|
Post by Solar Stud on Mar 4, 2015 22:38:14 GMT -6
What? If there were high value in solar, there would be no need for the gubment to foot the bill for it. There may be value in the future, but I honestly think fusion will be the real source of energy in the future. I don't disagree with this. Solar needs the temporary gov-luv because of the cost. Agreed. No argument. But it's for a good cause to kick-start a worthwhile technology advance. And most gov-luv expires 12/31/16. That was 8 years. As far as "genesis" and "acceptance".....solar has taken awhile to take hold. But consider the first computer was conceptualized in 1822, it took 160 years before it began to creep in USA's general consciousness. I'd say solar is way ahead of the game.
|
|
|
Post by Stan's Field on Mar 4, 2015 22:38:26 GMT -6
Let's have usually drink off to decide who's most worthy and successful at life.
|
|
|
Post by Stan's Field on Mar 4, 2015 22:39:39 GMT -6
I ain't stupid pal. I won geeks who drink trivia one time. Hmmmm...maybe a reassessment is in order... Did phaggy Billy ever win such a grueling contest? Uhh, phaggy Billy would have to venture out into the big scary world to compete.
|
|
|
Post by Stan's Field on Mar 4, 2015 22:41:11 GMT -6
What? If there were high value in solar, there would be no need for the gubment to foot the bill for it. There may be value in the future, but I honestly think fusion will be the real source of energy in the future. I don't disagree with this. Solar needs the temporary gov-luv because of the cost. Agreed. No argument. But it's for a good cause to kick-start a worthwhile technology advance. And most gov-luv expires 12/31/16. That was 8 years. As far as "genesis" and "acceptance".....solar has taken awhile to take hold. But consider the first computer was conceptualized in 1822, it took 160 years before it began to creep in USA's general consciousness. I'd say solar is way ahead of the game. Do you realize how dumb that all sounded?
|
|
|
Post by Solar Stud on Mar 4, 2015 22:50:27 GMT -6
The first practical solar cell was invented in 1954. How long after the invention of the automobile were horse and carraige still the norm? Teams of our top scientists have been working on this for 60 years and solar is still a miniscule fraction of the power generated in the world. Problem efficiency? Problems: 1. Cost competitiveness vs all other sources 2. Public concept of solar (too "out there", etc) 3. Cost to install/manufacture (quantity driven) 4. Efficiency of systems 5. Pub Util's dis-information, litigious mentality (read up on "utility death spiral"...interesting stuff) Like most new tech's, these problems self-correct over time. Eventually, most homes and businesses will be electric self-sufficient.
|
|
|
Post by Solar Stud on Mar 4, 2015 22:52:40 GMT -6
I don't disagree with this. Solar needs the temporary gov-luv because of the cost. Agreed. No argument. But it's for a good cause to kick-start a worthwhile technology advance. And most gov-luv expires 12/31/16. That was 8 years. As far as "genesis" and "acceptance".....solar has taken awhile to take hold. But consider the first computer was conceptualized in 1822, it took 160 years before it began to creep in USA's general consciousness. I'd say solar is way ahead of the game. Do you realize how dumb that all sounded? du-fuq? No more 'dumb' that you're non-value-added response. But that's OK...par for your course and par for the Wasteland. Wake me when you post something of substance in this thread....thanks.
