"ANY energy" is just wishful thinking. If it isn't enough to justify the cost of the panels and infrastructure, it is pointless...but as long as it is somebody else's money you are spending...
"ultra-useless heat generating"? Wait till you cover the roof with midnight blue solar cells. That'll be some heat generation!
"sun reflecting"? If it isn't reflected, it is absorbed, and that would turn your friendly Walmart into an oven, unless they crank up the A/C. More A/C means more power consumption, so was there really an improvement?
In terms of building structures, yes. In terms of solar generation potential, no, not really. You shouldn't assume one implies the other.
If it is a wash, then a million dollars worth of solar cell equipment is a million dollars down the drain.
RandyCat, I am not sure that you really know all that much about solar energy. Neither do I actually, although I hope to find out more - and hope to eventually install some solar panels on my roof.
I do know that the technology for the generation of electricity from sunlight is still not that efficient, with solar cells currently only able to convert about 12-15% of the solar energy into electricity. I also know that research into solar technology has increased this efficiency and decreased costs, and is expected to continue to do so. (Imagine if all the research and subsidy dollars wasted on inefficient, expensive, and dangerous nuclear energy had been spent on solar energy instead).
Finally, even at the current levels of efficiency, a massive rooftop solar array can and does work, and saves dollars too! Example (After you click on Example, then look at the link "Shell Solar and PowerLight Corporation announce one-megawatt of solar electricity installed on New York rooftop" at the bottom of the page.)
I understand your resistance to suburban sprawl. Be aware, though, that the clearing of trees is not the problem it is made out to be. There are more trees in the US today than there were during the Revolutionary War (fact).
I'm having a hard time finding any proof of this.
I did, however, find this web page which states the following:
Quote:
America still has 70 percent of the forest land it had in pre-Colonial days?about 737 million acres today.
I understand your resistance to suburban sprawl. Be aware, though, that the clearing of trees is not the problem it is made out to be. There are more trees in the US today than there were during the Revolutionary War (fact).
I'd really like to see some proof of this claim please. Also were they recently planted or mature? I have a real hard time swallowing this one.
As to the above post 70 percent is quite different ( although impressive and no doubt due to people being concerned about this in the first place ) from " more ".
It may be a *major* problem in parts of the world where the existence of the rainforest is absolutely necessary for the existing ecosystem to carry on. You cut down the rainforest, you devastate natural habitats, animals die, the food chain is screwed, you abandon the continent after it's taken over by rabid rabbits and stump-dwelling insects.
That is a Ginormous? problem. But I don't think it's the same at all, here. You see, we don't exactly have a lot of rainforests. We've got harsh winters and a wildly different climate. And -- left to their own devices -- the forests that existed pre-colonization would burn to the ground quite a bit, at least with regards to the mass majority. This was just the way that the forests worked. Some trees might burn and other, more brazen trees might survive, and in general the soil was kept in tip-top shape this way. Burnt stuff is great for plants, you know.
Thus the problem. We like to build houses out in the middle of the woods. And the people living in those houses don't give a rabid rabbit about "nature" this and "normal" that. They've got assets about to be destroyed by what is termed a "natural disaster," which could be called a "normal occurrence" with the same amount of correctness. So we fight the fires, and the natural cycle stops. Forests don't burn every once in a while, the soil isn't renewed, and we head off into a grey area where our convenience is more weighty a matter than our impact upon the natural world.
So we've got to do something about that. Believe it or not, logging is quite good for the ecosystem if done in the correct fashion. For example, it's usually a bad thing to take out big swaths of forest as a matter of convenience, then leave the place be after getting what we want. If you replant and fertilize the soil, and cut the trees away in a more organized manner such as strip logging, you're essentially replacing the link in the chain while taking something for yourself, the lumber. Not a bad deal, and we get to live in the woods as well.
You can't really do the same thing in a rainforest, as that type of forest doesn't like to burn down every few decades. There are also forests in the U.S. that do not exhibit this behavior, but they are few and far between in comparison with those that do, and it isn't really necessary to log them into oblivion.
I'm not saying that this is how it happens in the real world, which is the world driven by supposedly evil corporations with the agenda of "make more money." But it should be this way. Some things you just shouldn't mess with.
Of course it's price gouging, but I don't necessarily agree with the previous statement. When a Taiwanese chipmaker slumps and fails to produce enough chips, it raises prices. Those chips already in the channel don't sell at the previous prices. Resellers take into account the fact they'll be paying more for the next batch and immediately raise prices of what they have already.
