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.

 

The Solar Industry Now Employs Twice As Many People As Coal

page: 3
15
<< 1  2   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Mar, 4 2017 @ 10:25 AM
link   
a reply to: soficrow

Screw that. Its not a monopoly if there is more than one company, with more than one set of owners, running the industry!




posted on Mar, 4 2017 @ 10:35 AM
link   

originally posted by: xuenchen
Stands to reason because the solar technology is moving quickly.




Nope! The reason Why is the government subsidizes one and regulates the other to death.



posted on Mar, 4 2017 @ 10:38 AM
link   
Wow. Such venom!

C'mon everyone! Let's polarize!

Who cares about facts, implications and learning. Let's just FIGHT!

So much better than rational intelligent discussion.













posted on Mar, 4 2017 @ 02:36 PM
link   
a reply to: amazing

Inexpensive energy is the lifeblood of a vibrant economy. I agree with much of what you said, but it's not a bad move if government helps keep energy costs low to avoid job losses and the loss of tax revenue from a vibrant economy.

Clean energy from coal is possible now and if giving a helping hand to the industry to get converted keeps energy cheaper for everyone, in the end it would cost far less. Short sighted, partisan motivated actions in the end do more harm.

Energy is as critical to our health as roads, bridges, ports and the rest of the infrastructure. It is the governments job to do what it can to keep the infrastructure healthy.

I think the truth lies in the middle somewhere and what will do the most harm is government action or inaction done for purely political reasons. Even scarier the actions taken by those like Obama who is in the tank for equality worldwide by bringing us down in some misguided attempt to elevate countries that won't help themselves up.
edit on 3/4/2017 by Blaine91555 because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 4 2017 @ 03:09 PM
link   
a reply to: Blaine91555
Expensive energy makes industry non competitive on a global playing field. Watch Canada fail with their Carbon tax they are implementing. Energy intensive industry will flee South of the border. Fossil fuels have been unfairly demonized. There will be advances in clean energy tech that make it competitive in the near future, let the marketplace take care of itself. Big oil is not the great satan that some would have you think. The country can be thankful Barack Obama and the Dems did not have their way and put the price of energy so high it crippled the economy.



Barack Obama: "Under my plan of a cap and trade system, electricity rates would necessarily skyrocket." (January 2008)



posted on Mar, 4 2017 @ 03:45 PM
link   

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: TinfoilTP

Ah. Those "factors."


Thing is, PV works really, really well in some places. Less so in others. Thing is, there are other options as well. Thing is, burning coal is more expensive than gas. Nastier too.


Since nobody is ever going to have a few quadrillion laying about, the only way it could ever be done is through slave labor where the panels are a few pennies and the labor to install them is the cost of the gruel/slop you feed them to work. It looks like Nazi Germany or Stalinist Russia could have done it, oh oh there's them damn commie Russians again.



posted on Mar, 4 2017 @ 07:51 PM
link   

originally posted by: TinfoilTP

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: TinfoilTP

Ah. Those "factors."


Thing is, PV works really, really well in some places. Less so in others. Thing is, there are other options as well. Thing is, burning coal is more expensive than gas. Nastier too.


Since nobody is ever going to have a few quadrillion laying about, the only way it could ever be done is through slave labor where the panels are a few pennies and the labor to install them is the cost of the gruel/slop you feed them to work. It looks like Nazi Germany or Stalinist Russia could have done it, oh oh there's them damn commie Russians again.


you can make cleaner fuels from coal.

solar can not be made cheap in the US for a couple reasons.

One there is only one rare earth mine in the US and china mines 97% of the rare earths.
China has cheap labor and sells there rare earths to Chinese companies at just above cost.
China exports rare earths at a 170% price markup making it expencive for US companies to build solar panels and unable to compete with the low cost of chinese solar panels or anything else that uses rare earths.
This amounts to a 170% export tax by the chinese on solar panels coming to the US.



posted on Mar, 5 2017 @ 12:16 AM
link   
a reply to: ANNED

I thought that rare earth markup was only for the actual delivery of physical rare earth's, and not products made from them?? This was a move to force companies to move their entire production capacity there, since importing the marked up metals would be cost prohibitive in staying competitively priced for items produced.

It is a really #ty game, but we have a possible advantage with Afghanistan under our sphere of control (sorta?)
Hoping here that we can clear out ISIS from SyrIaq by the end of the year, spend the next eight working out Kurdistan's birth as a sovereign state, and in the mean time divert our forces to Afghanistan primarily to secure production of the rare earth's industry.

I was under the impression solar panels from China were less expensive???



posted on Mar, 5 2017 @ 08:41 AM
link   
RE: DIVERSIFY!

It's a no-brainer.


Denmark Just Ran Their Entire Country on 100% Wind Energy

Countries all over the world are making major strides in renewable energy. Many nations are investing in new clean energy infrastructure that is allowing them to supply enough power to meet their energy needs by great percentages, if not entirely.

...Costa Rica is one of the most impressive countries to look at in terms of renewable energy. The island nation is able to run entirely on renewable energy for months at a time. In fact, in 2015 the country met 99 percent of its total energy need from renewable sources alone.




posted on Mar, 5 2017 @ 12:51 PM
link   

originally posted by: TinfoilTP
a reply to: Sillyolme




Amount of fuel used to generate 1 kWh: Coal = 0.00052 short tons or 1.04 pounds. Natural gas = 0.01011 Mcf (an Mcf equals 1,000 cubic feet) Petroleum = 0.00173 barrels (or 0.07 gallons)


or about 8 120watt solar panels to create 1 kWh, the largest avail commonly today.

Those are just to make 1kw of power.

I found this somewhere, you can too with google.


Electricity - consumption: 3.832 trillion kWh (2012 est.)


So multiply 3.832 trillion by 8, and that is how many solar panels the US needs annually and that was back in 2012, more is needed as time goes on.

30,656,000,000,000 or over 30 and a half trillion panels. An average cost of the most efficient 120watt panel is $200.

6,131,200,000,000,000 so it would cost over 6 quadrillion US dollars to buy enough solar panels to supply the US with enough energy in 2012.

The US is only a few trillion in debt now and people are having heart attacks over it. How are we going to come up with 6 quadrillion dollars initial investment on panels alone, not including installation, maintenance, the massive square footage preparation (an astronomical number itself that is unfeasible) to justify Solar energy?

Solar is a pipe dream, coal is real.

Oh and those solar panel numbers, those are only if they are receiving direct sunlight 24 hours a day, which is impossible so multiply 6 quadrillion by 3 for one third of the day of solar, then multiply by 2 to account for bad weather and seasonal conditions. 36 quadrillion spent on solar panels, dream on.

You're forgetting something important - maintenance cost. With the solar panels, you stick them up and don't really have to provide fuel, and they generally only need minimal maintenance. Someone can do that at their own home, compared to having to rely on power plants wastefully transmitting energy many miles.

Based on 2015 numbers from the government converted so that you can see the difference in efficiencies:
Coal BTU/lb: 9,634
Petroleum BTU/lb: 19,019
Natural Gas BTU/lb: 23,100

In kWh (1 kWh = 3,412 BTU; 1 BTU = ~0.000293071 kWh):
Coal kWh/lb: 2.82
Petroleum kWh/lb: 5.57
Natural Gas kWh/lb: 6.77

In price by MMBTU at the end of 2016 (MMBTU=1,000,000BTU):
Coal $/MMBTU: $0.44 (Wyoming) | $2.08(Appalachia)
Petroleum $/MMBTU: $9.12
Natural Gas $/MMBTU: $3.70

In price by kWh in 2016 (for Coal there are vastly different prices between surface mining & deeper mines):
Coal $/kWh : $0.0015 (Wyoming) | $0.0071 (Appalachia)
Petroleum $/kWh : $0.0311
Natural Gas $/kWh : $0.0126

In price by lb from the above (slightly mismatching dates):
Coal $/lb: $0.0042 (Wyoming) | $0.0200 (Appalachia)
Petroleum $/lb: $0.1735
Natural Gas $/lb: $0.0855

So, here's a question... how much of that fuel is left in the U.S. in 2015:
Coal: 511,600,000,000,000 lb (511.6 trillion pounds)
Petroleum: 10,800,000,000,000 lb (10.8 trillion pounds)
Natural Gas: 14,500,000,000,000 lb (14.5 trillion pounds)

So, much power is left in the U.S. in recoverable reserves at current economy and technology level?
Coal kWh : 1,442,712,000,000,000 (1,442 trillion kWh)
Petroleum kWh : 60,156,000,000,000 (60 trillion kWh)
Natural Gas kWh: 98,165,000,000,000 (98 trillion kWh)

Here's an interesting question... how much did the U.S. use in 2015 for electricity?
Coal: 4,265,000,000,000 (4.265 trillion kWh)
Petroleum: 112,000,000,000 (0.112 trillion kWh)
Natural Gas: 3,318,000,000,000 (3.318 trillion kWh)

Interestingly, these calculations on kWh/lb differ from the estimates by the EIA:
Coal: 1,352,398,000,000 kWh
Petroleum: 28,249,000,000 kWh
Natural Gas: 1,333,482,000,000 kWh

The difference is due to my calculations being potential energy, and EIA calculations being realized energy. Unfortunately, fossil fuel generators are not nearly 100% efficient. For example, EIA cites 756,226 thousand-tons of coal (ton=2000lb, so 1,512,452,000,000 lb) consumed, which would make EIA coal efficiency only 0.89 kWh/lb or 3051 BTU/lb. This is much less than the EIA stated value of 9,634 BTU.

However, the EIA also states that coal generator average heat rate in 2015 was 10,495 BTU. Petroleum was 10,687, and Natural Gas was most efficient at 7,878. To get the efficiency, you simply use 1kWh (3,412 BTU) / heat rate:
Coal efficiency: 32.5%
Petroleum efficiency: 31.9%
Natural Gas efficiency: 43.3%

If you divide the realized power by these efficiencies, you get numbers pretty close to mine (though lower):
Coal potential kWh: 4,161,000,000,000 (4.161 trillion kWh)
Petroleum potential kWh: 88,000,000,000 (0.088 trillion kWh)
Natural Gas potential kWh: 3,079,000,000,000 (3.079 trillion kWh)

So, what's this mean for time frames?
Petroleum is mostly not used for electricity, so the real consumption was 2.184 trillion lb in 2015 or 12,164,000,000,000 kWh equivalent. Not much oil is left in the U.S. if we had to rely on the ~40 billion proven barrels to power our ~7 billion/yr consumption... less than 6 years without discoveries/imports at current rates.
Natural Gas is being developed and rapidly depleted; less than 30 years remain at current rates without new discoveries/imports; this is more suited for transportation than coal, so if petroleum is gone, it'll likely be shifted.
Coal actually will last the U.S. for another 336 years at current rates without imports or discoveries... but those rates might increase if alternative energy is not developed to offset the depletion of the other two fossil fuels.

Let's posit a scenario: in the U.S. - war/embargoes result in no more imports of fuel sources, and we can't find more reserves starting at date T.
Petroleum is gone in 6 years, natural gas is shifted to cover transportation for a few years, coal use grows to cover natural gas:
T+6yrs = 0 petroleum, 78 trillion kWh petroleum, 1416 trillion kWh coal.
Natural gas would last only 6 years if it replaced our petroleum use entirely at that point:
T+12yrs = 0 natural gas, 1366 trillion kWh coal (partly due to lower efficiency of generators).
Now, if all consumption of these were burden of coal, the reduction would be 20.5 trillion kWh/yr:
T+78yrs = 0 coal

Are you still worried about costs of alternative energy?

There are other sources now, fortunately:
Nuclear realized kWh: 797,000,000,000 (0.797 trillion kWh)
Hydroelectric realized: 249,000,000,000 (0.249 trillion kWh)
Wind turbine realized: 191,000,000,000 (0.191 trillion kWh)
Solar electric realized: 25,000,000,000 (0.025 trillion kWh)

By the way, there are more than just silicon photovoltaic solar energy generators: dye-sensitized solar cells which can be cheaper and more flexible in deployment, and solar thermal - used in a variety of applications including efficient (almost comparable to petroleum electrical generation) electrical generation. Thermal uses mirrors to heat molten salt (those big towers that ignite birds), which can then be stored for use at night.

Fusion is the holy grail, but we don't have that yet.



posted on Mar, 5 2017 @ 08:24 PM
link   
a reply to: Greven



Thermal uses mirrors to heat molten salt (those big towers that ignite birds), which can then be stored for use at night.

Contrary to the narrative being told via MSM, solar seems to have issues. I'm glad we have an abundance of fossil fuels to get us through until clean, inexhaustible fusion power is developed.



The plant cost $3.9 billion dollars US ($3.9E+9, much of it a gift from hard-pressed European taxpayers diverted by guilty CO2-obsessed European liberals), and it produces 370 gigawatt-hours per year (370E+9 watt-hrs).

Now, in the US a power plant typically sells its product for something like six cents US per kilowatt-hour. Multiplying that by 370 GWhr/year gives us an annual value of the energy produced of about $22,000,000 dollars per year.

And at twenty-two mega-bucks per year, how long will it take to pay back the $3.9 billion dollar cost of the plant?

Er … um … breakeven time is a hundred and seventy-seven years … but only if there are zero maintenance costs … and if there is no interest on any borrowed funds … and if you don’t count avoided income available from investing the four giga-bucks elsewhere for a century … ooogh.

wattsupwiththat.com...



posted on Mar, 5 2017 @ 08:52 PM
link   
a reply to: soficrow

The cost for solar panels is nuts. 30k-60k? Not worth it. Most of the time it doesn't operate at 100% capacity, it's more like 50% and breaks down so you have to wait days for a technician. You still have a electric bill at the end of the day. It a scam and takes 15 years to pay off. By that time we would have better technologies.



posted on Mar, 5 2017 @ 09:00 PM
link   
Solar power just isn't efficient or cost effective. They've had billions of dollars just handed to them, yet they still can't make it work. I'm not a lobbyist or anything, but fossil fuels have been unbelievably amazing to humanity, saved billions of lives, I find it disturbing that they get such a bad rep from the left. Once technology advances to the point we no longer need fossil fuels, great, but until then, we need to realize fossil fuels are one of the great gifts the universe has given us.



posted on Mar, 5 2017 @ 10:38 PM
link   

originally posted by: D8Tee
a reply to: Greven



Thermal uses mirrors to heat molten salt (those big towers that ignite birds), which can then be stored for use at night.

Contrary to the narrative being told via MSM, solar seems to have issues. I'm glad we have an abundance of fossil fuels to get us through until clean, inexhaustible fusion power is developed.



The plant cost $3.9 billion dollars US ($3.9E+9, much of it a gift from hard-pressed European taxpayers diverted by guilty CO2-obsessed European liberals), and it produces 370 gigawatt-hours per year (370E+9 watt-hrs).

Now, in the US a power plant typically sells its product for something like six cents US per kilowatt-hour. Multiplying that by 370 GWhr/year gives us an annual value of the energy produced of about $22,000,000 dollars per year.

And at twenty-two mega-bucks per year, how long will it take to pay back the $3.9 billion dollar cost of the plant?

Er … um … breakeven time is a hundred and seventy-seven years … but only if there are zero maintenance costs … and if there is no interest on any borrowed funds … and if you don’t count avoided income available from investing the four giga-bucks elsewhere for a century … ooogh.

wattsupwiththat.com...

Look at those calculations above. How long do you think we have left, even setting aside the detrimental carbon emissions?

Heck, just look at oil - we consume ~93 million barrels of oil per day, worldwide. Proven reserves of oil: 1,662,945 million barrels. Seems like a lot... some 17,881 days worth... except that's only 49 years at 2015 rates and reserves.

Also, nearly a third of those reserves are in Venezuela and Saudi Arabia (combined). Another third are in Canada, Iran, Iraq, and Kuwait (combined). Canada's is almost entirely in the oil sands of Alberta. These are big oil producing countries - what if one or more are fudging their numbers even a little?



posted on Mar, 5 2017 @ 11:00 PM
link   
a reply to: Greven


Heck, just look at oil - we consume ~93 million barrels of oil per day, worldwide. Proven reserves of oil: 1,662,945 million barrels. Seems like a lot... some 17,881 days worth... except that's only 49 years at 2015 rates and reserves.


A reserve to production ratio of 50 years is historically how it has always been. Exploration is expensive, companies operate on a short to mid term planning model. New reserves will be brought online and better technology will be developed to recover the reserves that are in place. It is a misconception that 'proved reserves' indicate how much oil is left on the planet.



Also, nearly a third of those reserves are in Venezuela and Saudi Arabia (combined). Another third are in Canada, Iran, Iraq, and Kuwait (combined). Canada's is almost entirely in the oil sands of Alberta. These are big oil producing countries - what if one or more are fudging their numbers even a little?


If OPEC members are fudging their oil reserves so they may gain a larger quota, there's nothing much that can be done about that. Given 50 years of technological advancements, all energy sectors will see substantial increases in yield and decreases in cost. Perhaps fusion energy will be viable by then, I do not think we will have run out of oil by then and most experts will agree.

Are you aware there are methods of estimating undiscovered resources? Estimates for undiscovered oil reserves in the USA are sitting at around 264 billion barrels as of right now.

edit on 5-3-2017 by D8Tee because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 6 2017 @ 12:46 AM
link   
a reply to: D8Tee


Are you aware there are methods of estimating undiscovered resources? Estimates for undiscovered oil reserves in the USA are sitting at around 264 billion barrels as of right now.

And the faster we burn it the better.

edit on 3/6/2017 by Phage because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 6 2017 @ 12:59 AM
link   

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: D8Tee


Are you aware there are methods of estimating undiscovered resources? Estimates for undiscovered oil reserves in the USA are sitting at around 264 billion barrels as of right now.

And the faster we burn it the better.

Not sure if that even deserves a response, you are better than that.




top topics



 
15
<< 1  2   >>

log in

join