Toon: The high cost of energy

[n2doc]

[EOTE]

1. I think this toon very much misses the point.

Solar panels first have to be created, there's an environmental issue there. Also, you need VAST amounts of land for solar power to start producing appreciable amounts of energy. Solar power is very promising and we need to be investing more into it, but it's certainly not a viable way to produce the massive amounts of power that nuclear power provides now.

[n2doc]

2. not vast

Distributed solar, plus large scale plants in the desert, would eliminate the need for nuclear.

You nuke folks are all the same, ignoring the little details like what to do with the waste (that no state wants) and the economic costs of U mining. There are very good reasons why no one has built a new plant here in decades.

Enjoy your glowing future. At least you won't have to use lights at night...:sarcasm:

[EOTE]

4. You don't consider a half million square kilometers to be vast?

And that neat little picture you provide has precisely zero sources. I frankly find it hard to believe, especially with our current technology. If you have some information with an actual source, I'd be glad to look at it. Either way, nuclear power could provide all that energy while using less than 1% of that land. Also, there's nothing in there about the monetary or environmental cost of those 5+ TRILLION square feet of solar panels. Enjoy your future in fantasy land. Say hi to the unicorn for me.

[TheMadMonk]

19. Looks like Europe is appropriating about 250k km2 in Africa for its share. /nt

[lumberjack_jeff]

29. How do they intend to handle the intercontinental delivery of this power? n/t

[darkstar3]

53. No one bothers to answer that question,

nor do many people realize that maps like the one above fail miserably to take into account the lossy nature of current transmission lines.

[cleanhippie]

39. There is no reason that nearly ALL homes should have solar panels on the roof. None.

Especially in the South/Southwest. Solar collectors on rooftops take up NO land. The rainwater runoff should be fully collected too, but that another topic...

[jeff47]

61. Sure! Solar panels are free, right?

As are the electronics necessary to use them, and the people installing them do it out of the goodness of their hearts.

[cleanhippie]

74. An expense that elctric companies should bear.

Then the home/building owner would simply pay for electricity as they do now. Or home.building owner could pay for it and sell excess electricity back to the grid.
Make the panels here (creating jobs) install here (creating jobs) maintain them here (creating jobs)....

See where this is leading?

[Rex]

77. So much better than constantly paying money to an energy conglomerate.

Things are called investments for a reason.

[RandomThoughts]

71. And solar can also distribute power production

with panels on roof tops, and movement to electric cars.

It is a obvious choice.

The reason some don't like solar power, and why they think there is a downside to solar, or wind, is it can not be used to hurt many people in a pinch, what limited powers need to try and control many people.

Solar also removes a huge weapon used against people.

[ret5hd]

3. Last study i saw said 3 yrs payback on solar, then carbon neutral.

and much of that VAST amount of land needed is currently called "roofs".

[EOTE]

5. Care to provide this study? NT

[ret5hd]

6. I read it here on DU, within the last week. Search it.

[EOTE]

7. Yeah, likely.

As soon as you search for my study that says that nuclear power pays for itself within a week and only provides flowers and sunshine as emissions. You've got to be fucking kidding me.

[Name removed]

8. Deleted message

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[cliffordu]

9. You could do your own research.

Or continue sitting on your ass and shitting on what is easily proven.

HINT:

Try 'treehugger dot com'

[EOTE]

10. You could do your own research as well.

I'm rather informed on this issue, and I don't go about spouting bullshit claims and then asking others to search for documents to prove them. But if that's all you've got, I won't stoop to shitting on you for being so lazy.

[cliffordu]

11. You need to try harder when baiting

you are a master at it right now, but we have real pros here and you fail to impress.

[EOTE]

12. Brilliant scientific reply there! NT

[cliffordu]

13. Not my job to inform or convince.

But I do like your arrogance.

These are the innernets and people can be as ignorant or arrogant as they please.

[EOTE]

14. And it's not my job to make you reasonable.

You're welcome to continue learning with your feelings. I'm more into facts, myself. But I do like your ignorance.

[Name removed]

28. Deleted message

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[ljm2002]

17. Seems to me there are an awful lot of rooftops already there...

...we could start by paving them with solar panels.

Mind, I'm not saying that would get us all the way to energy sufficiency, just that you don't have to assume we must allocate all new land area, since we already have lots of surface area we could be using. And there is another upside, namely, the energy generated gets used right there, i.e. less transport distance and therefore less loss of energy. Except when they are feeding back into the grid.

[EOTE]

18. There are, and many are being used right now.

But the problem with a non-centralized system like that is also economies of scale. It's far more expensive to outfit houses individually than the provide a centralized power distribution system. Even outfitting 10% of U.S. homes would be enormously expensive and even then, the great bulk of those houses wouldn't be energy dependent (especially in the North).

[ljm2002]

21. Well I think we need to do both...

...so yes, allocating new land would be part of that. But we always hear about "economies of scale", and it often means "ways we can create centralized systems that allow the providers to generate huge profits". Anyway that is neither here nor there, just an opinion. We need to do the calculations, I think costs can be amortized. Also -- in sunshine states like Nevada, I'd like to see developers required to build new homes with solar -- because the big developers can, of course, also benefit from economies of scale, and buying power and all that, thus lessening the costs of solar energy in new homes, compared to what it would cost each individual homeowner to do it.

Of course, at present that won't make much difference with the depressed housing market and consequent lack of building. Oh well.

[EOTE]

22. I'm all for that.

What you say about the buying power of developers is very true and that's a great idea.

However, that doesn't change the fact that we can't have an immediate and total abandonment of any of our current power generation methods. It's just not feasible.

[ljm2002]

35. Of course we can't do immediate abandonment...

...of current power generation methods. However, without planning for other methods, we'll never get there.

We need to look at conservation, and renewables, and solar, wind, biofuels, methane, etc. Everything has a downside, but it's way past time for a Manhattan Project in this area, one that is NOT beholden to current industries but is purely science-based. I'll bet with current materials science, new structures could all be built with much greater energy efficiencies, so that conservation could be built in no added on.

Community-based energy production as well as larger installations on the current grid, new development required to have energy efficiencies and solar, things like that could get us on the road.

As it is, we keep hearing the hand-wringers claim we must have nuclear because there is simply no alternative. Well there won't be, as long as we resist creating any.

[EOTE]

38. My original point was why the cartoon in the OP was so simplistic and stupid.

As I've mentioned many times in this thread, I'm all for increasing the amount of money we put toward research and investment in renewables.

The cartoon made it seem like solar power is some kind of panacea and if we all just made the switch, we wouldn't have to worry about any of the issues of other methods of power creation. That's the ridiculous thing I was trying to point out.

As of right now, there really is no feasible alternative to nuclear power. That's not to say we shouldn't work on replacing it, it's just that it's not going to be done quickly. So many people here fail to realize that nuclear power is almost infinitely preferable to power generated by coal or petroleum, even natural gas. In spite of all the chicken littles running around, it's far cleaner than any of those technologies and it has far less of a toll on human life.

There are alternatives, and we're working on them. Eventually nuclear power will be replaced. However, there's certainly no panacea as this cartoon stupidly attempted to illustrate.

[ljm2002]

41. Fair enough...

...although I would disagree with your contention that nuclear is in any way preferable. Because you really must plan for the worst-case scenario -- that is true of any method of power production. And while coal and petroleum and natural gas may indeed produce more emissions, and harm more individuals on an ongoing basis, the fact is that disasters are limited in scope and time frame. With nuclear, we have to worry about a meltdown scenario, and also we have to worry about nuclear waste. When you talk about nuclear waste, you are talking about safely housing it not for 100 years, not for 1000 years, but for 10,000 years or more. It is quite unrealistic to suppose that humankind can keep control of anything at all for such a long time period. Hell, our own written history doesn't even go back that far.

