Page 7 of 9 FirstFirst 123456789 LastLast
Results 79 to 91 of 112
  1. #79
    Join Date
    Aug 2004
    Location
    North Richland Hills, Texas
    Posts
    14,915
    Quote Originally Posted by SolarMike View Post
    Very true, I didn't mention NUC, only because it too has been subsidized up the ying yang.
    While I agree that it is over subsidized, when looked at per megawatt of electricity produced, it gets a very small fraction of what solar and wind get per megawatt.
    http://ktwop.wordpress.com/2011/11/2...ercialisation/


    Even when you factor in decommissioning costs of a nuclear power plant, it has a lower per kwh life cycle cost than every energy source but hydroelectric.
    http://nuclearfissionary.com/2010/04...ind-and-solar/
    If more government is the answer, then it's a really stupid question.

  2. #80
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Posts
    83
    " How many solar pv companies are out there compared to solar thermal? "

    In Charlotte, NC there are two solar panel manufacturers, Jetion, and some really small company that makes portable solar panels out of plastic. Jetion has been around for a year and just puts the metal frame on the panels, the actual cell/laminates are made in china and shipped to the USA.

    There are several hot water companies, Velux, Solar Hot, and three others, who';s name I forget.

    My guess as to why there are more solar water companies is because it is more economical to install. Basic capitalism at work. while I have not researched how many Pv vs Thermal companies there are, my guess is there are a lot more thermal ones.

  3. #81
    Join Date
    Aug 2004
    Location
    North Richland Hills, Texas
    Posts
    14,915
    Quote Originally Posted by newstudent View Post
    So while you can complaint about the government wasting away your grandchildren's money, just know that solar's contribution to that is miniscule.
    Yes, I realize this.
    The list of things the government needs to quit burning our money on is very very long.

    If you were to rechart things to show the dollars spent per unit of energy produced, the charts look very different.
    We spend an absolutely shockingly unjustifiable amount of money per unit of energy produced for wind and solar, with solar being particularly rediculous.

    Keep in mind that no quantity of wind and solar power will reduce the number of regular baseline or peak generation power plants needed.
    If more government is the answer, then it's a really stupid question.

  4. #82
    Join Date
    Dec 2003
    Posts
    2,425
    We should be running toward nuclear power. Holding tight to coal plants. And saying nice things about solar and wind.

  5. #83
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Posts
    83
    "unsubsidized PV electricity used for those same uses (which likely doesn't even HAVE a payback)"

    Worst case scenario is that tranditional energy prices do not rise. If that is the case Solar PV UNsubsidized at $2/watt install takes around 14 years in Florida to break even with you doing th e work, if you hire someone unsubsidized it will probably never pay back.

    However energy prices will obviously rise and if they rise enough the pay back might be much faster.

  6. #84
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Posts
    83
    "Keep in mind that no quantity of wind and solar power will reduce the number of regular baseline or peak generation power plants needed. "

    You mean in today's economic climate.

    My power company is paying me $5 a month so they can put some silly switch on my AC unit to regulate it so it doesn't come on as much during peak demand.

    If something that small is worth the power companies time and money to install. I call BS on your claim. I am not expert on power production, but surely a solar heater system on every roof would reduce peak electric demand. Even more so for solar, a technology that has strong production during peak AC usage.

  7. #85
    Join Date
    Jun 2012
    Location
    Louisville, KY
    Posts
    141
    Quote Originally Posted by mark beiser View Post
    The only thing worse than the French are French Canadians!
    Name:  Facebook-Like-Button-big.jpg
Views: 56
Size:  47.7 KB

  8. #86
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    Jurupa Valley, CA
    Posts
    1,781
    Quote Originally Posted by newstudent View Post
    My power company is paying me $5 a month so they can put some silly switch on my AC unit to regulate it so it doesn't come on as much during peak demand.
    Those devices are done more to meet governmental requirements than to save money for the utility. State Public Utility Commissions require providers to spend a certain amount of the ratepayer's money on energy conservation, and more recently, load shifting, incentives. This is why they offer rebates for energy star appliances, and why they offer programs to incentivize both business and residences to shift load to off-peak times. Of course, off-peak energy is cheaper, and that is a good practical reason to do so, but that is NOT the reason the utilities do it. It would be in their interest to build more peaker plants, and adsorb that cost into higher peak demand pricing.

