Vacation Deniers
-
You can't do math.
If the growth increased 5 fold, then that 2% becomes 10%, and then it equals the energy supply and becomes a break even.
If the growth rate increases above 5 fold, then that becomes a net negative.
This article is basically stating over and over, the net positive is dependent on current trends.
Government intervention forcing us all on solar would mean a net negative for years.
-
I am pretty sure that you and @boomzilla are working from a different dictionary than the rest of society...
C'mon, don't bring our disagreement over that stuff in here, please.
-
You can't do math.
You do realize that the situation you propose in order for things to even turn negative are absolutely preposterous? You are speculating that a 500% increase would cause a temporary deficit. So fucking what? In the long-term, it pays off in a massive amount because even if we do have a 500% increase in demand this year...those start paying off after year 4? Then, with a 500% increase in power production coming online year after year...it turns around in a hurry.
And you say I cannot do math?
-
The net positive is dependent on producing within the bounds of the solar panel energy supply.
At the time of this article, 2013, it was estimated that producing solar panels at the level of demand would cost 9% of the energy supply, and they estimated that by 2020, solar panel would produce 10% of the energy supply.
That's a net positive of 1%, right?
However, if the technological decline of cost continues, they estimate only 2% energy supply cost.
Which means that 10% supply for 2% cost. At this point it is a sustainable option. However, that's assuming current trends continue, and that will occur by 2020.
You can't evaluate the cost-benefit just based on the per-annum energy output and expenditures. You also need to consider the lifetime energy output of the produced panels. The comparison you are making is like saying it costs $500k to start a new restaurant franchise, but you only expect to earn $200k in the first year[1]. Based on that comparison, it's a shitty ROI. However, that comparison also isn't looking at the complete picture.
[1] I have no idea if those numbers are accurate, I'm just spit balling.
-
-
The comparison you are making is like saying it costs $500k to start a new restaurant franchise, but you only expect to earn $200k in the first year
But in year 4, it starts paying out at $500K/year. And he would still call it a shitty ROI.
-
....and that is a completely made up graph that does not even come close to the reality of the situation.
-
No, it would actually keep paying out 200k a year, until it degrades to 160k a year at year 20.
And the initial cost would be 1mill
-
-
No, it would actually keep paying out 200k a year, until it degrades to 160k a year at year 20.
And the initial cost would be 1mill
Numbers pulled entirely out of your ass, not reflecting reality.
-
Based on in 2005 energy cost was 75% higher than anticipated energy gains. A net loss of 75%, based on that, 5% of the energy sector costed us 8.75% of world energy supply.
-
The estimate is that by year 20, the panel will be at 80% efficiency.
And I did make a mistake in the graph.
-
You can't evaluate the cost-benefit just based on the per-annum energy output and expenditures. You also need to consider the lifetime energy output of the produced panels.
Even that isn't thorough enough. You need to consider the lifetime utility of that energy. That is, is it produced in places and times where it's actually useful?
-
No, it would actually keep paying out 200k a year, until it degrades to 160k a year at year 20.
And the initial cost would be 1mill
But lets roll with your numbers...
Inital cost of $1M, return of 20% year over year, it pays off in year 5 and before it starts to degrade you are at $4M in cashflow on $1M invested. I will take that every day of the week and seeing how that is a positive snowball effect, I would keep plunking money in to it because after year 4 I would be quickly on my way to being a billionaire.
-
Yes, at that rate you would.
However, if you took the numbers and multiplied them several fold, you'll now find that your debt lasts a great deal longer.
Look, I'm not saying it doesn't look smart to invest in solar, I'm saying that if the growth is too quick, then the investment is less productive. And if you force it to change now, you'll end up in debt for a great many year.
And that's based on personal use numbers, the energy debt is much higher for solar panel farms.
Because this is only counting the energy cost of making a panel. Not even the cost of mounting it on a facility, much less building a facility which sole purpose is to operate and maintain solar panels in great numbers.
This also requires cooling, and has a greater impact to the environment.
In short, solar panels on houses at a slow growth = good.
Solar panels in large farms overnight = very very bad.
-
However, if you took the numbers and multiplied them several fold, you'll now find that your debt lasts a great deal longer.
No it doesn't. It always lasts 4 years, and by ~ year 8 you would be well in to positive cashflow. That is a rough estimate, I did not bother to plot it out in excel.
