Jiggy is too stupid to formulate any kind of coherent argument.

Microbet:

Jiggy: BUT THEY HAD LAYOFFS ONCE

How many layoffs has the coal industry had in the last 30 years dumbass?

Why are you such a ****ing idiot?

You really think picking a couple companies is a good point?

https://www.forbes.com/sites/niallmc.../#177cc55c2800

Solar employs more than twice as many people in the US as fossil fuel electrical generation.

If those jobs aren't sustainable, do you think that's a problem?

Once again - not anti-anything. Just pro-whatever makes the most sense, including which sources are the most cost effective given all the relevant trade offs.

I still don't have a number on the final costs of solar energy to the consumer.

You don't think the sustainability of coal industry jobs matter, so why should we care about your disingenuous bull****?

lol

The cost vary in every single energy project solar or otherwise often by the minute.

It is very bizarre. Republicans are not uniformly anti Environmental Protection. They don't mind protecting certain local areas, but never want to protect any broad large area. I used to think that this was some sort of a religious conviction. They felt that only God could affect things like the planet and it was blasphemy to suggest that man could do anything like that. But I think maybe it is just that they hate anything that could possibly be for the universal good. If they are going to protect the environment it is just going to be the river where they fish. If what they do destroys the environment in some other part of the world, then f*** them.

that and the fact that they're brainwashed. And the Koch brothers own the Republican Party. 10 years ago there were Republicans who were not like this.

smh

How about averages? Over a year? Costs vary for fossil fuels as well.

Sigh - here you go...

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/artic...falls-to-solar



"In 2016, countries from Chile to the United Arab Emirates broke records with deals to generate electricity from sunshine for less than 3 cents a kilowatt-hour, half the average global cost of coal power. Now, Saudi Arabia, Jordan and Mexico are planning auctions and tenders for this year, aiming to drop prices even further."

Solar makes sense in sunny locations. Great. Awesome.

However....

"Coal industry officials point out that cost comparisons involving renewables don’t take into account the need to maintain backup supplies that can work when the sun doesn’t shine or wind doesn’t blow. When those other expenses are included, coal looks more economical, even around 2035, said Benjamin Sporton, chief executive officer of the World Coal Association."

I don't have time to go into details at the moment, but consider the trend in prices. If solar make sense in a very sunny area one day then 6 months later it makes sense in a less sunny area and six months later in an even less sunny area.

Fundamentally that doesn't matter to you because you are not interested in what makes sense.

I notice less that 10 years ago, the cost was about 5x. Now the cost is about 1.5x to 2x.

It looks sunny in 2024. Call me then.

Yeah, this info is all great for solar. The adoption should primarily be in the sunniest areas first and by the time those areas are more developed the prices will be lower. It's not possible for the entire world to go renewable in one or two or five years. The economics are there for continued growth and there's nothing that will stop it and on the other side it can only happen so fast.

The bizarre thing is why conservatives root for fossil fuels or fusion/unobtanium.

I think the question is - why does one side root for ONLY solar and wind while the other side roots for ALL options.

I don't know of any Conservative rooting ONLY for fossil fuels. Is anyone saying "shut solar down now"?

Tell me - how do you feel about windmills off of Nantucket? Fission?

Is anyone saying "shut down fossil fuels now"? The planet would go dark overnight and 99% of cars would stop running. What a dumb strawman. I might as well say "one side roots for pollution and one side roots against pollution". You have a total inability to frame any debates honestly, it's pathetic.

Yeah, they kind of are.

https://www.theguardian.com/environm...st-fossil-fuel

DAPL protest, Keystone pipeline, clamping down on offshore drilling, no nuclear power plants in the last 30 years, the list goes on and on and on....

There is no reasoning with environmental wackos.

Ironically, the only folks protesting renewables are ALSO enviro-nutjobs, ie Nantucket Windills (****in' NIMBYS).

Can you link me the last Solar Plant protest?

lol, according to Google this sort of thing has actually happened

Local residents protest college's decision to build solar panels on hillside

City council in North Carolina rejects solar panels for fear it would stop plants from growing (?), hurt local economy (???)

The first group was...ENVIRONMENTALISTS protesting:
http://www.sgvtribune.com/general-ne...garage-project

"The residents’ lawsuit claims the college violated the California Environmental Quality Act by not crafting a separate environmental impact report on the 2,300-space garage project."

Kind of proving Leftists are against ALL energy. Note that it's also part of a garage structure and residents are concerned about traffic, noise, and construction traffic as well - not really an energy protest anyway.

The second one you should reference the original article:
http://www.roanoke-chowannewsherald....m_content=link

"She is a retired Northampton science teacher and is concerned that photosynthesis, which depends upon sunlight, would not happen and would keep the vegetation from growing. She said she has observed areas near solar panels where vegetation is brown and dead because it did not receive enough sunlight"
She is obviously referencing the destroyed vegetation near a solar field. Yeah, I know the quotes about soaking up sunlight are stupid - the vegetation dies because of the construction in the area, not the lack of sunlight (the plants under the panels get murdered before the panels go down. :P )

Here's an interesting one though:

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/09/19/wo...pagewanted=all

BEIJING — In a fresh indication of growing public anger over pollution, hundreds of demonstrators in the eastern Chinese province of Zhejiang on Sunday were camped outside a solar panel manufacturing plant that stands accused of contaminating a nearby river.

Reagan removed the already bought and paid for and installed and working solar panels off the white house. If you're trying to say that conservatives also root for nuclear, then yeah, but they absolutely root against renewables. I can't really figure if it's just because they aren't good for their corporate overlords or they think admitting there's a problem with pollution is offensive to God or they are just dicks. Conservatives absolutely don't root for all options. Everyone knows you're lying about that.

Windmills specifically off Nantucket? I didn't know there were wind turbines off Nantucket and have no feeling about them. Wind power in general is good, but there are places that are good for it and places that aren't. If you're suggesting they're an eyesore or something, I don't agree, but that's subjective and the people who live in the area should have a say in it.

Fission? It's better than fossil fuels, and I wouldn't shut down nuclear plants, but starting any from scratch is a waste. Before they could be completed they wouldn't be needed if a reasonable effort were made for renewables. You said "call me in 2024". Well, it takes 10 years to build a nuclear power plant.

Conservative protest means having ALEC write laws and have them pushed by Koch funded groups.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/gabe-e...b_4854964.html


Then a bunch of idiots listen to professional AM radio cranks and go roll some coal.

It really is. Environmentalists resist growth and expansion of the fossil fuel industry. Like Obama said "All of the above" a million times and that's bull****. Yeah, you don't shut down fossil fuels tomorrow, but you need to take a position to slow it down and speed up renewables. You don't block DAPL because it will stop fossil fuels today, you do it because it's a 50 year commitment to fossil fuels. You do it because blocking it applies pressure.

And I get called a conspiracy theorist.

You don't believe in the existence of the Koch brothers/network or the political organizations they fund? You think ALEC=the illuminati?

Of course you do.

Why are customers getting retail rates for their excess solar power? Are they directly transmitting their power to their neighbors? How are they compensating the power companies for the grid? Looks like a tragedy of the commons - everybody has solar, but nobody pays for the infrastructure to maintain it. A power station needs X amount of customers paying P price to stay in existence - if you take enough people off the grid, the price will have to go up. If we subsidize all these rich folks to get their solar panels, what do you do about all of the poor people left paying sky high power bills? Seems kind of regressive to me.

This isn't an anti-solar bill protest, this is about rectifying the economics. This isn't even as bad as Chu saying he wants artificially high gas prices:
http://www.politico.com/story/2012/0...s-obama-073138

Yes, in fact they do directly transmit power to their neighbors. But, what they generally get in net meeting is a credit for energy that can offset what they buy. That's why people say it's the retail rate. If, over the course of a year, the customer generates more energy than they use, some utilities will write them a check, but not at retail rates.

The public utility around here in SoCal already charges people monthly fees for connection separate from usage charges. How much this should be is certainly debatable and it's complicated. The grid also benefits from solar as it provides the most power when there is the most demand (at least where it's sunny and hot), preventing the brownouts which used to be common in this area. Some places have used these fees to kill residential solar, charging far more than is reasonable. Some places the fee is pretty reasonable.

A lot of not rich people get solar too, but the solution I'd offer for that is to subsidize it more. Programs where they buy their solar from the utility and pay it off through their bill is something that works for both parties.

The policies for solar need to adjust as it's share of energy grows because of things like you're talking about where the grid is impacted. Hawaii has done this and I think they require (or soon will) energy storage with new solar projects. California is switching everyone who gets solar to time of use plans so they can charge and credit people based on supply and demand. Not much of a stink is made about this. But, red states like Oklahoma enact rules that kill solar in its crib before there's any impact on the grid or on non-solar customers and before there's any local industry to do the installations.

You know (knew) almost nothing about solar, but you scramble through Google trying to construct arguments against it. It's so obvious that you (and conservatives generally) root against renewables. I'm just not sure why.

I can only read the articles and sources as provided.

I live in Ohio - http://www.dispatch.com/content/stor...ar-panels.html

It would cost $10,000 to provide half the energy of a single family home. Not to mention maintenance.

Is this a cost effective way to deliver energy to a Metropolis?

And yes, I am educated about renewable energy, specifically storage, having previously worked with a battery storage company designed for just this purpose.

Like as in there is a wire going from my house directly to my neighbor's house, that I own entirely? And how many neighbor houses am I directly linked to (and not via a third party grid)? I'm very intrigued now.

It's not as good as California, but it's still not a bad investment. Not many large investments pay off in 10 years. Does a large power plant? What's the internal rate of return here? It's like 10.5%. It beats the hell out of a CD.

Solar will make more sense for someone in Ohio in 11 years, but if they leave $10k in the bank for those 11 years, they could have paid it off, along with the 1% interest, and from then on the solar is free.

But regardless, yeah, it's a closer call in Ohio than Arizona. There's still plenty of roof space at lower latitudes though for now.