paulg_68 posted:

---

If solar was economically viable they wouldn't need subsidies. They'd just build the panels, collect the electricity, and sell it.

They don't because it isn't.

---

paulg_68 posted:

---

If fossil fuels were economically viable they wouldn't need subsidies. They'd just explore for oil and gas, sell it, and earn a profit.

They don't because taxpayers are willing to subsidize it.

---

IMHO posted:

---

Isn't oil subsidized? Oil is MORE than economically viable. I don't understand your point.

---

Eternal_Midnight posted:

---

Even though Paul doesn't care about realities, I post here just for fun:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Price_per_watt

Price per watt, or $/W is a common way to compare the capital costs of various forms of electricity generation. It refers to the number of dollars one would have to spend to buy a machine capable of producing one watt of electricity. It is calculated by dividing the total project capital cost by the amount of peak power (watts-peak, or "Wp") it can produce.

Modern[when?] coal power plants are generally one of the least expensive sources of electricity by this measure, at around $2.10 a watt.[1] Large hydroelectric systems can be even less expensive by this measure; the Three Gorges Dam is reported to have cost ¥180 billion (US$26 billion), about $1 a watt, but actual costs are widely believed to be much higher.[2] Solar panels are currently selling for as low as just over $1 a watt in industrial quantities, but the balance of system costs put the systems closer to $4 to $5 a watt.[1] Large wind turbines are around $8 a watt and falling.[3] Natural gas-fired peaking power plants are around $6 a watt.[4]

Note that the capital costs are not the only determinant of the cost of the electricity produced. A coal plant needs to burn coal to produce power (a limited resource), while a solar panel and other renewable generation has no fuel input at all. Maintenance, replacement, fuel costs and capacity factor all affect the cents per kilowatt hour of the power plant's delivered electricity.

System costs include batteries, wiring, inverters, and charge controllers for OFF GRID systems.

---

paulg_68 posted:

---

I have no evidence to support my beliefs.

---

paulg_68 posted:

---

I also don't understand the difference between off grid costs and grid tied costs.

---

Eternal_Midnight posted:

---

paulg_68 posted:

---

I also don't understand the difference between off grid costs and grid tied costs.

---

---

paulg_68 posted:

---

And your numbers aren't right anyways. They charge coal plants with expenses that should be charged to solar production.

There are many coal plants intentionally operating below peak efficiency specifically because they are serving as backups for unreliable solar and wind power. The cost of coal would actually be lower if so many plants weren't required to operate inefficiently to compensate for solar and wind. The cost of that inefficiency should be charged to solar and wind but it isn't. It gets unfairly charged to coal.

---

Eternal_Midnight posted:

---

Yet again, Paul, you bring nothing to the table. I thank you for continuing to be ignorant of realities, and crystallizing my point for those who don't know that much about the subject at hand.

You have demonstrated multiple times, both in this thread and in others, that you just don't know what has happened in the last two years with regard to solar costs, and just how much the price has dropped.

You have also demonstrated a shocking lack of knowledge with regard to the differences between a grid tied system (which requires no batteries and no charge controller, and less wiring, which dramatically reduces the cost) and an off grid system.

I like to debate this topic with you, because you reinforce my points over and over again with your ignorance.

---

Bonzoboy1 posted:

---

http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/04/02/us-solartrust-bankruptcy-idUSBRE8310ZV20120402

Solar Trust of America LLC, which holds the development rights for the world's largest solar power project, on Monday filed for bankruptcy protection after its majority owner began insolvency proceedings in Germany.

The Oakland-based company has held rights for the 1,000-megawatt Blythe Solar Power Project in the Southern California desert, which last April won $2.1 billion of conditional loan guarantees from the U.S. Department of Energy. It is unclear how the bankruptcy will affect that project.

Maybe they would have done better with a subsidy.........

---

paulg_68 posted:

---

That was a lot of words and yet you failed to provide any information to counter your own hard evidence which confirmed my argument.

---

Eternal_Midnight posted:

---

System costs include batteries, wiring, inverters, and charge controllers for OFF GRID systems. Grid tied systems eliminate charge controllers, some wiring, and batteries, which are at the moment one of the most expensive elements.

---

paulg_68 posted:

---

Do you have anything at all or is all of your support secret and classified?

---

paulg_68 posted:

---

As for all of your externalized costs, I'll just point out that the more coal we burn, the longer the average lifespan. How bad can it really be? Add a penny per kwh for all that crap if you want. Then add a buck per KWH for solar since it consumes massive amounts of silicon and drives up the cost of computers.

---

Kjarhall posted:

---

Cano Petroleum filed for bankruptcy.

Obviously that means that oil is a loser.

They should have gotten a subsidy.

---

Eternal_Midnight posted:

---

Now you've resorted to just making things up. Great job, paul.

---

Moe_Nox posted:

---

Its funny how petty Paul makes people become when he destroys them.
On topic: can we please stop throwing money at a failed industry? Has solar ever been profitable? And apparently not even subsidies can keep them afloat.

---

Moe_Nox posted:

---

Its funny how petty Paul makes people become when he destroys them.
On topic: can we please stop throwing money at a failed industry? Has solar ever been profitable? And apparently not even subsidies can keep them afloat.

---