Originally posted by Mike90250
View Post
Announcement
Collapse
No announcement yet.
American manufacturing of solar panels -- worth protecting?
Collapse
This topic is closed.
X
X
-
-
Originally posted by jflorey2 View PostWe live in Sorrento Valley off Penasquitos Canyon and it's pretty dang hilly. Our EV's don't spend 23 hours a day sucking electrons into their batteries. Usually they spend an hour or so.Comment
-
Originally posted by SunEagle View PostDoesn't sound like you go very far for an EV to get recharged in 1 hour. That is unless you have one of them super chargers from Tesla.Comment
-
Just saying that an EV in a rural environment, is much more demanding than an EV in the city. Hills and trailers of hay would really suck the juice. OK, 23hrs is too much to think that it's recharging, but you get my drift.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-ListerComment
-
Originally posted by Mike90250 View PostJust saying that an EV in a rural environment, is much more demanding than an EV in the city. Hills and trailers of hay would really suck the juice. OK, 23hrs is too much to think that it's recharging, but you get my drift.Comment
-
-
Urban = 3 or 5 miles to Whole Foods
Rural = 90 miles to Costco or Trader Joes. 110 miles to Whole Foods. and no time to recharge at those sites. I can get to a safeway in 33 miles, but no lot chargers there. There really is a big disadvantage to EV in rural areas.
And here, near Confusion Hill, it's uphill both ways !
http://www.dot.ca.gov/dist1/d1tmc/1_cam.php?cam=28Powerfab 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-ListerComment
-
Originally posted by J.P.M. View Post
Interesting perspective. Sounds like your thoughts and opinions about solar are not necessarily negative. Mine are also not negative. But while not a big fan of oil, or those that remove it from the ground, and no fan of oil depletion allowances, which by any name still make it easier to make profits through the tax code, I'm usually skeptical of alleged facts presented in such a way as your 80% number, having often found, to the point of being usual and common, that the veracity of such shoot from the hip factoids depend on more interpretation of the numbers than I'm comfortable with, as well as twisting those numbers and situations alleged to be facts in such a way as to make a trap for fools and to fit a particular point of view. I believe the in vogue term is "alternate facts" - What B.S.
Originally posted by J.P.M. View PostWhether solar is working or (as you contend) not, has nothing to do with it being under fire. Seems to me anyway, folks are generally more positively inclined toward solar and renewable energy than not, maybe mostly because they're sheeple, and also because the media needs fluff and feel good stories to fill the airwaves, and print and electronic media.
Its important to put all this into context. Recall that oil and cars themselves started with huge subsidies. In fact they were 100% subsidized for more than a decade. Not 20%, not 30%, 100% subsidized and they got to sell their product for additional profit. This was required for the same reason as above. At the time, railroads and coal had a stranglehold on transportation and energy. They had the support of the government. Without the subsidies to oil, the industry would have simply never materialized. In terms of subsidies (like them or hate them), many techs would have never happened if it were not by major government funding. Techs like (safe and organized) electric grids, telephone, radio, television, and most currently the internet, would have never happened without initial government seed. The problem is however, that once an industry is on its feet, it should be allowed to stand for itself. The problem with solar, is it is competing against industries which should have been left alone long ago but are still being babied by the government.Last edited by thejumpingsheep; 08-04-2017, 06:06 AM.Comment
-
Originally posted by thejumpingsheep View PostIf it were not for the government subsidies, most MLP's actually lose money from normal operation. This is well known, I didnt just think of this myself overnight. Its also where a lot of risk comes from when analysts make their ratings.
From a purely business perspective, it most certainly is under fire and has been for a very long time. Forget macro economics for a second and look at the micro. Your competition has PERMANENT subsidies! That is, oil, coal and other deplete-able natural resources have subsidies that do not fluctuate and are in no danger of being stopped.
conservativestewards.org/fales-depletion-allowance-implicit-ptc-conversion-methodology/
Of course, oil folks will claim that tax breaks for fossil fuel production are investments, but tax breaks for wind or solar are immoral subsidies. I wish I were joking...Comment
-
Originally posted by DanKegel View PostOf course, oil folks will claim that tax breaks for fossil fuel production are investments, but tax breaks for wind or solar are immoral subsidies. I wish I were joking...
Solar Subsidies are lost and do not generate goberment Income. Example that Honda or Leaf EV you have, you pay no Road Fuel Taxes taxes and are a free-loader. You should not be allowed to drive on public streets. Those Solar Panels generating TAX FREE energy for your home and EV. How many billions of Tax Dollars is your state of California loosing from EV and Solar Power each year. Who cares right, it is not you, it is the working folks paying for your luxury with artificially inflated energy prices. They cannot afford an EV or cheap electricity.
Last edited by solar pete; 08-06-2017, 06:21 PM.MSEE, PEComment
-
Originally posted by Sunking View PostIt is because you are an idiot
Every dollar Government given to O&G has 1000% ROI in a year
I don't suppose you have any evidence for that claim?
Current fossil fuel subsidies worldwide in 2013 were recently estimated to be 6.5% of world GDP,
theguardian.com/environment/climate-consensus-97-per-cent/2017/aug/07/fossil-fuel-subsidies-are-a-staggering-5-tn-per-year
It seems highly unlikely that's a net plus for the economy. Why not let people pay the true cost for their fuel?
Solar Subsidies are lost and do not generate goberment IncomeLast edited by DanKegel; 08-07-2017, 12:36 PM.Comment
-
Originally posted by DanKegel View Post
And I suppose that's not an ad hominem attack?Comment
-
Originally posted by Sunking View PostSolar Subsidies are lost and do not generate goberment Income.
374,000 workers generate a fair amount of goberment income tax. Given that the average working American pays about $15K a year in income taxes, that's $6 billion in income tax alone - and $3 billion more than they make from fossil fuels.
Example that Honda or Leaf EV you have, you pay no Road Fuel Taxes taxes and are a free-loader.
Those Solar Panels generating TAX FREE energy for your home and EV.
How many billions of Tax Dollars is your state of California loosing from EV and Solar Power each year. Who cares right, it is not you, it is the working folks paying for your luxury with artificially inflated energy prices. They cannot afford an EV or cheap electricity.
Last edited by jflorey2; 08-07-2017, 12:38 PM.Comment
-
jflorey2
Why are you so much against fossil fuels and so much into believing that you can get by on 100% RE power? You can't believe you will be actually saving money going down that path.
Based on an article I just read your state government wants to rely on 100% RE generated in state by 2045 even though you now purchase almost 30% of your power from out of state and generate about 45% of your power from non RE sources.
For that matter CA actually exports oil and natural gas. Wouldn't that be hypocritical to say I only use RE but please purchase my fossil fuel. And not only would reducing the export of fossil fuels eliminate your state income by over 20 billion it would also affect over 450,000 jobs in the fossil fuel industry.
Something is not right with the way your state government is thinking. They are just so locked into RE they don't care what it is going to cost the customers or how the state income might be affected by eliminating all imports or exports of fossil fuel.Last edited by SunEagle; 08-07-2017, 03:27 PM.Comment
-
Originally posted by SunEagle View PostWhy are you so much against fossil fuels...?
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.
Comment
Comment