Add collusion to the mix and we can find a much bigger problem.
Don't tell me you think that the forests and timberland should be left unchanged, whether it be by fire or man?
It's really, really simple. We settle here, and it sucks when our houses burn down due to normal, natural occurrences. So, we fight the fire. We stop the renewal cycle. We change nature. We stop it where we see fit.
Your way, and you are changing the whole cycle, and getting a different result that influenced by our presence. In other words, it's fake nature. Just because you see a nice, tree-filled wilderness that stretches for miles on end doesn't mean you should shriek when you see a lumberjack stroll by. The forest is only a *permanent* feature because we made it that way by changing nature. Period.
If you want to put an artificial link in the cycle to replace the link you destroy by fighting natural forest fires, you cut out portions of the forests that are naturally supposed to burn down, replant, and fertilize to the equivalency of post-forest fire soil. It's not changing the whole cycle, destroying the soil and leaving the forests to artificially stay because we *think* that's how it's supposed to be. It's a natural result, and you just don't want to see it that way because you fancy your preferred, unnatural result.
I am by no means advocating that we cut down all the trees west of the Missouri to the Rockies -- far from it. I'm saying we should be foresting the smart way, the way that lets things go on like they're supposed to.
Don't tell me you think that the forests and timberland should be left unchanged, whether it be by fire or man?
No. I like lumberjacks and I hope they can survive or be brought back. I don't like companies that clear cut and I wouldn't care if they all died. A forest can easily handle intelligent cutting, like the ocean can handle intelligent fishing.
My comment was to say that counting the number of trees doesn't mean squat. Forests have been lost forever and that's a bigger problem than just the number of trees.
Back to the topic and away from the idiocy that is strap-yourself-to-a-tree environmentalism.
Labor Day weekend, I'm driving from southern Iowa to the middle of Colorado. Now, this sort of road trip sucks under just about any circumstances, but add in skyrocketing gas prices and it doesn't seem so close anymore.
Driving a newish Dodge Dakota, with a V8. Not sure what the highway mileage is but I have a feeling that I'll be watching that odometer like a hawk.
One more thing I'd like to add in. Europeans complaining (no, I refer not to the Aussies or people living in anywhere else but Europe) about how they pay so much for their litres of petrol are a bit off base. They seem to forget the vastness of the United States. A jaunt in England is nothing in comparison to what people consider major traveling here. There's a reason why we use more gas per capita: our country is so damned big.
RandyCat, I am not sure that you really know all that much about solar energy.
Is this to mean that others here do? Why just single me out? I threw down some basic issues to counter the notion that solar is some kind of homerun solution.
Quote:
Finally, even at the current levels of efficiency, a massive rooftop solar array can and does work, and saves dollars too!
I stand corrected, then. Do note that they speak of how much savings in energy cost, how much pollution is saved, how much power is generated, and some minor expenses saved for what would otherwise be regular roof maintenance, but they don't reveal how expensive the installation ended up being, how long it will last, or the reduction in efficiency over that lifetime. I'm sure it was a pretty penny which will put the "recouped energy savings" figure in the red for some time. As you would expect, the article is pretty upbeat. Maybe it's because they want to sell you some solar cells? Good find, though!
Is this to mean that others here do? Why just single me out? I threw down some basic issues to counter the notion that solar is some kind of homerun solution.
I stand corrected, then. Do note that they speak of how much savings in energy cost, how much pollution is saved, how much power is generated, and some minor expenses saved for what would otherwise be regular roof maintenance, but they don't reveal how expensive the installation ended up being, how long it will last, or the reduction in efficiency over that lifetime. I'm sure it was a pretty penny which will put the "recouped energy savings" figure in the red for some time. As you would expect, the article is pretty upbeat. Maybe it's because they want to sell you some solar cells? Good find, though!
Thanks. And I agree that it is not an immediate panacea. The big problem is that it requires a large investment that takes years to recoup. I was told that, at current levels of efficiency and with the current price of panels vs. the current market price of electricity, the time it takes is about 20 years for installations on individual houses. That is a long time.
On the other hand, the efficiency of panels is steadily getting better and the price of other sources of electricity is steadily increasing. Consider as well that many other sources of electricity require large initial outlays (nuclear generating station anyone?). Solar energy is rapidly becoming competitive.
I heard an interesting interview with a representative of a large corporation in the wake of the power outage last week in Ontario and the northeastern States. He said that his company simply cannot afford to rely solely on the power grid anymore and would likely purchase a massive solar array to install on their huge roof and factory grounds. On good days, they hope to be selling surplus power back to the grid (reverse metering - the technology is already here and is being used, even in some private homes that have windmills and/or solar panels). On less sunny days, they would still have to buy some power from the grid. If the grid goes down, they could still operate at normal or almost normal levels, depending on the day.
