What Kind of Organization Questions Global Warming?

Lord Vath wrote:
On Thu, 23 Apr 2015 10:19:59 -0600, Chris L Peterson
wrote this crap:

On Thu, 23 Apr 2015 11:38:04 -0400, Lord Vath
wrote:

How much are you paying for kw/hr? The average cost is $.13 If
you're using 4 kw/hr that's $.52/hr or $12.48 a day and for 30 days
that's a monthly bill of $374.40 Your math must be off because I have
a large house and I don't even come close to that.

This system was designed for a 1.6 kW operational load. Power here is
0.15/kWh. Monthly on-grid cost about $180.

I'm about half of that.


There were no obvious subsidies. No credits from the government for
us, and the suppliers of the panels, batteries, and conversion
electronics are all operating as normal for-profit companies receiving
little if any subsidization.

Bull****. Ever hear of Solyndra?

So what? This was all commercial stuff from companies that do not
receive significant subsidies. Outback, Trojan Battery, Kyocera. Some
might get minor tax credits for research, but these companies are not
remotely dependent on them, and any subsidies have limited impact on
final pricing. This is a very competitive market right now.

Bull****. It's subsidized by the gubmint.

PV panels have gotten very inexpensive, and the electronics are cheap.

How often do the panels have to be replaced? The lifespan of durable
goods is usually about ten years.

Effectively never. The panels will have decreased a few percent in
efficiency in 20 years, but will still be working just fine. In

Bull****. You'll probably have to replace them in ten years at twice
the cost.

reality, panels in a system built today will probably be replaced
sooner- not because they have failed, but because panels with much
higher efficiency are likely to be available in less than 10 years,
and at a fraction of the current cost. Right now, however, panels are
the cheapest component in the system. Batteries are the expensive
part.

One very reasonable energy option is to place panels across many roofs
and to feed power back into the grid during the day, as well as to
provide a good percentage of local power. No batteries or other
storage. In many areas, this can reduce the necessary capacity of the
grid system by 30%, which is a huge amount. Systems like this are in
place in the Middle East and China, and in a few spots in Europe.

The cost FOR YOU was $5000, (of which some of it was subsidized). A
solar farm installed near me, by the government cost $25 million. It's
estimated to be able to provide electricity for 60 homes. That comes
to $416,667. per house. WOW! you either got a good deal, or we had
somebody rip us off.

Systems like this are not intended to produce a profit. Indeed,
there's no reason to expect or require a public utility to be
profitable. But there is good reason to invest heavily in new
technology, both to subsidize its development and to learn how to
implement what is sure to become a routine energy source. New
technology is always more expensive than what it's replacing. But only
at first.

A better metric is probably the energy payback period. That's
calculated by looking at the energy required to produce the source and
the lifetime of its operation. This makes sense because at the bottom
of everything, we're an energy economy. The cheapest energy source is
wind, with an average energy payback time of about 6 months. Solar is
about one year. Old-style coal plants are 1-2 years. Nuclear is 6-15
years, depending on whether they use high-grade or low-grade uranium.

Of course, the payback calculations for fossil fuel don't typically
take into account the real costs, which includes huge military
investments as well as massive costs due to ecological and climatic
damage. Add those in, and fossil fuels are incredibly expensive. And
by far the most subsidized energy sources.

You'll never change your mind. You live in a fantasy world where
expensive power comes from the sky.


This signature is now the ultimate
power in the universe

Except for nuclear (and you could maybe make a case even for that) all
power comes or came from the sun.

wrote:
On Friday, April 24, 2015 at 3:23:40 PM UTC-4, Mike Collins wrote:
wsnell01 wrote:
On Friday, April 24, 2015 at 1:29:14 PM UTC-4, Chris L Peterson wrote:
On Fri, 24 Apr 2015 09:23:48 -0700 (PDT), wsnell01 wrote:

So again, how high does the tax have to be in order to affect your wastefulness?

Non sequitur.

This discussion is about idiots and idiotic organizations that deny
AGW. It isn't about tax policy. You have thrown in this diversion, and
it isn't going to get answered because it has nothing to do with the
topic at hand.

ROTFLMAO!

