BS: Problems with Solar Energy

Subject: BS: Problems with Solar Energy
From: Q (Frank Staplin)
Date: 09 Mar 13 - 08:38 PM

Solar energy is suggested as a replacement for fossil energy sources.
Two collection methods currently are in use.
1. solar panels
2. Parabolic mirrors

Solar panels have about 40% efficiency. They are expensive, especially when retrofitted. Cost is borne by the purchaser, usually part through taxes.
For many areas, the energy generated must be supplemented by other means.
Their manufacture creates large volumes of toxic sludge and contaminatesd water, bearing carcinogenic cadmium. Seventeen companies in California created 46.5 million tons of sludge and contaminated water in 2007-2010, which had to be transported to disposal sites.

Two sites in California, supported in part by tax money, were selected for large scale generation.
The plant in initial service, engineered and managed by the Spanish company Abengoa, is in the Mohave desert, using parabolic mirrors to heat liquid steam to drive turbines to generate electricity. It covers 1765 acres, generates 600,000 MWh/year and cost US$ 1600 million to build.
The other project, Blythe, Solar Millennium, originally based on parabolic mirror technology, went broke, but is being revived by a German company who will use solar panels.

Cost relative to coal and other energy sources, waste products involved in manufacture, and cost of long transmission infrastructure are drawbacks to current methods of converting solar energy.

Subject: RE: BS: Problems with Solar Energy
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 09 Mar 13 - 09:05 PM

Current methods are still primitive methods. In time they'll get better.

It's worth remembering that all fossil fuels, together with all hydroelectric and wind power, are forms of solar power. Just different methods of production and storage. The same goes for muscle power by animals or humans.

Subject: RE: BS: Problems with Solar Energy
From: Bobert
Date: 09 Mar 13 - 09:12 PM

There is a guy in Maryland who went solar 25 years ago and has been selling electricity back to his power company ever since... He has now paid for all the initial costs and has been in the black for years...

I heard him being interviewed 15 years ago and at that point in time he was in the black...

Solyndra was a great idea... Too bad that China subsidized their own solar industry and we allowed Solyndra to go belly up.... That was stupid...

BTW, I just stayed at my late brother in law's house for 5 days and he installed a solar hot water heater some 25 years ago and it is still making all the hot water for my sister-in-law's house...

B~

Subject: RE: BS: Problems with Solar Energy
From: pdq
Date: 09 Mar 13 - 09:22 PM

"...installed a solar hot water heater..."


If the water is already hot, why do you need to heat it?

Subject: RE: BS: Problems with Solar Energy
From: Bobert
Date: 09 Mar 13 - 09:35 PM

Come on, P... That was kinda lame... Why not just watch "I Love Lucy" reruns and call it a night...

B;~)

Subject: RE: BS: Problems with Solar Energy
From: Don Firth
Date: 09 Mar 13 - 09:42 PM

Q, take a look at what I posted on the XL pipeline thread at 26 Feb 13 - 03:53 PM (I tried to supply a link, but I couldn't make it work). It deals with a method of harnessing solar power using essentially non-polluting materials, involving relatively low cost installation and utilizing pieces of real estate that nobody much wants.

Another rich source of energy would be large turbines anchored to the sea floor tapping the energy of ocean currents. This idea was suggested sometime in the 1970s or 80s, complete with responses to the various objections some people raised ("They'll kill whales!" Even if true, it would be easy to prevent). Brilliant plan as presented, but nobody saluted,

There are all kinds of non-polluting energy sources out there if one uses a little ingenuity.

But once again: "We will have solar power when one of the power companies figures out how to run a sunbeam through a meter."

THAT's the problem!

Incidentally, I'm not a total ignoramus in this field. In the 1980s I worked as a technical writer for a firm that was doing contract work for the Bonneville Power Administration. The particular project was to find new, non-polluting, and hopefully inexpensive source of energy. A lot of really fascinating stuff crossed my desk.

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: Problems with Solar Energy
From: pdq
Date: 09 Mar 13 - 09:48 PM

No, Bobert, not Lucille Ball.

That was George Carlin.

I assumed he was a hero of yours.

Subject: RE: BS: Problems with Solar Energy
From: GUEST,Ignoramus Indeed
Date: 10 Mar 13 - 12:16 AM

Why this delusional man should take pride in that sort of a career is most pecular.

