Americans Want America to Run On Solar and Wind

CommanderFrank

Cat Can't Scratch It
Joined
May 9, 2000
Messages
75,400
A survey conducted by a Harvard professor over the past 12 years concludes the majority of the US population prefer ‘passive’ forms of energy such as solar power and wind generated energy and are much preferred over fossil fuels and nuclear energy generation.

So popular, in fact, that they easily cross the partisan divide that polarizes Americans on so many other issues. About 80 percent of Americans said they want solar and wind energy to “increase a lot,” and another 10 percent or so want it to increase somewhat.
 
But 99% of Americans don't want increased costs for electricity...

Glad this guy wasted the last 12 years.
 
I think that the current energy programs in CT are the way to go about it. I like the idea of energy rebates that cover some of the cost of these installs. At the end of the day the various taxes on materials and labor have to cover the cost of the rebates. They also help stimulate the economy. One of the few government programs that may actually work.
 
I agree, I also want my unicorns to fart gold and my flying cars to run on pixie dust.
 
No shit. Why wouldn't we want America to run on clean power? What this study should have done is check how much more people are willing to pay for clean power.
 
The ONLY long term solution is thorium based nuclear power
wind and solar just dont work for 99% of the US land mass
 
But but but solar is right around the corner of becoming affordable and more efficient.

10 years later. But but but solar is right around the corner of becoming affordable and more efficient.

20 years later. But but but solar is right around the corner of becoming affordable and more efficient.

on and on and on..........
 
But but but solar is right around the corner of becoming affordable and more efficient.

10 years later. But but but solar is right around the corner of becoming affordable and more efficient.

20 years later. But but but solar is right around the corner of becoming affordable and more efficient.

on and on and on..........

even still what do you do at night? when it rains?
wind would take massive numbers of turbines and wile people like "clean" power they dont want towers in there backyard
 
At this point in human development, nuclear is the only solution that is practical and efficient.

But, thanks to the media, its also the biggest bogey monster as well.

Solar and Wind are a rip off as it is right now. It is extremely inefficient for the size and it has a lot caveat's that should be obvious, but aren't to most of the "public".

The LARGEST solar farm in America is Topaz and takes up 9 Sq miles. It puts out 550 Megawatts and was completed just last year.

The LARGEST wind farm in America is the Alta Wind Energy Center in southern California which puts out a very respectable 1500 Megawatts. It is also quite a site to see in real life....taking up 50 SQ Miles. I will tell you as someone who lived near there for a couple years that you should be damn glad they can't build something like in most of the country because the Santa Anna winds are an absolute bitch to live with on a regular basis.

The SMALLEST nuclear plant in America is Fort Calhoun in Nebraska and it puts out 475 Megawatts and is early 1970's technology.
 
Anything where we're more self sufficient, less dependent on foreign and not shifting balance of power towards evil.
 
Also the newer Breeder Reactors generate very little nuclear waste (if any at all) and it cannot create a run-away reaction. If it looses the "catalyst" power, the reaction dies.

They are very safe and put out a ton of power for their size.
 
The only long term solution is a come-to moment species wide that ever growing energy requirements/use/demand are directly at odds with natural laws... there is no solution for never ending greed. We are going to crash and burn like most species always have done. If our "intelligence" was worth a tenth of its purported ability we might struggle on with a semblance of grace, but again reality is stark.
 
The ONLY long term solution is thorium based nuclear power
wind and solar just dont work for 99% of the US land mass

+1

IMO some of those old fucks should be staked down on an anthill for not putting us on a thorium process back in the day...now we are awash in waste and nuclear has a permanent black eye. One of the most fucked up retarded moves in human history.
 
Without some sort of genuine, permanent energy storage solution wind and solar are very limited even where the climate conditions are perfect. Real research into real solutions like Thorium and, and much further off, Deuterium (or Tritium, or Helium-3 or 4) is the only thing that will stabilise our energy supply into the future. Right now there are too many special interests dictating energy policy around the world, whether they be Hippies or Smoggies.
 
