Our Ridiculous Energy Policies

[HAL 9000 96]

We'll see if those coal scrubbers do what they are purported to do... I see a gradual weaning off of energy oil with no net increase in nuclear use and an increase in coal use. I am not convinced the nuclear waste issue will be solved by relying on "impenetrable" walls as we all know in science that there is no such thing.

Another issue to deal with will be in allocation of lands for coal mining, and the actual coal deposits in question, that are in themselves not unlimited.

Counting on future progress can be as certain as driving 90mph down a traffic-clogged expressway.

[GaryC 7]

Wind and solar.. lol

And how are these going to power our cars again.. People bring them up over and over again yet fail to answer how wind or solar will replace petroleum in our vehicles..

The area those two technologies are trying to replace is silly considering we already have an environmentally friendly alternative such as nuclear.

They are making great strides in battery capacity. Solar and wind can also be used to produce hydrogen. Nuclear? Peak nuclear will hit in another 50 years or so. We should put all of our eggs in one basket with nuclear and then be in the same predicament in the not so distant future by not developing solar and wind?

Do them all. Wind, solar, hydro, wave, nuclear..... keep an open mind.

Yep! We can't put all our hopes on one or two things. Use everything we have at hand.

[aidan80 9]

I beg to differ Aidan. Wind and Solar may supplement our needs but it will never replace oil. It requires to much real estate and no one seems to want a wind farm any where near them. As I recall they wanted to put a large wind farm off the coast of Nantucet and Teddy Kennedy shot it down because it would ruin his view.

Nuclear can be enviromentally friendly. When Yucca mountain comes on line we will have a permenate place to store the waste without harming the enviroment. The new coal power plants with the latest stack scrubbers put out very little pollution. With coal gassification the emissions would be even less. They are now working on a new coal to liquid conversion that could replace oil. Coal is something we have in spades. We should use it. Nuclear can be used without harming the enviroment. We should use it also.

Wind and solar shouldn't be considered a "supplement" it should be considered a replacement. Wind, Solar and tide driven energies aren't running out anytime soon! Build enough, spoil some views and get it done, stick them on the coast or under water for tide, it isn't too hard! It's getting done back home! A bunch of wind mills looks a lot nicer than a glowing radioactive hole in the ground. What oil? in case you haven't noticed oil isn't exactly a renewable resource, what will we do when it's all gone or when we have to give our first born just to buy enough to survive?

I don't agree, nuclear is not and will never be environmentally friendly, putting it in a hole, under the sea or in a mountain is still sweeping it under the rug, it'll come back to hunt someone, someday! I'm sure chernobyl was just a tiny mistake that won't ever happen again? Coal.. they banned coal in the town I lived in back home because of the pollution and the damage it was doing not just to the town but to the people! Of course you have lots of coal, let make lots of big massive holes in the ground pulling it out, lets pump yet more $hit into the air so we can suck it in. Coal is as environmentally friendly as george bush and as good for us as chain smoking.

[kaydee457 13]

Wind and solar.. lol

And how are these going to power our cars again.. People bring them up over and over again yet fail to answer how wind or solar will replace petroleum in our vehicles..

The area those two technologies are trying to replace is silly considering we already have an environmentally friendly alternative such as nuclear.

They are making great strides in battery capacity. Solar and wind can also be used to produce hydrogen. Nuclear? Peak nuclear will hit in another 50 years or so. We should put all of our eggs in one basket with nuclear and then be in the same predicament in the not so distant future by not developing solar and wind?

Yes, great strides but unfortunately none of these technolgies are viable and can compete with oil.

Batteries, Wind Turbines, Solar panels/cells, and all the other novelty "alternate" energy sources are either dirty to produce, which means the pollution and energy savings go up the factory smoke stack and transparent to the end user, or are only viable with government subsidies allowing R&D to continue......

Most greenies are either ignorant of this or simply ignore it.

How many times is this same ####### going to be posted here on VJ?

Is there anyone that belives that these are viable alternate sources to OIL that we, and the rest of the western industrialized world wouldn't be exploiting them?

It's an absurd notion........

What do you care anyway right? I mean, you'll be dead in what? 30 years? Doesn't really matter what happens after that does it?

Let's do this again.....Sorry Gary!

If you don't calm down you'll be in the grave far sooner than I........

Try to control your hysteria and relaaaaxx......Or take a MIDOL, whatever works for you!

Edited May 1, 2008 by kaydee457

[one...two...tree 2,762]

Majority of Americans Think Solar Power Should Be Offered on All New Homes

Eight out of ten Americans believe that homebuilders should offer solar power as an option for all new home construction, according to a recent Roper survey commissioned by Sharp Electronics Corporation. The survey was conducted in May among 1,004 adults to measure their perceptions of solar power.

When it comes to the cost of solar energy, the survey showed that two-thirds of Americans are willing to pay a premium for homes that have solar systems installed, when told that solar homes have a proven higher resale value. One-half of those surveyed would spend up to ten percent more for a solar-equipped house, indicating that the cost of a solar system will not prevent Americans from embracing forms of clean, renewable energy.

"Solar has been popular for a long time in areas like California and Arizona. Now we're seeing that the rest of the country is ready to embrace solar energy, and consumers want the option of having solar power their new home," said Ron Kenedi, vice president, Solar Energy Solutions Group, Sharp Electronics Corporation. "As the world's leading solar manufacturer, Sharp is encouraged to see that more and more Americans recognize the economic and environmental benefits of solar and understand that it is a vital part of the energy solution."

The survey also showed that given the current energy situation, three-quarters of Americans feel that solar energy is more important today than ever. The number-one reason for homeowners to utilize solar power is to save money on monthly utility bills, but respondents are also concerned with using solar to decrease the United States' dependence on oil.

The findings of the survey include:

-- 79 percent feel that homebuilders should offer solar power as an option for all new homes.

-- 84 percent of Americans ages 25-49 supported solar on new homes; 69 percent of those over 65 years agree.

-- Those living in the South and West are more likely to favor solar on new homes (83 percent) than those living in the Midwest or Northeast (74 percent).

-- After being told that solar homes have a proven higher resale value, 64 percent would be willing to pay more for home with a solar system.

-- 73 percent believe that solar energy technology is more important today than ever.

-- 42 percent say that saving money on monthly utility bills is the most compelling argument for installing solar power. Other respondents indicated it was to decrease the nation's dependence on oil (31 percent) or reduce environmental pollution (18 percent).

http://www.businesswire.com/portal/site/go...amp;newsLang=en

[GaryC 7]

We'll see if those coal scrubbers do what they are purported to do... I see a gradual weaning off of energy oil with no net increase in nuclear use and an increase in coal use. I am not convinced the nuclear waste issue will be solved by relying on "impenetrable" walls as we all know in science that there is no such thing.

Another issue to deal with will be in allocation of lands for coal mining, and the actual coal deposits in question, that are in themselves not unlimited.

Counting on future progress can be as certain as driving 90mph down a traffic-clogged expressway.

Have you read up on the process of glassification of nuclear waste? It's a process that turns it into a totaly inert (albeit radioactive) glass that cannot escape into the enviroment. It has the added advantage of making it useless to terrorists as a dirty bomb.

Majority of Americans Think Solar Power Should Be Offered on All New Homes

Eight out of ten Americans believe that homebuilders should offer solar power as an option for all new home construction, according to a recent Roper survey commissioned by Sharp Electronics Corporation. The survey was conducted in May among 1,004 adults to measure their perceptions of solar power.

When it comes to the cost of solar energy, the survey showed that two-thirds of Americans are willing to pay a premium for homes that have solar systems installed, when told that solar homes have a proven higher resale value. One-half of those surveyed would spend up to ten percent more for a solar-equipped house, indicating that the cost of a solar system will not prevent Americans from embracing forms of clean, renewable energy.

"Solar has been popular for a long time in areas like California and Arizona. Now we're seeing that the rest of the country is ready to embrace solar energy, and consumers want the option of having solar power their new home," said Ron Kenedi, vice president, Solar Energy Solutions Group, Sharp Electronics Corporation. "As the world's leading solar manufacturer, Sharp is encouraged to see that more and more Americans recognize the economic and environmental benefits of solar and understand that it is a vital part of the energy solution."

The survey also showed that given the current energy situation, three-quarters of Americans feel that solar energy is more important today than ever. The number-one reason for homeowners to utilize solar power is to save money on monthly utility bills, but respondents are also concerned with using solar to decrease the United States' dependence on oil.

The findings of the survey include:

-- 79 percent feel that homebuilders should offer solar power as an option for all new homes.

-- 84 percent of Americans ages 25-49 supported solar on new homes; 69 percent of those over 65 years agree.

-- Those living in the South and West are more likely to favor solar on new homes (83 percent) than those living in the Midwest or Northeast (74 percent).

-- After being told that solar homes have a proven higher resale value, 64 percent would be willing to pay more for home with a solar system.

-- 73 percent believe that solar energy technology is more important today than ever.