    Those AC Cycling devices don't really save much, especially when they are only off for an hour or so during the peak times, as all they do is shift that load to the next hour. There would be far better load shifting returns if they spent that money aiding medium to large commercial/industrial customers to do serious load shifting (which they DO to some extent). In SoCal, there are many industrial facilities that have gas turbines that run during peak times only, and they are completely off-grid for those periods. There are also smaller industrial (bottling plants and such) that run solely at night to avoid the peak energy prices. However, they do so because of the rate difference, not the incentives. More often, the only thing the incentives really do is get the utility companies to perform the energy audits and such, to help sell the load shifting idea to facility management.

  9. #87
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    East of Lyndon's
    Posts
    525
    Quote Originally Posted by vangoghsear View Post
    While this is true that currently solar is subsidized by state and federal governments, it is only a small percentage of what is spent on Fossil fuel subsidies. In 2009 an energy study showed that 72 Billion was spent by the government subsidizing the fossil fuels only 29 billion was spent subsidizing renewable energy sources.

    IMO The subsidies for renewable energy came at a time when the government needed to put money into the economy in ways that would pay back. This leveling of the subsidies was needed to boost research and development in renewable energy sources anyway, like the building of roads and bridges after the great depression, this was the infrastructure that needed a boost following this recession.
    You mean like the money they invested in the Solyndra company????
    If you can't fix it with a hammer, you've got an electrical problem.

  10. #88
    Join Date
    Dec 2010
    Location
    Toronto
    Posts
    1,253
    Quote Originally Posted by CraziFuzzy View Post
    Those devices are done more to meet governmental requirements than to save money for the utility. State Public Utility Commissions require providers to spend a certain amount of the ratepayer's money on energy conservation, and more recently, load shifting, incentives. This is why they offer rebates for energy star appliances, and why they offer programs to incentivize both business and residences to shift load to off-peak times. Of course, off-peak energy is cheaper, and that is a good practical reason to do so, but that is NOT the reason the utilities do it. It would be in their interest to build more peaker plants, and adsorb that cost into higher peak demand pricing.

    Those AC Cycling devices don't really save much, especially when they are only off for an hour or so during the peak times, as all they do is shift that load to the next hour. There would be far better load shifting returns if they spent that money aiding medium to large commercial/industrial customers to do serious load shifting (which they DO to some extent). In SoCal, there are many industrial facilities that have gas turbines that run during peak times only, and they are completely off-grid for those periods. There are also smaller industrial (bottling plants and such) that run solely at night to avoid the peak energy prices. However, they do so because of the rate difference, not the incentives. More often, the only thing the incentives really do is get the utility companies to perform the energy audits and such, to help sell the load shifting idea to facility management.
    Actually, load shifting does save the utility a lot of money. Look at the peak power costs to the utility. Back when Enron was in biz, the cost of a peak kwh passed $1.00 and there is still a big discrepancy in off peak market prices and peak market prices.

    This is why subsidizing solar thermal for electric water heaters is good. Even if it costs the utility $.25/kwh to subsidize it, it might be saving them $.50/kwh. There is good economics behind it in some cases. I seem to recall that the CEC says the utility cannot charge more than X amount to the customer (after the nuttiness of the Enron scandal).

  11. #89
    Join Date
    Dec 2010
    Location
    Toronto
    Posts
    1,253
    Quote Originally Posted by Wendo View Post
    You mean like the money they invested in the Solyndra company????
    name me any industry, especially a high tech one, that doesn't have some failed enterprises. No one is perfect.

  12. #90
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Posts
    83
    solyndra was a total waste. I cannot believe that the company didn't know they would fail given the prices of thin film solar and the lowering silicon prices. Govt. money should of never been invested in that plant. The half a billion would of been better spent installing solar hot water heaters all across the USA. A technology with a realatively low cost and fast return on investment.

  13. #91
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Location
    Gainesville, FL
    Posts
    325
    Quote Originally Posted by newstudent View Post
    solyndra was a total waste. I cannot believe that the company didn't know they would fail given the prices of thin film solar and the lowering silicon prices. Govt. money should of never been invested in that plant. The half a billion would of been better spent installing solar hot water heaters all across the USA. A technology with a realatively low cost and fast return on investment.
    Do you really think that half billion dollars that went to Solyndra had anything to do with a company trying to succeed? Please. It was political backscratching. The Solyndra corporate team were huge Obama supporters that donated a lot of money, just like every other green energy company that got a windfall and pi$$ed it away.
    That half billion shouldn't have been spent on Solyndra or water heaters or any other guarantee or giveaway. It shouldn't have been spent at all.


    Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk HD

Page 7 of 9 FirstFirst 123456789 LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  
Comfortech Show Promo Image

Related Forums

Plumbing Talks | Contractor Magazine
Forums | Electrical Construction & Maintenance (EC&M) Magazine
Comfortech365 Virtual Event