Now on top of that, the more plants you build, the higher the odds that something will go wrong. You can talk all you want about newer and safer designs, no argument there. But there are human errors, materials failures, cost cutting, terrorist threats, and natural disasters that all must be factored in. And when a catastrophic failure occurs, it is truly catastrophic and long-lasting.

How many swaths of land need to be made permanently uninhabitable before we start to see the real hazards associated with nuclear power?

Personally I'd like to see us start right now with large-scale conservation efforts, not just for individuals but also for industry. I'll bet we could conserve our way out of 20% of our energy usage. I acknowledge that's just a wild ass guess, but still. Even if it was 10%, that would theoretically allow us to retire half of our nuclear reactors right now, starting with older more risky installations.

Nuclear is not safe. It is very clean with respect to emissions, until it isn't. There is always the question of what to do with waste. Storing waste in centralized facilities means shipping it to those facilities, which has its own risks. Not. Safe.

[EOTE]

43. We've come fairly close to worst case scenarios.

I'd say Chernobyl comes awfully close. In spite of Chernobyl, the track record still ain't that bad. And yes, waste is probably the biggest issue with nuclear power. But I don't believe containment issues are going to be an issue well into the future, certainly not the centuries or millenia as you suggest. We are very close to having the technology to reuse spent nuclear fuel to the point where it's almost benign.

As of now, we have an extremely miniscule amount of land which has been made uninhabitable from nuclear power. You ask how much needs to be made uninhabitable (not permanently, nothing is permanent) before we see the hazards associated with nuclear power. Well, first of all, no one is suggesting that nuclear power is without real hazards. Most people see that it's a preferable to what's available now. But if there are future tragedies (and there will be), I won't see that as an immediate reason as to why nuclear power is still not preferable to the alternatives.

Nuclear power will be replaced. It's just a matter of when. I'm of the opinion that the transition doesn't need to be immediate.

[sad sally]

23. Is that why Germany is doing it? (and has a fairly healthy economy)

[EOTE]

24. Germany is doing it in almost an entirely centralized fashion.

Not primarily on rooftops as I was responding to. And in spite of all that investment (which I have no problem with, I think we should be investing more too), Germany only generates about 2% of its power from solar electricity. So I really am quite unsure about what you're trying to suggest.

[sad sally]

25. A start maybe?

German companies PV julist and juwi have announced the completion of what they say is the largest rooftop solar system in Germany, and the third biggest worldwide.

The installation covers an area of 87,000 square meters and is fitted with 95,500 First Solar thin film solar modules. Located in Philippsburg, Baden-Wuerttemberg atop the Goodyear Dunlop logistics center, it has a power output of 7.4 megawatts (MWs), which reportedly covers the annual requirements of around 1,800 households.

[EOTE]

27. Sure, a start is great.

We should be investing more into the technology here so it can be implemented wider too. Even if it's not in a centralized manner (as seems to be the case with most solar power in the U.S. now). A start is great, and it needs to be grown upon. Nothing about that negates the fact that a wide scale replacement of nuclear power (or coal or petroleum) is simply not feasible right now.

The ridiculously simplistic and stupid cartoon displayed above seems to suggest "Well, we've got all these horrible issues with power generation. All we need to do is switch over to solar and everything will be dandy!" That's like telling a morbidly obese person that all they need to do is drop 200 lbs and they'll be the picture of health and expecting them to be incredibly grateful for the astute observation. If I wanted to take the simplicity of the cartoon a step further, I'd simply say that all we need to do is to create a http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dyson_sphere">Dyson Sphere and we'll have harnessed all the power of the solar system.

[Eko]

31. What happened to us?

It only took us 12 years to get to the moon, things are not feasible till they are done. The only thing ridiculously simplistic and stupid is your lack of vision.

