The Loonie Left strikes again! Solar Power BAD!

[ken0042]

Originally Posted by Matata

Solar and wind energy are not sources of free energy. They require large amounts of land that will largely be unable to provide any other service, such as wildlife support.

Very true. Where solar really has merit is from more of a "grassroots" perspective; where a lot individuals get together and start a large movement. What I mean is this- the south side of my roof of my house is probably around 400 square feet. That is big enough that I could probably produce enough solar energy to satisfy most of my own electrical needs. Tied into the grid I could produce electricity to the grid during the system's peak times (which also happens to be my personal low times), and then pull back during the non-peak hours.

The problem is for me I would need to put out $10-20K to save myself $50 per month. This approach is inherently more expensive because each house requires its own infrastructure like the grid connection; whereas with a solar farm there is only one.

So if gov'ts want to help produce greener power; perhaps some sort of incentive could be given to home owners- as opposed to spending the money to build this huge farm.

[Itse]

While it's propably impractical to go completely solar, there are quite valid ways of doing it. There's a lot of desert out there, and you can create a lot of energy of it. And there are huge unused spaces, when you start looking at a lot of cities from above: the rooftops.

As to the cost effectiveness of the technology, it depends on how you do it. The "solar power tower" model is for example quite alright in it's durability and cost already, despite being very much technology under development.

[Itse]

Originally Posted by ken0042

Very true. Where solar really has merit is from more of a "grassroots" perspective; where a lot individuals get together and start a large movement. What I mean is this- the south side of my roof of my house is probably around 400 square feet. That is big enough that I could probably produce enough solar energy to satisfy most of my own electrical needs. Tied into the grid I could produce electricity to the grid during the system's peak times (which also happens to be my personal low times), and then pull back during the non-peak hours.

The problem is for me I would need to put out $10-20K to save myself $50 per month. This approach is inherently more expensive because each house requires its own infrastructure like the grid connection; whereas with a solar farm there is only one.

So if gov'ts want to help produce greener power; perhaps some sort of incentive could be given to home owners- as opposed to spending the money to build this huge farm.

This is actually a system that has clear merits, although yeah, it requires some government intervention to work. First of all, you basicly have to force the power companies to buy your electricity, because otherwise they're not going to get into this. This has been done in Germany, and yeah, a lot of people have gotten their own little solar plants. (I understand that the infrastructure issue wasn't as big as you'd imagine, although countries may of course vary.) Since people get money from the extra electricity they sell, it helps offset the cost of the system for them. For the power companies... well they buy energy and sell energy and make a profit, so they're not too unhappy.

The other thing is, individuals don't necessarily do this for the economical reasons but for environmental reasons, and they certainly aren't looking for profits that are anything close to what an investor would. In other words, it's a politically practical way of getting private money for building more solar power.

Also, with the law in place, it opens up possibilities for other future developments. For example, farms can produce quite a bit of energy from, well, crap

[ken0042]

Originally Posted by Itse

The other thing is, individuals don't necessarily do this for the economical reasons but for environmental reasons, and they certainly aren't looking for profits that are anything close to what an investor would. In other words, it's a politically practical way of getting private money for building more solar power.

Very true. However I wonder how many others like would go green if the costs were within reason. I look at bottle recycling- I'd say about 80% of Albertans I know recycle their bottles. There is a financial incentive to to the "green" thing. However I'd say that number drops significantly in Manitoba; where there is no financial incentive.

I just look at how they are talking about a $8.1 Billion power line needed to serve Calgary and Edmonton, and wonder how much strain could be taken off the grid by taking that money and giving people incentives of up to $4000 to go solar.

[Itse]

Originally Posted by ken0042

Very true. However I wonder how many others like would go green if the costs were within reason. I look at bottle recycling- I'd say about 80% of Albertans I know recycle their bottles. There is a financial incentive to to the "green" thing. However I'd say that number drops significantly in Manitoba; where there is no financial incentive.

I just look at how they are talking about a $8.1 Billion power line needed to serve Calgary and Edmonton, and wonder how much strain could be taken off the grid by taking that money and giving people incentives of up to $4000 to go solar.

