Alternative Energy and The Right Cancel The title field is required!

1. Wahlin Scott B

   
   2/8/2013 2:02 PM

   http://www.slate.com/blogs/future_tense/2013/02/07/fox_news_expert_on_solar_energy_germany_gets_a_lot_more_sun_than_we_do_video.html
   
   Keep Watching Fox Noise!

   
   
   
   
2. Clay Putnam

   

   33 posts
   
   2/8/2013 3:02 PM

   Solar is crud anywhere in comparison. Extraordinarily inefficient.

   
   
   
   
3. Sandy Clark

   

   0 posts
   
   2/8/2013 4:02 PM

   For the most part, the right has said all along, bring it all on line! We want all of the above but don't think you can eliminate fossil fuel. Develop a wide ranging mix so fuel is plentiful! Unfortunately, most of the alternative sources have proven extremely expensive and inefficient when compared to current sources.

   
   
   
   
4. Robert Crockett

   

   4 posts
   
   2/10/2013 6:02 PM

   http://abcnews.go.com/US/wireStory/sola ... s-18457669
   
   I believe that on the flip side, it's great technology, however it does have it's down side. Lack of accounting for it's carbon footprint in relation to the other sources of energies required carbon footprint accounting, is typical for this particular administrations hypocrisy and derelict.

   
   
   
   
5. League Michael

   
   2/26/2013 9:02 PM

   The establishment does not want to get away from fossil fuels because all the oil companies are profiting so much. We could spend money towards alternative fuels and can achieve this if they wanted to. Harnessing wind, wave, tide energies are all possibilities and some are being explored to an extent, but geothermal energy I feel is what will take the place of fossil fuels. There is enough energy stored in our earth to supply all of our energy for our future. Hopefully something changes because we are using more and more oil every year and our supply is going to run short; if an alternative source is not harnessed it will be a nightmare. The problem is that corporations are all intertwined with government and profit maximization is the only concern.

   
   
   
   
6. Clay Putnam

   

   33 posts
   
   2/27/2013 7:02 AM

   Michael League said: The establishment does not want to get away from fossil fuels because all the oil companies are profiting so much. We could spend money towards alternative fuels and can achieve this if they wanted to. Harnessing wind, wave, tide energies are all possibilities and some are being explored to an extent, but geothermal energy I feel is what will take the place of fossil fuels. There is enough energy stored in our earth to supply all of our energy for our future. Hopefully something changes because we are using more and more oil every year and our supply is going to run short; if an alternative source is not harnessed it will be a nightmare. The problem is that corporations are all intertwined with government and profit maximization is the only concern.

   
   
   Michael,
   
   The biggest problem with alternative energy sources is the alternative energy sources themselves and not the big bad corporations. And by the way, who is it that you think owns these alternative energy sources? The alternative energy sources are two things; expensive to produce and and not readily available. Lets use wind and solar as examples. Wind powered energy is only available when the wind is blowing. Wind doesn't blow all the time, therefore, wind turbines are haphazard at best. Wind powered sources are, if I recall correctly, 25% efficient and I might be over stating the 25%. Additionally, those great big windmills we see dotting the landscape are $1,000,000 plus each. Wind farms require huge swaths of property which adds substantial cost to this alternative energy. Solar is even worse. Solar efficiency is in 10% range and the amount of property needed for useful solar energy distribution is huge. Both wind and solar ROI is virtually non-existant.
   
   All alternative energy sources must be subsidized which means our (yours and mine) utility prices increase. The power generating companies are forced to purchase these inefficient alternative power sources. Why is that? Because these alternative power sources would never make it on their own. Natural gas, oil, coal, nuclear, etc are far superior in efficiency, cost, availability, and require far less of a footprint.
   
   There may come a day when alternative sources are viable options but that time is not now. Alternative sources are currently bad at best.

   
   
   
   
7. Wahlin Scott B

   
   2/27/2013 5:02 PM

   The least expensive solar system I found was $5000, but it was a kit and produces 3x the energy I need for my house. If I am able to sell the power back to the utility my break-even point would be 17 months.

   
   
   
   
8. Clay Putnam

   

   33 posts
   
   2/27/2013 5:02 PM

   Scott Wahlin, CGCS said: The least expensive solar system I found was $5000, but it was a kit and produces 3x the energy I need for my house. If I am able to sell the power back to the utility my break-even point would be 17 months.

   
   
   That's interesting considering the mass solar producers require subsidies and forced purchase of their product to stay in business and considering their solar power production is very inefficient. Perhaps the solar marketers for private use has figured out what the large producers hasn't. I'm curious if the $5,000 unit company equates the cost of routine power source requirements in their "ROI" for the buyer. Buyer beware.

   
   
   
   
9. Wahlin Scott B

   
   2/27/2013 6:02 PM

   The efficiency runs between 10-19% This is calculated by the amount of electricity produced divided by the total sun energy that hits the unit. If you have plenty of room you can go with the 10% less expensive models. The unit I got the price for feeds back into the meter and has no batteries. It has a life expectancy of 25 years. If you don't like the looks of the voltaic cells they have units that look like asphalt shingles and roof tiles.

   
   
   
   
10. Jon Gansen

    

    1 posts
    
    2/27/2013 7:02 PM

    Scott would be interested to see how they put up with wind damage, hail and all the other elements that can be thrown at them. And will insurance cover them?

    
    
    
    
11. Clay Putnam

    

    33 posts
    
    2/28/2013 10:02 AM

    Scott Wahlin, CGCS said: The least expensive solar system I found was $5000, but it was a kit and produces 3x the energy I need for my house. If I am able to sell the power back to the utility my break-even point would be 17 months.

    
    
    A break even point of 17 months is awesome. Scratch that, it's the awesomest. 2012 figures show the average ROI on household solar investment in Florida is 17 years. And that 17 years is only good if one takes advantage of the government subsidies, otherwise the 17 years turns into 20 years +.

    
    
    
    
12. Wahlin Scott B

    
    2/28/2013 11:02 AM

    http://www.wholesalesolar.com/system/solaredge-10-et-solar-panel-grid-tie-system.html
    
    This produces 300 kWh per month and costs $5000. Make it $15,000 with installation and presume the utility will not buy back the energy I do not use. My breakeven point would be 12.5 years on a unit designed to last 25.

    
    
    
    
13. Melvin Waldron

    

    43 posts
    
    3/1/2013 11:03 AM

    I saw the comment that we have to subsidise the alternative energy prospects......aren't we subsidizing oil right now too?
    
    Mel

    
    Melvin H. Waldron III, CGCS, Horton Smith Golf Course, City of Springfield/Greene County MO
    
    
14. Wahlin Scott B

    
    3/1/2013 11:03 AM

    Melvin Waldron, CGCS said: I saw the comment that we have to subsidise the alternative energy prospects......aren't we subsidizing oil right now too?
    
    Mel

    
    
    ... while they make record profits?

    
    
    
    
15. Clay Putnam

    

    33 posts
    
    3/1/2013 12:03 PM

    Melvin Waldron, CGCS said: I saw the comment that we have to subsidise the alternative energy prospects......aren't we subsidizing oil right now too?
    
    Mel

    
    
    There very well could be subsidies for non-tranportaion traditional energy. I believe there are subsidies for natural gas but I'm not positive about the others. Consider this: paying $20 for subsidized traditional energy that is approximately 90% efficient, readily available, and is plentiful vs. paying $25 for subsidized green energy that is 10% - 25% efficient, is not readily available, and requires substantial supplementation from traditional energy sources. You make the call.

    
    
    
    
16. Wahlin Scott B

    
    3/1/2013 12:03 PM

    Solar efficiency with nothing is zero. Efficiency with PV cells is 10-19%. How do you measure the increase in efficiency from zero to 10%? It is infinitely more efficient than nothing.

    
    
    
    
17. Melvin Waldron

    

    43 posts
    
    3/1/2013 1:03 PM

    Clay Putnam, CGCS said:

    Melvin Waldron, CGCS said: I saw the comment that we have to subsidise the alternative energy prospects......aren't we subsidizing oil right now too?
    
    Mel

    
    
    There very well could be subsidies for non-tranportaion traditional energy. I believe there are subsidies for natural gas but I'm not positive about the others. Consider this: paying $20 for subsidized traditional energy that is approximately 90% efficient, readily available, and is plentiful vs. paying $25 for subsidized green energy that is 10% - 25% efficient, is not readily available, and requires substantial supplementation from traditional energy sources. You make the call.

    
    
    Clay, I haven't done any research on the issue, but my question is, why are we subsidizing any traditional energy such as natural gas and oil when they are making millions in profits? Even if it is only $20 compared to $25 for green energy? I guess the one pro would be, we as a country could export those new technologies and until more green energy has been discovered and worked on, I don't think we will get the efficiency any higher. As for getting traditional energy up to 90% efficiency (and I wonder how do we figure that?) Is it that efficient because government has pushed up mpg standards and other efficiencies? I would have rather had industry look for more efficiencies on their own.
    
    In some regards I agree with not subsidizing alternative energy either, let the companies that will benefit from it in the long run get tax breaks for investing into the research, but hey, they like going to the government just as much I guess as the welfare people do. The government helps those companies in hopes of increasing jobs. Congress likes to help with the process trying to bring jobs to their districts. In some regards how can we blame them?
    