[EOTE]

32. You wasted your third post to tell me that?

Actually, things are feasible when there's a reasonable chance of getting them done. Even the countries who have dedicated far more resources than us toward switching to solar and other renewables have only managed to get a few percent of their electricity based upon them. And I'd love to see the faces of the American public when they're asked to throw away trillions of dollars in investment so that they can replace the first generation solar grids with ones that are actually space efficient in providing energy. So your logic is a tad simplistic and stupid as well.

[Eko]

33. No,

You would make a good bureaucrat, plenty of reasons why something cant be done. We are the richest country in the world. We could do it, and you know it. But there are too many people like you who can only say, yes, it would be great, but we just cant do it. It would cost a bit, we would have to do this, and that. Not feasible now, maybe later. We had to invent technology to get to the moon, and not just little things, but big things, and we did it in 12 years. That sure wasn't feasible was it?

[EOTE]

34. Yes, we invented that technology.

But the technology existed before we went there. Current solar cell technology is very crude. That's why I believe we need to invest far more money into solar and renewables. But your logic is quite twisted. You seem to think that we should implement a technology before we know anything about its cost to benefit ratio, simply so we can replace the boogie man of the moment. You know what would be a hell of a lot more efficient than solar power? How about zero point energy or cold fusion? What's that? You want to utilize solar over far more efficient technologies like ZPE or cold fusion? Dear god!!! How could you be so backward thinking?!?!? Refusing to adopt a technology simply because it doesn't exist?!?! Why, that's un-American!!

[Eko]

37. Ha Ha Ha.

Yeah because there is way more technology for ZPE or cold fusion than solar, I mean, we even have houses that use cold fusion as opposed to solar energy, yup, solar energy is decades away, but cold fusion, shoot, I have a cold fusion lawnmower. Don't you? You make no sense.

[EOTE]

40. You are easily amused.

And quite reluctant to get the point. Once again, we're talking about feasibility here. Do you know how much it would cost to implement the several trillion square feet of solar panels needed to generate the bulk of this country's energy? You certainly seem to suggest you do, but I'm fairly certain you have no idea.

[Eko]

42. It would cost

8,289,000,000 for every person in the US to have a house outfitted with solar. Now I did that by finding the average price to outfit a house, 27,000 (on the high side), and then multiplied that by the us population. The actual cost would be much lower because every person in the USA does not have live by them self. You would have to account for families, apartments, and people that have roommates. Now 8.2 billion seems like a lot, but we could end subsidies for the oil companies (4 billion a year) and have this paid for within 2 years. Sound feasible?

[Eko]

44. Sorry,

it would actually cost 8,289,000,000,000. I forgot to add 3 zeros. But, we do spend $555,623,002,000 a year on oil. If we spend half a trillion on oil, we could actually get off oil in 15 years spending the same amount on solar energy. We could also factor in the cost of coal and natural gas to bring the price point to less years than 15. And, yeah, that's a lot of money. But after that 15 years or less, that's it except for maintenance. I do apologize for my bad math, should of triple checked.

[EOTE]

46. A trillion dollars is hard to come by.

And yes, the technology would eventually pay for itself (when compared to other less efficient methods). But that's not to say that a wholesale conversion is still anything approaching feasible right now.

On edit: And I should add, that ridiculously high figure would replace our current energy infrastructure only IF each rooftop solar panel could provide enough energy for the average consumption of the typical American. I don't have the exact figures, but I'd imagine that when you combine petroleum use for transportation, associated energy costs of metropolitan areas that aren't mostly housing and such, each person would greatly exceed the power provided by a single roof of solar panels.

[EOTE]

45. Check your math there, champ.

I think you're missing a few zeroes. As in 3. You're off by three orders of magnitude. But hey, let's not accuracy get in the way of a good emotional argument.

[Eko]

47. I think thats the problem.

I am trying to have a rational argument and you want to have an emotional one.

[Eko]

48. Why is it not feasible now?

I have showed you what the cost would be from what I could find out, the cost seems feasible compared to what we currently spend on energy with the returns becoming more and more each year it is applied and after it is implemented it is basically cost free, it would take about as much time as it did for us to get to the moon, and would give us energy independence. You keep telling me it is not feasible, why?

[EOTE]

50. Because doubling the country's national debt in the course of a year is typically not something

that thinking people put much stock into.

[Eko]

52. Its not doubling the debt in a year

it is a 15 year plan, so the cost is spread over 15 years, and after it is done, the savings are immense.

[Eko]

54. The US debt is 14 trillon

8 trillion over 15 years is doubling the debt how?

[EOTE]

55. Who is deciding this will be 15 years? You?

But, but!!! We need to do this NOW!!!! Wasn't that what you were saying before? Because my contention that we should simply be funding more research into solar technologies? Now you're telling me that we need for the change to be incremental? I'm sorry, but my mind is going to need a minute to wrap around the mind-boggling hypocrisy.

[Eko]

57. Yeah

I decided for a 15 year plan, why not? It's my plan. I could of made it a 20 year plan, or a 7 year plan, but in order to get some figures to you I had to decide on a time frame and I chose 15, how else could I do it? I had to pick some sort of time frame. I never said this had to be done now, where are you getting that from? Why are you so against this? so far all I hear from you is that its not feasible, that some undetermined technology will save us. At least I put together a plan, you have not put anything together except for complaints.

[EOTE]

59. Are you too daft that you're doing the same thing you're accusing me of?

And just so you know, adding $600 billion to our annual deficit is a pretty damned huge request as well for something that won't be reaping immediate benefits. Also, while we're on the cusp of new solar technology, it's incredibly stupid to settle on a nationwide infrastructure. Are you going to tell the American people you had to implement the technology now when well before it ever reaps any benefits we'd be able to do the same thing for pennies on the dollar? But hey, you've got your plan. You must be some kind of green energy prophet or something.

And lastly, it's "could have". "Could of" really makes no sense and it kind of detracts from your message.

[EOTE]

49. Yes, very rational.

Which is why between your substantive posts that include "Ha ha ha", you suggest that spending 8+ trillion dollars to replace our energy infrastructure while paying no attention to future technologies that could make that transition for pennies on the dollar. You should be so proud of your rationalness.

[Eko]

51. I willing to listen.

make your case for these future technologies. Exactly what are you talking about and how much would it cost, what would the time frame be to implement them and what would the ecological consequences be?.

[EOTE]

56. Umm, that's not my job.

Have you thought about the ecological consequence of replacing known, working nuclear technology with trillions of dollars of solar panels? What's that? You HAVEN'T done a cost analysis? Well then, your blustering about this being a needed and immediate transition is pretty damned foolish.

[Eko]

58. Nope not your job.

What is your job? to just rant how something is not feasible, to offer meaningless words against something, to sit at your computer and attack something without giving a viable alternative instead? To offer "future technologies" as the answer, of which you have no substantive data on? I do question what your job is.

[EOTE]

60. Apparently your job is to offer a panacea for something about which you know nothing.

And then demean my pragmatism because, well, your completely unfounded and ignorant optimism surely must be superior to my pragmatism which is based upon actual knowledge and solid math.

[Eko]

62. What math?

You have yet to show any math, or plan, or do anything but attack solar energy. I have put together a plan that costs roughly 500 billion a year for 15 years that will give us if not full power then close to it for every home in America. My price was a bit inflated as I counted every citizen in the USA having a house by them self. You have done no such thing. Just shill about how solar energy wont work. I'm going to go Barney Frank (with a twist) on you, arguing with you is worse than arguing with a table, at least a table is honest about being a table.

