What is your opinion of alternate energy

JuggerNaught

JuggerNaught

Contributor
Veteran XX
Do you think people will ever really completely be on solar power for homes? Autos?

I know a lot of people talk about it, and talk of using it, but there isnt that many people using (for instance) solar power..why not? If you own a home, why wouldnt you atleast partially use solar to offset some of your home's costs?

People can't say 'because of the cost' any more, state, local and federal incentives pay for quite a bit of purchase and installation. Now granted, only maybe 2 states would probably pay out enough in inventives to completely cover a full off grid residential installation, but most states would cover a grid tied installation that wouldn't completely remove the need for grid power, but would take a huge bite out of it, probably around 40-50% of the bill. There are so many loans, grants and programs to roll it into the mortgage that cost isn't that much of an issue at this point, and its only getting better.

People can't even really use the 'because it will mess with the architecture of my house' line any more. Solar cells are being made to look like shingles, specifically to blend with architecture.

So why don't more people use it? Google just went to solar, BP and Yahoo also have instituted major solar installations, but overall there just doesnt seem to be many people doing it.


I really don't see solar or electric cars being that big of a deal. I could be wrong but i think its more likely that ethanol will be the renewable fuel of choice for autos. Electric cars just dont seem to be able to get a solid footing in the mainstream.

Hydro and even micro hydro only really have limited uses it seems, but wind seems as though it could be a pretty strong source.

discuss.
 
No. we wont.

and the reason its not widespread in residential usage is exactly because of the cost. the only ppl that really use solar dont mind the financial hit they take by using solar. who the hell wouldnt opt for solar versus grid power if it were cheaper?

only thing that is marginally on par with electric costs is a solar hot water heater and even that is a 10-15yr payoff or something.

ppl may care about the environment, but the majority of ppl care about money more. cost has to be on par before you will see widespread usage.



also, nuclear is the future. and maybe fusion in a hundred years.
solar is ok for residential, but the size of solar plants required to supply the amt of energy we currently use is prohibitive. solar takes up a fair amt of space.
 
Last edited:
I think one of the most important things is that we just become more energy efficient. With more and more demand for energy resources worldwide, driving cars, heating homes and everything else will become increasingly expensive. Alternate energy sources also become more and more attractive as the old sources' costs increase.

So I definitely think that different forms of alternative energy will be pursued, but that conservation is just as (if not more) necessary in the future.
 
i just can't see why anybody would be against nuclear energy

it's incredibly safe and doesn't pollute anywhere near as much as the other methods
 
Eggi said:
because of the cost. the only ppl that really use solar dont mind the financial hit they take by using solar.

only thing that is marginally on par with electric costs is a solar hot water heater and even that is a 10-15yr payoff or something.

also, nuclear is the future. and maybe fusion in a hundred years.
solar is ok for residential, but the size of solar plants required to supply the amt of energy we currently use is prohibitive. solar takes up a fair amt of space.
Click to expand...

thats just it. Solar USED to take up a fair amount of space. People still think solar power in '07/08 is what solar power was back in the 70's. Most people have got more than enough roof sq. footage to power their homes. There are old solar plants in california that have been shut down...but nothing done with the land. Did california suddenly not have a need for extra power? Did less people start coming to CA suddenly or move out and those solar plant's weren't needed?

The pay off on a system depends on where you are at and what your bill is on average. When the cost of oil is rising, the length of time to pay off the system starts dropping. People in places of the country that get more sun pay off faster. I think a 5kw system in Pheonix is calculated with a breakeven point at about 7 years.
 
long answer:
Solar cells for a long time were as effecient as paying 3 dollars per watt. Because of a recent breakthrough with solar cells, solar energy is now cheaper than coal in terms of wattage. (30 cents). Because of this breakthrough, i for see a lot of people, or at least a bunch more than current, to get solar cells placed on their houses. The cost/benefit offers returns much sooner than the older tech.

How else can you keep your bills down for your house? insulate your water heater. Single best thing you can do.

Wind energy is fun times. america currently runs 4% of its entire national grid off of wind energy, most of which comes form Texas. Pretty soon Texas will become the number one wind producer in the world. In terms of world production, i dont see wind energy as a viable alternative to meet any nations needs.

Solar Energy btw accounts for 1% of America's energy stuff. Spain leads the world and is currently building 2 512k meter solar panel...structures.
 
Solar - primary reason is cost per kw and efficiency.

The cost to kit a house out in solar to be self sufficient costs more than the return over 50 years (yes, it would take over 50 years to break even). The life of the cell is (at the moment) around 25 years ... so to be "green" you have to take a MAJOR cost hit.

Its more cost effective for the major power companies to implement (for instance) a geothermal plant and sell the cost back to a population of even 5 years and begin making profits.

If you are a hippy (in the true sense) and have the money, then its your perogative to spend the money and take the loss.

I for one have spent a great deal of time on doing this (right down to watt meters in power points, battery banks, inverters, rectifiers, fully centrally controlled lighting/power/water) I have spent the time costing a house to be "grid free" (water and electricity) and the total cost just in electrical and water equipement ended up totalling almost as much as the house ... and thats not factoring daily/weekly/monthly/yearly maintenance on all the equipment (filters, batteries, etc).

Its simple, the cost to be a green home (at the moment) isnt worth it. Its like trying to justify an old 60's era computer as a home PC back in the 60's.

I live in an area that has a Hydro Electric plant ... the plant is only operational to add to the grid when the load on the coal plants over 1200 miles away is too high.
 
"The Nanosolar plant in San Jose, once in full production in 2008, will be capable of producing 430 megawatts per year. This is more than the combined total of every other solar manufacturer in the U.S."

your numbers are off kiint. The return is now much much lower. In fact, even second wave solar cells could expect to pay back what they cost in installation from savings and selling back excess energy in 20 years.

Payout with this new cell is much sooner.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top