Diesel is 38kWh/gallon and about $3/gallon. Or roughly 13kWh/$.
Solar panels are about $1/watt. On a “typical” day you might get 15% out of them. That’s making a LOT of assumptions: latitude, cloud cover, maintenance, etc. so it is invariably pulled outa my kazoo. If someone has a better number we can use it. But using this we get
1 watt x .15 x 24 = 3.6wH/ day.
1300wH/3.6wH = 361 days.
Now you need to include the installation and ancilliarly devices and maintenance costs. I’m gonna swag that they about double the cost of solar so the equivalency is closer to 720 days.
Lots of ways to argue about these numbers but gives some kind of gut check.
Solar can prove in, but it takes a while.
PeakOil is You
THE Solar Cell Thread Pt. 4 (merged)
Re: THE Solar Cell Thread Pt. 4 (merged)
by Newfie » Tue 19 Jun 2018, 12:51:33
-
Newfie - Forum Moderator
- Posts: 18651
- Joined: Thu 15 Nov 2007, 04:00:00
- Location: Between Canada and Carribean
Re: THE Solar Cell Thread Pt. 4 (merged)
by Newfie » Tue 19 Jun 2018, 13:05:22
Adam,
You have a point on a personal basis. However when you look at the larger economy and realize that very few have switched to such green resources you realize that his statements are historically correct. It may not be what he wanted to happen, but he is. It reporting on desires, he is reporting on a historical fact.
You have a point on a personal basis. However when you look at the larger economy and realize that very few have switched to such green resources you realize that his statements are historically correct. It may not be what he wanted to happen, but he is. It reporting on desires, he is reporting on a historical fact.
-
Newfie - Forum Moderator
- Posts: 18651
- Joined: Thu 15 Nov 2007, 04:00:00
- Location: Between Canada and Carribean
Re: THE Solar Cell Thread Pt. 4 (merged)
by Outcast_Searcher » Tue 19 Jun 2018, 15:46:52
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('onlooker', 'N')o, its a question of who you wish to believe. You refuse to concede that alot of info out there is intentionally false and/or misleading or deceptive.
Look in the mirror. The kind of misleading financial blogs you love to quote random doomer "news" from, like zerohedge are about as misleading and deceptive as it gets.
Especially if you do a sanity check over time re their accuracy. But I know, the fast crash doomer community isn't interested in accuracy as much as FUD.
Hint: all "info" isn't of equal value in objective terms.
Given the track record of the perma-doomer blogs, I wouldn't bet a fast crash doomer's money on their predictions.
-
Outcast_Searcher - COB
- Posts: 10142
- Joined: Sat 27 Jun 2009, 21:26:42
- Location: Central KY
Re: THE Solar Cell Thread Pt. 4 (merged)
by dohboi » Thu 21 Jun 2018, 23:49:39
$2.5 billion in solar projects canceled or frozen after Trump solar panel tariffs
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'R')enewable energy companies have decided to cancel or freeze $2.5 billion in investments on large solar panel projects following President Trump’s decision to impose tariffs on imported panels, Reuters reported Thursday.
That number is more than twice the $1 billion that firms said they were planning to spend in the U.S. solar panel industry following Trump’s decision in January, according to Reuters.
Cypress Creek Renewables LLC told Reuters that it has cancelled or frozen $1.5 billion in projects in response to the tariffs because the tariffs had increased its costs. Another company, Southern Current, also said that it put $1 billion worth of projects on hold.
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'R')enewable energy companies have decided to cancel or freeze $2.5 billion in investments on large solar panel projects following President Trump’s decision to impose tariffs on imported panels, Reuters reported Thursday.
That number is more than twice the $1 billion that firms said they were planning to spend in the U.S. solar panel industry following Trump’s decision in January, according to Reuters.
Cypress Creek Renewables LLC told Reuters that it has cancelled or frozen $1.5 billion in projects in response to the tariffs because the tariffs had increased its costs. Another company, Southern Current, also said that it put $1 billion worth of projects on hold.
http://thehill.com/policy/energy-enviro ... rump-solar
-
dohboi - Harmless Drudge
- Posts: 19990
- Joined: Mon 05 Dec 2005, 04:00:00
Re: THE Solar Cell Thread Pt. 4 (merged)
by Tanada » Fri 22 Jun 2018, 07:14:43
Good, they were a stupid waste of resources.
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Alfred Tennyson', 'W')e are not now that strength which in old days
Moved earth and heaven, that which we are, we are;
One equal temper of heroic hearts,
Made weak by time and fate, but strong in will
To strive, to seek, to find, and not to yield.
Moved earth and heaven, that which we are, we are;
One equal temper of heroic hearts,
Made weak by time and fate, but strong in will
To strive, to seek, to find, and not to yield.
- Tanada
- Site Admin
- Posts: 17094
- Joined: Thu 28 Apr 2005, 03:00:00
- Location: South West shore Lake Erie, OH, USA
Re: THE Solar Cell Thread Pt. 4 (merged)
by kublikhan » Fri 22 Jun 2018, 16:06:59
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Outcast_Searcher', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('onlooker', 'N')o, its a question of who you wish to believe. You refuse to concede that alot of info out there is intentionally false and/or misleading or deceptive.
Look in the mirror. The kind of misleading financial blogs you love to quote random doomer "news" from, like zerohedge are about as misleading and deceptive as it gets. Especially if you do a sanity check over time re their accuracy. But I know, the fast crash doomer community isn't interested in accuracy as much as FUD.
Hint: all "info" isn't of equal value in objective terms.
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'W')hy do people so easily believe false things? There are probably as many answers to this question as there are people who have ever believed falsehoods. Nonetheless, psychologists have shown that a relatively small set of cognitive biases or mental shortcuts can explain a lot about how false notions take root. One of the most agreed-upon ideas in the field of psychology is that people routinely use mental shortcuts to understand what happens around them. All kinds of things occur in the world around us, and we don't always have the time or energy to sit down and carefully examine all of them. So, we tend to use quick and largely unconscious rules-of-thumb to determine what we should believe—and these shortcuts sometimes steer us in the wrong direction. Here are some of the culprits:
The Availability Heuristic
Which job is more dangerous—working as a police officer or a fisherman? If you guessed police officer, you’re wrong. According to figures from the United States Bureau of Labor Statistics, fishing workers are ten times more likely than police to be killed on the job. This doesn't make police work any less important, of course, though it does mean that many of us have underestimated how dangerous other jobs are in comparison. The reason most of us believe that police officers are more likely to die at work is because of the availability heuristic, a mental shortcut that can lead us to overestimate the frequency of an event when that event is more “available” or vivid in our memory. When a police officer is killed in the line of duty, it’s rightly widely reported in the news and sticks with us in memory, so we tend to believe it must be more common than deaths in other professions. The availability heuristic is also the reason why doctors sometimes believe that diseases are more widespread than they really are—their jobs naturally fill their memories with vivid examples. In fact, when any of us read or watch a news story about an instance of terrorism, voter fraud, or other crime, we’re likely to overestimate how common such events are. Unless we’re careful, the vivid nature of the news story in our memory can unconsciously bias our estimate of how often these events actually happen. So, how common are things like voter fraud and crime? We can’t necessarily trust our hunches. It’s best to consult the statistics.
Emotional Reasoning
Whether we like it or not, all of us can be powerfully swayed by emotions. We'd like to think that our feelings are driven by logic and reason, particularly when it comes to our political beliefs. Unfortunately, this relationship is often reversed. Sometimes we end up using our reasoning ability to justify or defend a conclusion that we’ve already drawn based on our emotions. This phenomenon, called emotional reasoning, can lead us astray without our ever knowing. Psychiatrist Aaron T. Beck first noticed this in depressed patients. He observed that many patients drew obviously untrue conclusions about themselves based on how they felt, rather than the actual facts. "If I feel depressed,” one of his patients might say, "then there must be something objectively wrong with my job, my marriage, my children, or other parts of my life." But feelings are just feelings, even when they're powerful, and they can sometimes lie to us. Even in those of us who aren’t depressed, this tendency can affect our beliefs about virtually any emotionally charged topic, whether we’re talking about sexuality, religion, money, crime, or war. When we feel scared, angry, anxious, or even just uneasy about a topic, we can easily jump to the conclusion that the topic is somehow objectively bad or dangerous. Next time a topic makes you feel uncomfortable, that’s probably reason to keep an open mind, not to draw a conclusion.
Confirmation Bias
Once we have a belief, we tend to cling to it, even when it’s untrue. The confirmation bias is the tendency to seek out information that supports what we already believe. We do this in two important ways. First, we tend to surround ourselves with messages that confirm our pre-existing opinions. This is why, in the United States, conservatives tend to get their news from sources like Fox, whereas liberals tune into MSNBC. Second, we tend to ignore or discount messages that disprove our beliefs. If we’re sure that climate change is a hoax and someone shows us a research study disputing this belief, we might dismiss the study’s findings by saying that the researcher is obviously biased or corrupt. This protects us from having to change our beliefs. When our ideas are true, this probably isn’t such a bad thing. Unfortunately, it also can keep us firmly believing things are false.
While it’s clear that some people lie out of expedience or spite, most of us value the truth. We genuinely desire to accurately understand the facts and help others to do the same. As flawed human beings, however, none of us is a perfect barometer of the truth. Despite our best intensions, it’s easy to unconsciously buy into beliefs that feel right, even though they’re not. But it’s precisely when we’re sure that we’ve cornered the truth that we should take a step back, breath deeply, and open our minds as far as we can. If we were all able to take this basic truth about human nature to heart, perhaps this would allow us to more effectively come together during times of political strife.
This guy fell into the trap of believing what he wanted to believe too. However just to try and be balanced, he looked at dissenting voices as well. What he found shocked him. He did a complete 180 on his position after he found out the sweet words he was hearing at first were all BS.
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'D')ear Editor,
I run Macrotrends, a financial newsletter that's doing quite well here in Belgium and the Netherlands, and I am always curious about the next big thing.
I discovered the story about Andrea Rossi's Energy Catalzyer about a year ago, and I thought this might just be the thing for the energy sector. I wrote a small article about it in August 2011, and I promised to give an update after the E-Cat tests that were to be announced in late October 2011. The tests weren't convincing so I waited, all the while following the information published on ecatnews.com and some other sources.
Then, finally, last month I decided to do a follow-up because there seemed to have been some important developments: claims of the involvement of NASA, SIEMENS, National Instruments, production of the units, the Defkalion story, etc. It all made me very excited about the E-Cat.
After making preparations for an article about Rossi's apparatus for a day and a half, I decided to look for some skeptical voices to try and cross-check my story and make it more balanced. That is how I found the New Energy Times Web site. Your writing style struck me as very reasonable yet critical, and the thoroughness of your arguments and the level of documentation entirely swayed my position.
It hurt, because I had to let go of a dream I'd fallen in love with. I had to admit that I had not found the extraordinary evidence that is required to back up the extraordinary claims put forward by Rossi and his team. Quite the contrary: There are many things I’ve discovered that seem to suggest the E-Cat is, in reality, a fraudulent scheme.
