- Joined
- Apr 1, 2005
- Messages
- 614
- Reaction score
- 31
Fade said:
metalman said:
In parts of MN wind is competitive to coal. This even assumes that coal prices will remain flat over 30 years. Fat chance of that happening.redrumloa said:metalman said:
I cannot give a nod to that assumption, it is incomplete and grossly misleading. Solar and wind power is maturing and in certain circumstances already has become cost effective, with mid term paybacks after upfront costs. I am no tree hugging dork, I like the technology and hate the dirty, rotten, stinking, crooked, rat bastard utilities such as FPL - Florida Power & Light (aka Florida Plunder & Loot).
It will be more cost effective to derive more energy locally. The added plus is we'd be our own masters. Fights in the middle-east wouldn't have an economic component of ensuring low cost energy for ourselves.Besides, fossil fuels will not last forever.
redrumloa said:metalman said:
I cannot give a nod to that assumption, it is incomplete and grossly misleading. Solar and wind power is maturing and in certain circumstances already has become cost effective, with mid term paybacks after upfront costs. I am no tree hugging dork, I like the technology and hate the dirty, rotten, stinking, crooked, rat bastard utilities such as FPL - Florida Power & Light (aka Florida Plunder & Loot).
Besides, fossil fuels will not last forever. The last run-up in 06-07 in oil/gas was a bubble, but the fears of peak oil are founded in fact. If we are not there yet, we are at the doorstep. Truth is, we are probably past peak oil already. When global growth (see China, India) comes back, prices will go right back to where they were or higher.
metalman said:Agree or not, the cost analysis is correct.
Nuclear is not cheap. The insurance is so expensive that only the government buys it. The waste has yet to be stored for it's effective lifespan. Throw in the $90B for Yucca Mountain. Throw in the costs to ship and military protection of waste on the way to Yucca Mountain. Nuclear quickly becomes the most expensive option. The problem here is we don't pay it up front as $kW/hr instead we pay it in the backend as additional taxes. This hides the true cost.metalman said:Hydro-electric power generation is the cheapest. Coal and nuclear are the next best sources of energy for electrical generation
Sorta like how you'd have to factor in the cost of both Iraq wars and all the US bases in the Middle East to properly calculate the cost of oil in America.faethor said:Nuclear quickly becomes the most expensive option. The problem here is we don't pay it up front as $kW/hr instead we pay it in the backend as additional taxes. This hides the true cost.
redrumloa said:metalman said:Agree or not, the cost analysis is correct.
No, it is not. I can install a system at my house right now for less than $5/watt. For large projects, there are already $1/watt solutions.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nanosolar
No one would do batteries in Minnesota. The eletric company must pay you for any electricity you send to the grid at the rate they charge. Use the grid as your 'battery'. When you are working for 8 hours let the solar panels send power to the grid for 8 hours. When you come home draw the power back from the grid.metalman said:... battery's have a 15% converson loss and go bad over time and converting to a/c has a 15% conversion loss.
faethor said:Why is it 6-8 hours anyway? From approx 2/1-11/1 the sunrise and sunset is 11 or more hours apart. Perhaps the max output is 8 hours of the day of the solar panels? 6 seems to be very low. Even Winnipeg Canada has all of it's year with more than 6 hours of daylight per day.
Seems like a high estimate.metalman said:A solar tracker can increase hours of full power output at a 20%-25% additional installation cost,
Not true. Cloudy days produce reduced power. The only time you get no power would be darkness such as night.On days its cloudy you get no power.
Drain or not produce? If wiring is done properly you won't put power into the panel itself, say at night for example. So there would be no drain. Yes shadows reduce production and for proper placement perhaps trees may have to be cut down.A shadow that crosses any of the panels will cause the panel to drain rather than produce electricity, so cut down any tall trees that might put any shadow your panels.
Last point first, I'm rather doubtful that a wind mobile has the durability and construction of a long term large scale wind generator installation. First point last...I''m not sure what you believe the operating range for wind turbines is. But, they do have mechanisms to limit the max they can run at. This enables them to produce power in high wind conditions. But, severe winds are problematic and wind is not 100% guaranteed. Of course that answer is contingent on where if you go. High enough up in the atmosphere there will be wind always. LinkThere are 5 wind art mobiles at the local university here, once they produced power for some wind demonstration project, now they just demonstrate spinning blades.
I know you love Nukes and hate government funding. The average nuke plant in the USA has received $13Billion/each in government funded subsides. That doesn't include the nearly $100Billion more for Yucca Mountain to come from our taxes. What plans do you have to push nukes and have the private industry take up the charge without relying on the government?metalman said:
Glaucus said:Perhaps you missed the point that this is a commercial application? The thing is huge. You could probably sell the excess power to all your neighbors and make a profit. I thought you conservatives were good at these sorts of money making ventures.