DawgTalkers.net Forums DawgTalk Palus Politicus Climate check in

Curious as to when the literature comes out, that debunks anthropogenic climate change?

Fox News has made it a priority to downplay science for decades. Between a global pandemic, and anthropogenic climate change, you represent the absolute worst of tUSA. Fox news clings to oil, coal and the south.

Waving a flag and a gun does not make you an American.

Yes. And a 99% of scientist too. And over 90% of the studies too. It's all a huge conspiracy involving scientists, universities, the government and the media to clean up our environment! Those evil bastages.

At this rate we will get fresh air and clean water, but the air will cost $1,000 per breath and the water will run you 10,000 on ounce.

To address your comment and your advocacy of coal, I thought you may appreciate the irony here. Enjoy....

Kentucky Coal Mining Museum switches to solar power

The Kentucky Coal Mining Museum is switching to a new form of energy -- solar power.

The museum in Benham began installing the solar panels on Tuesday, WYMT reported. Brandon Robinson, the museum's communications director, said the goal is to save money in the long run.

"We believe that this project will help save at least $8,000 to $10,000 off the energy costs on this building alone," Robinson told WYMT.

The museum is owned by Southeast Kentucky Community and Technical College. Robinson said the savings would go back to the school and its students.

Robinson admitted the switch from coal to solar energy is "a little ironic," but said the two power sources work "hand-in-hand."

"And, of course, coal is still king around here," Robinson said.

The project is being funded through an outside foundation and will cost thousands of dollars, according to Robinson.

Twenty solar panels, the average needed to power a house, would cost between $17,000 and $20,000 to install, though the costs would be recouped from savings within five to seven years, according to WYMT.

https://www.foxnews.com/us/kentucky-coal-mining-museum-switches-to-solar-power

Coal is still king he says as they switch to solar.

This is what I have been preaching for years. I never said coal was the only answer. I have always said I have no problem switching when it is cost effective to the people. BTW Why is nobody talking about the cheap cost of natural gas right now

I've been supplying cheap natural gas for years ... wifey is always complaining about that.

So you mean like now?


ENERGY 13 October 2020 8:37

Solar is now ‘cheapest electricity in history’, confirms IEA

https://www.carbonbrief.org/solar-is-now-cheapest-electricity-in-history-confirms-iea

It's Official: Solar Is the Cheapest Electricity in History

https://www.popularmechanics.com/science/a34372005/solar-cheapest-energy-ever/

Boomers and the Greatest Generation ruined the free natural water and air out of ignorance and greed. Now you want it cleaned up and still free? Anti-Capitalist!

Cool switch me over to solar then for less than I am paying, or even for the same price and I'm all for it.

Why don't they try running a city ......or a state, on solar only? My brother has solar panels on his house. Enough that he was told it would make him energy independent.

Same with my sis.

Each of them still pay a monthly electric bill.

Not my job. I'll tell you what, you refuse to get solar and keep promoting we fill our air with coal ash. That seems like a much better alternative.

Here's what you said.....
Now that I've shown you solar is cheaper you've come up with yet another excuse why someone else should do it for you. You're the one who said you would have no problem switching when it's cost effective. Well it's cost effective. Time to live up to what you said.

And how much do they save monthly by using solar? How much cheaper are their bills now?

Brother's is about $100 a month cheaper. He paid $25,000 for the panels. On occasion he has no electric bill. Maybe one month a year.

That's not bad. Probably not the payback he may have hoped for but still it is quite a savings. The thing is that with technology it just keeps getting more efficient and cost effective as time goes on. As we can see with electric car batteries they now have a way to get a full charge in five minutes. Over time technology and science can help overcome many things we never would have thought possible.

As a kid I could never have imagined the wealth of information that would be at my fingertips. Of course I'm getting old as dirt so that may have something to do with it.

Cost effectiveness is debatable, I think they are pretty cost prohibitive for most consumers.

Other issues include diminished lifespan as costs have come down. Many panels rated at 25 years are becoming landfill after 10 or so.

Cheap panels from China have been banned by the Biden administration because of "forced labor" conditions in China. A pessimist may wonder if that is because we want to maintain the exorbitant cost of panels made in the U.S. I don't hear much complaining about forced labor with the other $trillions worth of crap coming from China.

Still, pretty mind-boggling to me that we're still, all these decades later, trying (and mostly failing) to harness the power of that big burning ball of fire in the sky.

Cost of solar panels over time: a tale of falling prices

Over a decade ago, in 2009, the cost of a solar panel installation was $8.50 per watt. The solar industry today looks very different: in addition to solar panel efficiency increasing dramatically, solar panel producers have significantly improved their manufacturing processes. Solar installers, too, can deploy solar PV across the United States more efficiently now than they could ten years ago. The result: the price of solar has fallen dramatically, to just $2.81/watt.

The price decreases over the past ten years are a major reason why homeowners are increasingly interested in installing solar panels.

