• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

US solar power employs more people than oil, coal and gas combined, report shows

American said:
Spending money on it works! Whodathunk?? :roll:
Click to expand...

Duh. As I said, without subsidies the move away from fossil fuels toward renewable energy would have taken forever.
 
American said:
A cost/benefit analysis of the most efficient unit would probably demonstrate you made the correct choice.
Click to expand...


However....with the efficiency gains and the cost reduction, those two lines will bisect.
Solar is the future, especially where I live.
 
Cardinal said:
Without massive subsidizing the change from fossil fuels to renewable energy would have taken forever. Oh, and fossil still receives massive subsidizing, oddly enough, and you can probably expect more of that in the coming years.
Click to expand...

We changed from fossil fuels to renewables? When did that happen?
 
American said:
Spills are rare compared to the amount of product sold. And you're trying to derail your own subject. Go find me an energy source (other than nuclear) that is more efficient. Find something that is more portable and has a higher specific energy content than petroleum. I'll put 25 gallons of gasoline up against your 1600 # battery set in the Tesla any day, and tell me how far you get per pound. Hating Big Oil and being a big progressive, does not defeat the science. I have nothing against solar energy, but to try and say it's better is a total falsehood. It's only being pushed more by green environmentalists. That doesn't make it better. More employment is due to the federal govt pumping billions into the industry, which so far has taken a total beatdown from the Chinese who make all of it cheaper.
Click to expand...

If you're comparing energy 'per pound' then you're actually comparing gasoline to batteries. Which is even more off topic.

If you wanted to somehow compare an energy generation method to an energy storage method then I would say that 100kg of solar equipment pointing at the sun over the course of 10 years will provide more energy than 100kg of gasoline.

Petroleum has great energy density, I've never disputed that. It's why it's so great for planes. Nuclear is obviously better, but energy per pound isn't the only factor we look at when we compare different ways energy is stored.

Finally, for a long time, solar wasn't better economically. But in some cases (not everywhere) it now is better than fossil fuels economically. And to me, that's a great proof of concept. Here we have an energy industry that is operating at a ****ty efficiency because of how new it is and how badly it is regulated, and as soon as we break down these artificial barriers we will have an energy source that by most metrics is far better than fossil fuels.

Also, and I've always said this, a 'pure' solar grid is not the goal here. We will still need less intermittent energy sources (nuclear hopefully) to fill those gaps. But the potential for solar is there and it is huge, both for our economy and for our environment. So many other countries are realizing that now, and they are going to be so far ahead of us when it inevitably comes to pass.
 
Anthony60 said:
We changed from fossil fuels to renewables? When did that happen?
Click to expand...

Yes, we're currently adding more energy to the electrical grid with nenewable energy and nuclear plants than fossil fuels. I just posted a link to this.
 
longview said:
I actually think it is more of a frame of reference issue.
Lets say for example someone uses an average of 1500 Kwh per month, at the national average of $.12 per Kwh.
Their monthly bill would average $180.
This person purchases the following system
Solar Sky 7.56 kW Grid‑Tied Solar System with SMA and 24x AstronergyÂ*315 Panels - Wholesale Solar
The installed price would be like $24 K.
The system saves the homeowner about $123 a month, or about $1480 a year,
This is like a 6 % return on their investment, and since the $1480 was savings, there are no taxes.
And this is before the tax credit!
Click to expand...

How many years would it take to recoup the 24k investment with the 1% decline in solar panel output per year?
 
Cardinal said:
Duh. As I said, without subsidies the move away from fossil fuels toward renewable energy would have taken forever.
Click to expand...
I think it is coming much faster than many think.
Fracking is a sign the oil reservoirs are getting unprofitable, and it speeds their depletion.
I think the break point is about $90 a barrel, with the newer technology.
Anything beyond that price, and it will be more profitable for the refineries to buy wholesale
electricity and make their own feedstock from water and atmospheric CO2.
Synthetic fuels: Audi e-fuels > Product > Sustainability at Audi > AUDI AG
 
longview said:
Not to divert the thread, but have you tried plowing some Diatomaceous earth into the soil?
I understand to the termites it's is like crawling through broken glass:mrgreen:.
Click to expand...

And you can use it in your pool filter!
 
Nilly said:
If you're comparing energy 'per pound' then you're actually comparing gasoline to batteries. Which is even more off topic.

If you wanted to somehow compare an energy generation method to an energy storage method then I would say that 100kg of solar equipment pointing at the sun over the course of 10 years will provide more energy than 100kg of gasoline.

Petroleum has great energy density, I've never disputed that. It's why it's so great for planes. Nuclear is obviously better, but energy per pound isn't the only factor we look at when we compare different ways energy is stored.

Finally, for a long time, solar wasn't better economically. But in some cases (not everywhere) it now is better than fossil fuels economically. And to me, that's a great proof of concept. Here we have an energy industry that is operating at a ****ty efficiency because of how new it is and how badly it is regulated, and as soon as we break down these artificial barriers we will have an energy source that by most metrics is far better than fossil fuels.

Also, and I've always said this, a 'pure' solar grid is not the goal here. We will still need less intermittent energy sources (nuclear hopefully) to fill those gaps. But the potential for solar is there and it is huge, both for our economy and for our environment. So many other countries are realizing that now, and they are going to be so far ahead of us when it inevitably comes to pass.
Click to expand...

Gasoline is energy storage. Did you take chemistry? There is no proof that solar is going to be better than fossil fuels, soon.
 
beefheart said:
However....with the efficiency gains and the cost reduction, those two lines will bisect.
Solar is the future, especially where I live.
Click to expand...

They usually always bisect somewhere, but if not in 5-10 years, you're probably wasting your money.
 
Samhain said:
How many years would it take to recoup the 24k investment with the 1% decline in solar panel output per year?
Click to expand...

18 years, but that is not relevant, as it was generating real measurable savings that entire time.
While you talk about the panels output declining, we do not know what the future holds for the cost of electricity.
lately rates have been going down, but they could go up just as fast, a 20% increase would be well within the normal swing.
 
American said:
Gasoline is energy storage. Did you take chemistry? There is no proof that solar is going to be better than fossil fuels, soon.
Click to expand...

Erm yeah exactly. Gasoline is energy storage. Solar isn't. Batteries are, which is a different technology.

I've shown in this thread that price per kwH is cheaper for solar in some states than the avg coal or oil price, and the US avg solar price is cheaper than 'clean coal'.

Furthermore, the proof is in the pudding. Countries like Chile and Costa Rica have gone almost fully solar. Do you really think that's because of the environment? Or because of the economics.

5 years ago you might have been right, but technology moves fast. Fast enough that solar is now absolutely viable, and will soon be preferential, and we should be preparing for that eventuality.
 
Cardinal said:
Duh. As I said, without subsidies the move away from fossil fuels toward renewable energy would have taken forever.
Click to expand...

So all the data touting it so far is false, after removing the effects of subsidies.
 
Nilly said:
Erm yeah exactly. Gasoline is energy storage. Solar isn't. Batteries are, which is a different technology.

I've shown in this thread that price per kwH is cheaper for solar in some states than the avg coal or oil price, and the US avg solar price is cheaper than 'clean coal'.

Furthermore, the proof is in the pudding. Countries like Chile and Costa Rica have gone almost fully solar. Do you really think that's because of the environment? Or because of the economics.

5 years ago you might have been right, but technology moves fast. Fast enough that solar is now absolutely viable, and will soon be preferential, and we should be preparing for that eventuality.
Click to expand...

Solar without storage is useless to man-made technology. So what's your point? Using electricity to lug around 1600# of batteries in a Tesla isn't cost effective. Storage is the most important factor about electricity.
 
American said:
So all the data touting it so far is false, after removing the effects of subsidies.
Click to expand...

After removing the subsidies? What are you talking about? :confused:
 
American said:
Solar without storage is useless to man-made technology. So what's your point? Using electricity to lug around 1600# of batteries in a Tesla isn't cost effective.
Click to expand...

My point is that in many cases solar is a cheaper form of electricity generation than fossil fuels. That it creates more jobs than fossil fuels and that the money consumers pay for solar gets distributed around the supply chain, rather than becoming centralized at the top with the people who own the fuel, whether that be Rex Tillerson or Sheikh Mansour. This has the nice effect of meaning that prices can't be controlled like we're seeing with OPEC. All these generally meaning that solar energy is better for the American people. And that's without any environmental argument.

I have said nothing about batteries, storage or Teslas. That's all your projection.

Cardinal said:
After removing the subsidies? What are you talking about? :confused:
Click to expand...

He's confusing himself.
 
American said:
Go find me an energy source (other than nuclear) that is more efficient.
Click to expand...
Solar, wind, water turbines are getting more efficient all the time. As noted above, the cost of solar is dropping rapidly, and may soon beat coal.


Find something that is more portable and has a higher specific energy content than petroleum. I'll put 25 gallons of gasoline up against your 1600 # battery set in the Tesla any day....
Click to expand...
You're mixing up technologies.

Although Elon Musk heavily advocates solar and electric cars, "advocating solar" is not the same thing as "advocating electric cars." E.g. an environmentalist can also recommend public transportation, HPV (bicycles), energy efficiency, and lots of options.

That said: You're relying on a mature petroleum infrastructure. A built-out electric charge infrastructure will largely mitigate that advantage.


Hating Big Oil and being a big progressive, does not defeat the science.
Click to expand...
Hating renewable energy also doesn't defeat the science. Nor does it magically make all the fossil fuel subsidies vanish into thin air. (Around $37 billion per year btw -- when do you plan to get around to putting the hate on fossil fuel subsidies?)

Meanwhile, many of the costs of fossil fuels are hidden, because they are damaging the environment and causing pollution -- including smog:

130830140347-beijing-clean-air-before-after-horizontal-large-gallery.jpg



I have nothing against solar energy, but to try and say it's better is a total falsehood. It's only being pushed more by green environmentalists. That doesn't make it better.
Click to expand...
Advocates don't make it better. What makes solar better is:

- It's cleaner
- It reduces dependence on foreign oil
- It's coming down rapidly in price
- We can put solar panels pretty much everywhere
- If we develop efficient and affordable solar panels, then we have a new export industry


More employment is due to the federal govt pumping billions into the industry, which so far has taken a total beatdown from the Chinese who make all of it cheaper.
Click to expand...
Chinese companies did the same thing with steel -- dumping cheap product on the global export market. Oddly enough, we don't hear people suggest we should just surrender the market to China. Hmmmmmmm
 
Cardinal said:
After removing the subsidies? What are you talking about? :confused:
Click to expand...

If it wasn't for Obama pumping $billions of our money into a bunch of losers, they would still be losers. When are we getting that money back?
 
Visbek said:
Solar, wind, water turbines are getting more efficient all the time. As noted above, the cost of solar is dropping rapidly, and may soon beat coal.



You're mixing up technologies.

Although Elon Musk heavily advocates solar and electric cars, "advocating solar" is not the same thing as "advocating electric cars." E.g. an environmentalist can also recommend public transportation, HPV (bicycles), energy efficiency, and lots of options.

That said: You're relying on a mature petroleum infrastructure. A built-out electric charge infrastructure will largely mitigate that advantage.



Hating renewable energy also doesn't defeat the science. Nor does it magically make all the fossil fuel subsidies vanish into thin air. (Around $37 billion per year btw -- when do you plan to get around to putting the hate on fossil fuel subsidies?)

Meanwhile, many of the costs of fossil fuels are hidden, because they are damaging the environment and causing pollution -- including smog:

130830140347-beijing-clean-air-before-after-horizontal-large-gallery.jpg




Advocates don't make it better. What makes solar better is:

- It's cleaner
- It reduces dependence on foreign oil
- It's coming down rapidly in price
- We can put solar panels pretty much everywhere
- If we develop efficient and affordable solar panels, then we have a new export industry



Chinese companies did the same thing with steel -- dumping cheap product on the global export market. Oddly enough, we don't hear people suggest we should just surrender the market to China. Hmmmmmmm
Click to expand...

OMG, look who shows up. Cars caused all that pollution, and they still do. Because most cars still use fossil fuel. And fuel efficiency would be boosted if we got rid of the heavily subsidized and lobbied ethanol. It's nothing but alcohol, and takes about energy from each gallon of fossil fuel. Just because we have emission standards doesn't change the fuel we're using. Nothing is better right now.
 
American said:
If it wasn't for Obama pumping $billions of our money into a bunch of losers, they would still be losers. When are we getting that money back?
Click to expand...

How many times do I have to say that subsidies were necessary to turn renewable energy into a viable model? Obviously a completely startup technology is going to have a difficult time getting a foothold in an energy economy where fossil fuels were utterly entrenched. The fact that more energy was added to the power grid with renewable energy and nuclear than fossil fuels and that renewable energy has lead to such high employment means the subsidies did their job.
 
Cardinal said:
How many times do I have to say that subsidies were necessary to turn renewable energy into a viable model? Obviously a completely startup technology is going to have a difficult time getting a foothold in an energy economy where fossil fuels were utterly entrenched. The fact that more energy was added to the power grid with renewable energy and nuclear than fossil fuels and that renewable energy has lead to such high employment means the subsidies did their job.
Click to expand...

https://www.quora.com/How-much-government-subsidies-did-Tesla-Motors-receive-by-2015

You see what a farce this all is. When did you get a subsidy on your fossil fuel car? I never have. Billionaire Elon Musk because the govt helped him get there. Where's my benefit?
 
American said:
https://www.quora.com/How-much-government-subsidies-did-Tesla-Motors-receive-by-2015

You see what a farce this all is. When did you get a subsidy on your fossil fuel car? I never have. Billionaire Elon Musk because the govt helped him get there. Where's my benefit?
Click to expand...

Fossil fuels have been subsidized by the US tax payer since the 1900's. They are entrenched in the tax codes. Fossil fuels also needed these subsidies to get them up and running. Why shouldn't solar also benefit? The only reason that fossil fuels compete with solar right now is because they are a mature, entrenched technology with millions of dollars of lobbying power.
 
American said:
They usually always bisect somewhere, but if not in 5-10 years, you're probably wasting your money.
Click to expand...

Probably not. You don't realize how much sun we get, and my roof faces due south, no trees, its perfect for solar.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom