WIP Posted March 20, 2011 Report Posted March 20, 2011 Miniscule output? Modern panels are as high as 40% efficient which is about 3 hundred watts per square metre. Most low rise buildings could provide for all their power needs without even covering much of their roof. Righwing blinders enable the individual conservative to ignore any progress made in the development of renewable energy sources, and keep a steady focus on oil, gas, coal, and ofcourse nuclear power; meanwhile....Stanford researchers develop new technology for cheaper, more efficient solar cells Applying an organic layer less than a nanometer thick improves the efficiency of certain solar cells threefold. The technology could lead to cheaper, more efficient solar panels. Quote Anybody who believers exponential growth can go on forever in a finite world is either a madman or an economist. -- Kenneth Boulding, 1973
WIP Posted March 20, 2011 Report Posted March 20, 2011 Solar cell technology is advancing and we probably will eventually get to the point where we have commercially viable cells that are ~40% efficient in natural sunlight, but we are certainly not there yet. Canada is not likely to be the optimal location for solar power arrays...wind farms are a more viable option; but there's no reason why areas like the American Southwest can't supply enough energy from solar panels, giving their location and the number of cloud-free days per year. Another issue that needs to be considered on this thread is whether it is even desirable to try to maintain high rates of energy usage we have become accustomed to because of globalization and economies based on continual growth. Global warming plus the fact that we will soon pass peak oil production levels can provide an incentive to fixing alot of what's wrong with modern societies. A move from globalization to re-localization could improve the quality of life for most people, and do it with less energy and consumption of natural resources. Quote Anybody who believers exponential growth can go on forever in a finite world is either a madman or an economist. -- Kenneth Boulding, 1973
Saipan Posted March 20, 2011 Report Posted March 20, 2011 Oh, of course, a commercially bought steam engine for these various applications can be quite efficient. Just saying building one yourself at home that would be reasonably efficient would be somewhat difficult. If you have no mechanical skill, yes. Commercial engines are also built by some guy who started with one. "Difficult" is in the eye of a beerholder. Stronach built first car parts in his garage. I build much better trailers than you can find in Canadian Tire. But yes, if it's not your hobby you're better off to buy from someone else. Using your time making money in what you're good at. There are also castings kits. You buy steam engine parts casted, just machine them at home (if you have the right size lather. Some cast them at home from bronze and aluminum. Quote
GWiz Posted March 20, 2011 Report Posted March 20, 2011 (edited) Good to hear, can you tell me more about the cost of doing that? I think people are thrown off by the initial cost without understanding the long run benefits and savings of money. Be glad to... Here's the context of why I went the Geothermal route... I had a older natural gas furnace with maybe a 70-80% efficiency rating and a 5 yr old central air conditioning unit... To do an upgrade to high effeciency (95% + efficiency) furnace and a new heat pump type air conditioning system would have cost me in the $9-$12 thousand range and I'd still be using Natural Gas, just about 20% less of it, plus the saving on electricity would be very minimal if there was any saving on electricity at all... The total costs to go the Geothermal route was about $20,000.00, or roughly double the high efficiency Gas heating and cooling route... That's where Federal and Provincial Grant money came into play... The Federal Liberals had a grant program in place, which the CPC kept in place for 2 years when they were first elected to help homeowners upgrade their homes with better heating/cooling, upgrading insulation, etc., in the case of converting to Geothermal that Fed Grant was $3500.00... Manitoba came out with a Tax Credit which in my case amounted to just under $1500.00... Combined it reduced my cost to do a complete conversion to about $15,000.00 or roughly $5000.00 more than the High Efficiency Gas route... That also included switching to an Electric Hot Water tank to totally eliminate all Natural Gas from my home... Bottom Line... My monthly average cost for all electricity, and heating/cooling my home prior to converting was roughly $200.00 per month total... My January thru December (very rough winters) anverage monthly cost for everything 2010 was $78.00 per month total... A per month saving of $122.00 per month... Added benefits are much lower cooling costs in the summer because I use much less electricity and by drawing the heat out of the home rather than forcing cold air into the home the Geothermal also helps heat my hot water that I use... The savings in winter are obvious since only a slight increase in electricity (the pump and much larger forced air fan) has replace 100% of my Gas heating... I keep my home at a constant 21.5c 24 hours a day year round set on "circulate" which means every 20 minutes the heat pump runs to exchange the air in my house and maintain a VERY constant temperature... I truly love not getting a gas bill and my home has never been as totally comfortable as it is since I changed over to Geothermal... What you do need is some decent space on your property to put in Geothermal... In my case there were 16 - 60ft. deep holes drilled spaced out and connected by 3 - 5ft. deep by 4ft. wide trenches to put the flexible PVC (the stuff that lasts 100rds of years in landfills)piping in... Enough dirt was moved that my back yard looked like I was digging a new basement... Each case is different and the CONS killed all the homeowner grants switching them to corporate grants under their "stimulous" program, so it's not quite the deal I got when I did it... It makes a difference... If you have more questions let me know... Edited March 20, 2011 by GWiz Quote There are none so blind, deaf and dumb as those that fail to recognize, understand, and promote TRUTH...- GWiz
Saipan Posted March 20, 2011 Report Posted March 20, 2011 Each case is different and the CONS killed all the homeowner grants Because they were extremely unfair. Why should ALL pay for the FEW? Quote
GostHacked Posted March 20, 2011 Report Posted March 20, 2011 My monthly average cost for all electricity, and heating/cooling my home prior to converting was roughly $200.00 per month total... My January thru December (very rough winters) anverage monthly cost for everything 2010 was $78.00 per month total... A per month saving of $122.00 per month... Added benefits are much lower cooling costs in the summer because I use much less electricity and by drawing the heat out of the home rather than forcing cold air into the home the Geothermal also helps heat my hot water that I use... The savings in winter are obvious since only a slight increase in electricity (the pump and much larger forced air fan) has replace 100% of my Gas heating... If you have more questions let me know... So you've seen an imediate benefit plus long term benefit. That's pretty amazing. And really since it really does not seem like a complicated system and is easily maintained by the homeowner, there is a benefit in that as well. And it can pay for itself in about 10-15 years, that seems to be a decent turn around time. Quote
GWiz Posted March 20, 2011 Report Posted March 20, 2011 Because they were extremely unfair. Why should ALL pay for the FEW? Glad to see you don't like those Corporate Tax Cuts any more than I do... To use your own words it's extremely unfair that ALL have to pay for tax cuts to corporations and a few shareholders... BTW, I guess you don't mind paying EI benefits to all those people that had employment because of people like me who generated millions of dollars INTO the Canadian economy because of those grants then... Or were you just being silly again? Quote There are none so blind, deaf and dumb as those that fail to recognize, understand, and promote TRUTH...- GWiz
Saipan Posted March 20, 2011 Report Posted March 20, 2011 (edited) Glad to see you don't like those Corporate Tax Cuts any more than I do... Where you got the idea?? I was talking money to only SOME homeowners. Or money to ONLY some sport and hobbies, etc. NON of which create employment. BTW, I guess you don't mind paying EI benefits to all those people that had employment because of people like me who generated millions of dollars Actually people like me created lot more. And got nothing back. Edited March 20, 2011 by Saipan Quote
TimG Posted March 20, 2011 Report Posted March 20, 2011 The technology could lead to cheaper, more efficient solar panels.Wake me up when people stop demanding subsidies for solar panels. Quote
TimG Posted March 20, 2011 Report Posted March 20, 2011 there's no reason why areas like the American Southwest can't supply enough energy from solar panels, giving their location and the number of cloud-free days per year.Then why haven't solar panels taken over the power market there? If it was such a slam dunk they would not need subsidies. Quote
GWiz Posted March 21, 2011 Report Posted March 21, 2011 (edited) So you've seen an imediate benefit plus long term benefit. That's pretty amazing. And really since it really does not seem like a complicated system and is easily maintained by the homeowner, there is a benefit in that as well. And it can pay for itself in about 10-15 years, that seems to be a decent turn around time. Since I was going to upgrade my heating/cooling system regardless (a $10,000.00 cost) I calculate my payback period for the extra money it cost us to be about 5-7 years maximum... This is the 4th winter we've had it so within 2-3 years the system will have paid for itself already... On the maintenance front Geothermal actually requires LESS maintenance since there is far less that can go wrong... Because there's no chimney or other fuel burning exhaust needed being it's nothing more than water with a little antifreeze circulating through a continuous loop the home itself is much more enery efficient and warmer... No need to worry about things like carbon monoxide either since no carbon producing product is being "burned"... Edited March 21, 2011 by GWiz Quote There are none so blind, deaf and dumb as those that fail to recognize, understand, and promote TRUTH...- GWiz
WIP Posted March 21, 2011 Report Posted March 21, 2011 Wake me up when people stop demanding subsidies for solar panels. So, you reject subsidies for solar panels, and want them for industries like oil, gas, coal, and nuclear, which externalize their environmental costs for everyone else to pay for! Then why haven't solar panels taken over the power market there? If it was such a slam dunk they would not need subsidies. It's the same problem as with wind energy -- there are powerful lobbies from the big power utility companies and energy producers, who have bought up all of the politicians, and keep billions of dollars worth of tax subsidies and security costs (protecting their oil wells in third world dictatorships and sea lanes for their oil tankers) from interfering with their profit margins. Under this regime of the last several decades, it has been in their financial interests to keep the good times going (good times for them) until the inevitable happens, and their dirty energy sources are no longer cost-effective: Wind power prices drop to coal power levels: Bloomberg The cost of wind power generation has dropped to the point that onshore wind is now competitive with coal-fired electrical power in certain regions, according to a report by Bloomberg New Energy Finance. "The latest edition of our Wind Turbine Price Index shows wind continuing to become a competitive source of large-scale power," Michael Liebreich, chief executive of Bloomberg New Energy Finance, said in a statement. Now, imagine where we would be now if the coal producers had been forced to pay for the external costs of their product - the environmental damage from the start, instead of belching it into the atmosphere, creating acid rain and raising global atmospheric CO2 levels! Quote Anybody who believers exponential growth can go on forever in a finite world is either a madman or an economist. -- Kenneth Boulding, 1973
Saipan Posted March 21, 2011 Report Posted March 21, 2011 (edited) Now, imagine where we would be now if the coal producers had been forced to pay for the external costs of their product Broke. the environmental damage from the start, instead of belching it into the atmosphere, creating acid rain and raising global atmospheric CO2 levels! "Acid" rain was always here. CO2 is needed for better vegetation. Edited March 21, 2011 by Saipan Quote
fellowtraveller Posted March 21, 2011 Report Posted March 21, 2011 No, I don't think Canada or Canadians can be pragmatic about green energy. The reasons are that a) we are not mature enough to speak like adults to each other, leaving out the emotion and sticking to the facts and b)most of us have no concept of what are the facts, how important reliable electricity is to everything, and no clue how electricity generation and distribution works. We also need to have a frank discussion about health care, but that too is pretty much impossible. Quote The government should do something.
GWiz Posted March 21, 2011 Report Posted March 21, 2011 (edited) Where you got the idea?? From what you said of course... I was talking money to only SOME homeowners. Or money to ONLY some sport and hobbies, etc. NON of which create employment. What are you talking about now? I know I created at least 120 man hours of employment and that's without taking into consideration any employment at the plant that built the unit... Actually people like me created lot more. And got nothing back. A lot more what? What do you want back? Edited March 21, 2011 by GWiz Quote There are none so blind, deaf and dumb as those that fail to recognize, understand, and promote TRUTH...- GWiz
Guest oiloforegano Posted March 29, 2011 Report Posted March 29, 2011 Interesting segue you made there... indeed Quote
Michael Hardner Posted March 29, 2011 Report Posted March 29, 2011 No, I don't think Canada or Canadians can be pragmatic about green energy. The reasons are that a) we are not mature enough to speak like adults to each other, leaving out the emotion and sticking to the facts and b)most of us have no concept of what are the facts, how important reliable electricity is to everything, and no clue how electricity generation and distribution works. We also need to have a frank discussion about health care, but that too is pretty much impossible. I agree. In the past, though, we had these problems - perhaps even worse than today. What we also had, in my view, is a body of individuals who provided thought leadership - who acted as proxy for the spectrum of political opinions out there. To my mind the quality of discussion has deteriorated due to the fact that the political thought leaders are now more motivated to gain mass appeal, rather than to be regarded for the thoughtfulness of their views. As a result, we have an entertainment-based compass that is guiding the ship of government. Where do we go from here ? I don't know, but we have to unseat mass media, and cable news in particular, as a driver of political discussion. I will do my part by ridiculing anybody who pretends to be informed because they watch Hardball, CBC's The Panel, CNN or The Price Is Right. Quote Looks like someone has a new patronizing catch phrase ! Michael Hardner
Saipan Posted March 31, 2011 Report Posted March 31, 2011 I know I created at least 120 man hours of employment and that's without taking into consideration any employment at the plant that built the unit... I'm still employed cutting my own renewable energy in the bush. A lot more what? Taxes. What do you want back? My money that went to someone elses sport (like hockey, bowling etc.) and hobbies. I pay for my own. Quote
Guest oiloforegano Posted April 29, 2011 Report Posted April 29, 2011 No, I don't think Canada or Canadians can be pragmatic about green energy. The reasons are that a) we are not mature enough to speak like adults to each other, leaving out the emotion and sticking to the facts and b)most of us have no concept of what are the facts, how important reliable electricity is to everything, and no clue how electricity generation and distribution works. We also need to have a frank discussion about health care, but that too is pretty much impossible. Agreed. Quote
TimG Posted April 29, 2011 Report Posted April 29, 2011 (edited) So, you reject subsidies for solar panels, and want them for industries like oil, gas, coal, and nuclear, which externalize their environmental costs for everyone else to pay for!Who says I want subsidies for any energy production industry? The cost of wind power generation has dropped to the point that onshore wind is now competitive with coal-fired electrical power in certain regions, according to a report by Bloomberg New Energy Finance. Absolute BS because it does not take into account the cost of the backup generation required to supply power when the wind is not blowing. Why is so hard to understand that you never install X MW of wind capacity - you must always install X MW of wind plus X MW of gas/hydro capacity. With coal or nuclear if you install X MW then that is what you get. Edited April 29, 2011 by TimG Quote
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.