17 posts Page 2 of 2
 
The problem with solar energy is everyone would have to buy and have it installed themselves. Houses come hooked up to the grid already, so no one even thinks about going any other way. You still have to put down a hefty amount of money to put it in, where electricity from the city is pretty cheap. So people just don't get around to putting it in. It has been such a hard sell. Solar companies try to sale their product, but they just don't get a good response from the public. No one I know gives it a thought. It would be great if we could go solar, but to many just don't see the point when you already have power coming to the house.
 
I think Hydro is cheaper than all of those listed, but of course, there aren't any more rivers to dam.

And I agree that nuclear has it place.

For a large plant today, I would agree, solar is among the most expensive.

As some others have mentioned, cheapest is not always best. Do you wear the cheapest clothes you can find? Personally, I don't get my clothes from the free section of craigslist...

For an individual home, solar is not necessarily the most expensive, considering retail costs for distribution.
 
I have to agree with Bob. The wide range for solar is because it's far cheaper for someone to put solar panels on their roof than it is to build a huge array and transmit that power. I'm personally of the opinion that solar will keep getting cheaper and cheaper and become more efficient the more widespread it becomes. That it was swept under the rug for so long is one of the great tragedies of the 20th century. It could already be dirt cheap if it had continued to evolve.
I have a solar powered calculator (Casio fx-451) from the early 80s which as far as it's capabilities would be easily out-shined by something the size of a postage stamp, but the solar tech hasn't changed much at all, and that's just sad.

_
 
Solar energy is very expensive compared to other alternatives.. That is because of the lowenergy density of sunlight. Anything that has to be collected over a larger area is more expensive. The manufacturing cost and mantaineance are high. There are also toxic waste issues with the manufacturing.

Another problem with solar is where do you put then. The green loving politicians in the state of California have made it illegal to put solar panels in the desert. Even in areas with the most sun there are days that there is no sun. To use sun more than a few hours a day, you have to move the panels to track the sun. That uses energy. and makes the systems more expensive. This is different than windmills that can use the wind to move themselves.

Nuclear power is intentionally made more expensive by politicians, becuase they are not interested in a solution to the problem. They sabotage all attempts to make safe centralized spent fuel storage and recycling, and then complain that there is no where to store the spent fuel.

If we all had nuclear power, there would be no need for climate change research, cap and trade.
Whether you believe in climate change or not, it would not matter.
There would be no be no purpose in life for certain politicians.

Many who support climate change agenda, only do so because they what they really want is to destroy our way of life. If they get their way, when everything is destroyed beyond any recovery, they will say I am bored now, can you put things back the way they were?
 
So what?

That will change and the calculation is misleading because you cannot put a cost estimate on every possible consequence.
 
Solar is the cheaper...why? Because the fuel is free. So is wind. So is hydro. I suspect that geothermal is as well. What costs is the infrastructure to capture the free fuel. With coal and nuclear you have to build the infrastructure, plus buy the fuel, plus dispose of the waste. Gas at least doesn't have the solid waste disposal problem but like coal still has it's CO2 problem. Nuclear has no CO2 component but like coal and gas has a massive supply tail and the added problem of 10,000 years of radioactive waste...for which we have no solution. Besides, any 'solution' to the radioactive waste problem would be far more expensive than buying everyone in America a PV system. Some folks have suggested that PV panels are expensive, but that's a function of limited production at this point. I remember when TV's were expensive, as were microwave ovens, not to mention computers. CD players cost a bundle as well. The first VCRs cost $1600 and were as big as a suitcase. Remember cell phones? The first ones were $2500 and you had to lug 'em around in 007 case. Coal is a 19th century technology with a long supply trail and waste, environmental and health problems attached. Oil is an early 20th century technology with the same problems as coal. Nuclear is a mid 20th century technology with a long supply tail and massive disposal and potential environmental and disposal problems. This is the 21st century, so solar and wind, given the political will to deal with the coal/oil and nuclear mafias and to force development is the only practical way to keep the wheels on the road and the lights on in the future. The problem isn't technical or even economic....it's political. Give it a think!
 
No I am totally disagree with that article. Solar Energy is quite easy and cheapest energy of all kind. It is widely available anywhere in the world. It is one of the biggest source of non polluted energy.
17 posts Page 2 of 2

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest

cron