Solar Power

Singlestack, that was enlightening and very plausible. I saw a video from a nuclear expert(he had a lot of credentials) who was lamenting the same thing. They had safe long term energy solutions but politics and ignorance was preventing it from being used here. Meanwhile France is almost 100% nuclear and has no serious issues and not dependent on fickle oil reserves.
 

Amazon Forum Fav 👍

A Handbook of Civil War Bullets and Cartridges - Grab it through Amazon!
I apologize for coming off as harsh in my previous posts. I just sometimes get discouraged by all of the misinformation that gets perpetuated without being challenged by facts. I also get discouraged that many people are content to do nothing because something isn't perfect... that is, they let the perfect become the enemy of the better or the good. This is true of electricity production, wearing masks, etc.

The fact is that in many situations, solar and storage is much less harmful to the environment than coal and NG, so the argument that "Solar isn't perfect, so let's just do nothing and stick with something that we know is much worse." or, "China is worse, so why should we do anything?" is frustrating to people who are working to preserve biodiversity and leave the planet in as good a shape as we can for future generations.

I agree that solar isn't a perfect solution and that increasing nuclear should definitely be considered. Yes, solar panels require mining for the raw materials and they don't produce 24 hours/day, so storage becomes necessary. However, that's still a heck of a lot better than coal and NG. With coal, you mine vast areas, which has destroyed millions of acres of biodiverse forests, killing not only birds, but eliminating habitat for insects, bears, and everything in between. Then you process the coal, transport it, and process it some more, all of which require energy. Then you burn it, contributing GHGs to the atmosphere causing even more warming. Then after burning it, you've got fly and bottom ash to deal with, so we build impoundments of ash that have high concentrations of toxic metals such as arsenic and mercury. The impoundments often fail and choke out rivers and streams with toxic sediment. Or you've got slurry pond impoundments from underground mining operations that fail and choke out streams with toxins and sediment. Those are just some of the problems with coal. I won't bother to get into acid mine drainage or sediment and metal loading from surface mine outflows or methane and NG leakage, forest fragmentation, and soil and water pollution from hydraulic fracking. Geez, I haven't even gotten into the pollution from oil drilling and spills (think: Deepwater Horizon, Niger River Delta, and Exxon Valdez). Plus, when coal and gas are burned, they're gone and we're left with the pollution and atmospheric GHG concentrations that will continue to warm the planet for centuries, as well as warmer oceans, bleached coral reefs, and less alkaline water.

Many of the materials in solar panels and batteries can be recycled into new panels and batteries. What I'd like to see is research into durable, modular panels that could be used in limited situations for solar parking lots and roads. Then you wouldn't need to take up green spaces and there wouldn't be much of an albedo change. Plenty of real estate there and it would be easy to tie into existing grids.

Kindest regards,
Kantuck
 

golddigger14s said:
Where I'm at they don't buy back the the watts when you over produce. Not worth it then.
Click to expand...

The economics are pretty unfavorable in our area as well. We get paid ~$0.027/kWh that we over-produce and pay ~$0.1142/kWh that we use... that's a heck of a spread.

Kindest regards,
Kantuck
 

Misinformation? The site mentioned in the original post is about five square miles, but yeah the mirrors add up to about six-hundred and forty acres.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ivanpah_Solar_Power_Facility

^ If you can beleive Wikipedia(trust but verify) along with killing birds the plant also has other environmental impact. It burns tons of natural gas (which emits CO and CO2) to keep it "lit" , it may have caused harm to dessert tortoises, and among the birds incinerated peregrine falcon carcasses have been recovered.

Like stated earlier, I like birds. I used to work construction and we had a 120 foot tower crane on a site where a pair of peregrine falcons nested. It was a sight to behold, watching those falcons drop out of the sky to catch city pigeons then land on the catwalk of the crane boom to eat and then feed their kids. I don't know how many offspring there were, but We all knew for damn sure you don't talk about a thing like that. We jacked that crane up two sections to 160 feet too and those falcons were unaffected. Took the crane down in late winter. As far as we know the nest was succesful. This happened a couple decades ago. It's a great relief to mention it now. When a thing like that is happening you gotta keep your mouth shut. The bird huggers would have told the news television, and the bird lovers would have loved those falcons to death, not unlike the deer and fawns sighted downtown where, hoping to get a nice photograph, the deer lovers chased them into the river, one fawn died in current, and the doe abandoned the other presumably due to stress.

Sometimes you just gotta leave God's creatures in God's hands. Because we don't know what the hell we are doing, but I'll bet my boots the He does know what He is doing.
 

Duckshot said:
Misinformation? The site mentioned in the original post is about five square miles, but yeah the mirrors add up to about six-hundred and forty acres.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ivanpah_Solar_Power_Facility

^ If you can beleive Wikipedia(trust but verify) along with killing birds the plant also has other environmental impact. It burns tons of natural gas (which emits CO and CO2) to keep it "lit" , it may have caused harm to dessert tortoises, and among the birds incinerated peregrine falcon carcasses have been recovered.

Sometimes you just gotta leave God's creatures in God's hands. Because we don't know what the hell we are doing, but I'll bet my boots the He does know what He is doing.
Click to expand...

That's a trivial part of the misinformation that I was referring to... 640 acres is 1 sq. mile... like I said. Not 5 sq. miles in the original copied article. I was mainly referring to the statement that it takes more energy to produce a solar panel than the solar panel will produce over its lifespan.

I'm not a fan of those types of solar thermal operations, but I'm less of a fan of coal.

Do the below photos leave God's creatures in God's hands? They're two photos of the same coal surface mining complex. The big green sloped hillside in the first photo is what's known as a "valley fill." It's where they took blasted rock and buried a headwater stream.

BM aerial.JPGBM 063.jpg

Below is a photo of a surface mine in western Kentucky. It had looked like that since at least the 1950s and the photo was taken in 2013.
IMG_0054.JPG

Few of God's creatures find that habitable. Acid mine drainage coming off the site was pretty nasty too.

All three photos show areas that were forests prior to the surface mining.

We're all contribute to the problems so we should all be a part of the solutions.

Kindest regards,
Kantuck
 

Last edited:
Kantuckeean, I already know how many acres are in a square mile. What I don't know is whoever claimed that "It takes more energy to produce a solar panel than the solar panel will produce in its lifespan", which if I may be so bold to add is a pretty silly thing to say about a peice with exactly zero moving parts.

Maybe it's just me, but you might have comprehension problems. If so, I highly doubt that I contributed to that problem although I may have, in which case I will assist you in solving that problem, but otherwise it would be your problem and not mine. If such problem exists of course.

ETA- Manhattan Island was a lot prettier when it was a forest too, IMO. What's your solution?
 

Last edited:
signal_line said:
I read somewhere the amount of energy needed to produce a solar cell is more than it will ever produce in it's lifetime.
Click to expand...

Duckshot,

The above quote is from post #8, which you "liked."

I don't have a comprehension problem... pretty sure it's you. Here... I'll re-post part of my reply to that post so that you can read it again and maybe understand:

signal_line said:
I read somewhere the amount of energy needed to produce a solar cell is more than it will ever produce in it's lifetime.
Click to expand...

You must have read that article a long time ago... that hasn't been true for at least a decade and the panels in operation now will produce much more electricity to payback those of the past. With the lifespan of today's panels and reductions in manufacture and waste, solar panels will create much more energy than it took to produce them.

There's enough hot air in this thread to power a city though. Even the article quoted by the OP has misinformation. The mirrors for the Ivanpah facility (3 units) are less than 1 sq. mile, not 5 sq. miles. It has been estimated to kill a bunch of birds though...

Kindest regards,
Kantuck
 

Last edited:
Kantukeean, Signal line did not read that someplace?

I liked Signal line's post because of the concept he was trying to convey about agenndas, and you focus in on one sentence saying, "there is enough hot air in this thread to run a city".

Do you mean a specific city?

You liked my post where I confused Edison and Tesla, but not the one where I accepted correction. Maybe you need to step down off your horse.

One sentence can run a city, now I heard everything. :tongue3:
 

Duckshot,

In signal_line's post, there was much more than one sentence that stuck out to me. It was the whole sentiment.

Now I'm certain that you're the one with the comprehension problem because, to answer your question: YES. signal_line stated that he READ it someplace.

I'm not in the habit of re-reading every post in a thread when new posts are made and it's possible that I missed the post where you accepted a correction or I didn't "like" it because of something else you said, or I was too lazy to click the "like" button. I don't know why I "liked" your post about Edison and Tesla and I'm not going to go back and re-read it. I like a lot of posts that I don't agree with entirely, but I like them because I agree with most of what was said. I sometimes don't "like" posts that I actually like, out of laziness or I'm not logged in or whatever. I'm not in the habit of giving commentary on why I choose to "like" or not "like" a post. I probably agreed with the bulk of what you wrote (something about reducing waste or conservation maybe). I do remember that I almost liked one of your posts about how you support conservation, but then you told me to "shove it" which ruined the post. Who knows though? I may have even liked your post from a couple of years ago when you threatened to punch me in the face.

I only pointed out that you had "liked" signal_line's post because you said that you didn't know who said that, so I went back to see who said it and I saw that you had "liked" it.

Kindest regards,
Kantuck
 

Duckshot said:
i threatened to punch you in the face? I'm sorry I don't recall.
Click to expand...

Well that's how I interpreted it, but no worries... I may have deserved it. I know that something here on TNet had been bothering me for a couple of years so I decided to bring it up. I said something that addressed the issue and you told me to say it within arms reach of your fist. It was a year or two ago and the mods moved that thread to a place where you and I aren't allowed (which is probably a good thing LOL!). It's all good now.

Kindest regards,
Kantuck
 

Well Kantuckeean, consider this-

signal_line said:
I think the greenies just hate the oil companioes so bad they will put up with fact that none of this green stuff works worth a crap. All got to be subsidized by the taxpayers. Sure, some corporate farms get rich off the ethanol subsidies but we really don't even need it now. Of couirse we will as soon as all the new regulations take effect. It's not that I am against clean energy, but at what cost?I read somewhere the amount of energy needed to produce a solar cell is more than it will ever produce in it's lifetime.Just B.S. to force people to accept and pay for this. And tons more coming soon. In the meantime China continues to pollute many times more than the few percent we are restricting. And Al Gore is a billionare but his house uses fifty times more energy than a normal house. And John Kerry flies his private jet which pollutes forty times more than the commercial airlines. And don't forget Obama's friends took hundreds of millions for nothing. It's all a BIG SCAM.
Click to expand...

Bold by me, but you can read the whole paragraph if you like. Signal line is pretty much spot on. Even the sentence I put in bold might be correct if you figure in that just one government subsidized solar panel company flushed away a $535,000,000 government loans along with $25,100,000 in state tax breaks, and the declared bankruptcy. That's over half a billion dollars.

Wikipedia said:
Solyndra received a $535 million U.S. Department of Energy loan guarantee, the first recipient of a loan guarantee under President Barack Obama's economic stimulus program, the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009. However, Solyndra officials used inaccurate information to mislead the Department of Energy in its application. The loan program took a $528 million loss from Solyndra. Additionally, Solyndra received a $25.1 million tax break from California's Alternative Energy and Advanced Transportation Financing Authority.SoloPower also received similar funding from the U.S. Department of Energy.https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solyndra
Click to expand...

Now, if you want to provide evidence to prove that a solar panel is worth it's cost in energy, you might be able to do so. But I don't think you will. Simply saying "No, you are wrong!", does not constitute legitimate debate. Then again I'm not entirely sure exactly why you are trying to argue with me because as I have already claimed that saying a contraption with no moving parts has limited life is kind of a silly to say about any good that isn't consumable.

Signal line claims that's what he "read someplace" and that's all he claimed. I beleive him, if you chose to not take him at his word that's your business. Maybe he read if after he wrote it, he still read it. I can read it here, so I guess I read it someplace too now didn't I? :thumbsup:
 

Kantuckkeean said:
Well that's how I interpreted it, but no worries... I may have deserved it. I know that something here on TNet had been bothering me for a couple of years so I decided to bring it up. I said something that addressed the issue and you told me to say it within arms reach of your fist. It was a year or two ago and the mods moved that thread to a place where you and I aren't allowed (which is probably a good thing LOL!). It's all good now.

Kindest regards,
Kantuck
Click to expand...

Oh, now I recall. The way you tell it isn't what happened. You made a false allegation accusing me of racism and I posted that if you said that within arms reach you might end up on the floor bleeding. I meant that at the time too, I'm am quite sure. But I am a very forgiving guy.
 

Duckshot,

First of all, signal_line made the claim. I said that what he stated is no longer true. Now the burden is on him (or anyone else if they agree with it and so choose) to defend that claim. I'm not going to do someone else's homework for them. It's up to them to do theirs. Or, we can talk about the BILLIONS of dollars in tax breaks and subsidies given to oil, gas, and coal companies. Speaking of which, do you work for Dominion, Duke Energy, or another gas, oil, or coal company?

Second, I didn't really want to rehash it, but the way I tell it is what happened. I never accused you of racism. I simply stated that your previous avatar (which at the time was the Confederate flag) was offensive to many people and that the Confederate flag had been adopted by many hate groups and was widely viewed as a racist symbol. You interpreted that statement as though I called you a racist, which I never did. Since you had misunderstood my previous post about it being used as a racist symbol, I even clarified that for you in a subsequent post, which I still have and can copy verbatim, if you want. Sometime between then and now, you changed your avatar to the American flag. I like your new avatar much better.

Third, I'm not really interested in arguing anything with you. You keep calling me out, which is why I reply. You basically just called me a liar, which I'm not. People are welcome to believe what they want, even if it's an "alternate reality." However, when they post something on a public forum as a fact, they should be willing to back that up, otherwise they may just be trolling or spreading misinformation for whatever agenda. I don't like to see misinformation put out there without facts to back it up, because then that misinformation may be believed by other people and perpetuated.

I'm ready to move on...

Kindest regards,
Kantuck
 

Last edited:
Solar is inefficient and expensive, and everyone knows oil from the United States and Canada is bad for the environment.

That's why it's better to buy oil from Saudi, put it on huge barges that SPEW diesel exhaust across the ocean, then pump it onto trains that SPEW diesel exhaust across the entire country.

It's the new "environmentally friendly" way of doing things.
 

I said that what he stated is no longer true.
Click to expand...

But Kantuckeean you didn't demonstrate it.You see I demonstrated how Signal lines claim might hold true.

You simply stated that it wasn't true. Pretty lazy IMO. Why should your claim carry any more weight than what you seem to believe Signal line claimed? And for the record, I read the same thing Signal line claimed - because I read what signal line posted. By your reasoning, your claim that he did not read what he claimed he read shows that you are calling Signal line a liar.

Now, I too claim that I read somplace that- "the amount of energy needed to produce a solar cell is more than it will ever produce in its lifetime."

So you just go ahead and call me a liar, if you dare. But anyone with functioning brain can see that I am not lying.
 

Duckshot said:
But Kantuckeean you didn't demonstrate it.You see I demonstrated how Signal lines claim might hold true.

You simply stated that it wasn't true. Pretty lazy IMO. Why should your claim carry any more weight than what you seem to believe Signal line claimed? And for the record, I read the same thing Signal line claimed - because I read what signal line posted. By your reasoning, your claim that he did not read what he claimed he read shows that you are calling Signal line a liar.

Now, I too claim that I read somplace that- "the amount of energy needed to produce a solar cell is more than it will ever produce in its lifetime."

So you just go ahead and call me a liar, if you dare. But anyone with functioning brain can see that I am not lying.
Click to expand...

See? There you go with your reading comprehension problem again. I never claimed that signal line never read what he said that he read or that he's a liar. I said, "You must have read that article a long time ago... that hasn't been true for at least a decade and the panels in operation now will produce much more electricity to payback those of the past. With the lifespan of today's panels and reductions in manufacture and waste, solar panels will create much more energy than it took to produce them." See how that works? I said, "You must have read..." which implies that I believe him because it was once true. I think that I even stated that later.

Now you're calling me a liar and lazy. Seems that you're projecting. Since you're too lazy to do your homework, read this:

https://www.networx.com/article/do-solar-panels-use-more-energy-than-the

I'd share the study that this article is about, but I'm concerned that I'd be breaking a rule with either my employer, the publisher, or both and I'm not going to spend any more time on looking into those rules or your nonsense.

Kindest regards,
Kantuck
 

You must log in or register to reply here.

My coin collection so far.

⬅️ Previous Thread

FOR YOUR VIEWING PLEASURE I PRESENT TO YOU

Next Thread ➡️

Top Member Reactions

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 3 (members: 0, guests: 3)
Simplex Metal Detector

Latest Discussions

Back
Top