• 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!

Solar company bankrupt despite 'win-win' DOE loan

I've read about 7% transmission loss, but never 50%. Got a link for that?

I don't have a link. I had a chart from an energy class I took at the college and there is some forumula for energy loss in transmission line based on the distance it travels. Of course the longer the distance you send it the more that is lost and it had the max electrical energy produced in the US and where it went and it had slightly over 50% lost in transmission and through the grounds in our homes.

We don't currently have an electricity problem, but if EVs become popular, that will change in a big way. With gas prices climbing out of control, I would say it is a certainty. My personal guess is that we'll see an EV boom within 5 - 10 years. When that happens, we WILL see an electricity problem. Knowing that building a nuclear plant takes 4 years if all goes well, it would be a good idea to start building now. I don't want to take away from solar plants. We'll need those too, especially since they can be brought on line faster than nuclear. But until better storage systems can be produced, solar will have to be a support system to augment other systems, like nuclear and NG.

The amount of money that it takes to build nuclear doesn't seem worth it. Not only does it ALWAYS over run projected costs they also always divert the costs of cleanup and not to mention the fact that that land is useless after tear down for eons. Just put the money in insulating lost distance power lines then wind and solar farms behind that. Peak use is during the day so solar can help handle that surge.
 
I don't have a link. I had a chart from an energy class I took at the college and there is some forumula for energy loss in transmission line based on the distance it travels. Of course the longer the distance you send it the more that is lost and it had the max electrical energy produced in the US and where it went and it had slightly over 50% lost in transmission and through the grounds in our homes.

Here's what I was looking at recently:
Transmitting electricity at high voltage reduces the fraction of energy lost to resistance, which averages around 7%.[8] For a given amount of power, a higher voltage reduces the current and thus the resistive losses in the conductor. For example, raising the voltage by a factor of 10 reduces the current by a corresponding factor of 10 and therefore the I2R losses by a factor of 100, provided the same sized conductors are used in both cases. Even if the conductor size (cross-sectional area) is reduced 10-fold to match the lower current the I2R losses are still reduced 10-fold. Long distance transmission is typically done with overhead lines at voltages of 115 to 1,200 kV. At extremely high voltages, more than 2,000 kV between conductor and ground, corona discharge losses are so large that they can offset the lower resistance loss in the line conductors. Measures to reduce corona losses include conductors having large diameter; often hollow to save weight,[9] or bundles of two or more conductors.

Transmission and distribution losses in the USA were estimated at 6.6% in 1997[10] and 6.5% in 2007.[10] In general, losses are estimated from the discrepancy between energy produced (as reported by power plants) and energy sold to end customers; the difference between what is produced and what is consumed constitute transmission and distribution losses.
But I would still agree with you that we would be well-served to upgrade and modernize our electric transmission lines. It would save us power in the long run.


The amount of money that it takes to build nuclear doesn't seem worth it. Not only does it ALWAYS over run projected costs they also always divert the costs of cleanup and not to mention the fact that that land is useless after tear down for eons. Just put the money in insulating lost distance power lines then wind and solar farms behind that. Peak use is during the day so solar can help handle that surge.

We've gotten a lot better about nuclear waste handling since the early days of nuclear power. The technology at large has improved tremendously since the US was active in it. If we used nuclear Thorium pebble-bed technology it would be far safer and able to consume much of it's own waste. And nuclear would never be affected by storms or cloudy days. One nuclear plant could serve many counties as a backup when those areas don't receive enough sunlight. As much as I love wind and solar technologies, they do in all honesty have an intermittency problem. Nuclear can fill in that gap and support counties that aren't getting enough wind or sun. Operated together nuclear, wind, and solar can help do away with not only oil use (by powering electric cars) but the environmentally destructive coal as well without any loss of convenience that we're used to.
 
I'm a fan of seeing these built. Solar Chimney.


 
Businesses fail all the time. Only solar gets media attention when it happens. What nobody is reporting is how many succeed. Only a small fraction of the total solar companies are failing.

Most firms aren't facing competition who's backed with cheap land, cheap labor, cheap utilities, virtually free loans and endless lines of credit. I've explained this a dozen times but some people here are either too stupid to understand it or intentionally ignoring evidence that destroys their partisan arguments.
 