AGW tax policy is an issue that concerns AGW skeptics; you warmingistas
need to explain your positions on it. You have steadfastly avoided doing so.

If you don't explain, then don't be surprised if skeptics think you are
full of ****. I certainly think that a warmingista who flies halfway
around the world to vacation in Australia is full of it.

Warmingista is your term. Remove the filter from your brain and examine the
evidence instead of trying unsuccessfully to deny it.
Why are you so scared of using the word "****".

Warmingsta is the term one might give to a hypocrite who wishes to
politicize AGW via laws, regulations, taxes, etc., that will affect him
very little. The danger is that politicians running on an AGW platform
usually have ulterior motives not immediately obvious to voters.


http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sandi...beration_Front

Perhaps we should call you a crazy contra. Your use of warmingista suggests
that you thing the Sandinistas were bad. Had you lived through the Somoza
oligarchy and watched your country destroyed by gangsters who then made
thins worse by looting the international aid after a major earthquake you
might have felt differently.

And why are you so scared to use the word ****.

On Friday, April 24, 2015 at 8:28:19 AM UTC-6, wrote:

There you go again with that tired old "oil is subsidized" mantra.

It costs what the world market says it should.

That's hardly true. Oil is much more expensive than it should be, because of the
evil OPEC oil cartel - and the seizure of the oil from its rightful owners back
in October 1973.

John Savard

On Fri, 24 Apr 2015 20:22:37 +0000 (UTC), Mike Collins
wrote this crap:


Except for nuclear (and you could maybe make a case even for that) all
power comes or came from the sun.

I've always thought that without nuclear fusion this planet would be a
cold hard, lifeless, ice planet, just drifting through space. I
believe nuclear fusion is the power of the past and the power of the
future. Nuclear fusion gave this planet life.


This signature is now the ultimate
power in the universe

On Fri, 24 Apr 2015 15:48:33 -0400, Lord Vath
wrote:

PV panels have gotten very inexpensive, and the electronics are cheap.

How often do the panels have to be replaced? The lifespan of durable
goods is usually about ten years.

Effectively never. The panels will have decreased a few percent in
efficiency in 20 years, but will still be working just fine. In

Bull****. You'll probably have to replace them in ten years at twice
the cost.

Why would you think that? Panels are dropping in price all the time as
the manufacturing volumes and efficiencies increase. I know people
with solar homes who have had the same panels for 20 years, and they
work about the same as new.

PV panels have very long lifetimes, and are inherently inexpensive to
produce given reasonably volumes.

On Fri, 24 Apr 2015 21:51:12 -0600, Chris L Peterson
wrote this crap:

On Fri, 24 Apr 2015 15:48:33 -0400, Lord Vath
wrote:

PV panels have gotten very inexpensive, and the electronics are cheap.

How often do the panels have to be replaced? The lifespan of durable
goods is usually about ten years.

Effectively never. The panels will have decreased a few percent in
efficiency in 20 years, but will still be working just fine. In

Bull****. You'll probably have to replace them in ten years at twice
the cost.

Why would you think that? Panels are dropping in price all the time as
the manufacturing volumes and efficiencies increase. I know people
with solar homes who have had the same panels for 20 years, and they
work about the same as new.

PV panels have very long lifetimes, and are inherently inexpensive to
produce given reasonably volumes.

Nonsense. My brother bought a house with solar panels on it and the
first thing he did was rip them off. They weren't worth a ****.


This signature is now the ultimate
power in the universe

On Sat, 25 Apr 2015 05:24:12 -0400, Lord Vath
wrote:

Nonsense. My brother bought a house with solar panels on it and the
first thing he did was rip them off. They weren't worth a ****.

What, exactly, is nonsense? There are millions of homes receiving some
or all of their power from photovoltaic systems. Depending on where
you live, they can be extremely practical, and cheaper than grid
power.

On Sat, 25 Apr 2015 08:54:43 -0600, Chris L Peterson
wrote this crap:

On Sat, 25 Apr 2015 05:24:12 -0400, Lord Vath
wrote:

Nonsense. My brother bought a house with solar panels on it and the
first thing he did was rip them off. They weren't worth a ****.

