Jump to content


Photo
- - - - -

Fox: Solar Energy won't work here because it's not sunny like Germany


  • Please log in to reply
32 replies to this topic

#16 pstall

pstall

    Gazebo Effect

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 20,990 posts
  • LocationMontford

Posted 09 February 2013 - 02:12 PM

and for the record. me saying what i said i don't see the leap to the conclusion im against solar energy or against it in the US. geez guys.
take off the bias glasses.

im for wind energy as well. whatever we have to do, be it smart and as affordable as possible and test it and re test it, im all for.

#17 Delhommey

Delhommey

    Moderator

  • Moderators
  • 12,559 posts

Posted 09 February 2013 - 02:14 PM

Well I guess our problem has been not putting our solar panels in Alaska...

#18 pstall

pstall

    Gazebo Effect

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 20,990 posts
  • LocationMontford

Posted 09 February 2013 - 02:14 PM

or Yuma.

#19 Disinfranchised

Disinfranchised

    Disinfranchised

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,718 posts
  • LocationStokeridge

Posted 09 February 2013 - 02:20 PM

I would also favor to keep pumping oil from the Dakotas until the price goes down. Also safe nuclear power, like Iran.

#20 SZ James (banned)

SZ James (banned)

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 7,930 posts
  • Locationfresh out the grave

Posted 09 February 2013 - 02:21 PM

and for the record. me saying what i said i don't see the leap to the conclusion im against solar energy or against it in the US. geez guys.
take off the bias glasses.

im for wind energy as well. whatever we have to do, be it smart and as affordable as possible and test it and re test it, im all for.


Um. Who said you were against solar energy? I only wanted you to support the claim that even some parts of Germany get more sunlight than the US. The rest is your own leap.





#21 SZ James (banned)

SZ James (banned)

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 7,930 posts
  • Locationfresh out the grave

Posted 09 February 2013 - 02:42 PM

She backpedals from earlier comments

More comedy ^

#22 NanuqoftheNorth

NanuqoftheNorth

    Frosty Alaskan Amber

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 4,469 posts
  • LocationAlaska

Posted 09 February 2013 - 04:12 PM

Having lived six years in Arizona (113,998 square miles in area), six years in Nevada (110,561square miles in area) and four years in Germany (137,847 square miles in area) I can tell you that Germany does NOT in any way, shape or form, have a sunlight advantage over the US. The FOX business commenter is only speculating and shows her complete ignorance of what she is talking about (surprise) by making such a ludicrous statement. One of the main reasons the US military has located four of it's major flight training bases in Nevada and Arizona is due to the abundance of sunny cloud free days (good flying conditions) every year. While days are longer up here in the northern extremes of Alaska and Northern Germany, the sun is not as intense (good for Nanuq) and we also have shorter days for half the year too. Another aspect is the number of cloud covered days a region experiences. I spent a year in Germany where we experience some form of precipitation 365 out of 365 days. How many of those days do you think there were clouds in the sky for at least part of the day? FOX Entertainment, bias reinforced, "News" is intended for those who don't know any better, and is wrong, yet again.

#23 pstall

pstall

    Gazebo Effect

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 20,990 posts
  • LocationMontford

Posted 09 February 2013 - 04:15 PM

how did she even enter Germany into the conversation then? pretty dumb

#24 pstall

pstall

    Gazebo Effect

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 20,990 posts
  • LocationMontford

Posted 09 February 2013 - 04:17 PM

Um. Who said you were against solar energy? I only wanted you to support the claim that even some parts of Germany get more sunlight than the US. The rest is your own leap.


i like leaping i guess.

#25 NanuqoftheNorth

NanuqoftheNorth

    Frosty Alaskan Amber

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 4,469 posts
  • LocationAlaska

Posted 09 February 2013 - 04:42 PM

how did she even enter Germany into the conversation then? pretty dumb

Because within another a few decades Germany is expected to obtain half its energy from renuable sources, solar being a major contributor to that goal (they are closing all their nuclear facilities too). FOX once again finds itself in a pickle, because while other nations are demonstrating it is not only possible, but practical, to reduce the world's dependence on fossil fuels, it has to tow the company line, the one not based on FACTS. FOX and the US public are captured by Big Oil and Big Oil's propaganda tries to undermine all competitive forms of energy, including solar. FOX is the propaganda arm of the GOP. The GOP is the political arm of Big Oil. Therefore any facts about alternate forms of energy are verboten on FOX. Especially if it makes our current President look smart. Germany and its national energy goals represent everything America's Big Oil companies fear, the longer they can keep the American public ignorant the better. The share of electricity produced from renewable energy in Germany has increased from 6.3 percent of the national total in 2000 to about 25 percent in the first half of 2012. http://en.wikipedia....ergy_in_Germany

#26 Niner National

Niner National

    Senior Member

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,488 posts

Posted 09 February 2013 - 05:04 PM

Germany entered the conversation because Germany is the world leader in solar energy. They have more solar installed than anyone despite having a relatively low amount of sunlight.