Businesses fail all the time. Only solar gets media attention when it happens. What nobody is reporting is how many succeed. Only a small fraction of the total solar companies are failing.

It's gets media attention because Obama wasted our tax dollars on ill planned ventures.
 
I am the last person to defend Obama, but Solyndra had a legitimate good concept
The cost of goods sold price point at the time of the loan was about $600 for a 200 watt panel.
The Solyndra panels have a much lower installation cost, so an $800 sales price would
still be very competitive.
The list price now for a 200 watt panel ( in pallet orders) is as low as $300.
Solyndra had no way to know China would subsidies solar enough, to push the price that low.

Most of the cost of Nuclear is in regulation. Someone who worked on the South Texas
Project told me," When the weight of the paper equals the weight of the plant, they can turn it on."
 
If solar is the "next big" thing, why aren't investors investing? I've read all the pros and cons here, but the question begs, where is the private money? Where are the money folks like Buffett, etc.? They're supposed to be the people who see the "future" and invest.
 
Solar and wind do not hold a candle to oil. It is just that simple. And even if the costs were not prohibitive, and the output was worth it, you'd have the envronwhacko's out there trying to stop wind and solar installations just as they do drilling.
 
A post was made in the very first page showing that the loan was turned down, and yet we're still hearing about how terrible it is that the government is wasting money on solar and wind.

Even when sunlight has been shown on the issue, there is no stopping the wind, or the hot air for that matter.
 
If solar is the "next big" thing, why aren't investors investing? I've read all the pros and cons here, but the question begs, where is the private money? Where are the money folks like Buffett, etc.? They're supposed to be the people who see the "future" and invest.

How do you know they're not?

Solar and wind do not hold a candle to oil. It is just that simple.

Well let's see: With wind and solar Alternative Energies (AE): there's no possibility it'll ever run out, we cannot run into a problem of easy AE or not so easy AE, we don't have to fight any wars to get it, we don't have to give money to countries that want to see the US destroyed to get AE, money paid for AE does not guarantee money paid for it funds terrorism, speculators cannot artificially raise the price of AE, if other countries (China, India, Brazil) start using a LOT more AE our prices will NOT go up, American-made AE supports American workers and American customers.

Looking at the above I would say you're right. AE cannot hold a candle to oil for all the ways oil screws over the American people and benefits the people who would like to see all Americans die. What I don't understand is why anyone supports an industry that benefits America's enemies instead of America. Supporting the oil industry is about as anti-American as you can get without personally joining al-Queda.
 
Last edited:
Looking at the above I would say you're right. AE cannot hold a candle to oil for all the ways oil screws over the American people and benefits the people who would like to see all Americans die. What I don't understand is why anyone supports an industry that benefits America's enemies instead of America. Supporting the oil industry is about as anti-American as you can get without personally joining al-Queda.

First, the industry does not have to support any enemies. We can get it from, um, HERE.

Second, what I meant by does not hold a candle is cost vs power output. And again, good luck fighting the environmentalist when trying to put in a wind farm or a massive solar array. How much farm land would have to be removed from crop production in order to have enough 'AE' equipment to power the nation without oil and coal?
 
EagleAye;1060368487 What I don't understand is why [I said:
anyone [/I]supports an industry that benefits America's enemies instead of America. Supporting the oil industry is about as anti-American as you can get without personally joining al-Queda.

In the short term, I support oil, gas, and nuclear as the energy of today. The market will support the energy of the future as it comes economically viable. Till then, the only technology the government needs to support is better drill bits. Made and used in the good ol' USA. The only geographical area we need to be concerned with as far as energy is concerned is our own. If we use our own available energy, we will not be supporting those who want to kill us.
 
How do you know they're not?



Well let's see: With wind and solar Alternative Energies (AE): there's no possibility it'll ever run out, we cannot run into a problem of easy AE or not so easy AE, we don't have to fight any wars to get it, we don't have to give money to countries that want to see the US destroyed to get AE, money paid for AE does not guarantee money paid for it funds terrorism, speculators cannot artificially raise the price of AE, if other countries (China, India, Brazil) start using a LOT more AE our prices will NOT go up, American-made AE supports American workers and American customers.

