What is your opinion of alternate energy
- Thread starter JuggerNaught
- Start date
Beyond this point you stay out of this thread.
Goshin is right. Solar has made many breakthroughs recently in terms of efficiency and cost, though I'm not sure if it's cheaper than coal.
I can only hope that they're making similar progress in other alternative energies.
stolen maths
30 cents per watt is not a measure of the cost of electricity from these panels, but of the panels themselves. It means that i could buy a kilowatt panel for .30$/W*1000W=300$, if that panel lasts for 25 years (the warranty), and averages 8 hours of sunlight per day at a kilowatt, that is 1kw*8h/d*365d/y*25y=73000kWh over its lifetime, so the cost per kWh is 300$/73000kWh=.004109$/kWh ~ 4 tenths of a cent per Kilowatt hour
30 cents per watt is not a measure of the cost of electricity from these panels, but of the panels themselves. It means that i could buy a kilowatt panel for .30$/W*1000W=300$, if that panel lasts for 25 years (the warranty), and averages 8 hours of sunlight per day at a kilowatt, that is 1kw*8h/d*365d/y*25y=73000kWh over its lifetime, so the cost per kWh is 300$/73000kWh=.004109$/kWh ~ 4 tenths of a cent per Kilowatt hour
also, nuclear energy is clean. Plants use gravity somethings now to make sure the core doesnt over heat. The problem is purely political
nevada, site to the waste dumping grounds, wont let the government transport the waste through the state to the site in the mountains. For this reason, every single reactor in the US (106) are hot sites, storing their nuclear waste at the plant. Thats fucking dangerous as shit balls.
Besides that, it takes 24 thousand years for the waste to hit its half life.
Storing it is a first step, but ultimately we need to figure out how to kill nuke waste.
On top of that, nuke plants dont add in the cost of decommissioning the plants to the dollar per watt we pay, and as of yet, we have no good way of decommissioning a nuke plant. Encasing it in concrete is a simple, short term, and dumb way to do so.
nevada, site to the waste dumping grounds, wont let the government transport the waste through the state to the site in the mountains. For this reason, every single reactor in the US (106) are hot sites, storing their nuclear waste at the plant. Thats fucking dangerous as shit balls.
Besides that, it takes 24 thousand years for the waste to hit its half life.
Storing it is a first step, but ultimately we need to figure out how to kill nuke waste.
On top of that, nuke plants dont add in the cost of decommissioning the plants to the dollar per watt we pay, and as of yet, we have no good way of decommissioning a nuke plant. Encasing it in concrete is a simple, short term, and dumb way to do so.
Govt subsidies only bring down solar so much
there have been recent breakthroughs in solar, however. Theyve reached 40+ % efficiency. Google recently invested 300 million dollars in Nanosolar - Home Page
Allegedly they can print photovoltaic cells now that are like 100x thinner than conventional panels.
there have been recent breakthroughs in solar, however. Theyve reached 40+ % efficiency. Google recently invested 300 million dollars in Nanosolar - Home Page
Allegedly they can print photovoltaic cells now that are like 100x thinner than conventional panels.
This was done six months ago based on projected costs of the new plastic cell technology.
It wound up costing aound $7500au per KW and I needed a minimum of 6kw to be self sufficient (24/7). Batteries were approx $800au per 2v cell (need 12 for a household 24v rail) and required replacing every 5 years - the total bank provided about 24kwh (2kw per hour 12 hours).
Self sufficient for my calculations were producing enough power to:
a) keep batteries charged for use overnight
b) Producing enough power after battery charge to feed back into grid for "overhead" at night in the event of high load (party with lots of lights on for ex) - 2 way power meters with the goal to have the meter only ever produce negative results (i.e. more power back to grid than used).
The circuit I planned was:
The solar to charge batteries directly.
Rectifier from grid charged batteries when batteries reached 20% capacity or below
Inverter from batteries fed the house.
To be "grid free" I also needed the following.
e) Using LPG for cooking and water heating
f) In ground water tanks (alone nearly $100k au - approx 100,000L storage)
g) Filtration systems to meet council guidelines including chlorine treatment cost
The total initial install wound up costing over $250,000au on an existing $300,000 house.
Nuff said ... unless I was a multinational CEO with that kind of money to blow, I wont be doing it any time soon.
The U.S. needs to develop the infrastructure to make renewables viable. Our current power distribution system is inadequate and WAY to inefficient. We lose too much energy when we transmit power over long distances.
Given current photovoltaic technologies, we would need a solar farm 92 miles^2 to power the entire country. This is do-able, I think, especially when combined with wind, hydro, and tidal. However, we don't currently have the transmission infrastructure to make it work.
So, if you're asking my opinion, I think they're great and they should be more widespread. When I buy a home, I would like to either take it off the grid, or sell the wattage I produce with my own solar setup back to the power company.
Given current photovoltaic technologies, we would need a solar farm 92 miles^2 to power the entire country. This is do-able, I think, especially when combined with wind, hydro, and tidal. However, we don't currently have the transmission infrastructure to make it work.
So, if you're asking my opinion, I think they're great and they should be more widespread. When I buy a home, I would like to either take it off the grid, or sell the wattage I produce with my own solar setup back to the power company.
We have plenty of options when it comes to alternative electric power. Wind -> Nuclear -> Solar makes sense to me. There's all kinds of wind power available across the Dakotas, Minnesota, Iowa, Montana that isn't being used at all, although Iowa and Minnesota are building like crazy along 35 and 90. Wind we can build now without all the political/pr hurdles for nuclear. Solar is a problem of cost/demand and scale. If there's eventually enough demand that residences can become partially self sufficient and can be produced at a cost that it is desirable to do so, I think that'll be a huge step. Although that includes it's own design hurdles when you know you'll have less than ideal conditions with the directions of solar panels when trying to use in a residential setting. As a large scale power source, just like wind, certain parts of the country have the space and land and sun to make it a reality, where others do not.
Nuclear rules and Nevada is fucking ugly to begin with. Let's just stash it under Las Vegas and see if anyone notices.
I think the direction of alternative energies is mostly where the energy is going to be used rather than a central power plant. This may actually be a good thing because alternative powers like solar can be adapted slowly without overhauling entire grids or building new sites.
Automatic Jack
Veteran X
Nuclear is the only one that will actually do the job. Electricity usage is growing faster, the only alternative will be coal. In fact, it's fair to say that nuclear will be the alternative to primarily coal, unless we step up nuclear plant production quick.
theres 2 nuke plants slated to come online by 2015 in Texas (first 2 in the nation since we stopped building a while back). On the dockets are ...i cant remember, 16 more waiting to be ok'd. Process takes a while.
wowbagger is dumb
we have enough coal in america to run the country as is for 200 years. We're also developing clean ways to burn coal. Trap the emissions underground and do something with it.
It might work, or it might explode lots of shit. Who knows.
wowbagger is dumb
we have enough coal in america to run the country as is for 200 years. We're also developing clean ways to burn coal. Trap the emissions underground and do something with it.
It might work, or it might explode lots of shit. Who knows.
I thought i saw something about some new houses in cali being built with solar cells on the roof that were actually producing more energy then they used and the power company owed them money.
Hopefully soon we can all have the cells built into houses at a cheap cost.
and you gotta love the enviroment, nobody says they are against it but almost nobody is willing to pay more to protect it, just more liberal heart string pulling bullshit
Hopefully soon we can all have the cells built into houses at a cheap cost.
and you gotta love the enviroment, nobody says they are against it but almost nobody is willing to pay more to protect it, just more liberal heart string pulling bullshit
The power company can buy wattage from you, if you produce more than you consume. Not exactly sure how it works.
*edit*, and I mean it wouldn't work on ALL houses. You'd probably need a south-facing roof surface and other criteria. But, yeah, self-powering houses would be badass.
Automatic Jack
Veteran X
Which is great and all, and can lower costs for consumers, but that won't run a factory or a datacenter, which power requirements are ramping up.
Burning coal as our main energy for the next 200 years (and China and India doing the same) makes me choke involuntarily.