|
|
|
Post by Presidential Immunity Cock on Mar 4, 2015 22:59:14 GMT -6
This is an apple Billy. Those are oranges. I think we can agree that your 18th century horseless caraiges were not exactly automobiles. The 1954 solar cell was not very different at all from what is being made today. Lets say benz had the first practical automobile in 1886. the model T was out in 1909, and the model A had put the horse completly out to pasture by 1927. That is 41 years to completly eclipse the previous technology. In the case of solar cells, we are into it 60 years and have not made any real progress in replacing other means of generation. As of 2013, solar accounted for 0.23 percent of electicity generated in the US. The biggest barrier for most in adopting to Solar use has been cost and efficiency. We've finally hit that mark, even without subsidies that it's a very viable alternative. Hell, many of the panels made in the 70's are still producing over 80% of their original efficiency and things have improved greatly since back then. Cost will continue to drop and people will make the decision to make the switch over. Now, what will be interesting will be seeing how Tesla addresses the battery issue so that people can actually go completely off the grid and not be tied in for their electric whatsoever. That is the biggest hindrance for many right now if they want to use solar and only solar and not have anything to do with the electric companies. Wind power has become quite viable as well, especially in areas that have rather consistent winds and where cost wise, it makes more sense than Solar. Obviously, you cannot rely on solar in say Alaska, but in many states that get plenty of sunlight it's an attractive option. It's definitely something that I will spend many months talking my wife into doing when we buy a house this summer and I figure I have until the end of 2016 to get that done so we can still get that federal subsidy for it. (Kansas does not have a state incentive other than a decent net metering plan with the electric companies to sell back excess) But, 30% tax credit on the total build cost is pretty doggone nice to have. Cost was always the biggest barrier when it comes to Solar, and even since 2010, the costs to install and purchase a system have come down significantly. The US is still one of the highest cost countries to do this in, mostly due to our trade issues with China otherwise our costs would probably be another 10% less. Maybe we'll get that ironed out before I purchase a system and can get it set up just in time. Now, what do I think will/should happen to that federal subsidy for solar? Maybe in 2017 it should be reduced to 20% for a few years, then 10% for a few more and then completely go away as many new home builds would likely include solar arrays as a selling point due to the costs going down even further. I'm sure that there are some builders today who are installing those systems already on new builds and using the tax credits themselves to help increase their profit margin. Wouldn't you be down with buying a new house that basically has your electric costs paid for without having to put anything down for it when it's all tied into your mortgage?
|
|
|
Post by Stan's Field on Mar 4, 2015 23:05:06 GMT -6
Wake up. Because "comparing" the development, implementation, and evolution of computers is not comparable to fucking solar panels.....
Some people, like sci-fi authors, theorized/imagined Nuclear fucking bombs long before it was practical or possible to design or create one. That doesn't mean their impact on mankind can be compared to how long it has taken cell phones to catch on...
|
|
|
Post by Solar Stud on Mar 4, 2015 23:08:52 GMT -6
This is an apple Billy. Those are oranges. I think we can agree that your 18th century horseless caraiges were not exactly automobiles. The 1954 solar cell was not very different at all from what is being made today. Lets say benz had the first practical automobile in 1886. the model T was out in 1909, and the model A had put the horse completly out to pasture by 1927. That is 41 years to completly eclipse the previous technology. In the case of solar cells, we are into it 60 years and have not made any real progress in replacing other means of generation. As of 2013, solar accounted for 0.23 percent of electicity generated in the US. The biggest barrier for most in adopting to Solar use has been cost and efficiency. We've finally hit that mark, even without subsidies that it's a very viable alternative. Hell, many of the panels made in the 70's are still producing over 80% of their original efficiency and things have improved greatly since back then. Cost will continue to drop and people will make the decision to make the switch over. Now, what will be interesting will be seeing how Tesla addresses the battery issue so that people can actually go completely off the grid and not be tied in for their electric whatsoever. That is the biggest hindrance for many right now if they want to use solar and only solar and not have anything to do with the electric companies. Wind power has become quite viable as well, especially in areas that have rather consistent winds and where cost wise, it makes more sense than Solar. Obviously, you cannot rely on solar in say Alaska, but in many states that get plenty of sunlight it's an attractive option. It's definitely something that I will spend many months talking my wife into doing when we buy a house this summer and I figure I have until the end of 2016 to get that done so we can still get that federal subsidy for it. (Kansas does not have a state incentive other than a decent net metering plan with the electric companies to sell back excess) But, 30% tax credit on the total build cost is pretty doggone nice to have. Cost was always the biggest barrier when it comes to Solar, and even since 2010, the