Posted on 08/06/2019 9:01:45 AM PDT by DUMBGRUNT
Building one wind turbine requires 900 tons of steel, 2,500 tons of concrete and 45 tons of plastic.
A single electric-car battery weighs about 1,000 pounds. Fabricating one requires digging up, moving and processing more than 500,000 pounds of raw materials somewhere on the planet.
Global silver and indium mining will jump 250% and 1,200% respectively over the next couple of decades to provide the materials necessary to build the number of solar panels...
World demand for rare-earth elements—which aren’t rare but are rarely mined in America—will rise 300% to 1,000% by 2050 to meet the Paris green goals. If electric vehicles replace conventional cars, demand for cobalt and lithium, will rise more than 20-fold. That doesn’t count batteries to back up wind and solar grids.
much of the mining will take place in nations with oppressive labor practices. The Democratic Republic of the Congo produces 70% of the world’s raw cobalt, and China controls 90% of cobalt refining...
Building enough wind turbines to supply half the world’s electricity would require nearly two billion tons of coal to produce the concrete and steel, along with two billion barrels of oil to make the composite blades. More than 90% of the world’s solar panels are built in Asia on coal-heavy electric grids.
Absent the realization of that impossible dream, hydrocarbons remain a far better alternative than today’s green dreams.
(Excerpt) Read more at wsj.com ...
Solar panels photovoltaics work and work well and there’s no argument against them
“Can you Dig it?”
Well, I’m talkin’ about Mine Shafts!
Earth First! We’ll mine the other planets later.
. . . and dilithium crystals, a major cause of interplanetary and intergalactic conflicts
Solar panels works great in parts of the world where the climate has enough sunny days year-round to make them viable financially. That right there means most of California, Nevada, Arizona, Utah, New Mexico and western Texas here in the USA.
So good that you have settled that for all of us. Damn the science, physics, engineering and economics! Full speed ahead!
Huh? You mean they have to make them somewhere? They didn't tell me that in Socialism class....
“Solar panels photovoltaics work and work well and there’s no argument against them”
There’s PLENTY of arguments against them. For example, there are millions of Type 2 diabetics desperately trying to eliminate carbohydrates from their diets, so they can finally get off Insulin (and often all their drugs).
But carbs are very cheap per calorie and going to a non-carb diet costs money. If they’re forced pay 50 cents per kwh for power, when gas will generate the same for 8 cents, then many of them will not have the money to make the switch, and will be forced to suffer the horrible physical complications that happen from continuing to live in a diabetic condition.
That’s not to say solar doesn’t work, or that solar is always a bad idea, but for most Americans solar is expensive, and for some people, VERY EXPENSIVE. Maybe that will change somewhat, in certain parts of the country (such as desert areas), but it’s not there yet, or it wouldn’t being mandated as it is.
and there’s no argument against them
I’m not anti-solar, but one must spend some time, have a sharp pencil and keep an eye on the cost/benefit.
Doing your own installation work? Not cheap.
The service life of the equipment?
Many questions...
Your mileage will vary.
Hydrogen fuel cell vehicles do not have the drawbacks of vehicles powered by lithium batteries that are cited in this article. Toyota and Honda have sold fuel cell vehicles for several years. Now Hyundai has introduced the Hyundai Nexo. Here is a test from last week: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UDDLMWKwTpQ There are wrinkles, but two or three years should iron them out.
” hydrocarbons remain a far better alternative than today’s green dreams.”
Don’t forget nuclear.
Ultimate green energy could be done through geo-thermal energy. Drill wells deep enough, you’ll find it....
““Can you Dig it?””
Warriors. Great movie.
Photo voltaic panels are a great solution to remote, off grid power generation where there are good solar radiation resources
Solar power is impractical and absurd as a commercial source of utility grade power.