I think in Washington State, it's a law that if your home somehow produces more energy, the state has to pay you. I had a co-worker than had a crazy idea about running a giant diesel generator under his house to make extra cash.
That's the goal for solar energy. Even currently it kinda makes sense that the solar panels would for itself after 25 years or whatever. Just the initial cost of buying it is very discouraging. Kinda like buying an energy efficient bulb. Sure it'll pay for itself after 5 years, but right now this single bulb costs $5 versus a pack of 4 regular bulbs I can get for a dollar.
On CSpan a few nights ago, a rep from StateCollege/Titusville was going on about energy policy. He showed some graphs.
I love graphs, so I watched.
"goethermal" energy kicked in at some ridiculous number, like 0.036% of US energy usage. I'm an advocate. When we built our temperate climate/Eastern home in '96, we called up the local well guy, he drilled 5 holes in the front yard, 150 feet deep, and buried 1500 feet of closed loop pipes. Not pump and dump, which 'cheaper' going in, but lethal. I can't beleive how cheap the home has been to heat and cool. Much cheaper than the old interior unit, with conventional air exchange heat pumps, and we've got massive windows all over the house(which shine the winter sun onto an interior two story high brick wall) In the summer, the waste heat from the a/c loop preheats the hot water. How much have we saved in 10 years? Alot. The system has way paid for itself, I'd do it again in a heartbeat, even without the capitalization credit.
I'm saying, in '97, this was painless, not fringe technology. The well guy did all the work, and the work he did was work he always did--drill holes and drop pipe. He was done in half a day. Piping up the indoor unit -- it and the circulating pumps are all in the basement -- is no more complex than piping up a conventional unit. Replaced the fan and the pumps last year, after running for a dozen years. The piping is manifolded inside the basement, if ever have to, could replace any one or all of the 5 closed loops independently. Absolutely stay away from pump and dump. The groundwater will and has rotted cheaper pump and dump systems in no time.
Why doesn't every home built have a ground source heat pump, instead of the cheaper air exchange units?
Did I say cheaper? Well, sure enough, cheaper going in. So, in order for this to become widespread, it will have to be driven by economics. Which, with utilities, it is about to become. Yikes. Have you been following what is coming our way?
I love graphs, so I watched.
"goethermal" energy kicked in at some ridiculous number, like 0.036% of US energy usage. I'm an advocate. When we built our temperate climate/Eastern home in '96, we called up the local well guy, he drilled 5 holes in the front yard, 150 feet deep, and buried 1500 feet of closed loop pipes. Not pump and dump, which 'cheaper' going in, but lethal. I can't beleive how cheap the home has been to heat and cool. Much cheaper than the old interior unit, with conventional air exchange heat pumps, and we've got massive windows all over the house(which shine the winter sun onto an interior two story high brick wall) In the summer, the waste heat from the a/c loop preheats the hot water. How much have we saved in 10 years? Alot. The system has way paid for itself, I'd do it again in a heartbeat, even without the capitalization credit.
I'm saying, in '97, this was painless, not fringe technology. The well guy did all the work, and the work he did was work he always did--drill holes and drop pipe. He was done in half a day. Piping up the indoor unit -- it and the circulating pumps are all in the basement -- is no more complex than piping up a conventional unit. Replaced the fan and the pumps last year, after running for a dozen years. The piping is manifolded inside the basement, if ever have to, could replace any one or all of the 5 closed loops independently. Absolutely stay away from pump and dump. The groundwater will and has rotted cheaper pump and dump systems in no time.
Why doesn't every home built have a ground source heat pump, instead of the cheaper air exchange units?
Did I say cheaper? Well, sure enough, cheaper going in. So, in order for this to become widespread, it will have to be driven by economics. Which, with utilities, it is about to become. Yikes. Have you been following what is coming our way?
That's kinda the beauty of alternative energies. If we want, we don't need to ditch our previous infrastructure but rather slowly put more and more of our energy loads on alternative energies. If even one house produces enough energy for itself, that's one less house the power plant needs to supply. It's very scalable/