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.
Originally posted by Danbones
If I'm not mistaken the coal ALREADY shut down is amoungst the cleanest it can get which if I rememeber correctly when burned with proper gear is supposed to be very very low impact compared to other fossile and certainly nuclear waste...
It would bring the energy costs down which is a prime mover of the economy and in my opinion would take business away from the unregulated power generators in the rest of the world and so therefore help clean up the overall picture which blows and flows everywhere anyway
in defence of Neo's economics
look at Spain
it went green
now in the news today on the beeb they have rediculiously close to 50 percent unemployment
green is the new rededit on 25-4-2013 by Danbones because: (no reason given)
Originally posted by randomtangentsrme
In 20 years solar might be a viable source of energy.
Originally posted by XPLodER
Originally posted by DarKPenguiN
Originally posted by neo96
reply to post by XPLodER
Yeah lets put Americans out of work, pay no attention to the largest polluter in the world-China
So what good does all that do?
THIS....
What we do makes zero difference if our "slack" is picked up by China (and other nations as China changes)- Keep funding the R&D and when green Energy becomes cheaper and better the entire World will switch based on coast/benefit alone...The more scarce Coal becomes, the higher the price- At some point the Solar we keep improving and making cheaper will trump the Coal which we are extracting and making more costly.
EDIT : This is honestly a case where the free market will work if left alone...edit on 25-4-2013 by DarKPenguiN because: (no reason given)
spot on star
you are fully correct,
remove coal subsidies and give them to solar to speed up the roll out of the new technologies
xploder
REALLY? thats your argument? everyone else is doing it?
well if the usa did it and it was cheaper for energy in the usa than in china dont you think manufacturing would return to the US?
if energy is renewable, there is no cost to mine transport and consume the coal, this equates to cheeper power, cheaper power equals a more competitive environment,
this means you can produce products cheaper than countires that have to mine. china will be forced to follow suit or become uncompetitive.
Originally posted by XPLodER
there is a new generation cable that super conducts at high temperature being developed in the USA,
transportation usually consumes about 30% of generated capacity,
the new tech losses very little even over large distences
30% more power by just replacing the transportation lines alone
xploder
you are fully correct, remove coal subsidies and give them to solar to speed up the roll out of the new technologies
Originally posted by randomtangentsrme
reply to post by XPLodER
Doing work as an electrician many time a year, I am pretty current on solar tech.
50% boost in current doesn't mean 50% efficiency. In fact in your quote in the post that I first responded to, the 50% boost in current was reported to increase efficiency by 35%. Meaning if solar cells are now at 5% efficiency due to this, they only operated at about 3.5% before.
In 20 years solar might be a viable source of energy.
V3Solar's Spinning Cone-Shaped Solar Cells Generate 20 Times More Electricity Than Flat Photovoltaics
Nobody can make products cheaper than China at the moment.-NOBODY.
Originally posted by neo96
reply to post by XPLodER
you are fully correct, remove coal subsidies and give them to solar to speed up the roll out of the new technologies
Too funny alternative already has trillions of subsidies hell checkout any alternative energy site.
They all proudly display Get free money back!!
after using solar cells for a period of time they pay themselves off,
That is still a multi-trillion dollar, 50-70 year endeavour.
The current infrastructure took generations to build. The replacement will take about the same.
Originally posted by neo96
reply to post by XPLodER
after using solar cells for a period of time they pay themselves off,
So spend 50 to 100K that takes 20 to 25 years to finally pay for itself, and do it all over again.
Sorry that is not cost effective.
Originally posted by neo96
reply to post by XPLodER
after using solar cells for a period of time they pay themselves off,
So spend 50 to 100K that takes 20 to 25 years to finally pay for itself, and do it all over again.
Sorry that is not cost effective.
Originally posted by Danbones
reply to post by XPLodER
leaked doc shows spains greennesss was very economically unsound
wattsupwiththat.com...
That would be one way of doing it, but not the ideal.
I spent a little over $20,000 making my house more efficient. That brought my solar costs down from close to $55,000 to a little under $25,000.
Total cost: $45,000
Savings: approx $350/month.
Payback period: 10.7 years (129months).
Which, all things considered, is not to shabby. Plus, I still get to sell any extra energy once I increase my efficiency further, and that will improve my ROI considerably.
What does kilowatt peak (kWp) actually mean? Kilowatt peak stands for peak power. This value specifies the output power achieved by a Solar module under full solar radiation (under set Standard Test Conditions). Solar radiation of 1,000 watts per square meter is used to define standard conditions. Peak power is also referred to as "nominal power" by most manufacturers. Since it is based on measurements under optimum conditions, the peak power is not the same as the power under actual radiation conditions. In practice, this will be approximately 15-20% lower due to the considerable heating of the solar cells.
. . . also talk about nano strutures being used to collect much more of the light spectrum like absorbing more of the available energy from sunlight
Originally posted by VaterOrlaag
reply to post by neo96
Coal is a terrible choice for fuel in this country and the coal industry and federal government know it.
What's more important?
Short-term jobs or long-term damage from climate change?