PV Solar - If not Florida, Where?

[dannyf]

- Subsidaries for renewables are only paid by consumers, not by the industry, which conveniently raises their visibility and present costs for the consumers.

So transparency is a bad thing?

You have just been Grubered,

[miguelvp]

The question is why does someone like Sgt Rock feel the need to repeatedly start these threads that have an obvious political agenda on an electronics forum?

That might be the case but we still need those electrons for electronics

[dannyf]

The question is why does someone like Sgt Rock feel the need to repeatedly start these threads that have an obvious political agenda on an electronics forum?

Liberals welcome all sorts of views, as long as they are in agreement with the liberals' views.

[zapta]

That debate was settled long ago

That has been a standard line they teach at the school for the fanatics,

The equivalent of it is "Doesn't compute" for the robots. Dumb and dumber.

It's called 'thought terminating cliche'.

[mtdoc]

That debate was settled long ago

That has been a standard line they teach at the school for the fanatics,

The equivalent of it is "Doesn't compute" for the robots. Dumb and dumber.

It's called 'thought terminating cliche'.

Well when the facts aren't on your side - resort to multiple posts empty of facts or original thought. Accuse the other of being some convenient scapegoat: "liberal", "socialist", "enviromentalist", etc, etc.

Or portray a simple statement of fact (that the debate of whether solar power is a viable source of electricity production is over) as a "thought terminating cliche"

Simple fact:  Solar power produced 125 Terrawatt hours of electricity in 2013 and is growing exponentially.

Apologies if that fact terminates your thinking.

[dannyf]

fact

When did facts come into play in the thinking of liberal socialist environmental parasites, in the climate gate scandal or the solyndra scandal or the latest Peruvian scandal?

If those green energy initiatives are so good, why do they have to drag us into funding them?

All those guys care about is lining up their pockets with somebody else's money.

[Rufus]

Simple fact:  Solar power produced 125 Terrawatt hours of electricity in 2013 and is growing exponentially.

While the 8 ancient nukes in the UK produced 357 TWh in the same year. So the global solar power install produced less than 3 small 30 year old nukes. 

[zapta]

Long term low interest loans are also subsidies, and so are tax break, tax on the competition and millions of other forms.

So are healthcare costs. Even in the US you have some socialized healthcare,

One form of oppression doesn't justify another.

[zapta]

... And none during night time. It's been to caveman mentality.

[mtdoc]

Simple fact:  Solar power produced 125 Terrawatt hours of electricity in 2013 and is growing exponentially.

While the 8 ancient nukes in the UK produced 357 TWh in the same year. So the global solar power install produced less than 3 small 30 year old nukes.

Not surprising at all.  Sadly PV, despite it's rapid growth, is still a very small portion of global electricity generation.

Of course, that's irrelevant to the question at hand: Is it a viable source of electricity production and what will its role be going forward?

What percentage of power production was nuclear or even natural gas in the early days of their adoption?

Leaving the juvenile name-callers and political hacks aside, the question becomes how will we be making electricity in 30, 50 or 100 years from now?    Do we burn all the remaining, accessible fossil fuels before we develop alternatives?

Bottom line is that renewables are a viable way to make electricity BUT will never be able to completely replace fossil fuels in electricity production and there is NOTHING that will replace oil as a liquid fuel or substrate for multiple industrial needs.

Nuclear will not be the answer for lots of  both practical and social/political reasons.

In my view we'll be in a world of much less energy availability and much lower standard of living 30 years from now. The question is how much less - and that will be determined in part by how much political ideology and short term greed impacts the development of alternatives.

[SgtRock]

Greetings EEVBees:

More politically motivated clap-trap from the usual suspects..." Media Trackers is primarily sponsored by the Tea Party non-profit and training group American Majority, which is funded for the most part by the Sam Adams Alliance"...Meanwhile in the real world, ... growth of photovoltaics continues along at an exponential rate.

