Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 25 of 37

Thread: How Solar Technology creates extra pollution and fossil fuel consumption

  1. #1
    Banned Melonie's Avatar
    Joined
    Jul 2002
    Location
    way south of the border
    Posts
    25,932
    Thanks
    612
    Thanked 10,563 Times in 4,646 Posts
    Blog Entries
    3
    My Mood
    Cynical

    Default How Solar Technology creates extra pollution and fossil fuel consumption

    I'm starting this thread as an outgrowth of other discussions regarding the actual merits of politically correct technologies with or without major embedded gov't subsidies, plus the secondary effects of politically correct technologies in regard to energy consumption and pollution created as a result of these technologies which may not be immediately apparent. Probably the worst example of such a technology is solar cells. Let me lead off by saying that the rest of this post is going to be California-esque, but the general principles still apply.

    In theory, solar cells produce electric power with absolutely no pollution or fuel consumption. However, the actual production cost of solar cells is such that the power they produce is typically 8 times more expensive than commercial power. First let's see where the majority of the solar cell industry's customers lie.

    #1 - solar farms - essentially funded by investment tax credits, where the real merit of the investment lies in tax avoidance on unrelated business ventures (and thus higher taxes paid by others to make up the difference in lost revenues). The actual power these solar farms produce is vastly more expensive than any conventional electric generation technology. A few electricity customers are willing to pay a big premium for the 'green power' produced, among them gov't buildings (i.e. they pay the 'green power' premium at the taxpayer's expense)

    #2 - politically correct rich people - self-explanatory, but will always remain a tiny market in terms of volume of potential voluntary customers who value environmental friendliness and bragging rights more than a $100 a month savings in their electric bill (the pro-rated cost of solar cell purchase vs. commercial power)

    #2 - temporary and/or remote electrical equipment - this is the real forte' of solar cells, powering seismographs in the wilderness or temporary traffic signs. However, the applications are mostly small and governmental i.e. highway traffic departments, scientific agencies etc. so it doesn't matter how much the solar cells cost.

    #3 - dope growers - essentially willing to pay a heavy price premium for their electricity in order to avoid giving electric companies (or others called in by electric companies i.e. cops) a reason to come onto their land. This is the most successful niche market for solar cells, and actually 'pays its own way' thanks to dope profits.

    #4 - mandatory codes and zoning - some communities have added solar cell incentives to their building codes, effectively mandating new customers for solar cells in the form of anybody in the jurisdiction who wants to construct a new building. For a residence, typical solar cell cost around an extra $20,000, and produce a few kilowatts of electric power. This of course raises the cost of new homes and buildings, and along with it raises the resale value of existing properties as well as rent prices in the jurisdiction.

    Granted, solar cells in and of themselves do not create any pollution. However, they can RESULT in extra pollution. Consider that community with mandatory solar cell codes increasing local housing prices. An unavoidable consequence is lower income people being less able to afford to buy or rent a house in these communities. Lower income people must therefore buy or rent cheaper houses farther away from such communities, and drive longer distances to work. This of course increases fuel consumption and pollution significantly.

    Solar cells also enjoy a de-facto subsidy from commercial electric customers, who must pay higher rates in order to finance the 'back-up' commercial power all of the solar cell homeowners (except the dope growers) expect to draw on at night and on cloudy days. The problem stems from a similar vein as the road tax on hybrid vehicles, actually. Part of every customer's electric rate is an embedded cost to maintain the power transmission lines, transformers, poles etc. By using much less power over time, but by using just as much power in short bursts during nights and cloudy days, solar cell commercial electric customers are avoiding paying their 'fair share' of the costs of maintaining the infrastructure they are using. This problem of embedding these maintenance costs in the electric rates has already been recognized and dealt with in the case of large electricity customers with their own supplementary power, who now must pay a separate charge based on the maximum amount of power they use within a 15 minute period any time during the month as well as a charge per kilowatt-hour used. If applied to commercial/residential customers with solar cells, it would cut current dollar savings from solar cells with commercial electric 'back-up' versus 100% commercial electric rates by at least 1/3rd.

    ~
    Last edited by Melonie; 02-26-2005 at 09:43 AM.

  2. #2
    Featured Member Destiny's Avatar
    Joined
    Apr 2003
    Posts
    1,355
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 5 Times in 5 Posts

    Default Re: How Solar Technology creates extra pollution and fossil fuel consumption

    Excellent post Melonie. I wish the hidden costs of all these environmental regulations/subsidies were better understood by the average consumer. My dad is an engineer and he says that if the average person knew how much money was wasted on environmental regulations with no scientific basis there would be a revolt. I love the outdoors as much as the next person. But as your post points out, many of these deals are more about people just wanting to feel good about "doing something" regardless of whether it truly helps. Also, about the "solar farms" and the "wind farms" too, I think, if I'm not mistaken, the electric companies are required by law to purchase their power. I think the government should get out of the energy busineess entirely and let the markets work it out. Over time, the markets will gravitate towards the most cost-efficient fuels. People seem to forget that when the white man first arrived in america, most of the eastern forests were cut down for fuel. Over time we moved to better and more efficient fuels. The same will happen with oil, if we will let it.
    Dancing is wonderful training for girls, it's the first way you learn to guess what a man is going to do before he does it. ~Christopher Morley, Kitty Foyle

  3. #3
    Featured Member discretedancer's Avatar
    Joined
    May 2004
    Location
    PA
    Posts
    1,004
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts

    Default Re: How Solar Technology creates extra pollution and fossil fuel consumption

    Quote Originally Posted by Melonie
    However, the actual production cost of solar cells is such that the power they produce is typically 8 times more expensive than commercial power.
    Hmmm. then how come I purchase all-solar/wind electricity for my home and business at less than 10% over the cost of "traditional" electricity. Not 800%, but 10%?

    #1 - solar farms - essentially funded by investment tax credits, where the real merit of the investment lies in tax avoidance on unrelated business ventures (and thus higher taxes paid by others to make up the difference in lost revenues).
    Untrue./ Most tax credits have or will soon expire nationwide. Yes, teh tax credits make it easier for companies to invest in the new technology (just as subsidies on oil and coal plants make them easier) but they are not the driving force

    The actual power these solar farms produce is vastly more expensive than any conventional electric generation technology.
    1. See my point above

    2. "Traditional" systems, subsidized by the governemnt, externalize the high costs (healthcare for pollution-driven asthma and other diseases) of their fuel. There is no cost pushed on the companies for the acid rain, water and air quality degradation, and other results of fossil fuel burning....if we take these things into account it is impossible to truly asses the cost of "traditional" fuels.

    A few electricity customers
    Growing numbers, by about 20% per year, including one of the largest radio station ownership groups.

    are willing to pay a big premium for the 'green power' produced,
    National average, less than 10%, which will become 0% or actually below-traditional-cost once economy of scale is reached.


    #2 - temporary and/or remote electrical equipment
    SOlar powered parking lot lights, household backup devices, home lighting (patios, etc, heck - my entire TV studio is solar powered, including the LED lighting in my office. I LIKE not paying an electric bill.


    #3 - dope growers
    Oh yea...one of the largest customers. BULL - the sodium halide lights used require ALOT of energy. THat would be ALOT of solar cells.

    For a residence, typical solar cell cost around an extra $20,000, and produce a few kilowatts of electric power.
    
    Oh please share your research. I work with the VAHEN (VA, Housing and ENvironmental Network) and we have members whose houses are completely solar powered for about the cost you mention. THat means NO ELECTRICITY BILLS EVER, and a check from the power company for their excess electricity each month. Northeast Sustainable Energy Association has other examples for you, proving that many homes and businesses do quite well with solar. Not "a small fraction" of their usage, but much or all.

    As I've asked before, I ask again: Where did your information come from?

