World Population Reaches 7 BillionFollow

Yeah. We have similar systems here in Californialand. But, as you point out, the sheer costs make the whole thing pretty iffy. I know a number of people who have installed solar panels on roofs and wind turbines as well (those with large enough property). The wind turbines just don't generate much power at all (which is honestly about the most direct experience I have with them). Solar panels work reasonably well, but the cost is pretty darn prohibitive. A more modest system runs about $20k (more for the equipment to put power back on the grid). But the half life on those panels is about 10-15 years (depending on who you ask).

The problem is still mostly economic. Let's assume that $20k saves you $100/month in electricity bills (either direct reduction or by selling power back). That's $1200/year. Assuming zero degradation of the power output, that would pay off in about 17 years. But with degradation, it'll take more like 30 years to pay back. On a product that has an expected lifespan of 25 years. Now, to be fair, that's usually the warrantied lifespan. Under good conditions, it could last 40-50 years. But those panels are on your roof. They will suffer damage every time it rains, or there are strong winds, leaves blow on it, birds land (or poop) on it, etc. Given the condition of the panels I've seen some of my friends have (that are in some cases about 10-12 years old), I doubt seriously that they'll last much past 25 years.


There's some newer/lighter/better systems coming to market right now, but they have other issues (like dirtier production methodologies and even less resistance to the elements). It's hard to say how they'll fare in terms of actual use under real conditions. The general consensus from everyone I know who's bought such systems (and some of them are real alternative energy nuts btw), is "wait". The technology just isn't quite there yet for on-home power generation. It's close though.

The thing that will really make alternative power research take off is necessity. Necessity fuels research like no other.

Up until the point where people can't afford to by gas anymore, we're going to keep on using it, if only because America is often short-sighted. Major companies aren't going to want to switch, of course, because fossil fuels are where the money is right now. So we'll keep on using fossil fuels until we don't have any more or they are priced too high for us to afford. Though deposits are vast, there is still only a finite amount of fuel in the earth.

And only then will people begin looking into alternative energy. Some people already see this coming, and want to avoid the point where it gets this bad, but it's not enough. Though it's anecdotal evidence, look at what gbaji posted above about the solar panels. Solar panels are pricy and just can't match fossil fuel power dollar to dollar yet. They're expensive and inefficient. This is a sign that more research needs to be done into the field of alternative energy, to find something that is just as cheap and effective as fossil fuels.

But what incentive is there to switch yet? Most companies involved with oil are laughing all the way to the bank right now. They know that we'll eventually run out, but who cares? At that point, it'll be someone else's problem, right?

The other option is government funding into alternative energy resources. But based on the current state of affairs, I don't think the government is really up for giving out any additional funding at the moment.

So if most companies aren't funding research, and the government can't fund much research, then there's very little research getting done. Every now and then you hear about things like bacteria engineered to produce petroleum, or the thorium article someone linked earlier. There is funding out there, and there is research getting done. The field is progressing, slowly but surely. But I don't think it's enough to get us off fossil fuels just yet.

The switch to other forms is likely going to be an expensive and painful process, something Americans really don't want to go through right now. If we had a budget surplus and the economy was booming, then we might look at putting some of that money into investments. Maybe not. It's all what if's. But right now energy is the least of our concerns.

The point is, companies at the moment don't have much of an incentive to put in the effort needed to develop the alternative energies further. And until we reach a point when we have no other option, when it's literally either use alternative energies or collapse, then that's when we'll start paying attention to the "other stuff."

Seriously?

I'm not going to ask you for a source, because I know the effects are still being debated, but that's the one you pull out? Really? You couldn't find anything better?

Why do you want to make our fishermen work harder by having to adjust accordingly?

You must have missed Gbaji's defense of the ecological impacts of mountain-removal & valley fill strip mining versus wind turbines.

Edited, Oct 21st 2011 8:33am by Jophiel

Oh yeah, that was a gem. "Mining for coal has minimal environmental impact! No one's going to notice the top half of a mountain missing!"

You throw down some topsoil and seeds and it's good as new. It's those wind turbines you have to look out for... no one knows what they'll do!

http://www.squidoo.com/real-life-horror-story

What... The... Hell?

It's not the cost of the damn sun. It's the cost to build photovoltaic cells to capture the suns energy and convert it into electricity. Those are quite pricey, and they require some pretty toxic chemical processes to make, and they are themselves toxic to the environment if not properly disposed of afterwards. And they produce a relatively low total yield of energy output compared to the energy expended during their lifetimes.