I looked into using solar at my house. I live in the midwest. What I found out (and its not shocking):
-It is expensive.
-I'm not in the best region. Weather and how much light is delivered is not ideal here. It would work, just no optimum.
-Maintenance is expensive and would be a pain at my house.
-Batteries are expensive (for night/power outages). Not required if you just use solar to supplement.
-Solar supplies are not readily available here. I would have been ordering what I needed and not sure about installation (need an electrician to hook it up so it is safe for the electric company).

In short, I was looking at about 15k for what I wanted. This was only for a portion of my house and not the whole thing. Since solar panels deteriorate over time, there would be upcoming expenses in 10-15 years.

Keep in mind that I did research based on what I could find on the internet. I'm not an expert and assume the sources I read are accurate. It was enough to convince me to abandon the project.
 
The ONLY long term solution is thorium based nuclear power
wind and solar just dont work for 99% of the US land mass

Nuclear power is dead. Nobody wants to inherit the toxic waste of the previous short sighted generation.
 
Without some sort of genuine, permanent energy storage solution wind and solar are very limited even where the climate conditions are perfect. Real research into real solutions like Thorium and, and much further off, Deuterium (or Tritium, or Helium-3 or 4) is the only thing that will stabilise our energy supply into the future. Right now there are too many special interests dictating energy policy around the world, whether they be Hippies or Smoggies.

Solar panels owned by third parties who have their energy sold back to the power company is a very viable option. Its becoming more and more common around here. Is it the end all solution? Of course not. Definitely helps though.
 
I looked into using solar at my house. I live in the midwest. What I found out (and its not shocking):
-It is expensive.
-I'm not in the best region. Weather and how much light is delivered is not ideal here. It would work, just no optimum.
-Maintenance is expensive and would be a pain at my house.
-Batteries are expensive (for night/power outages). Not required if you just use solar to supplement.
-Solar supplies are not readily available here. I would have been ordering what I needed and not sure about installation (need an electrician to hook it up so it is safe for the electric company).

In short, I was looking at about 15k for what I wanted. This was only for a portion of my house and not the whole thing. Since solar panels deteriorate over time, there would be upcoming expenses in 10-15 years.

Keep in mind that I did research based on what I could find on the internet. I'm not an expert and assume the sources I read are accurate. It was enough to convince me to abandon the project.

This is why I like the idea of energy rebates. I agree, its not cost effective for you. With a rebate from the government (we have them in CT) it might be enough to convince some people in your area to bite on the deal.

Now this sounds to most like the government throwing money away. I don't see it that way. The entire project is taxed six ways to sunday between sales tax, payroll, material, etc. It also actually provides jobs. I just have my doubts that the government actually loses money on these rebates.
 
Without some sort of genuine, permanent energy storage solution wind and solar are very limited even where the climate conditions are perfect. Real research into real solutions like Thorium and, and much further off, Deuterium (or Tritium, or Helium-3 or 4) is the only thing that will stabilise our energy supply into the future. Right now there are too many special interests dictating energy policy around the world, whether they be Hippies or Smoggies.

Wind could be practical if we could develop higher altitude turbines (since the wind at higher altitudes is almost continuous ... we don't fully understand the implications of using those winds for power generation though) ... solar would be practical if we develop space based collectors and then beam the energy down to conversion facilities ... however, neither is currently available ... the options you listed are probably the only short term alternatives

Ultimately conservation doesn't hurt anybody either ... it is often our unbridled consumption of everything that gets the USA (and increasingly China) in trouble ... getting people to use resources more efficiently and less wastefully is good regardless of their source :cool:
 
The ONLY long term solution is thorium based nuclear power
wind and solar just dont work for 99% of the US land mass

The % of US landmass that solar and wind is viable for is quite a bit bigger than 1%. gotta be reasonable here. That said, I fully agree that Thorium or other nuclear technologies fusion/fission need to be the future. All this study proved is that 80% of its' participants are complete morons who bought into the typical nuclear stereotypes and are ill informed jackasses.

