Hybrid Car – More Fun with Less Gas

nat'l talk show hosts are LYING about solar energy

register ::  Login Password  :: Lost Password?
Posted by misterfact@yahoo.com on April 24, 2009, 2:11 pm
 
can this type of mis-information, heard by millions of radio
listeners, hurt the wind electric generator industry and the pv panel
industry? :

Talk show host #1:

 "Using wind-electric generators and solar panels as BACKUP systems to
fossil fuel electric generation- produces more greenhouse gases than
using fossil fuel generation alone!"

Talk show host #2

 "Solar panels and wind electric generators put out a bigger carbon
and pollution footprint than burning coal and natural gas in an
elecxtric plant."

Anyone want to know the names , email addresses and broadcast
statement verification of the above?

contact:

 Mik Cohrman

misterfact@yahoo.com

Posted by Eeyore on April 24, 2009, 4:59 pm
 


"misterfact@yahoo.com" wrote:


I've never heard of them being used as BACKUP but he's probably right
since you wouldn't be using their full potential which makes them even
worse than usual producers of electricity compared to  conventional.



Talk host #2 is being truthful about certain home mounted wind turbines.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/business/2009/feb/06/windpower

" B&Q, the DIY chain, has withdrawn wind turbines from sale amid evidence
they do not work as efficiently as had been thought. The 1,900
micro-turbines went on sale at the 320-store chain in October 2006. The
company said they would generate up to 1kW of electricity, wired directly
into a ring main to reduce the amount of power a household needed to buy.

But last month a survey by energy consultants Encraft warned that home
turbines generated only a fraction of the energy promised by
manufacturers, and in some cases used more electricity than they made.

The results of the study, which tested different types of turbines in
different locations, showed the worst performing devices provided less
energy than needed for a conventional lightbulb for an hour, or even to
power the turbine's own electronics. "

In the latter case net energy NEGATIVE !

Graham




Posted by Frank on April 24, 2009, 5:17 pm
 Eeyore wrote:

Efficient or not solar and wind devices are front end loaded with fossil
fuel consumption and their carbon foot print would not become net level
until late in their life cycles.  At this point, I'd say the talk show
hosts are correct in their assessment.

Posted by Winston on April 24, 2009, 6:00 pm
 Frank wrote:

(...)


At what point in the life cycle of a fossil fuel electric generation plant
does it's carbon footprint become net level with that of a conventional
solar or wind generator?

--Winston

--

Does 'never' work for you?  'Never' works for me.

Posted by Lord Gow333, Dirk Benedict's n on April 24, 2009, 7:09 pm
 

The point is that until sun and wind are guaranteed to be present in
sufficient quantities to meet all energy needs the fossil fuel plant needs
to be built regardless (negating a reactor, of course), thus rendering its
construction costs moot to this argument.
Whereas the solar panels and windmills are being touted for their low carbon
footprint, lower overall pollution, and financial benefits, and therefore
have to justify themselves by overcoming their construction costs.
Eventually.

Further question to ponder: A PBS documentary I watched claimed current
solar electric panels were about 20% efficient. If my gradeschool science
holds up that would mean that about 80% of the sunlight striking a black
solar panel is converted into heat! That being the case, if reducing Global
Warming is your goal, wouldn't it make more sense to lay down mirrors
instead of solar panels?

LG
--
"I am a Democrat and here is my energy plan" (holding up a picture of an old
VW Bug with a sail attached to it) - Rep Devin Nunes


This Thread
Bookmark this thread:
 
 
 
 
 
 
  •  
  • Subject
  • Author
  • Date
please rate this thread