US Paid $1B to Green Climate Fund, Top Polluters Paid $0

Grandpapy said:

Perhaps you've been influenced.

With members of Congress paying special attention to Big Oil, the policy that elected representatives have developed does not reflect the interest of the public, which wants "affordable, reliable, clean sources of energy," Slocum says. A 2006 survey by the Pew Research Center found a majority of Americans across the political spectrum want an energy policy that emphasizes renewable and alternative sources of energy.

Over 10 years now, I sure would like to know how much this $500 billion Oil deal with Russia is gonna cost the "American" public in further hampering of clean energy technology.

Click to expand...

ttystikk said:

Beyond? Solar and wind is the goal...

Click to expand...

Justin-case said:

I'm not real into advandced science, but I remember hearing about over this years. It may be what he is talking about.


Achieving First Plasma. After being turned on for the first time, the UK's newest fusionreactor has achieved first plasma. ... Called the ST40, the reactor was constructed by Tokamak Energy, one of the leading private fusion energy companies in the world.May 1, 2017
A "World First" Fusion Reactor Just Created Its First Plasma - Futurism
Futurism › a-world-first-fusion-reactor-ju...

Feedback

Click to expand...

ttystikk said:

We need to rebuild our energy infrastructure to take advantage of sources of energy that don't cost money.

Once the panel is in place, the sun is free.
Once the wind turbine is installed, the wind is free.

There's no way fossil fuels can compete with that.

Click to expand...

ttystikk said:

They keep saying they're right on the cusp of controlled fusion.

They said they were 20 years away... 40 years ago.

It's still a 'future tech'.

Solar panels and wind turbines both have free fuel and lower installed cost than fossil fuel generation.

Why wait for someday when there's a better, cheaper and scalable solution available now?

Click to expand...

ttystikk said:

We need to rebuild our energy infrastructure to take advantage of sources of energy that don't cost money.

Once the panel is in place, the sun is free.
Once the wind turbine is installed, the wind is free.

There's no way fossil fuels can compete with that.

Click to expand...

twostrokenut said:

compete? here is the latest subsidy per megawatt hour I can find from 2010....

For solar power, they were $775.64 per megawatt hour, for wind $56.29, for nuclear $3.14, for hydroelectric power $0.82, for coal $0.64 and for natural gas and petroleum liquids $0.64.

so lance armstrong, helluva competitor amirite?

Click to expand...

UncleBuck said:

i must be thinking of some other conspiracy theory retard.

are you the retard who thinks bin laden died in 2004 and george w bush just forgot to take credit for it?

Click to expand...

UncleBuck said:

i'm sure your completely uncited, unattributed numbers reflect current reality and take into account subsidization.

or maybe you just made them up. you are known as an inveterate liar.

Click to expand...

ttystikk said:

He was just early; solar panels means electricity is free, once you have the panel.

Click to expand...

1. It's not very efficient at all.
2. The panels have a very short effective life span.

twostrokenut said:

Those were subsidy per energy unit numbers dollar/megawatt hour. Which energy sources would survive without subsidies at all is the interesting question.

Click to expand...

ttystikk said:

They keep saying they're right on the cusp of controlled fusion.

They said they were 20 years away... 40 years ago.

It's still a 'future tech'.

Solar panels and wind turbines both have free fuel and lower installed cost than fossil fuel generation.

Why wait for someday when there's a better, cheaper and scalable solution available now?

Click to expand...

Justin-case said:

so if we cut subsidies to coal, oil, and gas it will offset renewables, got it. I don't think a price tag is going to be a factor in clean energy. My generation is ready to pay for your's mistakes. We just wish you wouldn't fight us tooth and nail the entire time, skid mark.

Click to expand...

twostrokenut said:

The price tag is THE factor. I'm afraid you just don't grasp the scale of the numbers.

If all energy were suddenly not subsidized tomorrow, which ones would survive the market? Solar would be the first to go. Your generation doesn't even know what a bubble is or why the dollar is one.

Click to expand...

PetFlora said:

The oil cartels will kick the can down the rod as long as they can. Many thousands of 'free' energy devices have been taken away by the NSA, citing national security

Click to expand...

TacoMac said:

That's not entirely accurate at this point. Solar doesn't last very long and requires nearly constant upgrades to keep running efficiently.

The big problem with solar is two fold:

1. It's not very efficient at all.
2. The panels have a very short effective life span.

At this point, the typical solar panel has about a 20 year life span. But what they don't really tell you is that their efficiency drops by between 1 and 2% per year (and that's on a very good panel). So in just 10 years time, you're going to lose somewhere between 10% and 20% of the panels effective power and up to 30% in some cases.

When you start with idea that it takes about 45,000 dollars to outfit the typical house with enough panels to run it, that's a TON of money. Over 20 years, that amounts to $187.50 per month if you're paying cash no interest to pay for the panels.

Now, when you start factoring in the power loss over time, you need to either start replacing panels or adding panels to maintain the same energy levels. That jacks the price up to around $220.00 per month.

Then, right about the time you pay off the panels 20 years later, they're pretty much garbage so you have to trash them and start all over again.

This is, of course, before you even start talking about the batteries, backup systems and things of that nature.

For now, solar is, at best, a band-aid for our energy problems. Nuclear and Wind are going to lead the way for the foreseeable future.

I give it about another 100 years before advances in Solar become so powerful and so cheap that they will pretty much completely take over for day to day power needs.

Click to expand...

ttystikk said:

Your cost numbers are outdated; solar is less now.

Yes, panels degrade over time, but they're still making power in 20 years- 70-80% of new, and they're paid for.

You've totally forgotten about utility price increases over time.

Yes, solar will keep getting better. It's good enough right now. The largest solar installers in America are now utilities. If it didn't make financial sense, why would they be doing it?

Click to expand...

TacoMac said:

That's not entirely accurate at this point. Solar doesn't last very long and requires nearly constant upgrades to keep running efficiently.

The big problem with solar is two fold:

1. It's not very efficient at all.
2. The panels have a very short effective life span.

At this point, the typical solar panel has about a 20 year life span. But what they don't really tell you is that their efficiency drops by between 1 and 2% per year (and that's on a very good panel). So in just 10 years time, you're going to lose somewhere between 10% and 20% of the panels effective power and up to 30% in some cases.

When you start with idea that it takes about 45,000 dollars to outfit the typical house with enough panels to run it, that's a TON of money. Over 20 years, that amounts to $187.50 per month if you're paying cash no interest to pay for the panels.

Now, when you start factoring in the power loss over time, you need to either start replacing panels or adding panels to maintain the same energy levels. That jacks the price up to around $220.00 per month.

Then, right about the time you pay off the panels 20 years later, they're pretty much garbage so you have to trash them and start all over again.

This is, of course, before you even start talking about the batteries, backup systems and things of that nature.

For now, solar is, at best, a band-aid for our energy problems. Nuclear and Wind are going to lead the way for the foreseeable future.

I give it about another 100 years before advances in Solar become so powerful and so cheap that they will pretty much completely take over for day to day power needs.

Click to expand...

srh88 said:

I agree with tacomac but not the 100 years. They are improving fast now. I'd like to have them on my house but you can't bank your power here.. it's bullshit. It all goes to a cut on your electric bill

Click to expand...

srh88 said:

I agree with tacomac but not the 100 years. They are improving fast now. I'd like to have them on my house but you can't bank your power here.. it's bullshit. It all goes to a cut on your electric bill

Click to expand...