How does /pol/ feel about alternative energy?
In the shithole that is central CA I see many housing developments with solar water heating panels installed and it makes a lot of sense to me.
If you own a big parking lot, wouldn't it be in your best interest to use all your property to it's fullest? You'll see big lots with solar panel structures built on them that provide energy and offer shade to people parking.
If you owned a laundrymat, wouldn't you want to install solar panels to heat up the water your business uses, which is one of the biggest costs of operation you would have?
I just see opportunities for free energy and wish more owners would take advantage. Does anyone else see the merit?
I'll add that I think the reason that adding solar to homes and businesses isn't more widespread is that many buildings in America are just old and no one wants to pay to add anything on to them. But I also think that solar companies should not be federally subsidized.
>>80915698
>free energy
We'll discover perpetual motion any day now, too.
The energy may be 'free', but the means of collecting and storing it isn't.
Solar panels are still inefficient; they require more energy to create than they will produce over their lifetime.
However, solar is a fine option for remote areas that don't already have grid power. The cost of it's inefficiencies can be dwarfed by the cost of installing electrical cable and transformers to these places.
For your laundromat example, passive solar water heating would be more beneficial.
>>80915698
If you want to conserve the environment, the laundry mat would be better served by petitioning the powers that be to green light more nuclear power plants. It is by far the cleanest and safest power source per kilowatt hour that mankind has ever created.
Solar and wind are the shittiest least efficient power sources you could possibly use. Litteral meme tier. The only thing that they're good for is powering small outposts with low power demands that are in the middle of nowhere and nowhere near a power grid like the antarctic or in space.
Hydroelectric works, but is location specific and floods shit tons of land.
Geothermal works but I'd also location specific.
Go nuclear or go home.
>>80916618
>For your laundromat example, passive solar water heating would be more beneficial.
That is what I meant, sorry for not specifying.
I think passive solar water heating is really the only effective solar energy out today, photovoltaic is just not efficient yet and is useful only in niche situations i.e. the little lights on random highway signs.
Anything other than hydro electric, nuclear, natural gas is a meme
>>80916165
Gasoline products are already subsidized, why not solar too?
>>80916783
I agree that nuclear is the current best option but that there's still plenty of energy to be harvested. Any business that runs through a lot of hot water could benefit from passive solar water heating, provided they have the shekels to pay Greenberg for the system.
>>80917350
When they start to become subsidized, taxpayers will start breathing heavily. It would be nice if the alternative energy companies could exist without subsidies but I know that's a fantasy.
>>80916783
This. Solar only really works in a small scale, low demand situation. Don't get me started on wind power. You want to talk about something that blights a landscape, and hurts wildlife? It's those bigass turbines.
>>80917148
>That is what I meant
No it isn't.
>If you owned a laundrymat, wouldn't you want to install solar panels to heat up the water your business uses
That would be expensive, as well as costing more in total energy use than just using grid power. Plus, the break even point for ROI is 13-17 years for the business.
Using passive solar to warm water before it reaches traditional waters could reduce energy consumption, IF the benefits aren't outweighed by the costs of water storage and pumping it to and from the storage.
>>80917750
I'm very interested in low impact energy and for a while I supported wind turbines. I even laughed when I heard stories about rich landowners being annoyed that their skylines had depreciated thanks to the turbines. I thought they were being silly, until I drove among a field of them and saw the turbines with my own eyes. They really do dominate a landscape, in a bad way. I love alternative energy but I can't in good conscience support those giant turbines.
>>80917350
Green energy is already heavily subsidized in California and it's a colossal failure.
solar panels are expensive as fuck to install and they only wok when the sun is out.
Petroleum is the most reliable energy source in existence and it's not going anywhere any time soon.
>>80917350
>Gasoline products are already subsidized, why not solar too?
Solar IS subsidized.
You can buy 100W panels today for 150-300$, depending on quality.
And, they're still ineffecient.
>>80917825
>No it isn't.
Yes it was.
I'll be honest, I don't know about the additional costs of pumping water through the extra piping.
>>80915698
Water heating is reasonable. Solar electric is a massive waste unless it's coupled with a full off grid level battery system.
Why?
Because peak solar hits 12-3PM while peak electrical demand hits 5-9PM while solar is running 15%-0%.
When you have massive solar during the solar peak your other on demand generation must shut off. Great I'm saving fuel you claim. Sure, but you also have a massive industrial scale power plant burning fuel to stay warm (5% of max generally) but is also sitting idle not making power not making money covering it's construction cost and staffing costs.
This means that peak power becomes more expensive because solar is taking the 'sales' away from the plants during the day time putting all their cost recovery into peak power sales.
For more info on the idea of solar and peak power here's a video;
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2zD0m_ci-oo
>>80917350
>Gasoline products are already subsidized, why not solar too?
Well amount of subsidy is important and do you think that because one bad thing happens it's justification for other bad ideas?
>>80918637
>Yes it was.
No it wasn't. Maybe you don't know the difference between active and passive solar.
Using solar panels to heat the water is active; using radiant energy from the sun to warm stored water is passive.
>>80918763
That's an interesting point. I'm not one of those "green energy only coal should die" kind of people.
I think it's plain to see that most solar and wind energy is just not the best economic option, in today's America at least. Not while fossil fuel is still so inexpensive.
>>80918961
It's what I meant, I'm sorry for not specifying friend.
>>80919180
You DID fucking specify. Stop being an asshat.
>>80915698
>If you owned a laundrymat, wouldn't you want to install solar panels to heat up the water your business uses, which is one of the biggest costs of operation you would have?
Are you a chick?
>>80919103
Coal power could be made better using modern tech like fluidize bed furnaces and wet scrubbers.
But for the cost of the refit you could just build natural gas plants that while not cheaper to run if the cost of fuel went back up are competitive and are cheaper to operate cleanly due to a cleaner fuel to start with. They also have the ability to load follow very swiftly and are needed for a power grid to function.
The idea solution is 4th gen nuclear with a focus on fast breeder reactors to consume the current stocks of "waste" fuel and LFTRs to pave the way for the future of low pressure high temperature reactors. Natural gas used for heating and chemical feed stocks.
As the video I linked said, LFTRs running turbines with natural gas added for boosting peak production.
Solar for remote or low power non grid applications like LEDs on traffic signs or remote recreational housing.
>>80919654
Excuse me then, solar collector then.
I'm sorry.
We need thorium.
We will never get it, though, because everyone is retarded.
>>80919748
Yeah that makes a lot of sense. I don't think solar or wind are ever going to cover 100% of energy demand. I see them as supporting energy for businesses or homes as a way to reduce energy costs, though that efficiency level seems many years off.
>>80919846
I think you are overestimating the amount of energy you can get out of a solar water heating system and underestimating how much water a laundromat uses.
>>80920271
>I see them as supporting energy for businesses or homes as a way to reduce energy costs
Yeah but I just pointed out how it raises the cost not lowers it due to the differences of peak demand and peak production.
Solar will raise the cost of electricity even if the solar is free.
>>80916783
Despite also being a nuclear shill, I believe in solar power.
>>80920289
You're absolutely right, the laundromat was just the first example I thought of. Passive solar water heating is probably only efficient for the home.
As far as increasing grid energy cost, I think there will come a point where grid energy is so expensive anyway that adding solar will be marginally beneficial in some businesses and homes.
>>80920535
>Despite also being a nuclear shill, I believe in solar power.
Why?
It's dirty, expensive, not on demand, makes power at the wrong time, takes up huge amounts of space.
>>80920833
>Passive solar water heating is probably only efficient for the home.
The single detached home is going away. Townhouses might be able to make it work but clearly not condos or apartments.
>As far as increasing grid energy cost, I think there will come a point where grid energy is so expensive anyway that adding solar will be marginally beneficial in some businesses and homes.
If we allowed the grid to charge spot price for power that reflected the real costs solar never becomes viable without the advent of magical battery tech.
Further if we allowed the grid to follow economic forces rather than political mandates for green power the price would be far lower. No more forcing utilities to buy over priced power from green sources. No more mandates for green production targets.
>>80919998
a lot of people advocate for this and they are making progress, but the reality of thorium is that it's not that much of an improvement over uranium based reactors. CANDU reactors don't even required refinement of the uranium pellets that are fed in and don't require a shutdown for refuelling.
If I remember correctly thorium requires exposure to high neutron fields in order to become fissible. The benefit is mildly reduced radioactive waste and more abundance in the earths crust.
t. Nuclear plant employee
>>80920860
Connect that shit to a grid and you have clean energy production. It obviously needs time to develop, but I see long term potential.
>>80916618
I find it hard to believe that photovoltaics actually take more power to manufacture than they produce - they retail for less than the expected lifetime power output would cost me from my local utility company; the only reason I don't have a pile on my roof is that I expect to move in 2017 and a solar array worth putting in DOES cost rather more than my estimated annual power bill.
>>80921761
The leaf explained why that isn't viable earlier. Read the fucking thread.
I know. I run most of my business, and my home with solar. Off-grid, of course.
I have minimized my home energy consumption, and still have to use 84 100Ah batteries (that weigh 75lbs each) for storage.
It works for me, because the cost of getting a grid connection where I live was over $150,000.
>>80921428
>but the reality of thorium is that it's not that much of an improvement over uranium based reactors
0.03% fuel efficiency
VS
99.9% fuel efficiency
It's not like the fuel cost for thorium is high, but that efficiency is the amount of waste production.
A LFTR will have a high temperature 850C + that's able to run a 'gas' turbine rather than only a power boiler. This also allows the turbine to accept natural gas to meet peak load demands. The LFTR would have a HRSG on the back end of the "gas" turbine that in turn runs a steam turbine, but the gas turbine is cheaper to operate than steam so having a 65/35 split on output adds up over time to cost savings.
The LFTR runs at low pressure, likely under 250kPa, so it's hugely cheaper than a pressurized water reactor (light or heavy). The LFTR also has no need for steam containment because the reactor isn't cooled by water and it doesn't need to capture a radioactive steam leak. The reactor building for a LFTR would just be a armored bunker rather than an armored pressure vessel.
>The benefit is mildly reduced radioactive waste and more abundance in the earths crust.
It's hugely reduced waste, and the fuel is a literal unwanted byproduct of the electronic industry.
>>80921887
>they retail for less than the expected lifetime power output would cost me from my local utility company
Because of heavy subsidies. Solar would die overnight if individuals had to pay the true costs.
>>80922302
Wow, that sounds like a huge hassle to set up. How much did it cost to set all that solar up for your business and home?
Also, I think that battery tech needs to make some leaps and bounds before larger scale solar is even feasible, having over 80 batteries sounds like a joke but I'm sure it's a big pain.
Solar is a meme because its expensive as fuck.
Nuclear is the future if people don't fall the scary jew.
The true red pill is minimizing your energy consumption with energy-efficient equipment and being conscientious. That is going to give you the most savings. When people get self-sustaining energy facilities they start increasing their energy consumption thereby getting jewed.
>>80922867
My home set-up cost roughly $80,000, not counting my time and labor. Batteries alone were more than $20,000, and I can expect them to last around 9-12 years at best. Solar panels have a theoretical lifespan of 20-25 years, but keep in mind that their output declines every year.
>>80923058
This is the best option.
Choose solar and you're jew'd by Greenberg, choose fossil and you're jew'd by Oilstein.
>>80923386
How many panels does it take to charge the batteries? Are they just on your home or did you have to use land as well?
>>80917825
I do have solar thermals built on my house, they save me $30 a month easy, ROI was 2 years, been up and running for 4.5
Google builditsolar. Good stuff on there, fun projects
>>80924183
I use 42 24V panels in series-parallel, total surface area is around 250 sq ft.
They're mounted independent of the cabin, raised 10' off the ground so they're above the snow in the winter.
>>80924633
I have a passive solar set-up for water that also helps keep the living space warm in winter. I'm also experimenting with a mass stove this year.
>>80923058
False, power companies are regulated, therefore use reverse economics to determine pricing. Much like the post office, when demand and utilization go down, they just jack up the prices to make up the difference. Their profits are guaranteed by your government.
>>80924961
I've been wanting to do a mass stove for a while but I have a decent wood burning stove that can heat a 2200 SF house to 65 degrees with the aid of a box fan. I'm in new Mexico though so heating loads aren't bad
>>80924633
That's pretty nice. Once I've bought a home I'll definitely look into this. In CA I know they give big rebates when you install any kind of solar energy.
>>80925272
>considers 65 degrees "heated"
Eskimo pls go
>>80922696
So, how many megawatt-hours does it take to make a kilowatt-hour output PV array? 'Muh subsidies' doesn't prove *power* cost exceeds power output, because last I looked companies making solar panels spent money on more than just electricity. Wages and raw materials also cost money.
On a personal level, if the Chicoms want to waste money to subsidize Eurotrash getting cheap electricity I'm certainly going to consider it.
>>80925154
Tell that to the people who are conservative with their energy and pay a fraction of what others pay.
When a product loses demand, the cost goes down because they have excess supply they need to sell off.
Your demand is insignificant to the aggregate demand in your area.
Don't fall for the energy jew folks, reduce your energy consumption.
>>80925796
>Nordic master race
72 is too hot for mid summer. Put on a sweater, it's Xmas time
>>80917825
>mixing up solar electricity with solar thermal panels
>check flag
>shrug
thermal panels work really well and save a lot of energy. and they are very easy tu build yourself.
>>80915698
It's actually worth for sunny areas, like here or anything souther than us.
It's fucking dumb as shit when people start installing panels in Germany and the Netherlands because MUH GREEN ENERGY.
I csnt believe so many people on pol are so fucking dumb
>hurr durr the economy is more importsnt than the health of the world we live on
>hurr durr I hate everything about jews
Pick one you fucking dense cunts
>>80925908
>So, how many megawatt-hours does it take to make a kilowatt-hour output PV array?
1000, duh.
Seriously? I have no idea, and don't feel like researching it right now.
I do know that I'm using pretty damned good panels with cells made by Sanyo, their claimed conversion efficiency is roughly 17-19%, and I needed a crapload more than you'd think to keep my batteries charged in the winter.
>>80926500
Yeah there's definitely areas it's feasible for and those where it isn't. Course I'm not sure a salesman would tell them their house sucks for PV.
>>80925796
>considers 65 degrees to be cold
Back to Apefrica, nigger.
It's 62 here right now, and I'm sitting outside in my boxers.
Thanks to the anons who posted their personal experiences.
>>80928132
You are a chick!!
Post toe cleavage.
If it aint nuclear power, I dont know what you're doing son
Solar is okay only if its for your home as back-up or if you're going innawoods and want to diversify your energy sources
Nuclear is the best option, and fission power is just around the corner.
>>80915698
>In the shithole that is central CA
What part exactly?
>>80929834
Driving down the 99 or on 680, there's quite a few home developments that all have some kind of solar on the roof. Northern side of central CA.
>>80930167
I'm sorry them. The Valley is a shithole.