costs to install and purchase a system have come down significantly. The US is still one of the highest cost countries to do this in, mostly due to our trade issues with China otherwise our costs would probably be another 10% less. Maybe we'll get that ironed out before I purchase a system and can get it set up just in time. Now, what do I think will/should happen to that federal subsidy for solar? Maybe in 2017 it should be reduced to 20% for a few years, then 10% for a few more and then completely go away as many new home builds would likely include solar arrays as a selling point due to the costs going down even further. I'm sure that there are some builders today who are installing those systems already on new builds and using the tax credits themselves to help increase their profit margin. Wouldn't you be down with buying a new house that basically has your electric costs paid for without having to put anything down for it when it's all tied into your mortgage? Check this out....yeah....not even close to being main-stream, but, it's coming. My kids' grandkids will probably be the first generation to incorporate this fully. Cool stuff. cleantechnica.com/2014/05/11/bmw-solar-powered-bamboo-carbon-fiber-charging-port/Again, the nay-sayers who quote ridiculous stats like "only 0.23%" of electric use...blah blah. It's accelerating. And as long as we're quoting data, as of NOVEMBER 2014, 0.44% of US's elec needs come from solar. That's double in one year. One.
|
|
|
Post by Stan's Field on Mar 4, 2015 23:11:05 GMT -6
The first practical solar cell was invented in 1954. How long after the invention of the automobile were horse and carraige still the norm? Teams of our top scientists have been working on this for 60 years and solar is still a miniscule fraction of the power generated in the world. Problem efficiency? Problems: 1. Cost competitiveness vs all other sources 2. Public concept of solar (too "out there", etc)3. Cost to install/manufacture (quantity driven) 4. Efficiency of systems 5. Pub Util's dis-information, litigious mentality (read up on "utility death spiral"...interesting stuff) Like most new tech's, these problems self-correct over time. Eventually, most homes and businesses will be electric self-sufficient. This is an apple Billy. Those are oranges. I think we can agree that your 18th century horseless caraiges were not exactly automobiles. The 1954 solar cell was not very different at all from what is being made today. Lets say benz had the first practical automobile in 1886. the model T was out in 1909, and the model A had put the horse completly out to pasture by 1927. That is 41 years to completly eclipse the previous technology. In the case of solar cells, we are into it 60 years and have not made any real progress in replacing other means of generation. As of 2013, solar accounted for 0.23 percent of electicity generated in the US. The biggest barrier for most in adopting to Solar use has been cost and efficiency. We've finally hit that mark, even without subsidies that it's a very viable alternative. Hell, many of the panels made in the 70's are still producing over 80% of their original efficiency and things have improved greatly since back then. Cost will continue to drop and people will make the decision to make the switch over. Now, what will be interesting will be seeing how Tesla addresses the battery issue so that people can actually go completely off the grid and not be tied in for their electric whatsoever. That is the biggest hindrance for many right now if they want to use solar and only solar and not have anything to do with the electric companies. Wind power has become quite viable as well, especially in areas that have rather consistent winds and where cost wise, it makes more sense than Solar. Obviously, you cannot rely on solar in say Alaska, but in many states that get plenty of sunlight it's an attractive option. It's definitely something that I will spend many months talking my wife into doing when we buy a house this summer and I figure I have until the end of 2016 to get that done so we can still get that federal subsidy for it. (Kansas does not have a state incentive other than a decent net metering plan with the electric companies to sell back excess) But, 30% tax credit on the total build cost is pretty doggone nice to have. Cost was always the biggest barrier when it comes to Solar, and even since 2010, the costs to install and purchase a system have come down significantly. The US is still one of the highest cost countries to do this in, mostly due to our trade issues with China otherwise our costs would probably be another 10% less. Maybe we'll get that ironed out before I purchase a system and can get it set up just in time. Now, what do I think will/should happen to that federal subsidy for solar? Maybe in 2017 it should be reduced to 20% for a few years, then 10% for a few more and then completely go away as many new home builds would likely include solar arrays as a selling point due to the costs going down even further. I'm sure that there are some builders today who are installing those systems already on new builds and using the tax credits themselves to help increase their profit margin. Wouldn't you be down with buying a new house that basically has your electric costs paid for without having to put anything down for it when it's all tied into your mortgage? Exactly, R2, it's not too fucking "out there", well maybe it is to dirtbags who can't spell Solar...but regardless, you have to have a functional product to sell first. Nobody is going to buy into something that requires 10 acres or $2,000 worth of upkeep. That wouldn't be practical. People haven't been straying away from an idea like solar because it sounds like witchcraft. They've been shying away because it wasn't fucking feasible enough to be mass-produced, until lately......
