(09-08-2021, 03:03 PM)mikesez Wrote: [ -> ] (09-08-2021, 02:29 PM)jagibelieve Wrote: [ -> ]Wrong... as usual.
What does it take to build a solar panel? What is it made of? How much petroleum goes into it? What do those materials do to the earth that they are discarded in?
What about the batteries required to store the DC power from solar panels? Do you just discard lead/acid or lithium batteries in a landfill? How are those batteries made?
Explain how harvesting and manufacturing the materials for those two products (solar panels and batteries) is not damaging to the climate. Explain how discarding those materials is not damaging to the climate.
Wrong.. as usual.
Of course it could take fossil fuels to create new solar panels, depending on the place they are made. Many factories use their own panels to power their process. There are costs in the mining process as well. Regardless, if properly installed, those panels will offset that initial input by a large factor.
As for batteries, there are no batteries in my home setup.
Discarding materials only harms the climate in terms of the carbon emissions of the garbage truck. Once it's buried, that panel won't do anything to the atmosphere.
Care to point out the "many factories" that use their own panels to power their process? Where exactly are these factories?
If you don't have batteries in your home setup, then it's a lot more inefficient. The "raw" DC power coming from solar panels has to be regulated and inverted (converted) to AC power to be used in a home. There is a lot of energy waste in that process and in order to be done to sufficiently power a home "on the fly" is very unpractical. It might make you "feel good" that you are using solar, but in the long run you are wasting more energy.
Your idea of "climate" seems to be limited to air. What about the earth? Would you want to eat food grown on ground that has toxic waste buried beneath it? Would you let animals graze land that has these harmful chemicals buried beneath it?
Discarding waste into the earth is much more damaging to the climate (environment) than burning coal, wood, natural gas, etc.
Your democrat leftist dream of "clean energy" does not exist.
(09-08-2021, 05:11 PM)jagibelieve Wrote: [ -> ] (09-08-2021, 03:03 PM)mikesez Wrote: [ -> ]Wrong.. as usual.
Of course it could take fossil fuels to create new solar panels, depending on the place they are made. Many factories use their own panels to power their process. There are costs in the mining process as well. Regardless, if properly installed, those panels will offset that initial input by a large factor.
As for batteries, there are no batteries in my home setup.
Discarding materials only harms the climate in terms of the carbon emissions of the garbage truck. Once it's buried, that panel won't do anything to the atmosphere.
Care to point out the "many factories" that use their own panels to power their process? Where exactly are these factories?
If you don't have batteries in your home setup, then it's a lot more inefficient. The "raw" DC power coming from solar panels has to be regulated and inverted (converted) to AC power to be used in a home. There is a lot of energy waste in that process and in order to be done to sufficiently power a home "on the fly" is very unpractical. It might make you "feel good" that you are using solar, but in the long run you are wasting more energy.
Your idea of "climate" seems to be limited to air. What about the earth? Would you want to eat food grown on ground that has toxic waste buried beneath it? Would you let animals graze land that has these harmful chemicals buried beneath it?
Discarding waste into the earth is much more damaging to the climate (environment) than burning coal, wood, natural gas, etc.
Your democrat leftist dream of "clean energy" does not exist.
"Waste" is a matter of perspective. Solar energy radiates to your property whether you collect it or not. If you don't have panels, maybe you're "wasting" all of the energy.
If I ever go solar it will be with Tesla solar panels that look like roof shingles. Those black pannels are hideous.
(09-09-2021, 10:17 AM)Dimson Wrote: [ -> ]If I ever go solar it will be with Tesla solar panels that look like roof shingles. Those black pannels are hideous.
The DOW company came out with a solar shingle years ago that they ended up pulling the plug on. I am curious to see how Tesla does and how low they can get the price down.
The ROI is dreadful and the only thing that can rectify that is massive government incentives.
In Florida, an issue is insurance company requirements and replacement costs. Can you imagine what an average residental roof with a 60k replacement cost would do to your premium?
We looked into solar not long ago but at our age there is no return on investment. The cost has to come down dramatically before the average person can afford it.
(09-09-2021, 10:45 AM)copycat Wrote: [ -> ]We looked into solar not long ago but at our age there is no return on investment. The cost has to come down dramatically before the average person can afford it.
Solar technology producers have no incentive to get their prices lower. The amount of subsidies they will continue to get through "green new deal" policies and the red meat incentives they will dangle in front of consumers will move people to solar no matter what the cost.
(09-08-2021, 10:34 PM)americus 2.0 Wrote: [ -> ]Oh for heaven's sake.