The Bonneville Power Administration is a USA federal agency under the Department of Energy.
It has no shareholders. It is pure socialism.

It generates power on the Columbia river through 31 federal dams.

The agency borrows money from the US Treasury.

And the pridefull mudact boasts...have we no shame?

For ALL; of the lovely mudaters who have signed The ¢ornish Hens.   cluck truck
here is an even more inportant petition to return lands back to the public.


WWW :
giveusourlandback.org/petition-to-de-federalize-oregon-lands

Subject: RE: BS: Problems with Solar Energy
From: Don Firth
Date: 10 Mar 13 - 12:38 AM

Ye gods!!

Okay, Goofball, crawl back onto the microscope slide where you came from. I know ALL ABOUT the Bonneville Power Administration.

In this instance, the Department of Energy commissioned the Bonneville Power Administration, covering some 22 Public Utility Districts in the Pacific Northwest, to find new, cheap, non-pollutioning sources of power. At the end of a long survey, they were dragged, kicking and screaming, to the conclusion that the cheapest, most non-polluting source of untapped energy was--

--fasten your seat belt--

CONSERVATION!

I worked on several aspects of the program, but the part I did the most work on was the BPA's residential weatherization program, providing subsidies to Washington State residents to have their homes insulated and have double-paned windows and such installed.

If they're doing the right thing, I don't give a damn whether they are socialists, Mormons, or left-handed ukulele players!

And if "GUEST,Ignoramus Indeed" is NOT Goofball, then he, she, or it has to be a twin brother, sister, or paramecium.

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: Problems with Solar Energy
From: artbrooks
Date: 10 Mar 13 - 01:15 AM

Yes, there is a problem with solar energy. It reduces the money that the Public Service Company of New Mexico gets from me by about $80 per month. Gee, I'm sorry about that. Not.

Subject: RE: BS: Problems with Solar Energy
From: Rumncoke
Date: 10 Mar 13 - 08:57 AM

I suspect that instead of converting the sun's energy into electricity and then back again for warming up water, it might be more cost effective to use heat absorbing surfaces with a fluid running through - pipes in asphalt maybe, and then warm up a tank of water.

With the modern boilers hot water tanks have been taken out of a lot of houses, but they are still available and could soon be adapted and plumbed back into the system.

Just don't walk on the asphalt barefoot on a warm Summer afternoon if the cooling fluid isn't running through the pipes.

Subject: RE: BS: Problems with Solar Energy
From: GUEST,gillymor
Date: 10 Mar 13 - 10:12 AM

Rumncoke, your first sentence describes the way my pool heater functions.
Don, perhaps your paramecium has divided -shudder-.

Subject: RE: BS: Problems with Solar Energy
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 10 Mar 13 - 11:44 AM

I lived, at one time, in a solar powered house that, all things considered wasn't too bad at all...except at night it was a little less lit than I would have liked, but that's not the main problem with solar power.
We all know how 'Big Oil' has a virtual monopoly on supply and prices, and how they 'fix' the supply and prices to be able to maximize their profits..and more often than not, fraudulently...right??....Well it seems that too many of the government funded solar panel, and car, and alternative companies have taken the same lesson from 'Big Oil' ..except at least 'Big Oil' delivers a product before ripping us off!

GfS

Subject: RE: BS: Problems with Solar Energy
From: Q (Frank Staplin)
Date: 10 Mar 13 - 12:32 PM

Don, long ago there was a thread about using marine currents and tides. Discussed were two projects, one British, in the North Sea and the other in Maritime Canada using tides. I don't know wht progress has been made recently, but I was going to check in google. You may be familiar with the efforts around Great Britain.

Your other suggestion is, of course, experimentally demonstrable, but against it, very large land areas would have to be used. The daily temperature variation would have to be considerable.
In the U.S., even the southern "deserts" have spells in the winter when the temperature has little variation, sometimes snow and freezing. Moreover, the deserts are loved by many of us; we hate to see them torn up or disturbed. Also unfortunately, cities like Phoenix have grown exponentially and are demanding more water than is sustainable. There is no "unwanted real estate" left (perhaps in the Sahara?).

I won't comment on the BPA; that is a digression. Also TVA, etc.

