Free Republic
Browse · Search
Bloggers & Personal
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Solar energy shines brightly for California agriculture
Western Farm Press ^ | 12/27/2010 | Harry Cline

Posted on 12/27/2010 7:01:09 AM PST by Dominic L. Fottfoy

California is the solar capital of the U.S., if not the world. There are now more than 72,000 systems in the state, generating an estimated 724 megawatts of power. Agriculture is embracing solar just as rapidly as other industries and municipalities. There are too many incentives, finanancial and otherwise, for producers not to grab sunbeams.

(Excerpt) Read more at westernfarmpress.com ...


TOPICS:
KEYWORDS: agriculture; california; energy; solarpower

1 posted on 12/27/2010 7:01:13 AM PST by Dominic L. Fottfoy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: Dominic L. Fottfoy

I’m no engineer, but isn’t 72,000 systems delivering 724 megawatts a bad return on investment ?


2 posted on 12/27/2010 7:08:07 AM PST by knarf (Who's Holi ? - Christ I know, you obviously don't - let me tell you about him - Romans 10:13)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: knarf

dims don’t care. They know nothing about business.


3 posted on 12/27/2010 7:10:06 AM PST by mathluv ( Conservative first and foremost, republican second - GO SARAHCUDA!!!!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Dominic L. Fottfoy

Solar is the solution to a problem that does not exist.


4 posted on 12/27/2010 7:11:08 AM PST by isthisnickcool (Sharia? No thanks.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: mathluv

Yes, but they do know about kickbacks and cronyism.


5 posted on 12/27/2010 7:14:28 AM PST by Squidster
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: isthisnickcool

We are in California (for now) and every high school in our area has a massive solar project over the student parking lots. You can tell, VERY EXPENSIVE just looking at it.
Plus I suspect many of the panels are no longer functioning due to the things that the students throw up on the panels.

It is a big waste of money.


6 posted on 12/27/2010 7:16:53 AM PST by super7man
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: Dominic L. Fottfoy

“There are too many incentives, financial and otherwise..”

####

“Financial incentives” are made possible ONLY by the government STEALING from more effficient, productive areas of the economy.

What is this “otherwise”? The fact that sunlight is a free gift from God?


7 posted on 12/27/2010 7:17:11 AM PST by EyeGuy (RaceMarxist Obama: The Politics of Vengeance)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Dominic L. Fottfoy

You can go broke saving money on solar electricity.

Without “other people’s money” solar is a bad deal.

From the article—

“”The California Public Utilities Commission has $3.3 billion available to offer incentives to those who install solar power for commercial operations. The American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 also offers tax incentives for renewable energy projects, including solar.””

and this quote is even better-—

“”Maring was reluctant to discuss details of Del Mar’s specific rebate/incentive/tax payback scenario, but it is obvious the ultimate cash outlay is significantly less than the purchase cost.

“It is pretty complicated and involves income tax brackets, incentives, depreciation and rebates from energy companies,” he says.””


8 posted on 12/27/2010 7:19:05 AM PST by Presbyterian Reporter
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Squidster
Any investment can look good when the government is paying the freight.
9 posted on 12/27/2010 7:19:53 AM PST by hinckley buzzard
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: Dominic L. Fottfoy

California’s state debt is what again? /s =.=


10 posted on 12/27/2010 7:26:36 AM PST by cranked
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: cranked

California’s state debt is what again? /s =.=

It’s hugh.


11 posted on 12/27/2010 7:32:57 AM PST by sasquatch
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: Dominic L. Fottfoy
1 nuclear reactor can produce more energy than all of these solar panels put together. Best part is they also work at night.

http://www.energy.ca.gov/nuclear/california.html (Scroll to bottom for table)

12 posted on 12/27/2010 7:45:32 AM PST by pnh102 (Regarding liberalism, always attribute to malice what you think can be explained by stupidity. - Me)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Dominic L. Fottfoy

Solar energy ... for AGRICULTURE?! WOW! What a great idea! California is indeed a world leader in technology. Next thing you know, they’ll be using pipes to carry WATER!