[EOTE]

63. Apparently you think suggesting that funding for solar be increased is attacking.

So yeah, that's a very rational interpretation. And your "plan" is entirely worthless. First of all, you don't even acknowledge or realize that the great bulk of house installed solar panels DO NOT make the house energy independent. Then you fail to realize that people use a great deal of power OUTSIDE OF THEIR HOUSES. Then you float out the idea that this transition needs to be incremental WITHOUT FUCKING ACKNOWLEDGING THAT THAT'S EXACTLY WHAT I'VE SAID FROM THE BEGINNING OF THIS POST. Your ridiculously poor math skills aside, there are myriad other issues you're not addressing.

The difference between arguing with any inanimate object and you is that the inanimate objects lack the hubris to think that they actually know something.

[Eko]

64. Seems like it.

I did take into account that not all homes would produce enough power, and that just powering our homes would not do anything to the cost of transportation. That is why I used the population of the US multiplied by the cost to outfit a home with solar panels. As I said not every person in the US has a house to them self. There are many homes that have at least 3 people in them and there are many homes that would produce more energy than they would use which could be put back into the grid. The extra money could go towards creating solar stations for fueling vehicles and outfitting businesses and other buildings or creating solar plants in the desert. Would this completely get us off relying on carbon fuels? I don't know, but it is a huge start.

[Eko]

65. I think your incremental is different than mine.

My incremental is a huge push for solar power, your is to increase funding for it. There is a very large difference for what you are advocating and what I am. Or do you also think we should invest 500 billion a year for solar power?

[EOTE]

67. Yes.

You'd spend 8 trillion dollars on what would most likely be a boondoggle. When it's very likely we could cut that number by an order of magnitude by utilizing some patience and good planning. But hey, I'm sure there are plenty of scientists who are taking a serious and considerate look at your very well thought out plan.

[EOTE]

66. Listen, I don't have much more time to dedicate to you.

But what you don't know about this issue could fill several volumes. There's plenty I don't know about it as well, but I certainly don't claim to have a panacea as you do. Do you know what the average total energy consumption of the typical American is? Do you know what the average overall energy production of roof mounted solar panels is? You don't and that's just the tip of the iceberg when determining the feasibility of a project like this. You'd need to cover every building in America with current technology to even start to make a dent in our energy consumption, of course then you'd need to deal with the environmental impact of creating the TRILLIONS of square feet of solar cells needed to make this happen. You ask a lot of open ended questions, that says something. You have no idea whether your "huge start" could not be far more easily and economically be done within 18 months from now. The point is you know far too little about this to offer anything constructive.

Also, you've failed to acknowledge once again that I've advocated an incremental shift to solar power since the beginning of this thread, including the post you responded to. So you're quite an ass advocating the same thing (in a wildly ridiculous manner) that you slammed me repeatedly for. So unless you have something to contribute other than the wickedly obvious or hypocritical, I really have no desire to continue this conversation.

[Eko]

68. 496,000 square

kilometers of solar panels would power the estimated energy consumption of the entire earth in 2030. I am advocating for a much larger push than you are, as evidenced from the beginning. Great talking to you,
goodbye.

[EOTE]

69. Yep another figure i provided in the beginning of this thread

I guess you're not much of a reader, huh?

[Eko]

70. We probably have

more in common than not. You would like more funding, I would like a national response that is way more aggressive. It seems as if we only disagree on the amount and the urgency of the situation. Does that sound about right to you?

[Eko]

72. If I remember correctly you said

"several trillion square feet". that's a bit more than 496,000 square feet.

[Eko]

73. aggh

feet does not equal kilometers. Jumped the gun. 496,000 square kilometers equals 5,338,899,566,688 square feet.
Sorry. I apologize.

[AllyCat]

75. Yes, that is why a panel or two on top of a house produces more electricity

than a house needs and people sign 400 page contracts with the utility companies to put energy back into the grid.

Conservation: stores don't need to be set at 60 degrees in the summer and don't need black roofing. People can shut shit off for a change. Maybe the price of power needs to go up on those using the most.

Then we could get to enough with solar, geothermal, and wind. But without all that mining, how will we survive????

[EOTE]

78. Please, show me these solar "panel or two" which can produce 24,000 watt hours daily.

Because that's the typical power consumption of the average house in the U.S. Most individual cells are only capable of outputting a few milliwatts. Most houses would require their entire roofs to be covered to approach energy independence and even that only happens in places where sunlight is abundant.

I have no doubt we'll be seeing far more solar power in the future, but it's not terribly feasible right now to see a massive switch when the cost is so high. And solar isn't close to the most interesting and promising of the new green technologies. Algal biodiesel, hybrid and gas-based batteries. Solar is going to seem antiquated far sooner than most people think.

[Heywood J]

79. "Maybe the price of power needs to go up on those using the most. "

Does "using the most" include bulk consumers like industry, which will just pass the cost on to you and I? Families with more than three or four people in the house? Those with electric dryers, water heaters, or baseboard heating? How would you determine a suitable threshold? People who use more electricity already pay more (it being a metered product and all).

One of the reasons that individuals can sell solar power back onto the grid and make any kind of money from it is that utilities (for various reasons) often pay a premium price for it. If utilities paid individuals with home solar panels the same rates they pay commercial powerplants for electricity, those solar panels would never be paid off. http://www.thespec.com/news/ontario/article/490868--hydro-rates-rising-to-cover-overcharging-fines">Example:

The province is paying some solar power generators up to 80 cents a kwh under its controversial Green Energy Act.

The http://www.ieso.ca/imoweb/siteshared/demand_price.asp?sid=ic">wholesale electricity price for the same location (what a powerplant would get paid):

Average Weighted Price for March 3.05¢/kWh
Average Weighted Price since Jan 1, 2011 3.27¢/kWh

http://www.ieso.ca/imoweb/siteShared/regulated_prices.asp?sid=ic">Price paid by residential consumers in the same location:

6.4 ¢/kWh for the first 1000 kWh in a month
7.4 ¢/kWh for each additional kWh

Let's run some figures and assume an average household with rooftop panels wants to sell an average day's consumption back onto the grid. Here's a link to http://solarpowerauthority.com/how-much-does-it-cost-to-install-solar-on-an-average-us-house/">an advocate of rooftop solar that helpfully provides some figures we can use in this example.

Total power to be produced by panel = 24kwh/day (quoted upthread for average consumption) + 24kwh/day (to be sold) = 48kwh/day
Money earned from selling power at premium rate = (24kwh/day * 80¢/kWh) = $19.52/day
Money earned from selling power at commercial powerplant rate = (24kwh/day * 3.27¢/kWh) = $0.78/day
Average amount of sunshine in similar location = 3 hours per day
Peak power the panels must be able to capture = 48kwh/day / 3h/day = 16kw
Amount of power claimed by site as produced by 1 square foot of panel = 10w
Square footage of panel required = 16,000w / 10w/sqft = 1600 sqft.
Dimensions of a square panel this size = 40ft x 40ft
Cost of installed panels claimed by site = $7 to $9/watt
Cost per square foot = 10w/sqft * $7 to $9/w = $70 to $90/sqft
Cost of panel = 1600sqft * $70 to $90/sqft = $112,000 to $144,000
Payoff time at premium rate = $112,000 to $144,000 / $19.52/day = 5738 to 7377 days = 15.7 to 20.2 years
Payoff time at commercial powerplant rate = $112,000 to $144,000 / $0.78/day = 143,590 to 184,615 days = 393.4 to 505.8 years

Let's cut that down a bit by assuming some additional subsidy for installing the panels, on top of the 24.4x increase in price for the electricity. Let's say the government covers half the installed price of the panel for you.

Payoff time at premium rate = $56,000 to $72,000 / $19.52/day = 2869 to 3688 days = 7.9 to 10.1 years
Payoff time at commercial powerplant rate = $56,000 to $72,000 / $0.78/day = 71,795 to 92,308 days = 196.7 to 252.9 years

Granted, these figures involve several assumptions (a particular location, a particular site as a source) and could be reasonably adjusted up or down by a factor of two depending on location, exact installation cost, etc. An 8-10 year payoff is a reasonable investment, but it's made possible with massive subsidies from somewhere and of a size not politically tolerated for very long. In this case, it's the taxpayer and other ratepayers making your rooftop solar profits come true.

[Uncle Joe]

15. Kicked and recommended.

Thanks for the toon, n2doc.

[Angry Dragon]

16. .........

:popcorn:



:hide: :popcorn: :popcorn: :popcorn: :popcorn: :popcorn: :popcorn: :popcorn: :popcorn: :popcorn: :popcorn: :popcorn:

[The2ndWheel]

20. That's ridiculous

The comic might start to make more sense if the kid picked up a small piece of coal and threw it at a friend.

[taught_me_patience]

26. The cost of nuclear gets a lot more expensive when you factor in meltdown

cleanup. The Russians spend $18B cleaning up Chernobyl... and that was CHEAP. That doesn't even include the cost of health for the workers and people of the affected area. They were paying some of those "sweepers" on the roof $100.


A similar style meltdown could easily cost $200-$300B today.

[Uncle Joe]

30. It seems that nuclear energy isn't economically feasible and is only kept afloat

via long time subsidies.

On this thread by kristopher comparing the cost of renewables to nuclear.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=439x626150

Another independent econnomic analysis is the Severance study:
http://climateprogress.org/wp-content/uploads/2009/01/n...


The price of nuclear subsidies is also worth looking at. Nuclear proponents will tell you the subsidies per unit of electricity for nuclear are no worse than for renewables. That statement omits the fact than nuclear power has received the lions share of non fossil energy subsidies for more than 50 years with no apparent payoff; for all the money we've spent we see a steadily escalating cost curve for nuclear. When we compare that to renewables we find that a small fraction of the total amount spent on nuclear has resulted in rapidly declining costs that for wind are already competitive with coal and rapidly declining costs for solar that are competitive with natural gas and will soon be less expensive than coal.

http://www.1366tech.com/cost-curve /


In other words: subsidies work to help the renewable technologies stand on their own but with nuclear they do nothing but prop up an industry that cannot be economically viable.

Full report: http://www.ucsusa.org/assets/documents/nuclear_power/nu...

[taught_me_patience]

36. Thanks for the info! n/t

[Heywood J]

76. Yeah. Cadmium for those panels doesn't just magically appear.

Somewhere in China gets strip-mined for it. Some factory in China has to make the panel, with all that entails.

The damage doesn't happen over here, so it's out-of-sight, out-of-mind for most people.

[jmowreader]

80. I'm going to throw a couple wrenches into the works

Wrench 1: Solar cells wear out. They've got a 20-year lifespan, and the amount of power they generate goes down the longer they're out there. So...if you need 1.21 gigawatts of power and you want 1.21 gigawatts in year 20, you better install 2.42 gigawatts worth of solar panels. OTOH, wind turbines' current output doesn't go down, hydro doesn't go down, coal, nuclear, gas, oil, burning shit, geothermal...they don't go down in current output.

Wrench 2: Solar cells don't make power at night. You need to store that power SOMEHOW, and that means batteries. Power companies are going to go with the cheapest tech available, which is lead-acid. I do not know if you've ever been in a telephone dial central office battery room, but the fumes coming off the batteries they use are intense. Plus we're looking at an upcoming need for a shitload of after-dark electricity because of electric cars. Back to the 1.21GW assumption: you need 1.21GW to use when the sun's out, plus enough to charge the enormous bank of batteries. So...4.84GW worth of panels will be needed to get 1.21GW 24/7 at the end of the panels' lifespans.

Now, I have a dumb-ass question: can solar heat collectors produce steam? If so, why couldn't we use these kinds of collectors to drive conventional steam turbines like the ones we use in coal plants?