Looking at the above I would say you're right. AE cannot hold a candle to oil for all the ways oil screws over the American people and benefits the people who would like to see all Americans die. What I don't understand is why anyone supports an industry that benefits America's enemies instead of America. Supporting the oil industry is about as anti-American as you can get without personally joining al-Queda.



Well I don't know, that was the reason I asked. Thanks anyway.
 
Investments ? Google Green

I found this site which shows google's investments and what the return will be.


"Clean Power Finance: Financing for rooftop solar

We invested $75 million to create a fund with Clean Power Finance (CPF) that will help up to 3,000 homeowners go solar. Purchasing a solar system is a major home improvement, but the upfront cost has historically been one of the biggest barriers for homeowners. Solar installers across the country don’t always have the resources to find financing for customers, or provide it themselves. And investors like Google, banks, and others, can find it difficult to enter a fragmented solar market and get connected to individual homeowners. Clean Power Finance's open platform connects installers with investors to provide financing to homeowners. It's an innovative and scalable model that makes business sense, and has the potential to lower costs and accelerate adoption of solar energy."


"SolarCity: Solar for thousands of residential rooftops

In the largest deal of its kind to date, we invested $280 million in a SolarCity fund to help provide innovative financing for residential solar projects to make clean energy more widely accessible. With Google’s backing, SolarCity, a full service solar systems provider, can offer up to 8,000 additional customers the option to go solar through a solar lease or power purchase agreements."


Both of these sound like they are giving folks loans to go solar.
 
Last edited:
First, the industry does not have to support any enemies. We can get it from, um, HERE.

Second, what I meant by does not hold a candle is cost vs power output. And again, good luck fighting the environmentalist when trying to put in a wind farm or a massive solar array. How much farm land would have to be removed from crop production in order to have enough 'AE' equipment to power the nation without oil and coal?

Putting solar panels on the roofs of buildings takes not one acre of farm land. Putting arrays in desert areas where there isn't enough water to grow crops doesn't either. Solar energy is about the only form of energy that doesn't degrade the environment in one way or another. Why would environmentalists fight that?
 
Putting solar panels on the roofs of buildings takes not one acre of farm land. Putting arrays in desert areas where there isn't enough water to grow crops doesn't either. Solar energy is about the only form of energy that doesn't degrade the environment in one way or another. Why would environmentalists fight that?

Desert area's where some little critter lives? Where big arrays would disrupt their habitat?

Three national environmental groups sued the federal government Monday in a second bid to stop construction of a giant solar power plant in the California desert that they say would harm the imperiled desert tortoise, the golden eagle and other protected wildlife.

The litigation is the latest twist in a seven-year saga over the 663.5-megawatt Calico solar station to be built on 7.2-square miles of government-owned land in the Mojave Desert in San Bernardino County. So far the multibillion-dollar project has changed hands three times, switched technologies and won and lost a contract to sell electricity to utility Southern California Edison.

Sierra Club, NRDC Sue Feds To Stop Big California Solar Power Project - Forbes
 
It seems fighting the environmentalists would be necessary, even to build solar.

The more I watch them, the more I am convinced their desired solution is the removal of humans from the earth. Then the earth would be 'safe'.

They must of had the flu and missed the day in school when they discussed survival of the fittest. ;)
 
I still don't understand why the government would support start-upcompanies to do this research. I wonder if we did that during the space race.

No. "We" expanded government to do that. It's called "NASA". Would you support expanding government in order to research alternative methods of fuel?
 
Investments ? Google Green

I found this site which shows google's investments and what the return will be.


"Clean Power Finance: Financing for rooftop solar

We invested $75 million to create a fund with Clean Power Finance (CPF) that will help up to 3,000 homeowners go solar. Purchasing a solar system is a major home improvement, but the upfront cost has historically been one of the biggest barriers for homeowners. Solar installers across the country don’t always have the resources to find financing for customers, or provide it themselves. And investors like Google, banks, and others, can find it difficult to enter a fragmented solar market and get connected to individual homeowners. Clean Power Finance's open platform connects installers with investors to provide financing to homeowners. It's an innovative and scalable model that makes business sense, and has the potential to lower costs and accelerate adoption of solar energy."