Rumcoke, the Mohave project in California heats liquid steam in tubes; the technique perhaps is practical for individual users as well.

Subject: RE: BS: Problems with Solar Energy
From: Megan L
Date: 10 Mar 13 - 01:09 PM

Marine energy is alive and well and living here Orkneys contribution

Subject: RE: BS: Problems with Solar Energy
From: Amos
Date: 10 Mar 13 - 01:51 PM

Item: We put in enough solar panels two-three years back to reduce our SDG&E bill for electricity from $180 to $5/month. The installation amortizes over ten years and has been tocking like a clock with no problems since we installed it. We get some months where they credit us $5 instead of billing it. This includes the baseline costs such as metering.

Item: The leading explorations into nano-scale phenomena are frequently coming up with molecular-sized constructs for harvesting and channeling energy from ambient thermal, light, mechanical motion and sound pulses. It is only a matter of time, for example, before a roof tile can be built that responds to all these things by harvesting microscale levels of energy second by second from every gust of air, mechanical vibration, thermal gradient, infrared or ultraviolet or visible light impinging on it. At that point a house will be wholly self-powering.

Item: The huge tonnage of the world's oceans are pumped up and down twice a day by the biggest pump in the solar system, the lunar pull, combined with assorted vectors of momentum from the planets motion and other gravitic forces. We have not even begun to realize the benefits of harvesting this entirely passive and renewable resource.

Item: The thermal gradient between the top of an average roof and a spot, say, fifteen feet below the back yard would be enough to drive a slow but steady Sterling engine most of the time. We are bathing in enough energy to run the planet on, once we get serious about pursuing it.

Item: Quantum-scale energetic phenomena are not even close to being understood or managed in any except the most superficial ways so far. It is distinctly possible that the mechanisms of energy production in the physical universe's basic structure might completely change the way we look at energy once they are better understood. Zero-point energy and the origins and dynamics of quantum foam are two areas where strange discoveries are waiting to be made. It is possible, too, that space itself is energetic in some way not yet understood. These are enticing speculations, so far.

Item: It is possible that the right combination of sound frequencies can make ordinary water or slightly "doped" water produce explosive energy yields; the phenomena of sono-luminescence is being studied in the US, Japan and other places. It remains to be seen whether this phenomena can ber scaled and whether it can be done in an economically fruitful way.

So don't give up hope, my fellow carbonators.

The era of drawing burnable fuel out of the ancient deposits in the Earth's shell and using them to pollute the atmosphere, distort the climate and also power our civilization is drawing to a tortured close no matter how profitable it has been.

Subject: RE: BS: Problems with Solar Energy
From: pdq
Date: 10 Mar 13 - 02:05 PM

Solar water heating is reasonably efficient and many people have gotten good results from a few hundred dollars worth of materials and their own fabrication skills.

However, it may cost $80 per week to heat a large house in the Winter and only $80 per year to heat water by natural gas for that same house.

We need to start with new solar house construction and make Federal loans very attractive.

It could start as early in the process as orienting towns, districts and streets so the the long side of the house will face the correct SW Sun exposure (US).

Subject: RE: BS: Problems with Solar Energy
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 10 Mar 13 - 02:13 PM

For what it's worth...There is a product now out, that is an exterior 'paint', that is also capable of doubling as solar collection to provide electricity. True story....(I wonder if the EPA will shut it down, listing some bogus reason, to keep their crony buddies in China, making solar panels.)

GfS

Subject: RE: BS: Problems with Solar Energy
From: Q (Frank Staplin)
Date: 10 Mar 13 - 03:01 PM

The exterior paint-
Titanium dioxide coated with cadmium compound in a water-alcohol mixture creates a "paint" that generates electricity when exposed to light. The "paint" is carcinogenic, and unstable, and the amount of electricity generated is low. Notre Dame University.

Enough of this nonsense about the EPA or "big" somebody shutting research down. If it works and is economically viable, it will be produced.

(One benefit of having solar panels produced in China or wherever is that they will have to deal with disposal of the contaminated water and toxic residues, not North Americans).

Subject: RE: BS: Problems with Solar Energy
From: artbrooks
Date: 10 Mar 13 - 03:16 PM

@pdq: why would the cost of solar water heating be so high? $80/week seems outrageous...isn't it a closed system, so the cost to replenish the water should be minimal.