Which is probably 80% of the US anyhow..
 
Anything where we're more self sufficient, less dependent on foreign and not shifting balance of power towards evil.
The four big sources of electricity are coal, natural gas, nuclear and hydro which are generally not imported. Oil is more useful in transportation.

So more solar and wind won't affect oil consumption, unless you massively switch to electrical vehicles. However, no major country has solar and wind providing more than a modest fraction of their total electrical generation.
 
Solar panels owned by third parties who have their energy sold back to the power company is a very viable option. Its becoming more and more common around here. Is it the end all solution? Of course not. Definitely helps though.

how do you meet base load with solar and wind
the answer is you cant

hydro is great where you can use it but that has the same issues of it doesnt work every where
 
wind would take massive numbers of turbines and wile people like "clean" power they dont want towers in there backyard

Not in their back yard, but in others. I live in Eastern Oregon and we have a lot of them. I was on the west side of the state and heard a couple people talking about it, saying they shouldn't have them on the west side, only the east side because it's 'only a desert'. Yea...
 
Not in their back yard, but in others. I live in Eastern Oregon and we have a lot of them. I was on the west side of the state and heard a couple people talking about it, saying they shouldn't have them on the west side, only the east side because it's 'only a desert'. Yea...

your base load is maintained by hydro power
how would you replace coal and nuclear base load?
most places that have wind power have it backed up with natural gas fired plants
 
I hate how this leftist propaganda leaks onto my favorite tech sites. I also want x ray vision and a magic money machine. But guess what, its not happening. How about talk about the practicality and cost of such grandiose Utopian desires. I swear, its like leftists regurgitate the same propaganda every few years, its so cyclical. Like they pull from a Marxist greatest hits album and put in on repeat. Kill the free enterprise system by using the force of government to jam expensive, incompetent, incomplete, impractical "green" (Which is in reality the new Red movement) energy down our throats while publicly shaming all other energy sources and their supporters for being "mean spirited" and "icky to the planet." All the while the losers who promote them get their Warm and fuzzies in their empty hearts by feeling like they're standing for something.

Last I checked the grass is still green, the sky is still blue. All that "evil" carbon (that we exhale) pollution is making our rain forests grow like a mofo and oh yeah go figure, anybody check the arctic lately? Thar sur b a lot of ice up dere now? I thot it all gon melt?
 
Not in their back yard, but in others. I live in Eastern Oregon and we have a lot of them. I was on the west side of the state and heard a couple people talking about it, saying they shouldn't have them on the west side, only the east side because it's 'only a desert'. Yea...
The US government reports that Oregon generated 25 GWh of solar electricity for the first 10 months of 2014. Oregon generated a total of 49,357 GWh electricity for that same time period, with the #1 source being hydro with 29,187 GWh.

http://www.eia.gov/electricity/monthly/pdf/epm.pdf
 
Running solar and with the incentives that were in place when I purchased I'm paying less than I would for straight coal power from the grid by about 15-20% per month. ROI is about 5 years from now and my system is under warranty until 2037. So no, solar is not more expensive.

I would love to get a small turbine to supplement my solar, but don't think I would get it past my HOA. One of the local schools has 5 of the turbines on top of the parking lot lamps and I think it looks nice. I also grew up thinking the little windmills you saw on farms looked cool, so having one that also makes power is simply bonus.

I do not have an issue with nuclear, and have toured a couple nuclear plants that allow public tours. I think they are amazing for what they can do, but the waste we've created already is far too much. We don't need to keep adding to it.
 
how do you meet base load with solar and wind
the answer is you cant

hydro is great where you can use it but that has the same issues of it doesnt work every where

Where did I claim that you could? Its a supplement at the moment and I'm assuming for the foreseeable future. Solar has its place now. Its why I see it popping up on homes more and more.
 
