Official Green Energy Thread

[john "teach me how to" dougie]

That giant eyesore (wind farm) out on I70 powers 1 home (1 home) for every 4 acres (4 acres) of land that is being used for the windmills.  I don't know what the lifespan or the cost of those things are but I'm guessing the break even point would make our tummies hurt.  I'm guessing the entire project did nothing more than line the pockets of T Boone. 

Where did you get that information? Land use requirements are a big problem with wind generation, but typically it takes about 100x the land area for a wind farm to produce at the same level as a 1.2 gigawatt coal power plant. That's a lot less land than 4 acres per household.

The biggest problem with wind energy is that there are no good methods of storing energy during non-peak hours, so if we were to convert to wind power, we would have to generate a lot more power than we currently do in order to meet peak demands.

Apologies... I transposed my facts.  Every acre used in the windfarm off I-70 powers roughly 4 homes annually.  (20,000 acres @ ~85,000 homes/year)

I once watched movies on a VCR and made phone calls from a rotary phone.  I also remember my parents bringing this computer home from work in something that looked like a trunk.

Push the market in that direction and watch innovation happen.

Not sure, but I don't think the computer industry was ever subsidized through tax incentives or government subsidies. The free market pushed the innovation.  When somebody comes up with a truly viable form of sustainable energy, they will be the richest person in the world. Until then, we will go broke trying to push inefficient substitutes.

[06wildcat]

I ordered from Scheuten, a German company that supposedly makes the panels in the Netherlands. Won't be surprised if I pulled back the label though to see a made in China sticker.

[The1BigWillie]

It takes 2 years for industrial sized wind turbines to become carbon neutral and that is IF they are in production the entire time.

Do the cost of prairie chickens have anything to do with that calculation?  

http://www.kansascity.com/2011/05/15/2877538/power-line-shift-to-protect-prairie.html

[sonofdaxjones]

I ordered from Scheuten, a German company that supposedly makes the panels in the Netherlands. Won't be surprised if I pulled back the label though to see a made in China sticker.

Fantastic . . . I suspect if you did some research you'd find that they probably got U.S. government stimulus money to boot.

[06wildcat]

Not sure, but I don't think the computer industry was ever subsidized through tax incentives or government subsidies. The free market pushed the innovation.  When somebody comes up with a truly viable form of sustainable energy, they will be the richest person in the world. Until then, we will go broke trying to push inefficient substitutes.

 

In 1961 the first commercially available integrated circuits came from the Fairchild Semiconductor Corporation. All computers then started to be made using chips instead of the individual transistors and their accompanying parts. Texas Instruments first used the chips in Air Force computers and the Minuteman Missile in 1962.

[john "teach me how to" dougie]

Not sure, but I don't think the computer industry was ever subsidized through tax incentives or government subsidies. The free market pushed the innovation.  When somebody comes up with a truly viable form of sustainable energy, they will be the richest person in the world. Until then, we will go broke trying to push inefficient substitutes.

 

In 1961 the first commercially available integrated circuits came from the Fairchild Semiconductor Corporation. All computers then started to be made using chips instead of the individual transistors and their accompanying parts. Texas Instruments first used the chips in Air Force computers and the Minuteman Missile in 1962.

This is a good reason to fund the military and NASA, but not a good comparison for the boom in home computing the last 20 years, in which the government had almost no involvement.

A good comparison may be the use of computers in the 60's and 70's and the use of green energy now. At some point technology will catch up and green power will be as common and cheap as home computers are now. But no need to tax the crap and trade out of us now so a few energy hogs can benefit. 

[06wildcat]

Not sure, but I don't think the computer industry was ever subsidized through tax incentives or government subsidies. The free market pushed the innovation.  When somebody comes up with a truly viable form of sustainable energy, they will be the richest person in the world. Until then, we will go broke trying to push inefficient substitutes.

 

In 1961 the first commercially available integrated circuits came from the Fairchild Semiconductor Corporation. All computers then started to be made using chips instead of the individual transistors and their accompanying parts. Texas Instruments first used the chips in Air Force computers and the Minuteman Missile in 1962.

This is a good reason to fund the military and NASA, but not a good comparison for the boom in home computing the last 20 years, in which the government had almost no involvement.

A good comparison may be the use of computers in the 60's and 70's and the use of green energy now. At some point technology will catch up and green power will be as common and cheap as home computers are now. But no need to tax the crap and trade out of us now so a few energy hogs can benefit. 

You're really not going to like the government subsidy that created the boom in home computing in the last 20 years. It's probably the mother of all subsidies.

[john "teach me how to" dougie]

Not sure, but I don't think the computer industry was ever subsidized through tax incentives or government subsidies. The free market pushed the innovation.  When somebody comes up with a truly viable form of sustainable energy, they will be the richest person in the world. Until then, we will go broke trying to push inefficient substitutes.

 

In 1961 the first commercially available integrated circuits came from the Fairchild Semiconductor Corporation. All computers then started to be made using chips instead of the individual transistors and their accompanying parts. Texas Instruments first used the chips in Air Force computers and the Minuteman Missile in 1962.

This is a good reason to fund the military and NASA, but not a good comparison for the boom in home computing the last 20 years, in which the government had almost no involvement.

A good comparison may be the use of computers in the 60's and 70's and the use of green energy now. At some point technology will catch up and green power will be as common and cheap as home computers are now. But no need to tax the crap and trade out of us now so a few energy hogs can benefit. 

You're really not going to like the government subsidy that created the boom in home computing in the last 20 years. It's probably the mother of all subsidies.

Created? I don't think so. I realize schools and poor individuals received computers via grants, but I would guess that is a small percentage of the overall market.

[Dugout DickStone]

Solar panels increase resale?  Link?

[Panjandrum]

That giant eyesore (wind farm) out on I70 powers 1 home (1 home) for every 4 acres (4 acres) of land that is being used for the windmills.  I don't know what the lifespan or the cost of those things are but I'm guessing the break even point would make our tummies hurt.  I'm guessing the entire project did nothing more than line the pockets of T Boone. 

Where did you get that information? Land use requirements are a big problem with wind generation, but typically it takes about 100x the land area for a wind farm to produce at the same level as a 1.2 gigawatt coal power plant. That's a lot less land than 4 acres per household.

The biggest problem with wind energy is that there are no good methods of storing energy during non-peak hours, so if we were to convert to wind power, we would have to generate a lot more power than we currently do in order to meet peak demands.

Apologies... I transposed my facts.  Every acre used in the windfarm off I-70 powers roughly 4 homes annually.  (20,000 acres @ ~85,000 homes/year)

I once watched movies on a VCR and made phone calls from a rotary phone.  I also remember my parents bringing this computer home from work in something that looked like a trunk.

Push the market in that direction and watch innovation happen.

Not sure, but I don't think the computer industry was ever subsidized through tax incentives or government subsidies. The free market pushed the innovation.  When somebody comes up with a truly viable form of sustainable energy, they will be the richest person in the world. Until then, we will go broke trying to push inefficient substitutes.

Direct subsidy?  I don't believe so.  However, a lot of the computer hardware we buy comes from other nations that did subsidize the industry.

What if we found a way to create more cost efficient solar panels and wind turbines?  So cost efficient that other countries wanted to buy them and use them?  Then it became even more popular, so we'd start building more, and then the companies inside of that market started competing with each other to create more efficient and cost effective.  We'd manufacture them.  We'd export them.

My point with computers and other electronics is that, eventually, it gets better.  The market will drive competition.  However, if you want to get to that point, in an accelerated fashion, it will take a nudge.

Energy isn't like every other market out there.  There is no time frame for when VCR's will disappear, or rotary telephones.  Pushing innovation for the sake of innovation is kind of counter-intuitive.  However, when you have a finite resource that has such a dramatic impact on our economy, foreign policy, and national security, pushing and nudging that innovation isn't counter-intuitive.  It's prudent.

[06wildcat]

Not sure, but I don't think the computer industry was ever subsidized through tax incentives or government subsidies. The free market pushed the innovation.  When somebody comes up with a truly viable form of sustainable energy, they will be the richest person in the world. Until then, we will go broke trying to push inefficient substitutes.

 

In 1961 the first commercially available integrated circuits came from the Fairchild Semiconductor Corporation. All computers then started to be made using chips instead of the individual transistors and their accompanying parts. Texas Instruments first used the chips in Air Force computers and the Minuteman Missile in 1962.

This is a good reason to fund the military and NASA, but not a good comparison for the boom in home computing the last 20 years, in which the government had almost no involvement.

A good comparison may be the use of computers in the 60's and 70's and the use of green energy now. At some point technology will catch up and green power will be as common and cheap as home computers are now. But no need to tax the crap and trade out of us now so a few energy hogs can benefit. 

You're really not going to like the government subsidy that created the boom in home computing in the last 20 years. It's probably the mother of all subsidies.

Created? I don't think so. I realize schools and poor individuals received computers via grants, but I would guess that is a small percentage of the overall market.

Try a little harder. This is a service developed entirely by the government (though improved through technology and private business) that has largely driven demand for personal computers today.

[jtksu]

If a contractor told me that my small job wasn't a priority and he wouldn't get to it until September (maybe!) I would find a different contractor.  They're installing solar panels, not flying your house to the god damn moon.

[Panjandrum]

If a contractor told me that my small job wasn't a priority and he wouldn't get to it until September (maybe!) I would find a different contractor.  They're installing solar panels, not flying your house to the god damn moon.

[john "teach me how to" dougie]

That giant eyesore (wind farm) out on I70 powers 1 home (1 home) for every 4 acres (4 acres) of land that is being used for the windmills.  I don't know what the lifespan or the cost of those things are but I'm guessing the break even point would make our tummies hurt.  I'm guessing the entire project did nothing more than line the pockets of T Boone. 

Where did you get that information? Land use requirements are a big problem with wind generation, but typically it takes about 100x the land area for a wind farm to produce at the same level as a 1.2 gigawatt coal power plant. That's a lot less land than 4 acres per household.

The biggest problem with wind energy is that there are no good methods of storing energy during non-peak hours, so if we were to convert to wind power, we would have to generate a lot more power than we currently do in order to meet peak demands.

Apologies... I transposed my facts.  Every acre used in the windfarm off I-70 powers roughly 4 homes annually.  (20,000 acres @ ~85,000 homes/year)

I once watched movies on a VCR and made phone calls from a rotary phone.  I also remember my parents bringing this computer home from work in something that looked like a trunk.

Push the market in that direction and watch innovation happen.

Not sure, but I don't think the computer industry was ever subsidized through tax incentives or government subsidies. The free market pushed the innovation.  When somebody comes up with a truly viable form of sustainable energy, they will be the richest person in the world. Until then, we will go broke trying to push inefficient substitutes.

Direct subsidy?  I don't believe so.  However, a lot of the computer hardware we buy comes from other nations that did subsidize the industry.

What if we found a way to create more cost efficient solar panels and wind turbines?  So cost efficient that other countries wanted to buy them and use them?  Then it became even more popular, so we'd start building more, and then the companies inside of that market started competing with each other to create more efficient and cost effective.  We'd manufacture them.  We'd export them.

My point with computers and other electronics is that, eventually, it gets better.  The market will drive competition.  However, if you want to get to that point, in an accelerated fashion, it will take a nudge.

Energy isn't like every other market out there.  There is no time frame for when VCR's will disappear, or rotary telephones.  Pushing innovation for the sake of innovation is kind of counter-intuitive.  However, when you have a finite resource that has such a dramatic impact on our economy, foreign policy, and national security, pushing and nudging that innovation isn't counter-intuitive.  It's prudent.

I agree. But I don't think we need to push as quickly as Al Gore and the other warmers do. We should be increasing our use of natural gas and let the oil industry exploit more of our own oil resources while innovation in the green technologies continues. We are already dumping billions into public and private research universities and green energy should be their main research focus, not "why we are gay" or other social studies. My guess is in a 20 years we will wonder why we even considered wind and solar as viable alternatives. But, all of this hand wringing and fear mongering over global warming is simply a power grab by governments around the world.

[06wildcat]

If a contractor told me that my small job wasn't a priority and he wouldn't get to it until September (maybe!) I would find a different contractor.  They're installing solar panels, not flying your house to the god damn moon.

If you ever are in a position to build your own place, please post the pics here. I really want to see the outcome of going with the lowest bidder who will get the job done the quickest. Just make sure you pay them in full up front JT, it's the industry standard.

[Dugout DickStone]

So, you either take whatever terms the contractor decides he feels like giving you or your service and quality will be crappy?

[Panjandrum]

That giant eyesore (wind farm) out on I70 powers 1 home (1 home) for every 4 acres (4 acres) of land that is being used for the windmills.  I don't know what the lifespan or the cost of those things are but I'm guessing the break even point would make our tummies hurt.  I'm guessing the entire project did nothing more than line the pockets of T Boone. 

Where did you get that information? Land use requirements are a big problem with wind generation, but typically it takes about 100x the land area for a wind farm to produce at the same level as a 1.2 gigawatt coal power plant. That's a lot less land than 4 acres per household.

The biggest problem with wind energy is that there are no good methods of storing energy during non-peak hours, so if we were to convert to wind power, we would have to generate a lot more power than we currently do in order to meet peak demands.

Apologies... I transposed my facts.  Every acre used in the windfarm off I-70 powers roughly 4 homes annually.  (20,000 acres @ ~85,000 homes/year)

I once watched movies on a VCR and made phone calls from a rotary phone.  I also remember my parents bringing this computer home from work in something that looked like a trunk.

Push the market in that direction and watch innovation happen.

Not sure, but I don't think the computer industry was ever subsidized through tax incentives or government subsidies. The free market pushed the innovation.  When somebody comes up with a truly viable form of sustainable energy, they will be the richest person in the world. Until then, we will go broke trying to push inefficient substitutes.

Direct subsidy?  I don't believe so.  However, a lot of the computer hardware we buy comes from other nations that did subsidize the industry.

What if we found a way to create more cost efficient solar panels and wind turbines?  So cost efficient that other countries wanted to buy them and use them?  Then it became even more popular, so we'd start building more, and then the companies inside of that market started competing with each other to create more efficient and cost effective.  We'd manufacture them.  We'd export them.

My point with computers and other electronics is that, eventually, it gets better.  The market will drive competition.  However, if you want to get to that point, in an accelerated fashion, it will take a nudge.

Energy isn't like every other market out there.  There is no time frame for when VCR's will disappear, or rotary telephones.  Pushing innovation for the sake of innovation is kind of counter-intuitive.  However, when you have a finite resource that has such a dramatic impact on our economy, foreign policy, and national security, pushing and nudging that innovation isn't counter-intuitive.  It's prudent.

I agree. But I don't think we need to push as quickly as Al Gore and the other warmers do. We should be increasing our use of natural gas and let the oil industry exploit more of our own oil resources while innovation in the green technologies continues. We are already dumping billions into public and private research universities and green energy should be their main research focus, not "why we are gay" or other social studies. My guess is in a 20 years we will wonder why we even considered wind and solar as viable alternatives. But, all of this hand wringing and fear mongering over global warming is simply a power grab by governments around the world.

I hate that term.  I prefer to use climate change.

And, yes, I consider that to be a valid reason to go about this, but that tends to become a talking point that sucks the oxygen out of the room, so I tend to focus on all of the other things mentioned when discussing this with people who hold different opinions.

[Panjandrum]

If a contractor told me that my small job wasn't a priority and he wouldn't get to it until September (maybe!) I would find a different contractor.  They're installing solar panels, not flying your house to the god damn moon.

If you ever are in a position to build your own place, please post the pics here. I really want to see the outcome of going with the lowest bidder who will get the job done the quickest. Just make sure you pay them in full up front JT, it's the industry standard.

A contractor makes a big difference, but there are a lot of contractors out there (unless you're looking for a guy that specifically deals with solar panels and you feel compelled to go with him).

[john "teach me how to" dougie]

That giant eyesore (wind farm) out on I70 powers 1 home (1 home) for every 4 acres (4 acres) of land that is being used for the windmills.  I don't know what the lifespan or the cost of those things are but I'm guessing the break even point would make our tummies hurt.  I'm guessing the entire project did nothing more than line the pockets of T Boone. 

Where did you get that information? Land use requirements are a big problem with wind generation, but typically it takes about 100x the land area for a wind farm to produce at the same level as a 1.2 gigawatt coal power plant. That's a lot less land than 4 acres per household.

The biggest problem with wind energy is that there are no good methods of storing energy during non-peak hours, so if we were to convert to wind power, we would have to generate a lot more power than we currently do in order to meet peak demands.

Apologies... I transposed my facts.  Every acre used in the windfarm off I-70 powers roughly 4 homes annually.  (20,000 acres @ ~85,000 homes/year)

I once watched movies on a VCR and made phone calls from a rotary phone.  I also remember my parents bringing this computer home from work in something that looked like a trunk.

Push the market in that direction and watch innovation happen.

Not sure, but I don't think the computer industry was ever subsidized through tax incentives or government subsidies. The free market pushed the innovation.  When somebody comes up with a truly viable form of sustainable energy, they will be the richest person in the world. Until then, we will go broke trying to push inefficient substitutes.

Direct subsidy?  I don't believe so.  However, a lot of the computer hardware we buy comes from other nations that did subsidize the industry.

What if we found a way to create more cost efficient solar panels and wind turbines?  So cost efficient that other countries wanted to buy them and use them?  Then it became even more popular, so we'd start building more, and then the companies inside of that market started competing with each other to create more efficient and cost effective.  We'd manufacture them.  We'd export them.

My point with computers and other electronics is that, eventually, it gets better.  The market will drive competition.  However, if you want to get to that point, in an accelerated fashion, it will take a nudge.

Energy isn't like every other market out there.  There is no time frame for when VCR's will disappear, or rotary telephones.  Pushing innovation for the sake of innovation is kind of counter-intuitive.  However, when you have a finite resource that has such a dramatic impact on our economy, foreign policy, and national security, pushing and nudging that innovation isn't counter-intuitive.  It's prudent.

I agree. But I don't think we need to push as quickly as Al Gore and the other warmers do. We should be increasing our use of natural gas and let the oil industry exploit more of our own oil resources while innovation in the green technologies continues. We are already dumping billions into public and private research universities and green energy should be their main research focus, not "why we are gay" or other social studies. My guess is in a 20 years we will wonder why we even considered wind and solar as viable alternatives. But, all of this hand wringing and fear mongering over global warming is simply a power grab by governments around the world.

I hate that term.  I prefer to use climate change.

And, yes, I consider that to be a valid reason to go about this, but that tends to become a talking point that sucks the oxygen out of the room, so I tend to focus on all of the other things mentioned when discussing this with people who hold different opinions.

Well, the climate is constantly changing and always will. We would be better off spending money finding the best way to exploit the change, prepare for, and embrace it, not wasting money trying to change something we have no control over. The sun and oceans control climate, not narcissistic humans with computer models.

Is that what you mean by sucking oxygen out of the room? 

[jtksu]

Who said anything about the lowest bid?  I'm just no a Fake Sugar Dick (WARNING, NOT THE REAL SUGAR DICK!) who will blindly follow what one contractor tells me.  Free market, bitch.  Tons of contractors out there.

[CNS]

read an article last summer about a group that is working on making a miniature Sun in a warehouse somewhere in CA in the next year or two for alternative power.

[Brock Landers]

read an article last summer about a group that is working on making a miniature Sun in a warehouse somewhere in CA in the next year or two for alternative power.

Uh, what is the power source for this mini Sun??

[wetwillie]

read an article last summer about a group that is working on making a miniature Sun in a warehouse somewhere in CA in the next year or two for alternative power.

Uh, what is the power source for this mini Sun??

meat goats

[Fake Sugar Dick (WARNING, NOT THE REAL SUGAR DICK!)]

Solar panels increase resale?  Link?

If your buyer is a poor person, that's also a green nerd, looking for an ugly house, in a non-covenant community, then this is actually 15% true.


LOL at doofballs in this thread.  It's supposed to be about green energy, not home improvement projects for weirdos living in earth homes.

Mining and converting Oil, Coal, and Gas into energy costs about 1/50th as much as converting wind, solar, water, and other "renewable" sources into energy. 

I know the libs are actually physically unable to understand this, but government subsidies are not free to anyone.  And even with the subsidies, the costs still aren't even close.  Of course if its carbon you're worried about, go plant a tree or buy an acre of rainforest you 'tards.  Stop trying to kill all green wildlife by choking off its livelihood.

[Fake Sugar Dick (WARNING, NOT THE REAL SUGAR DICK!)]

That giant eyesore (wind farm) out on I70 powers 1 home (1 home) for every 4 acres (4 acres) of land that is being used for the windmills.  I don't know what the lifespan or the cost of those things are but I'm guessing the break even point would make our tummies hurt.  I'm guessing the entire project did nothing more than line the pockets of T Boone. 

Where did you get that information? Land use requirements are a big problem with wind generation, but typically it takes about 100x the land area for a wind farm to produce at the same level as a 1.2 gigawatt coal power plant. That's a lot less land than 4 acres per household.

The biggest problem with wind energy is that there are no good methods of storing energy during non-peak hours, so if we were to convert to wind power, we would have to generate a lot more power than we currently do in order to meet peak demands.

Apologies... I transposed my facts.  Every acre used in the windfarm off I-70 powers roughly 4 homes annually.  (20,000 acres @ ~85,000 homes/year)

I once watched movies on a VCR and made phone calls from a rotary phone.  I also remember my parents bringing this computer home from work in something that looked like a trunk.

Push the market in that direction and watch innovation happen.

Not sure, but I don't think the computer industry was ever subsidized through tax incentives or government subsidies. The free market pushed the innovation.  When somebody comes up with a truly viable form of sustainable energy, they will be the richest person in the world. Until then, we will go broke trying to push inefficient substitutes.

Direct subsidy?  I don't believe so.  However, a lot of the computer hardware we buy comes from other nations that did subsidize the industry.

What if we found a way to create more cost efficient solar panels and wind turbines?  So cost efficient that other countries wanted to buy them and use them?  Then it became even more popular, so we'd start building more, and then the companies inside of that market started competing with each other to create more efficient and cost effective.  We'd manufacture them.  We'd export them.

My point with computers and other electronics is that, eventually, it gets better.  The market will drive competition.  However, if you want to get to that point, in an accelerated fashion, it will take a nudge.

Energy isn't like every other market out there.  There is no time frame for when VCR's will disappear, or rotary telephones.  Pushing innovation for the sake of innovation is kind of counter-intuitive.  However, when you have a finite resource that has such a dramatic impact on our economy, foreign policy, and national security, pushing and nudging that innovation isn't counter-intuitive.  It's prudent.

You don't need the government to incentivize or "nudge" this.  Anyone who creates it will become wealthy beyond their wildest dreams.  The only purpose a government serves in industry is in those industries where the cost barriers to individuals is too large.  Like space travel.

The fact that you refer to an individual's efforts to advance technology as "we", is frightening.  Those foreign governments you speak of didn't innovate anything, they just copied it from the U.S.  What will happen the U.S. starts "nudging" technology???  Incentive to innovate will be replaced with incentive to get subsidies and innovate whatever it is that's subsidized.  Then the U.S. will have to copy someone, only there will be no one left to copy. . . 

Why are you people obsessed with copying a model that is a proven failure???  I'd be surprised if you all didn't live in a flood plain on top of a fault line on the atlantic coast of florida.