Even a simple wiki page knows you're wrong. The cost per unit of energy from solar PV cells is about twice as much as the average coal or nuclear plant. The three most expensive forms of energy (and they're well above everything else) is thermal based solar, photovoltaic based solar, and offshore wind. The ridiculously simplistic "but the sun is free!!!!" just doesn't cut the mustard.


While everyone loves talking about solar, right now (and honestly for some time forward) it's the most expensive way to generate power. And what that table doesn't address is that it's not really as clean as most people think. I'm not sure why you insist on denying this. I'm not making it up.

Alternative energy is important and we need to pursue it. But we need to do so honestly, with our eyes open, and without fooling ourselves about the realities of the alternatives we're looking at. They are not magical things that will whisk all of our troubles away. There ain't no such thing. Everything has a cost and everything has an impact on the environment. Trying to create arbitrary "good" and "bad" determinations is the wrong approach. We need to weigh all pros and cons, and not act based on bad information or assumption.



Edited, Oct 21st 2011 4:18pm by gbaji

Which does not mean that it's cheaper than coal. I hate to agree with gbaji, but he's right that coal is currently cheaper. If it costs you $20000 for a solar panel which generates $30000 worth of electricity over its lifetime, versus a $200 million coal power plant that generates $500 million in electricity, plus assuming that mining and transport cost another $50 million, then the coal plant is doing significantly better per unit of energy. Solar has a lot of room to grow, but trying to claim that it's somehow cheaper than coal is just asinine.

you forgot per year. Why do you think electricity prices are so high. Its not because it is scarce, it is because it cost so much to pay for these antiquated power plants. Outside of initial construction fees, staffing and upkeep, renewable power sources have no cumulative costs. Coal and Oil have all these costs + the cumulative cost of bringing product in.


And math disagrees with you.


(applies to Gbaji's post of quoting upkeep as a cost associated only with renewable energy sources, and still ignoring the fact the sun is free, the wind is free, water is free. Oil and Coal cost money, every minute they operate costs money, and that cost is past on to the consumer.)

Edited, Oct 21st 2011 9:25pm by rdmcandie

Ok, I gotta say it, but rdm, you clearly don't know what you're talking about. I'm no Big Oil supporter - I am a big supporter of green/renewable/etc energies - but the arguments that you're making are just as ludicrous in their own way as some of gbaji's.

No, my numbers were all operating the same way as the solar panels: price per year over the lifetime of the plant. That means that construction costs are included. I'm talking about a single plant here, not the whole of coal plants the world over. We could do that dance instead, the numbers wouldn't be any different.

Also, electricity prices are high because coal power is expensive. This does not mean that solar is cheaper, simply that generating usable electricity is not a simple problem.

To restate my example: suppose a coal plant, over its lifetime, costs $250 million and generates electricity worth $500 million. This includes transportation, mining, upkeep, staff, etc. Then suppose a solar panel, over its lifetime, costs $20000 (more realistically higher than that with maintenance costs, but let's be generous) and generates electricity worth $30000. Then the coal plant has cost 50 cents per unit of electricity, and the solar panel has cost $1.50 per unit of electricity, despite the fact that there's no transportation cost to bring sunlight to a solar panel.

Quit pretending that somehow "there's no transportation costs! it's all free after installation!" magically translates into "this product is cheaper than any product which requires any sort of post-installation fees!" If I hired you at a job for 25 years with a signing bonus of $20 million and no salary, and hired another guy for as long at $50000 a year, you still cost more despite having no annual cost.

Here in the real world, autumn is when all the new shows start. Some of them are actually good.

aka Gbajiing out your ass.

im sorry what? non-accurate numbers being passed of as accurate, then being slammed into the ground is being easily rebutted? If anything it makes you and Gbaji look even more like idiots, considering neither of you have yet to actually refute the claim with valid numbers and or accurate and substantiated support.

Sorry Rdm, Gbaji is wrong about many things, but you are wrong about this.

Check here if you want the stats, it includes all the factors mention as well as investment resources tied up, costs of capital based on risk, etc.

Edited, Oct 22nd 2011 12:10am by Timelordwho

God, you're thick. I'm not arguing against alternative energy. I think alternative energy sources are a fantastic research avenue and one that needs looking into. What I'm arguing against is the very specific claim you made that I restated in my post above, which is a mathematical claim and does not require any form of factual numbers. I can't make things any clearer than this.