Plus the thousands of miles of copper wire to connect them to the electrical grid, which has to be dug out of the ground requiring fossil fuels
Bookmark
1) Very good for some climates and horrible for others. It's good for me cuz I live in Alabama where we average 5 hours per day of sunshine suitable for good solar absorption, more than that during the summer, and most of my power cost is from running the A/C during summer, not running the heater during the winter (even if I had electric heat). If I lived in the northeast, say in New York, I probably wouldn't give it a 2nd thought because most of my electric consumption would be for heat during the winter, when there's less sunlight in an area that already doesn't have as many hours per day of sunlight suitable for solar power.
2) It depends on if your power company does net metering, which is a fancy term for them paying you a suitable amount per kwh for extra power you put onto the grid for solar power you generate but don't use. (For example, if I had enough solar on my house to be self-sufficient for the summer I'd probably put a fair amount of power onto the grid during the spring and fall when the sunlight is good but the A/C use is down ("down" compared to Alabama summer days). The two main power companies in Alabama have different net metering rates. The one done by the TVA is good, but Alabama Power's net metering is practically non-existent (along with a monthly fee Alabama Power charges just to have your solar power on their grid). So research that. Your choice for solar may come down to your net metering rates/fees. If you have good net metering, you can convert to solar incrementally (i.e. a few solar panels and one inverter, with no battery storage) by staying tied to the grid to get power beyond what you're generating at the time. This allows you to kick the tires so to speak to see if it's affordable for you. If you have poor net metering (meaning you'd pay more for the privilege to stay on the grid than they pay you for the power you sell them), then going solar is an all or none decision where you either go all in and generate enough solar power and have enough battery backup and backup generator (think a week of rainy days in the winter) or don't spend a penny at all for solar.
3) Assume an 80% efficiency on the inverters converting DC power (coming from the solar panels) to AC power (to be used by the house and/or stored in a battery or two for nighttime and rainy days).
4) Now for Return on Investment (ROI). I make about 11.5% average return on my investments, so I'm hesitant to throw a lot of money up front for solar if that money can make me better money elsewhere. It'd take about 7 to 9 years for me to get back my up front costs if I went full solar (with some battery backup and a small diesel generator). However, that assumes power rates remain constant. If power rates go up by about 4% per year like they usually do, now it takes only 6 to 8 years to get my money back. Plus, I'd have the peace of mind in knowing that my future energy costs aren't dependent on the whims of someone else increasing the rates. Think of it as a small 4% annuity to have some stability in an investment portfolio that's otherwise mostly high growth. I had an electrical engineer review my research and confirm my numbers are pretty accurate.
All that being, when I retire and move to the last place my wife and I plan to live the rest of our lives, expect me to go all in on solar if I'm somewhere in the south. If we wound up staying in our 2-floor house that was big enough to raise 4 kids (all of whom are now grown and moved out, therefore we're liable sell and downsize in retirement, the only reason I haven't already invested in solar) it'd cost $30K to buy and install 35 400W solar panels (I have a large portion of my roof facing south), 1 inverter, 5 batteries (enough storage for a full day's worth of power use), and a diesel generator to be used maybe 5% of the time (automatically switched on by the inverter when it detects low battery storage). This is after the 30% tax credit. All of those parts have either a 10 year or 25 year warranty, but for realistic purposes the warranties are more like 8 years or 20 years, because the warranties allow for the parts to degrade some and still not be replaced if they're operating a little less efficient each year (especially the batteries). So halfway into the 10 year warranty of my 35 solar panels I can expect them to operate as though they're only 30 or so panels.
So if my wife and I decide to stay in our large family house for life, I'll take 30K out of our investments, go all in on solar, and put the $380 per month I usually spend on power and natural gas (but won't if we're 100% solar powered plus a little diesel fuel) back into investments. (In practical terms, that's $380 less per month I'd withdraw from investments to live on.) If we retire to a smaller house it'll have even less upfront costs.
“Solar panels photovoltaics work and work well and there’s no argument against them”
other than their cost, land space occupation, operating efficiently only a few hours of the day, requirement for equivalent amount of fossil fuel backup generation, frying birds in big installations, vulnerability to hail storms, need for constant cleaning of dust buildup, location away from electricity users, and requirement for expensive inverters ... other than that, they’re great!
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.