Much of the recent tech I saw was pretty darn good. Resistance to damage for hurricane prone regions and batteries though aren’t quite that great. It’s been a while since I was neck deep in research for this stuff, but when the PV industry advocated for replacing when panels got damaged instead of designing for better durability, that was telling.

I used to pay more attention to battery technology when I was into flashlights but I am not as up to date now. I do know there were some very promising advances in battery technology on the horizon. Another almost primitive one I was surprised we don't see more of is using gravity combined with potential energy as the fuel source. They have some places where a dam holds water and provides electricity during the night and peak times but when there is excess energy from other green sources, water is pumped back up into the lake. Simplest battery around.

I would be curious to know why they advocated replacement if damaged instead of just building them more durable however there may be some technological aspect that explains it.

I used to pay more attention to battery technology when I was into flashlights but I am not as up to date now. I do know there were some very promising advances in battery technology on the horizon. Another almost primitive one I was surprised we don't see more of is using gravity combined with potential energy as the fuel source. They have some places where a dam holds water and provides electricity during the night and peak times but when there is excess energy from other green sources, water is pumped back up into the lake. Simplest battery around.

I would be curious to know why they advocated replacement if damaged instead of just building them more durable however there may be some technological aspect that explains it.

dams and all that concrete

SNIP

I would be curious to know why they advocated replacement if damaged instead of just building them more durable however there may be some technological aspect that explains it.

Bottom line.

The industry “found” a way to improve to meet Miami-Dade county criteria once the ordinance mandated standards. Beyond that, there was not much incentive to improve, at least for a given company.

The industry excuse that I often got from reps was that the panel tech was improving a such a fast rate that facility owners are better off replacing in day 5 years when it gets damaged and by then newer, better, etc panels are available. Ask for the testing that showed the improvement, get another pitch. Basically their way of justifying selling more panels. Even worse, where do those damaged panels go after?  Is that a truly sustainable or green model?

I agree that it is important to point out that green energy sources are not really totally green. They still rely traditional fuel sources and material harvesting which are dirty.

However we also shouldn't let those facts make us believe that green technologies are no better than their oil and coal based counterparts either. Both an EV and a traditional gas vehicle are going to be dirty to produce however consuming the energy in a gas car is dirty while consuming the energy in an EV is basically clean.

We need to balance the reality of the costs of trying to go green with the ideal of a cleaner earth. The left wants to pretend green energy solves all our problems and the right wants to pretend that the technology and changes is so unrealistic and expensive we should resist any efforts.


One technology that interested me was supposed methods that could pull carbon out of the air at a better rate than the carbon put in the air to make it. If this did turn out to be doable we could theoretically set carbon levels exactly where we want them.

You left out the other end of the equation:  disposal.

Much of the high tech materials being churned out to SAVE THE PLANET are not recyclable and cause a much higher rate of landfill use than traditional energy producing machines and products.  Solar Panels and Lithium Batteries are at the top of the list, along with the plastics and light weight materials used in vehicles to reduce weight and therefore increase efficiency.

When you add that to the "dirty" production methods and raw materials processing, you might be trading a minor reduction in carbon emissions for products that can't be safely disposed of once these "new" green-ish things reach the end of their useful lives.

You left out the other end of the equation:  disposal.

Much of the high tech materials being churned out to SAVE THE PLANET are not recyclable and cause a much higher rate of landfill use than traditional energy producing machines and products.  Solar Panels and Lithium Batteries are at the top of the list, along with the plastics and light weight materials used in vehicles to reduce weight and therefore increase efficiency.

When you add that to the "dirty" production methods and raw materials processing, you might be trading a minor reduction in carbon emissions for products that can't be safely disposed of once these "new" green-ish things reach the end of their useful lives.

That’s was getting at in my question about if that’s a truly sustainable or green model. Asked that to the all knowing a while back, but no rational response. PV and solar panel disposal are horrible.

That’s was getting at in my question about if that’s a truly sustainable or green model. Asked that to the all knowing a while back, but no rational response. PV and solar panel disposal are horrible.

Here's a useful bit of trivia.  Remember those incandescent bulbs the gov't banned in favor of more efficient and "green" "Compact Fluorescent" Soft Serve Ice Cream looking bulbs?  Ever wonder why they have been replaced with LED bulbs now?  Not only is the technology for LEDs providing much better efficiency for lighting at home than CF Bulbs, but DISPOSAL turned out to not be all the green energy people promised.  There is a small amount of MERCURY in Compact Fluorescent bulbs. Over time, as more and more bulbs find their way to the landfill, that mercury begins to poison the land and potentially water.  Mercury is also HAZMAT, and requires specific disposal processing.  When a contractor removes Fluorescent bulbs from, say, a warehouse being retrofit with new LED bulbs, the old ones can't be dumped in the landfill before being properly packaged to contain the HAZMAT.  Then, it's only allowed in certain landfills for HAZMAT disposal.

That kind of shortsightedness not only creates health hazards, but it also adds COST to the eventual replacement with better, more expensive technologies.  In the beginning all new tech is EXPENSIVE.  Early adopters must pay the price, wait for prices to drop, or hope for subsidies.

Anyway, the moral of the story is:  nothing new is as as simple, or as perfect, as the brochure says it is.

Yeah, algore promised Florida would be underwater some time ago now.

Easy to note the most frenetic globull warming clowns are also the most weird.
No wonder no one will listen to them.

The only Scientific Fact that Al Gore can point to about Climate Change is that it's making him rich!   