Subject: RE: BS: Problems with Solar Energy
From: Don Firth
Date: 10 Mar 13 - 03:19 PM

Thanks to Megan for the information, and yes, Q, I will check that out.

And to Amos. A post to be studied in detail.

As to the large insulating panels that my friend Doug Johnson postulated, there are large areas of real estate that nobody uses for much of anything (much of the Sahara, yes, the Kalahari, many areas in the Middle East, parts of the American Southwest, areas in Australia, all over the place) and although they may have esthetic appeal to those passing through, to many people they are just wasteland. This matter would take a bit of debate.

I see this as being a bit similar to those who say that wind farms are an "eyesore." To me, and to a fair number of environmentally concerned people, wind farms are most pleasing to the eye. The Danes are rather proud of theirs and are a bit smug about the cheap and plentiful electricity they have. And I find the argument about wind turbines interfering with the path of migratory birds or the rotors smacking birds out of the sky in great hordes to be downright spurious. I've watched flights of Canada geese flying overhead in great V formations and their flight path is so far above the wind turbines that the whole argument becomes silly.

Migratory birds do make stops, usually in marshes and wetlands to rest and refuel. In fact, one of these is in the city of Seattle, north end, well inside the city limits: Green Lake. Great hordes of migrating geese stop there. The simple solution is, don't put wind turbines near marshes and wetlands. Easy enough not to do.

I'm sure the wind turbine rotors do occasionally smack a low-flying bird out of the sky, but in significant numbers? Highly doubtful!

In fact, I know someone who has a wind turbine in his back yard. He put it up himself. He had some tremendous battles with the FAA and the CAB because he is near the Seattle-Tacoma International Airport, but it was determined that any airliner landing or taking off who was so low they might clip the tower was in very deep trouble already. Seattle City Light tried to get it taken down because, not only was it producing enough electricity to power everything in his house, his meter was running backward! He was putting power back into the system, and legally, they had to pay him. SCL went so far as to try to get his neighbors to complain about the "eyesore," but that backfired. They came and asked Randy a lot of questions about it, and several more towers have gone up in that neighborhood!

Nobody's noticed any piles of dead birds anywhere.

As to "GUEST, Ignoramus Indeed" (probably one of Goofball's multiple personalities), yes, the Bonneville Power Administration is a tax supported government agency, hence, "Socialistic," for those who are terrified by the word. But the power dams on the Columbia River (most of them, like Grand Coulee dam, built in the 1930s -'40s) are providing inexpensive hydroelectric power to the entire Pacific Northwest—and we are also selling lots of it to California!

By the way, a lot of coal-fired power plants were shut down when power from the dams came on line (!!)

[Woody Guthrie wrote a number of songs about the project: Roll on Columbia, The Great Grand Coulee Dam, a whole bunch of others. 'Course there are those who would complain that Woody Guthrie was a "socialist!"]

The fact is, there is one helluvalot of non-polluting, non-fossil fuel produced energy available out there in the real world. A little thought about the ways of harnessing and utilizing it without the motivation of "how much money can we make out of this!??" could turn this into a whole lot less polluted and much cleaner world.

Take another look at the air quality in Beijing: COUGH!! WHEEZE!! If we keep on with what we've been doing, we could be killing ourselves by simply breathing too!

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: Problems with Solar Energy
From: Q (Frank Staplin)
Date: 10 Mar 13 - 03:26 PM

Calgary-
Kit to provide 6 kilowatts, $12,795. Payout est. 12 years.
But add to this the cost of a master electrician to install if the installation is to be connected to the grid. This is a legal requirement in Alberta.

Subject: RE: BS: Problems with Solar Energy
From: GUEST,999
Date: 10 Mar 13 - 03:35 PM

http://www.solarenergy.com/

This site looks interesting. I'm off to explore it.

Subject: RE: BS: Problems with Solar Energy
From: pdq
Date: 10 Mar 13 - 03:35 PM

I said "...only $80 per year to heat water by natural gas for that same house..."

Please read a little more carefully. Yes, I do not write that well. Science major, ya know.

The point was that space heating of a house may cost 50 times as much as heating the water for that same house.

We need to focus more on the changes that will save the most money.