Now imagine if all the enormous factory, warehouse, and Wall-Mart rooftops in Canada and the U.S. were similarly equipped.
A change is gonna come.... And, likely, it is not going to come because environmentalits and governments make it come (as sympathetic as I am to environmentalists and to the public interest). It will come because of self-interest of corporations and individuals, as other sources of energy become more expensive per kilowatt/hour and solar energy continues to become less expensive per kilowatt/hour. And nobody is taxing the sun.
This load of crap compliments of the Washington Post and your local Oil Whore Analysts:
The tried-and-true
Quote:
In addition, a rupture in a gasoline pipeline that provides Phoenix with about a third of its gasoline caused hundreds of service stations to close last week and prices to shoot up.
Yah, a gas pipeline that feeds Phoenix causes everyone's gas to shoot up $.20 a gallon because it did't work for a few days. I believe that.
The back-up-plan
Quote:
The disruptions came as supplies of oil have been abnormally low. Over the past year, hurricanes on the gulf coast, the national strike in Venezuela and the war in Iraq have contributed to the low production levels, analysts said.
Let's seee: Hurricanes (must be talking about LAST year's hurricanes because I'm not aware of any THIS year that substantially damaged oil refineries). So I guess stuff that happened LAST September and October just NOW causes massive price changes at the pump. Yes that makes sense.
National Strike in Venezuela. Hmm. I wonder what percentage of our foreign oil imports comes from Venezuela on average each month. Low single digits I'm guessing. But more importantly when did this strike start? Was there say, a strike going on when prices were averaging $1.50 a gallon?
Iraq: hasn't Iraq's oil business been under strain for several years now?
In short, I don't see how ANY of this can cause the magnitude of price change we've seen. We're being lied to and the general public is so fuking stupid that they go "oh yah, the oil pipeline in Phoenix; it must feed the entire west coast!" and think no more of it. We're being fed a load of shit because one of the excuses above is BOUND to work on 80% of the American public. These are the same people who get off on WWF Smackdown and P-diddly after all....
The oil whores must be made obsolete lest our problems where oil is concerned, never be solved.
Tangent: Nightline had a knee-slapper session last night on Hyrdogen fuel cells and how they can reduce our dependancy on oil, etc. I love how they spun the who thing as a big friggin joke - the guests were laughing at the technology the whole way through - I wonder which executive from GM stressed to ABC news that it should be a "light hearted" piece. That "we're not really ready yet"....
A piece like that should be as detailed and dead-serious as a debate on the Israelis and Palestinians or SARS. Asshole media.
Over here in the UK we pay the equivalent of US$ 5.50 per gallon. The government wants to tax us off the road, and as a result our cars tend to have pretty good mpg - for example my car routinely gets 45 m.p.g
As far as oil reserves are concerned the bottleneck isn't anything to so with refining - it's all about getting the oil out of the ground in the first place. If you just open the tap then you stand to lose a hell of a lot of production and your reservoir will have a higher water cut much earlier - you may even bypass reserves and get water cut off. The key to a sustained oil supply is good reservoir management and that means knowing when to slow production - something that the US didn't find out about until the it was too late (well almost too late anyway). Thats by the by and a lot of you will know that anyway. From discovering oil to first production can take as long as 10-15 years with all the planning/testing etc that needs to go into it. So, sure oil may last another 200, 400, 600 years or whatever, but it will get less abundant in supply and will become more expensive.
I've been thinking about this for a while (wrt teaching those oil industry hoars a lesson). I wish someone could come up with a gas "filler" that could be sold at say $0.50/gal. You could dilute your gas with it to fill your tank. HP performance would be horrendous, but there would be no possibility for engine damage. Essentially, it would be like really "weak" gasoline, power-wise. Chemically, it would be like an inert component that won't give engines trouble to adapt to, won't futz up any equipment, but fills your tank volume-wise.
So instead of buying $25 or $30 of gas to fill your tank, you buy $7, and then top it off with this "filler" gas stuff at a substantial cost reduction. That way you can choose to shoot for full engine performance with pure gas or save some money with the "filler" method and sort of "limp" you car around town.
