Hm, maybe my image of Texas as full of enormous guys in 10 gallon hats driving enormous trucks all over their enormous state with the help of enormously cheap fuel is just a stereotype!
Announcement
Collapse
No announcement yet.
Solar panels increase house prices.
Collapse
X
-
-
Originally posted by SunEagle View PostActually there is more electricity generated from wind in Texas than any other state except maybe California.MSEE, PEComment
-
Originally posted by snic View PostHm, maybe my image of Texas as full of enormous guys in 10 gallon hats driving enormous trucks all over their enormous state with the help of enormously cheap fuel is just a stereotype!MSEE, PEComment
-
Originally posted by Sunking View PostNo question about it. It is NO CONTEST TX has 12.2 GW installed capacity. CA is a distant 2nd @ 5.6 GW followed by Iowa @ 5.3 GW. No other state even comes close to TX. See for yourself hereComment
-
Originally posted by solarintexasI hope a fresh wind blowing towards solar (I guess, pun intended) will be drifting across this state soon.[SIGPIC][/SIGPIC]Comment
-
Originally posted by Sunking View Postthe debate on climate change is over. One of the coldest winters on record. 14 degrees in north Dallas today and powder snow.
Yep. There's some snow in Dallas today. They must have gotten it all wrong.Comment
-
Originally posted by russ View Post\So you want the government to throw money at solar for some pie in the sky concept?
It might be pie in the sky, but so was the airplane when those bicycle mechanics went flapping around on the beach in North Carolina 114 years ago.Comment
-
Originally posted by snic View PostThe pie-in-the-sky concept is that a market for solar will facilitate innovation, making it more and more efficient, affordable and widespread, so that eventually it contributes significantly to energy production and reduces use of fossil fuels.
It might be pie in the sky, but so was the airplane when those bicycle mechanics went flapping around on the beach in North Carolina 114 years ago.NABCEP certified Technical Sales Professional
[URL="http://www.solarpaneltalk.com/showthread.php?5334-Solar-Off-Grid-Battery-Design"]http://www.solarpaneltalk.com/showth...Battery-Design[/URL]
[URL]http://www.calculator.net/voltage-drop-calculator.html[/URL] (Voltage drop Calculator among others)
[URL="http://www.gaisma.com"]www.gaisma.com[/URL]Comment
-
Originally posted by snic View PostThe pie-in-the-sky concept is that a market for solar will facilitate innovation, making it more and more efficient, affordable and widespread, so that eventually it contributes significantly to energy production and reduces use of fossil fuels.
It might be pie in the sky, but so was the airplane when those bicycle mechanics went flapping around on the beach in North Carolina 114 years ago.Comment
-
Originally posted by solarintexasI agree that there should be backup. But I think that with all the new technology at hand, we could build a dynamic grid that can exist with much less nuclear and coal than we have today. Proponents of traditional electrical generation always argue that we couldn't do without them. However, that doesn't mean we have to solely rely on them.
Unless you have a "black hole" somewhere in your pocket.Comment
-
Originally posted by SunEagle View PostUnless you can keep the sun shining or the wind blowing all the time you will always needs another energy source. Storage will never be able to supply the need so generation is the only answer. The choices are nuclear or fossil fuel so we will always rely on them.
You are telling us that "there will always need to be another energy source" other than wind or solar. That statement is true only to the extent that the assumptions underlying it are true. One of those assumptions is that our need for energy will continue to be as high as it is now. But that assumption is flawed. People are capable of living (and even living well) using much less energy than the average citizen of the first world uses today. Given the financial and environmental costs of fossil fuels and nuclear power (or, I should say, if and when the environmental costs becomes reflected in the financial cost), people are likely to begin to reduce their energy usage, and to look favorably at renewable energy to fill their needs.
The fallacy here is assuming that tomorrow's market and technological capabilities will look much like today's. There are good reasons to believe that they will not.Comment
-
Generation
Originally posted by SunEagleUnless you can keep the sun shining or the wind blowing all the time you will always needs another energy source. Storage will never be able to supply the need so generation is the only answer. The choices are nuclear or fossil fuel so we will always rely on them.
solar will find a proper niche, like recharging your spare electric car battery
(while you drive the other). I am not feeling guilty in using the development
to some advantage here. Bruce RoeComment
-
Originally posted by snic View PostYou are telling us that "there will always need to be another energy source" other than wind or solar. People expect the lights to come on when they flip the switch - that requires backup power generation.
One of those assumptions is that our need for energy will continue to be as high as it is now. Few have your apparent desire to live in a cave.
People are capable of living (and even living well) using much less energy than the average citizen of the first world uses today.Consumption has gone down sharply the past 40 years. Most people living in the first world have no desire to live like a peasant in India - or even like a middle class person there lives.
Given the financial and environmental costs of fossil fuels and nuclear power (or, I should say, if and when the environmental costs becomes reflected in the financial cost), people are likely to begin to reduce their energy usage, and to look favorably at renewable energy to fill their needs. Nice green blather but no more.
The fallacy here is assuming that tomorrow's market and technological capabilities will look much like today's. There are good reasons to believe that they will not".Again - green blather. If you have some point make it rather than make a wild blanket statement like "someone will think of something.[SIGPIC][/SIGPIC]Comment
-
Originally posted by solarintexasIt is beyond me how some people can still deny the existence of climate change.
OK - since you think it is true it has to be true? This is a true green viewpoint. Many minorities demand all others accept their viewpoint.
There are reliable long-term weather data to back it up.
Some data does and some doesn't.
It's not an invention of some "liberals" but a widely accepted scientific theory stipulated by those whose job it is to do research on it.Pardon? Pollution has an effect on the earth I agree. What that is we do not know and the "concerned scientists" plus UN lot are generally blowing smoke.
Depending on the economic and the political climate, public opinion seems to change. However, there is a difference between mere beliefs and evidence and theories derived from evidence Congratulations - that is 3 lbs of BS in a 3 lb bag!
Comments in bold within the text[SIGPIC][/SIGPIC]Comment
Comment