It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Clinton Wants A 700 Percent Increase In Solar Power. Anyone Have $240 Billion?

page: 4
9
<< 1  2  3   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 8 2015 @ 08:51 AM
link   
Just thinking in terms of what's going on solar-wise right here and the day-time demands are showing signs of actually decreasing because of it where the long term plan was for increasing load on the grid (the opposite of what's happening now).

How much solar energy would the US have if there was 2-3kW of grid connected solar generation on virtually every rooftop?
The only problem I can see is the money required to pay for all the subsidised installations and who's going to fund it all.




posted on Sep, 8 2015 @ 09:26 AM
link   

originally posted by: muse7

originally posted by: seeker1963

originally posted by: muse7
How come Conservatives are always whining about how we're going to go broke if we help our people with medical care, food stamps, and education but yet they always seem to come up with trillions of dollars for wars?


Care to stay on topic or bash the OP because your faith is different than theirs?

I am really interested in what you have to say about saving the planet, when the government proves to be hypocritical to the sermon they preach!


The sooner our dependence on oil and coal ends the better.


Wind and the Sun will always be there so why are we not taking advantage of it?


It makes so much sense, doesn't it? Why pillage the lands for energy when we can harness the nearly infinite energy that exists in nature? It wasn't too long ago when people were harvesting blubber from whales for oil and using horses & camels for daily travel, too. People act like we haven't already been advancing & thus shouldn't move forward anymore.

I won't consider a civilization truly advanced until it can effortlessly bend the energy of nature to do its bidding. That includes having truly automated renewable energy sources.

As for the OP:
(facepalm) What dognats and BLM have to do with Hillary Clinton's solar energy plan? And how on Earth is increasing our solar energy capacity a bad thing? I'd rather my tax dollars go towards something like this than go towards yet another war or no-bid defense contract.

Also, there are these crazy things called "deserts". You know, like the areas in the American Southwest that get nearly constant amounts of sunlight & don't have many people living there. Hmm, those almost sound like the perfect places to build solar power plants. And then there are things like rooftops & solar parking lots.



posted on Sep, 8 2015 @ 02:16 PM
link   
I would love to see the government help pay for EVERYONE to put solar panels on there homes.

As i is now people that are poor or living in Mobil and motor home can not get rebates on solar.

I live in a motor home and my system is half way built as i have the battery and dc/ac Inverter system there already.



posted on Sep, 8 2015 @ 02:28 PM
link   
a reply to: enlightenedservant




It makes so much sense, doesn't it?


It doesn't make a lick of sense to push a technology that depends on the weather to work.



posted on Sep, 8 2015 @ 05:37 PM
link   
Sounds like a great idea to me, my Solar division goes live November 1st. But, I still wouldn't vote for Hillary.



posted on Sep, 8 2015 @ 06:42 PM
link   

originally posted by: neo96
a reply to: enlightenedservant




It makes so much sense, doesn't it?


It doesn't make a lick of sense to push a technology that depends on the weather to work.


Yeah, because solar and wind technology can't be stored in cells for later use. Oh wait...

Even our solar powered lights for our driveway have batteries which store the solar energy then release it at night. you know, lights like this:
www.walmart.com...



posted on Sep, 8 2015 @ 09:54 PM
link   
a reply to: enlightenedservant




Yeah, because solar and wind technology can't be stored in cells for later use. Oh wait...


Which is the most expensive part of the system that MAYBE will last 10 to 20 years then ALSO needs to be replace.

Yeah everyone can afford to spend tens of thousands of dollars to go 'green'.

Of course those will be made in china too using fossil fuels.



posted on Sep, 8 2015 @ 10:00 PM
link   

originally posted by: ANNED

As i is now people that are poor or living in Mobil and motor home can not get rebates on solar.

I live in a motor home and my system is half way built as i have the battery and dc/ac Inverter system there already.


Rebates would be a workable option. They could be from the manufacturer,
which gets a credit from Government, and pass it on. Only reasonable
as all the Chicken heads in the "Climate Change" agencies are predicting
the end of civilization.

There could also be a tax credit for those who install solar, ( if one wants
to go that way ) All good ideas and easy to implement.

However, solar is not without its drawbacks to the environment,
the waste that comes from the factories is one of those hidden
downsides to "green energy".

Considering all, it would probably be cheaper and better
for the environment for the Government to just give away
free energy.






edit on 8-9-2015 by burntheships because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 8 2015 @ 10:58 PM
link   
Hydro provides a neat efficient and clean means of storing that wind/solar etc alternative energy. The reduced demnd on those hydro storages retains the energy in the lakes for 24/7 availability. Pumped storage is the next step up but you take a considerable hit in terms of efficiency so that's usually employed only for boosting system peaking capability. Coal fired stations cost a lot to start and it's a slow process so the preference for them is to stay online and operate within a stable loading range and only come offline for maintenance. Gas turbines are far more flexible than standard thermal stations using boilers and can be started/stopped on demand but nowhere near as fast as hydro turbines.



posted on Sep, 9 2015 @ 04:48 AM
link   

originally posted by: neo96
a reply to: enlightenedservant




Yeah, because solar and wind technology can't be stored in cells for later use. Oh wait...


Which is the most expensive part of the system that MAYBE will last 10 to 20 years then ALSO needs to be replace.

Yeah everyone can afford to spend tens of thousands of dollars to go 'green'.

Of course those will be made in china too using fossil fuels.


That's the whole point in investing in the technology. Technology can't improve significantly without constant research & development. Look at the crappy combustion engines when they first were created then compare them to today's fuel efficient versions. That's the beauty of research & development. Then there's economy of scale, which drastically reduces the prices as the the volumes increase.

Would you have also been against replacing horse drawn carriages with early automobiles? After all, early automobiles were slow, messy, took a lot of time for prep work, were expensive, and had low gas mileage. I guess they should've just scrapped the concept since it was cheaper to just walk.



posted on Sep, 9 2015 @ 08:20 PM
link   

originally posted by: neo96
a reply to: seeker1963




What grid?


Don't know about others, but personally I would rather have a power source that is BOTH independent of the climate, and grid.

And works 24/7 regardless of the weather, and regardless of 'fuel'.


If that's all you want, I'm sure you already know how to create zero point energy on a residential basis?



new topics




 
9
<< 1  2  3   >>

log in

join