Well the BBC has some pretty good programmes on right now. Everyone is talking about X-factor, though. Which gets boring after the audition stage...

The thing is, coal and oil are made from 300+ millions years worth of sun. To argue that fossil fuels - which take 300 million years to make, shouldn't be priced higher than wind power - is absurd.

The entire fossil fuel paradigm is based on this idea that a private company shouldn't have to pay anything (or almost anything at all) to extract and sell a limited resource that represents hundreds of millions of years of stored energy.

So yes, in that way fossil fuel is cheap, because all future generations (if there are any) are being ripped off. But that doesn't make it cheap in any real sense.

Edited, Oct 22nd 2011 7:45pm by Olorinus

Because money now is more important than stable energy options in the future, amirite?

There sure is an awful lot of missing the point in this thread. No, because developing stable energy in the future is going to be a lot more difficult if all anyone can say is "HURR DURR COAL IS RUNNING OUT" instead of looking at why coal is so successful. If we can't get the cost per energy down to around the same price as fossil fuels by the time we have to make the switchover, the global economy is going to suffer a hell of a shock as energy prices increase by 20-30% worldwide.

But yeah, let's just keep saying "Coal isn't cheap! Look at what it does to our planet!!" and ignore the real world.

This. We really aren't doing ourselves any favors by pushing for the implementation of alternatives, and then subsidizing them in order to make them appear to be more cost competitive. As I've argued earlier in this thread, I believe this actually hurts us in the long run (and the whole "saving the planet" bit is a long run issue, isn't it?). We need to focus on developing better means of utilizing those alternatives so that they naturally meet the existing power sources economically at some point and *then* we can switch over without having to engage in false "feel good" shenanigans.

Aside from the fact there is an inherent subsidization of fossil fuel generation (since companies are paying nothing or next to nothing for the pollution they make, and not paying a reasonable price for the irreplaceable resource they are using up) - I live in a jurisdiction that has no coal power, and uses natural gas only as backup generation, and our power is cheaper than in any jurisdiction I know of that relies on coal and other fossil fuels. We run on hydro and our current industrial rate is around $40 MWh

Nevermind that if we put a $500 tonne carbon tax in place (and put the money aside to be used to build the best dykes around our coastal cities possible and their upkeep etc, and other climate change related infrastructure) - coal wouldn't look cheap to anyone. Instead - society will eat the costs of extreme weather events caused by climate change - and the companies that profited while making the pollution will pay nothing (or no more than every other sector of the economy).

It is hard to believe anyone could agree that fossil fuels are a limited resource which we will not be able to use forever (unless we go extinct before running out of them) - and then simultaneously argue we shouldn't get to work developing alternatives.

Yes, the energy intensity of alternatives is lower. 300 million years of sunlight baked into a little rock is really energy intensive, and I am pretty sure that no alternative is going to match that intensity. That's not going to change, even with technological advances. If we are sitting around waiting for wind to be hard power with the same energy intensity as coal, we will be waiting forever, because it is not going to happen.

However, it is imperative that we start the technology train rolling, and get alternatives out there and into the grid so that we can learn how to make them better.

The energy mix in a grid has an impact on how well different energy sources feed into the grid. For example - a grid that is primarily wind and coal faces a lot of challenges around peak load (and overload) because coal is hard power (on or off) that doesn't scale well. You're either burning it, or not burning it - so it is incredibly difficult to not either burn out your grid or have brown outs - because wind is so intermittent.

Wind and hydro, however, can work beautifully together - because, at least here anyway, we have a central control that can increase or decrease the amount of hydro energy flowing into the grid - unlike coal power - hydro power can scale up and down with the amount of water which is let through the dam.

You need to have wind in the grid to start identifying those problems/solutions/advantages/disadvantages and working on solutions. Yeah, Germany has had some hiccups feeding wind into its mostly hard power grid - but they have learned from them and the technology is getting better. That doesn't happen unless we prioritize developing the technology (which has an initial cost that is unavoidable no matter when we engage in it).

Also the idea that we should wait till the downslope of peak oil/peak gas etc to develop alternatives (cause we don't need energy to make solar panels, amirite) is hilarious

Ah, so we should wait until some magic moment and then instantly transition all of our grids without testing anything in real world situations (with real grid demands) first. Gotcha.