|
|
|
Post by Solar Stud on Mar 4, 2015 23:12:10 GMT -6
Wake up. Because "comparing" the development, implementation, and evolution of computers is not comparable to fucking solar panels..... Some people, like sci-fi authors, theorized/imagined Nuclear fucking bombs long before it was practical or possible to design or create one. That doesn't mean their impact on mankind can be compared to how long it has taken cell phones to catch on... My point bam-bam was to counter-point your point on how long it's taken solar to 'take hold', thus, your theory of it must not be worth it. Anyway, nevermind. I'm going solar, proud of it, and will keep HN apprised of things just in case anyone else wants to welcome the future in 2015.
|
|
|
Post by Stan's Field on Mar 4, 2015 23:14:26 GMT -6
Wake up. Because "comparing" the development, implementation, and evolution of computers is not comparable to fucking solar panels..... Some people, like sci-fi authors, theorized/imagined Nuclear fucking bombs long before it was practical or possible to design or create one. That doesn't mean their impact on mankind can be compared to how long it has taken cell phones to catch on... My point bam-bam was to counter-point your point on how long it's taken solar to 'take hold', thus, your theory of it must not be worth it. Anyway, nevermind. I'm going solar, proud of it, and will keep HN apprised of things just in case anyone else wants to welcome the future in 2015. U must have missed my last quote/post.
|
|
|
Post by Stan's Field on Mar 4, 2015 23:15:45 GMT -6
My point bam-bam was to counter-point your point on how long it's taken solar to 'take hold', thus, your theory of it must not be worth it. Anyway, nevermind. I'm going solar, proud of it, and will keep HN apprised of things just in case anyone else wants to welcome the future in 2015. U must have missed my last quote/post. Wait a second, when did I comment on that "point"?
|
|
|
Post by egadsto on Mar 4, 2015 23:21:44 GMT -6
|
|
|
Post by Presidential Immunity Cock on Mar 4, 2015 23:23:08 GMT -6
The first practical solar cell was invented in 1954. How long after the invention of the automobile were horse and carraige still the norm? Teams of our top scientists have been working on this for 60 years and solar is still a miniscule fraction of the power generated in the world. Problem efficiency? Problems: 1. Cost competitiveness vs all other sources 2. Public concept of solar (too "out there", etc) 3. Cost to install/manufacture (quantity driven) 4. Efficiency of systems 5. Pub Util's dis-information, litigious mentality (read up on "utility death spiral"...interesting stuff) Like most new tech's, these problems self-correct over time. Eventually, most homes and businesses will be electric self-sufficient. To expand on point 5 of yours. In Arizona, which should and will be a hotbed for people who will absolutely want solar due to their access to sunshine, you have to read up on what they are doing there. gigaom.com/2015/03/03/solarcity-sues-arizona-utility-over-solar-anti-competitive-practices/Basically, SRP, one of the largest electric utilities in the state is proposing changes to the net metering plan where they will charge solar users $50 per month to access the grid. What would SRP think if they lost their "Monopoly" on providing that service? And it doesn't cost anything to maintain a grid especially since they are able to offset their power production for increased return of electricity to their grid during peak hours when they charge the most. Basically, it's a money grab and a way for SRP to make those looking to get Solar to change their mind and continue to buy their electricity directly from them. Boy, wasn't Reagan great when he deregulated these monopolies.
