Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

American manufacturing of solar panels -- worth protecting?

Collapse
This topic is closed.
X
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Originally posted by DanKegel View Post

    I think you know the answer already - California listens to science, which has shown that burning fossil fuel poses clear dangers......
    I call BS on this statement, Burning Fossil Fuel has consequences, the act of burning it is not dangerous, unless you do something stupid.

    Powerfab top of pole PV mount (2) | Listeroid 6/1 w/st5 gen head | XW6048 inverter/chgr | Iota 48V/15A charger | Morningstar 60A MPPT | 48V, 800A NiFe Battery (in series)| 15, Evergreen 205w "12V" PV array on pole | Midnight ePanel | Grundfos 10 SO5-9 with 3 wire Franklin Electric motor (1/2hp 240V 1ph ) on a timer for 3 hr noontime run - Runs off PV ||
    || Midnight Classic 200 | 10, Evergreen 200w in a 160VOC array ||
    || VEC1093 12V Charger | Maha C401 aa/aaa Charger | SureSine | Sunsaver MPPT 15A

    solar: http://tinyurl.com/LMR-Solar
    gen: http://tinyurl.com/LMR-Lister

    Comment


    • Originally posted by DanKegel View Post

      I think you know the answer already - California listens to science, which has shown that burning fossil fuel poses clear dangers.

      You may disagree with science - I'm not here to convince you that science is a valid way of making accurate predictions about the physical world - but that's what's motivating California: a sense of self-preservation and a feeling of duty to do our part to protect the American way of life.
      You're kidding, right? Science lost its initial meaning in CA, became political instrument and can 'prove' you pretty much anything depending on the current direction of political vector. As it was shown here time after time solar is still not sustainable on its own. If you remove either fed credit or net metering it will be gone in no time (recent Nevada example). Too bad the current version of 'science' is not just useless but it also creates bad reputation for anything it tries to 'research'.

      Comment


      • how about US jobs then as most of the jobs are with installations and almost all reviews show a rather steep decline in installs with the implementation except the ONE (comical) study done by the plaintiffs lawyers:

        https://pv-magazine-usa.com/2017/08/...00-solar-jobs/
        OutBack FP1 w/ CS6P-250P http://bit.ly/1Sg5VNH

        Comment


        • Originally posted by max2k View Post
          Science lost its initial meaning in CA, became political instrument and can 'prove' you pretty much anything depending on the current direction of political vector.
          You may be confusing California with red states here.

          Comment


          • Originally posted by max2k View Post
            You're kidding, right? Science lost its initial meaning in CA . . . . .
            Sure. And you just keep using all those tech toys that were designed in CA, using basic concepts invented in CA.
            As it was shown here time after time solar is still not sustainable on its own. If you remove either fed credit or net metering it will be gone in no time (recent Nevada example).
            Sounds like economics rather than science, but in any case . . .

            How much US fed credit do you think these guys were getting?
            ====================================
            Solar Sold in Chile at Lowest Ever, Half Price of Coal Vanessa Dezem
            August 19, 2016, 8:53 AM PDT
            Bloomberg



            Solar power just sold for the lowest price ever, in Chile. The Spanish developer Solarpack Corp. Tecnologica won contracts to sell power from a 120-megawatt solar plant for $29.10 a megawatt-hour at an energy auction this week.
            That

            Comment


            • Originally posted by DanKegel View Post

              I think you know the answer already - California listens to science, which has shown that burning fossil fuel poses clear dangers.

              You may disagree with science - I'm not here to convince you that science is a valid way of making accurate predictions about the physical world - but that's what's motivating California: a sense of self-preservation and a feeling of duty to do our part to protect the American way of life.
              Dan: Get out of yourself for a moment and try looking at the bigger picture.
              Everything that happens in the universe causes changes, and that process is continuous and unstoppable.
              The changes are a consequence of something you're mostly ignorant of called entropy.
              Some view those inevitable changes, or the form those changes take as dangerous.
              In the sense that some changes (processes) may increase Entropy faster or more visibly than other processes, and because people tend to fear the unknown, ignorance can cause alarm, and fear.
              That fear and uncertainty in the minds of the ignorant can be used by others, to paraphrase Kipling, to twist the truth to make a trap for fools (like you ?).

              It's easier to B.S. the great unwashed masses these days, partly or maybe largely because we've let the educational system go in the toilet, taking critical thinking skills with it. We're more ignorant about more things than we used to be. I've only to look around at the palm zombies and mental zeroes to see the manifestations. The California I see most often has way too many people who listen to whoever tells them what sounds like it agrees with the last piece of B.S. they heard that makes life easy for them. A form of self reinforcing behavior, and aided by actions such as yours here, and the media.