-
You're discounting the loss of replacing the original energy source. This increases the cost exponentially, not linearly.
-
Even that isn't thorough enough. You need to consider the lifetime utility of that energy. That is, is it produced in places and times where it's actually useful?
Good point. But then, transmission and storage technologies are pretty advanced these days, so those issues aren't quite as important as the insanely bad comparison that @xaade is making.
Not that such considerations shouldn't be made. Just that you first need to stop making dumb comparisons and start making useful ones.
-
Good point. But then, transmission and storage technologies are pretty advanced these days, so those issues aren't quite as important as the insanely bad comparison that @xaade is making.
Transmission, OK, sort of. Storage? Hmm...on the scale you'd want to go around replacing serious energy infrastructure?
Just that you first need to stop making dumb comparisons and start making useful ones.
Don't think you can preempt pedantic dickweedery like that!
-
around replacing serious energy infrastructure?
Which has a great deal more energy cost, than say, making a single panel to put on a house.
Just that you first need to stop making dumb comparisons and start making useful ones.
Which means it's not a dumb comparison.
The model for a single panel giving in the 1-4 year return article is too simple for a full infrastructure overhaul.
-
Which has a great deal more energy cost, than say, making a single panel to put on a house.
And that's not even counting getting past the BANANAs. This stuff requires a lot of space.
-
Because this is only counting the energy cost of making a panel.
That is the majority of the cost though. The rest would be a rounding error.
Not even the cost of mounting it on a facility
Negligible. Not even a rounding error.
much less building a facility which sole purpose is to operate and maintain solar panels in great numbers.
Who is even talking about that? But we have had several public works and private projects here that have done significant solar installations with great success.
This also requires cooling, and has a greater impact to the environment.
No, it doesn't. Cooling solar panels increases their efficiency. But, if it does not make sense to do so from an energy and cost standpoint, you just don't do it. Simple as that. But, this same factor also makes it much more feasible to install solar panels in foggy and overcast areas. Case in point, solar panels installed in San Francisco (cold, but foggy and overcast), produce 1% less energy than those in Sacramento (where it is clear, but hot).
Solar panels in large farms overnight = very very bad.
Based on...what? Numbers pulled from your ass again?
-
You're discounting the loss of replacing the original energy source. This increases the cost exponentially, not linearly.
WTF are you even talking about anymore? You are just spouting words and hoping that they win a debate.
-
-
sigh
If you replace energy in a sector, you have less energy to build the panels.
So if you shut down half of your coal refineries, and spun up solar in their place, you have a greater energy debt to crawl out of.
-
But we have had several public works and private projects here that have done significant solar installations with great success.
Can you provide some links? If not, can you define what you mean by "significant," and how you're judging success. Genuinely interested.
-
As far as successfully functioning? Yeah, they do that.
Producing power, lowering building and business ownership costs, producing power, producing jobs...
Are you
again?
-
Producing power, lowering building and business ownership costs, producing power, producing jobs...
What's the effect of subsidies / tax breaks sort of things? Most programs I've seen only make sense with a lot of that going on, which is socializing private costs and not necessarily a net benefit.
-
So if you shut down half of your coal refineries, and spun up solar in their place, you have a greater energy debt to crawl out of.
Who the fuck is even talking about that? We are talking about becoming much less reliant on fossil fuels. There is literally no one saying that we should simultaneously shut down coal and build solar because everyone except you realizes that is a horrible idea.
-
Producing power
They do that.
lowering building and business ownership costs
At a government subsidy
producing power
Um, yeah. Unless you meant to make paperweights instead.
producing jobs
So does the IRS. And the census.
-
Hmm...on the scale you'd want to go around replacing serious energy infrastructure?
I was thinking about personal installs, which doesn't really make sense since we were coupling with transmission.
Anyway, you are correct about a public scale storage, that is still a very poor technology, because there is no demand for it. In the private sector, however, it's doing fairly well. Based on my research for installing a solar system on my house, most battery systems use a Tesla battery.
-
There is literally no one saying that we should simultaneously shut down coal and build solar
Srsly? Don't make me break out teh google.
-
realizes that is a horrible idea
That's my entire fucking argument since post 1.
The only thing I've said is that solar only makes sense under the context of sustainable growth.
Good fucking Flying Spaghetti Monster.