|
|
|
Post by Presidential Immunity Cock on Mar 4, 2015 23:31:08 GMT -6
Exactly, R2, it's not too fucking "out there", well maybe it is to dirtbags who can't spell Solar...but regardless, you have to have a functional product to sell first. Nobody is going to buy into something that requires 10 acres or $2,000 worth of upkeep. That wouldn't be practical. People haven't been straying away from an idea like solar because it sounds like witchcraft. They've been shying away because it wasn't fucking feasible enough to be mass-produced, until lately...... Not anymore it's not "out there". 5 years ago, probably not for most people, other than the paper stackers like OK or Chuck. Then the time to actually break even on the cost/savings was at least 20 years, maybe even more. Now, even without subsidies it will be less than 10 years. Add in those subsidies and it's closer to 6-7 years before they hit the break even point. Costs continue to go down and it's becoming more affordable to the proles and makes financial sense. When many buy a house, they don't own it for 3 years and sell. Generally they will be there for 10 years, or longer, barring some sort of relocation for their job. And also add in that you can go and sell that house for more money because the electric is "paid for" it's a win win. The increase in home value is roughly equal to the cost of the total install price, so a person will be getting their money out of it. Would you prefer to buy a house that you know that your electric bill will be $0 or hell, even get money back from the electric company, or buy one that rolls coal and has 50 billion BTU's in the toilet alone? Again, 5 years ago, it was a pipe dream and most would have never considered it, even with subsidies unless they were a hippy with some money and wanted to be Al Gore carbon neutral. Fuck, even the Tea Hadists in Florida are completely behind solar power and are fighting alongside those libby libs to make it possible there in Fl.
|
|
|
Post by Solar Stud on Mar 4, 2015 23:42:48 GMT -6
Problems: 1. Cost competitiveness vs all other sources 2. Public concept of solar (too "out there", etc) 3. Cost to install/manufacture (quantity driven) 4. Efficiency of systems 5. Pub Util's dis-information, litigious mentality (read up on "utility death spiral"...interesting stuff) Like most new tech's, these problems self-correct over time. Eventually, most homes and businesses will be electric self-sufficient. To expand on point 5 of yours. In Arizona, which should and will be a hotbed for people who will absolutely want solar due to their access to sunshine, you have to read up on what they are doing there. gigaom.com/2015/03/03/solarcity-sues-arizona-utility-over-solar-anti-competitive-practices/Basically, SRP, one of the largest electric utilities in the state is proposing changes to the net metering plan where they will charge solar users $50 per month to access the grid. What would SRP think if they lost their "Monopoly" on providing that service? And it doesn't cost anything to maintain a grid especially since they are able to offset their power production for increased return of electricity to their grid during peak hours when they charge the most. Basically, it's a money grab and a way for SRP to make those looking to get Solar to change their mind and continue to buy their electricity directly from them. Boy, wasn't Reagan great when he deregulated these monopolies. I have read that whole sad state of affairs. Again, these Util Pubs need to change their business models. Adapt, Adopt, Merge, Acquire or get the hell out of the way. Check this one out. Pub Util tries to under-cut solar and loses in Ia Supreme Court ruling. grist.org/climate-energy/in-iowa-solar-is-fighting-back-against-utilities-and-winning/
|
|
|
Post by Solar Stud on Mar 4, 2015 23:54:32 GMT -6
