2015 11:08 AM)miko33 Wrote:  Now I think the power of the sun will ultimately be what we use in the future; however, it will be in the form of a fusion reactor and not from superheating water or a more efficient PV cell.

You can consider every power source that we use is ultimately solar energy. Wind power is generated by cycles started by the sun, fossil fuels are releasing energy derived from plants that grew powered by energy from the sun, fission releases energy stored in the form of Uranium and/or other heavy elements generated in the core of a star that was the predecessor to our sun. The notion is a little less compelling for hydro.

Yes, all roads ultimately lead back to the sun. It is THE power source that makes life on earth possible and governs the workings of the world.

(09-02-2015 06:11 AM)vandiver49 Wrote:  

(09-01-2015 08:50 PM)UCF08 Wrote:  

(09-01-2015 06:45 PM)Lord Stanley Wrote:  Inevitable improvements in solar collection, battery storage, and power transmission will ensure that that future humans get the vast majority of their energy from the sun.

(Read somewhere that the the entire US energy need could be met if we paved the entire State of Georgia into a giant solar panel. Frankly, I was surprised that the area was only as big as the State of Georgia.)

It's far less than that, even with current technology only a few hundred square miles in Arizona are needed for that. Unfortunately that's not a real option given the issues you raised in your first comment. But realistically speaking, those are very hard to solve issues.

You're assuming perfect operation without maintenance as well as peak performance. As such, shifting to solar would require a great deal of surface area to achieve anywhere closer to the quadrillion of BTU's consumed in the US annually.

Oh of course, I was just stating that it wasn't anything nearly the size of georgia, not that that makes it anymore useful to power our nation.