The only Scientific Fact that Al Gore can point to about Climate Change is that it's making him rich!   

That, and his mass has increased relative to his bank account, causing a proportional increase in his gravitational pull on smaller objects.   

That, and his mass has increased relative to his bank account, causing a proportional increase in his gravitational pull on smaller objects.   

I thought when you mentioned his mass increase I thought that you were going to say that he was contributing to global warming by emitting more gas giving the cows a run for their money.   Well he is full of hot air!

I thought when you mentioned his mass increase I thought that you were going to say that he was contributing to global warming by emitting more gas giving the cows a run for their money.   Well he is full of hot air!

Any man who thinks "Carbon Credits" is a valid way to reduce Carbon emissions is no better than a snake oil salesman.

https://www.lazard.com/perspective/levelized-cost-of-energy-and-levelized-cost-of-storage-2020/

Did YOU form any conclusions on all those graphs, or are we supposed to contact the author if we want to discuss the "bottom line" analysis?

Did YOU form any conclusions on all those graphs, or are we supposed to contact the author if we want to discuss the "bottom line" analysis?

Solar and wind is now getting cheaper to produce energy than the equivalent oil or coal plant.

Solar and wind is now getting cheaper to produce energy than the equivalent oil or coal plant.

Solar and wind are not suitable for all points in the nation.  Also, the only reason the production cost of solar and wind production is cheaper now is because we are energy independent under Trump.

The cost of FOSSIL FUELS used to generate the energy needed to make solar and wind products is lower, so the total cost of ALL production and supply chain systems are less.

What they fail to do is compare the cost of fossil fuel created energy at today's lower cost to that energy created with wind and solar long term.  Solar doesn't work at night.  Wind doesn't work when the wind slows or stops.  Any idea what we'll do when the batteries are depleted after production stops for several days of bad weather (no sun -- too many clouds) and no wind?  We just go home and break out the generators?

These energy sources can augment fossil fuel, nuclear and hydroelectric energy production, but they are by no means able to replace them.  When the sun goes down, and demand increases in hot or cold weather (ACs and Heaters are needed), the batteries can't supply the needs.  We'll still need running generators to swap to when demand exceed production capacity, and that means the SAME number of generators burning the same amount of fuel for as long as the demand exceeds alternative energy production.

You can't just crank up generators at will.  They take time, up to a day or longer, to bring up to production speed and bring online on the grid.  Not a simple task, as we learned when HECO shut down generators during that big Earthquake.  Some people were in the dark for more than 2 days.

You left out the other end of the equation:  disposal.

Much of the high tech materials being churned out to SAVE THE PLANET are not recyclable and cause a much higher rate of landfill use than traditional energy producing machines and products.  Solar Panels and Lithium Batteries are at the top of the list, along with the plastics and light weight materials used in vehicles to reduce weight and therefore increase efficiency.

When you add that to the "dirty" production methods and raw materials processing, you might be trading a minor reduction in carbon emissions for products that can't be safely disposed of once these "new" green-ish things reach the end of their useful lives.

You are right, I didn't cover it but I think it is a bit of a wash there. Recycling on solar panels and windmills is not very good, but then again there is also quite a bit of waste from petrolium power sources as well. One might have a slight advantage over the other though.

Bottom line.

The industry “found” a way to improve to meet Miami-Dade county criteria once the ordinance mandated standards. Beyond that, there was not much incentive to improve, at least for a given company.

The industry excuse that I often got from reps was that the panel tech was improving a such a fast rate that facility owners are better off replacing in day 5 years when it gets damaged and by then newer, better, etc panels are available. Ask for the testing that showed the improvement, get another pitch. Basically their way of justifying selling more panels. Even worse, where do those damaged panels go after?  Is that a truly sustainable or green model?

If it were a monopoly then I can totally understand your suspicions however there are a number of sources for solar panels if I understand correctly so if one company could make a little more or edge out a rival by offering a better panel then I think they would, at least according to the free market.

If it were a monopoly then I can totally understand your suspicions however there are a number of sources for solar panels if I understand correctly so if one company could make a little more or edge out a rival by offering a better panel then I think they would, at least according to the free market.

You left out crony capitalism.  We know from Obama and Solyndra that SOME green and renewable energy companies and manufacturers were being given bailouts and massive subsidies to help them compete with standard forms of energy.   it's not about monopolies.  It's about enabling some industries in the sector to the detriment of others in order to facilitate growth in them.  The market won't support the new energy models without capital.  Few people adopt those models due to cost. 

in Hawaii, there was a huge demand for home solar systems because (1) the gov't gave huge tax incentives, and (2) HECO was offering the NEM (Net Energy Meter) tariff that purchased excess power from homes, offsetting the HECO power solar customers used at night or on cloudy days.  Most of those customers who installed adequately sized systems are only paying $18/month for the administrative cost to have a HECO account.  The energy they use from HECO is effectively free.  They just had to be able to afford the solar system installation.

Those incentives are not going to happen for everyone.  That program stopped in HI after 20% of the customers were added.  NEM is not available for HECO customers now. 

Part of the issue is, who pays for the power grid?  Who pays for power production at night?  They have to maintain the generator capacity online and ready to meet all demand, even when the sun is shining and thousands of customers are creating their own power.  There are fixed costs associated with having that capacity online.

If you can be 100% off the grid, that's one thing.  If you can't, then you need HECO for a portion of your power at least.  We have no nuclear power plants here.  No hydroelectric.  The wind farms have been unsuccessful.  Not many options left.