Subject: RE: BS: Problems with Solar Energy
From: artbrooks
Date: 10 Mar 13 - 03:50 PM

@pdq: you said (and I think the ellipses are properly placed) solar water heating...may cost $80 per week to heat a large house in the Winter and only $80 per year to heat water by natural gas for that same house. Now, I'm thinking of water radiators circulating solar-heated hot water throughout the house for heat, not using solar as a means to heat water for showers, etc. Some places in my neighborhood have that set-up. Or did you mean just to provide hot water for washing?

Subject: RE: BS: Problems with Solar Energy
From: Q (Frank Staplin)
Date: 10 Mar 13 - 03:53 PM

That Calgary kit requires 395 sq. ft. of aligned roof space, so if extensions are required, zoning restrictions may be a problem. If the installation is broken into sections, costs are much increased.

Tall buildings with large glass areas, and tendency to create strong wind action around them are a hazard to birds here in Calgary. I have observed the wind towers on Oahu, where the main objection is based on aesthetics.

Subject: RE: BS: Problems with Solar Energy
From: artbrooks
Date: 10 Mar 13 - 04:17 PM

@Q: that seems like a lot of square footage. My system is only 1.8 KW (50% of average usage), and it's done with eight 2x4 foot panels. If I've done the math right, sizing that up to 6 KW would require only 210 sq. ft.

I paid more for it than that, but I had it professionally installed (I'm pretty inept at that sort of thing), and tax breaks reduced the overall cost by about a third. I figure about a 9-year period for amortization, based on what I used to pay for electricity year around and the amount the power company pays me when the meter runs backward. I actually pay for power (maybe $15/month) three months out of the year, and that's when the days are shorter and the lights are on longer.

Subject: RE: BS: Problems with Solar Energy
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 10 Mar 13 - 05:21 PM

Don the pseudo intellectual: "As to "GUEST, Ignoramus Indeed" (probably one of Goofball's multiple personalities), yes, the Bonneville Power Administration is a tax supported government agency,...." (blah blah blah)

...and there are more.......

..and here's one from CBS..so stop your whining!!!

I stand by my statement.."Well it seems that too many of the government funded solar panel, and car, and alternative companies have taken the same lesson from 'Big Oil' ..except at least 'Big Oil' delivers a product before ripping us off!"

Once again, you blather far too much!!

GfS

Subject: RE: BS: Problems with Solar Energy
From: GUEST
Date: 10 Mar 13 - 05:27 PM

...and here's ANOTHER list!!!

...and if you don't like THAT source..here's the search page..pick one!

Interesting, isn't it?

GfS

Subject: RE: BS: Problems with Solar Energy
From: Don Firth
Date: 10 Mar 13 - 05:42 PM

No.

The discussion has moved on.

Again, just bitch and complain. Nothing positive out of you.

Fox News!?? Quelle surprise!!

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: Problems with Solar Energy
From: Q (Frank Staplin)
Date: 10 Mar 13 - 06:40 PM

Artbrooks-
I haven't checked panels and installation except for the one local supplier that I quoted.
Our hot water tank and furnace are natural gas. Lights and appliances are electrical. I really haven't looked into solar installation costs seriously.

Subject: RE: BS: Problems with Solar Energy
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 10 Mar 13 - 06:50 PM

It hasn't moved on..quit diverting the thread....like you always do, and then you start your spin.

You are getting boringly predictable....(but in reality, you have been for quite a while!

The topic was solar, as opposed to 'conventional' fuels. I maintain that it WOULD be cheaper, but the 'alternative' suppliers are just as corrupt....even with massive government subsidies.

The fuel sources aren't the problem..corruption is!

...and by the way dingle-berry, I posted a lot more than Fox's report..or didn't you bother to look at them...oh, wise researcher that you pretend to be....or just cherry pick ANYTHING out of a FACTUAL post, just to call attention to yourself, and your failing ideology?


GfS

Subject: RE: BS: Problems with Solar Energy
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 10 Mar 13 - 07:18 PM

I rather assumed that "GUEST, Ignoramus Indeed" was being heavily ironical, from the name chosen and the content of the post. Surprised to have people taking him or her at face value.

Subject: RE: BS: Problems with Solar Energy
From: Bobert
Date: 10 Mar 13 - 09:20 PM

This thread should be labeled "Exhibit A" on why the US isn't further down the road toward a modern energy grid made up of a variety of sources...

Solar panels have been around (and working) for decades yet how much of our total energy needs are being met by the sun??? Like way less than 1%...

The Republicans love blast Obama on Solyndra but when we look at the big picture??? Solyndra did everything right... The Chinese didn't... They put massive subsidies into their own solar panel industry and, like the 80s and the theft of out steel industry, we sat back and did nothing.... Why would the Chinese go out on a limb on solar panels??? Ain't rocket surgery...

What we have right now is a complete BIG OIL assault on renewables... Doesn't much matter which one... They hate them all... Ocean currents??? Communism, right... Wind??? More communism... Solar??? Even worse communism...

That is reality, folks...

You want more BIG OIL and CLEAN COAL then just stick your head back into them tar sands...

B~

Subject: RE: BS: Problems with Solar Energy
From: Don Firth
Date: 10 Mar 13 - 09:41 PM

Keeping in mind, of course, that "clean coal" is a contradiction in terms.

There is plenty of clean, renewable energy out there. If private entrepreneurs won't develop it, the government will have to.

(EEK!! Socialism!!)

So?

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: Problems with Solar Energy
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 10 Mar 13 - 10:04 PM

Bobert: "The Republicans love blast Obama on Solyndra but when we look at the big picture??? "

The Republicans didn't cause the problems with all the stimulus money being scammed from the American people on bogus solar energy scams ..that bit of corruption squander happened on Obama's watch. That being said..the Republicans are just as guilty for their corner of corruption...that of course, uses 'Conservative' issues that caters to the 'right' wing....just like what the Democrats are given to cater to the 'left' wing. Same game, just different 'cover stories' given for reasons and excuses!
....and really, how can you see it any other way, than how it has been??

I didn't make this up...I just put it into simple words for ya'.

GfS

Subject: RE: BS: Problems with Solar Energy
From: Don Firth
Date: 10 Mar 13 - 10:27 PM

. . . Fox News. . . .

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: Problems with Solar Energy
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 11 Mar 13 - 11:48 AM

Pick another one, then..I posted the Yahoo search page...the story is pretty much the same on any of them. You're just picking on Fox News, as to create a bias...without addressing the issue...so knock it off. Do you really want to insist on acting immature??

GfS

Subject: RE: BS: Problems with Solar Energy
From: Q (Frank Staplin)
Date: 11 Mar 13 - 01:41 PM

This thread is failing, but a few remarks on Solyndra.
1. Their thin-film technology works. One example is the "House of Light" at the Univ. of Tennessee.
2. Costs are high when compared with conventional panel technology.
3. In addition to the $535 million U.S. loan, private investors (including Kaiser) put in $198 million.
4. Bankruptcy declared soon after the loans were received. Question- were company officials aware that their technology was not economically viable before they received and used the loan money?
5. Government policy is to support clean energy research that has promise. There is no guarantee that reasearch will pay off economically.
6. The Solyndra case- The method works, but did the government scientific advisors have an inadequate grasp of the economical downside of the method, and did company officials take the money while being aware that the product was not economically viable? No real answer yet.

----------------------------New topic--------------------

Toxicity of solar panels. Manufacture and disposal.

These panels contain cadmium, selenium, and sulfur hexachloride (potent greenhouse gas) and other toxic and carcinogenic substances.
Their useful life is about 20 years.

There is no program for the safe recycling and disposal of these materials. Moreover, their manufacture entails the waste production of cadmium and other toxic materials that must receive special disposal sites.
At present, unwanted and waste electronic and similar materials are shipped to developing countries, where their disassembly puts toxins into soil and water. The people are exposed to cancer-causing toxins.

I do not bemoan the loss of solar panel production to China. The materials used in their manufacture can contaminate land, air and water, and their disposal requires special sites (think Hanford). Perhaps Bobert would like disposal to take place on his property.


Condemning the Obama administration for supporting research is short-sighted. No research guarantees economic viability of the results.

Solar panel energy is at best a limited (and dangerous) option. Large-scale generation is needed to significantly lower use of fossil fuels in industry and transportation and the technology is in its infancy.