I pretty much agree, and I believe this is exactly what the German system aims for. It's partly psychology; if you get income from something, it doesn't feel like money poorly spent, even if it doesn't make sense as an investment.

Not that different from giving people government incentives really. It's taxpayer money, so it's kind of like giving people their own money earmarked for a cause. But politically this is much nicer than just telling people that they have to buy a solar panel

[calumniate]

What about the natives?

[onetwo_threefour]

Originally Posted by photon

Or put the solar collectors in space and beam the energy back to the ground. Somehow

Carbon nanotube tether/transmision cables!!

[burn_this_city]

Originally Posted by photon

Or put the solar collectors in space and beam the energy back to the ground. Somehow

Simcity microwave power plant!

[HOZ]

I posted the original post because it is ironic. A Solar power plant in the middle of a desert. Seems like a great idea! Nobody will be using it for farming anytime soon and it will provide cheap clean power. But....hold on! The conservationists are using the tactics they have used for decades, on one of their own. I guess habits are hard to break. They are NOT scientists, but likely a bunch of anal-retentive lawyers who have NO evidence, none. So now that company will have unnecessarily delay the work, spend millions on a worthless study. All on a feeling that a migrating grassland-desert tortoise may be effected.

Related:
Greenpeace Founder on the (Conservationists)NON-scientific anti-capitalists Watermelons!
http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=6fb_1295720048

[RougeUnderoos]

Originally Posted by HOZ

I posted the original post because it is ironic. A Solar power plant in the middle of a desert. Seems like a great idea! Nobody will be using it for farming anytime soon and it will provide cheap clean power. But....hold on! The conservationists are using the tactics they have used for decades, on one of their own. I guess habits are hard to break. They are NOT scientists, but likely a bunch of anal-retentive lawyers who have NO evidence, none. So now that company will have unnecessarily delay the work, spend millions on a worthless study. All on a feeling that a migrating grassland-desert tortoise may be effected.

Related:
Greenpeace Founder on the (Conservationists)NON-scientific anti-capitalists Watermelons!
http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=6fb_1295720048

The gist of the complaint appears to be this...

The complaint said the project's approval process failed to analyze and mitigate the Ivanpah plant's impact on migratory birds, the desert tortoise, which is a threatened species under federal law, desert bighorn sheep, groundwater resources and rare plants.

Going on by how emphatic you are that this is all nonsense, I must conclude that you are an expert on the matter, or you certainly wouldn't be making such strong claims.

So tell us, did the project's approval process succeed in analyzing the plant's impact on migratory birds, the desert tortoise, desert big horn sheep, groundwater resources and rare plants?

If it did succeed in analyzing all that stuff, I'm sure you can tell us what the final analysis was.

What will the impacts be?

[HOZ]

Originally Posted by RougeUnderoos

The gist of the complaint appears to be this...

The complaint said the project's approval process failed to analyze and mitigate the Ivanpah plant's impact on migratory birds, the desert tortoise, which is a threatened species under federal law, desert bighorn sheep, groundwater resources and rare plants.

Going on by how emphatic you are that this is all nonsense, I must conclude that you are an expert on the matter, or you certainly wouldn't be making such strong claims.

So tell us, did the project's approval process succeed in analyzing the plant's impact on migratory birds, the desert tortoise, desert big horn sheep, groundwater resources and rare plants?

If it did succeed in analyzing all that stuff, I'm sure you can tell us what the final analysis was.

What will the impacts be?

Gee another for the "Color me surprised RougeUnderoos doesn't get it" file.

Why don't the expert conservationists come up with something? Something more concrete than feelings.

[Mad Mel]

Originally Posted by onetwo_threefour

Carbon nanotube tether/transmision cables!!

I fully support this idea. I also own a large number of shares in a carbon nanotube company, which is entirely coincidental.

Rooftop solar panels are pretty commonplace here. My electricity provider will install a 1.5kw grid-connected system for $3000, but I don't know a lot about these systems or how the money would work out. Apparently this system with the typical sunlight in my area will generate 2165kw hours / year, while the average household use in Australia is 6570kwh / year, so I suppose it's trimming a third off the average household electricity bill.

Rooftop solar water heaters are also very common. I would imagine that an electric hot water tank is a bit of an energy hog.

[RougeUnderoos]

Originally Posted by HOZ

Gee another for the "Color me surprised RougeUnderoos doesn't get it" file.

Why don't the expert conservationists come up with something? Something more concrete than feelings.

Heh, yeah. I don't get it. My apologies.

I don't understand why a conservation group would have concerns about industrial development in the desert. I mean really, a conservation group concerned about conservation? It's ridiculous. It's loonie!

Anyway, the question still stands: What will the impacts be on the wildlife, ground water sources and rare plants? You obviously know the answer, so please, just share it with us.

Unless of course you don't know the answer, and this whole thread is based on a "feeling" of yours that "the left" and "environmentalists" want solar power regardless of the consequences and should be happy to get it even if it threatens endangered species and might be bad for groundwater.

That's not it though, is it? You know the effects this plant will have, and you know these concerns are nonsense. Right?

[mikey_the_redneck]

Clearly ...carbon taxes are the answer.

[photon]

Originally Posted by RougeUnderoos

Unless of course you don't know the answer, and this whole thread is based on a "feeling" of yours that "the left" and "environmentalists" want solar power regardless of the consequences and should be happy to get it even if it threatens endangered species and might be bad for groundwater.

Doesn't matter what the leftists want, they're on the other side and by definition wrong, no matter what.

[HOZ]

Originally Posted by RougeUnderoos

Heh, yeah. I don't get it. My apologies.

I don't understand why a conservation group would have concerns about industrial development in the desert. I mean really, a conservation group concerned about conservation? It's ridiculous. It's loonie!

Anyway, the question still stands: What will the impacts be on the wildlife, ground water sources and rare plants? You obviously know the answer, so please, just share it with us.

Unless of course you don't know the answer, and this whole thread is based on a "feeling" of yours that "the left" and "environmentalists" want solar power regardless of the consequences and should be happy to get it even if it threatens endangered species and might be bad for groundwater.

That's not it though, is it? You know the effects this plant will have, and you know these concerns are nonsense. Right?

Don't try to deflect this to me. I didn't bring the lawsuit.

Please tell me what the conservationists evidence is. They brought the lawsuit.

[CrusaderPi]

The thing is, Hoz, you've become such a polarizing figure in political threads on this board that even people that might agree with you don't have time for you or your point of view. Never mind the people that don't agree with you, they don't even bother to argue anymore. Your thread immediately devolve into open mockery.

In short despite having some solid points, your argumentative posting style and entrenched viewpoint have cost you all political credibility on CP.

[Hack&Lube]

Originally Posted by photon

Or put the solar collectors in space and beam the energy back to the ground. Somehow

That's just something for a James Bond villain to hold the world hostage with.

[Hack&Lube]

Originally Posted by Mad Mel

I fully support this idea. I also own a large number of shares in a carbon nanotube company, which is entirely coincidental.

Rooftop solar panels are pretty commonplace here. My electricity provider will install a 1.5kw grid-connected system for $3000, but I don't know a lot about these systems or how the money would work out. Apparently this system with the typical sunlight in my area will generate 2165kw hours / year, while the average household use in Australia is 6570kwh / year, so I suppose it's trimming a third off the average household electricity bill.

Rooftop solar water heaters are also very common. I would imagine that an electric hot water tank is a bit of an energy hog.

And that's what should be happened in Canada and the USA. In Germany almost everybody has solar panels on their roofs, entire farms do solar. Excess electricity is sold back into the grid for profit. That's how you go green, give people incentives.

[RougeUnderoos]

Originally Posted by HOZ

Don't try to deflect this to me. I didn't bring the lawsuit.

Please tell me what the conservationists evidence is. They brought the lawsuit.

So you don't know what this conservation group's concerns are at all, but you've dismissed it all as nonsense anyway.

Colour me surprised this time.