On Apr 4, 7:43*am, "HeyBub" wrote:
David Nebenzahl wrote:

Like most detractors of solar energy/proponents of nuclear power, the
argument you make is a total straw man.

Nobody is proposing that we should try to build a solar infrastructure
that could supply the entire *peak demand* for electrical energy.
That's absurd.

The whole idea is to use solar-generated electricity in a *mix* of
environmentally-friendly sources, including wind, geothermal, perhaps
tidal, and good old standbys like cogeneration and the best of all,
conservation (i.e., not using energy unnecessarily). Applying each
technology where it's appropriate and economic. (F'rinstance, how
about covering the thousands of acres of flat, unobstructed rooftops
in any major urban area with photovoltaic panels? That's called
"picking the low-hanging fruit".)

Think of it as a sort of energy multiculturalism, a concept that I'm
sure you'll be quite comfortable with.

(Note lack of smiley faces.)

You're right that just because solar doesn't scale well doesn't mean that it
can't find applications. I'm a big fan of solar-powered calculators.

And you are likewise correct that some roofs are candidates for solar
collectors, although there are probably sufficient sites that are much
cheaper to obtain than commercial rooftops.

My beef with solar is that it doesn't make economic sense.

As of March, 2009, the US Department of Energy estimates the LOWEST cost of
solar electricty generation for commercial applications to be 21¢ per KWH.
And the HIGHEST cost of generation for non-solar to be about five cents.
(Similar numbers for residental applications are 37¢ and 9¢.)http://www.solarbuzz.com/solarprices.htm


Good post with the economic reality. This is exactly why I find the
3X reduction in cost and size that Smitty claims is going to be
available in 6 months hard to believe. If it were true, it would
totally change the economics and viability of solar electric. Take
that 37c number for residential electric and cut it by 3X, and you
have 12c electric which is about the average cost today. Here in NJ,
I'm paying about 17c, so solar would be immediately cost effective.
Today, it simply is not.

I wonder how many people listening to the Obamas of the world realize
any of the economic issues. In his last press conference when they
asked him about running trillion dollar deficits forever, he said we
needed to do it among other reasons, to end or dependence on foreign
oil. He continued by saying the alternative is to be faced with $4
gasoline again. Of course what he didn't say is that all of the
alternative sources that he's forcing us to convert to will cost about
that much too. Only difference is that we will be burdening an
economy that's in poor shape with those costs NOW.

The real truth here is that most of the environmental extremists want
to cut off what we are using today, eg close all nukes right now, with
promises of running on solar, wind, etc. And then when it comes time
to actually implement solar or wind, the same nuts are standing in the
way of that too. That's exactly what is happening here in NJ. The
environmentalists are lobbying to shut down our Oyster Creek nuke and
at the same time opposing offshore windmills. And it just happened
with the plans to place windmills or solar in the Mojave desert, when
they were blocked the same way. If we listen to these extremists,
the lights will be out before long.