              As a result, those with $$ to make by B.S.'ing the energy ignorant, and in matters that deal with what the sign over the door that says "Solar Panel Talk" deal with, find fertile ground and easy pickings in the ignorance and a lot of misinformation, and one sided views of reality.

              Your actions, as exemplified by what you do around here, consciously, or unconsciously, only serve to help the con artists in separating fools from their money, by consistently repeating only one side of the story that, either by inference, innuendo or plain B.S., aids the con artists, and may lead those solar ignorant readers to think R.E. and/or solar energy can do more than it's capable of doing.

              Most of your posts amount to uninformed and cherry picked repeats of the rose colored glasses junk that the greenwash, treehugging crowd loves, and is no more than fertilizer that helps grow the lies of the con artists. Your latest missive is but another example.

              Sounds like you are claiming to speak for science, or for how CA sees science in your latest post. While I'm happy for your certitude, I find that strangely and blatantly inconsistent, coming from someone who has written he claims to not know much about science.

              Writing as one who changed careers from being a rather successful peddler (and perhaps learning a few tricks of the scammers along the way), to engineer, at least initially because of solar energy, and wanting R.E. to contribute to a better planet, IMO, if you think you're helping R.E., you are wrong. You're hurting it.

              To the extent I believe you continue to harm what's been a big part of my life for 40+ years, I'll continue to call B.S. on your harmful behavior when I see it.
              Last edited by J.P.M.; 08-09-2017, 10:56 AM.

              Comment


              • Originally posted by DanKegel View Post

                I think you know the answer already - California listens to science, which has shown that burning fossil fuel poses clear dangers.

                You may disagree with science - I'm not here to convince you that science is a valid way of making accurate predictions about the physical world - but that's what's motivating California: a sense of self-preservation and a feeling of duty to do our part to protect the American way of life.
                Sorry Dan. I feel that some people are so wrapped up in what some "experts' are saying is that they tend to not think of a time frame when without having fossil or nuclear power generation they run a very high risk of having no power at all.

                There are ways to use fossil fuel 24/7 and to keep it as "clean" as possible, yet you and others want to spend a lot of money on a power source that is 60% total at best unless it is linked to energy storage which will take tremendous amounts of real estate and money to keep your lights on the other 40% or more should you get no wind or sun for an extended time.

                The fear of putting people and industries in the dark should far outweigh the fear of a warmer atmosphere and ocean. To me keeping the lights on is the best way to protect the American way of life because getting rid of fossil fuels will end up putting hundreds of thousands of people out of work and expose the rest to being in the dark or having no way to transport themselves out of a bad area.

                To think that some cities, states and even countries that want to go 100% RE without any fossil fuel usage is absolutely pie in the sky wishful thinking.

                Comment


                • Originally posted by J.P.M. View Post
                  Get out of yourself for a moment and try looking at the bigger picture.
                  I think science is exactly about that: building up an increasingly accurate picture of the natural world, one that makes accurate predictions.
                  For a quick overview of the latest mainstream science related to the consequences of the co2 emissions from burning fossil fuel, see the draft "U.S. Global Change Research Program Climate Science Special Report" that's been in the news lately; archive.org/details/CSSRTODALL has the public draft from January 2017

                  I understand that many red-leaning folk, including the management of this forum, currently disagree with what science says on this topic. I wouldn't have brought it up, but SolarEagle asked what was motivating California, and that question deserved an answer. Let's not debate whether science is accurate on this score here please; if you want to open up a new thread for that, I'd be happy to discuss it there.

                  Comment


                  • Originally posted by jflorey2 View Post
                    Sure. And you just keep using all those tech toys that were designed in CA, using basic concepts invented in CA.

                    Sounds like economics rather than science, but in any case . . .

                    How much US fed credit do you think these guys were getting?
                    ====================================
                    Solar Sold in Chile at Lowest Ever, Half Price of Coal Vanessa Dezem
                    August 19, 2016, 8:53 AM PDT
                    Bloomberg



                    Solar power just sold for the lowest price ever, in Chile. The Spanish developer Solarpack Corp. Tecnologica won contracts to sell power from a 120-megawatt solar plant for $29.10 a megawatt-hour at an energy auction this week.
                    That
                    So someone is able to generate power using solar cheaper than using fossil fuel. Being cheaper does not make it any more dependable.

                    What I do not see in the equation is that people forget that fossil fuel will provide the power needed 24/7 but solar CAN'T provide power for even 50% of the time and on some days 0%. Cheaper is not always better.