Exactly, R2, it's not too fucking "out there", well maybe it is to dirtbags who can't spell Solar...but regardless, you have to have a functional product to sell first. Nobody is going to buy into something that requires 10 acres or $2,000 worth of upkeep. That wouldn't be practical. People haven't been straying away from an idea like solar because it sounds like witchcraft. They've been shying away because it wasn't fucking feasible enough to be mass-produced, until lately...... Not anymore it's not "out there". 5 years ago, probably not for most people, other than the paper stackers like OK or Chuck. Then the time to actually break even on the cost/savings was at least 20 years, maybe even more. Now, even without subsidies it will be less than 10 years. Add in those subsidies and it's closer to 6-7 years before they hit the break even point. Costs continue to go down and it's becoming more affordable to the proles and makes financial sense. When many buy a house, they don't own it for 3 years and sell. Generally they will be there for 10 years, or longer, barring some sort of relocation for their job. And also add in that you can go and sell that house for more money because the electric is "paid for" it's a win win. The increase in home value is roughly equal to the cost of the total install price, so a person will be getting their money out of it. Would you prefer to buy a house that you know that your electric bill will be $0 or hell, even get money back from the electric company, or buy one that rolls coal and has 50 billion BTU's in the toilet alone? Again, 5 years ago, it was a pipe dream and most would have never considered it, even with subsidies unless they were a hippy with some money and wanted to be Al Gore carbon neutral. Fuck, even the Tea Hadists in Florida are completely behind solar power and are fighting alongside those libby libs to make it possible there in Fl. My payback, without Util's ever-escalating rate increases, is 9 years. Nine. And every increase is a quicker pay-back. My system will be $8.8K installed. I have an on-going dialogue with my solar installer regarding Net-Metering in little Durant. They don't have a policy yet, but will after my solar guys meet with the commission. Very interesting indeed. Also, check these unique solar incorporation's (tiles, clay tiles, shingles, windows) www.solarcentury.com/uk/c21e-tiles-and-slates/www.newenergytechnologiesinc.com/technology/solarwindowAlso, the newer Honda Prius's use solar panels in their roofs which run AC, etc rather than the car battery. Cool stuff (pun intended) www.allannott.com/blog/use-toyota-prius-solar-panel-roof/
|
|
|
Post by Ginger on Mar 5, 2015 0:46:48 GMT -6
|
|
|
Post by Solar Stud on Mar 5, 2015 5:58:03 GMT -6
|
|
|
Post by socal on Mar 5, 2015 6:29:48 GMT -6
Exactly, R2, it's not too fucking "out there", well maybe it is to dirtbags who can't spell Solar...but regardless, you have to have a functional product to sell first. Nobody is going to buy into something that requires 10 acres or $2,000 worth of upkeep. That wouldn't be practical. People haven't been straying away from an idea like solar because it sounds like witchcraft. They've been shying away because it wasn't fucking feasible enough to be mass-produced, until lately...... Not anymore it's not "out there". 5 years ago, probably not for most people, other than the paper stackers like OK or Chuck. Then the time to actually break even on the cost/savings was at least 20 years, maybe even more. Now, even without subsidies it will be less than 10 years. Add in those subsidies and it's closer to 6-7 years before they hit the break even point. Costs continue to go down and it's becoming more affordable to the proles and makes financial sense. When many buy a house, they don't own it for 3 years and sell. Generally they will be there for 10 years, or longer, barring some sort of relocation for their job. And also add in that you can go and sell that house for more money because the electric is "paid for" it's a win win. The increase in home value is roughly equal to the cost of the total install price, so a person will be getting their money out of it. Would you prefer to buy a house that you know that your electric bill will be $0 or hell, even get money back from the electric company, or buy one that rolls coal and has 50 billion BTU's in the toilet alone? Again, 5 years ago, it was a pipe dream and most would have never considered it, even with subsidies unless they were a hippy with some money and wanted to be Al Gore carbon neutral. Fuck, even the Tea Hadists in Florida are completely behind solar power and are fighting alongside those libby libs to make it possible there in Fl. Imagine if the Koch's & the Koch funded GOP*** put 50% as much effort into the jobs created via solar vs. the 6-10 permanent jobs created by the Keystone pipeline. Or that they didn't polarize all things Green = Al Gore = Evil = must be mocked. ***- Though from what I've read, their business acumen is quite good... so they are probably hedging in solar too. The GOP isn't
|
|
|
Post by Presidential Immunity Cock on Mar 5, 2015 7:10:46 GMT -6
Not anymore it's not "out there". 5 years ago, probably not for most people, other than the paper stackers like OK or Chuck. Then the time to actually break even on the cost/savings was at least 20 years, maybe even more. Now, even without subsidies it will be less than 10 years. Add in those subsidies and it's closer to 6-7 years before they hit the break even point. Costs continue to go down and it's becoming more affordable to the proles and makes financial sense. When many buy a house, they don't own it for 3 years and sell. Generally they will be there for 10 years, or longer, barring some sort of relocation for their job. And also add in that you can go and sell that house for more money because the electric is "paid for" it's a win win. The increase in home value is roughly equal to the cost of the total install price, so a person will be getting their money out of it. Would you prefer to buy a house that you know that your electric bill will be $0 or hell, even get money back from the electric company, or buy one that rolls coal and has 50 billion BTU's in the toilet alone? Again, 5 years ago, it was a pipe dream and most would have never considered it, even with subsidies unless they were a hippy with some money and wanted to be Al Gore carbon neutral. Fuck, even the Tea Hadists in Florida are completely behind solar power and are fighting alongside those libby libs to make it possible there in Fl. Imagine if the Koch's & the Koch funded GOP*** put 50% as much effort into the jobs created via solar vs. the 6-10 permanent jobs created by the Keystone pipeline. Or that they didn't polarize all things Green = Al Gore = Evil = must be mocked. ***- Though from what I've read, their business acumen is quite good... so they are probably hedging in solar too. The GOP isn'tOne would wish that they would. Investing in solar for job growth makes sense. It's one of the largest sectors of new jobs that are created in recent years. But of course, oil is king and they make a fucking killing on it. I'm not sure how much profit is in solar unless they are selling that power and even then, that doesn't come remotely close to oil profits. And of course, their biggest issue I'm sure would be if they were to sell solar to consumers (as in home panels, etc) they sell to them once and don't have them coming back every week for a fill up other than maybe once every 20+ years (probably longer than that). Hell, Cushing OK is going to cap out on their storage of Oil by April 2015. Why are gas prices going up if we are making so damn much oil and will have our largest storage facilities maxing out on capacity that they can hold? I'm sure that they'll try to push congress to lift the bans on selling raw oil to foreign countries which will of course, increase their profits, and raise our gas prices on top of it. And yea, the Koch's know how to run a business obviously. I'm sure they are hedging their bets in solar/wind somehow, probably thru either investments in energy companies or buying off politicians to allow them to rig the market to gain even more profits from it or allowing electric companies to charge crazy fees ti discourage people from putting up personal panels on their homes.
|
|
|
Post by Ginger on Mar 5, 2015 8:07:45 GMT -6
|
|
|
Post by A boy named Sioux on Mar 5, 2015 8:49:41 GMT -6
What? If there were high value in solar, there would be no need for the gubment to foot the bill for it. There may be value in the future, but I honestly think fusion will be the real source of energy in the future. I don't disagree with this. Solar needs the temporary gov-luv because of the cost. Agreed. No argument. But it's for a good cause to kick-start a worthwhile technology advance. And most gov-luv expires 12/31/16. That was 8 years. As far as "genesis" and "acceptance".....solar has taken awhile to take hold. But consider the first computer was conceptualized in 1822, it took 160 years before it began to creep in USA's general consciousness. I'd say solar is way ahead of the game. That 1800's computer is like Billys 1700's car. It was in no way a practical precusor to the latter technology. The solar cell is nearly unchanged after 60 years of intensive r&d. I dont see a huge breakrhough on the immediate horizon.
|
|
|
Post by The Resistance on Mar 5, 2015 8:50:45 GMT -6
Ginger the guy sounds like a typical Republican. Rules and regulations don't apply to him.
|
|