He's saying I should be concerned that there are energy losses in my power inverter. There are losses, of course, but this is a loss of clean, free energy that most people don't collect in the first place.
The central concern is CO2 in the atmosphere. If the energy you're using is from fossil fuels, to minimize CO2 you have to maximize your efficiency. But if the energy you're using is from clean sources, it emits no CO2 regardless of if you use it efficiently or inefficiently. Now once you factor money in, yes, efficient is better than inefficient, but if you're only looking at mitigating climate change, it doesn't matter.
(09-09-2021, 10:45 AM)copycat Wrote: [ -> ]We looked into solar not long ago but at our age there is no return on investment. The cost has to come down dramatically before the average person can afford it.
We expect to break even in about 10 years. Many people aren't planning on staying in their home that long. We were.
I wasn't reacting to L2L.
(09-09-2021, 03:43 PM)americus 2.0 Wrote: [ -> ]I wasn't reacting to L2L.
Everyone else knew that already…lol
(09-09-2021, 03:43 PM)americus 2.0 Wrote: [ -> ]I wasn't reacting to L2L.
Right, you were reacting to me, and to JIB.
(09-09-2021, 04:53 PM)mikesez Wrote: [ -> ] (09-09-2021, 03:43 PM)americus 2.0 Wrote: [ -> ]I wasn't reacting to L2L.
Right, you were reacting to me, and to JIB.
So what kind of EVs do you and the wife drive? Still waiting on that answer.
(09-09-2021, 04:59 PM)StroudCrowd1 Wrote: [ -> ] (09-09-2021, 04:53 PM)mikesez Wrote: [ -> ]Right, you were reacting to me, and to JIB.
So what kind of EVs do you and the wife drive? Still waiting on that answer.
You said it was a rhetorical question and you already knew the answer.
(09-09-2021, 03:41 PM)mikesez Wrote: [ -> ] (09-08-2021, 10:34 PM)americus 2.0 Wrote: [ -> ]Oh for heaven's sake.
He's saying I should be concerned that there are energy losses in my power inverter. There are losses, of course, but this is a loss of clean, free energy that most people don't collect in the first place.
The central concern is CO2 in the atmosphere. If the energy you're using is from fossil fuels, to minimize CO2 you have to maximize your efficiency. But if the energy you're using is from clean sources, it emits no CO2 regardless of if you use it efficiently or inefficiently. Now once you factor money in, yes, efficient is better than inefficient, but if you're only looking at mitigating climate change, it doesn't matter.
(09-09-2021, 10:45 AM)copycat Wrote: [ -> ]We looked into solar not long ago but at our age there is no return on investment. The cost has to come down dramatically before the average person can afford it.
We expect to break even in about 10 years. Many people aren't planning on staying in their home that long. We were.
That's not at all what I am saying.
1. Directly regulating and inverting DC power to AC power is not efficient and not very cost effective, thus it's not a viable alternative to other energy sources. However, that's not what I was really getting at.
2. You and other liberals like you talk about "man made climate change" all the time then cite CO2 emissions. The climate is more than the air, it's also the land that we rely on for food and the water that we drink. You never answered my questions. Would you graze animals on land with toxic chemicals buried beneath it then slaughter and eat those animals? Would you grow crops in land that has toxic chemicals buried beneath it? Would you drink water from a well where toxic chemicals have been buried?
Disposing of solar products after their "useful" life is more hazardous to the environment than using natural gas for the production of electricity not to mention the efficiency of natural gas is far greater than solar/wind/hydro combined. The energy created by solar/wind/hydro might be "cleaner" as it's produced, but creating the components and disposing of them after their useful life is far more damaging to the "climate" (environment).
(09-09-2021, 06:02 PM)jagibelieve Wrote: [ -> ] (09-09-2021, 03:41 PM)mikesez Wrote: [ -> ]He's saying I should be concerned that there are energy losses in my power inverter. There are losses, of course, but this is a loss of clean, free energy that most people don't collect in the first place.
The central concern is CO2 in the atmosphere. If the energy you're using is from fossil fuels, to minimize CO2 you have to maximize your efficiency. But if the energy you're using is from clean sources, it emits no CO2 regardless of if you use it efficiently or inefficiently. Now once you factor money in, yes, efficient is better than inefficient, but if you're only looking at mitigating climate change, it doesn't matter.
We expect to break even in about 10 years. Many people aren't planning on staying in their home that long. We were.
That's not at all what I am saying.
1. Directly regulating and inverting DC power to AC power is not efficient and not very cost effective, thus it's not a viable alternative to other energy sources. However, that's not what I was really getting at.
2. You and other liberals like you talk about "man made climate change" all the time then cite CO2 emissions. The climate is more than the air, it's also the land that we rely on for food and the water that we drink. You never answered my questions. Would you graze animals on land with toxic chemicals buried beneath it then slaughter and eat those animals? Would you grow crops in land that has toxic chemicals buried beneath it? Would you drink water from a well where toxic chemicals have been buried?
Disposing of solar products after their "useful" life is more hazardous to the environment than using natural gas for the production of electricity not to mention the efficiency of natural gas is far greater than solar/wind/hydro combined. The energy created by solar/wind/hydro might be "cleaner" as it's produced, but creating the components and disposing of them after their useful life is far more damaging to the "climate" (environment).
You're right that converters cost money, but that money is factored in to our 10 year breakeven.
Old folks like you grew up in a time where landfills were overfilled and leaking. Modern landfills detain all the toxic chemicals under layers of nontoxic plastic and soil. So no, I would not graze cattle over toxic waste, but with modern waste management no one will.
(09-09-2021, 03:41 PM)mikesez Wrote: [ -> ] (09-08-2021, 10:34 PM)americus 2.0 Wrote: [ -> ]Oh for heaven's sake.
He's saying I should be concerned that there are energy losses in my power inverter. There are losses, of course, but this is a loss of clean, free energy that most people don't collect in the first place.
The central concern is CO2 in the atmosphere. If the energy you're using is from fossil fuels, to minimize CO2 you have to maximize your efficiency. But if the energy you're using is from clean sources, it emits no CO2 regardless of if you use it efficiently or inefficiently. Now once you factor money in, yes, efficient is better than inefficient, but if you're only looking at mitigating climate change, it doesn't matter.
(09-09-2021, 10:45 AM)copycat Wrote: [ -> ]We looked into solar not long ago but at our age there is no return on investment. The cost has to come down dramatically before the average person can afford it.
We expect to break even in about 10 years. Many people aren't planning on staying in their home that long. We were.
I'm guessing our energy is more expensive here. My break even was 5 years.
(09-10-2021, 01:51 PM)Senor Fantastico Wrote: [ -> ] (09-09-2021, 03:41 PM)mikesez Wrote: [ -> ]He's saying I should be concerned that there are energy losses in my power inverter. There are losses, of course, but this is a loss of clean, free energy that most people don't collect in the first place.
The central concern is CO2 in the atmosphere. If the energy you're using is from fossil fuels, to minimize CO2 you have to maximize your efficiency. But if the energy you're using is from clean sources, it emits no CO2 regardless of if you use it efficiently or inefficiently. Now once you factor money in, yes, efficient is better than inefficient, but if you're only looking at mitigating climate change, it doesn't matter.
We expect to break even in about 10 years. Many people aren't planning on staying in their home that long. We were.
I'm guessing our energy is more expensive here. My break even was 5 years.
Yup. Your electricity costs 50-100% more than ours.
(09-10-2021, 01:37 PM)americus 2.0 Wrote: [ -> ]
(09-07-2021, 09:40 AM)The Real Marty Wrote: [ -> ] (09-07-2021, 09:20 AM)StroudCrowd1 Wrote: [ -> ]Gas prices typically stem from political decisions, and the push for green energy is 92% politicial.
I feel this is the perfect place for this.
So if the push for green energy is causing traditional energy companies to scale back production, it seems like that would cause a rise in oil and natural gas prices, which would put a lot of money in the pockets of traditional energy producers like Exxon. Exxon is also the only large oil company that is continuing to make large investments in productive capacity. Perhaps you should make an investment in Exxon.
(09-07-2021, 09:39 AM)StroudCrowd1 Wrote: [ -> ]In response to your deleted post, it doesn't matter what kind of "gas" we are talking about. Politicial decisions drive its price the majority of the time.
I just get a laugh out of all roads leading back to good ole dirty fossil fuels when the going gets rough.
I deleted my post because I did a little reading on the price of natural gas, and found that your comment was more correct than I thought.
Nonetheless, what's important here? Money. We should invest in Exxon.
Ding ding ding! (Patting myself on the back)
Since I wrote that, XOM is up 40%, vs the S&P500 which is unchanged.
My husband wants to learn more about investing but we don't know anyone to talk to about it. He has investments through his 401K but doesn't do anything with them. In the 10 years we've been married he has never once looked at them or changed them or added to them.
I understand almost nothing about it all and have never been able to wrap my head around any of it. I understand the very basic idea of it, but that's it.