Subject: RE: BS: Problems with Solar Energy
From: Don Firth
Date: 11 Mar 13 - 02:42 PM

Seven key facts about Solyndra that you are not going to hear from Obama bashers:

1. It was started by Bush, not Obama:   the DOE loan program that funded Solyndra was actually started by President Bush in 2005. It was intended to provide government support for "innovative technologies."

In fact, as Climate Progress reported back in September, the "Bush Administration advanced the Solyndra loan guarantee for two years" before Obama became President.

2. Congress thought there would be more failures:    two companies have declared bankruptcy under the loan program so far, out of the 33 projects funded. Congress was expecting more.

Congress appropriated money to cover expected losses, and multiple independent reviews have confirmed that the actual losses will likely be less than Congress expected.

3. Solyndra wanted more:    the company applied for another $468 million in funding shortly after its first DOE loan closed. The government did not award the second request.

4. Taxpayers aren't the only losers:    private investors lost almost twice what the government did — nearly $1 billion.

While much has been made that the largest private investor was an Obama supporter, the second largest was a fund controlled by the Walton family—of Wal-Mart fame. Walton family members are noted Republican donors.

5. The renewable program is closed:   the renewables loan program that funded Solyndra and other wind and solar ventures is now over. There is still $170 million available for renewables under a separate program that also handles nuclear power….

6. No smoking gun with Solyndra wrongdoing:   Mitt Romney claimed that an inspector general "looked at this investment and concluded that the administration had steered money to friends and family."

That is not true. No evidence of undue influence peddling by the White House has been uncovered in an official, independent report.

As a major Bloomberg analysis of Solyndra and the media hype of the story concluded, "The focus on Solyndra Is not proportional to its impact."

7. Solyndra isn't a typical solar company:   Solyndra did not make regular, flat solar panels.

It made a more advanced, cylinder-shaped device designed to capture the sun's rays on its entire surface — hence the company's name.

It was the rapidly declining price of traditional, flat solar panels and silicon—mostly from China—that did the company in.

Put it all together and you can understand why a major analysis by the Center for American Progress concluded that federal loans and loan guarantees can have a huge benefit, but as in all new ventures, there are risks.

Conclusion:   to try to blame Barack Obama for the failure of Solyndra is pure partisan politics. Nor, for that matter, can George W. Bush be blamed for the project's failure.

Don Firth

P. S. This was researched from several different web sites, chosen for their essentially non-partisan, primarily technological or economic in nature. The failure of Solyndra per se should, in no way, spell the demise of "conventional" solar panel technology. And Solyndra's new approach showed promise, whereas if was other factors which caused failure of the company.

So far, when it comes to the manufacture of solar panels, this technology can NOT be considered a "clean" technology.

There are far cleaner approaches, some of which I have already outlined in previous posts.    —Don F.

Subject: RE: BS: Problems with Solar Energy
From: pdq
Date: 11 Mar 13 - 02:52 PM

In planning a solar house, there are three areas of enegy use and they should be addressed separately:

SPACE HEATING

WATER HEATING

ELECRICITY

The electrical system must not be expected to heat a house. Maybe a small room addition, but not the whole house.

Electricity comes from photovoltaic cells and the sysyem is expensive. $30-40 thousand if you want full power in the middle of the night.

Water heating is the easiest since the Sun's heat is used to heat water and does not have to go through a major change in form, such as electricitral energy to heat (inefficient).

Even with full electrical and water heating syatems, the kitchen stove and the space heater should be natural gas (if available) or propane that is delivered to the home site.

Subject: RE: BS: Problems with Solar Energy
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 11 Mar 13 - 03:57 PM

The waste products involved are materials that with the right technology could be reused. That's one way they different from nuclear waste.

Subject: RE: BS: Problems with Solar Energy
From: Q (Frank Staplin)
Date: 11 Mar 13 - 04:07 PM

Cost of recycling for reuse is a problem yet to be solved.

Subject: RE: BS: Problems with Solar Energy
From: Amos
Date: 11 Mar 13 - 05:28 PM

A decent-scale solar=thermal array which captures solar heat and transfers it to circulating fluid can significantly offset the cost of heating a home as well as heating its hot water. We had such an array on our first house and despite heating a 2000 sq foot home and its hot water it was quite common on sunny days to see the pressure-relief valve letting off steam into the atmosphere because more heat was being captured than was being used or being lost to circulation costs.

