|
Post by A boy named Sioux on Mar 5, 2015 8:52:38 GMT -6
Personal flotation device? I thought you were an engineer, my bad. Irnengineer. I am not working on fusion, so i dont have any process flow diagrams. I doubt the lockheed guys would share theirs.
|
|
|
Post by A boy named Sioux on Mar 5, 2015 9:00:01 GMT -6
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. What exactly is rediculous about quoting the actual numbers from energy.gov, other than it makes your position look rediculose?
|
|
|
Post by FoxHuntChampion on Mar 5, 2015 9:25:59 GMT -6
Summarize thread plz. Looks dumb.
|
|
|
Post by A boy named Sioux on Mar 5, 2015 9:49:17 GMT -6
As you yourself pointed out, the earth will get a huge measure of ass raping to provide the materials for both the solar cells and the batterys needed to make them worth while. And for you ancient technology fans, Alexandre Becquerel demonstrated the chemistry used in a solar cell back in 1839. Why he didn't use it to power his computer controlled car is a mystery.
|
|
|
Post by egadsto on Mar 5, 2015 10:14:24 GMT -6
Summarize thread plz. Looks dumb. Raping the earth in search of crude oil, natural gas, and coal is bestest evar because old white xtian guys get the most rich. K? Tks.
|
|
|
Post by A boy named Sioux on Mar 5, 2015 10:42:36 GMT -6
Have you not seen the satellite photos of the dead zone in Sudbury canada caused by mining for raws to make lithium batterys?
|
|
|
Post by FoxHuntChampion on Mar 5, 2015 10:43:36 GMT -6
As you yourself pointed out, the earth will get a huge measure of ass raping to provide the materials for both the solar cells and the batterys needed to make them worth while. And for you ancient technology fans, Alexandre Becquerel demonstrated the chemistry used in a solar cell back in 1839. Why he didn't use it to power his computer controlled car is a mystery. drilling/refining, fracking, and blowing the tops off of mountains (aka coal mining) are magnitudes worse for the environment than anything associated with the mfr of solar panels if frakking all that bad?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 5, 2015 10:49:46 GMT -6
drilling/refining, fracking, and blowing the tops off of mountains (aka coal mining) are magnitudes worse for the environment than anything associated with the mfr of solar panels if frakking all that bad? no, its just wonderful.
|
|
|
Post by FoxHuntChampion on Mar 5, 2015 10:50:56 GMT -6
if frakking all that bad? no, its just wonderful. doesnt seem all that bad.
|
|
|
Post by Stan's Field on Mar 5, 2015 11:28:24 GMT -6
I thought you were an engineer, my bad. Irnengineer. I am not working on fusion, so i dont have any process flow diagrams. I doubt the lockheed guys would share theirs.
|
|
|
Post by Stan's Field on Mar 5, 2015 11:29:55 GMT -6
drilling/refining, fracking, and blowing the tops off of mountains (aka coal mining) are magnitudes worse for the environment than anything associated with the mfr of solar panels if frakking all that bad?
|
|
|
Post by Stan's Field on Mar 5, 2015 11:30:39 GMT -6
If only one of us knew a goddy genius
|
|
|
Post by Stan's Field on Mar 5, 2015 11:37:53 GMT -6
Summarize thread plz. Looks dumb. =& also
|
|
|
Post by GhostMod 5000 on Mar 5, 2015 11:48:14 GMT -6
Have you not seen the satellite photos of the dead zone in Sudbury canada caused by mining for raws to make lithium batterys? Thanks iPhones
|
|
|
Post by Solar Stud on Mar 5, 2015 15:46:56 GMT -6
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. What exactly is rediculous about quoting the actual numbers from energy.gov, other than it makes your position look rediculose? How about a). not recent data and b). life is not a picture...it's a movie. You have to compare points to understand a trend. And solar is trending forward. "Well, Seth, Solar had 0% influence in 1990, so it's bogus" Oh, OK.
|
|
|
Post by A boy named Sioux on Mar 5, 2015 16:13:26 GMT -6
What exactly is rediculous about quoting the actual numbers from energy.gov, other than it makes your position look rediculose? How about a). not recent data and b). life is not a picture...it's a movie. You have to compare points to understand a trend. And solar is trending forward. "Well, Seth, Solar had 0% influence in 1990, so it's bogus" Oh, OK. Two times nothing is still nothing. Get back to me when you crack 1%. I'll hang up and listen for the next decade.
|
|
|
Post by Solar Stud on Mar 6, 2015 23:58:59 GMT -6
|
|
|
Post by Stan's Field on Mar 7, 2015 8:06:11 GMT -6
Uhhh huhhh, yeahhh. Uhh huh. This is what's gunna happen to us if we keep investing in Solar/Star power: The sooner we repeal our support of stars, the better off we'll be....
|
|
|
Post by Presidential Immunity Cock on Mar 9, 2015 1:29:28 GMT -6
|
|
|
Post by A boy named Sioux on Mar 9, 2015 5:59:35 GMT -6
That article seems a little overly optimistic.
|
|
|
Post by Stan's Field on Mar 9, 2015 6:46:35 GMT -6
R2, don't be dumb. Fucking T-rexs has been extinct for decades....
|
|
|
Post by Presidential Immunity Cock on Mar 9, 2015 6:49:43 GMT -6
Yea, but Jesus rode them during his reign of terror.
|
|
|
Post by Stan's Field on Mar 9, 2015 6:52:50 GMT -6
Yea, but Jesus rode them during his reign of terror. Jesus hates nukes. But he loves him some mentorees. Issue, Billy?
|
|
|
Post by GhostMod 5000 on Mar 9, 2015 10:22:06 GMT -6
Yea, but Jesus rode them during his reign of terror. Jesus hates nukes. But he loves him some mentorees. Issue, Billy? No ish you. You've clearly been reading the Bible.
|
|
|
Post by Solar Stud on Mar 9, 2015 23:42:11 GMT -6
|
|