Many say that solar would be detrimental to the grid if implemented in mass, but Germany has done it successfully. There were a few days last year where Germany got 50% of all the daytime energy needs met by solar.

Solar will probably never be able to supply us with all our power needs because obviously it does not create energy at night, but it is perfect to fill the peak demand needs. It requires virtually no staff and no maintenance.

There are power plants all over the nation that sit idle for most of the year, being used only on days when peak demand is high. While the production cost of energy from those plants is low when they are running (because the fuel is cheap), there are high costs associated with keeping those plants active so they can be used only a handful of days a year.

We truly need an all of the above energy approach and our energy policies are one area where I think we've done exceedingly well the last 8-10 years. Gas and oil production are at all time highs, imports are at their lowest in decades, and the renewable sector has grown at a very fast pace and has driven the cost down significantly. In some areas of the country solar can now be installed on a utility scale at or below grid parity, without government incentives (although they'll still get them).

The next energy boom area will be the Mississippi Lime. This area was drilled for years using conventional methods, then the oil dried up. With today's technologies, the oil can again be extracted at an economical rate. What is happening in ND will soon happen across the Mississippi Lime region and will bring a lot of wealth to a poor area.

#27 stirs

stirs

    I Reckon So

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 10,895 posts

Posted 09 February 2013 - 05:11 PM

The problem with the US is that our fossil fuel costs, even though we raise cain about it, is still way lower than Euro pricing. Their fossil fuel costs make it advantageous to go toward solar while we are having to force feed it because for the most part, it and wind are more expensive.

#28 NanuqoftheNorth

NanuqoftheNorth

    Frosty Alaskan Amber

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 4,469 posts
  • LocationAlaska

Posted 09 February 2013 - 05:13 PM

The increasing acidity of our oceans due to humans burning fossil fuels should be a great concern to everyone. So having access to relatively cheap oil and coal should not be a justification for using it. Germany remains committed to its green agenda, driven, some say, by the need to correct the world's wrongs – a sentiment that goes back to the second world war and the postwar generation who challenged their parents afterwards for just standing by.
"That has led to a very strong environmental and anti-nuclear movement," says Green party MP Hermann Ott. "It ultimately led to the foundation of the Green party and made us very strong. If something goes wrong, you have to speak up and do something otherwise your children will ask you in 20 to 30 years, 'Why didn't you do anything?'" http://www.guardian....gy-emission-co2 Torsten Albig, a Social Democrat who is governor of Schleswig-Holstein, also praised the discussions as “a considerable step forward” toward reaching a master plan by March.
His northern coastal state, along with Lower Saxony, has been criticized for expanding offshore wind energy at such a rapid pace that turbines have had to be switched off on exceptionally windy days, because they produce more energy than the grid can handle.

#29 Niner National

Niner National

    Senior Member

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,488 posts

Posted 09 February 2013 - 05:26 PM

The problem with the US is that our fossil fuel costs, even though we raise cain about it, is still way lower than Euro pricing. Their fossil fuel costs make it advantageous to go toward solar while we are having to force feed it because for the most part, it and wind are more expensive.


according to figures from the EIA the per megawatt hour cost of onshore wind is cheaper than coal and nuclear. Maybe natural gas too, can't remember. I'm on a phone right now and don't feel like looking it up, but it is easy enough to find.the costs in their report are reported without incentives, so it is real cost.

#30 NanuqoftheNorth

NanuqoftheNorth

    Frosty Alaskan Amber

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 4,469 posts
  • LocationAlaska

Posted 09 February 2013 - 05:37 PM

Damn it, there go those European Socialists :growl: again, letting citizens generate their own renewable energy and sell the surplus electricity to others for a profit! :money: Oh wait, their doing what? :startle: Never mind. Posted Image Germany's renewable-energy law entitles anybody who puts in a solar panel or a windmill to sell surplus power to the grid, receiving a generous “feed-in tariff” guaranteed over 20 years. This gives renewable electricity priority over conventional power. Not surprisingly, renewables grew ten times faster than the OECD average from 1990 to 2010 and now account for 20% of electricity output (see chart). The government’s target is 35% by 2020. Germany gets more electricity from renewable sources than any other big country.
The return on capital can top 20% a year in the best spots. But do not confuse harvesters of sun and wind with electricity plutocrats. “One important goal is to break the monopoly” of the four big power companies that dominate the market, says Hermann Albers, president of the Federal Wind Energy Association. Municipal utility companies plan to boost their share of electricity production from a tenth to at least a fifth by 2020. More than 100 municipalities want to be “100% renewable”. http://www.economist.com/node/21559667


0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users

Shop at Amazon Contact Us: info@carolinahuddle.com