    Consider that community with mandatory solar cell codes increasing local housing prices.
    Working in land conservation, I have yet to hear of a community REQUIRING all homes use solar...occasional incentives may be in place
    I don't see An unavoidable consequence is lower income people being less able to afford to buy or rent a house in these communities.
    Something that the typical "Yuppifying" of a community wouldn't do, of course - since we know most communities which have been "redeveloped" are so friendly to lower income people.

    Lower income people must therefore buy or rent cheaper houses farther away from such communities, and drive longer distances to work. his of course increases fuel consumption and pollution significantly.
    Wow, with so few (as you stated earlier) customers for solar, you certainly see it as being very powerful.

    How many residential-based communities can you name (from which these lower income people are being driven out of) actually have an industrial/jobs base which would require them to drive back to that community? I'd have to say (being of course not very experienced, just working for land conservation, community development and related projects full time) that most residential communities aren't where the jobs are - that mixed-use communities are rare (though we wish they weren't).

    Finally, if the proper alternative/hybrid technologies or better fuel consumption (CAFE) standards were in place, the extra travel would not have nearly the impact it may have now.


    Solar cells also enjoy a de-facto subsidy from commercial electric customers, who must pay higher rates in order to finance the 'back-up' commercial power all of the solar cell homeowners (except the dope growers) expect to draw on at night and on cloudy days.
    And if no one used solar, the commercial energy industry would have to have LESS of an infrastructure? C'mon, with less than 100% of the people using traditional power, the overall usage (let alone PEAK usage, which is during the day and the largst problem for generating companies) would go DOWN

    Not to mention, those with home-based solar or wind or water generators, who SELL BACK excess energy to the grid, are actually REDUCING THE AMOUNT OF ELECTRICITY THE COMPANY NEEDS TO GENERATE. Doesn't this have the effect of doubly-reducing the load on "conventional sources"?

    Part of every customer's electric rate is an embedded cost to maintain the power transmission lines, transformers, poles etc.
    Yes, and those of us buying commercially available alternatively-sourced energy pay A SEPARATE TRANSMISSION FEE (actually, it's broken out on everyone's bill). There is the generation charge and the transmission charge, those using alternative enrgy sources don't get away free.

    By using much less power over time, but by using just as much power in short bursts during nights and cloudy days, solar cell commercial electric customers are avoiding paying their 'fair share' of the costs of maintaining the infrastructure they are using.
    Actually, no. Just as with teh gasoline taxes (calculated on a per gallon rate), I pay a % for every KILOWATT HOUR delivered to my house, regardless of its source. So, if I find a way to be energy independent 60% of the time then I may avoid some costs (of course, I spent the money up front, as is my right as an American)...but for the majority of green electric customers who buy power "off the grid" that just happens to be green, I pay as much for the transmission lines as I did before "going green"...

    Consuming (hypothetically) 20KW per day, it doesn't matter how my electricity is sourced, I pay the same transmission fee as you do.

    This problem of embedding these maintenance costs in the electric rates
    which isn't done.

    If applied to commercial/residential customers with solar cells,
    Why, if an individual chooses to invest their money in home solar system, and therefore MAKES LESS USE OF THE GRID should that individual be doubly penalized and forced to pay as much as someone who uses the grid an equal amount? By that logic, someone who is smart and invests more of their income in tax-protected retirement accounts is actually cheating the system because they MADE A CHOICE that reduced their tax implications.


    The problem stems from a similar vein as the road tax on hybrid vehicles, actually.
    You never did explain this...and I don't see why if Americans choose "the better mousetrap" that uses less fuel to do the same job they should be penalized. Charge people per mile driven (if this can be done without big government knowing how much I drive) - that may be OK, but don't penalize me because I choose a more efficient way to live.



    Surprisingly, it sounds as though you're suggesting that we don't have the right to live as we choose. That somehow if we choose alternative methods of powering our lives, our cars, our towns that we "owe something" to the companies. Isn't the American system based upon individuals doing the best they can within the bounds of the law? The law says that you are taxed per gallon of gas used - so we choose to use less to drive the same distance. The law (rules of the utility commission) say that you are taxed per KW of electricity delivered to your home...some people choose to generate the energy at home.

    I know someone who built his house underground, so he would have constant suitable temperature year round and need no heating or cooling. Should that person have been forced to pay for more utility fees (than what he used for hot water and electricity) than his home required? Why is that fair?


    Oh, and how exactly do solar panels themselves increase pollution, your low-income driving example pointed more to the problem of sprawl than anything else.

  4. #4
    Featured Member discretedancer's Avatar
    Joined
    May 2004
    Location
    PA
    Posts
    1,004
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts

    Default Re: How Solar Technology creates extra pollution and fossil fuel consumption

    Quote Originally Posted by Destiny
    that if the average person knew how much money was wasted on environmental regulations with no scientific basis there would be a revolt.
    I'd love specifics on this - though I'm sure there are some truths. Just as there are truths about "traditional" technologies that have no scientific basis, and are actually detrimental.

    Ever wonder why indoor air quality is known to be WORSE than the most polluted city? Because the chemicals on which our decorations and building materials are based leach out into the air we breathe, and deliver dangerous chemicals to us every day.

    ANyone use teflon cooking pans? Base chemical of teflon is arsenic, a well-known poison. Scratch in the pan, you're eating arsenic.

    "new car smell" is mostly carcinogens.

    My point: many things that we buy everyday are dangerous, it's the mission of people who support sustainable living (note: sustainable includes environmental, but is not solely environmental) to find better answers to ALL of these, including the environmental issues that "being green" sometimes cause.

    Also, about the "solar farms" and the "wind farms" too, I think, if I'm not mistaken, the electric companies are required by law to purchase their power.
    at whatever rate they currently pay for source energy, yes this can be true. Wouldn't that fall into the category of "small business incentive" which the current administration loves so much?

    I think the government should get out of the energy busineess entirely and let the markets work it out.
    Agreed! Eliminate subsidies to develop new power plants, stop underwriting coal and oil facilities, and make the mining and extraction companies bear the ENTIRE burden of cleaning up the mess they leave behind. Allow workers the right to get together and sue collectively when wronged, and then we may begin to have a level playing field.



    [/QUOTE]People seem to forget that when the white man first arrived in america, most of the eastern forests were cut down for fuel. Over time we moved to better and more efficient fuels. The same will happen with oil, if we will let it.[/QUOTE]
    and we forget that the change only came when we lost most of our forests, and the animals and clean water that they create.

  5. #5
    Featured Member Destiny's Avatar
    Joined
    Apr 2003
    Posts
    1,355
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 5 Times in 5 Posts

    Default Re: How Solar Technology creates extra pollution and fossil fuel consumption

    Quote Originally Posted by discretedancer
    I'd love specifics on this - though I'm sure there are some truths. Just as there are truths about "traditional" technologies that have no scientific basis, and are actually detrimental.
    Here's a specific. I live in a a large urban area. Each year we are required to get our cars tested to make sure that they are not putting out too much pollution. However, older cars are exempt from this testing because they could never pass it. This despite the EPA's own findings that the number one contributor to automobile pollution is old cars. You would have to agree that cars built today are much "cleaner" than they used to be. So instead of dealing with the main cause of the problem (old dirty cars) the government requires people that contribute relatively little to the problem (those with newer cleaner cars) to get their cars tested. But it gets better. If your car fails the environmental test, you have to take it to the shop and get it worked on. But the maximum amount you are required to spend is $150. After you've spent $150 fixing your car, if it still fails, the inspection place "passes" it. Where is the scientific validity to that? Do the smoke and pollutants coming out of a car with $150 work of work done on it suddently become less dangerous? If the government truly wanted to do something scientifically valid to clean up the air, they would do something to get the old dirty cars off the road. This could be done through taxes, fines, fees etc.. But that is politically impossible to do, and as Melonie was pointing out, when it comes to the environment, politics trumps science.
    Dancing is wonderful training for girls, it's the first way you learn to guess what a man is going to do before he does it. ~Christopher Morley, Kitty Foyle

  6. #6
    Featured Member discretedancer's Avatar
    Joined
    May 2004
    Location
    PA
    Posts
    1,004
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts

    Default Re: How Solar Technology creates extra pollution and fossil fuel consumption

    Your statement was that the environmental regulation has no scientific basis . The scientific basis for emissions testing is that air pollution is a known contributor to health issues -that air pollution is bad

    The FACT that we cannot mandate people buy newer cars (that would be too much a burden on the lower income people, for one) has NOTHING to do with the environmental or scientific validity of the testing. Logically, as these cars age out of the system (and theoretically, newer cars get better and can be subjected to more stringent testing) the overall quality of our air will improve.