--As fas as I know the facts as set forth in by WFTS News Tampa are correct and have nothing to do with the Tea Party. There have been a number of articles and the facts have been vetted. Also I do not recall anyone saying that sales of solar panels were declining. Abhorring government waist is not the same thing as hating solar panels. Panels do survive after the warranty period, but without warranty.  There are a number of installations out there with China made panels. I wonder how many are 25 years old. I also wonder why banks do not like to lend money on 50 year solar payback projects. Oh, right, Greed! As a general matter in large solar system installations they compute the number of panels required say for a 20 year payback, and then add say 10%  for panel degradation, and another 5% or to account for soilage. So for a brand new installation like this to be performing at half of that promised is probably not something to be proud of.

--If the facts about the return on investment, are as stated, then the provenance of the article hardly matters, and I hardly think that WFTS News in Tampa is a Tea Party conspirator.

 --See below link for another article on the catastrophe, which includes a few additional facts.
 
 http://energy.tdprofiti.com/tampa-solar-panels-fail-to-meet-promises.html
 
"County Director No Longer Supports
Hillsborough County Energy Director Randy Klindworth, who primarily upheld a solar row project, told WFTS he would no longer support spending taxpayer dollars on such projects. “I’ve got to be clever how a county spends taxpayer money. we wish to be really correct in how we do that, make certain we get a good lapse on investment,”

--Oh well, Randy probably goes to Tea Party meeting with the folks from WFTS News Tampa.

--Thanks to all for the posted articles.

“Science is the belief in the ignorance of experts.” "
Richard Feynman 1918 - 1988

Best Regards
Clear Ether

[zapta]

Leaving the juvenile name-callers and political hacks aside, the question becomes how will we be making electricity in 30, 50 or 100 years from now?    Do we burn all the remaining, accessible fossil fuels before we develop alternatives?

The winning technology should win on its own merit, not by forcing others to pay for it.

[zapta]

One form of oppression doesn't justify another.

Bravo Sir! I didn't see that one coming. Your ability to deflect away from the argument is quite remarkable.

Thanks Mojo Chan, and have a merry Christmass.

[SeanB]

Hey, I live in south Africa, we already do that.

Solar power here is unsubsidised at consumer level, but already there are many installations paid for fully by the owners, no subsidy for solar electric systems. There is a program on the supply side to install solar water heating, where there is a subsidy ( and I will not comment on that cluster bomb either) that is doing well to supply water heating to the residents of low income areas instead of electric water heating. Quite a few people have installed for themselves as well, at own cost, and are reaping the benefits.

Sales of gas cookers and gas water heaters are doing well, even though gas is more expensive than electricity, but you use it more efficiently. Solar heaters are good, though the cheap ones might not last the warranty period they have, and you often have problems from either the installation being poor or the product being cost cutted too far.

[zapta]

The winning technology should win on its own merit, not by forcing others to pay for it.

Problem is if we cut all the subsidies for coal, gas and nuclear the lights will go out. Oh, sorry, I forgot to think of the Libertarian angle... Everyone buys their own generator and gasoline?

The fallacy of the extreme.  No, everybody pays for their own consumption. Want to have charity on the side, make it visible, not hidden in other people costs. Think liberty.

[Zero999]

The problem with subsidies is they distort the market.

The UK has cut subsidies for wind and solar because it was costing too much and meant valuable farmland was being used for energy.

The worst thing was home owners used to be able to get grants for wind turbines and solar panels, even if they lived in the shadow of large buildings where there's little wind or sun.

Of course wind and solar can be profitable forms of energy generation but it doesn't mean they're suitable for all.

[zapta]

The fallacy of the extreme.  No, everybody pays for their own consumption. Want to have charity on the side, make it visible, not hidden in other people costs. Think liberty.

The fact that charity didn't work is why we had the welfare state and socialism in the first place. Under your system you end up with the industrial revolution - terrible environmental conditions and pollution, awful working conditions, massive poverty and crime. Those who don't learn from the past are doomed to repeat it.

More doom and gloom as an excuse for oppression. Mojo Chan, you are wasting your time. Cherish liberty and buy your PV with your own money.

[ajb]

Want to have charity on the side, make it visible, not hidden in other people costs. Think liberty.

Good idea.  Let's start by internalizing the cost of the environmental impact of fossil fuels.  Keeping those costs hidden in the cost of our children's health and prosperity is oppressive government-sponsored charity!

[mtdoc]

Want to have charity on the side, make it visible, not hidden in other people costs. Think liberty.

Good idea.  Let's start by internalizing the cost of the environmental impact of fossil fuels.  Keeping those costs hidden in the cost of our children's health and prosperity is oppressive government-sponsored charity!

One needn't even include the hidden costs you rightly cite.  The overt subsides to the nuclear and fossil fuel industries both historical and current dwarfs the relatively tiny subsidies to the nascent PV industry.

It's incredibly hypocritical to continue to drum on about subsidies to promote development of renewable energy while ignoring the historical record of such subsidies for nuclear an fossil fuels.

[dannyf]

If the facts about the return on investment, ...

To understand return on investment, one has to understand division and economics.

Those tree huggers are still learning addition using fingers so you have to be patient with them.

[zapta]

Good idea.  Let's start by internalizing the cost of the environmental impact of fossil fuels.  Keeping those costs hidden in the cost of our children's health and prosperity is oppressive government-sponsored charity!

One needn't even include the hidden costs you rightly cite.  The overt subsides to the nuclear and fossil fuel industries both historical and current dwarfs the relatively tiny subsidies to the nascent PV industry.

It's incredibly hypocritical to continue to drum on about subsidies to promote development of renewable energy while ignoring the historical record of such subsidies for nuclear an fossil fuels.
[/quote]

If nuclear and fossil products and services are subsidized then they shouldn't, but one wrong doesn't justify yet another one.

[tom66]

Matter of scale. About $20bn in US subsidies for oil, <$1bn for solar, and ~$5bn for wind.

http://i.huffpost.com/gen/1901197/thumbs/o-SUBSIDIES-570.jpg
http://instituteforenergyresearch.org/wp-content/uploads/2011/08/Federal-Subsides.png

Argue it however you want, if you want to reduce the amount of subsidies focus on oil not renewables when the renewables might actually create some net benefit for this world.

[dannyf]

you have to be patient with them.

For example, one of those guys doesn't even know that a below-market-rate loan is a form of subsidy. How do you expect him/her to understand return on investments?

Actually, I think s/he did attempt to engage in a discussion on time value of money, only to prove that it is impossibly complicated for that individual to understand.

[zapta]

Matter of scale. About $20bn in US subsidies for oil, <$1bn for solar, and ~$5bn for wind.

http://i.huffpost.com/gen/1901197/thumbs/o-SUBSIDIES-570.jpg
http://instituteforenergyresearch.org/wp-content/uploads/2011/08/Federal-Subsides.png

Argue it however you want, if you want to reduce the amount of subsidies focus on oil not renewables when the renewables might actually create some net benefit for this world.

1. A png from Huffington Post is not a proper reference. Need more information what aspects of fossil energy are subsidized and how.

2. You forgot to normalized it by number of extend of consumers.

3. All subsidies of products and services are bad and justifying one by another is silly and perpetuate the corruption.

[mtdoc]

1.  Subsidies for fossil fuel and nuclear power with several references have been presented on this forum multiple times and are repeatedly ignored by those pushing a political agenda.  They are readily available to anyone who knows how to use Google.  For those too lazy to do that you can start HERE and HERE

2. Current subsidies are only a small part of the picture.  The mature electricity production industries required much larger per annum/ per capacity subsidies in their early years.

3  Direct financial subsidies of electricity production are only a small fraction of the total subsidies. 

4. Nuclear safety, fuel management and storage is a large taxpayer subsidized endeavor.
 
5. Monitoring and managing air pollution from coal fired power plants is a large taxpayer subsidizes endeavor.

6. Military spending and foreign aid spending to secure supplies of  oil and gas of course dwarf all of it. How  much has been spent on wars to secure oil and gas supplies?  How much lower would the US military budget be if we were not dependent on foreign oil?

7. The public health care costs associated with burning of fossil fuels are also enormous.

8.  Adding these up and the cost normalized per unit of energy produced or per consumer for fossil fuel and nuclear power production dwarfs that of renewables.

9. It may be a legitimate political stance to say that all subsidies are bad but using that in the context of this discussion is an obvious cop out and tacit admission of a failed argument.  Unless of course one is arguing against all electricity production.