    Mel

    
    Melvin H. Waldron III, CGCS, Horton Smith Golf Course, City of Springfield/Greene County MO
    
    
18. Clay Putnam

    

    33 posts
    
    3/1/2013 5:03 PM

    Melvin Waldron, CGCS said:

    Clay Putnam, CGCS said:

    Melvin Waldron, CGCS said: I saw the comment that we have to subsidise the alternative energy prospects......aren't we subsidizing oil right now too?
    
    Mel

    
    
    There very well could be subsidies for non-tranportaion traditional energy. I believe there are subsidies for natural gas but I'm not positive about the others. Consider this: paying $20 for subsidized traditional energy that is approximately 90% efficient, readily available, and is plentiful vs. paying $25 for subsidized green energy that is 10% - 25% efficient, is not readily available, and requires substantial supplementation from traditional energy sources. You make the call.

    
    
    Clay, I haven't done any research on the issue, but my question is, why are we subsidizing any traditional energy such as natural gas and oil when they are making millions in profits? Even if it is only $20 compared to $25 for green energy? I guess the one pro would be, we as a country could export those new technologies and until more green energy has been discovered and worked on, I don't think we will get the efficiency any higher. As for getting traditional energy up to 90% efficiency (and I wonder how do we figure that?) Is it that efficient because government has pushed up mpg standards and other efficiencies? I would have rather had industry look for more efficiencies on their own.
    
    In some regards I agree with not subsidizing alternative energy either, let the companies that will benefit from it in the long run get tax breaks for investing into the research, but hey, they like going to the government just as much I guess as the welfare people do. The government helps those companies in hopes of increasing jobs. Congress likes to help with the process trying to bring jobs to their districts. In some regards how can we blame them?
    
    Mel

    
    
    Mel,
    
    First things first. Lets not confuse and mingle transportation energy and non-transportation energy. Transportation energy is gas, diesel, jet fuel, and the like. Non-transportaion energy is the gas, electric, etc used to power homes, business, and the like. I have been referring to non-transportaion energy in this string.
    
    Why does our government subsidize energy? Lobbyists play a big role. Energy companies claim prices would rise for consumers if subsidies were removed. Research. Panic by the government. Ignorance of our legislators and MONEY!, which I believe is the biggest reason subsidies are handed out. Both traditional and green energy producers tell us of impending doom by way of energy shortages and planet destruction from carbon based fuels. Our legislators and general public fall for it every time. Propaganda spreads and we're hooked. We shell out the cash to make us feel better about ourselves when in reality we're being taken as fools and giving away free money to large corporations that don't need our money, we're propping up green energy companies that would fail otherwise, we're dumping good money after bad on bogus technology, and on and on. The European nations are by far the most gullible but we in America are doing our best to catch up. There is huge money in energy technology. the money doesn't come from profits, the money comes from subsidies, grants and the like. Billions are handed out every year for more research and implementation of green energy. If the funding were to dry up the researchers and propagandists would be on the street. And it all hinges on the ignorance our government.

    
    
    
    
19. Melvin Waldron

    

    43 posts
    
    3/1/2013 5:03 PM

    Clay,
    
    not to put words in your mouth but are we agreeing that both subsidizing of (I didn't see a difference between non-transportation or transportation sources but ok if your good with it) energy both green and non green is a waste?
    
    If we did cut out subsidise these how far would that go to fixing our problems?
    
    If we can cut those subsidies what others can or should we cut?
    
    Does at sometime in the future some of these cuts in subsidies hurt our country and economy in the future because private business doesn't want to take the risk?
    
    (I think of the space program, but it seems from the surface with the launch of the supply rockets private industry has taken that up? or would it have been cheaper to keep NASA at near full strength compared to what we pay the private rocket firm? I also think of all the good things that have come from the space race and also the military).
    
    Mel

    
    Melvin H. Waldron III, CGCS, Horton Smith Golf Course, City of Springfield/Greene County MO
    
    
20. Curtis Nickerson

    

    0 posts
    
    3/5/2013 9:03 AM

    Scott,
    Perhaps I was looking at the wrong unit, but 2450kw per day is 3 times the energy you need for your house? Below is a list of average appliance usage from energy.gov....
    Here are some examples of the range of nameplate wattages for various household appliances :
    