    Therefore, I don't see how the environmental regulation lacks scientific basis, simply because the legislators agreed to apply it to only newer vehicles.

    Quote Originally Posted by Destiny
    number one contributor to automobile pollution is old cars.
    May I see this evidence? I would argue that MILLIONS of SUVs and consumer trucks spew alot of pollution too - many of which get worse gas mileage than the old 1978 Ford Fairmont I had in college.

    dealing with the main cause of the problem (old dirty cars)
    How would you deal with this? Ask the minimum-wage parent to invest money they don't have in a car they could never get a loan for?

    f it still fails, the inspection place "passes" it. Where is the scientific validity to that? Do the smoke and pollutants coming out of a car with $150 work of work done on it suddently become less dangerous?
    No, this must be a state law and one I would WORK TO CHAGE. If it is a car which should pass but doesn't - it fails. Period.

    , when it comes to the environment, politics trumps science.
    Here we agree. if that were not true, Coal and oil would not have been included in Bush/Cheney's "alternative fuel" section of the energy bill

  7. #7
    Featured Member Destiny's Avatar
    Joined
    Apr 2003
    Posts
    1,355
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 5 Times in 5 Posts

    Default Re: How Solar Technology creates extra pollution and fossil fuel consumption

    Quote Originally Posted by discretedancer
    Your statement was that the environmental regulation has no scientific basis . The scientific basis for emissions testing is that air pollution is a known contributor to health issues -that air pollution is bad

    The FACT that we cannot mandate people buy newer cars (that would be too much a burden on the lower income people, for one) has NOTHING to do with the environmental or scientific validity of the testing. Logically, as these cars age out of the system (and theoretically, newer cars get better and can be subjected to more stringent testing) the overall quality of our air will improve.
    Who says we can't? In my state we mandate that in order to drive a car you have to have auto insurance. Driving a car is a privilage, not a right. If air pollution is bad, why should low income people be allowed to do it while middle and upper income people are not allowed to? I'm being a little sarcastic here, but only to prove a point. The atmosphere doesn't know or care what the socio-economic status is of the person driving the car is. If the emissions coming out of a car are bad for the environment, they should be stopped regardlesss of that persons income level. Anything else is not scientifically valid.

    Therefore, I don't see how the environmental regulation lacks scientific basis, simply because the legislators agreed to apply it to only newer vehicles.

    May I see this evidence? I would argue that MILLIONS of SUVs and consumer trucks spew alot of pollution too - many of which get worse gas mileage than the old 1978 Ford Fairmont I had in college.
    My comment was from a news report I heard. However, from,
    Measurement of Carbon Monoxide in Auto Exhaust Using a Fast and Inexpensive Sensor
    by Dan Jaffe and Rick Vos
    University of Washington Bothell
    Submitted to the Journal of College Science Teaching, 3 May, 2002

    I offer the following:

    Carbon monoxide is an important pollutant because of its severe health effects at high concentrations...Previous studies have shown that a small number of high emitting vehicles are responsible for the majority of the CO emissions in most urban areas...Several studies of on-road emissions have shown that a small fraction of high emitting vehicles emit the bulk of all CO. For example in the study by Beaton et al (1995), they found that 7% of the vehicles were responsible for 50% of the CO emissions. Similarly a National Research Council document (NRC 2001) reiterated this point in a recent review of this issue by stating “Typically less then 10% of the fleet contributes more then 50% of the emissions for any given pollutantâ€. These vehicles are called “gross emittersâ€, in that they have CO emissions that were well above the levels of most vehicles. The average age of the gross emitters is usually above average, but even some new vehicles, with modern emission controls, were found to be gross emitters. The authors concluded that these vehicles either had their emission controls tampered with or there was a serious malfunction in some component of the system. In addition the authors of these studies found that vehicles registered in areas that required participation in an IM [Inspection Maintenance] program do not have lower on-road emissions, on average. In other words the IM programs don’t seem to be effective in reducing CO emissions from these high emitters. Blue emphasis is mine.
    So there you go. Not only are we testing the wrong vehicles. The testing itself doesn't do a damn bit of good.

    I stand by my statement. If less than 10% of the vehilces are responsilble for more than 50% of the harmful emissions, you should concentrate your efforts on that 10% not ignore them. Anything else is not a scientfically valid solution.

    How would you deal with this? Ask the minimum-wage parent to invest money they don't have in a car they could never get a loan for?...No, this must be a state law and one I would WORK TO CHAGE. If it is a car which should pass but doesn't - it fails. Period.
    But what if the car that failed is owned by that minimum-wage parent? For what its worth, I'm not so cold hearted as to really suggest that we take away people's cars just because they are poor and that's all they can offord. I'm just saying that as long as we take things like a person's income into account in making environmental rules, the process will be scientifically invalid.

    Here we agree. if that were not true, Coal and oil would not have been included in Bush/Cheney's "alternative fuel" section of the energy bill
    Yes but you forgot to mention ethanol that all the politicians from farm states have kept in business all these years with their subsidies.

    BTW I enjoy reading your posts, even the one's I don't agree with. You're very smart and can make your point without being angry.
    Dancing is wonderful training for girls, it's the first way you learn to guess what a man is going to do before he does it. ~Christopher Morley, Kitty Foyle

  8. #8
    God/dess
    Joined
    Nov 2004
    Posts
    2,352
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts

    Default Re: How Solar Technology creates extra pollution and fossil fuel consumption

    Most all alternative energy is cost probibitive with possibly the exception of lighting ( on a commercial setting ) the industry just makes it impossible to come up with a cost concious solution . I also use VFD 's at work variable frequency drives they do really make a difference , they ramp up power instead of just a huge bump of power which in turn protects many of the mechanical parts as well . We really need to look at the Europeans on this topic because they are clearly the leaders in this technology and application .

  9. #9
    Banned BigGreenMnM's Avatar
    Joined
    May 2004
    Location
    Virginia countryside.
    Posts
    3,299
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts

    Default Re: How Solar Technology creates extra pollution and fossil fuel consumption

    Residental or single home solar power is a great idea.It just makes sense to me and i have even looked into it a little bit.

    For the most part,it really isnt avail.There are a few that you can get,but it will take you 20 years to pay for it before it starts to "cost ya nothing" for your electric.
    Most of the systems i could find wont even run a medium sized household and only runs a small percentage of the avail elec.
    You need a huge closet or small room for batteries!

    Its a really great idea,but i think the industry is still years away from someone being able to say"i dont have an electric bill.I would even think the electric companies have had a heavy hand in slowing the industry down.

    I would love it if they developed a system that even took away 50% of the electric bill.

    Who here doesnt want to write the goodbye note to put into the last bill you ever have to send the electric company???
    WOW!!!!

    Like any new technology,its going to be abused in one way or another,although i have no problem with growers who grow a well thought out and planned vintage of kind bud,i do see us having to set some limits on its use when it does become easy avail.For example,If i lived in a suburb,i wouldnt want my next door neighbor to have 50 sprawled out across his front yard looking like chit.Im out in the country and if the family down the road has a green nuke glow that i can see over the tree line at night,im gonna have a prob with that also.

    Its a new thing thats got alot of bugs on all ends.I look forward to them working it all out so the little guy can benifit from it.