"SolarCity: Solar for thousands of residential rooftops

In the largest deal of its kind to date, we invested $280 million in a SolarCity fund to help provide innovative financing for residential solar projects to make clean energy more widely accessible. With Google’s backing, SolarCity, a full service solar systems provider, can offer up to 8,000 additional customers the option to go solar through a solar lease or power purchase agreements."


Both of these sound like they are giving folks loans to go solar.

Nice. Good find. I actually worked in a call center that was connecting people who wanted solar to connect with SolarCity.
 
Last edited:
I'm a simple person. Even the "experts" have differing opinions.

Alternative Energy - ProCon.org

Pro

"Arjun Makhijani, PhD, President of the Institute for Energy and Environmental Research, stated the following in his Aug. 2007 article "Carbon-Free and Nuclear-Free," in Science for Democratic Action:



“[A] zero-CO2 U.S. economy can be achieved within the next thirty to fifty years without the use of nuclear power...

The U.S. renewable energy resource base is vast and practically untapped. Available wind energy resources in 12 Midwestern and Rocky Mountain states equal about 2.5 times the entire electricity production of the United States... Solar energy resources on just one percent of the area of the United States are about three times as large as wind energy, if production is focused in the high insolation areas [strong sunlight] in the Southwest and West…

With the right combination of technologies, it is likely that even the use of coal can be phased out, along with nuclear electricity.

Complete elimination of CO2 could occur as early as 2040. Elimination of nuclear power could also occur in that time frame.”

Con

Tad W. Patzek, PhD, Chairman of the Petroleum and Geosystems Engineering Department at the University of Texas at Austin, and David Pimentel, PhD, Professor Emeritus of Ecology and Evolutionary Biology at Cornell University stated the following in their Mar. 14, 2005 article “Thermodynamics of Energy Production from Biomass,” published in Critical Reviews in Plant Sciences:



"We want to be very clear: solar cells, wind turbines, and biomass-for-energy plantations can never replace even a small fraction of the highly reliable, 24-hours-a-day, 365-days-a-year, nuclear, fossil, and hydroelectric power stations. Claims to the contrary are popular, but irresponsible...

We live in a hydrocarbon-limited world, generate too much CO2, and major hydropower opportunities have been exhausted worldwide..."
 
Last edited:
First, the industry does not have to support any enemies. We can get it from, um, HERE.

Second, what I meant by does not hold a candle is cost vs power output. And again, good luck fighting the environmentalist when trying to put in a wind farm or a massive solar array. How much farm land would have to be removed from crop production in order to have enough 'AE' equipment to power the nation without oil and coal?

We're, Um, currently getting 45% of our oil from foreign sources. And that's after "drill baby drill" that's brought us the highest domestic oil production of the decade, and after a government insistence on higher-mileage cars. We CANNOT fulfill our energy needs with strictly domestic production. Even if we tried we'd use up all of our "easy" oil far quicker, and without any kind of backup, we'd experience unprecedented price gouging and the US would have no other recourse but to pay it or kill everybody that controls it. Neither option is a good one for the leader of the free world.

On the other hand, we are very good at producing our own electricity, and 99% of that is made without oil. It's true that you can get far more MJ/Kg energy out of oil but the vast majority of it is wasted (as much as 85%) so the argument that oil contains more energy is a true one, but an irrelevant one. And we really don't have to worry about losing farmland to put up AE. We simply use the thousands of hectares of potential farmland already destroyed by coal mining. Problem solved.
 
If solar is the "next big" thing, why aren't investors investing? I've read all the pros and cons here, but the question begs, where is the private money? Where are the money folks like Buffett, etc.? They're supposed to be the people who see the "future" and invest.

Because, as you've already been told in this thread, that conservative "free market" that we are tied into with the WTO and NAFTA and all that garbage... for some reason means we abide by free market while China subsidizes the crap out of their products to illegally dump their subsidized products into our market to destroy competition all while they tariff our goods coming into their country.

That is why.
 
Back
Top Bottom