                    Comment


                    • Originally posted by DanKegel View Post

                      I think science is exactly about that: building up an increasingly accurate picture of the natural world, one that makes accurate predictions.
                      For a quick overview of the latest mainstream science related to the consequences of the co2 emissions from burning fossil fuel, see the draft "U.S. Global Change Research Program Climate Science Special Report" that's been in the news lately; archive.org/details/CSSRTODALL has the public draft from January 2017

                      I understand that many red-leaning folk, including the management of this forum, currently disagree with what science says on this topic. I wouldn't have brought it up, but SolarEagle asked what was motivating California, and that question deserved an answer. Let's not debate whether science is accurate on this score here please; if you want to open up a new thread for that, I'd be happy to discuss it there.
                      I brought up the question for jglorey2 because I can't understand why his fear of fossil fuel is so much higher that no power at all. It seems to me to be unrealistic and regardless of your politics, location or belief in a specific "science" I think being focused on going 100% RE is a mistake that will come back to haunt you.

                      Comment


                      • Originally posted by SunEagle View Post

                        So someone is able to generate power using solar cheaper than using fossil fuel. Being cheaper does not make it any more dependable.

                        What I do not see in the equation is that people forget that fossil fuel will provide the power needed 24/7 but solar CAN'T provide power for even 50% of the time and on some days 0%. Cheaper is not always better.
                        Residential and commercial solar is generally only viable for daylight hours but utility scale is capable of 24 hour operations. Most commonly using molten salts to store energy for night use but there are other methods. Granted these plants have just recently been coming online but the research is just starting around the next generation of these types of plants.


                        https://www.ecowatch.com/worlds-firs...891177555.html
                        OutBack FP1 w/ CS6P-250P http://bit.ly/1Sg5VNH

                        Comment


                        • Originally posted by ButchDeal View Post

                          Residential and commercial solar is generally only viable for daylight hours but utility scale is capable of 24 hour operations. Most commonly using molten salts to store energy for night use but there are other methods. Granted these plants have just recently been coming online but the research is just starting around the next generation of these types of plants.


                          https://www.ecowatch.com/worlds-firs...891177555.html
                          I have researched the hot salt concentrated solar plants in both the US, Spain and Dubai. While that report says Crescent Dune provides power 24/7 they don't mention that it hasn't done it day in and day out for any extended time frame.

                          That technology does have the potential to provide power late into the night but as of yet doing it for 24/7/365 has not been accomplished yet. To be able to do that will require much more real estate and a better way to store the molten salt heat storage system.

                          Oh one of the biggest issues for molten salt is that if it drops even a little below it "flow point" it turns the salt into something as hard as concrete and it can't be heated to go back to a fluid. Seems like a high probability for failure unless they come up with a way to keep the stuff flowing.

                          Also unless the country finds a way to cut their electric usage at night by a lot it will be almost impossible to provide power from storage systems if they are battery, thermal, water or kinetic. We just use too much power at night.

                          Comment


                          • Originally posted by Mike90250 View Post

                            I call BS on this statement, Burning Fossil Fuel has consequences, the act of burning it is not dangerous, unless you do something stupid.
                            LOL. It is Dan, you expect Stupid.

                            MSEE, PE

                            Comment


                            • Originally posted by SunEagle View Post
                              So someone is able to generate power using solar cheaper than using fossil fuel. Being cheaper does not make it any more dependable.
                              Agreed. But people like cheap - and they will do the work to get it, so they can sell their products for less than their competitors. That's why utilities are purchasing future solar generation even without government incentives.
                              What I do not see in the equation is that people forget that fossil fuel will provide the power needed 24/7 but solar CAN'T provide power for even 50% of the time and on some days 0%.
                              And with coal you have pollution problems, and with nuclear you have safety and disposal problems. No form of energy is perfect - which is why most utilities are aiming for a mix of power rather than sole reliance on any one.

                              Comment


                              • Originally posted by SunEagle View Post

                                I brought up the question for jglorey2 because I can't understand why his fear of fossil fuel is so much higher that no power at all. It seems to me to be unrealistic and regardless of your politics, location or belief in a specific "science" I think being focused on going 100% RE is a mistake that will come back to haunt you.
                                You've made your opinion clear. I suspect that not all of the people who advocate for increasing the percent contribution of RE are the caricatures you make them out to be, all pie-in-the-sky and no appreciation for the real risks and challenges to implementation. *Some* might very well be, and make great poster children for those who want to attack, but underneath of that, there are still people who take very seriously the responsibility to provide a reliable grid, and even those folks are not universally saying that more RE means the endtimes are near. There is plenty of room for debate in whether the costs of adapting the grid to support more RE are balanced by the benefits in the long run, but putting up this strawman of 100% RE = no power doesn't advance the discussion in any meaningful way, and just serves to create an oppositional caricature, as equally ignorant and counter-productive to meaningful conversation about costs and benefits as the "green mafia."
                                Last edited by sensij; 08-09-2017, 02:41 PM.
                                CS6P-260P/SE3000 - http://tiny.cc/ed5ozx

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X