    •Aquarium = 50–1210 Watts
    •Clock radio = 10
    •Coffee maker = 900–1200
    •Clothes washer = 350–500
    •Clothes dryer = 1800–5000
    •Dishwasher = 1200–2400 (using the drying feature greatly increases energy consumption)
    •Dehumidifier = 785
    •Electric blanket (Single/Double) = 60 / 100
    •Fans
    Ceiling = 65–175
    Window = 55–250
    Furnace = 750
    Whole house = 240–750
    •Hair dryer = 1200–1875
    •Heater (portable) = 750–1500
    •Clothes iron = 1000–1800
    •Microwave oven = 750–1100
    •Personal computer
    CPU - awake / asleep = 120 / 30 or less
    Monitor - awake / asleep = 150 / 30 or less
    Laptop = 50
    •Radio (stereo) = 70–400
    •Refrigerator (frost-free, 16 cubic feet) = 725
    •Televisions (color)
    •19" = 65–110
    •27" = 113
    •36" = 133
    •53" - 61" Projection = 170
    •Flat screen = 120
    •Toaster = 800–1400
    •Toaster oven = 1225
    •VCR/DVD = 17–21 / 20–25
    •Vacuum cleaner = 1000–1440
    •Water heater (40 gallon) = 4500–5500
    •Water pump (deep well) = 250–1100
    •Water bed (with heater, no cover) = 120–380

    
    
    
    
21. Ronald Conard

    

    4 posts
    
    3/5/2013 10:03 AM

    Curtis Nickerson said: Scott,
    Perhaps I was looking at the wrong unit, but 2450kw per day is 3 times the energy you need for your house? Below is a list of average appliance usage from energy.gov....
    Here are some examples of the range of nameplate wattages for various household appliances :
    
    •Aquarium = 50–1210 Watts
    •Clock radio = 10
    •Coffee maker = 900–1200
    •Clothes washer = 350–500
    •Clothes dryer = 1800–5000
    •Dishwasher = 1200–2400 (using the drying feature greatly increases energy consumption)
    •Dehumidifier = 785
    •Electric blanket (Single/Double) = 60 / 100
    •Fans
    Ceiling = 65–175
    Window = 55–250
    Furnace = 750
    Whole house = 240–750
    •Hair dryer = 1200–1875
    •Heater (portable) = 750–1500
    •Clothes iron = 1000–1800
    •Microwave oven = 750–1100
    •Personal computer
    CPU - awake / asleep = 120 / 30 or less
    Monitor - awake / asleep = 150 / 30 or less
    Laptop = 50
    •Radio (stereo) = 70–400
    •Refrigerator (frost-free, 16 cubic feet) = 725
    •Televisions (color)
    •19" = 65–110
    •27" = 113
    •36" = 133
    •53" - 61" Projection = 170
    •Flat screen = 120
    •Toaster = 800–1400
    •Toaster oven = 1225
    •VCR/DVD = 17–21 / 20–25
    •Vacuum cleaner = 1000–1440
    •Water heater (40 gallon) = 4500–5500
    •Water pump (deep well) = 250–1100
    •Water bed (with heater, no cover) = 120–380

    
    
    That sounds about right. Are you taking into account the conversion of watts (from the appliances) to kilowatts?

    
    
    
    
22. Wahlin Scott B

    
    3/5/2013 11:03 AM

    I took my monthly kWh off of my power bill.

    
    
    
    
23. Steve Nelson

    

    0 posts
    
    3/5/2013 12:03 PM

    Scott, that looks like a pretty slick system. Have you gotten a quote to install or was the $15K a guess? The previous owner of the house we bought had a solar and wind combo that charged batteries for all his electrical. A hard service line was put in when we bought the place because FHA required it. Solar panels are gone but the wind turbine remains and I've been thinking about hooking it up (have to get different converter) and maybe getting some solar panels since we have roof facing due south.

    
    
    
    
24. Wahlin Scott B

    
    3/6/2013 1:03 PM

    Steve Nelson, CGCS said: Scott, that looks like a pretty slick system. Have you gotten a quote to install or was the $15K a guess? The previous owner of the house we bought had a solar and wind combo that charged batteries for all his electrical. A hard service line was put in when we bought the place because FHA required it. Solar panels are gone but the wind turbine remains and I've been thinking about hooking it up (have to get different converter) and maybe getting some solar panels since we have roof facing due south.

    
    
    The $5000 was for a 300 kWh per month kit came from Wholesale Solar.com. I just threw $10,000 on top of that to make sure the number was realistic. My power bill is only $100 per month, so I am not highly motivated to reduce it. It just seemed very reasonable to me to have a 25 year system pay for itself in 12.5 years. If I was in my 30's I would consider it.

    
    
    
    
25. Keith Lamb

    

    3 posts
    
    3/11/2013 5:03 PM

    Good News!!! It's been solved.
    
    http://phys.org/news/2013-02-patented-fabrication-technique-key-solar.html

    
    
    
    
26. Clay Putnam

    

    33 posts
    
    3/21/2013 12:03 AM

    You know its bad when the Chinese are calling it quits.
    
    http://finance.yahoo.com/news/chinese-solar-producer-suntech-declares-bankruptcy-130337430--finance.html