13 posted on 12/27/2010 8:16:49 AM PST by coloradan (The US has become a banana republic, except without the bananas - or the republic.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Dominic L. Fottfoy

But, but, but didn’t Maggie Thatcher once say that, “The problem with subsidizing solar energy is that sooner or later you run out of other people’s money for solar subsidies?”


14 posted on 12/27/2010 8:19:50 AM PST by catnipman (Cat Nipman: Made from the right stuff!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Dominic L. Fottfoy

The Dems & Enviro’s have halted development of 2 of the largest proposed solar sites. One in the Mojave Desert, the other in the Imperial Valley.


15 posted on 12/27/2010 8:20:37 AM PST by G Larry (When you're right, avoid compromise!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: knarf

“I’m no engineer, but isn’t 72,000 systems delivering 724 megawatts a bad return on investment ?”

Your instincts are spot-on: a single coal-fired plant will typically deliver 500 to 1000 megawatts.


16 posted on 12/27/2010 8:30:11 AM PST by Stosh
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Dominic L. Fottfoy
Solar Industry Claims Its So Successful That It Needs Corporate Welfare to Survive
17 posted on 12/27/2010 8:43:27 AM PST by epithermal
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: coloradan
Next thing you know, they’ll be using pipes to carry WATER!

This is Kalifornia. Transporting water is A Bad Thing. They're going to ban pipes.

18 posted on 12/27/2010 9:02:19 AM PST by sionnsar (IranAzadi|5yst3m 0wn3d-it's N0t Y0ur5:SONY|Why are TSA exempt from their own searches?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: sionnsar
It seems that the possesion of water is a crime
19 posted on 12/27/2010 9:18:17 AM PST by knarf (Who's Holi ? - Christ I know, you obviously don't - let me tell you about him - Romans 10:13)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: knarf

Unless you’re an Indian tribe.


20 posted on 12/27/2010 9:39:55 AM PST by sionnsar (IranAzadi|5yst3m 0wn3d-it's N0t Y0ur5:SONY|Why are TSA exempt from their own searches?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: Dominic L. Fottfoy
Think about that for a moment. You have 72,000 individual systems running all over the state. The power is not "dispatchable" meaning you cannot control when it is available to meet demand requirements. The individual systems are not controlled as a single large system. And what do you suppose are the logistical problems of maintaining 72,000 separate systems spread all over 156,000 square miles?

Now ponder the fact that a SINGLE medium size fossil fuel fired generating UNIT would produce that same amount of power 24 hours a day and the power can be turned up and down on demand. Plus, it doesn't go to "sleep" when the sun doesn't shine. Remember, I am talking about a single generating unit, not an entire power plant comprised of multiple units.

Even if you are not a power engineer, which one do you think makes the most sense?

21 posted on 12/27/2010 9:53:14 AM PST by ProtectOurFreedom
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: knarf
"I’m no engineer, but isn’t 72,000 systems delivering 724 megawatts a bad return on investment ?"

Well let's do the math. One megawatt is a million watts so we have 724 million watts being produces by 72 thousand systems. 724000/72=10055 watts per system. Call it 10 thousand watts per system. Not bad. What is missing since NOBODY knows how to report accurately any longer is the watt-hour production. 10 kilowatt-hours would be impressive per system. Not quite enough to run a house but impressive for a passive system. But if this is the total annual production then it is a HUGH waste of money and each system could barely power a low enegy light bulb during the day. You decide, since the idiot that wrote this knows NOTHING about the subject.

22 posted on 12/27/2010 10:09:32 AM PST by jpsb
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: jpsb
Well .. I've already confessed my ignorance, so I guess my question is a quasi statement .. thus;

I've already decided.

Waste of money ... but I'll bet it's impressive to those hustling enviro-dollars.

23 posted on 12/27/2010 10:19:03 AM PST by knarf (Who's Holi ? - Christ I know, you obviously don't - let me tell you about him - Romans 10:13)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: knarf

“I’m no engineer, but isn’t 72,000 systems delivering 724 megawatts a bad return on investment?”

Not when the “incentives” - subsidies - are funded not by private revenue of the ventures, but by the taxpayers.


24 posted on 12/27/2010 3:10:41 PM PST by Wuli
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
Bloggers & Personal
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson