Super Genius
Posts: 1,274 
May 4th, 2007, 01:18 PM
Try this solution for global warming on - the federal and provincial governments declared global warming a 'national emergency' that required all budget surpluses [federal and provincial] to be directed towards renewable energy projects of wind and solar.
They could begin by setting up a solar panel factory to reduce costs we will pay for solar panels by about 1/3rd. This could create 1000s of NEW jobs too.
Then, install those solar panels everywhere they can be put - parking lots, housetops, buildings, marginal farmlands, etc. and watch the economic benefits flow to the people who paid for it - taxpayers!!
The big advantage is that once set up, these electricity producing systems will provide us with electrical power that is more or less FREE for 25 or more years, continuously. Maintenance costs are very small, and with no need for added fuels as with coal-fired generators; solar power is basically free electricity once set up.
It will not be enough of course, but even at just 10% of the nations electrical needs it will be enough to cover the "peak power period" each day, where so many coal fired generators are fired up to meet the high demand. That will reduce emissions right away.
When the capacity get to be 50% of Canada's needs, we will find that our power bills are half, because we are now supplying our own power via the renewable energy projects, all paid for and therefore no financing costs. The only power we pay for is the other 50% that private industry is selling to us.
This does break the mold of capitalism and privatisation, but in light of global warming and the refusal of "private power producers" to get on the ball and reduce emissions, this is the way we must do it now. It is the power producers own fault - they could have started going to renewables or otherwise reducing emissions in 1990, but instead they chose to pay for denials based on fake science.
So fug 'em - let us now end the windfall of selling electricity through a single corporate entity that we all pay into for something we all use that WE could be producing for ourselves and reduce our cost by half.
Oh ya, and we also solve global warming this way too [a major part of it, at least]
Try this solution for global warming on - the federal and provincial governments declared global warming a 'national emergency' that required all budget surpluses [federal and provincial] to be directed towards renewable energy projects of wind and solar.
They could begin by setting up a solar panel factory to reduce costs we will pay for solar panels by about 1/3rd. This could create 1000s of NEW jobs too.
Then, install those solar panels everywhere they can be put - parking lots, housetops, buildings, marginal farmlands, etc. and watch the economic benefits flow to the people who paid for it - taxpayers!!
The big advantage is that once set up, these electricity producing systems will provide us with electrical power that is more or less FREE for 25 or more years, continuously. Maintenance costs are very small, and with no need for added fuels as with coal-fired generators; solar power is basically free electricity once set up.
It will not be enough of course, but even at just 10% of the nations electrical needs it will be enough to cover the "peak power period" each day, where so many coal fired generators are fired up to meet the high demand. That will reduce emissions right away.
When the capacity get to be 50% of Canada's needs, we will find that our power bills are half, because we are now supplying our own power via the renewable energy projects, all paid for and therefore no financing costs. The only power we pay for is the other 50% that private industry is selling to us.
This does break the mold of capitalism and privatisation, but in light of global warming and the refusal of "private power producers" to get on the ball and reduce emissions, this is the way we must do it now. It is the power producers own fault - they could have started going to renewables or otherwise reducing emissions in 1990, but instead they chose to pay for denials based on fake science.
So fug 'em - let us now end the windfall of selling electricity through a single corporate entity that we all pay into for something we all use that WE could be producing for ourselves and reduce our cost by half.
Oh ya, and we also solve global warming this way too [a major part of it, at least]
Super Genius
Posts: 1,352
Location: Calgary
Location: Calgary
May 4th, 2007, 01:44 PM
I don't think it is wise to put all the focus on the environment at the expense of all else. There is the principle of diminishing marginal return. As for you solution investing in Nuclear power would be much more economical then wind and solar. Wind power takes up a lot of land and kills birds while solar power gives you a very bad energy return and is too expensive. Sure invest a little in wind power and maybe give tax breaks on the most energy efficient solar panels but lets not go over board.
I don't think it is wise to put all the focus on the environment at the expense of all else. There is the principle of diminishing marginal return. As for you solution investing in Nuclear power would be much more economical then wind and solar. Wind power takes up a lot of land and kills birds while solar power gives you a very bad energy return and is too expensive. Sure invest a little in wind power and maybe give tax breaks on the most energy efficient solar panels but lets not go over board.
Super Genius
Posts: 1,274
May 8th, 2007, 02:45 PM
quote:
"Solar power gives you a very bad energy return and is too expensive."
Well, I would say that compared to letting the sunlight hit the earth and be absorbed or reflected, solar panels are 100% efficient at trapping whatever portion of that energy and converting it for human uses.
So it has nothing to do with "efficient", unless you are comparing it to coal burners which have huge emissions that cause global warming. Thats the point eh.
As for too expensive, I pointed out that once set up, they require no further input costs, making them the cheapest after initial costs, and I proposed a way to cover those setup costs. So, we are actually getting a return of FREE electricity for the lifetime of those panels and equiptment, which is typically 25 years and can be 50 years.
Thats works out to much less than 5 cents per KwHr. that some coal burners can produce it for. Yes, it is actually the cheapest after setup costs. Absolutely.
I know, I know, this is shocking, because we have been told differently - it is all lies!! Go overboard or stay on the sinking ship dudes!!
quote:
"Solar power gives you a very bad energy return and is too expensive."
Well, I would say that compared to letting the sunlight hit the earth and be absorbed or reflected, solar panels are 100% efficient at trapping whatever portion of that energy and converting it for human uses.
So it has nothing to do with "efficient", unless you are comparing it to coal burners which have huge emissions that cause global warming. Thats the point eh.
As for too expensive, I pointed out that once set up, they require no further input costs, making them the cheapest after initial costs, and I proposed a way to cover those setup costs. So, we are actually getting a return of FREE electricity for the lifetime of those panels and equiptment, which is typically 25 years and can be 50 years.
Thats works out to much less than 5 cents per KwHr. that some coal burners can produce it for. Yes, it is actually the cheapest after setup costs. Absolutely.
I know, I know, this is shocking, because we have been told differently - it is all lies!! Go overboard or stay on the sinking ship dudes!!
Super Genius
Posts: 1,352
Location: Calgary
Location: Calgary
May 8th, 2007, 02:52 PM
Quoting Karlin
5 cents per KwHr? You have your feet planted firmly in the air. That is even tough to achieve for solar thermal. 100% efficient? Not a chance. Not even 100% thermodynamically efficient. If solar panels were 5 cents per kilowatt hour everyone would be installing them.
quote:
"Solar power gives you a very bad energy return and is too expensive."
Well, I would say that compared to letting the sunlight hit the earth and be absorbed or reflected, solar panels are 100% efficient at trapping whatever portion of that energy and converting it for human uses.
So it has nothing to do with "efficient", unless you are comparing it to coal burners which have huge emissions that cause global warming. Thats the point eh.
As for too expensive, I pointed out that once set up, they require no further input costs, making them the cheapest after initial costs, and I proposed a way to cover those setup costs. So, we are actually getting a return of FREE electricity for the lifetime of those panels and equiptment, which is typically 25 years and can be 50 years.
Thats works out to much less than 5 cents per KwHr. that some coal burners can produce it for. Yes, it is actually the cheapest after setup costs. Absolutely.
I know, I know, this is shocking, because we have been told differently - it is all lies!! Go overboard or stay on the sinking ship dudes!!
"Solar power gives you a very bad energy return and is too expensive."
Well, I would say that compared to letting the sunlight hit the earth and be absorbed or reflected, solar panels are 100% efficient at trapping whatever portion of that energy and converting it for human uses.
So it has nothing to do with "efficient", unless you are comparing it to coal burners which have huge emissions that cause global warming. Thats the point eh.
As for too expensive, I pointed out that once set up, they require no further input costs, making them the cheapest after initial costs, and I proposed a way to cover those setup costs. So, we are actually getting a return of FREE electricity for the lifetime of those panels and equiptment, which is typically 25 years and can be 50 years.
Thats works out to much less than 5 cents per KwHr. that some coal burners can produce it for. Yes, it is actually the cheapest after setup costs. Absolutely.
I know, I know, this is shocking, because we have been told differently - it is all lies!! Go overboard or stay on the sinking ship dudes!!
Knows No Bounds
Posts: 2,849 
May 8th, 2007, 03:23 PM
ok, Solar power is a big no no.
It is a HUGE polluter. Sure the sun is clean, but the massive amounts of batteries you need for storing the energy is a far worse polluter in terms of pollution to power than a clean burning coal plant (not that that is too clean either)
Nuclear is the best option in terms of pollution.
ok, Solar power is a big no no.
It is a HUGE polluter. Sure the sun is clean, but the massive amounts of batteries you need for storing the energy is a far worse polluter in terms of pollution to power than a clean burning coal plant (not that that is too clean either)
Nuclear is the best option in terms of pollution.
Newbie
Posts: 44
May 8th, 2007, 04:34 PM
I'm not sure how you measure the efficiency of a solar panel?
I suppose there is some calculation for the sunlight energy entering the solar panel and the energy the panel produces from the sunlights energy.
So can they calculate how much energy is hitting lets say a 4'x4' surface from sunlight. (I understand it all depends on conditions but lets just go with the maximum energy a 4'x4' surface can capture.) So my limited understanding of this topic leads me to believe there is a number needed to calculate the efficiency. So if a 100watts of sunlight energy is hitting the panel how many watts can it produce and where is all this energy lost.
Let me add I am in no way an expert on this subject and only curious.
I'm also not quite agreeing with the fact that batteries are pollution in the same way smog, or air pollution is. However if the battery is tossed into a landfill I completely understand your point. ..but the batteries are not lost into the air like smog where it is impossible to reclaim or recycle some how, so I am sure we could find a way to reclaim the material from used batteries or properly dispose of them, and by properly I mean without any pollution. I'm not sure if it is even possible but it seems more reasonable to find a solution for retired batteries, heck we need to do it for cell phones, car batteries, and batteries in general anyhow.
And when someone says Nuclear does not pollute I always wonder about deplete uranium. Isn't the waste from a nuclear power plant extremely radioactive and dangerous? Much more dangerous to dispose than batteries. I am curious of what they do with all of this radioactive waste, and it makes me nervous to know that somewhere out there is a load of this crap. It might be safely stored for a thousand years but as we all know thats not a solution.
So I'd like to know if solar panels are not 100% efficient, how efficient can they be in a perfect situation? And do you think the reduction in efficiency is worth the reduction in pollution and nuclear waste.
I think alot of these problems could easily be over come with proper investing.
Solar, Wind or hydrogen... How about solar and wind generators that produce electricity directly to a huge hydrogen facility.. like i said earlier i am no expert on any of this but it seems to me the problem with hydrogen is you need electricity to produce it which in turn produces emissions or nuclear waste. And the problem with solar and wind is you need to store the power in batteries beacause the energy produced from these is not on demand power which means more battery waste, battery failures and other issues batteries seem to have.. So run the electricy produce from solar/wind directly to a hydrogen producing thing ma bobber
and (as far as I know) the electricity can fluctuate which will only affect the ammount of hydrogen produce..So on a sunny windy day the "Solar Wind powered Hydrogen producing plant" (I am opening soon) will be generating maximum hydrogen while cloudy calm days you would get minimum.. i don't know just a thought.. maybe the plant could even have a large gym and all the stationary bikes hooked up to the plant as well
Please correct me if I am way off base as I could very well be ..
I'm not sure how you measure the efficiency of a solar panel?
I suppose there is some calculation for the sunlight energy entering the solar panel and the energy the panel produces from the sunlights energy.
So can they calculate how much energy is hitting lets say a 4'x4' surface from sunlight. (I understand it all depends on conditions but lets just go with the maximum energy a 4'x4' surface can capture.) So my limited understanding of this topic leads me to believe there is a number needed to calculate the efficiency. So if a 100watts of sunlight energy is hitting the panel how many watts can it produce and where is all this energy lost.
Let me add I am in no way an expert on this subject and only curious.
I'm also not quite agreeing with the fact that batteries are pollution in the same way smog, or air pollution is. However if the battery is tossed into a landfill I completely understand your point. ..but the batteries are not lost into the air like smog where it is impossible to reclaim or recycle some how, so I am sure we could find a way to reclaim the material from used batteries or properly dispose of them, and by properly I mean without any pollution. I'm not sure if it is even possible but it seems more reasonable to find a solution for retired batteries, heck we need to do it for cell phones, car batteries, and batteries in general anyhow.
And when someone says Nuclear does not pollute I always wonder about deplete uranium. Isn't the waste from a nuclear power plant extremely radioactive and dangerous? Much more dangerous to dispose than batteries. I am curious of what they do with all of this radioactive waste, and it makes me nervous to know that somewhere out there is a load of this crap. It might be safely stored for a thousand years but as we all know thats not a solution.
So I'd like to know if solar panels are not 100% efficient, how efficient can they be in a perfect situation? And do you think the reduction in efficiency is worth the reduction in pollution and nuclear waste.
I think alot of these problems could easily be over come with proper investing.
Solar, Wind or hydrogen... How about solar and wind generators that produce electricity directly to a huge hydrogen facility.. like i said earlier i am no expert on any of this but it seems to me the problem with hydrogen is you need electricity to produce it which in turn produces emissions or nuclear waste. And the problem with solar and wind is you need to store the power in batteries beacause the energy produced from these is not on demand power which means more battery waste, battery failures and other issues batteries seem to have.. So run the electricy produce from solar/wind directly to a hydrogen producing thing ma bobber
and (as far as I know) the electricity can fluctuate which will only affect the ammount of hydrogen produce..So on a sunny windy day the "Solar Wind powered Hydrogen producing plant" (I am opening soon) will be generating maximum hydrogen while cloudy calm days you would get minimum.. i don't know just a thought.. maybe the plant could even have a large gym and all the stationary bikes hooked up to the plant as wellPlease correct me if I am way off base as I could very well be ..
