Alternate Home Power In A Disaster Zone - Page 3

 

On 13 Sep 2005 13:01:45 -0700, jjj_soper@hotmail.com wrote:


Law of supply and demand... &  limited manufacturing capacity..


Back in Dec 2003.. High grade PV panels were down to $3 a watt..  


1.  They're competing in a un-even field against subsidized
industries..     I.E.  The other industries don't pay for the full
cost of their energy sources or the consequences of their use..  

  Nuclear.. has got a sweet deal on liability insurance.. (to the tune
of 30+ billion $ per year..)  Current&proposed implementation doom's
the US to a horrible fate, (worst than chernobyl) in the event of a
limited N-war or T-strike..

  Oil..  Got half of  the DOD working to protect supply lines and
producers(200B$/yr).. and tack on another 100B$/year to invade Iraq..
The US's southern boarder is being held hostage to the tune of 1.6M
bbl/d oil imports from Mexico.. (Tack on cost of 13 to 15 Million
illegals for which we all pay.)
 
  N-Gas.  Lot's of subsidies, not all that much left in US, and we're
importing more and more.    (Hint: Dependance on DOD  to stabilize the
3rd world. )

  Coal.. Are you ready for a Couple of Katrina type storms every
year??   That's global warming in action..  Whose going to pay for all
that damage...


2.  The solar energy is widely distributed and isn't conducive to high
concentration/control, therefore it has very few lobbyists and
campaign $ for Solar.. .  

   For example..  In the recently passed  energy bill, the Senate
added a modest 2020 requirement to generate 10% of all electricity
with renewable..    I'll give you ONE guess what happen to that
provision in the house/senate conference committee....   :-(


3.  Too many local rules inhibiting and/or adding exorbitant costs to
wide scale deployment.  

4.  Scale of economy..or lack thereof..

 


Tim Keating wrote:

Sorry, I'm not trying to flame, but I have trouble believing all this.
Even if the subsidy issue was valid, that is local to the US.  Europe
and Asia would now be mostly solar if the math worked out.  China is
modernizing now, it has lots of wiggle room for new technology.  And
there's always investment money out there looking for the next big
thing.

Why can't Soros, Larry Ellison, Bill Gates or some other joker start a
complete PV production facility out in Nevada for a few tens of million
in seed money?  The local government would love the jobs and speed
through the paperwork.  Plenty of cheap unskilled labor (and skilled
labor isn't getting too many raises these days either).  Take the first
batches of PVs produced and install them  for cheap power.  Run as much
equipment as possible only during daylight.

Cheap material, cheap labor, cheap power.  Sell the PVs for a fraction
of the current price, make a killing all over the world.  Why can't
this work if PVs are definitely not an energy sink as stated?

 

jjj_soper@hotmail.com wrote:


I don't agree with much of Tim's post, but I _do_ agree that Solar competes
against subsidized industries and I don't see why you would think Europe &
China are any different.


It's not interested.  It wants results fast and damn the consequences down
the line.  That means big coal mines, big dams and big nuclear. Europe is
not much different.
--
derek

 


Derek Broughton wrote:

Well, I don't know much about utility pricing in Europe, but am aware
of the huge gas prices.  Oil isn't subsidized, it's subsidizing other
things.

I simply don't understand how different countries all over the world
can be so deluded if solar is such a bargain.  And Europe has a much
stronger Green Party than the US.

 

jjj_soper@hotmail.com wrote:


Again, why do you think so?  I don't know about the net value of subsidies,
but the British government certainly pumped a huge amount of money into
exploration in the North Sea.  At least France, Germany and the UK have
Nuclear plants, and I agree with Tim that the fact that they have little to
no responsibility for their future liability amounts to an enormous
subsidy.  Coal mines employ so many people - frequently in areas with _no_
other major source of employment - that governments spend billions of
whatever denomination they use to keep them open, whether they are economic
or not (actually, coal usually is economic - as long as you don't count the
health costs).


It's the nature of politics.  Solar's costs are pretty well all up-front.
While there is a cost for disposal, I think that the entire product could
probably be recycled right back into more solar panels.  Fossil fuels costs
will come out in the next generation.  Nuclear will still be costing (just
for safe storage of spent fuel) billions of dollars in 100 years.
Politicians will _always_ take the cheap option today that's going to be
expensive for a future politician, rather than the most cost-effective in
the long run.


The US doesn't really _have_ a Green Party.
--
derek