I know, why not just save gas by enforcing a personal edict to barely breath on the throttle to "limp" around town? Problem is, most people don't have that much control, mpg for a particular car will only improve by so much no matter what you do with the throttle, and in the end, the gasoline companies will eventually get your $25-30 to fill your tank, anyways. So by offering a "filler" alternative, this will shunt potential revenues away from those greedy oil bastards (assuming it is somebody else who is selling the filler component, of course).
Surely, there will be caveats to this strategy that I have not written here. It's just an idea that I think could give the consumer back some power in this terrible relationship.
I've been thinking about this for a while (wrt teaching those oil industry hoars a lesson). I wish someone could come up with a gas "filler" that could be sold at say $0.50/gal. You could dilute your gas with it to fill your tank. HP performance would be horrendous, but there would be no possibility for engine damage. Essentially, it would be like really "weak" gasoline, power-wise. Chemically, it would be like an inert component that won't give engines trouble to adapt to, won't futz up any equipment, but fills your tank volume-wise.
The oil companies beat you to it! Although they weren't too worried whether it would cause fuel pump damage. And of course when these things were added, did the price go down, even though there was less gasolline there?
Seems not only is most gas sold with a methanol blend of up to 10%, but nowadays we are being sold gas with a cheap detergent to "help" the consumer keep their fuel injectors clean.
The big problem is that it requires a large investment that takes years to recoup. I was told that, at current levels of efficiency and with the current price of panels vs. the current market price of electricity, the time it takes is about 20 years for installations on individual houses. That is a long time.
On the other hand, the efficiency of panels is steadily getting better and the price of other sources of electricity is steadily increasing. Consider as well that many other sources of electricity require large initial outlays (nuclear generating station anyone?). Solar energy is rapidly becoming competitive.
I'm not prepared to talk at length about solar power (plus I'll get the usual thread hijack rant), but from what I have seen, although there have been advances in solar cell efficiency, they have not made a great difference in the cost of solar installations. In fact, in the past few years, the costs have actually increased as the interest in solar power has increased. (That is, the increase in volume has not been sufficient to compensate for the supply and demand effect.)
A few years ago, I purchased a solar system for installation on my sister's house in Southern California. My cost was about $30,000, partly because the system is overdesigned and can be more than doubled in size without changing the electronics. During the day, even with many major appliances running, my sister's family sells some power to the utility. However, a great deal of time is spent at home when when system is not supplying power. Their electricity cost is now about 10% of what they had previously been paying. A payback period of about 20 years sounds right. The warranty of most commercial solar cells is 25 years. ( I took an introductory engineering class in which one person claimed that the cells were only good for about 10 to 15 years, but I have no idea where that statement came from.)
The cost for a self-sufficient household system is probably about $15,000 - $20,000 for one which does not include a battery storage system and relies on the excess produced during the day to offset the energy purchased at night.
A good source is www.solarsolar.com. eBay doesn't have very good prices on solar panels, but you might find a good price on a used or refurbished inverter. A more expensive source, but one which has been in business since I've been looking at alternative sources of energy (~25 years) is www.realgoods.com.
In my opinion, photovoltaics will not make a significant contribution unless there is some sort of legislation mandating their use, perhaps for new housing developments. Rebates and incentive plans (up to 50% of the installation cost) has not encouraged widespread use, and now, with the present state of the economy, many of these plans are no longer in existance. It is true that individual companies have seen the advantages of solar for their buildings, (for example, Clint Eastwood has installed solar panels at his golf course near Carmel or Monterey to power the buildings and charge the golf carts) but these exceptions are few.
The oil companies beat you to it! Although they weren't too worried whether it would cause fuel pump damage. And of course when these things were added, did the price go down, even though there was less gasolline there?
Seems not only is most gas sold with a methanol blend of up to 10%, but nowadays we are being sold gas with a cheap detergent to "help" the consumer keep their fuel injectors clean.
No, I'm talking about a "filler" that does absolutely nothing, but be a cheap filler- none of this methanol to bump octane (and does have energy content of its own and thus a comparable cost to the gasoline itself) or detergents (which exact a cost of their own). This would be sold at rock bottom prices by "stations" that are utterly independent of actual gas stations (or maybe it could be obiquitous enough so that you could buy yourself 5-gallon containers of the stuff at your local Walmart?). Hence the traditional gas stations won't be allowed room to pigeonhole cost from one area to another. They'll just sell less gas, and hopefully "feel the pain". I would go so far as to say this filler could be some sort of "water-based" product, formulated to not rust anything, and is completely soluable in gasoline. (Though I guess water itself may actually not be cheap enough? It wouldn't have to be drinkable level water quality, though. So maybe that could modify the price of what you typically buy off the shelf for drinking.)