Changes in solar panel cost over time can be explained by Swanson’s Law, which states that the price of solar PV modules decreases by about 20 percent for every doubling in global solar capacity. The law is named after Richard Swanson, founder of high-efficiency solar panel manufacturer SunPower, and indicate a phenomenon seen across many different technologies: new industries face a major learning curve, and as they improve, prices fall.

In this way, solar panel manufacturers aren’t that different from computer manufacturers. Think about how much more expensive, and less powerful, your laptop was in 2009 compared to the technology that’s available today. If solar PV technology continues along the same trend, it’s easy to envision a future where solar is on every rooftop.

https://news.energysage.com/solar-panel-efficiency-cost-over-time/

I certainly agree with you in terms of the limited amount of people who can afford it. But as with other technologies, the more popular and mass produced they become, the more the cost will come down making it more affordable to more consumers.

There's much more to the article in the link but I only quoted the parts I thought were pertinent in terms of them becoming more cost effective.

He's looking at almost a 21 year break even point (minus the tax credits, of course, so perhaps a 15 year break even point?)

Doesn't change the fact that he still HAS to be hooked up to the grid.

A good number of years ago I looked int wind power. At the time, it was $50,000 up front. I would've gotten some $20,000 in tax credits over a period of years.

I was iffy, but leaning that way, until I was told "the turbine will require a rebuild every 3-5 years, at a cost of $5,000, to $7,000.

Needless to say, at the time, there was a negative payback period. Meaning it would cost me more than paying the electric bill. A lot more.

Good stuff, Pitt. The intersection of costs decreasing and people adapting gets us closer to the point of critical mass as far as affordability is concerned. And yes, it's very similar to other technologies. The govt has done quite a bit to help the consumer but (as always) does a terrible job of getting the word out. Then there are always the head-scratching moments that go along with that effort: Tax credit was 30%... went down to 26% from 2020-22, down again to 22% in 2023, and expires in 2024. In other words, the exact opposite of what you would expect when chasing "critical mass"... but that's our govt. I think a lot of people are also confused by terminology; this is a tax credit, that means that if you spend $10,000 - $2600 comes directly off your tax liability.

I think another hurdle is getting the consumer past the intimidation factor as well. Not always easy because we're lazy Americans who don't like change. How do I do it? How does that work with my normal utility company? Can I trust the snake selling me the oil? Etc, etc...

I am living up to what I say. I don't have to pay the electric company 25, 000 bucks to use their service. So to claim solar won't cost me or others more right now is just asinine bro.

That’s a good point - the whole getting started thing. I feel like it usually takes one of those borderline sociopathic, socially awkward, yet genius entrepreneurs to find that watershed moment. There is one of those currently in the solar game, but it doesn’t seem to be his largest priority right now.

I would simply ask how long ago it was when they converted to solar? As I have shown the price per kw hour of electric from solar has been drastically reduced over the past ten years. And I'm not quite sure what point you are trying to make when you say "he still HAS to be hooked up to the grid". I mean if you buy a car that gets 40mpg you still have to buy gas. Just a half as much of it than if you drive a car that gets 20mpg. I'm not sure how that's a bad thing. And yes, if you do not install a system large enough to provide you with all of your power needs, you will still need some of it from the power company.

You are only considering the upfront cost. Not the long term. But I understand your mind is made up and nothing will convince you otherwise. You may be one of the only people I know that would be happy getting a lump of coal for Christmas.

Everybody has to consider the upfront cost since most folks can't afford the up front cost. Not to mention not one of us is guaranteed to be alive next week let alone 20 years from now. BTW I would be glad wiht coal. I can sell it to a couple friends I have who still heat their homes with coal stoves.

I don't actually disagree with you. Yet people buy homes so they will have them paid for when they retire. They have 401k accounts for retirement. They have long term stock investments. All without knowing if they'll be alive in 20 or 30 years. And certainly the upfront cost has to be considered. You are right that many people can't afford it. A lot of people can't pay cash for new cars either but they still buy them. And cars depreciate every year with no financial return on that investment unless they drive for Uber. They can't pay cash for a home either yet they still buy them.

And I don't know if you've priced what a stocking full of coal is valued at these days, but you won't get much for it.

solar is very cost-effective.

the downside...

Solar farms raise the ambient temperature by 1-3 degrees (causing more global warming)
They are causing higher levels of water evaporation (which helps keep the planet cooler)
There is some concern that the topsoil will strip away because nothing is growing below the solar panels and this will collapse the surrounding ecosystem.
We have not really figured out what to do with the used batteries

Can I have citations on this.. I'd like to know where you get your data?

here is the scientific study about heat island (PVHI):

https://www.nature.com/articles/srep35070

here is the scientific study about heat island (PVHI):

https://www.nature.com/articles/srep35070


Additional Perspective:

it will take 11.22 square miles of nothing but solar fields starting at I-90 (from w 117th to just past Crocker Park by Manco tape) all the way to the lake with an increase of 5-7 degrees in temperature (according to the study above) lastly, that entire area and ecosystem will be completely useless and destroyed to power just the households inside the city of Cleveland (no businesses).

The ice Age was a measly 11 degrees cooler than our current temps




Math, Science, and supporting articles below:
179 solar farms are needed that are about 40 acres in size to power just the houses in Cleveland
179 x 40 acres = 7181 acres = 11.22 square miles


https://oyasolar.com/blog/solar-farm-requirements-everything-you-need-to-know/ 40 acres for 5kw solar field
https://news.umich.edu/how-cold-was-the-ice-age-researchers-now-know/ the average global temperature of the ice age was 6 degrees Celsius (11 F) cooler than today
https://www.census.gov/quickfacts/clevelandcityohio 170,549 households in Cleveland without powering 1 single business.
640 acres = 1 square mile (math)

We are having solar put on our house, install date is currently Jan 18th. 31 panels to produce 11.45KwH

Florida is a Net Metering state, so if we can produce enough power throughout the sunlight hours to cover our usage over a 24hr period, we will net at $0 owed to FPL on a monthly basis. Most likely during winter months I will have s small bill <$20 due to the limited sun hour (but less AC needs during cooler months so it offsets some).

Based on my calculations, I will get a return on the investment in 11-13 years, not including increases in KwH costs in the future, after which I will have free electricity. So it's really like I am making a lump sum payment for lifetime electricity. Panels are fully guaranteed labor and parts for 25 years.

For someone who doesn't expect to still be around in 10-15 years it probably is not worth it, but if you're younger and plan to stay in your house for 15+ years, it would be worth it.

A 10-15 year ROI probably isn't worth the initial expense. Especially if you didn't calculate what the money invested would return over that same period. It probably pushes it out another 5 or more years.

The idea we won't need power plants if folly. We also have to consider what happens to power plants if usage is reduced a great deal. How expensive would that power become? Power companies would still have large infrastructure expenses. I don't think we could just start taking down power lines all across the nation.

If power company revenue is reduced, power is going to get more expensive to cover the loss or services are going to be cut. Now, in most cases if you experience a power outage, you make a call and in most cases a truck shows up in an hour or so and fixes the problem. How is it going to go over if they then show up in 2-3 days or 2-3 weeks, or start charging customers for the repair work to get it done on a timely basis?

Probably the best way is to continue to use power companies for 100% of our power needs and governments to partner with them to invest in ways to produce cleaner, cheaper power.

I can see how building large solar farms would increase temperature, reflecting the heat back rather than be absorbed by grass and trees. Any idiot can figure our pretty quickly it is hotter standing out on your concrete driveway and cooler when you walk 10 feet away and stand in the grass on a hot August afternoon.

I will add something to a point I made in the above post. There probably isn't a cheaper way to produce cleaner energy. At least in the quantity needed.

Never said we wouldn't need power plants, but I figure I have 30+ years left in this house.

I have to pay an electric bill anyway, so basically I am prepaying now, to save in the future when my income is more limited. In 20 years I expect my current electric bill to be 2x the current bill. Added value to the house will recoup probably 40-50% of the cost as well, when we decide to downsize in the future.


Not even taking in to account the shade the panels will provide to the shingles, and reduce heat absorption to the attic.

I can tell you we put solar pool panels up 15 years ago, that more than paid for themselves in 5 years, over the cost to heat the pool during the colder months.

WOw, that's some heady stuff there.. .Kinda over my head to be honest...

For me energy independence is better served by Wind Power

And that's the thing. People seem to be basing their logic on current electric prices. Which the past 20 years should have taught them that utility costs will increase over time. So you're not only saving tons of money now, but even more money over time. Much like yourself, I haven't seen anyone claim that converting means we "won't need power plants". But cutting way back on fossil fuels to produce our power is better for everyone. I'll compare it again to gas mileage. Driving a car that gets 40 mpg means you only have to rely on half as much gas than if you drive a care that gets 20 mpg.

It sounds like you are getting a system that will produce the vast majority of your electric needs. I can't imagine how good it will feel knowing you have very little dependence on an outside source of power.

For us it has additional benefit. As in hurricane. They are adding a second switch, so we can totally disconnect from the grid in case of major power failure and run solely on Solar during the day, and then only have to run the a small generator at night to keep a couple fans going and maybe the small window AC unit in the bedroom, until I feel battery storage is work the cost at least. Right now battery storage would be an additional 20k, too much for now. I may consider a single battery soon and just restrict what we can/will run if relying on battery to get us through the night.

Ha, perhaps you could also look toward wind energy for when the hurricanes hit?

but when they eyes passes over, it is dead calm, my TV would go out. I might miss the Showcase Showdown.

It sounds as if you're taking a common sense approach and taking it step by step as you see the need and practicality. I think your approach would also work well in areas that face tornadoes.