If it were more efficient, Nevada would be exporting clean solar energy to the country. The energy conversion technology to do it efficiently is just not there.

Cool story bro. How much energy (resources) is needed to produce a solar panel, how much energy such panel can produce in given lighting condition over its lifespan is known. But that is not the whole story. Solar panel, while requiring energy and material (recycled) to be produced, does not consume finite resources like say coal stove. How much is that worth? What they say in Nevada? I think nada.

Wat, Nevada isn't exporting solar energy because solar energy is infinite.. If its better, there are economic reasons to do it. It makes no sense to leave all those dollars on the table.

Why do you think Nevada hasn't installed solar panels all across the nothing landscape?

I do not care about Nevada and do not know what it has to do with anything. The claim was that some options are not more efficient. Its no wonder that stove manufactured today is more efficient than stove manufactured 50 years ago. There are even certificates to prove it. Thermal pump, well, that is free energy if one has the cash for initial investment which will return over time and solar? All you got against solar is that Nevada does not do them thus they are not worth it? Please dont bother me, thanks.

Jerome Da Gnome wrote:The problem is those options are not more efficient.

Nuclear is the only sound argument.

I guess that's why private companies are funding them en masse? Oh wait they're not. Nuclear power stations are an insurance nightmare and are pretty much built by governments only. Kind of like bailing out banks... But regardless, nuclear is great as a base load source of energy, which made sense in the 20th century but not in the 21st. Already Germany's power station are shutting down asap because they can't really compete with renewables which are pushing the electricity price down (first in the merit order). This happened in only a few years. You'd have to be an idiot to build a large scale power station and expect it to run for 30 or 40 years like they used to (and they need to run for that long to become profitable). Things are changing really fast.

A solar panel has an energy pay-back time of a few years (around 2, depending on where they are placed). Wind turbines have similar characteristics. Given the rapid drops of PV prices (around 80% in half a decade) they'll probably be the cheapest source of electricity by 2020.

Jerome Da Gnome wrote:Why do you think Nevada hasn't installed solar panels all across the nothing landscape?

What constitutes a "nothing landscape?"
I'm struggling to think of anywhere on Warth, outside of Stoke, where the landscape contains "nothing" and is therefore only suitable for covering in solar panels.

You place a very poor value on the earth you live on Jerome.

Well in the other Nevada:

Solar power in Spain

Spain is one of the most advanced countries in the development of solar energy, and it is one of the European countries with the most hours of sunshine. In 2008 the Spanish government committed to achieving a target of 12 percent of primary energy from renewable energy by 2010 and by 2020 expects the installed solar generating capacity of 10,000 megawatts (MW).[1] Spain is the fourth largest manufacturer in the world of solar power technology and exports 80 percent of this output to Germany.[2] Spain added a record 2.6 GW of solar power in 2008,[3] increasing capacity to 3.5 GW.[4] Total solar power in Spain was 3.859 GW by the end of 2010 and solar energy produced 6.9 terawatt-hours (TW·h), covering 2.7% of the electricity demand in 2010. By the end of 2012, 4.516 GW had been installed, and that year 8.169 TWh of electricity was produced.[5]

Since 2010, Spain has been the world's leader in concentrated solar power (CSP), and by the end of 2012 had installed over 2,000 MW of CSP.

Who needs nuclear power.

I think another thing JdG does not realise is how integrated European power is.

Here is the electricity grid:

Scot Dutchy wrote:Well in the other Nevada:

Solar power in Spain

Spain is one of the most advanced countries in the development of solar energy, and it is one of the European countries with the most hours of sunshine. In 2008 the Spanish government committed to achieving a target of 12 percent of primary energy from renewable energy by 2010 and by 2020 expects the installed solar generating capacity of 10,000 megawatts (MW).[1] Spain is the fourth largest manufacturer in the world of solar power technology and exports 80 percent of this output to Germany.[2] Spain added a record 2.6 GW of solar power in 2008,[3] increasing capacity to 3.5 GW.[4] Total solar power in Spain was 3.859 GW by the end of 2010 and solar energy produced 6.9 terawatt-hours (TW·h), covering 2.7% of the electricity demand in 2010. By the end of 2012, 4.516 GW had been installed, and that year 8.169 TWh of electricity was produced.[5]

Since 2010, Spain has been the world's leader in concentrated solar power (CSP), and by the end of 2012 had installed over 2,000 MW of CSP.

Who needs nuclear power.

Possibly the main reason for the so-called solar boom in Spain and elsewhere are government subsidies.

There is good chance that for example the way it was done over here - and I do not doubt it was done in similar fashion elsewhere (except the Netherlands of course! :P) - that the laws governing (subsidies for) renewable resources, solar in particular, were lobbied by business groups. Result of such lobbying were laws and regulations guaranteeing certain price for kWh. So for people with money this was risk free investment (business oxymoron) with return on investment in 5-15 years guaranteed depending on installation and other factors.

These subsidies cost billions (of local currency) and who paid for it? Taxpayers of course. So maybe this is what Jerome was pointing to. Would there be solar boom in Spain, and elsewhere, without subsidies, without taxpayers sponsoring private business in order to get cleaner air?

JoeB wrote:

Jerome Da Gnome wrote:
Nuclear is the only sound argument.

I guess that's why private companies are funding them en masse? Oh wait they're not. Nuclear power stations are an insurance nightmare and are pretty much built by governments only.

Nuclear is heavily regulated and virtually under total the control of government, one can not just go open a plant.

It is government that stifles nuclear.

Scot Dutchy wrote:Well in the other Nevada:

Solar power in Spain

Spain is one of the most advanced countries in the development of solar energy, and it is one of the European countries with the most hours of sunshine. In 2008 the Spanish government committed to achieving a target of 12 percent of primary energy from renewable energy by 2010 and by 2020 expects the installed solar generating capacity of 10,000 megawatts (MW).[1] Spain is the fourth largest manufacturer in the world of solar power technology and exports 80 percent of this output to Germany.[2] Spain added a record 2.6 GW of solar power in 2008,[3] increasing capacity to 3.5 GW.[4] Total solar power in Spain was 3.859 GW by the end of 2010 and solar energy produced 6.9 terawatt-hours (TW·h), covering 2.7% of the electricity demand in 2010. By the end of 2012, 4.516 GW had been installed, and that year 8.169 TWh of electricity was produced.[5]

Since 2010, Spain has been the world's leader in concentrated solar power (CSP), and by the end of 2012 had installed over 2,000 MW of CSP.

Who needs nuclear power.

Pure delusion.



http://gogreencyclopedia.blogspot.com/2 ... gy_21.html

Deleted.

Sendraks wrote:

Jerome Da Gnome wrote:Why do you think Nevada hasn't installed solar panels all across the nothing landscape?

What constitutes a "nothing landscape?"
I'm struggling to think of anywhere on Warth, outside of Stoke, where the landscape contains "nothing" and is therefore only suitable for covering in solar panels.

You place a very poor value on the earth you live on Jerome.

So you are against populating the land with solar collection panels, interesting.

Are you sure you are in the right thread Alan.

JdG That data is five years old!

Read my link and see what Spain has achieved in five years.

By the end of 2012, 4.516 GW had been installed, and that year 8.169 TWh of electricity was produced.[5]

Dude, read your link:

Total solar power in Spain was 3.859 GW by the end of 2010 and solar energy produced 6.9 terawatt-hours (TW·h), covering 2.7% of the electricity demand in 2010. By the end of 2012, 4.516 GW had been installed, and that year 8.169 TWh of electricity was produced.

They are no where near producing enough energy to supply themselves.

Jerome Da Gnome wrote:

Sendraks wrote:

Jerome Da Gnome wrote:Why do you think Nevada hasn't installed solar panels all across the nothing landscape?

What constitutes a "nothing landscape?"
I'm struggling to think of anywhere on Warth, outside of Stoke, where the landscape contains "nothing" and is therefore only suitable for covering in solar panels.

You place a very poor value on the earth you live on Jerome.

So you are against populating the land with solar collection panels, interesting.

There are couple of ways to do it. One can give generous subsidies to investors who indeed build their plants on "landscape" (like happened here and probably Spain?) or one could motivate people who own houses to put such panels on their roofs (which is beginning to happen here). This is done by regulating M/kW output.

There are probably environmental issues connected to building large plants in certain locations (just like any structure really), unlike on roofs where panels can act as part of roof cover, but those are not subject to the topic or?

Jerome Da Gnome wrote:Dude, read your link:

Total solar power in Spain was 3.859 GW by the end of 2010 and solar energy produced 6.9 terawatt-hours (TW·h), covering 2.7% of the electricity demand in 2010. By the end of 2012, 4.516 GW had been installed, and that year 8.169 TWh of electricity was produced.

They are no where near producing enough energy to supply themselves.

They dont have to. That is one thing you have not got a clue about. We have a Pan-European network. Did you see the map I linked?

Spain is building up her solar power which will supply the network. All you see are countries. It does not work that way.

Jerome Da Gnome wrote:

JoeB wrote:

Jerome Da Gnome wrote:
Nuclear is the only sound argument.

I guess that's why private companies are funding them en masse? Oh wait they're not. Nuclear power stations are an insurance nightmare and are pretty much built by governments only.

Nuclear is heavily regulated and virtually under total the control of government, one can not just go open a plant.

It is government that stifles nuclear.

It depends strongly on what government you're talking about. Of course there are strict regulations, but that holds true for any power station, be it gas, nuclear or coal fired. In liberalized economies they are not under government control like you imply. But of course you ignore the issue of viability. Building old style power stations no longer makes sense in Europe: they're uneconomical.

Energy producers are essentially state/corporate partnership monopolies.