What, exactly, is nonsense?

They were burned out, worthless, and had to be replaced. He ripped
them off and tossed them in a dumpster.

There are millions of homes receiving some
or all of their power from photovoltaic systems. Depending on where
you live, they can be extremely practical, and cheaper than grid
power.

Einstein wrote the equations for the photoelectric effect. He got his
one and only Nobel Prize for his equations on the photoelectric
effect. I know that even if you covered your house with solar panels
and they were 100% efficient, you could not get enough power to run
your entire house. And that's at full sunlight. There are cloudy
days and rainy days and night. In Colorado it snows, I've been there
for the skiing. Do you have to go out and clean off the snow for your
solar panels? Maybe you could electrically heat the panels to melt
the snow?

This signature is now the ultimate
power in the universe

On Sat, 25 Apr 2015 12:50:40 -0400, Lord Vath
wrote:

What, exactly, is nonsense?

They were burned out, worthless, and had to be replaced. He ripped
them off and tossed them in a dumpster.

Solar panels don't "burn out". If they weren't working, they were
presumably damaged in some way, such as by improper installation. I
know lots of people with PV panels, and none have ever failed.

There are millions of homes receiving some
or all of their power from photovoltaic systems. Depending on where
you live, they can be extremely practical, and cheaper than grid
power.

Einstein wrote the equations for the photoelectric effect.

The operation of photovoltaic panels has nothing to do with the
photoelectric effect.

I know that even if you covered your house with solar panels
and they were 100% efficient, you could not get enough power to run
your entire house.

The Sun delivers about 1200 W per square meter. Typical PV panels
deliver 150-200 W per square meter. Even derating that for Sun angle
and day length means that a fairly small collection area can easily
supply the electrical needs of a house, assuming that it doesn't use
electric heating. Most residential systems use about 12 square meters
of collection area for a robust system, and gas for heating. I haven't
suggested that PV can provide 100% of the energy needs for most
people. However, the panels themselves are more than capable of
providing all the necessary power for a house, including heating. The
limitation is energy storage, not available solar energy.

In Colorado it snows, I've been there
for the skiing. Do you have to go out and clean off the snow for your
solar panels?

A couple of times each year, usually in spring when the snow is very
wet. Almost always the snow slips off the panels without assistance.
And usually, even on cloudy days the batteries charge up to 100%.
Colorado is a very good place for PV systems. Lots of sun, and
temperatures low enough to add a couple of percentage points
efficiency to the panels.

On Saturday, April 25, 2015 at 11:50:43 AM UTC-5, Lord Vath wrote:
On Sat, 25 Apr 2015 08:54:43 -0600, Chris L Peterson
wrote this crap:

On Sat, 25 Apr 2015 05:24:12 -0400, Lord Vath
wrote:

Nonsense. My brother bought a house with solar panels on it and the
first thing he did was rip them off. They weren't worth a ****.

What, exactly, is nonsense?

They were burned out, worthless, and had to be replaced. He ripped
them off and tossed them in a dumpster.

There are millions of homes receiving some
or all of their power from photovoltaic systems. Depending on where
you live, they can be extremely practical, and cheaper than grid
power.

Einstein wrote the equations for the photoelectric effect. He got his
one and only Nobel Prize for his equations on the photoelectric
effect. I know that even if you covered your house with solar panels
and they were 100% efficient, you could not get enough power to run
your entire house. And that's at full sunlight. There are cloudy
days and rainy days and night. In Colorado it snows, I've been there
for the skiing. Do you have to go out and clean off the snow for your
solar panels? Maybe you could electrically heat the panels to melt
the snow?

This signature is now the ultimate
power in the universe

Solar panels don't "burn out". There are no moving parts or filaments to "burn out" or wear. You're just talking BS. I have a TI calculator that is 30 years old, operates from a solar cell, no battery, and has never failed yet.

Here is a typical solar installation on a roof in a sunny place:

https://enlighten.enphaseenergy.com/...cy/grid/months

This house has only 16 panels, generated an average of 500KWhrs per month. A lot of homes in the area have larger arrays, but even with this 16 panel setup the home owner is selling more to the grid than he is using. How much do you use in your house?