  10. #10
    Featured Member discretedancer's Avatar
    Joined
    May 2004
    Location
    PA
    Posts
    1,004
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts

    Default Re: How Solar Technology creates extra pollution and fossil fuel consumption

    [QUOTE=Destiny] Driving a car is a privilage, not a right.[QUOTE]
    You're RIGHT! Of course, we could easily take away the older cars...these people could just take the train to work Oh, no train? Well then there's always the bus! Wait, no...Americans don't have many buses either, no money for public transportation. Oh well, I guess they can just walk to work. Wait, no walking on the government-sponsored highways? Darn, guess jobs are a privilege they can't afford.

    they should be stopped regardlesss of that persons income level. Anything else is not scientifically valid.
    Just returning your sarcasm above. However I don't think it's valid to take away people's way of getting to work. Give me good public transportation, and I'll gladly put gas guzzlers off the road.

    by Dan Jaffe and Rick Vos
    Thanks for the detailed reference on the pollution fact....very helpful. I will look up the entire article, but at a glance the one thing missing there is that CO2 is just one of the gasses we're concerned with...pollution monitors are worried about several components of exhaust.

    If less than 10% of the vehilces are responsilble for more than 50% of the harmful emissions, you should concentrate your efforts on that 10% not ignore them.
    i never said you don't look at them, but neither do you ignore the caus of "the remaining 50%" (in quotes because I don't know that I agree it's 50%)

    I'm just saying that as long as we take things like a person's income into account in making environmental rules, the process will be scientifically invalid.
    Invalid, or imperfect? The idea of testing is not negated because it doesn't do everything perfectly. If it can only attack 50% of the problem, that's 50% more than we have without it

    Yes but you forgot to mention ethanol that all the politicians from farm states have kept in business all these years with their subsidies.
    Ethanol is a valid fuel source, not my favorite....so I don't mention it much.

    without being angry.
    I appreciate the compliment and love the debate with you, Mel and others. I don't want to seem angry (I'm not) - just making my points fast in between other projects.

  11. #11
    Banned Melonie's Avatar
    Joined
    Jul 2002
    Location
    way south of the border
    Posts
    25,932
    Thanks
    612
    Thanked 10,563 Times in 4,646 Posts
    Blog Entries
    3
    My Mood
    Cynical

    Default Re: How Solar Technology creates extra pollution and fossil fuel consumption

    Hmmm. then how come I purchase all-solar/wind electricity for my home and business at less than 10% over the cost of "traditional" electricity. Not 800%, but 10%?
    Because you're ignoring the cost of the embedded subsidies applying to 'wind farms' and 'solar farms' which we're all paying for through higher taxes, higher than necessary commercial electric rates (to cover the inflated prices that commercial utilities are forced to pay to wind/solar generators versus buying lower cost nuclear/coal fired power instead), etc. !

    For the most part,it really isnt avail.There are a few that you can get,but it will take you 20 years to pay for it before it starts to "cost ya nothing" for your electric.
    Most of the systems i could find wont even run a medium sized household and only runs a small percentage of the avail elec. You need a huge closet or small room for batteries!
    You have to account for the additional $20,000 investment in a home solar energy system one way or another. The typical way to do this is to consider the cost of financing an extra $20,000 in the purchase price of a new home over the 30 year life of the mortgage, i.e. spending another $100 a month which wouldn't have to be spent if the house didn't have solar panels. That $100 a month extra mortgage payment effectively offsets the monthly electric bill. Or put another way, a person with solar panels paying a $50 a month commercial electric bill for 'backup' power, compared to a person without solar panels paying $150 a month for 100% commercial electricity, isn't actually saving anything ! And if residential commercial electricity customers with solar cells were charged separately for electrical energy consumed and also for electrical demand on the distribution system as large industrial customers currently are (with the demand charge separately covering the costs of maintaining the electric infrastructure - but which is typically NOT done for residential customers due to the extra cost and complexity of the necessary electric meters and data gathering), they would actually be spending more on a net basis than if they hadn't invested in solar in the first place.

    Granted this does not apply to so called 'stand-alone' solar power systems which have no connection to commercial electric 'back-up' and which instead rely on more solar cells plus large banks of batteries and/or a fossil fueled generator. However, such 'stand-alone' system have an even higher initial purchase cost plus some very significant operating and maintenance costs (like replacing $5,000 worth of batteries every 5 years or so).

    How many residential-based communities can you name (from which these lower income people are being driven out of) actually have an industrial/jobs base which would require them to drive back to that community? I'd have to say (being of course not very experienced, just working for land conservation, community development and related projects full time) that most residential communities aren't where the jobs are - that mixed-use communities are rare (though we wish they weren't).
    I stated at the beginning that this was going to be a California-esque example. However, even on the East Coast and particularly anywhere near D.C. or NYC you'll have to admit that there are large numbers of public service jobs to be found in the big cities i.e. gov't offices, corporate offices, fire and police, health care, as well as tons of service industry jobs i.e. hotels and restaurants, retail etc. which do warrant large numbers of workers driving a good distance to work each day. I'm hoping that you'll also admit that, with the exception of 'combat zones', there are no safe and affordable places for such people to live in the big cities themselves. Suburbs close to the big cities already have high housing / rental costs ... and it is these stylish suburbs who are the most likely to be promoting solar power based on the California example. Outlying less stylish suburbs with their lower housing / rental costs are where the majority of those big city civil service, office and service industry workers are forced to think about living in order to balance their housing costs against their actual after tax incomes.

    Not intending any personal comment, but successfully working in land conservation and community planning does tend to require a certain component of 'social engineering', does it not ?

    I also use VFD 's at work variable frequency drives they do really make a difference , they ramp up power instead of just a huge bump of power which in turn protects many of the mechanical parts as well . We really need to look at the Europeans on this topic because they are clearly the leaders in this technology and application .
    Now THIS is a very practical technology, at least according to my friends in the HVAC business, municipal water systems etc. But for the record, VFD technology was invented, developed and pioneered as a commercial product right here in the good ol' US of A in the mid-70's (while the Europeans were still using D.C. technology) by companies which are now bankrupt (or which have been acquired by foreign owners and taken off the market as a separate product line). European and Asian VFD manufacturers basically took over the market and undersold US competition in the late 1980's based on the availability of new low cost high power semiconductors from European and Asian sources (I'm told they're called IGBT's), while US VFD manufacturers had no remaining US semiconductor industry left to speak of (why the US semiconductor industry moved offshore is another story) and thus were forced to import European or Asian IGBT's at higher cost in an unsuccessful attempt to compete.

    I am told that two of the biggest players in the VFD business today are Toshiba and Siemens, both of which own their own semiconductor divisions as well as VFD and many other electrical products. The US has no similarly structured huge electrical conglomerates (but the history of US electrical conglomerate anti-trust legislation and court rulings is also another story).

    ~
    Last edited by Melonie; 02-26-2005 at 07:57 PM.

  12. #12
    Jay Zeno
    Guest

    Default Re: How Solar Technology creates extra pollution and fossil fuel consumption

    We're worried about Social Security money theoretically running out, so we have to find alternative means.

    Fossil fuels will run out, period. But let's not do anything. We'll call alternative technologies laughable and keep status quo. (I'm not even factoring in environmental consequences of fossil fules.)

    There's a disconnect here in the "conserve" part of "conservative."

  13. #13
    Banned Melonie's Avatar
    Joined
    Jul 2002
    Location
    way south of the border
    Posts
    25,932
    Thanks
    612
    Thanked 10,563 Times in 4,646 Posts
    Blog Entries
    3
    My Mood
    Cynical

    Default Re: How Solar Technology creates extra pollution and fossil fuel consumption

    Fossil fuels will run out, period. But let's not do anything. We'll call alternative technologies laughable and keep status quo. (I'm not even factoring in environmental consequences of fossil fules.)

    There's a disconnect here in the "conserve" part of "conservative
    Hmmm, is that an invitation to allow a Nuclear Power Plant to be built in your back yard ? Nuclear remains the only proven technology which is cost effective, essentially non-polluting, etc. and which is not going to run out of fuel in the next 50 years.

    Since you brought up 'conservative' politics, I would point out that it is the NIMBY motions and over-regulation of the Nuclear industry brought about by 'liberals' which has essentially narrowed the only practical alternative for additional large scale electric generation to natural gas turbines, using a fuel which is going to run out much sooner than oil or coal. And in the northeast at least, much of the new natural gas turbine capacity was financed by both actual (property tax incentive) and de-facto gov't subsidies (via a guaranteed above market price buy back law on power from nat-gas co-gen plants applying to the electric utilities, which increased the electric bill for all customers). Fortunately, albeit 10 years after the fact, the price increases/distortions in the commercial electricity markets caused by the nat-gas co-gen subsidies have finally been acknowledged and are in the process of being removed.

    I'm all for conservation, when the actual costs and benefits are put on the table - i.e. the VFD example above. I actually use one at home which controls the blower on my double combustion wood stove. I also use 100% flourescent or HPS lighting everywhere in my house, because these technologies really do save electricity and money even though the initial cost is somewhat higher than incandescent bulbs.

    However, I have a real problem with politically correct 'supposed' conservation which in reality only conserves gov't jobs to administer gov't subsidies, or which merely transplants true costs and actual pollution sources from one location to another etc. - particularly when the amount of taxes and/or utility bills I have to pay are 'artificially' increased without asking/telling me in advance to finance such programs.
    Last edited by Melonie; 02-26-2005 at 08:23 PM.

  14. #14
    Banned Melonie's Avatar
    Joined
    Jul 2002
    Location
    way south of the border
    Posts
    25,932
    Thanks
    612
    Thanked 10,563 Times in 4,646 Posts
    Blog Entries
    3
    My Mood
    Cynical

    Default Re: How Solar Technology creates extra pollution and fossil fuel consumption

    Yes but you forgot to mention ethanol that all the politicians from farm states have kept in business all these years with their subsidies.

    Ethanol is a valid fuel source, not my favorite....so I don't mention it much.
    Yup, this is another case where the actual total energy input requirements, actual total pollution emitted, and actual total costs are being obscured or ignored. Ethanol production requires huge amounts of fertilizers, pesticides etc. which can be very energy intensive as well as a potential pollution source.

    However, in the grand scheme of gov't subsidies, ethanol production subsidies do seem to benefit more 'average people' (i.e. farmers, chemical industry workers) than say solar cell/solar or wind farm subsidies (i.e. small white collar companies and big time investors looking for tax credits), making the issue of ethanol subsidies more 'republican' versus solar/wind subsidies being more 'democrat'.

    Also, ethanol directly addresses a reduction of the use of fossil fuels in transportation, which is a major percentage of total fossil fuel consumption and which is something that solar/wind energy cannot do.

    I appreciate the compliment and love the debate with you, Mel and others. I don't want to seem angry (I'm not) - just making my points fast in between other projects.
    Yup, me too ! What this country really needs to address the energy problem is a real discussion of the basic issues and facts, putting all of the true economics and secondary factors/unintended consequences on the table, and putting the 'political agendas' behind the different possible technological options in their proper perspective !

    I'm just saying that as long as we take things like a person's income into account in making environmental rules, the process will be scientifically invalid.

    Invalid, or imperfect? The idea of testing is not negated because it doesn't do everything perfectly. If it can only attack 50% of the problem, that's 50% more than we have without it
    Herein lies a huge hypocracy. It's OK to allow an American business to go bankrupt or relocate overseas because strict environmental laws would require that business to invest in 'last decimal point' pollution abatement equipment which the business simply cannot afford and still compete in a global market. On the other hand, it's NOT OK to force a 'poor' American individual to invest in a vehicle which isn't spewing oil fumes out the tailpipe or stay off the roads. Of course, if the environmental regulations against the American business had been more reasonable in the first place (i.e. reducing pollution by say 90% instead of 99.99%), many of those 'poor' Americans might still have a decent paying job and thus be able to purchase newer vehicles emitting much less total pollution than the now defunct US business would have ! And let's not mention that the offshore business which took the place of the defunct US business is most likely not implementing any pollution abatement measures, thus generating ten times as much pollution as a reasonably regulated US business would have emitted (with 10% of that pollution, an equivalent amount to that which a reasonably regulated US business would have generated, still finding its way back to the US eventually via wind and waves).

    Of course I won't bother to point out that American business owners typically support 'republican' policies, while poor Americans typically support 'democratic' policies.

    ~
    Last edited by Melonie; 02-26-2005 at 09:07 PM.

  15. #15
    Featured Member discretedancer's Avatar
    Joined
    May 2004
    Location
    PA
    Posts
    1,004
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts

    Default Re: How Solar Technology creates extra pollution and fossil fuel consumption

    [QUOTE=Melonie]Because you're ignoring the cost of the embedded subsidies applying to 'wind farms' and 'solar farms' which we're all paying for through higher taxes, higher than necessary commercial electric rates (to cover the inflated prices that commercial utilities are forced to pay to wind/solar generators versus buying lower cost nuclear/coal fired power instead), etc. [QUOTE]
    Hmm..
    1. And you know this number (which may or may not be true) to be 800% how?

    2. Aren't you ignoring the subsidies to coal and oil fired utilities, the unlawful protection of their industry, not to mention the health effects of getting the fuel there, plus the subsidies to cleanup spills, maintain roads and bridges (which bring them raw materials), tax incentives and continual profits from the government-protected monopoly

    3. So we should not offer incentives or subsidies to new, emerging businesses or technologies...I thought helping new small business was a HUGE priority for the administration, since all our more established businesses are going overseas to save taxes an money?

    4. Higher rates? Actuially the utilities pay the same for home-generated (or alternatively generated) electricity as they would any other simiilar-type supplier. No more.

    Seems like (at best for existing suppliers) it's a wash !



    You have to account for the additional $20,000 investment in a home solar energy system one way or another.
    [QUOTE], i.e. spending another $100 a month which wouldn't have to be spent if the house didn't have solar panels. [QUOTE] If they did the above calculation correctly, they will save at least that much in electricity they don't have to buy off the grid. Making it a wash...perhoaps a profit...but certainly nothing wrong, bad or unintelligent. They simply chose to invest the $100 in their future (no blackouts, continuing electricity for decades to come, no rate increases) rather than "renting" power from the utility. Same choice they made when they gave up renting an apartment for owning a home - probably won't cost them any less..but at least it will be investments in their future. I don't see the issue.

    And if residential commercial electricity customers with solar cells were charged separately for electrical energy consumed and also for electrical demand on the distribution system as large industrial customers currently are they would actually be spending more on a net basis than if they hadn't invested in solar in the first place.
    I don't have research either way, but don't think I've ever heard this argument. Instinctively, I'd say that
    1.This doesn't logically work, as I have never heard a utility complain of this, for all the energy conferences I've attended

    2 the reason BIG companies (which are the only ones billed as you suggest) have such bills, is because the typically are HUGE consumers - who use up large % of the energy on a specific grid. Perhaps an entire substation will exist only to serve them, rather than a couple hundred (thousand?) homes being connected to one substation...and the cost-per-home for maintaining the lines is actually miniscule.

    t there are large numbers of jobs to be found in the big cities i.e. gov't offices, which do warrant large numbers of workers driving a good distance to work each day.
    Making a great case for more investment in public transportation, usually powered by electricity. Also a good case for hybrid or fuel efficient vehicles...

    I'm hoping that you'll also admit that, with the exception of 'combat zones', there are no safe and affordable places for such people to live in the big cities themselves.
    I don't admit that, neither would most New Yorkers, espeically my "starving artist" friends who live in $500 a month apartments outside the Manhattan boro but still on the subway line

    and it is these stylish suburbs who are the most likely to be promoting solar power based on the California example.
    Actually, those communities were the first to refuse solar energy - simply because it isn't pretty. Dumb, yes, but many of my friends in real estate tell me people are offering to take their solar panels with them..not because it isn't a good investment, but because "modern" people don't like the way they look (of course new solar cells can look like just about anything)

    Not intending any personal comment, but successfully working in land conservation and community planning does tend to require a certain component of 'social engineering', does it not ?
    No, it doesn't . It involves intelligent design, undertanding options and constraints to develop the best solution...but we aren't steering toward a social agenda. Simply working to create societies that can sustain themselves indefinitely. what we have now (pollution, overconsumption, excess waste and pointless sprawl) is not a sustainable path, and that seems clear to everyone.

    What I do (or rather the nonprofits I help do) is 3 things
    1. educate people, correct the misconceptions like those we're raising in these debates and find out the truth.

    2.help communities understand what are their options..what can be done to meet their current and future needs without sacrificing the quality of life in their community. If they need more industry, where and how can we do it so that people still have livable places to work and thrive. If they are concerned about open space (of if heritage diversity corridors suggest they should be, to maintain animal or watershed habitats), how can we steer development away from sensitive areas

    3. help landowners who choose to permanently protect their land...so that it will remain habitat for animals, a source of clean water and air, and affordable for their family to maintain (without estate taxes taking it all away) forever.


    pioneered as a commercial product right here in the good ol' US of A in the mid-70's (while the Europeans were still using D.C. technology) by companies which are now bankrupt (or which have been acquired by foreign owners and taken off the market as a separate product line).
    Sadly true, and yet another example of foreign companies and countries looking at great, sustainable techonogies which HAD THE POTENTIAL TO BE CORE US INDUSTRIES, wating until the US economy pressed them out (possibly because the companies were competing with existing corporations that had HUGE economies of scale and crushed them), and picked them up to resell back to US. Exactly the path biodiesel technology (pioneered by Dr Diesel himself, after he emigrated to US, then abandoned by the US while Europe has embraced it), wind and solar power, along with many other technologies have or will take - if we let them

  16. #16
    Featured Member discretedancer's Avatar
    Joined
    May 2004
    Location
    PA
    Posts
    1,004
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts

    Default Re: How Solar Technology creates extra pollution and fossil fuel consumption

    [QUOTE=Melonie]Because you're ignoring the cost of the embedded subsidies applying to 'wind farms' and 'solar farms' which we're all paying for through higher taxes, higher than necessary commercial electric rates (to cover the inflated prices that commercial utilities are forced to pay to wind/solar generators versus buying lower cost nuclear/coal fired power instead), etc. [QUOTE]
    Hmm..
    1. And you know this number (which may or may not be true) to be 800% how?

    2. Aren't you ignoring the subsidies to coal and oil fired utilities, the unlawful protection of their industry, not to mention the health effects of getting the fuel there, plus the subsidies to cleanup spills, maintain roads and bridges (which bring them raw materials), tax incentives and continual profits from the government-protected monopoly

    3. So we should not offer incentives or subsidies to new, emerging businesses or technologies...I thought helping new small business was a HUGE priority for the administration, since all our more established businesses are going overseas to save taxes an money?

    4. Higher rates? Actuially the utilities pay the same for home-generated (or alternatively generated) electricity as they would any other simiilar-type supplier. No more.

    Seems like (at best for existing suppliers) it's a wash !



    You have to account for the additional $20,000 investment in a home solar energy system one way or another.
    [QUOTE], i.e. spending another $100 a month which wouldn't have to be spent if the house didn't have solar panels. [QUOTE] If they did the above calculation correctly, they will save at least that much in electricity they don't have to buy off the grid. Making it a wash...perhoaps a profit...but certainly nothing wrong, bad or unintelligent. They simply chose to invest the $100 in their future (no blackouts, continuing electricity for decades to come, no rate increases) rather than "renting" power from the utility. Same choice they made when they gave up renting an apartment for owning a home - probably won't cost them any less..but at least it will be investments in their future. I don't see the issue.

    And if residential commercial electricity customers with solar cells were charged separately for electrical energy consumed and also for electrical demand on the distribution system as large industrial customers currently are they would actually be spending more on a net basis than if they hadn't invested in solar in the first place.
    I don't have research either way, but don't think I've ever heard this argument. Instinctively, I'd say that
    1.This doesn't logically work, as I have never heard a utility complain of this, for all the energy conferences I've attended

    2 the reason BIG companies (which are the only ones billed as you suggest) have such bills, is because the typically are HUGE consumers - who use up large % of the energy on a specific grid. Perhaps an entire substation will exist only to serve them, rather than a couple hundred (thousand?) homes being connected to one substation...and the cost-per-home for maintaining the lines is actually miniscule.

    t there are large numbers of jobs to be found in the big cities i.e. gov't offices, which do warrant large numbers of workers driving a good distance to work each day.
    Making a great case for more investment in public transportation, usually powered by electricity. Also a good case for hybrid or fuel efficient vehicles...

    I'm hoping that you'll also admit that, with the exception of 'combat zones', there are no safe and affordable places for such people to live in the big cities themselves.
    I don't admit that, neither would most New Yorkers, espeically my "starving artist" friends who live in $500 a month apartments outside the Manhattan boro but still on the subway line

    and it is these stylish suburbs who are the most likely to be promoting solar power based on the California example.
    Actually, those communities were the first to refuse solar energy - simply because it isn't pretty. Dumb, yes, but many of my friends in real estate tell me people are offering to take their solar panels with them..not because it isn't a good investment, but because "modern" people don't like the way they look (of course new solar cells can look like just about anything)

    Not intending any personal comment, but successfully working in land conservation and community planning does tend to require a certain component of 'social engineering', does it not ?
    No, it doesn't . It involves intelligent design, undertanding options and constraints to develop the best solution...but we aren't steering toward a social agenda. Simply working to create societies that can sustain themselves indefinitely. what we have now (pollution, overconsumption, excess waste and pointless sprawl) is not a sustainable path, and that seems clear to everyone.

    What I do (or rather the nonprofits I help do) is 3 things
    1. educate people, correct the misconceptions like those we're raising in these debates and find out the truth.

    2.help communities understand what are their options..what can be done to meet their current and future needs without sacrificing the quality of life in their community. If they need more industry, where and how can we do it so that people still have livable places to work and thrive. If they are concerned about open space (of if heritage diversity corridors suggest they should be, to maintain animal or watershed habitats), how can we steer development away from sensitive areas

    3. help landowners who choose to permanently protect their land...so that it will remain habitat for animals, a source of clean water and air, and affordable for their family to maintain (without estate taxes taking it all away) forever.


    pioneered as a commercial product right here in the good ol' US of A in the mid-70's (while the Europeans were still using D.C. technology) by companies which are now bankrupt (or which have been acquired by foreign owners and taken off the market as a separate product line).
    Sadly true, and yet another example of foreign companies and countries looking at great, sustainable techonogies which HAD THE POTENTIAL TO BE CORE US INDUSTRIES, wating until the US economy pressed them out (possibly because the companies were competing with existing corporations that had HUGE economies of scale and crushed them), and picked them up to resell back to US. Exactly the path biodiesel technology (pioneered by Dr Diesel himself, after he emigrated to US, then abandoned by the US while Europe has embraced it), wind and solar power, along with many other technologies have or will take - if we let them

  17. #17
    Featured Member discretedancer's Avatar
    Joined
    May 2004
    Location
    PA
    Posts
    1,004
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts

    Default Re: How Solar Technology creates extra pollution and fossil fuel consumption

    [QUOTE=Melonie]Because you're ignoring the cost of the embedded subsidies applying to 'wind farms' and 'solar farms' which we're all paying for through higher taxes, higher than necessary commercial electric rates (to cover the inflated prices that commercial utilities are forced to pay to wind/solar generators versus buying lower cost nuclear/coal fired power instead), etc. [QUOTE]
    Hmm..
    1. And you know this number (which may or may not be true) to be 800% how?

    2. Aren't you ignoring the subsidies to coal and oil fired utilities, the unlawful protection of their industry, not to mention the health effects of getting the fuel there, plus the subsidies to cleanup spills, maintain roads and bridges (which bring them raw materials), tax incentives and continual profits from the government-protected monopoly

    3. So we should not offer incentives or subsidies to new, emerging businesses or technologies...I thought helping new small business was a HUGE priority for the administration, since all our more established businesses are going overseas to save taxes an money?

    4. Higher rates? Actuially the utilities pay the same for home-generated (or alternatively generated) electricity as they would any other simiilar-type supplier. No more.

    Seems like (at best for existing suppliers) it's a wash !



    You have to account for the additional $20,000 investment in a home solar energy system one way or another.
    [QUOTE], i.e. spending another $100 a month which wouldn't have to be spent if the house didn't have solar panels. [QUOTE] If they did the above calculation correctly, they will save at least that much in electricity they don't have to buy off the grid. Making it a wash...perhoaps a profit...but certainly nothing wrong, bad or unintelligent. They simply chose to invest the $100 in their future (no blackouts, continuing electricity for decades to come, no rate increases) rather than "renting" power from the utility. Same choice they made when they gave up renting an apartment for owning a home - probably won't cost them any less..but at least it will be investments in their future. I don't see the issue.

    And if residential commercial electricity customers with solar cells were charged separately for electrical energy consumed and also for electrical demand on the distribution system as large industrial customers currently are they would actually be spending more on a net basis than if they hadn't invested in solar in the first place.
    I don't have research either way, but don't think I've ever heard this argument. Instinctively, I'd say that
    1.This doesn't logically work, as I have never heard a utility complain of this, for all the energy conferences I've attended

    2 the reason BIG companies (which are the only ones billed as you suggest) have such bills, is because the typically are HUGE consumers - who use up large % of the energy on a specific grid. Perhaps an entire substation will exist only to serve them, rather than a couple hundred (thousand?) homes being connected to one substation...and the cost-per-home for maintaining the lines is actually miniscule.

    t there are large numbers of jobs to be found in the big cities i.e. gov't offices, which do warrant large numbers of workers driving a good distance to work each day.
    Making a great case for more investment in public transportation, usually powered by electricity. Also a good case for hybrid or fuel efficient vehicles...

    I'm hoping that you'll also admit that, with the exception of 'combat zones', there are no safe and affordable places for such people to live in the big cities themselves.
    I don't admit that, neither would most New Yorkers, espeically my "starving artist" friends who live in $500 a month apartments outside the Manhattan boro but still on the subway line

    and it is these stylish suburbs who are the most likely to be promoting solar power based on the California example.
    Actually, those communities were the first to refuse solar energy - simply because it isn't pretty. Dumb, yes, but many of my friends in real estate tell me people are offering to take their solar panels with them..not because it isn't a good investment, but because "modern" people don't like the way they look (of course new solar cells can look like just about anything)

    Not intending any personal comment, but successfully working in land conservation and community planning does tend to require a certain component of 'social engineering', does it not ?
    No, it doesn't . It involves intelligent design, undertanding options and constraints to develop the best solution...but we aren't steering toward a social agenda. Simply working to create societies that can sustain themselves indefinitely. what we have now (pollution, overconsumption, excess waste and pointless sprawl) is not a sustainable path, and that seems clear to everyone.

    What I do (or rather the nonprofits I help do) is 3 things
    1. educate people, correct the misconceptions like those we're raising in these debates and find out the truth.

    2.help communities understand what are their options..what can be done to meet their current and future needs without sacrificing the quality of life in their community. If they need more industry, where and how can we do it so that people still have livable places to work and thrive. If they are concerned about open space (of if heritage diversity corridors suggest they should be, to maintain animal or watershed habitats), how can we steer development away from sensitive areas

    3. help landowners who choose to permanently protect their land...so that it will remain habitat for animals, a source of clean water and air, and affordable for their family to maintain (without estate taxes taking it all away) forever.


    pioneered as a commercial product right here in the good ol' US of A in the mid-70's (while the Europeans were still using D.C. technology) by companies which are now bankrupt (or which have been acquired by foreign owners and taken off the market as a separate product line).
    Sadly true, and yet another example of foreign companies and countries looking at great, sustainable techonogies which HAD THE POTENTIAL TO BE CORE US INDUSTRIES, wating until the US economy pressed them out (possibly because the companies were competing with existing corporations that had HUGE economies of scale and crushed them), and picked them up to resell back to US. Exactly the path biodiesel technology (pioneered by Dr Diesel himself, after he emigrated to US, then abandoned by the US while Europe has embraced it), wind and solar power, along with many other technologies have or will take - if we let them

  18. #18
    Jay Zeno
    Guest

    Default Re: How Solar Technology creates extra pollution and fossil fuel consumption

    Quote Originally Posted by Melonie
    Hmmm, is that an invitation to allow a Nuclear Power Plant to be built in your back yard ? Nuclear remains the only proven technology which is cost effective, essentially non-polluting, etc. and which is not going to run out of fuel in the next 50 years.
    I'm all for whatever works. Nuclear power is a viable option, assuming stringent safety and disposal safeguards are placed. The production of oil and coal in America have killed many, many more people (thousands) than the production of nuclear power (near zero). However, we need to keep in mind that if there's a nuclear accident, the contamination causes drastic effects on health and environment long, long into the future. Hence the need for strict safety protocols.


    Since you brought up 'conservative' politics
    It was actually more of a vocabulary dissection, and drawing a philosophical rather than political (dis)connection between exploring alternative Social Security because it will run out and not exploring alternative energy even though our presence primary source will run out.

    I'm all for answers that make sense. If come across a technical roadblock in the development of new energy sources, it doesn't mean that we should stop trying. Indeed, if the benefits are extreme - hydrogen as a clean energy source, for instance - we need to keep putting in the sweat work, a la Edison's light bulb. Hydrogen may not make sense to some, but the steady and irreversible depletion of our fossil fuels, without remedy, makes no sense to me.

  19. #19
    Featured Member discretedancer's Avatar
    Joined
    May 2004
    Location
    PA
    Posts
    1,004
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts

    Default Re: How Solar Technology creates extra pollution and fossil fuel consumption

    Agreed JZ and I'm not against nuke plants...as long as we don't create more problems for our "seventh generation" decendants with the waste products from our solutions of the day.

  20. #20
    God/dess
    Joined
    Feb 2005
    Location
    San Diego, CA
    Posts
    2,210
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts

    Default Re: How Solar Technology creates extra pollution and fossil fuel consumption

    De-nationalize the energy industry and stop subsidizing oil via foreign adventures in the Middle East.

    Get rid of the monopoly providers of energy in counties and so forth.

    I would love a Nuclear plant in my backyard.


    No social engineering please, let us just return to the respect of private property and end the enforced monopolies created by the government.

  21. #21
    Veteran Member stant's Avatar
    Joined
    Aug 2004
    Location
    Los Angeles
    Posts
    613
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts

    Default Re: How Solar Technology creates extra pollution and fossil fuel consumption

    This thread reminds me of the movie "the Matrix" which has as a core theory the most preposterous misunderstanding of energy ever puked out of Hollywood. I understand it's just a movie. Yet hardly anyone notices how moronic this premise is even as fiction.

    The premise is that in a post nuclear war "winter", machines harvest humans as a source of electrical energy. These humans are kept alive using recycled dead humans as food.

    There is a reason one does not clip jumper cables to one's nipples to start a car. People are not batteries. We suck as an electrical energy source. And eating the dead is a fairly limited food supply.

    At the most basic level, we have only three sources of energy available to use: solar, nuclear, and geothermal. All others are derivative of these. Of course solar power is actually nuclear power (hydrogen fusion), the power plant just happens to be off site. Our friend the Sun.

    Keep this in mind when lumping "Solar" into some quasi-liberal bashing lexicon that substitutes for actual thought. (No nukes is a similar type of slogan from the other side). I accept (Mel) that you are referring to current solar cell technology, and your issue is with the efficiency of the energy delivery. Fossil fuels are also solar derived. Different delivery efficiency. Wouldn't you agree at least that solar heating systems for pools are a wise and efficient way to convert solar heat to heating water in residential uses in sunny climates?

    Quote Originally Posted by Sh0t
    De-nationalize the energy industry and stop subsidizing oil via foreign adventures in the Middle East.
    I presume by "de-nationalize" you mean remove the embedded government corruption from this industry. If we remove all of the eath's geothermal supply, hell will freeze over, too.

    Get rid of the monopoly providers of energy in counties and so forth.
    Sounds like a good idea. Not working so far. But worth more effort.
    I would love a Nuclear plant in my backyard.
    http://www.lewrockwell.com/miller/miller13.html
    Yes, but doesn't developing nuclear energy hurt our beloved oil and gas industries, and by consequence the military industry? Don't you know we need perpetual war?

    Subsidies and regulations are ideally a method for government to protect the public interest, through policies, against the inherent myopic and dangerous effects of a free market, driven to a large extent by quarterly earnings reporting. Unfortunately, the regulations and subsidies have become so mired in corporate and pork based corruption, many are indeed counter productive to public policy.

    Does anyone believe in their wildest fantasy that new automobile emissions would be as incredibly low as the are in many new cars without forcing companies into compliance with the strict California, and eventually nationally similar emmission standards. Cafe standards were working similarly, until almost frozen, and the creation of the SUV "light truck" loop hole.

    Solar cell technology is such a potentially huge leap for "promoting the general welfare", that it deserves a significantly forward looking break even point investment.
    Last edited by stant; 02-27-2005 at 12:35 PM.

  22. #22
    God/dess
    Joined
    Feb 2005
    Location
    San Diego, CA
    Posts
    2,210
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts

    Default Re: How Solar Technology creates extra pollution and fossil fuel consumption

    Be de-nationalize I mean remove the government from the industry, period.


    Subsidies and regulations are, always, benefits given to certain people at the expensive of the majority. There is no "public interest", everything useful is useful to individuals and each individual is guided by different values. The best way to let each individual pursue his own interests and happiness is to remove ALL the regulation, affirm property rights, and let the individual keep all of his money.

    The regulations and subsidies have not become mired in corruption, they CAME ABOUT because of corrupt. The whole ideology of "the public good" came about from a need to con the public into letting elites use the government into slaughtering the masses economically.

    Even things like emissions and smog came about because of the abridgement of property rights, namely the air within our lungs and the crops of certain farmers and such. One can track the progression as the courts began to circumvent common law and make rulings based on "the public good", allowing factories to pollute and destroy crops and such.

  23. #23
    Veteran Member myssi's Avatar
    Joined
    Dec 2004
    Location
    Indiana
    Posts
    341
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 1 Time in 1 Post

    Default Re: How Solar Technology creates extra pollution and fossil fuel consumption

    Here's an article on the inefficency of (European) wind power I didn't see mentioned above...
    http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/4300723.stm
    The NIMBY phenomenon afflicts liberals in places like Massachusetts when it comes to
    wind farms off the cape in Nantucket Sound. Although supposedly safe for birds now,
    I guess the lobstermen are against it, etc.

  24. #24
    Veteran Member stant's Avatar
    Joined
    Aug 2004
    Location
    Los Angeles
    Posts
    613
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts

    Default Re: How Solar Technology creates extra pollution and fossil fuel consumption

    Cool. A hard-core libertarian. You sound like a true believer.

    Quote Originally Posted by Sh0t
    The best way to let each individual pursue his own interests and happiness is to remove ALL the regulation, affirm property rights, and let the individual keep all of his money.
    ...

    Even things like emissions and smog came about because of the abridgement of property rights, namely the air within our lungs and the crops of certain farmers and such.
    Explain to me just how these "property rights" of the air within our lungs (property which changes every few seconds) is enforced with a complete absence of regulation. Identification of the infringers (all sources of the smog) seems impossible. What about ozone layer depletion? What property rights are being abridged? Clean sunlight? How can I identify my sunlight? And who fucked it up?
    Last edited by stant; 02-27-2005 at 01:01 PM.

  25. #25
    Banned Melonie's Avatar
    Joined
    Jul 2002
    Location
    way south of the border
    Posts
    25,932
    Thanks
    612
    Thanked 10,563 Times in 4,646 Posts
    Blog Entries
    3
    My Mood
    Cynical

    Default Re: How Solar Technology creates extra pollution and fossil fuel consumption

    1. And you know this number (which may or may not be true) to be 800% how?
    You've attempted to make this point several times now. Clarifying what I actually said, solar cell systems are at least 8 times more expensive to install than conventional generation on a per kW basis. I made no claims to cover other aspects of the comparative economics i.e. nuclear fuel costs versus the costs of operating and maintaining battery (or other) energy storage systems as an adjunct to solar cells.

    2 the reason BIG companies (which are the only ones billed as you suggest) have such bills, is because the typically are HUGE consumers - who use up large % of the energy on a specific grid. Perhaps an entire substation will exist only to serve them, rather than a couple hundred (thousand?) homes being connected to one substation...and the cost-per-home for maintaining the lines is actually miniscule.
    Well, the cost per car of maintaining roadways via a similarly assessed gasoline road tax is also miniscule on a per vehicle basis. However, when a significant number of vehicles start converting to technology which 'exploits' the present indirect tax assessment method to their advantage it creates a sizable budget shortfall which draws LARGE amounts of attention. At the moment the number of homes equipped with solar cells which are 'exploiting' the present indirect method of assessing electrical system maintenance costs is tiny and 'below the radar' of utility accountants, much like the handful of hybrid vehicles were two years ago. However, as the percentage of homes with solar cells rises the issue will definitely rise 'above the radar' at some point, as it already has with hybrid vehicles and the road tax assessment via gasoline sales as opposed to miles driven. If and when electrical system maintenance costs are correctly assessed via higher tech metering of electrical demand as well as simple consumption, this loophole will be closed. When that happens, like hybrid vehicles the 'apparent' economics of solar cell technology will take a decidedly negative turn.

    4. Higher rates? Actuially the utilities pay the same for home-generated (or alternatively generated) electricity as they would any other simiilar-type supplier. No more.
    Not true. Technically most utilities are required to purchase 100% of available 'green power', which by definition means that when total electrical demand is less than total generator capacity (as it is 99.9% of the time, with the 0.1% causing blackouts) the utilities do NOT have the option of turning down purchase of power from a 'green power' generator in favor of a less expensive oil or coal fired plant's power. This has the effect of increasing the spot market price of electricity over what it otherwise would have been, with the utilities passing on that price premium to ALL electricity customers not just 'green power' customers.

    I accept (Mel) that you are referring to current solar cell technology, and your issue is with the efficiency of the energy delivery.
    Yes solar cell technology. My issues with it are many, including the assessment of true delivery and system maintenance costs (which is not presently done), tax subsidies to solar farm investors, tax subsidies to individual home solar cell installers, de-facto subsidies for all 'green power' sold through commercial utilities at the expense of conventionally generated power customers, neglecting to mention maintenance costs of solar cell systems with battery energy storage, and many other issues which allow a much 'rosier' picture to be painted around solar cell technology than is truly warranted.

Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast

Similar Threads

  1. Replies: 3
    Last Post: 05-28-2011, 01:19 AM
  2. China Pollution Pictures (graphic)
    By J.D. in forum The Lounge
    Replies: 14
    Last Post: 11-21-2009, 11:23 PM
  3. Kate Hudson creates affordable eco hair products
    By LadyLuck in forum Body Business
    Replies: 4
    Last Post: 06-12-2008, 01:16 PM
  4. Replies: 2
    Last Post: 06-22-2007, 11:05 AM
  5. Available porn creates lack of intimacy
    By CrescentLuna in forum The Lounge
    Replies: 13
    Last Post: 06-17-2004, 01:59 PM

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •