Tesla solar roof - orders being taken next week

[SunEagle]

That's like saying at least a turd can be used as fertilizer.

Main drive for some is not carbon but other pollutants associated with combustion of fossil fuels (coal especially) as well as impacts of gathering the fuels. Also the impacts of water use. And the wasted embodied energy associated with remote central station power supplies - we should want the fossil fuels we do need to last as long as possible.

Last time I read about the subject there is enough fossil fuel to last for 100's of years and maybe more depending on how much you want to invest getting it out of the ground.

So I am not sure what your point is concerning other pollutants since the US has spent millions on technology and have significantly reduced the amount of a lot of those nasty by-products to clean up the air and water which I would like to see them continue to do.

If you don't want remote power stations how do you plan on powering your lights and appliances 24/7/365? Going off grid? Good luck with that.

[adoublee]

One thing I can say for those that hate nuclear is that at least if can be classified as a non-carbon or green house gas emitting power generator which I believe is their main drive behind removing the fossil fuel generating plants.

That's like saying at least a turd can be used as fertilizer.

Main drive for some is not carbon but other pollutants associated with combustion of fossil fuels (coal especially) as well as impacts of gathering the fuels. Also the impacts of water use. And the wasted embodied energy associated with remote central station power supplies - we should want the fossil fuels we do need to last as long as possible.

[SunEagle]

Yes, I am waiting for a safe, detailed explanation on just how all those tile are to be connected up. Bruce Roe

I believe the design around those shingles is to have a number of pv cells (~30 watts) pre-wired so that it reduces the overall number of connections. How they make the interconnections between each "shingle" is something that must be very tolerant of both weather and heat expansion.

Like you I would like to actually see the design on how they put all the pieces together.

[SunEagle]

And I wish nuclear power plants didn't generate so much power in so little volume. If they were a little less power-dense, and a little more controllable, sudden loss of coolant would not result in such large disasters. Perhaps future technological developments will make them safer; that would be great. But today neither technology is perfect - so we go with what we have,

Actually the newest generation nuclear plant is a designed around small modules that can stand alone or be increase in numbers to increase output. They are also supposed to be much more tolerant of not needed an active cooling system to stay stable.

But then again this is new unproven technology that while I am interested in seeing developed, others are so scared they choose not to even want to think about this option.

One thing I can say for those that hate nuclear is that at least if can be classified as a non-carbon or green house gas emitting power generator which I believe is their main drive behind removing the fossil fuel generating plants.

[J.P.M.]

. . . and dump it all into Tesla. Up 900% in the past four years; sales up at least 50% every year since 2013. (If all you have to do is look at sales and prices of their shares, of course.)

I owned both. Bought w/ u expected pension buyout from prior employer. Owned 10,000 S.P. at ~ $4.50 from $$ cost ave. purc. Q3-Q4, 2012 and finagled into my Roth IRA. Bailed on 1,000 sh. early 2014 @ $32 and paid for my S.P. array and roof repair with stock appreciation. Bailed on the rest about 1 1/2 yrs. ago @ ~ $26/sh. Bought 1,000 TSLA in 2012 same time as S.P. @ ~ $23+change. Got nervous when it rocketed about a yr. later and bailed at $158/sh. Should have held on. No guts, no glory. Guess having owned it and made a profit makes me a hypocrite. It's just business, but I wonder if the party's over. Glad I got out. Bulls make money. Bears make money. Pigs get slaughtered.

[jflorey2]

If you really want to know the truth, all you have to do is look at manufactures sales numbers and prices of their shares. If you own Solar Stock, you had better sell it before it is worthless.

. . . and dump it all into Tesla. Up 900% in the past four years; sales up at least 50% every year since 2013. (If all you have to do is look at sales and prices of their shares, of course.)

[J.P.M.]

Great! We need more of those.

Now let's compare to a solar thermal plant:

Ivanpah is a medium sized solar thermal power plant in the Mojave desert, rated at 400 megawatts. So you would need ~7 of those to equal one of the above nuclear power plants. Ivanpah required ~1000 workers during the construction phase and now employs ~110 people. So scaling it up to the size of that nuclear power plant would result in 7000 construction phase jobs and 770 permanent jobs. Quite similar.

Ivanpah operation and maint. and personnel requirements are probably similar to other approx. equal size conventionally powered thermal plants, but Ivanpah is a bit unusual as a solar powered plant in that most solar power plants or "farms" are PV powered, not thermal. Operation is mostly remote as is monitoring, requiring an order of magnitude or so fewer personnel or less. Anecdotally, the plant in Borrego Springs has 2 parking spaces for employees. NRG runs/monitors most of it remotely. The couple of times I've visited the 550 MW PV plant out in Desert Center, there was no one there. One advantage of solar PV plants is low employment costs - quite a bit lower than conventional plants.

[jflorey2]

I agree they are quite similar. A Solar thermal plant is a nice addition to the power generation portfolio. I just wish it did not have to take up so much space to generate so little power.

And I wish nuclear power plants didn't generate so much power in so little volume. If they were a little less power-dense, and a little more controllable, sudden loss of coolant would not result in such large disasters. Perhaps future technological developments will make them safer; that would be great. But today neither technology is perfect - so we go with what we have,

[bcroe]

As for Solar Roof Shingle, cable management is impossible. If you still say solar is great, then you are vested trying to save your arse.

Yes, I am waiting for a safe, detailed explanation on just how all those tile are to be connected up. Bruce Roe

[Sunking]

If you really want to know the truth, all you have to do is look at manufactures sales numbers and prices of their shares. If you own Solar Stock, you had better sell it before it is worthless. Example SPWR for just 1 YTD is down 75% to $6 and change. 8 years ago worth almost $200/share. SPWR is insolvent, they owe more than they are worth



As for Solar Roof Shingle, cable management is impossible. If you still say solar is great, then you are vested trying to save your arse. Got news for you Hillary, its over.

[SunEagle]

Great! We need more of those.

Now let's compare to a solar thermal plant:

Ivanpah is a medium sized solar thermal power plant in the Mojave desert, rated at 400 megawatts. So you would need ~7 of those to equal one of the above nuclear power plants. Ivanpah required ~1000 workers during the construction phase and now employs ~110 people. So scaling it up to the size of that nuclear power plant would result in 7000 construction phase jobs and 770 permanent jobs. Quite similar.

I agree they are quite similar. A Solar thermal plant is a nice addition to the power generation portfolio. I just wish it did not have to take up so much space to generate so little power.

[peakbagger]

Well we are running out of "next week" for the big announcement.

[jflorey2]

How about a single 2.7GW power generating plant being built in the UK. It plans to employ 8,000 to 10,000 during the construction phase and 850 permanent upon commissioning.

Oh did I mention this was one of those low carbon 24/7 high output nuclear power plant that seem to scare the crap out of most people.

Great! We need more of those.

Now let's compare to a solar thermal plant:

Ivanpah is a medium sized solar thermal power plant in the Mojave desert, rated at 400 megawatts. So you would need ~7 of those to equal one of the above nuclear power plants. Ivanpah required ~1000 workers during the construction phase and now employs ~110 people. So scaling it up to the size of that nuclear power plant would result in 7000 construction phase jobs and 770 permanent jobs. Quite similar.

[SunEagle]

you are confusing contracts with jobs. Most of the install jobs are permanent construction jobs with installers. They are keeping quite busy The contracts for individual installs are short term ( or longer depending on the size of the job). But this is pretty similar to newer automated fossil fuel power plants as well, few permanent jobs.

Though the hybrid solar thermal/NG plants employ more people than just a NG plant.

I agree that most construction jobs are contract type. But I would rather see how many new permanent factory jobs are being created in the RE field, not just the ones that move from project to project.

The number I want to see is how many US people are in new jobs making pv panels, or wind turbines, inverters, framing, and even energy storage units. Those are the numbers that are not mentioned.

[J.P.M.]

you are confusing contracts with jobs. Most of the install jobs are permanent construction jobs with installers. They are keeping quite busy The contracts for individual installs are short term ( or longer depending on the size of the job). But this is pretty similar to newer automated fossil fuel power plants as well, few permanent jobs.

Though the hybrid solar thermal/NG plants employ more people than just a NG plant.

They may indeed be keeping quite busy at the moment, and I for one hope that continues. But what happens to the "permanent" construction jobs when solar plant buildout is reached? Wait for the plants to get refurbished/replaced ? If so, from what we all seem to be saying about how PV lasts for a long time and operates with pretty low to little maint., looks like maybe not many construction jobs after that buildout. One current advantage of PV plants might be that they require a lower payroll/kWh produced, but that means fewer plant jobs of the type required in most conventional power plants.