-- 42 percent say that saving money on monthly utility bills is the most compelling argument for installing solar power. Other respondents indicated it was to decrease the nation's dependence on oil (31 percent) or reduce environmental pollution (18 percent).

http://www.businesswire.com/portal/site/go...amp;newsLang=en

Sure, like I said, I would be willing to shingle my house with solar cells. It sounds like a good idea. But it isn't going to replace the grid any time soon. It is just one of many alternatives that we should try.

[kaydee457 13]

A typical solar panel that yields a mere 50 watt-hour output costs about $500.......That's because they're damn hard to manufacture, and yes, fossil fuels play a large part in manufacturing them. The fuel they consume in operation is "free" (sunlight) but the conversion of sunlight to electricity, and hence efficiency factor is extremely low as opposed to that from fossil fuels.

A typical furnace costs around $1500 retail (a non-recurring cost) and cranks out around 35000 BTU/hour. The recurring costs is the fuel; lets say gas.

The costs to operate the furnace is just pennies/hour compared with the solar panel to get similar BTU's.

A solar panel (50 watt-hour) cranks out a whopping 170 BTU's/hour.... To replace the furnace you're talking about it will cost you around $103, 000.......and the panels don't last forever...they degrade over time and become even less efficient and eventually need replacement.

Some go 5 years, some 10. You pay more for the 10 year...

Pretty good huh <shrug>

[GaryC 7]

A typical solar panel that yields a mere 50 watt-hour output costs about $500.......That's because they're damn hard to manufacture, and yes, fossil fuels play a large part in manufacturing them. The fuel they consume in operation is "free" (sunlight) but the conversion of sunlight to electricity, and hence efficiency factor is extremely low as opposed to that from fossil fuels.

A typical furnace costs around $1500 retail (a non-recurring cost) and cranks out around 35000 BTU/hour. The recurring costs is the fuel; lets say gas.

The costs to operate the furnace is just pennies/hour compared with the solar panel to get similar BTU's.

A solar panel (50 watt-hour) cranks out a whopping 170 BTU's/hour.... To replace the furnace you're talking about it will cost you around $103, 000.......and the panels don't last forever...they degrade over time and become even less efficient and eventually need replacement.

Some go 5 years, some 10. You pay more for the 10 year...

Pretty good huh <shrug>

Yep, that is one thing people forget. The energy cost to manufacture the cells. And your right, they don't last forever. There is some advances in thin film cells that show promise though. Some more work needs to be done before they are a viable option.

[Jamie76 0]

A typical solar panel that yields a mere 50 watt-hour output costs about $500.......That's because they're damn hard to manufacture, and yes, fossil fuels play a large part in manufacturing them. The fuel they consume in operation is "free" (sunlight) but the conversion of sunlight to electricity, and hence efficiency factor is extremely low as opposed to that from fossil fuels.

A typical furnace costs around $1500 retail (a non-recurring cost) and cranks out around 35000 BTU/hour. The recurring costs is the fuel; lets say gas.

The costs to operate the furnace is just pennies/hour compared with the solar panel to get similar BTU's.

A solar panel (50 watt-hour) cranks out a whopping 170 BTU's/hour.... To replace the furnace you're talking about it will cost you around $103, 000.......and the panels don't last forever...they degrade over time and become even less efficient and eventually need replacement.

Some go 5 years, some 10. You pay more for the 10 year...

Pretty good huh <shrug>

I'd like to know where you get your information because it's a load of #######. $103,000? I know of a number of people using solar (off the grid) and they didn't spend $103,000 on solar panels...and yes, they are living quite comfortably.

[one...two...tree 2,762]

A typical solar panel that yields a mere 50 watt-hour output costs about $500.......That's because they're damn hard to manufacture, and yes, fossil fuels play a large part in manufacturing them. The fuel they consume in operation is "free" (sunlight) but the conversion of sunlight to electricity, and hence efficiency factor is extremely low as opposed to that from fossil fuels.

A typical furnace costs around $1500 retail (a non-recurring cost) and cranks out around 35000 BTU/hour. The recurring costs is the fuel; lets say gas.

The costs to operate the furnace is just pennies/hour compared with the solar panel to get similar BTU's.

A solar panel (50 watt-hour) cranks out a whopping 170 BTU's/hour.... To replace the furnace you're talking about it will cost you around $103, 000.......and the panels don't last forever...they degrade over time and become even less efficient and eventually need replacement.

Some go 5 years, some 10. You pay more for the 10 year...

Pretty good huh <shrug>

I'd like to know where you get your information because it's a load of #######. $103,000? I know of a number of people using solar (off the grid) and they didn't spend $103,000 on solar panels...and yes, they are living quite comfortably.