-
What's the effect of subsidies / tax breaks sort of things? Most programs I've seen only make sense with a lot of that going on, which is socializing private costs and not necessarily a net benefit.
Honestly, tax breaks only make it more attractive. Removing them would still make it extremely economically feasible. I looked at just solar water heating for our place and the ROI was very quick and I never took in to account any tax breaks as you never know when those might go away.
-
I was thinking about personal installs, which doesn't really make sense since we were coupling with transmission.
Ah, yes. OK. I'm of the opinion that such things aren't likely to scale and make much of a difference. And if they do, come with a whole host of problems, like who is going to fix it for you when it breaks.
-
My dad just mounted five panels.
With the subsidies, he's looking at a 2 year wait on return on cost. Without the subsidies it would be almost a 10 year wait.
-
Which means it's not a dumb comparison.
The model for a single panel giving in the 1-4 year return article is too simple for a full infrastructure overhaul.
Actually, it is. Here's another reason why: Your comparison depends on coal/oil/natural gas power plants being shut down once solar plants are brought online, but that doesn't happen.
Here in Arizona there are a couple plans for solar power plants being floated about. Guess how many "traditional" plants are planned to be shut down once these solar plants are online? Hint: the answer is a number less than one.
-
but that doesn't happen
Then when are you going to lessen your dependency. You've only really shown that new energy can be solar energy.
-
Srsly? Don't make me break out teh google.
OK, no one that both of us would not agree is a nutcase? ;)
-
My dad just mounted five panels.
With the subsidies, he's looking at a 2 year wait on return on cost. Without the subsidies it would be almost a 10 year wait.
Well, five panels is not a lot. At least if we are talking about the same size panels. In that case, economies of scale work against you as you have to cover the cost of the inverter.
In my case, I was looking at auxiliary solar water heating. Think of it like a pre-heater. The ROI was <5 years.
-
I would still be concerned about what happens when you lose clear weather.
And then batteries for backup, etc.There are more hurdles than just making panels.
Batteries don't last near as long as the panels themselves, and then you have environmental concerns with disposing a lot more batteries than we used to.
With localized solar panel plants, you have better environmental control.
With individual panels, you have a better rate of return, but you have less environmental control. Suddenly tornadoes and hurricanes cost more in damage, because you also lose your energy investment.
-
I would still be concerned about what happens when you lose clear weather.And then batteries for backup, etc.
There are more hurdles than just making panels.
Batteries don't last near as long as the panels themselves, and then you have environmental concerns with disposing a lot more batteries than we used to.
Meh, you are talking about off-grid (capable) systems. I am talking about grid-tied systems. Grid-tied systems generally do not have batteries. If you are concerned about power when the grid is down, you would always be better to have a conventional generator than batteries.
-
conventional generator
Distributed oil usage?
Or do you mean the grid-tied system also has an oil based backup?
-
Then when are you going to lessen your dependency. You've only really shown that new energy can be solar energy.
Well, you've increased your total energy production by adding solar production. That means that a greater percentage of the total energy production is solar.
Say you are generating 100 MKw with coal and you add a solar plant that generates 5MKw. Now you have total power capacity of 105 MKw, with 4.8% of it generated by solar. Since your energy demands increase over time, you need to increase you energy capacity anyway.
If your capacity outpaces your demands, you have two options: sell the excess to someone who can't generate enough (eg, California), or decommission an older plant. Eventually, you'll run into a situation where option 2 is the more feasible option because of a cost-benefit analysis, and a coal plant will be decommissioned.
-
Sustainable growth?
I mean, at some point I'm just going to start parroting those words like the seagulls in Finding Nemo, because that's what I've been saying all this time.
-
Distributed oil usage?
Or do you mean the grid-tied system also has an oil based backup?
The one that I have looked at is CNG, so it just ties in to the gas feed to the house. Diesel generators require a lot more maintenance, etc. CNG generators require very little as their fuel does not sour.
-
Batteries don't last near as long as the panels themselves, and then you have environmental concerns with disposing a lot more batteries than we used to.
The batteries can be recycled. That's currently done with automotive batteries. Non-issue.
-
No chemical waste?
-
I wonder what that would look like....
Night time your energy is from gas, daytime from solar?NG is much cleaner anyway.
-
No chemical waste?
The batteries used for home systems now are essentially identical to automotive batteries. Why don't you research automotive battery recycling?