Comments
Originally posted by Randycat99
"ANY energy" is just wishful thinking. If it isn't enough to justify the cost of the panels and infrastructure, it is pointless...but as long as it is somebody else's money you are spending...
"ultra-useless heat generating"? Wait till you cover the roof with midnight blue solar cells. That'll be some heat generation!
"sun reflecting"? If it isn't reflected, it is absorbed, and that would turn your friendly Walmart into an oven, unless they crank up the A/C. More A/C means more power consumption, so was there really an improvement?
In terms of building structures, yes. In terms of solar generation potential, no, not really. You shouldn't assume one implies the other.
If it is a wash, then a million dollars worth of solar cell equipment is a million dollars down the drain.
RandyCat, I am not sure that you really know all that much about solar energy. Neither do I actually, although I hope to find out more - and hope to eventually install some solar panels on my roof.
I do know that the technology for the generation of electricity from sunlight is still not that efficient, with solar cells currently only able to convert about 12-15% of the solar energy into electricity. I also know that research into solar technology has increased this efficiency and decreased costs, and is expected to continue to do so. (Imagine if all the research and subsidy dollars wasted on inefficient, expensive, and dangerous nuclear energy had been spent on solar energy instead).
Finally, even at the current levels of efficiency, a massive rooftop solar array can and does work, and saves dollars too! Example (After you click on Example, then look at the link "Shell Solar and PowerLight Corporation announce one-megawatt of solar electricity installed on New York rooftop" at the bottom of the page.)
Originally posted by SDW2001
rok:
I understand your resistance to suburban sprawl. Be aware, though, that the clearing of trees is not the problem it is made out to be. There are more trees in the US today than there were during the Revolutionary War (fact).
I'm having a hard time finding any proof of this.
I did, however, find this web page which states the following:
America still has 70 percent of the forest land it had in pre-Colonial days?about 737 million acres today.
Originally posted by SDW2001
rok:
I understand your resistance to suburban sprawl. Be aware, though, that the clearing of trees is not the problem it is made out to be. There are more trees in the US today than there were during the Revolutionary War (fact).
I'd really like to see some proof of this claim please. Also were they recently planted or mature? I have a real hard time swallowing this one.
As to the above post 70 percent is quite different ( although impressive and no doubt due to people being concerned about this in the first place ) from " more ".
It may be a *major* problem in parts of the world where the existence of the rainforest is absolutely necessary for the existing ecosystem to carry on. You cut down the rainforest, you devastate natural habitats, animals die, the food chain is screwed, you abandon the continent after it's taken over by rabid rabbits and stump-dwelling insects.
That is a Ginormous? problem. But I don't think it's the same at all, here. You see, we don't exactly have a lot of rainforests. We've got harsh winters and a wildly different climate. And -- left to their own devices -- the forests that existed pre-colonization would burn to the ground quite a bit, at least with regards to the mass majority. This was just the way that the forests worked. Some trees might burn and other, more brazen trees might survive, and in general the soil was kept in tip-top shape this way. Burnt stuff is great for plants, you know.
Thus the problem. We like to build houses out in the middle of the woods. And the people living in those houses don't give a rabid rabbit about "nature" this and "normal" that. They've got assets about to be destroyed by what is termed a "natural disaster," which could be called a "normal occurrence" with the same amount of correctness. So we fight the fires, and the natural cycle stops. Forests don't burn every once in a while, the soil isn't renewed, and we head off into a grey area where our convenience is more weighty a matter than our impact upon the natural world.
So we've got to do something about that. Believe it or not, logging is quite good for the ecosystem if done in the correct fashion. For example, it's usually a bad thing to take out big swaths of forest as a matter of convenience, then leave the place be after getting what we want. If you replant and fertilize the soil, and cut the trees away in a more organized manner such as strip logging, you're essentially replacing the link in the chain while taking something for yourself, the lumber. Not a bad deal, and we get to live in the woods as well.
You can't really do the same thing in a rainforest, as that type of forest doesn't like to burn down every few decades. There are also forests in the U.S. that do not exhibit this behavior, but they are few and far between in comparison with those that do, and it isn't really necessary to log them into oblivion.
I'm not saying that this is how it happens in the real world, which is the world driven by supposedly evil corporations with the agenda of "make more money." But it should be this way. Some things you just shouldn't mess with.
Originally posted by SDW2001
Be aware, though, that the clearing of trees is not the problem it is made out to be.
SDW2001,
Just remember that a tree farm is not a forest.
Thanks.
Originally posted by Eugene
Of course it's price gouging, but I don't necessarily agree with the previous statement. When a Taiwanese chipmaker slumps and fails to produce enough chips, it raises prices. Those chips already in the channel don't sell at the previous prices. Resellers take into account the fact they'll be paying more for the next batch and immediately raise prices of what they have already.
Add collusion to the mix and we can find a much bigger problem.
Originally posted by bunge
SDW2001,
Just remember that a tree farm is not a forest.
Thanks.
Don't tell me you think that the forests and timberland should be left unchanged, whether it be by fire or man?
It's really, really simple. We settle here, and it sucks when our houses burn down due to normal, natural occurrences. So, we fight the fire. We stop the renewal cycle. We change nature. We stop it where we see fit.
Your way, and you are changing the whole cycle, and getting a different result that influenced by our presence. In other words, it's fake nature. Just because you see a nice, tree-filled wilderness that stretches for miles on end doesn't mean you should shriek when you see a lumberjack stroll by. The forest is only a *permanent* feature because we made it that way by changing nature. Period.
If you want to put an artificial link in the cycle to replace the link you destroy by fighting natural forest fires, you cut out portions of the forests that are naturally supposed to burn down, replant, and fertilize to the equivalency of post-forest fire soil. It's not changing the whole cycle, destroying the soil and leaving the forests to artificially stay because we *think* that's how it's supposed to be. It's a natural result, and you just don't want to see it that way because you fancy your preferred, unnatural result.
I am by no means advocating that we cut down all the trees west of the Missouri to the Rockies -- far from it. I'm saying we should be foresting the smart way, the way that lets things go on like they're supposed to.
Originally posted by Spart
Don't tell me you think that the forests and timberland should be left unchanged, whether it be by fire or man?
No. I like lumberjacks and I hope they can survive or be brought back. I don't like companies that clear cut and I wouldn't care if they all died. A forest can easily handle intelligent cutting, like the ocean can handle intelligent fishing.
My comment was to say that counting the number of trees doesn't mean squat. Forests have been lost forever and that's a bigger problem than just the number of trees.
Back to the topic and away from the idiocy that is strap-yourself-to-a-tree environmentalism.
Labor Day weekend, I'm driving from southern Iowa to the middle of Colorado. Now, this sort of road trip sucks under just about any circumstances, but add in skyrocketing gas prices and it doesn't seem so close anymore.
Driving a newish Dodge Dakota, with a V8. Not sure what the highway mileage is but I have a feeling that I'll be watching that odometer like a hawk.
One more thing I'd like to add in. Europeans complaining (no, I refer not to the Aussies or people living in anywhere else but Europe) about how they pay so much for their litres of petrol are a bit off base. They seem to forget the vastness of the United States. A jaunt in England is nothing in comparison to what people consider major traveling here. There's a reason why we use more gas per capita: our country is so damned big.
Originally posted by Chinney
RandyCat, I am not sure that you really know all that much about solar energy.
Is this to mean that others here do? Why just single me out? I threw down some basic issues to counter the notion that solar is some kind of homerun solution.
Quote:
Finally, even at the current levels of efficiency, a massive rooftop solar array can and does work, and saves dollars too!
I stand corrected, then. Do note that they speak of how much savings in energy cost, how much pollution is saved, how much power is generated, and some minor expenses saved for what would otherwise be regular roof maintenance, but they don't reveal how expensive the installation ended up being, how long it will last, or the reduction in efficiency over that lifetime. I'm sure it was a pretty penny which will put the "recouped energy savings" figure in the red for some time. As you would expect, the article is pretty upbeat. Maybe it's because they want to sell you some solar cells?
Originally posted by Randycat99
Is this to mean that others here do? Why just single me out? I threw down some basic issues to counter the notion that solar is some kind of homerun solution.
I stand corrected, then. Do note that they speak of how much savings in energy cost, how much pollution is saved, how much power is generated, and some minor expenses saved for what would otherwise be regular roof maintenance, but they don't reveal how expensive the installation ended up being, how long it will last, or the reduction in efficiency over that lifetime. I'm sure it was a pretty penny which will put the "recouped energy savings" figure in the red for some time. As you would expect, the article is pretty upbeat. Maybe it's because they want to sell you some solar cells?
Thanks. And I agree that it is not an immediate panacea. The big problem is that it requires a large investment that takes years to recoup. I was told that, at current levels of efficiency and with the current price of panels vs. the current market price of electricity, the time it takes is about 20 years for installations on individual houses. That is a long time.
On the other hand, the efficiency of panels is steadily getting better and the price of other sources of electricity is steadily increasing. Consider as well that many other sources of electricity require large initial outlays (nuclear generating station anyone?). Solar energy is rapidly becoming competitive.
I heard an interesting interview with a representative of a large corporation in the wake of the power outage last week in Ontario and the northeastern States. He said that his company simply cannot afford to rely solely on the power grid anymore and would likely purchase a massive solar array to install on their huge roof and factory grounds. On good days, they hope to be selling surplus power back to the grid (reverse metering - the technology is already here and is being used, even in some private homes that have windmills and/or solar panels). On less sunny days, they would still have to buy some power from the grid. If the grid goes down, they could still operate at normal or almost normal levels, depending on the day.
Now imagine if all the enormous factory, warehouse, and Wall-Mart rooftops in Canada and the U.S. were similarly equipped.
A change is gonna come.... And, likely, it is not going to come because environmentalits and governments make it come (as sympathetic as I am to environmentalists and to the public interest). It will come because of self-interest of corporations and individuals, as other sources of energy become more expensive per kilowatt/hour and solar energy continues to become less expensive per kilowatt/hour. And nobody is taxing the sun.
The tried-and-true
In addition, a rupture in a gasoline pipeline that provides Phoenix with about a third of its gasoline caused hundreds of service stations to close last week and prices to shoot up.
Yah, a gas pipeline that feeds Phoenix causes everyone's gas to shoot up $.20 a gallon because it did't work for a few days. I believe that.
The back-up-plan
The disruptions came as supplies of oil have been abnormally low. Over the past year, hurricanes on the gulf coast, the national strike in Venezuela and the war in Iraq have contributed to the low production levels, analysts said.
Let's seee: Hurricanes (must be talking about LAST year's hurricanes because I'm not aware of any THIS year that substantially damaged oil refineries). So I guess stuff that happened LAST September and October just NOW causes massive price changes at the pump. Yes that makes sense.
National Strike in Venezuela. Hmm. I wonder what percentage of our foreign oil imports comes from Venezuela on average each month. Low single digits I'm guessing. But more importantly when did this strike start? Was there say, a strike going on when prices were averaging $1.50 a gallon?
Iraq: hasn't Iraq's oil business been under strain for several years now?
In short, I don't see how ANY of this can cause the magnitude of price change we've seen. We're being lied to and the general public is so fuking stupid that they go "oh yah, the oil pipeline in Phoenix; it must feed the entire west coast!" and think no more of it. We're being fed a load of shit because one of the excuses above is BOUND to work on 80% of the American public. These are the same people who get off on WWF Smackdown and P-diddly after all....
The oil whores must be made obsolete lest our problems where oil is concerned, never be solved.
Tangent: Nightline had a knee-slapper session last night on Hyrdogen fuel cells and how they can reduce our dependancy on oil, etc. I love how they spun the who thing as a big friggin joke - the guests were laughing at the technology the whole way through - I wonder which executive from GM stressed to ABC news that it should be a "light hearted" piece. That "we're not really ready yet"....
A piece like that should be as detailed and dead-serious as a debate on the Israelis and Palestinians or SARS. Asshole media.
As far as oil reserves are concerned the bottleneck isn't anything to so with refining - it's all about getting the oil out of the ground in the first place. If you just open the tap then you stand to lose a hell of a lot of production and your reservoir will have a higher water cut much earlier - you may even bypass reserves and get water cut off. The key to a sustained oil supply is good reservoir management and that means knowing when to slow production - something that the US didn't find out about until the it was too late (well almost too late anyway). Thats by the by and a lot of you will know that anyway. From discovering oil to first production can take as long as 10-15 years with all the planning/testing etc that needs to go into it. So, sure oil may last another 200, 400, 600 years or whatever, but it will get less abundant in supply and will become more expensive.
Originally posted by bunge
Labor Day Weekend.
DING, DING, DING, DING!!!!
So instead of buying $25 or $30 of gas to fill your tank, you buy $7, and then top it off with this "filler" gas stuff at a substantial cost reduction. That way you can choose to shoot for full engine performance with pure gas or save some money with the "filler" method and sort of "limp" you car around town.
I know, why not just save gas by enforcing a personal edict to barely breath on the throttle to "limp" around town? Problem is, most people don't have that much control, mpg for a particular car will only improve by so much no matter what you do with the throttle, and in the end, the gasoline companies will eventually get your $25-30 to fill your tank, anyways. So by offering a "filler" alternative, this will shunt potential revenues away from those greedy oil bastards (assuming it is somebody else who is selling the filler component, of course).
Surely, there will be caveats to this strategy that I have not written here. It's just an idea that I think could give the consumer back some power in this terrible relationship.
Originally posted by Randycat99
I've been thinking about this for a while (wrt teaching those oil industry hoars a lesson). I wish someone could come up with a gas "filler" that could be sold at say $0.50/gal. You could dilute your gas with it to fill your tank. HP performance would be horrendous, but there would be no possibility for engine damage. Essentially, it would be like really "weak" gasoline, power-wise. Chemically, it would be like an inert component that won't give engines trouble to adapt to, won't futz up any equipment, but fills your tank volume-wise.
The oil companies beat you to it! Although they weren't too worried whether it would cause fuel pump damage. And of course when these things were added, did the price go down, even though there was less gasolline there?
Seems not only is most gas sold with a methanol blend of up to 10%, but nowadays we are being sold gas with a cheap detergent to "help" the consumer keep their fuel injectors clean.
Originally posted by Chinney
The big problem is that it requires a large investment that takes years to recoup. I was told that, at current levels of efficiency and with the current price of panels vs. the current market price of electricity, the time it takes is about 20 years for installations on individual houses. That is a long time.
On the other hand, the efficiency of panels is steadily getting better and the price of other sources of electricity is steadily increasing. Consider as well that many other sources of electricity require large initial outlays (nuclear generating station anyone?). Solar energy is rapidly becoming competitive.
I'm not prepared to talk at length about solar power (plus I'll get the usual thread hijack rant), but from what I have seen, although there have been advances in solar cell efficiency, they have not made a great difference in the cost of solar installations. In fact, in the past few years, the costs have actually increased as the interest in solar power has increased. (That is, the increase in volume has not been sufficient to compensate for the supply and demand effect.)
A few years ago, I purchased a solar system for installation on my sister's house in Southern California. My cost was about $30,000, partly because the system is overdesigned and can be more than doubled in size without changing the electronics. During the day, even with many major appliances running, my sister's family sells some power to the utility. However, a great deal of time is spent at home when when system is not supplying power. Their electricity cost is now about 10% of what they had previously been paying. A payback period of about 20 years sounds right. The warranty of most commercial solar cells is 25 years. ( I took an introductory engineering class in which one person claimed that the cells were only good for about 10 to 15 years, but I have no idea where that statement came from.)
The cost for a self-sufficient household system is probably about $15,000 - $20,000 for one which does not include a battery storage system and relies on the excess produced during the day to offset the energy purchased at night.
A good source is www.solarsolar.com. eBay doesn't have very good prices on solar panels, but you might find a good price on a used or refurbished inverter. A more expensive source, but one which has been in business since I've been looking at alternative sources of energy (~25 years) is www.realgoods.com.
In my opinion, photovoltaics will not make a significant contribution unless there is some sort of legislation mandating their use, perhaps for new housing developments. Rebates and incentive plans (up to 50% of the installation cost) has not encouraged widespread use, and now, with the present state of the economy, many of these plans are no longer in existance. It is true that individual companies have seen the advantages of solar for their buildings, (for example, Clint Eastwood has installed solar panels at his golf course near Carmel or Monterey to power the buildings and charge the golf carts) but these exceptions are few.
Originally posted by JimDreamworx
The oil companies beat you to it! Although they weren't too worried whether it would cause fuel pump damage. And of course when these things were added, did the price go down, even though there was less gasolline there?
Seems not only is most gas sold with a methanol blend of up to 10%, but nowadays we are being sold gas with a cheap detergent to "help" the consumer keep their fuel injectors clean.
No, I'm talking about a "filler" that does absolutely nothing, but be a cheap filler- none of this methanol to bump octane (and does have energy content of its own and thus a comparable cost to the gasoline itself) or detergents (which exact a cost of their own). This would be sold at rock bottom prices by "stations" that are utterly independent of actual gas stations (or maybe it could be obiquitous enough so that you could buy yourself 5-gallon containers of the stuff at your local Walmart?). Hence the traditional gas stations won't be allowed room to pigeonhole cost from one area to another. They'll just sell less gas, and hopefully "feel the pain". I would go so far as to say this filler could be some sort of "water-based" product, formulated to not rust anything, and is completely soluable in gasoline. (Though I guess water itself may actually not be cheap enough? It wouldn't have to be drinkable level water quality, though. So maybe that could modify the price of what you typically buy off the shelf for drinking.)