Of course, this was southern California which has an above average solar profile compared to Oregon or New Jersey, for example. But still.

Subject: RE: BS: Problems with Solar Energy
From: Donuel
Date: 11 Mar 13 - 11:32 PM

you do not need daylight to make electricity. you do not need dams or coal or gas or uranium.

remember the 12 mile long space tether deployment that ended up snapping under the stress on a space shuttle mission years ago? IT WAS GENERATING/COLLECTING OVER 3 MILLION VOLTS WHEN IT BROKE.
A rose bush generates between 50 and 100 volts here on earth by simply being made of water and being exposed to wind and a magnetic field.
Tesla could put solar energy to shame by just having a sufficiently long wire in the sky to provide electricity. Yes it would be a hazard to airplanes and cross eyed geese but apart from the carbon footprint of manufacture and installation, it is sustainable and clean. If we could make it of spier webs and carbon bucky tubes it would be 16 times stonger than steel and light weight.

Never mind, of course it wouldn't work, so don't even try, besides the fox news for hire types would buy a 100 million dollars of ads and e-perts to sell you on why it would be a waste of money and time.

A personal friend of mine, Victor Telenco, improved solar cell performance 30 years ago and progress is still being made today by making them as archectectural film and other improvments.

the biggest problem with solar energy is



oil and its ultra rich cabal.




I wonder where that tether is now and how it rates with other space debris.

Subject: RE: BS: Problems with Solar Energy
From: Don Firth
Date: 12 Mar 13 - 12:17 AM

That, combined with a satellite in synchronous orbit, and you have the makings of Arthur S. Clarke's The Fountains of Paradise, in which the McGuffin is a space elevator. Mainly for putting payloads into orbit.

But could the ideas be combined?

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: Problems with Solar Energy
From: Pete Jennings
Date: 12 Mar 13 - 07:36 AM

Fascinating thread, some knowledgable contributions.

Mind you, if you live in the right climate harvesting solar energy doesn't need to be expensive or technologically challenging: my step brother lives in Greece. He has a 100ft hose pipe in his loft which is connected to the mains water at one end and to a shower head at the other. Free hot showers most of the year...

Subject: RE: BS: Problems with Solar Energy
From: Q (Frank Staplin)
Date: 12 Mar 13 - 12:43 PM

ENMAX, the major electricity supplier for Alberta, offers purchase plans for installation of solar and/or wind power equipment in the home or farm.
The installations will tie-in to their grid.
They offer free evaluation and cost estimates.

They are not alone, major energy companies are offering tie-in installations in many regions.

www.enmax.com/Solar

In Alberta, natural gas is cheap and is the choice for heating in the home; rural access is widespread.

Subject: RE: BS: Problems with Solar Energy
From: Q (Frank Staplin)
Date: 12 Mar 13 - 02:03 PM

The "experts" say that the U.S. will be energy independent in five years.
As energy production of gas, based on fracking technology, increases, the U.S. could produce more than it needs. Estimates are that the new extraction techniques have added 1.7 million new jobs.
Carbon dioxide emissions are down 13 percent from 2007.

Questions:
Will the growth of the new gas industry seriously slow down new energy development?
What will be the environmental cost?

Additional question:
Will methane hydrate sources add to the North American fuel supply?

Japan has started development of their offshore hydrate deposits; The Alaskan and Arctic Canadian coasts have large reserves in similar deposits.

Subject: RE: BS: Problems with Solar Energy
From: Q (Frank Staplin)
Date: 12 Mar 13 - 02:25 PM

Lockheed Martin is developing a new nuclear energy fusion method at their research facility in California.

Also in California, Bill Gates and another Microsoft ex have poured millions into a new fission reactor that can run on nuclear waste,

In China, scientists are working on a safer reactor based on thorium.

The above items from today'd NY Times.

Question:
How fast will these technologies develop? Will nuclear plants become the mass energy source of the future?

Can wind and solar power be agressively scaled up to meet energy demands?
In an article in the NY Times today, Justin Gillis, Science, it is stated that number-crunching leads many experts to believe that the present crop of possible renewables are not up to the task of meeting energy needs, perhaps not even half.
The article would lead one to believe that nuclear technology is the wave of the future.