Back in '95, when I was doing a research paper on PV technology, there was a guy living in MD who converted his entire home on PV energy and I think he spent about $9,000. He had backup batteries to store electricity during the night. The technology has progressed now and considering that many homeowners (in Arizona e.g.) have custom pools built into their homes that cost tens of thousands of dollars and there is no return in investment other than a slightly higher resale value. Homeowners are willing to pay for solar as an option...all that is needed is more political will to support solar power technology the way we support looking for cleaner coal.

Edited May 1, 2008 by Jabberwocky

[Peikko 1,575]

Wind and solar.. lol

And how are these going to power our cars again.. People bring them up over and over again yet fail to answer how wind or solar will replace petroleum in our vehicles..

The area those two technologies are trying to replace is silly considering we already have an environmentally friendly alternative such as nuclear.

They are making great strides in battery capacity. Solar and wind can also be used to produce hydrogen. Nuclear? Peak nuclear will hit in another 50 years or so. We should put all of our eggs in one basket with nuclear and then be in the same predicament in the not so distant future by not developing solar and wind?

Yes, great strides but unfortunately none of these technolgies are viable and can compete with oil.

Batteries, Wind Turbines, Solar panels/cells, and all the other novelty "alternate" energy sources are either dirty to produce, which means the pollution and energy savings go up the factory smoke stack and transparent to the end user, or are only viable with government subsidies allowing R&D to continue......

Most greenies are either ignorant of this or simply ignore it.

How many times is this same ####### going to be posted here on VJ?

Is there anyone that belives that these are viable alternate sources to OIL that we, and the rest of the western industrialized world wouldn't be exploiting them?

It's an absurd notion........

What do you care anyway right? I mean, you'll be dead in what? 30 years? Doesn't really matter what happens after that does it?

If you don't calm down you'll be in the grave far sooner than I........

Try to control your hysteria and relaaaaxx......Or take a MIDOL, whatever works for you!

A veiled insult? Cute but no, I am neither upset nor hysterical. I do however wonder what you think is going to happen when oil runs out because as a viable energy source its days are numbered and while there might not be a smart 'shoe in' solution to replace it as an energy source for transportation or electricity it is quite possible to suplement using alternative energy sources, thus ensuring oil is available for more years to come. Moreover, more energy efficient cars could and should be produced - we do know that the internal combustion engine, while a pretty darned smart invention, isn't exactly high efficiency conversion of energy to power. Is it reasonable to suppose that efficiency could be increased further? Is it smart to drive energy inefficient cars just because they are fun?

Edited May 1, 2008 by Purple_Hibiscus

[kaydee457 13]

A typical solar panel that yields a mere 50 watt-hour output costs about $500.......That's because they're damn hard to manufacture, and yes, fossil fuels play a large part in manufacturing them. The fuel they consume in operation is "free" (sunlight) but the conversion of sunlight to electricity, and hence efficiency factor is extremely low as opposed to that from fossil fuels.

A typical furnace costs around $1500 retail (a non-recurring cost) and cranks out around 35000 BTU/hour. The recurring costs is the fuel; lets say gas.

The costs to operate the furnace is just pennies/hour compared with the solar panel to get similar BTU's.

A solar panel (50 watt-hour) cranks out a whopping 170 BTU's/hour.... To replace the furnace you're talking about it will cost you around $103, 000.......and the panels don't last forever...they degrade over time and become even less efficient and eventually need replacement.

Some go 5 years, some 10. You pay more for the 10 year...

Pretty good huh <shrug>

I'd like to know where you get your information because it's a load of #######. $103,000? I know of a number of people using solar (off the grid) and they didn't spend $103,000 on solar panels...and yes, they are living quite comfortably.

I used my example illustrating the replacement of your typical heating plant in home use. A solr panel that puts out around 50 watts costs about $500. Please do the math.....35000 btu/hour equates to 35k/170 btu's/hour is 206 panels required. 206 x $500 is $103,000 approx.

Not that it would matter much, but most home and commercial installations are using panels that are of lower cost from suppliers that are heavily subsidized by the government. This allows you, and other customers to use them and allows the manufactures to get impirical as well as some long time practical experience.

[GaryC 7]

A typical solar panel that yields a mere 50 watt-hour output costs about $500.......That's because they're damn hard to manufacture, and yes, fossil fuels play a large part in manufacturing them. The fuel they consume in operation is "free" (sunlight) but the conversion of sunlight to electricity, and hence efficiency factor is extremely low as opposed to that from fossil fuels.

A typical furnace costs around $1500 retail (a non-recurring cost) and cranks out around 35000 BTU/hour. The recurring costs is the fuel; lets say gas.

The costs to operate the furnace is just pennies/hour compared with the solar panel to get similar BTU's.

A solar panel (50 watt-hour) cranks out a whopping 170 BTU's/hour.... To replace the furnace you're talking about it will cost you around $103, 000.......and the panels don't last forever...they degrade over time and become even less efficient and eventually need replacement.

Some go 5 years, some 10. You pay more for the 10 year...

Pretty good huh <shrug>

I'd like to know where you get your information because it's a load of #######. $103,000? I know of a number of people using solar (off the grid) and they didn't spend $103,000 on solar panels...and yes, they are living quite comfortably.

Back in '95, when I was doing a research paper on PV technology, there was a guy living in MD who converted his entire home on PV energy and I think he spent about $9,000. He had backup batteries to store electricity during the night. The technology has progressed now and considering that many homeowners (in Arizona e.g.) have custom pools built into their homes that cost tens of thousands of dollars and there is no return in investment other than a slightly higher resale value. Homeowners are willing to pay for solar as an option...all that is needed is more political will to support solar power technology the way we support looking for cleaner coal.

I am not sure where you get your figgure of $9000 from. I have been doing some searching and see it's about $14000 for enough solar panels to power the average home. Then there is the cost of the batteries. They run several thousand dollars. Then you have to have a rather large inverter (the gizmo that turns DC to 120V AC). All in all I am coming up with close to $25000 to take your home off the grid. And even at that, as Kaydee pointed out, the cells have a lifetime of about 10 years and the batteries have a lifetime of about 5 years. My average electric bill is about $200/month. That makes my electricity costs about $2400 per year. Over the lifetime of the cells I would expect to about break even. But there is another problem though. In the winter where I live we get a lot less sun. Plus the nights are longer. I would expect to need grid energy for at least some of the time in the winter. That puts me at a net loss overall. The technology needs more work before we can start shingling our roofs with cells. Perhaps someday soon but not right now.

[aidan80 9]

A typical solar panel that yields a mere 50 watt-hour output costs about $500.......That's because they're damn hard to manufacture, and yes, fossil fuels play a large part in manufacturing them. The fuel they consume in operation is "free" (sunlight) but the conversion of sunlight to electricity, and hence efficiency factor is extremely low as opposed to that from fossil fuels.

A typical furnace costs around $1500 retail (a non-recurring cost) and cranks out around 35000 BTU/hour. The recurring costs is the fuel; lets say gas.

The costs to operate the furnace is just pennies/hour compared with the solar panel to get similar BTU's.

A solar panel (50 watt-hour) cranks out a whopping 170 BTU's/hour.... To replace the furnace you're talking about it will cost you around $103, 000.......and the panels don't last forever...they degrade over time and become even less efficient and eventually need replacement.

Some go 5 years, some 10. You pay more for the 10 year...

Pretty good huh <shrug>

I fail to see how this is possible? Where do you get the figures from, the sources of information? It sounds more like a capitalist response than an intelligent response.. ohh it costs more money so let just say ** it and keep doing what makes more, faster easier and "better"? It's as intelligent as putting it in a hole in the ground!

[kaydee457 13]

A typical solar panel that yields a mere 50 watt-hour output costs about $500.......That's because they're damn hard to manufacture, and yes, fossil fuels play a large part in manufacturing them. The fuel they consume in operation is "free" (sunlight) but the conversion of sunlight to electricity, and hence efficiency factor is extremely low as opposed to that from fossil fuels.

A typical furnace costs around $1500 retail (a non-recurring cost) and cranks out around 35000 BTU/hour. The recurring costs is the fuel; lets say gas.

The costs to operate the furnace is just pennies/hour compared with the solar panel to get similar BTU's.

A solar panel (50 watt-hour) cranks out a whopping 170 BTU's/hour.... To replace the furnace you're talking about it will cost you around $103, 000.......and the panels don't last forever...they degrade over time and become even less efficient and eventually need replacement.

Some go 5 years, some 10. You pay more for the 10 year...

Pretty good huh <shrug>

I fail to see how this is possible? Where do you get the figures from, the sources of information? It sounds more like a capitalist response than an intelligent response.. ohh it costs more money so let just say ** it and keep doing what makes more, faster easier and "better"? It's as intelligent as putting it in a hole in the ground!

A 50w solar panel puts out 170 btu/hour. The typical gas furnace is 35000 btu/hour. Convert watts to btu......

Don't forget that when you connect a Series of panels, or a wind turbine to the grid you sell energy back to the utility thereby reducing your energy use and cost.

I'm not familiar with any (typical) home installations whereby you can power your entire home off the panels.......

1 watt/hour= 3.142BTU

Edited May 1, 2008 by kaydee457