The US government reports that Oregon generated 25 GWh of solar electricity for the first 10 months of 2014. Oregon generated a total of 49,357 GWh electricity for that same time period, with the #1 source being hydro with 29,187 GWh.

http://www.eia.gov/electricity/monthly/pdf/epm.pdf
Sorry, my mistake. I misread solar for wind.

Wind is a pretty decent component for Oregon, but that's mainly because of Oregon's abundance of hydro power.
 
Running solar and with the incentives that were in place when I purchased I'm paying less than I would for straight coal power from the grid by about 15-20% per month. ROI is about 5 years from now and my system is under warranty until 2037. So no, solar is not more expensive.

Some people just have their irrational biases.

My only concern is as it becomes more common in the future is what the power company will be willing to pay out.
 
Ha, if that were true then why are solar companies going under or under performing?
Just read a report in the WSJ to not invest in solar companies because their stocks are diving.

Solar is expensive, only 11% efficient at it's best and they only last 20 years so by the time you pay them off to break even they are useless.
 
At this point in human development, nuclear is the only solution that is practical and efficient.

But, thanks to the media, its also the biggest bogey monster as well.

And rightfully so at this point in human development. There is nothing particularly dangerous about it if there is genuine significant effort to do it right. But unfortunately, human society is still far too immature to take such things seriously. If nuclear power expansion was resumed, the American people would happily go along with mass corruption (both public and private), deregulation, and "free market solutions." And eventually we will end up with a radioactive region of the US. Humans are more than genetically capable of exercising the responsibility necessary to safely utilize such powerful but dangerous technologies, but culturally/socially we are still far too behind to exercise that responsibility.
 
Ideally wind and solar are good idea BUT it is no where near enough. It is the feel good type of thing but utter useless in term of reality. WE ALL know that oil is limited and dirty but ultimatly we don't have a choice unless they start giving out the electric car for free, people are not going to jump over into an pretty expensive car, with chemical that are way worse than oil.
 
And rightfully so at this point in human development. There is nothing particularly dangerous about it if there is genuine significant effort to do it right. But unfortunately, human society is still far too immature to take such things seriously. If nuclear power expansion was resumed, the American people would happily go along with mass corruption (both public and private), deregulation, and "free market solutions." And eventually we will end up with a radioactive region of the US. Humans are more than genetically capable of exercising the responsibility necessary to safely utilize such powerful but dangerous technologies, but culturally/socially we are still far too behind to exercise that responsibility.

Nailed it
 
A few points that were mentioned above

1) People "want it" but they "want it" at today's rates and convenience which unfortunately isn't going to happen any time soon. Plus there's just too much fight against it. HoAs say solar panels look ugly so no solar, building associations fight tooth and nail against any sort of legislation to require new construction have solar because that adds to their building costs, people don't want to fork out ANY money for upfront costs because they don't understand the concept of investing (proof by the fact many of these people will happily spend $120 a month to get a "free" fancy phone)

2) Storage. Even if everyone made enough power to sustain their usage, the problem is they don't always use it when they make it, so some sort of storage solution is necessary. Then again with the arguments against batteries, etc etc. Only those who live so far away from civilization that power is an issue would really want to have huge banks of batteries in a shed somewhere.

As it stands, solar and wind is absolutely awesome as a supplement to the power grid, power companies hate it because they need to adjust their output based upon the load that's created, and in all those cases of grid-tie solar if the power goes out yup even those with solar lose power because again with the lobbying... because they'd still be feeding power to lines and we can't expect any repairmen to check the line before working.

On and the Chinese once again tries to put American companies out of business, they did so with Nanosolar so far, luckily we caught them, now there are huge tariffs on solar panels that come from certain Chinese companies.
 
Back
Top